Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Grumblenuts]

Perpetually offended attention whores
Go to the next damn store and get your pretend wedding cake baked

The homos don't NEED to get married.
The homos don't NEED a wedding cake.
The homos don't NEED that particular baker to bake them a cake.
They WANT him to.

I WANT bacon on my falafel from that falafel maker.

9 out of 10 haters agree, haters hating together in public is simply hilarious!

 

[Aba Incieni]

Perpetually offended attention whores
Go to the next damn store and get your pretend wedding cake baked

The homos don't NEED to get married.
The homos don't NEED a wedding cake.
The homos don't NEED that particular baker to bake them a cake.
They WANT him to.

I WANT bacon on my falafel from that falafel maker.

9 out of 10 haters agree, haters hating together in public is simply hilarious!

Those were the same poll numbers Hillary had. They turned out to be pretty funny.

 

[Pop23]

I have a feeling that even if the guy informed the Baker that they were two Straights that only wanted to Marry for financial benefit, he still would have been turned away.

Logic dictates:
1. Speculative argument used to dispute documented fact is clearly fallacious by definition.
2. Worse, asserting "I have a feeling that" means you don't know and indeed can't even produce one verifiable example.
3. Therefore, the sample would be vanishingly small by comparison so insufficient even if you could.
4. Two people uniting as in "marriage" or "civil union" for "financial benefit" alone have no reason to formally celebrate, much less buy a wedding cake, revealing the argument to be desperate and ridiculous from the start.

Dimwit, it was the expression of an opinion. But then, I do enjoy the free rent I am getting inside your head!

Really, genius? You mean 'asserting "I have a feeling that" really means you don't know? You've just been expressing your groundless, "desperate and ridiculous" opinions from the start? Hwell then... I'm shocked! SHOCKED I yells ya! Fine admission!

And then you speculate that two people uniting in a Marriage has no reason to formally celebrate? That is simply not your call pinhead, they would have just as much reason as any "same sex" couple would have.

Go ahead then, Mr. Smartypants, don't be shy! Do tell the world why two people uniting [as in "marriage" or "civil union" for "financial benefit" alone] have reason to formally celebrate or buy a wedding cake?

Dimwit, it’s ok, people have a RIGHT to express opinion. Even those who’s opinion is different than yours.

They can celebrate for what ever damn reason they want shit for brains.

And if they wish a same sex wedding cake to do so.......

He AIN’T selling

Got it fuck nuts?

 

[Pop23]

I have a feeling that even if the guy informed the Baker that they were two Straights that only wanted to Marry for financial benefit, he still would have been turned away.

Logic dictates:
1. Speculative argument used to dispute documented fact is clearly fallacious by definition.
2. Worse, asserting "I have a feeling that" means you don't know and indeed can't even produce one verifiable example.
3. Therefore, the sample would be vanishingly small by comparison so insufficient even if you could.
4. Two people uniting as in "marriage" or "civil union" for "financial benefit" alone have no reason to formally celebrate, much less buy a wedding cake, revealing the argument to be desperate and ridiculous from the start.

Dimwit, it was the expression of an opinion. But then, I do enjoy the free rent I am getting inside your head!

Really, genius? You mean 'asserting "I have a feeling that" really means you don't know? You've just been expressing your groundless, "desperate and ridiculous" opinions from the start? Hwell then... I'm shocked! SHOCKED I yells ya! Fine admission!

And then you speculate that two people uniting in a Marriage has no reason to formally celebrate? That is simply not your call pinhead, they would have just as much reason as any "same sex" couple would have.

Go ahead then, Mr. Smartypants, don't be shy! Do tell the world why two people uniting [as in "marriage" or "civil union" for "financial benefit" alone] have reason to formally celebrate or buy a wedding cake?

I'm sorry that Pop23 wasn't very polite towards you. But the reality is that 2 guys could get married for purely financial reasons and simply play act. It is kinda like the movie Some Like It Hot. Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon were pretending to be women but in fact were not Transsexuals, gay, or transvestites in the true sense of the word. They were doing what they were doing to get out of town... The rest made for a very funny movie.

G-Nuts is under the false impression that same sex means same sex, but only if gay.

Problem is, it does not.

PERIOD

 

[Pop23]

the reality is that 2 guys could get married for purely financial reasons and simply play act.

The operative word being "could" not "would", only..

kinda like the movie

is also like for the purpose of professionally producing some fictional portrayal of reality, also

to get out of town...

And, agreed, it's:

a very funny movie.

Could/would/can are the operative words you dimwit

 

[task0778]

" Personal religious beliefs about not selling to gay people = exception granted."

I wouldn't go that far, not in all cases. I might grant an exception to selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, but any other product? NO. It's hard to see the harm done to a gay couple if they are denied the wedding cake but there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it.

How about anniversary cakes?

Cupcakes for a bridal shower?

How about a cake for a baby shower for a same-sex set of parents expecting a child?

I can't see any justification, religious or otherwise for denying full access to goods and services to black people. Also hard to see any justification for a gay business owner to deny full access to goods and services to well, anybody. Religious discrimination? Not seeing it.

It doesn't matter if you see it or not. The owners of Piggie Park Restaurants claimed it was against their religion to serve black people. Bob Jones University (a private university) claimed racial discrimination was against their religion. Then there were Muslim taxi drivers in Minnesota that claimed servicing people with service dogs violated their religion.

Why are the personal religious views of bakers more important than those that want to discriminate against blanks, interracial couples, and dog owners more important?


And why should a gay shop owner be subject to unequal treatment under the law when a baker can refuse them service but the gay shop owner cannot refuse a customer for their religious views?


>>>>

Under the Colorado Public Accommodations law, the sex of the person being discriminated against is irrelevant as is the Sexual Orientation of the owner of the accommodation. A gay baker discriminating against a straight couple wanting a wedding is a violation of the law the same as if the baker was straight and the couple were gay.

Public Accommodations Discrimination | Department of Regulatory Agencies

The law might read that way, but I think the enforcement of that law might not be the same between one case and the other. Their civil rights commission will more than likely be a little less forthcoming about their opinions on the matter, but in some places there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment. Colorado appears to be one of those places.

 

[Flopper]

" Personal religious beliefs about not selling to gay people = exception granted."

I wouldn't go that far, not in all cases. I might grant an exception to selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, but any other product? NO. It's hard to see the harm done to a gay couple if they are denied the wedding cake but there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it.

How about anniversary cakes?

Cupcakes for a bridal shower?

How about a cake for a baby shower for a same-sex set of parents expecting a child?

I can't see any justification, religious or otherwise for denying full access to goods and services to black people. Also hard to see any justification for a gay business owner to deny full access to goods and services to well, anybody. Religious discrimination? Not seeing it.

It doesn't matter if you see it or not. The owners of Piggie Park Restaurants claimed it was against their religion to serve black people. Bob Jones University (a private university) claimed racial discrimination was against their religion. Then there were Muslim taxi drivers in Minnesota that claimed servicing people with service dogs violated their religion.

Why are the personal religious views of bakers more important than those that want to discriminate against blanks, interracial couples, and dog owners more important?


And why should a gay shop owner be subject to unequal treatment under the law when a baker can refuse them service but the gay shop owner cannot refuse a customer for their religious views?


>>>>

Under the Colorado Public Accommodations law, the sex of the person being discriminated against is irrelevant as is the Sexual Orientation of the owner of the accommodation. A gay baker discriminating against a straight couple wanting a wedding is a violation of the law the same as if the baker was straight and the couple were gay.

Public Accommodations Discrimination | Department of Regulatory Agencies

The law might read that way, but I think the enforcement of that law might not be the same between one case and the other. Their civil rights commission will more than likely be a little less forthcoming about their opinions on the matter, but in some places there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment. Colorado appears to be one of those places.

I use to live there and have never noticed that. Most people in Colorado seem to be pretty laid back, not terrible liberal or conservative but there are of course some real extremist on both sides. I was a little surprised that Colorado is among the 20 states that have public accommodations laws that outlaws sexual orientation discrimination.

Incidentally, there are no state civil rights enforcement police. If you have a complain you file in 30 to 60 days with the state. If it's like civil rights complains in education, the DOE tries do some arbitration so it doesn't end up in court. However, I think this gay couple and baker had no intent other than going to court.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually if the Colorado law is tested against the bakers 1st Amendment protections & fails, it no longer is Colorado law. We understand how the USSC decisions are binding below, yes? No state may have a law that violates someone's Constitutional protections. The Court in this case broadly hinted that Colorado has quite likely violated the baker's 1st Amendment protections. The Court ordered Colorado to "fix your law or else".

sil, all they said was that they had to take his religion into account.

Easy way around that.

"Mr. Baker, do you sell cakes to women who aren't virgins on their wedding nights?"

"Do you sell cakes towomen wearing pants?"

"Do you sell cakes to women wearing Jewelry and Braids?"

"Do you sell cakes to men with Tattoos?

Oh, wait, you sell to people who do all these things, even though the Bible says they are wrong? You must not be as committed as you claim you are.

 

[JoeB131]

The law might read that way, but I think the enforcement of that law might not be the same between one case and the other. Their civil rights commission will more than likely be a little less forthcoming about their opinions on the matter, but in some places there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment. Colorado appears to be one of those places.

Uh, guy, the only anti-Christian sentiment is "Sick of you trying to impose your stupidity on the rest of us."

 

[Pop23]

The law might read that way, but I think the enforcement of that law might not be the same between one case and the other. Their civil rights commission will more than likely be a little less forthcoming about their opinions on the matter, but in some places there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment. Colorado appears to be one of those places.

Uh, guy, the only anti-Christian sentiment is "Sick of you trying to impose your stupidity on the rest of us."

And that is what the board did. Case thrown out.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Dimwit, it’s ok, people have a RIGHT to express opinion. Even those who’s opinion is different than yours.

Nah, really, Genius? Even lil ole me? Who'd a thunk it?

They can celebrate for what ever damn reason they want shit for brains.

Sure, but why would anyone want shit for brains?

G-Nuts is under the false impression that same sex means same sex, but only if gay.

Mr-Know-It-All remains under the false impression that, practically speaking, and at least here in the U.S., same sex doesn't mean gay.
Put another way: Genius here ,.. simply can't wrap his massive head around the concept that, though possible of course, and aside from his inability to provide a single, verifiable example thus far, the statistical probability of any couple here in the U.S.actually celebrating their decision to formally, publicly, and legally unite (marry) for reasons other than sex and romantic attraction to one another remains so vanishingly small as to render the entire line of argument feeble at best; desperate, ridiculous, way out of touch, and thoroughly ignorable in any case. Oh well. Poor guy.... Sure must suck to be him!

 

[Grumblenuts]

in some places there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment. Colorado appears to be one of those places.

Not just Colorado nor Christian by a long shot... but you do appear to cry about it far more than any other.

 

[Taz]

So SCOTUS ruled that gay cakes exist and people don't have to bake them. Did they provide a recipe on how to make a cake gay?

 

[WorldWatcher]

So SCOTUS ruled that gay cakes exist and people don't have to bake them. Did they provide a recipe on how to make a cake gay?

No that's not what the decision was. The SCOTUS punted on the main question and delivered a ruling based on hostile acts of the Commission.


.>>>>

 

[SassyIrishLass]

So SCOTUS ruled that gay cakes exist and people don't have to bake them. Did they provide a recipe on how to make a cake gay?

Lots of fudge

 

[Pop23]

Dimwit, it’s ok, people have a RIGHT to express opinion. Even those who’s opinion is different than yours.

Nah, really, Genius? Even lil ole me? Who'd a thunk it?

They can celebrate for what ever damn reason they want shit for brains.

Sure, but why would anyone want shit for brains?

G-Nuts is under the false impression that same sex means same sex, but only if gay.

Mr-Know-It-All remains under the false impression that, practically speaking, and at least here in the U.S., same sex doesn't mean gay.
Put another way: Genius here ,.. simply can't wrap his massive head around the concept that, though possible of course, and aside from his inability to provide a single, verifiable example thus far, the statistical probability of any couple here in the U.S.actually celebrating their decision to formally, publicly, and legally unite (marry) for reasons other than sex and romantic attraction to one another remains so vanishingly small as to render the entire line of argument feeble at best; desperate, ridiculous, way out of touch, and thoroughly ignorable in any case. Oh well. Poor guy.... Sure must suck to be him!

1. Of course you have a right to express an opinion, and it is my right to point out how wrong your opinion is. Even more so, it is equally the right of Heterosexual same sex couples to Marry as it is Homosexual same sex couples. That however is FACT and not opinion.

2. Still trying the "it's never happened" that a heterosexual same sex couple has never married gambit? Then he tries to legitimize something about a same sex heterosexual not celebrating the union because this union isn't predicated on romantic attraction?

Huh, G-Nuts has obviously not read the law. Where in the law (hows this for being secular G-Nuts?) is a romantic attraction a qualification for Marriage? And while you are at it, give us that link to the State Statute that tests the couple for Romantic attraction?

Are you seriously saying that Marriage is never and has never been solely between individuals uniting for financial benefit? Are you really that stupid? Marrying for Money or Power is as old as the institution itself, and yes, most of those have celebrated the union with a party. The institution may have changed, but the fact that Gold-diggers still exist has not.

And I would remind G-Nuts, that their is no less expensive way to convey property or money than a $50 marriage licence. Or a dying widowed Man who has a pension with survivors benefit? Marry your buddy without a pension, and he will live a better life because he simply signed a piece of paper.

Does it happen, neither G-Nuts or Pop23 could actually know now can we? Check out your marriage license applications. There is no line on them referencing sexuality now is there.

You want to also question why a same sex heterosexual couple would want to celebrate such a union. Well, I suppose if I were the recipient of the Property or the Pension, SURE AS SHIT I'D WANT TO THROW A PARTY!

And Wedding Cake? You mean that symbol that historically was broken over the head of the Bride and Groom to ensure fertility? Seems every bit as appropriate at a same sex hetero Marriage as it does a same sex homosexual Marriage, wouldn't you agree?

Then there is the point that G-Nuts questions the reasoning that a Heterosexual same sex couple would want to Marry in the first place? Those that question the reasoning a Homosexual couple would even want to Marry were called Homophobes. What kind of Phobe are you G-Nuts? Must be some kind, right?

 

[Pop23]

The law might read that way, but I think the enforcement of that law might not be the same between one case and the other. Their civil rights commission will more than likely be a little less forthcoming about their opinions on the matter, but in some places there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment. Colorado appears to be one of those places.

Uh, guy, the only anti-Christian sentiment is "Sick of you trying to impose your stupidity on the rest of us."

lol, you forget this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise"

 

[Silhouette]

]

The law might read that way, but I think the enforcement of that law might not be the same between one case and the other. Their civil rights commission will more than likely be a little less forthcoming about their opinions on the matter, but in some places there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment. Colorado appears to be one of those places.

Uh, guy, the only anti-Christian sentiment is "Sick of you trying to impose your stupidity on the rest of us."

"lol, you forget this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise"

Key here is that Joe & company believe that the clause doesn't apply in the marketplace. They believe that the free exercise of religion stops at the marketplace. The argument will be discrimination. It would have teeth if it was about racial discrimination or gender, things that are innate. But "gender fluid" lifestyles will find no traction firm enough to push up against a Christian's fears of going to Hell forever for promoting another lifestyle that is an abomination to his God.

They tried to find traction in Hively v Ivy Tech 2016 but the Court accused them of trying to "bootstrap" behaviors onto the word "gender" in the Civil Rights Act. This accusation will come again and again until finally the false premise and wrongfulness of previous court findings based on false-innateness of LGBT will finally be exposed. The sooner the better too because what a rat's nest that is going to be to unravel. And hello Justices if you're reading here....LGBT is not the ONLY repugnant lifestyle that will clamor for rights in the future based on today's wrong findings. Have you heard of polygamy? Yeah, thought you might have....

They'd better stop this shit cold in its tracks in Dumont v Lyons because Obergefell from which it attempts to derive its arguments is a decision that mark my words (and I swear on Scalia's grave) MUST be overturned to preserve the integrity of American due process. It may be that another Obergefell could come along and be tried properly. But Obergefell was not and it is a fiendish erosion of American's trust in its judicial system. More properly put, it was a direct blow to civil unrest: the type that can cause upheavals that end countries. That interview Ginsburg did just weeks before Obergefell was a kick in the crotch to the Public's view of the Judicial as impartial. That's a dangerous perception in a country that relies on the image at least of democracy and fairness.

 

[dblack]

Silhouette - re: the 'innate' business. Are you in favor of removing all the protected classes that aren't based on innate traits? (religion, citizenship, veteran status, gender etc... )

 

[Pop23]

]

The law might read that way, but I think the enforcement of that law might not be the same between one case and the other. Their civil rights commission will more than likely be a little less forthcoming about their opinions on the matter, but in some places there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment. Colorado appears to be one of those places.

Uh, guy, the only anti-Christian sentiment is "Sick of you trying to impose your stupidity on the rest of us."

"lol, you forget this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise"

Key here is that Joe & company believe that the clause doesn't apply in the marketplace. They believe that the free exercise of religion stops at the marketplace. The argument will be discrimination. It would have teeth if it was about racial discrimination or gender, things that are innate. But "gender fluid" lifestyles will find no traction firm enough to push up against a Christian's fears of going to Hell forever for promoting another lifestyle that is an abomination to his God.

They tried to find traction in Hively v Ivy Tech 2016 but the Court accused them of trying to "bootstrap" behaviors onto the word "gender" in the Civil Rights Act. This accusation will come again and again until finally the false premise and wrongfulness of previous court findings based on false-innateness of LGBT will finally be exposed. The sooner the better too because what a rat's nest that is going to be to unravel. And hello Justices if you're reading here....LGBT is not the ONLY repugnant lifestyle that will clamor for rights in the future based on today's wrong findings. Have you heard of polygamy? Yeah, thought you might have....

They'd better stop this shit cold in its tracks in Dumont v Lyons because Obergefell from which it attempts to derive its arguments is a decision that mark my words (and I swear on Scalia's grave) MUST be overturned to preserve the integrity of American due process. It may be that another Obergefell could come along and be tried properly. But Obergefell was not and it is a fiendish erosion of American's trust in its judicial system. More properly put, it was a direct blow to civil unrest: the type that can cause upheavals that end countries. That interview Ginsburg did just weeks before Obergefell was a kick in the crotch to the Public's view of the Judicial as impartial. That's a dangerous perception in a country that relies on the image at least of democracy and fairness.

The reality is that everyone has the right to be judged by those with an open mind. I wonder how this will be applied to future cases. Does this open the door to searching the Board Members social media accounts to see if those that sit in judgement are free of bias?