Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Flopper]

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?

I know a couple, two women in their 40's who both have kids and live together and plan to marry. They certainly have a close relationship but I doubt they are homosexual, possible bisexual would be a better label. There're a lot advantages to marriage over just living together such as:

• Joint tax filings
• Spouse inherits their partners estate.
• Married partners are allowed to make important medical decisions for their spouses.
• Some employers provide family benefits exclusively to families.
• Spouses can make final arrangements in case of death.
• The divorce process helps to ensure a fair division of assets and resolution of custody disputes when a married couple separates.
• Married couples can apply for family rates for health insurance plans.
• The government can't force married spouses to disclose confidential information privately discussed during a marriage.
• Married spouses have visiting rights in jails, prisons, hospitals, and other places that provide visiting rights only to immediate family.
• If the couple has kids, the marriage provides a more stable environment than just living together which is important when you're raising youngsters.

Regardless of sexual orientation of a couple, if they have a close permanent personal relationship, marriage is likely a better option than just living together.
Marriage provides many benefits to same-sex couples

ABSOLUTELY!

It's a practical solution for many, like these women, to complicated problems. And all for a price of roughly $50!

I've made the above case many times. And even if we change your preamble just slightly, making both of these women Heterosexual and not Bi-sexual, under the current law, these Marriages are legal.

Do yo agree?

Sexual preference is irrelevant legally speaking.

Today there are many people of the same sex that marry. They may be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual transsexual, or even asexual. It just doesn't matter legally any more. The only thing that is important is that the two people care for each other and want to share their lives.

 

[dblack]

However, in the case of the Colorado baker, the question is does making a wedding cake for a gay wedding constitute a violation of his right of free exercise of his religion or does it just violate his personal beliefs and opinions. That's a tough call for a court because the decision rests on exactly what the person's religion teaches and whether the baker's action would prohibit exercising his religion.

You misread. We were talking about whether religion should be a protected class. Silhouette claimed that the salient criteria for protected classes status was whether the trait in question is 'innate'. I pointed out that religion was also not, 'innate'. If sexual orientation should not be on the protected classes list because it isn't 'innate', then neither should religion.

 

[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.

I just love personal attacks, it makes it so much easier to put somebody on Ignore. Bye.

"Personal"? Which are you, Colorado or all Christians?

 

[Pop23]

However, in the case of the Colorado baker, the question is does making a wedding cake for a gay wedding constitute a violation of his right of free exercise of his religion or does it just violate his personal beliefs and opinions. That's a tough call for a court because the decision rests on exactly what the person's religion teaches and whether the baker's action would prohibit exercising his religion.

You misread. We were talking about whether religion should be a protected class. Silhouette claimed that the salient criteria for protected classes status was whether the trait in question is 'innate'. I pointed out that religion was also not, 'innate'. If sexual orientation should not be on the protected classes list because it isn't 'innate', then neither should religion.

Maybe, but there is a clear difference in this subset as well, that being generational discrimination.

In the case of Religion, the Subject of the discrimination inherits decades and centuries of the bias. This is very similar to the bias to Race, Ethnicity, and Gender.

This is simply not the case with Sexuality. With these cases, they are more static and applies to only the subject.

 

[Pop23]

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.

I just love personal attacks, it makes it so much easier to put somebody on Ignore. Bye.

"Personal"? Which are you, Colorado or all Christians?

Colorado is a State, a land Mass, Christians are Groups of people. A personal attack is one made about a person, or associated with a group of people.

But you knew this. It's you're simpleton way of deflection.

 

[Aba Incieni]

but we have established that religious behavior has protections while mere lifestyles do not.

Took me awhile surfing through your word salad - but there's bullshit core of it, right there. The First Amendment does not require anything from, not impose any restrictions on, non-governmental entities. It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. Nothing about discrimination by other citizens or business.

The free exercise clause which you are quoting has not been interpreted consistently by the Supreme Court so there is plenty of room for debate. The question to be answered is when does the actions of the state constitute, prohibiting the free exercise of religion. When the state passed a law requiring employees to be available to work 7 days a week, the law clearly violated the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment.

However, in the case of the Colorado baker, the question is does making a wedding cake for a gay wedding constitute a violation of his right of free exercise of his religion or does it just violate his personal beliefs and opinions. That's a tough call for a court because the decision rests on exactly what the person's religion teaches and whether the baker's action would prohibit exercising his religion.

As I understand the issue, the bakers religion forbids homosexual acts. So does providing a wedding cake for a gay wedding facilitate a homosexual act or is it just incidental to act?

Does the getaway driver facilitate the bank robbery or is he just incidental?

 

[Silhouette]

You misread. We were talking about whether religion should be a protected class. Silhouette claimed that the salient criteria for protected classes status was whether the trait in question is 'innate'. I pointed out that religion was also not, 'innate'. If sexual orientation should not be on the protected classes list because it isn't 'innate', then neither should religion.

I gave you a list before.

Innate is the purest form of discrimination. It is something that someone absolutely is born with and can never be changed and isn't fluid at all. Sexual orientation is fluid, adopted after birth and is a lifestyle. Religion when tested against race or gender cannot prevail. So you cannot say "I won't bake you a cake because of something you were born as and cannot change even if your life depended on it." Most religions I know of believe that God makes no mistakes in His creations.

Lifestyles are adopted after birth and often habituated. In LGBT's case they even advertise they are "fluid" (changeable) as in "gender fluid". When LIFESTYLE comes up against religion, religion prevails because it actually has written protection in the Constitution whereas lifestyle does not. Saying "I wont' bake you a cake because your lifestyle choice of "marriage" directly conflicts with my deeply held convictions about lifestyles" is kosher and allowed.

 

[task0778]

You misread. We were talking about whether religion should be a protected class. Silhouette claimed that the salient criteria for protected classes status was whether the trait in question is 'innate'. I pointed out that religion was also not, 'innate'. If sexual orientation should not be on the protected classes list because it isn't 'innate', then neither should religion.

I gave you a list before.

Innate is the purest form of discrimination. It is something that someone absolutely is born with and can never be changed and isn't fluid at all. Sexual orientation is fluid, adopted after birth and is a lifestyle. Religion when tested against race or gender cannot prevail. So you cannot say "I won't bake you a cake because of something you were born as and cannot change even if your life depended on it." Most religions I know of believe that God makes no mistakes in His creations.

Lifestyles are adopted after birth and often habituated. In LGBT's case they even advertise they are "fluid" (changeable) as in "gender fluid". When LIFESTYLE comes up against religion, religion prevails because it actually has written protection in the Constitution whereas lifestyle does not. Saying "I wont' bake you a cake because your lifestyle choice of "marriage" directly conflicts with my deeply held convictions about lifestyles" is kosher and allowed.

I am not aware that homosexuality has been definitively determined to be a choice rather than a genetic trait. It may or may not be adopted, and therefore could be innate.

 

[Grumblenuts]

A personal attack is one made about a person, or associated with a group of people.

But you knew this. It's you're simpleton way of deflection.

You mean like calling someone a Dimwit, Genius?

 

[JoeB131]

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

This isn't a congressional law... it's a state one...

Here's the thing, dummy. What if an atheist baker who just hates gays didn't want to make a cake? He wouldn't have a leg to stand on... and neither should Christians.

 

[Pop23]

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

This isn't a congressional law... it's a state one...

Here's the thing, dummy. What if an atheist baker who just hates gays didn't want to make a cake? He wouldn't have a leg to stand on... and neither should Christians.

I would be on his side Junior. And yes, the Christian Baker HAS more than a leg to stand on, he has the Constitution, and believe it or not, Local and State Government are not allowed to Violate Constitutionally protected rights.

 

[Pop23]

A personal attack is one made about a person, or associated with a group of people.

But you knew this. It's you're simpleton way of deflection.

You mean like calling someone a Dimwit, Genius?

Oh, I've never shied away from admitting I called you a dimwit.

Deal with IT and own up to IT when you do IT

 

[Silhouette]

Here's the thing, dummy. What if an atheist baker who just hates gays didn't want to make a cake? He wouldn't have a leg to stand on... and neither should Christians.

Well gay is a lifestyle so anyone is free to accept it or reject it. Nobody can be forced to condone or promote behaviors.

Race or gender is another story.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Faith and Reason
Is faith a virtue? Nah...
{snip}
What about this insane idea that somehow we live in a hyper-rational society which is already too burdened by the triumph of reason? If we are, it is hard to distinguish such society from a hyper-irrational one dominated by faith. This conceit that too much reason is bad is a leftover from the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment, the so-called “age of reason” (which lasted much too briefly, and during which time reason was heard, but hardly dominated human affairs). If one wants to have a good measure of how little reason plays into our society, one only has to listen for a day to what most of our politicians say, or to what most of our journalists write, not to mention of course the often surprisingly frightening experience of simply overhearing people’s conversations on the subway or at work.

...or internet political forums, especially all those emanating from the U.S.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Faith and Reason
Is faith a virtue? Nah...
{snip}
What about this insane idea that somehow we live in a hyper-rational society which is already too burdened by the triumph of reason? If we are, it is hard to distinguish such society from a hyper-irrational one dominated by faith. This conceit that too much reason is bad is a leftover from the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment, the so-called “age of reason” (which lasted much too briefly, and during which time reason was heard, but hardly dominated human affairs). If one wants to have a good measure of how little reason plays into our society, one only has to listen for a day to what most of our politicians say, or to what most of our journalists write, not to mention of course the often surprisingly frightening experience of simply overhearing people’s conversations on the subway or at work.

...or internet political forums, especially all those emanating from the U.S.

America First. It's a whole new concept.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Oh, I've never shied away from admitting I called you a dimwit.

Oh, you poor victim!... even though, in reality, no one ever asked you to...

America First. It's a whole new concept.

Hardly.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Oh, I've never shied away from admitting I called you a dimwit.

Oh, you poor victim!... even though, in reality, no one ever asked you to...

America First. It's a whole new concept.

Hardly.

Then why haven't you heard of it before.

 

[Pop23]

Oh, I've never shied away from admitting I called you a dimwit.

Oh, you poor victim!... even though, in reality, no one ever asked you to...

America First. It's a whole new concept.

Hardly.

Go away, you’ve had nothing worthwhile to say for what? 80 years?

 

[Grumblenuts]

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

This isn't a congressional law... it's a state one...

Here's the thing, dummy. What if an atheist baker who just hates gays didn't want to make a cake? He wouldn't have a leg to stand on... and neither should Christians.

I would be on his side Junior.

Because you both simply hate whole groups of people. Folks you don't know from Adam. In this instance, simply because they're attracted to their own sex instead of the opposite one. You and others here have made that abundantly clear. Bully for you.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Baker then has to decide if he provides something to the customer that he has never provided previous to June 16, 2015. Right or wrong, he opted not to.

Wrong. Read your own link.

Prior to Obergefell, thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam already issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[3]

The law and norm already established in most the country. Like you, this baker had, and and continues to have, no such blissful ignorance excuse.