Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Pop23]

The new market was created in 2015. He chose not to participate in such.

Obergfell simply created a market that the baker could partake in. It did not create a gay wedding market, it created a same sex wedding market.

He opted not to serve this market. In doing so he refused service to all within the market.

You may claim he did so because he didn’t want to serve gays, but he doesn’t serve straights as well. And the traditional market he does serve? Treats gays and straights, males and females equally.

Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

Yes he did discriminate based on sex when he would sell wedding cakes to man/woman couples but not man/man (or woman/woman). The SCOTUS reversed the decision to the hostile actions of the Commission. Because of that he got a pass from the court on a narrowly applied ruling. The court did not however invalidate Colorado's PA law and if he continues to violate the law going forward he would be subject to the proceeding starting over again and this time you can bet the Commission will watch their p's and q's. And your silly word games if tried in court would be laughed out of the room.

(Although Arlene’s Flowers Inc v. Washington is still in the SCOTUS pipe-line awaiting determination if the SCOTUS will take the case which is basically the same as Mr. Phillips case - i.e. speech and religion - so he wouldn't have to wait years if they take the Arlene's Flowers case and actually rule instead of punting it.)


.>>>>

Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

It is a new market that never existed before. It's a bit like saying that Car Company "A" must make electric cars because that market has still become fashionable.

But lets drill this down:

A Baker opens a Bakery in which he makes a number of decisions. One of which is, can I invest a ton of Money into a shop AND at the same time, be able to run it in such a way that does not violate my Religious views?

The Baker looks at current Law and decides that he can do this without Violating his religious belief. He even goes so far as to deny those who seek a Halloween Cake as his participation in such would be actively violating his religious belief. I can support that.

As for Wedding Cakes, he see's Same Sex Marriage being unlikely as State after State after State votes it down, so he decides to make wedding cakes. He doesn't care of the sexuality of those that order these cakes as his religious view is that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, and two Homosexuals would not be violating this norm as long as a female Lesbian Marries a Male Homosexual.

Now the Baker is faced with the SCOTUS redefinition of Legal Marriage which is hostile with his ability to run his business in a way that doesn't conflict with his religious belief.

However, SCOTUS did not simply make "gay marriage" legal, in fact it made marriage between any two people, with only a few exceptions legal. Now, Straights of the same sex can Marry another Straight , and Homosexuals of the same sex can Marry another Homosexual of the same sex. HELL, Lets face facts, a Straight can Marry a Homosexual of the same sex (Weird I know, but true non the less).

He decides, the only way that he can avoid a conflict with his religion is to NOT PROVIDE WEDDING CAKES FOR SAME SEX COUPLES REGARDLESS OF SEX OR SEXUALITY. This decision is not based on a bias of either sex, nor a bias of a sexuality, if it is, what bias? He has made Wedding Cakes for Men. He has Made Wedding Cakes for Women. He's made wedding cakes for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, of this there is no doubt.

Now, lets examine the Virginia case you reference. The Baker that you would reference could make no argument that baking a cake for an interracial couple is in conflict with his Religious principles as Marriage is simply between a Man and a Woman. The Bible, as I understand it, makes no racial distinction, so he would have no case.

I think he would still be in violation of Colorado law. I don't see how it makes any difference whether the couple is male or female. It is still discrimination based on sexual preference. Whether he refuses to write best wishes Mary and Betty or John and Bill on the cake, it's still discrimination.

Can you discriminate against everyone? If so, it's simply the product is not offered.

 

[JoeMoma]

The new market was created in 2015. He chose not to participate in such.

Obergfell simply created a market that the baker could partake in. It did not create a gay wedding market, it created a same sex wedding market.

He opted not to serve this market. In doing so he refused service to all within the market.

You may claim he did so because he didn’t want to serve gays, but he doesn’t serve straights as well. And the traditional market he does serve? Treats gays and straights, males and females equally.

Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

Yes he did discriminate based on sex when he would sell wedding cakes to man/woman couples but not man/man (or woman/woman). The SCOTUS reversed the decision to the hostile actions of the Commission. Because of that he got a pass from the court on a narrowly applied ruling. The court did not however invalidate Colorado's PA law and if he continues to violate the law going forward he would be subject to the proceeding starting over again and this time you can bet the Commission will watch their p's and q's. And your silly word games if tried in court would be laughed out of the room.

(Although Arlene’s Flowers Inc v. Washington is still in the SCOTUS pipe-line awaiting determination if the SCOTUS will take the case which is basically the same as Mr. Phillips case - i.e. speech and religion - so he wouldn't have to wait years if they take the Arlene's Flowers case and actually rule instead of punting it.)


.>>>>

Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

It is a new market that never existed before. It's a bit like saying that Car Company "A" must make electric cars because that market has still become fashionable.

But lets drill this down:

A Baker opens a Bakery in which he makes a number of decisions. One of which is, can I invest a ton of Money into a shop AND at the same time, be able to run it in such a way that does not violate my Religious views?

The Baker looks at current Law and decides that he can do this without Violating his religious belief. He even goes so far as to deny those who seek a Halloween Cake as his participation in such would be actively violating his religious belief. I can support that.

As for Wedding Cakes, he see's Same Sex Marriage being unlikely as State after State after State votes it down, so he decides to make wedding cakes. He doesn't care of the sexuality of those that order these cakes as his religious view is that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, and two Homosexuals would not be violating this norm as long as a female Lesbian Marries a Male Homosexual.

Now the Baker is faced with the SCOTUS redefinition of Legal Marriage which is hostile with his ability to run his business in a way that doesn't conflict with his religious belief.

However, SCOTUS did not simply make "gay marriage" legal, in fact it made marriage between any two people, with only a few exceptions legal. Now, Straights of the same sex can Marry another Straight , and Homosexuals of the same sex can Marry another Homosexual of the same sex. HELL, Lets face facts, a Straight can Marry a Homosexual of the same sex (Weird I know, but true non the less).

He decides, the only way that he can avoid a conflict with his religion is to NOT PROVIDE WEDDING CAKES FOR SAME SEX COUPLES REGARDLESS OF SEX OR SEXUALITY. This decision is not based on a bias of either sex, nor a bias of a sexuality, if it is, what bias? He has made Wedding Cakes for Men. He has Made Wedding Cakes for Women. He's made wedding cakes for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, of this there is no doubt.

Now, lets examine the Virginia case you reference. The Baker that you would reference could make no argument that baking a cake for an interracial couple is in conflict with his Religious principles as Marriage is simply between a Man and a Woman. The Bible, as I understand it, makes no racial distinction, so he would have no case.

I think he would still be in violation of Colorado law. I don't see how it makes any difference whether the couple is male or female. It is still discrimination based on sexual preference. Whether he refuses to write best wishes Mary and Betty or John and Bill on the cake, yet will write Best Wishes Mary and John, it's still discrimination.

An artist should be able to discriminate concerning any messages he makes/communicates with his art.

 

[WEATHER53]

A veil of tears over nothing
Go find someone who will joyfully bake your cake you damn perpetually offended attention whore

 

[Pop23]

The new market was created in 2015. He chose not to participate in such.

Obergfell simply created a market that the baker could partake in. It did not create a gay wedding market, it created a same sex wedding market.

He opted not to serve this market. In doing so he refused service to all within the market.

You may claim he did so because he didn’t want to serve gays, but he doesn’t serve straights as well. And the traditional market he does serve? Treats gays and straights, males and females equally.

Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

Yes he did discriminate based on sex when he would sell wedding cakes to man/woman couples but not man/man (or woman/woman). The SCOTUS reversed the decision to the hostile actions of the Commission. Because of that he got a pass from the court on a narrowly applied ruling. The court did not however invalidate Colorado's PA law and if he continues to violate the law going forward he would be subject to the proceeding starting over again and this time you can bet the Commission will watch their p's and q's. And your silly word games if tried in court would be laughed out of the room.

(Although Arlene’s Flowers Inc v. Washington is still in the SCOTUS pipe-line awaiting determination if the SCOTUS will take the case which is basically the same as Mr. Phillips case - i.e. speech and religion - so he wouldn't have to wait years if they take the Arlene's Flowers case and actually rule instead of punting it.)


.>>>>

Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

It is a new market that never existed before. It's a bit like saying that Car Company "A" must make electric cars because that market has still become fashionable.

But lets drill this down:

A Baker opens a Bakery in which he makes a number of decisions. One of which is, can I invest a ton of Money into a shop AND at the same time, be able to run it in such a way that does not violate my Religious views?

The Baker looks at current Law and decides that he can do this without Violating his religious belief. He even goes so far as to deny those who seek a Halloween Cake as his participation in such would be actively violating his religious belief. I can support that.

As for Wedding Cakes, he see's Same Sex Marriage being unlikely as State after State after State votes it down, so he decides to make wedding cakes. He doesn't care of the sexuality of those that order these cakes as his religious view is that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, and two Homosexuals would not be violating this norm as long as a female Lesbian Marries a Male Homosexual.

Now the Baker is faced with the SCOTUS redefinition of Legal Marriage which is hostile with his ability to run his business in a way that doesn't conflict with his religious belief.

However, SCOTUS did not simply make "gay marriage" legal, in fact it made marriage between any two people, with only a few exceptions legal. Now, Straights of the same sex can Marry another Straight , and Homosexuals of the same sex can Marry another Homosexual of the same sex. HELL, Lets face facts, a Straight can Marry a Homosexual of the same sex (Weird I know, but true non the less).

He decides, the only way that he can avoid a conflict with his religion is to NOT PROVIDE WEDDING CAKES FOR SAME SEX COUPLES REGARDLESS OF SEX OR SEXUALITY. This decision is not based on a bias of either sex, nor a bias of a sexuality, if it is, what bias? He has made Wedding Cakes for Men. He has Made Wedding Cakes for Women. He's made wedding cakes for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, of this there is no doubt.

Now, lets examine the Virginia case you reference. The Baker that you would reference could make no argument that baking a cake for an interracial couple is in conflict with his Religious principles as Marriage is simply between a Man and a Woman. The Bible, as I understand it, makes no racial distinction, so he would have no case.

I think he would still be in violation of Colorado law. I don't see how it makes any difference whether the couple is male or female. It is still discrimination based on sexual preference. Whether he refuses to write best wishes Mary and Betty or John and Bill on the cake, yet will write Best Wishes Mary and John, it's still discrimination.

An artist should be able to discriminate concerning any messages he makes/communicates with his art.

Actually, would he be a true artist if he did anything in contrary to your post?

 

[Flopper]

The new market was created in 2015. He chose not to participate in such.

Obergfell simply created a market that the baker could partake in. It did not create a gay wedding market, it created a same sex wedding market.

He opted not to serve this market. In doing so he refused service to all within the market.

You may claim he did so because he didn’t want to serve gays, but he doesn’t serve straights as well. And the traditional market he does serve? Treats gays and straights, males and females equally.

Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

Yes he did discriminate based on sex when he would sell wedding cakes to man/woman couples but not man/man (or woman/woman). The SCOTUS reversed the decision to the hostile actions of the Commission. Because of that he got a pass from the court on a narrowly applied ruling. The court did not however invalidate Colorado's PA law and if he continues to violate the law going forward he would be subject to the proceeding starting over again and this time you can bet the Commission will watch their p's and q's. And your silly word games if tried in court would be laughed out of the room.

(Although Arlene’s Flowers Inc v. Washington is still in the SCOTUS pipe-line awaiting determination if the SCOTUS will take the case which is basically the same as Mr. Phillips case - i.e. speech and religion - so he wouldn't have to wait years if they take the Arlene's Flowers case and actually rule instead of punting it.)


.>>>>

Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

It is a new market that never existed before. It's a bit like saying that Car Company "A" must make electric cars because that market has still become fashionable.

But lets drill this down:

A Baker opens a Bakery in which he makes a number of decisions. One of which is, can I invest a ton of Money into a shop AND at the same time, be able to run it in such a way that does not violate my Religious views?

The Baker looks at current Law and decides that he can do this without Violating his religious belief. He even goes so far as to deny those who seek a Halloween Cake as his participation in such would be actively violating his religious belief. I can support that.

As for Wedding Cakes, he see's Same Sex Marriage being unlikely as State after State after State votes it down, so he decides to make wedding cakes. He doesn't care of the sexuality of those that order these cakes as his religious view is that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, and two Homosexuals would not be violating this norm as long as a female Lesbian Marries a Male Homosexual.

Now the Baker is faced with the SCOTUS redefinition of Legal Marriage which is hostile with his ability to run his business in a way that doesn't conflict with his religious belief.

However, SCOTUS did not simply make "gay marriage" legal, in fact it made marriage between any two people, with only a few exceptions legal. Now, Straights of the same sex can Marry another Straight , and Homosexuals of the same sex can Marry another Homosexual of the same sex. HELL, Lets face facts, a Straight can Marry a Homosexual of the same sex (Weird I know, but true non the less).

He decides, the only way that he can avoid a conflict with his religion is to NOT PROVIDE WEDDING CAKES FOR SAME SEX COUPLES REGARDLESS OF SEX OR SEXUALITY. This decision is not based on a bias of either sex, nor a bias of a sexuality, if it is, what bias? He has made Wedding Cakes for Men. He has Made Wedding Cakes for Women. He's made wedding cakes for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, of this there is no doubt.

Now, lets examine the Virginia case you reference. The Baker that you would reference could make no argument that baking a cake for an interracial couple is in conflict with his Religious principles as Marriage is simply between a Man and a Woman. The Bible, as I understand it, makes no racial distinction, so he would have no case.

I think he would still be in violation of Colorado law. I don't see how it makes any difference whether the couple is male or female. It is still discrimination based on sexual preference. Whether he refuses to write best wishes Mary and Betty or John and Bill on the cake, it's still discrimination.

Can you discriminate against everyone? If so, it's simply the product is not offered.

You can't discriminate based on a person's sexual preference in Colorado. If the baker says the product is not offered upon learning the cake is for a gay wedding and yet sells cakes for a heterosexual wedding, it's discrimination based on sexual preference.

 

[Pop23]

The new market was created in 2015. He chose not to participate in such.

Obergfell simply created a market that the baker could partake in. It did not create a gay wedding market, it created a same sex wedding market.

He opted not to serve this market. In doing so he refused service to all within the market.

You may claim he did so because he didn’t want to serve gays, but he doesn’t serve straights as well. And the traditional market he does serve? Treats gays and straights, males and females equally.

Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

Yes he did discriminate based on sex when he would sell wedding cakes to man/woman couples but not man/man (or woman/woman). The SCOTUS reversed the decision to the hostile actions of the Commission. Because of that he got a pass from the court on a narrowly applied ruling. The court did not however invalidate Colorado's PA law and if he continues to violate the law going forward he would be subject to the proceeding starting over again and this time you can bet the Commission will watch their p's and q's. And your silly word games if tried in court would be laughed out of the room.

(Although Arlene’s Flowers Inc v. Washington is still in the SCOTUS pipe-line awaiting determination if the SCOTUS will take the case which is basically the same as Mr. Phillips case - i.e. speech and religion - so he wouldn't have to wait years if they take the Arlene's Flowers case and actually rule instead of punting it.)


.>>>>

Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

It is a new market that never existed before. It's a bit like saying that Car Company "A" must make electric cars because that market has still become fashionable.

But lets drill this down:

A Baker opens a Bakery in which he makes a number of decisions. One of which is, can I invest a ton of Money into a shop AND at the same time, be able to run it in such a way that does not violate my Religious views?

The Baker looks at current Law and decides that he can do this without Violating his religious belief. He even goes so far as to deny those who seek a Halloween Cake as his participation in such would be actively violating his religious belief. I can support that.

As for Wedding Cakes, he see's Same Sex Marriage being unlikely as State after State after State votes it down, so he decides to make wedding cakes. He doesn't care of the sexuality of those that order these cakes as his religious view is that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, and two Homosexuals would not be violating this norm as long as a female Lesbian Marries a Male Homosexual.

Now the Baker is faced with the SCOTUS redefinition of Legal Marriage which is hostile with his ability to run his business in a way that doesn't conflict with his religious belief.

However, SCOTUS did not simply make "gay marriage" legal, in fact it made marriage between any two people, with only a few exceptions legal. Now, Straights of the same sex can Marry another Straight , and Homosexuals of the same sex can Marry another Homosexual of the same sex. HELL, Lets face facts, a Straight can Marry a Homosexual of the same sex (Weird I know, but true non the less).

He decides, the only way that he can avoid a conflict with his religion is to NOT PROVIDE WEDDING CAKES FOR SAME SEX COUPLES REGARDLESS OF SEX OR SEXUALITY. This decision is not based on a bias of either sex, nor a bias of a sexuality, if it is, what bias? He has made Wedding Cakes for Men. He has Made Wedding Cakes for Women. He's made wedding cakes for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, of this there is no doubt.

Now, lets examine the Virginia case you reference. The Baker that you would reference could make no argument that baking a cake for an interracial couple is in conflict with his Religious principles as Marriage is simply between a Man and a Woman. The Bible, as I understand it, makes no racial distinction, so he would have no case.

I think he would still be in violation of Colorado law. I don't see how it makes any difference whether the couple is male or female. It is still discrimination based on sexual preference. Whether he refuses to write best wishes Mary and Betty or John and Bill on the cake, it's still discrimination.

Can you discriminate against everyone? If so, it's simply the product is not offered.

You can't discriminate based on a person's sexual preference in Colorado. If the baker says the product is not offered upon learning the cake is for a gay wedding and yet sells cakes for a heterosexual wedding, it's discrimination based on sexual preference.

Which sexual preference is he discriminating against when he denies making a wedding cake for same sex couples? He would deny the product for a Heterosexual same sex couple as well as a Homosexual couple. Again, he is treating all sexualities equaly.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Can you discriminate against everyone? If so, it's simply the product is not offered.

Mr. Phillips never tried to claim he didn't sell the product, he freely admits to providing wedding cakes.

You can even view his catalog on his website.


>>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Can you discriminate against everyone? If so, it's simply the product is not offered.

Mr. Phillips never tried to claim he didn't sell the product, he freely admits to providing wedding cakes.

You can even view his catalog on his website.


>>>>>

He has same sex wedding cakes in his catalog?

Link?

 

[AZGAL]

YES Phillips considers his wedding cake artistry to be an extension and an exercise of his sincerely held religious beliefs.

As a matter of fact that is spelled out in Federal law:

(7) Religious exercise
(A) In general
The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

42 U.S. Code § 2000cc–5 - Definitions

 

[WorldWatcher]

Can you discriminate against everyone? If so, it's simply the product is not offered.

Mr. Phillips never tried to claim he didn't sell the product, he freely admits to providing wedding cakes.

You can even view his catalog on his website.


>>>>>

He has same sex wedding cakes in his catalog?

Link?

The product is wedding cakes.

Not the people buying them.


But you knew that.


.>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Can you discriminate against everyone? If so, it's simply the product is not offered.

Mr. Phillips never tried to claim he didn't sell the product, he freely admits to providing wedding cakes.

You can even view his catalog on his website.


>>>>>

He has same sex wedding cakes in his catalog?

Link?

The product is wedding cakes.

Not the people buying them.


But you knew that.


.>>>>

He sells wedding cakes, just not same sex wedding cakes

But you knew that

Same sex wedding cakes, is a new product, not needed until 2015, well after he started his Bakery and well after he made the decision to open his Bakery in such a way that his business would not conflict with his religious beliefs.

But you knew that as well.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Heterosexual same sex couple

same sex wedding cakes

Hear ye, hear ye!
Fresh baked from the oven, folks!
Poppin' fresh!
Git 'em while they're hot!

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Court concludes that “the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ religious objection did not accord with its treatment of [the other bakers’] objections.” Ante, at 15. See also ante, at 5–7 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). But the cases the Court aligns are hardly comparable. The bakers would have refused to make a cake with Jack’s requested message for any customer, regardless of his or her religion. And the bakers visited by Jack would have sold him any baked goods they would have sold anyone else. The bakeries’ refusal to make Jack cakes of a kind they would not make for any customer scarcely resembles Phillips’ refusal to serve Craig and Mullins: Phillips would not sell to Craig and Mullins, for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others. When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding—not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings—and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied. Cf. ante, at 3–4, 9–10 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). Colorado, the Court does not gainsay, prohibits precisely the discrimination Craig and Mullins encountered. See supra, at 1. Jack, on the other hand, suffered no service refusal on the basis of his religion or any other protected characteristic. He was treated as any other customer would have been treated—no better, no worse.3 The fact that Phillips might sell other cakes and cookies to gay and lesbian customers 4 was irrelevant to the issue Craig and Mullins’ case presented. What matters is that Phillips would not provide a good or service to a same-sex couple that he would provide to a heterosexual couple. In contrast, the other bakeries’ sale of other goods to Christian customers was relevant: It shows that there were no goods the bakeries would sell to a non-Christian customer that they would refuse to sell to a Christian customer. Cf. ante, at 15. Nor was the Colorado Court of Appeals’ “difference in treatment of these two instances . . . based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness.” Ante, at 16. Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it. The three other bakeries declined to make cakes where their objection to the product was due to the demeaning message the requested product would literally display. As the Court recognizes, a refusal “to design a special cake with words or images . . . might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all.” Ante, at 2.5 The Colorado Court of Appeals did not distinguish Phillips and the other three bakeries based simply on its or the Division’s finding that messages in the cakes Jack requested were offensive while any message in a cake for Craig and Mullins was not. The Colorado court distinguished the cases on the ground that Craig and Mullins were denied service based on an aspect of their identity that the State chose to grant vigorous protection from discrimination.

etc. GINSBURG, J., dissenting

 

[Silhouette]

An artist should be able to discriminate concerning any messages he makes/communicates with his art.

Yes. And preparing food for catering, photography, designing wedding clothes, invitations and the whole wedding layout are all forms of artful expression as well.

 

[LittleNipper]

this Baker won't bake a cake for Heterosexual same sex couples

So, as expected, still doubling down on the same crazy, unsupportable speculations. Zero substance at all. But there is a fine admission hidden in there. Notice you're reduced to speculating "won't bake" instead of being able to verifiably claim has- or hasn't- baked, which would likely still make zero difference in regard to this case, still being irrelevant, but at least it would be substantive.

See problem is anyone could make up such excuses after the fact if all it took to thwart the law was to claim Jesus made me do it! Because I'm religious I get to ignore any law that strikes me as contrary to my indoctrination! Freedumb baby! Suck it all you nonbelievers! God made us sinful so those of us who kiss His ass and beg His forgiveness at least once during our lifetimes can be saved! Screw the law! We get to go to Heaven regardless and you don't. You go straight to Hell, neener neener!

Many, but one guy in particular, someone I'd worked with daily for at least a year and had grown to consider a pretty solid friend,.. yes, even though he was a devout Christian,... one bright, sunny day, finally got around to asking me dead seriously, "Why don't you just kill yourself? Or go rob a bank?" Never forget that incident because it initially left me so speechless. All I thought was "WTF?" That's the insane product of such indoctrination. Religion has continued to spread because it's the easiest way to turn otherwise smart, caring people into compliant, babbling idiots.

When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told.

I would say your co-worker's choice of words was over the top, but the reality is that without GOD there is honestly no purpose. This becomes more apparent as one ages. You either see heaven at the end of a series of worldly struggles or you just die and that is it! The Christian will see his Christian friends and family in heaven. The atheist will not even be remembered eventually --- and will not know it even if his is!

And that is the truth of eternity. The unsaved (according to the Bible) will have nothing but remorse of what could have been (the worm dieth not). The Saved will not remember anything that would bring them sadness. In fact, it is likely they will only live in the NOW of heaven quite amazed for all eternity...
Revelation 21:4
4 "He will wipe every tear from their eyes (no more crying or pain) for the old order of things has passed away.”

Truly "the greatest bullshit story ever told." This "all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest." Awe inspiring, but really no wonder once one really thinks about it long and hard. That's why such a high percentage of atheists are religious scholars and former clergy. They've had that opportunity. To think about it long and hard. Most people remain (are deliberately kept actually) too busy and distracted their entire lives to really give it a second thought. Git 'em while they're young and they'll never look baaack!

How's this for a "revelation"? Don't worry. Nothing divine or shocking except perhaps in the reverse sense of being astoundingly simple or common sense. As in stuff right under your nose the whole time that you've somehow never noticed... Probably because almost nobody talks about it... It's that mundane. You have to try and clear your mind a bit so come back when you're feeling no stress and ready to focus on nothing else...

Good. Now imagine you were born say in what many now call "The Holy Land" an eon ago. You're advanced beyond hunter gathering so enjoy a somewhat sedentary existence, tending some livestock and trading olives for all the other stuff you need. Of course there's no electricity so you must at least keep some embers glowing to light whatever oil lamps you may use inside to see at night. You get your water from a shallow well with a pot or basket on a rope when there is any. Otherwise you have to get it from the nearest stream down the hill and about a half mile away.

No TV! No internet, computers, phones, radios, newspapers, cars, paved roads, glasses, telescopes,... Not even books!

So what do you do at night? It's pretty arid and warm. Firewood is scarce so you generally just use it to cook and heat water. The house is tiny, cramped, and your bed is no more comfortable than laying on some piled hay outside... Odds are you spend a lot of time out there, just looking up at the stars. Pondering... Connecting the dots... Discovering recurring patterns in them that sort of look like animals, ladles, and stuff... What's it all about? Whenever friends drop by you wow each other with stories of giant serpents, falling stars, all manner of magical things you've seen or imagined seeing...

Gardening one day, someone finds that big meteor everyone's been yammering about .. Someone else notices that metal stuff flies straight to it when dropped from quite a distance - real magic! Right here in River City! With a capital M that rhymes with.. hmm?

And so began religion.

Hmm, thank you very much!

Your logic is flawed, because The Romans, Greeks,and Egyptians all developed religious beliefs --- not to forget the Aztec and Mayan civilizations. And their cultured logic were very similar in nature. They had a group of gods that were essentially super humans --- each controlling various aspects of nature and rewarding a happy place in the afterlife to their adherents by the believers being good enough.

ONLY the Judeo/Christian scriptures present GOD who reveals the inability of man to save himself and why! And that GOD HIMSELF provides salvation to those who freely accept this and trust in GOD alone. This GOD is ultimately revealed to be TRIUNE in nature --- unlike any humanly conceived explanation of GOD. And man is revealed to be TRIUNE having a BODY, SOUL, and SPIRIT. The Body is what is seen. The Soul being that essence that makes an individual unique and different. And a SPIRIT that embodies the goal of that individual and what the person desires and wants and his directive.

Oddly, the Romans saw Christians as being atheists because they didn't see Caesar as being a god or that there was a pantheon of gods... This blew their minds that these Christians would not respect their gods.

 

[Pop23]

Heterosexual same sex couple

same sex wedding cakes

Hear ye, hear ye!
Fresh baked from the oven, folks!
Poppin' fresh!
Git 'em while they're hot!

If your waiting for that cake......

He don’t offer that service, so your wait will be lengthy

 

[Aba Incieni]

Can you discriminate against everyone? If so, it's simply the product is not offered.

Mr. Phillips never tried to claim he didn't sell the product, he freely admits to providing wedding cakes.

You can even view his catalog on his website.


>>>>>

He has same sex wedding cakes in his catalog?

Link?

The product is wedding cakes.

Not the people buying them.


But you knew that.


.>>>>

Jewish delis sell sandwiches as their product. muslim delis sell falafels. Request extra bacon and ham on yours.

 

[Aba Incieni]

.

 

[LittleNipper]

Look, anyone can dream up laws. Example: make a law that says it is illegal not to give 20% of your income to the government. But why? Ultimately it's the government who is benefiting. And I could say, that this is wrong and not pay 20% and I'd have to go to jail and perhaps have my property confiscated. However, is it a proper law because they wrote it? When the Nazi government said one cannot shop in Jewish businesses, was that legal? I'd have to say that if it was signed into law by the officials of that government that in fact it was legal ----- but was it right? Now at the Post War trials it was ascertained that there are "natural laws" that some would argue these are GOD's LAWs. However, if one doesn't believe in GOD then such reasoning goes out the window... It is very hard to argue the point that humans are unnatural and so survival of the fittest becomes appropriate and governments can essentially make up any law that suits them and help those they wish and hurt those they want.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Can you discriminate against everyone? If so, it's simply the product is not offered.

Mr. Phillips never tried to claim he didn't sell the product, he freely admits to providing wedding cakes.

You can even view his catalog on his website.


>>>>>

He has same sex wedding cakes in his catalog?

Link?

The product is wedding cakes.

Not the people buying them.


But you knew that.


.>>>>

Jewish delis sell sandwiches as their product. muslim delis sell falafels. Request extra bacon and ham on yours.

Sure love bacon and ham, if the Jewish or Muslim deli sells it I'd order it with extra bacon.

But if they don't offer it on the menu though I'm SOL. PA laws do not mandate what goods and services a business offeres, only that if they choose to offer them they cannot refuse service based on certain characteristics of the customers. Like the baker did. The difference is, under your silly attempt at a gotcha, is the Baker, buy his own admission sells wedding cakes.


But you are barking up the wrong tree, I think PA laws as applied to private business entities should be repealed and private business owners able to refuse service for any reason they want equally. The law as it is though is unequal - IMHO - because the baker wants an exemption to discriminate against gays because of his religious beliefs but a gay shop owner would be held in violation of the law if they discriminate against a religious person for their religious beliefs.

If the baker can discriminate against gays because of their religious beliefs - gays should be able to discriminate against the baker for those religious beliefs.
The KKK baker should be able to discriminate against blacks.
The Jewish deli owner against Muslims.
The Muslim deli owner against Jews.
The redneck baker against Mexicans,
etc.
etc.


>>>>