Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Rustic]

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?

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

As neither is the baker who first AGREES to sell to THE PUBLIC then reneges selectively claiming Jesus. Seriously. Get help. You are dangerously pigheaded and dim.

Says someone that wants to control everybody he disagrees with.
Why not have the right to refuse service to anybody, that way no one is controlling anybody else…

 

[Aba Incieni]

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?

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

As neither is the baker who first AGREES to sell to THE PUBLIC then reneges selectively claiming Jesus. Seriously. Get help. You are dangerously pigheaded and dim.

The law is actually written in the Jewish holy book, although Jesus does refer to Gomorrah.

 

[Rustic]

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?

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

As neither is the baker who first AGREES to sell to THE PUBLIC then reneges selectively claiming Jesus. Seriously. Get help. You are dangerously pigheaded and dim.

The law is actually written in the Jewish holy book, although Jesus does refer to Gomorrah.

...and the Bible is just gibberish if not taken as a whole. Nowhere in the Bible does it except homosexual marriage…

 

[JoeB131]

If asked to bake a cake celebrating cohabitation outside of Marriage, I think he should have every right to deny.

You?

I think he should insist on having them stoned like the Bible says the should be.

You?

The interest is not forced on the person, it is agreed to. The customer is participating in the sin WILLINGLY.

The Baker IS BEING FORCED TO PARTICIPATE.

if you don’t see the difference, you are a whacko!

Then the baker shouldn't be in that line of work. This isn't complicated.

 

[Aba Incieni]

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?

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

As neither is the baker who first AGREES to sell to THE PUBLIC then reneges selectively claiming Jesus. Seriously. Get help. You are dangerously pigheaded and dim.

The law is actually written in the Jewish holy book, although Jesus does refer to Gomorrah.

...and the Bible is just gibberish if not taken as a whole. Nowhere in the Bible does it except homosexual marriage…

Yes. Just pushing back against the lie that it is somehow Christianity at fault, when in fact both Jews and muslims carry similar beliefs regarding homos.

 

[JoeB131]

I agree with you about Mormons they are a cult of child rapist/molesters.. mitt Romney is one of them.
Why even have a law that forces people into shit they want nothing to do with?

Because everyone should have access to goods and services, that's why.

Even Mormons.

The collective has never known what is best for the individual… In fact the opposite is true.
Now if someone wants to serve everybody, so be it it’s none of the federal governments business…

All law is a balance between individual liberty and collective good.

The fact is, most laws are based on the majority knowing what is good for the rest of us, which is why we have drug laws, prostitution laws, regulations on traffic, and so on.

The question is, is protecting individuals from discrimination from other individuals in the collective interest.

Yes, it is.

 

[Rustic]

If asked to bake a cake celebrating cohabitation outside of Marriage, I think he should have every right to deny.

You?

I think he should insist on having them stoned like the Bible says the should be.

You?

The interest is not forced on the person, it is agreed to. The customer is participating in the sin WILLINGLY.

The Baker IS BEING FORCED TO PARTICIPATE.

if you don’t see the difference, you are a whacko!

Then the baker shouldn't be in that line of work. This isn't complicated.

The New Testament does not change what is and is not a sin in the Bible.
It may determine what the earthly punishment for such things are but it certainly does not go against the Old Testament.

 

[Rustic]

I agree with you about Mormons they are a cult of child rapist/molesters.. mitt Romney is one of them.
Why even have a law that forces people into shit they want nothing to do with?

Because everyone should have access to goods and services, that's why.

Even Mormons.

The collective has never known what is best for the individual… In fact the opposite is true.
Now if someone wants to serve everybody, so be it it’s none of the federal governments business…

All law is a balance between individual liberty and collective good.

The fact is, most laws are based on the majority knowing what is good for the rest of us, which is why we have drug laws, prostitution laws, regulations on traffic, and so on.

The question is, is protecting individuals from discrimination from other individuals in the collective interest.

Yes, it is.

Lol
The right to refuse service to anybody hurts nobody... except for control freaks

 

[Aba Incieni]

I agree with you about Mormons they are a cult of child rapist/molesters.. mitt Romney is one of them.
Why even have a law that forces people into shit they want nothing to do with?

Because everyone should have access to goods and services, that's why.

Even Mormons.

The collective has never known what is best for the individual… In fact the opposite is true.
Now if someone wants to serve everybody, so be it it’s none of the federal governments business…

All law is a balance between individual liberty and collective good.

The fact is, most laws are based on the majority knowing what is good for the rest of us, which is why we have drug laws, prostitution laws, regulations on traffic, and so on.

The question is, is protecting individuals from discrimination from other individuals in the collective interest.

Yes, it is.

Then stand strong for the pedophiles, one of the most oppressed sexual preferences of them all.

 

[Rustic]

I agree with you about Mormons they are a cult of child rapist/molesters.. mitt Romney is one of them.
Why even have a law that forces people into shit they want nothing to do with?

Because everyone should have access to goods and services, that's why.

Even Mormons.

The collective has never known what is best for the individual… In fact the opposite is true.
Now if someone wants to serve everybody, so be it it’s none of the federal governments business…

All law is a balance between individual liberty and collective good.

The fact is, most laws are based on the majority knowing what is good for the rest of us, which is why we have drug laws, prostitution laws, regulations on traffic, and so on.

The question is, is protecting individuals from discrimination from other individuals in the collective interest.

Yes, it is.

Then stand strong for the pedophiles, one of the most oppressed sexual preferences of them all.

Yes the Clintons know all about pedophilia

 

[JoeB131]

The best way to protect anyone on this issue is to have “the right to refuse service to anyone” that way no one is controlling anyone else. Getting along is way overrated...

Why force anyone to bake an Adolf Hitler cake, Carl Marx cake, a Saddam Hussein cake, a Jimmy Carter cake, a Muslim cake, a Islam cake, a Buddhist cake, a transgender cake, a Christian cake, a gay cake.... etc?
What you speak of serves no purpose

First, can you learn to use the quote feature properly? Thanks.

Secondly, this isn't about forcing someone to make a cake they normally wouldn't make.

The guy at Masterpiece Bakery also didn't do Halloween Cakes, because that was unchristian and he was too much of a religious ignoramus to realize the religious history of Halloween (or "All Hallow's Eve").

That's perfectly fine. He didn't provide Halloween cakes for anyone. No discrimination involved. If you want a Halloween cake, that was not the place to go.

He did however, offer the sale of Wedding Cakes (also, something that has nothing to do with the Bible, the Wedding Cake is actually a left over Roman Pagan tradition that got carried over.) The law says that if you provide a service to straights, you provide that same service to gays.

 

[JoeB131]

Then stand strong for the pedophiles, one of the most oppressed sexual preferences of them all.

As well they should be.

You see, the thing is, a child can't "consent" to having sex. That's why it's oppressed.

 

[Aba Incieni]

The best way to protect anyone on this issue is to have “the right to refuse service to anyone” that way no one is controlling anyone else. Getting along is way overrated...

Why force anyone to bake an Adolf Hitler cake, Carl Marx cake, a Saddam Hussein cake, a Jimmy Carter cake, a Muslim cake, a Islam cake, a Buddhist cake, a transgender cake, a Christian cake, a gay cake.... etc?
What you speak of serves no purpose

First, can you learn to use the quote feature properly? Thanks.

Secondly, this isn't about forcing someone to make a cake they normally wouldn't make.

The guy at Masterpiece Bakery also didn't do Halloween Cakes, because that was unchristian and he was too much of a religious ignoramus to realize the religious history of Halloween (or "All Hallow's Eve").

That's perfectly fine. He didn't provide Halloween cakes for anyone. No discrimination involved. If you want a Halloween cake, that was not the place to go.

He did however, offer the sale of Wedding Cakes (also, something that has nothing to do with the Bible, the Wedding Cake is actually a left over Roman Pagan tradition that got carried over.) The law says that if you provide a service to straights, you provide that same service to gays.

They didn't want the bride and groom topping he provided.

But they were free to buy the hetero cakes he offered to everyone.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Then stand strong for the pedophiles, one of the most oppressed sexual preferences of them all.

As well they should be.

You see, the thing is, a child can't "consent" to having sex. That's why it's oppressed.

But that's his sexual preference, you bigot.

 

[Silhouette]

Because everyone should have access to goods and services, that's why.

Even Mormons.

If a Mormon wanted a Christian baker to build a cake celebrating that God handed down Divine edicts on Golden Tablets to Mr. Smith or whoever, and the baker politely refused to do that, the baker would be within his rights. That's because the Mormon would have no state-enforced recourse to compel a Christian to condone or promote an ideology that flies directly in the face of his beliefs. If the state stepped in and told the Christian to bake the cake anyway, it would be a form of the state adopting one favorite religion over another.

Let's say a customer walked into a Mormon bakery and asked for a cake to celebrate drinking Coca-Cola. The Mormon could politely decline to do that as well. If the state forced the Mormon to build that cake, that would be the state elevating one ideology over another that is directly opposed to it.

Neither baker can be punished for practicing their faith in the public/marketplace when it comes to refusing to condone or promote other repugnant ideologies; because the state would have to "take sides" on ideologies re: enforcement-to-play-along; which is disallowed re: this USSC Ruling.

This is why this USSC Decision is a win for people of faith. The Court told Colorado "you either punish equally or respect equally". If the state opted for "punish equally" that means the state could compel a gay graphic designer to build a billboard for a busy highway that reads "homosexuality is a sin unto God" or the state could force a Christian baker to build a cake that says "Fuck God in the Ass".

You'll notice that none of this is about innate race or gender. It's about behaviors, lifestyles and ideologies...categories that the US Constitution tells us we don't have to condone or promote if we don't want to.

 

[Rustic]

The best way to protect anyone on this issue is to have “the right to refuse service to anyone” that way no one is controlling anyone else. Getting along is way overrated...

Why force anyone to bake an Adolf Hitler cake, Carl Marx cake, a Saddam Hussein cake, a Jimmy Carter cake, a Muslim cake, a Islam cake, a Buddhist cake, a transgender cake, a Christian cake, a gay cake.... etc?
What you speak of serves no purpose

First, can you learn to use the quote feature properly? Thanks.

Secondly, this isn't about forcing someone to make a cake they normally wouldn't make.

The guy at Masterpiece Bakery also didn't do Halloween Cakes, because that was unchristian and he was too much of a religious ignoramus to realize the religious history of Halloween (or "All Hallow's Eve").

That's perfectly fine. He didn't provide Halloween cakes for anyone. No discrimination involved. If you want a Halloween cake, that was not the place to go.

He did however, offer the sale of Wedding Cakes (also, something that has nothing to do with the Bible, the Wedding Cake is actually a left over Roman Pagan tradition that got carried over.) The law says that if you provide a service to straights, you provide that same service to gays.

Na, not really it should be up to the individual on what they want to do. Why force somebody into shit they want nothing to do with what purpose would that serve? Except for control... the collective loves to control people they disagree with. That’s why there is no such thing as any sort of freedom and individuality in the collective.

It’s laws like this is the reason why we have no real freedom in this country...
BTWChristianity is not a religion…

 

[dblack]

The question is, is protecting individuals from discrimination from other individuals in the collective interest.

Nope. Because all you're really doing is making the government the chief discriminator. You're taking the power of moderating social interactions away from individuals, who must do so without resorting to force, and assigning to the state, which has no such limitation.

 

[Rustic]

The question is, is protecting individuals from discrimination from other individuals in the collective interest.

Nope. Because all you're really doing is making the government the chief discriminator. You're taking the power of moderating social interactions away from individuals, who must do so without resorting to force, and assigning to the state, who has no such limitation.

Yep, Forcing someone to make baked goods for somebody else is ridiculous

 

[JoeB131]

If a Mormon wanted a Christian baker to build a cake celebrating that God handed down Divine edicts on Golden Tablets to Mr. Smith or whoever, and the baker politely refused to do that, the baker would be within his rights. That's because the Mormon would have no state-enforced recourse to compel a Christian to condone or promote an ideology that flies directly in the face of his beliefs. If the state stepped in and told the Christian to bake the cake anyway, it would be a form of the state adopting one favorite religion over another.

Well, no, the Baker would be within his rights because he doesn't offer Joseph Smith Cakes to anyone.

"Weeee... I'm a General!"

So if the baker doesn't make that kind of cake, it isn't discrimination if he doesn't make it for a Mormon.

On the other hand, if the Baker makes wedding cakes, then he has to provide them to anyone who wants to buy them.

This isn't complicated.

Let's say a customer walked into a Mormon bakery and asked for a cake to celebrate drinking Coca-Cola. The Mormon could politely decline to do that as well. If the state forced the Mormon to build that cake, that would be the state elevating one ideology over another that is directly opposed to it.

I don't think Mormons actually have a problem with drinking Coca-Cola.

Can Mormons Drink Coca-Cola?

But again, if the Mormons made all sorts of Coke Cakes for themselves and refused to sell them to Evangelicals, then you might actually have a discrimination issue to argue.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope. Because all you're really doing is making the government the chief discriminator. You're taking the power of moderating social interactions away from individuals, who must do so without resorting to force, and assigning to the state, who has no such limitation.

Well, no, I'm making the state the final arbiter, not discriminator.

So let's be honest, most people get service they don't like, they aren't going to ever shop there again, they might write a nasty Yelp review, and they'll find someone who will do business with them, and that's fine.

But there should be redress if someone discriminates, because you certainly don't want to go back to THIS shit.