Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Flopper]

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.

in 20 states that have public accommodations laws that say you can not discrimination based on sexual orientation the baker can not deny service to a gay couple seeking a wedding cake.

First amendment rights, that is the free excise clause of the 1st amendment only comes into play if the baker is prevented from excising his right to worship. The bakers opinion of homosexuality is not relevant. Assuming his religion outlaws homosexual sex, then the question become does making a cake for the wedding of a gay couple constitute homosexual sex or does it facility it?
Does making a wedding cake for a gay couple promote homosexual sex and if it does, does it prevent the baker from excising his religion?

 

[Flopper]

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.

All that's needed is for polygamists or any other child-hostile weirdo-combination to walk into a courthouse anywhere in the US and demand marriage. I say we make that happen to drive the point home. Like yesterday. Every time I brought up polygamy pre-Obergefell, the LGBT nazis here on the board kept saying "that would be terrible for the children!!" Meanwhile they pushed on to revise the contract to systematically-deprive "the poor children!!" of either a mother or father for life.

Imagine being a boy and your only "father" role model you get from the marriage contract is a nasty mannish dyke you accidentally walk in on wearing a strap-on dildo with his mom (who for some reason is sexually attracted to those mannish trappings)? You think that a boy like that isn't going to grow up fucked up in the head? Oh, and "Happy Father's Day" to all the kids bound by a lesbian-marriage contract for life....

If you haven't heard, this is not the 1950s, one third of all families are single parent families. There have been numerous studies that have shown that two adults regardless of their sex are able to do a better job raising kids that a single parent.

Families led by two adults of the same sex are not regarded by the kids as Mon and Dad but rather Mom or Dad and John or Susan who have become part of the family. They help pay the bills, share in the work to maintain the home, take the kids to to soccer practice, dancing lessons, go to parent teacher night, help the kids with homework, takes them camping, etc. It's not about sex. It's about raising kids and maintaining the family.

 

[Flopper]

"The Colorado law requires everyone to condone everyone else's behaviors." well well...It is extremely clear that the Supreme Court makes the Constitution and the nation's rights to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience and freedom of speech a HIGHER STANDARD than a bunch of hypocrites in Colorado that pretend to protect "civil rights" by preferring some "civil rights" over others "civil rights". So...THE WHOLE CAKE SCAM BLEW UP IN ALL THEIR LYING FACES. So there. Maybe no one wanted a cake. Or if they did they tried to get a cake through coercion and targeted making an example out of someone who they felt disdain for- kind of like a set up. Huh.

coercion - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
The World's Fastest Dictionary : Vocabulary.com is making something happen by force, like when bullies use coercion to make kids give them their lunch money.

No one is forcing the baker to make cakes for the public. However, when he decides to serve the public, he must serve the public. He can't just make cakes for Christians or Jews, or Whites, or Blacks, or Heterosexuals or
Homosexuals. When you hang a sign on your door, that says Open, your business is open to all, not just who you want to serve.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yep, the nerve.
Oh sure, I'd make the same profit. Hell maybe even more! But damn it, Jesus told me to discriminate against His people. Likely his own kind!
Oh sure, my sign said you don't got to have no membership card to get inside, but paybacks are a bitch!
Oh sure, kids suffer wherever haters hate, but it's all about protecting the children. You understand.
Oh sure, secular law and "separation of Church and State." That just means only religious people can get away with murder by blaming it on Jesus.

 

[Silhouette]

No one is forcing the baker to make cakes for the public. However, when he decides to serve the public, he must serve the public. He can't just make cakes for Christians or Jews, or Whites, or Blacks, or Heterosexuals or
Homosexuals. When you hang a sign on your door, that says Open, your business is open to all, not just who you want to serve.

Well floppy the problem is that the marketplace is the public and the baker does not take a day off or a minute off from his faith. The Court just indicated that Colorado cannot punish Christians in the marketplace. So what that boils down to is gay lifestyles vs faith. Faith is the only of the two that has expressed written Constitutional protections.

Besides, lifestyles run the gamut. Where would it stop? The Court has to think about LGBT terms like "gender fluid etc. etc". Why should ONLY LGBT lifestyles get to force their ideologies on Christians when others equally repugnant do not? The Court knows what it decides today will be used as a wedge for tomorrow. And the "lifestyles as race" wedge is already becoming the unworkable & unfair (to other repugnant lifestyles left arbitrarily out in the cold) rats nest I predicted it would be.

Plus the baker isn't asking each customer what they're going to do with that cookie or that eclaire or that sheet cake. It's when two men walk in & tell him they want a cake for their "wedding". At that moment the baker knows his talents will be utilized to promote a forbidden spiritual abomination. He cannot participate in the spread of homo values in any culture or he faces eternal fire for the mortal sin. (Jude 1). Marriage is THE epitome of a social icon. So long story short he can't be clipped from the public/marketplace for knowing if he participates in certain aspects of it his eternal soul will perish. People must be "respectful" of his passive refusal according to the edicts of his faith.

This applies only to other ideologies & lifestyles that are behavioral. Race & gender are innate & cant be punished. The Court is discovering this important distinction & we are going to hear more about it.

 

[Pop23]

Yep, the nerve.
Oh sure, I'd make the same profit. Hell maybe even more! But damn it, Jesus told me to discriminate against His people. Likely his own kind!
Oh sure, my sign said you don't got to have no membership card to get inside, but paybacks are a bitch!
Oh sure, kids suffer wherever haters hate, but it's all about protecting the children. You understand.
Oh sure, secular law and "separation of Church and State." That just means only religious people can get away with murder by blaming it on Jesus.

Of all the feeble rants we see

Yours might be the lamest

 

[Silhouette]

Yep. Somebody is butthurt about this USSC Decision.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yep. Somebody is butthurt about this USSC Decision.

Don't worry. Someday you will get over Lawrence, Hollingsworth, Windsor, and Obergefell.

If you are referring to me, not "butthurt" at all. The SCOTUS ruled that the open hostility by the Commission was unconstitutional and left the law in place. My only butthurt is that I think they should have recognized rights of property and association and overturned all Public Accommodation laws as applied to provide businesses so that the religious shop owner could refuse gays, the racist shop owner refuse blacks, the redneck shop owner refuse Mexicans, the Muslim shop owner refuse Jews, the pacifist shop owner refuse members of the military, patriotic shop owners the pacifist, and anyone refuse a single parent keeping the child from having a mother and a father.

.>>>>

 

[mdk]

Yep. Somebody is butthurt about this USSC Decision.

She added while still whining about Obergefell almost three years later. Too funny.

 

[Lysistrata]

Didn't our idiot AG just quote the guy who claimed to have met Jesus, and whom some claim actually spoke for the Supreme Being,as saying:

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order,” said Sessions.
​

So yes or no? This supposed "Christian" baker did not obey the law.

What Sessions did, in forgetting his role and an officer of the U.S. Government and dragging in his personal religious beliefs into the political arena to justify the policies that he and his minions have put into place, is highly inappropriate and serves only to highlight his disrespect for the Constitution. But his doing so raises an interesting point about the adherents to his particular brand of religion.

 

[LittleNipper]

"The Colorado law requires everyone to condone everyone else's behaviors." well well...It is extremely clear that the Supreme Court makes the Constitution and the nation's rights to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience and freedom of speech a HIGHER STANDARD than a bunch of hypocrites in Colorado that pretend to protect "civil rights" by preferring some "civil rights" over others "civil rights". So...THE WHOLE CAKE SCAM BLEW UP IN ALL THEIR LYING FACES. So there. Maybe no one wanted a cake. Or if they did they tried to get a cake through coercion and targeted making an example out of someone who they felt disdain for- kind of like a set up. Huh.

coercion - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
The World's Fastest Dictionary : Vocabulary.com is making something happen by force, like when bullies use coercion to make kids give them their lunch money.

No one is forcing the baker to make cakes for the public. However, when he decides to serve the public, he must serve the public. He can't just make cakes for Christians or Jews, or Whites, or Blacks, or Heterosexuals or
Homosexuals. When you hang a sign on your door, that says Open, your business is open to all, not just who you want to serve.

The Baker makes cakes for anyone. He chooses not to decorate wedding cakes for parties celebrating what "said baker" believes is not a biblical GOD ordained wedding and regards doing such as supporting fraud and blatant sin. The bakery is not owned by the state or government. It is not supported by tax money. It is a private business and therefore is under no obligation to tow the line as regarded by the state. Religious Christian institutions of higher learning present both that the Bible is inerrant and that Creationism is viable. They are under no obligation to disregard what they believe is foundational to their faith. The baker is not taking any money from anyone he doesn't make wedding cakes for, nor does the baker deny the ability of those involve to seek their cake elsewhere.

 

[JoeB131]

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

But that's the point. I can claim that usury is against my religion, therefore i'm not obligated to pay back interest.

See how that works, when you can pull something out of your ass like that?

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.

Then they should find something else to do for a living. Again, I'm sure that baker served all sorts of people who engage in behavior he found morally repugnant. If you stuck to a strict bible standard, he shouldn't sell a cake to ANYONE who had sex before marriage. That would be, oh, just about everyone these days.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Again, how is that any different than backing a cake for people who are cohabiting outside of marriage? Isn't that also a mortal sin?

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Okay, little problem with that.

There's is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that smoke causes cancer, lung disease, and a bunch of other stuff.

There's no scientific evidence at all that there is a place you go after you die where you burn for all eternity even though you no longer have a physical body to burn.

Now, if the Baker could provide scientifically verified evidence of a Hell that you will burn in for not following all the rules in the Big Book of Jewish Fairy Tales, he might have a leg to stand on.

But in fact, you can't find a reference to a wedding cake anywhere in the bible.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

I personally would have no problem with Polygamists getting the bigamy laws overturned. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, no problem.

 

[dblack]

No one is forcing the baker to make cakes for the public. However, when he decides to serve the public, he must serve the public. He can't just make cakes for Christians or Jews, or Whites, or Blacks, or Heterosexuals or
Homosexuals. When you hang a sign on your door, that says Open, your business is open to all, not just who you want to serve.

This is the sales pitch. And if it were even remotely true, I wouldn't find the whole mess so hypocritical. But it's not. These laws don't require business owners to treat everyone equally. Or even to serve everyone. The laws don't prevent them from discriminating. They simply prohibit them from expressing certain kinds of biases when they do. They can discriminate all they want as long as they don't offer up a reason that's been banned.

 

[Lysistrata]

"The Colorado law requires everyone to condone everyone else's behaviors." well well...It is extremely clear that the Supreme Court makes the Constitution and the nation's rights to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience and freedom of speech a HIGHER STANDARD than a bunch of hypocrites in Colorado that pretend to protect "civil rights" by preferring some "civil rights" over others "civil rights". So...THE WHOLE CAKE SCAM BLEW UP IN ALL THEIR LYING FACES. So there. Maybe no one wanted a cake. Or if they did they tried to get a cake through coercion and targeted making an example out of someone who they felt disdain for- kind of like a set up. Huh.

coercion - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
The World's Fastest Dictionary : Vocabulary.com is making something happen by force, like when bullies use coercion to make kids give them their lunch money.

No one is forcing the baker to make cakes for the public. However, when he decides to serve the public, he must serve the public. He can't just make cakes for Christians or Jews, or Whites, or Blacks, or Heterosexuals or
Homosexuals. When you hang a sign on your door, that says Open, your business is open to all, not just who you want to serve.

The Baker makes cakes for anyone. He chooses not to decorate wedding cakes for parties celebrating what "said baker" believes is not a biblical GOD ordained wedding and regards doing such as supporting fraud and blatant sin. The bakery is not owned by the state or government. It is not supported by tax money. It is a private business and therefore is under no obligation to tow the line as regarded by the state. Religious Christian institutions of higher learning present both that the Bible is inerrant and that Creationism is viable. They are under no obligation to disregard what they believe is foundational to their faith. The baker is not taking any money from anyone he doesn't make wedding cakes for, nor does the baker deny the ability of those involve to seek their cake elsewhere.

SOME Christian institutions teach that the bible is inerrant and creationism is a viable theory. These theories do not entitle anyone to disregard the law, and even your Paulie said this. This guy is required to "tow the line" as a condition of holding a business license.

Incidentally, I wonder which of the marriages of the multi-marrieds is "ordained" by "God"?

 

[JoeB131]

This is the sales pitch. And if it were even remotely true, I wouldn't find the whole mess so hypocritical. But it's not. These laws don't require business owners to treat everyone equally. Or even to serve everyone. They simply prohibit them from expressing certain kinds of biases when they do. They can discriminate all they want as long as they don't offer up a reason that's been banned.

How would that work? I guess they could lie and say they are booked that day. There are all sorts of ways you can put a customer off. "Oh gee, I'm sorry, I'm totally booked that day".

You'd be in trouble if you made that claim and couldn't prove it, though.

 

[Pop23]

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

But that's the point. I can claim that usury is against my religion, therefore i'm not obligated to pay back interest.

See how that works, when you can pull something out of your ass like that?

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.

Then they should find something else to do for a living. Again, I'm sure that baker served all sorts of people who engage in behavior he found morally repugnant. If you stuck to a strict bible standard, he shouldn't sell a cake to ANYONE who had sex before marriage. That would be, oh, just about everyone these days.

The teaching is about charging interest, not making payment. The customer AGREES to the sin. He is not being forced to it.

 

[dblack]

This is the sales pitch. And if it were even remotely true, I wouldn't find the whole mess so hypocritical. But it's not. These laws don't require business owners to treat everyone equally. Or even to serve everyone. They simply prohibit them from expressing certain kinds of biases when they do. They can discriminate all they want as long as they don't offer up a reason that's been banned.

How would that work? I guess they could lie and say they are booked that day. There are all sorts of ways you can put a customer off. "Oh gee, I'm sorry, I'm totally booked that day".

You'd be in trouble if you made that claim and couldn't prove it, though.

They could just not offer a reason.