Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[JoeB131]

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.

A few problems with this argument, buddy.

The first is that religion should be an excuse to ignore contract and commerce law.

For instance, what if I said I wasn't going to pay my bank and credit card back because the bible says Usury is a sin.

Exodus 22:24 (25)—If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest.
Leviticus 25:36— Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.

It's right there in the bible. Charging me interest on a loan is violation of God's will. If I pay interest on a loan that you gave me, I'm totally at risk of going to Hell.

Funny how the bible thumpers totally forget THIS is in the bible.

You could come up with all sorts of chaos if you replace established business law with whatever weird interpretation of the Big Book of Bronze Age Fairy Tales you manage to pull out of your ass.

The second problem with your argument is that there are a whole bunch of moral rules that we ignore now, that the Baker would have no problem baking a cake for.

Living with your fiance before marriage? 67% of couples who get married do. But that's a big no-no in the Bible.

I promise you, Mr. Bible Baker isn't asking that question, because he'd lose 67% of his business. We could also talk about Brides who have braids or wear pants or men who have tattoos, which are considered sins in the bible.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

No rights are being violated. this is a commerce rule, not a rule on what you should believe. You are totally free to keep hating on gay people if you want to, you just can't deny them service.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Exodus 22:24 (25)—If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest.
Leviticus 25:36— Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.

It's right there in the bible. Charging me interest on a loan is violation of God's will. If I pay interest on a loan that you gave me, I'm totally at risk of going to Hell.

Funny how the bible thumpers totally forget THIS is in the bible.

Eggzzzzactly!

Yes, never mind the truly rich owners behind the big banks, insurance conglomerates, big oil, WalMart, Amazon, the MIC,... screwing everyone while doing their damnedest to destroy all life on this planet daily,... somewhere, somehow, someone's still having FUN in the privacy of their own bedroom, I JUST KNOW IT!

 

[Pop23]

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.

A few problems with this argument, buddy.

The first is that religion should be an excuse to ignore contract and commerce law.

For instance, what if I said I wasn't going to pay my bank and credit card back because the bible says Usury is a sin.

Exodus 22:24 (25)—If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest.
Leviticus 25:36— Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.

It's right there in the bible. Charging me interest on a loan is violation of God's will. If I pay interest on a loan that you gave me, I'm totally at risk of going to Hell.

Funny how the bible thumpers totally forget THIS is in the bible.

You could come up with all sorts of chaos if you replace established business law with whatever weird interpretation of the Big Book of Bronze Age Fairy Tales you manage to pull out of your ass.

The second problem with your argument is that there are a whole bunch of moral rules that we ignore now, that the Baker would have no problem baking a cake for.

Living with your fiance before marriage? 67% of couples who get married do. But that's a big no-no in the Bible.

I promise you, Mr. Bible Baker isn't asking that question, because he'd lose 67% of his business. We could also talk about Brides who have braids or wear pants or men who have tattoos, which are considered sins in the bible.

Paying the credit card bill makes you the consumer, not the bank, dimwit.

 

[Pop23]

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.

No rights are being violated. this is a commerce rule, not a rule on what you should believe. You are totally free to keep hating on gay people if you want to, you just can't deny them service.

His right is being violated.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Tsk tsk.

The baker refused in 2012

Colorado legalized in 2015.

You didn’t know this Einstein?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Paying the credit card bill makes you the consumer, not the bank, dimwit.

Duh!, still involved in the "sin", Genius!

His right is being violated.

Because you say so? And who are you to say so again? Some gun nut still sporting that avatar of a guy who's advocated for gun control since the 70's. RRRrright, that clearly means you're the presumed expert of everything. Why don't you just go away until you've grown up enough to discuss serious issues amongst adults instead just trying to bully everyone you disagree with like a petulant child? Try backing up your assertions or buzz off, Archie Bunker.

The baker refused in 2012

Yes, your point: Petulant children think alike? Blissful ignorance is often forwarded as an excuse? No kidding, dimwit.

 

[Pop23]

Paying the credit card bill makes you the consumer, not the bank, dimwit.

Duh!, still involved in the "sin", Genius!

His right is being violated.

Because you say so? And who are you to say so again? Some gun nut still sporting that avatar of a guy who's advocated for gun control since the 70's. RRRrright, that clearly means you're the presumed expert of everything. Why don't you just go away until you've grown up enough to discuss serious issues amongst adults instead just trying to bully everyone you disagree with like a petulant child? Try backing up your assertions or buzz off, Archie Bunker.

The baker refused in 2012

Yes, your point: Petulant children think alike? Blissful ignorance is often forwarded as an excuse? No kidding, dimwit.

When I point out your obvious mistake, just say "Thank You". Otherwise it is you that express "Blissful ignorance" and act like a "petulant child".

Dimwit, it is the lender that is sinner, not the recipient when he pays. Re-read the quote.

Because I point out your stupidity and destroy your arguments does not make me a bully, it makes me the voice of reason.

If you disagree, then make an argument, even once, that is backed in reality and not disingenuous.

 

[Silhouette]

No rights are being violated. this is a commerce rule, not a rule on what you should believe. You are totally free to keep hating on gay people if you want to, you just can't deny them service.

You can deny them service when it comes to your faith & convictions because AGAIN, nobody can be forced to condone or promote BEHAVIORS or ideologies they find spiritually repugnant.

What gays are asking Christian bakers to do by participating in their "weddings" is the spiritual equivalent of asking Christians to take a shit on the altar during the middle of mass. And actually that isn't quite accurate because taking the shit would be a venial sin, still forgivable.

It's too bad you folks believed your own legally unworkable false premise because if we were talking about a static thing like race or gender, this would be a different conversation

And newsflash: Christians follow the New Testament.

 

[Pop23]

No rights are being violated. this is a commerce rule, not a rule on what you should believe. You are totally free to keep hating on gay people if you want to, you just can't deny them service.

You can deny them service when it comes to your faith & convictions because AGAIN, nobody can be forced to condone or promote BEHAVIORS they find spiritually repugnant.

It's too bad you folks believed your own legally unworkable false premise because if we were talking about a static thing like race or gender, this would be a different conversation

This, in a way, reminds me of smoking bans. The Owner didn't care and thought he had a right to allow smoking, the smoker thought he had a right because it was a legal product that the Owner was OK with him enjoying with his meal, but in the end, the right of the customer that thought his "right" to clean air, was superior to the "right" of the Owner.

The courts obviously found one "right" Health, superior to another "right" Property.

In this case, the "right" to not burn in eternal flames should be superior to a "fertility symbol" being supplied to a same sex couple.

 

[dblack]

No rights are being violated. this is a commerce rule, not a rule on what you should believe. You are totally free to keep hating on gay people if you want to, you just can't deny them service.

You can deny them service when it comes to your faith & convictions because AGAIN, nobody can be forced to condone or promote BEHAVIORS they find spiritually repugnant.

It's too bad you folks believed your own legally unworkable false premise because if we were talking about a static thing like race or gender, this would be a different conversation

This, in a way, reminds me of smoking bans. The Owner didn't care and thought he had a right to allow smoking, the smoker thought he had a right because it was a legal product that the Owner was OK with him enjoying with his meal, but in the end, the right of the customer that thought his "right" to clean air, was superior to the "right" of the Owner.

The courts obviously found one "right" Health, superior to another "right" Property.

In this case, the "right" to not burn in eternal flames should be superior to a "fertility symbol" being supplied to a same sex couple.

Once we concede to play this game, to grant government the power to decide what is 'reasonable' discrimination and what isn't, we've lost. Splitting hairs over the various "ranks" of discrimination, and trying to sort out what trumps what, is just pathetic.

 

[Pop23]

No rights are being violated. this is a commerce rule, not a rule on what you should believe. You are totally free to keep hating on gay people if you want to, you just can't deny them service.

You can deny them service when it comes to your faith & convictions because AGAIN, nobody can be forced to condone or promote BEHAVIORS they find spiritually repugnant.

It's too bad you folks believed your own legally unworkable false premise because if we were talking about a static thing like race or gender, this would be a different conversation

This, in a way, reminds me of smoking bans. The Owner didn't care and thought he had a right to allow smoking, the smoker thought he had a right because it was a legal product that the Owner was OK with him enjoying with his meal, but in the end, the right of the customer that thought his "right" to clean air, was superior to the "right" of the Owner.

The courts obviously found one "right" Health, superior to another "right" Property.

In this case, the "right" to not burn in eternal flames should be superior to a "fertility symbol" being supplied to a same sex couple.

Once we concede to play this game, to grant government the power to decide what is 'reasonable' discrimination and what isn't, we've lost. Splitting hairs over the various "ranks" of discrimination, and trying to sort out what trumps what, is just pathetic.

I completely agree, don't get me wrong, but we still have to deal with what we have today, and that is what right is superior to another. That simply creates chaos and political footballs.

 

[Silhouette]

Once we concede to play this game, to grant government the power to decide what is 'reasonable' discrimination and what isn't, we've lost. Splitting hairs over the various "ranks" of discrimination, and trying to sort out what trumps what, is just pathetic.

Which is EXACTLY why I said YEARS ago that using the false premise of "behavior = race" was going to become an unworkable legal nightmare. Why do JUST LGBT lifestyles have special status while other repugnant behaviors like polygamy and other "orientations" of all types and descriptions remain in the legal shadows? They too will have their day in court where "behaviors are elevated above majority rule".....

The penal system in the country will unravel. As it already is starting to. Obergefell was a nightmare for this and many other reasons. Scalia's "sudden death" in Texas has roots in utter despair and horror at what happened in his Court. I have a feeling he left a note too. But we'll never see it because if we did...

 

[dblack]

Once we concede to play this game, to grant government the power to decide what is 'reasonable' discrimination and what isn't, we've lost. Splitting hairs over the various "ranks" of discrimination, and trying to sort out what trumps what, is just pathetic.

Which is EXACTLY why I said YEARS ago that using the false premise of "behavior = race" was going to become an unworkable legal nightmare. Why do JUST LGBT lifestyles have special status while other repugnant behaviors like polygamy and other "orientations" of all types and descriptions remain in the legal shadows? They too will have their day in court where "behaviors are elevated above majority rule".....

The penal system in the country will unravel. As it already is starting to. Obergefell was a nightmare for this and many other reasons.

*wooosh*

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry dblack. It not only didn't go over my head, I caught it mid-flight and sent it right back over the top of your head. You obviously don't want to discuss what it means to be inequal in application of law from one lifestyle to another. But it will be discussed in future lawsuits. So why not discuss it now?

 

[dblack]

Sorry dblack. It not only didn't go over my head, I caught it mid-flight and sent it right back over the top of your head. You obviously don't want to discuss what it means to be inequal in application of law from one lifestyle to another. But it will be discussed in future lawsuits. So why not discuss it now?

Because I'm not interested in using government to divvy up privilege in society. I think it's a mistake. I think it's wrong. I'm not interested in trying to use it to benefit myself, or push my values on others.

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry dblack. It not only didn't go over my head, I caught it mid-flight and sent it right back over the top of your head. You obviously don't want to discuss what it means to be inequal in application of law from one lifestyle to another. But it will be discussed in future lawsuits. So why not discuss it now?

Because I'm not interested in using government to divvy up privilege in society. I think it's a mistake. I think it's wrong. I'm not interested in trying to use it to benefit myself, or push my values on others.

Then we are in exact agreement when it comes to lifestyles and ideologies. Do you believe for instance that LGBT lifestylists gets a special elevation from government while polygamists do not? That clearly violates the spirit of the 14th Amendment at its core. Just the favorites of the USSC in 2015 get to marry outside one man and one woman? The word "two" is sacred in marriage but the words "both mother and father" are not? Who subjectively decided that for society? Oh, that's right, five liberal lawyers in DC decided that mothers and fathers are no longer relevant in a married family. Talk about divvying up privilege!

One of those Justices openly declared her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing.

 

[Pop23]

Sorry dblack. It not only didn't go over my head, I caught it mid-flight and sent it right back over the top of your head. You obviously don't want to discuss what it means to be inequal in application of law from one lifestyle to another. But it will be discussed in future lawsuits. So why not discuss it now?

Because I'm not interested in using government to divvy up privilege in society. I think it's a mistake. I think it's wrong. I'm not interested in trying to use it to benefit myself, or push my values on others.

The good news Dblack, is that Obergfell might just accomplish what you wish. It was poorly thought out and implemented. It opens the door for litigation that could eventually get Government out of Marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

The good news Dblack, is that Obergfell might just accomplish what you wish. It was poorly thought out and implemented. It opens the door for litigation that could eventually get Government out of Marriage.

I'd go a step further and say that Obergefell already accomplished that. Polygamists and any other combination that sees fit may now walk into their County courthouse and demand a marriage license based on Obergefell. Their case would be won so quickly it would make your head spin. Because the only opposing argument to polygamy is "it would be bad for kids involved". And at that precise moment in time the court would admit that kids' counsel should've been briefing the courts at every step of the gay marriage crusade because of the radical change that Obergefell forces them to endure: a contract banishing them for life from the hope of ever having either a mother or father.

Too embarrassing to face that mistake in due process, the Courts would quickly grant polygamists etc. their win and children's interests in marriage would once again get the shove under the carpet. Which is Machiavellian because children are the most important elements of the nuclear family. Their formative environment is the seed of society's formative environment into the future. They should've been briefing all along on ANY proposed revision of the contract Obergefell itself said/admitted they share benefits to.

 

[Pop23]

The good news Dblack, is that Obergfell might just accomplish what you wish. It was poorly thought out and implemented. It opens the door for litigation that could eventually get Government out of Marriage.

I'd go a step further and say that Obergefell already accomplished that. Polygamists and any other combination that sees fit may now walk into their County courthouse and demand a marriage license based on Obergefell. Their case would be won so quickly it would make your head spin. Because the only opposing argument to polygamy is "it would be bad for kids involved". And at that precise moment in time the court would admit that kids' counsel should've been briefing the courts at every step of the gay marriage crusade because of the radical change that Obergefell forces them to endure: a contract banishing them for life from the hope of ever having either a mother or father.

Too embarrassing to face that mistake in due process, the Courts would quickly grant polygamists their win and children's interests in marriage would once again get the shove under the carpet. Which is Machiavellian because children are the most important elements of the nuclear family. Their formative environment is the seed of society's formative environment into the future.

Agree entirely. I would ask those that disagree, what compelling State interest, based on Obergfell, coult the State use to defend?

Answer: NONE

That ship has sailed

And it's not like we didn't warn about this earlier.