Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[JoeB131]

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

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

I'm sure he didn't put the same two little figures on every cake.

Some of his cake didn't have any figures at all on them.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

But when asking the state to enforce one ideology, behavior or lifestyle over another, you have just asked the state to favor a behavior, lifestyle or ideology over another, which the state CANNOT DO. By Law. Behaviors, lifestyles and ideologies are in a different category than innate race or gender.

 

[JoeB131]

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

so if I refuse to serve any food to a black person, that should be okay, then?

Or a Mormon?

How about if I'm a tow truck driver and I realize the person stranded on the side of the road I was sent to pick up is Jewish... should I just leave him stranded?

Where does "It's okay to discriminate" end?

 

[Aba Incieni]

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

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

I'm sure he didn't put the same two little figures on every cake.

Some of his cake didn't have any figures at all on them.

Nor decorations. He refuses to be forced to labor.

Whether it's decorating cakes or picking cotton, you lefties gotta be forcing people to work for you.

 

[Rustic]

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

so if I refuse to serve any food to a black person, that should be okay, then?

Or a Mormon?

How about if I'm a tow truck driver and I realize the person stranded on the side of the road I was sent to pick up is Jewish... should I just leave him stranded?

Where does "It's okay to discriminate" end?

First of all you should educate yourself... Catholics represent Catholics they speak for Catholics and only Catholics.

That’s why I say the right to refuse service to anybody hurts nobody, except for control freaks. That way you get rid of all control...

 

[Pop23]

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.

You mean he should be FORCED out of business

 

[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.

You mean he should be FORCED out of business

Just like a politically correct control freak, if they can’t control you they will destroy you…

 

[JoeB131]

You mean he should be FORCED out of business

That works, too.

First of all you should educate yourself... Catholics represent Catholics they speak for Catholics and only Catholics.

That’s why I say the right to refuse service to anybody hurts nobody, except for control freaks. That way you get rid of all control...

I'm sure you pine for these Good Old Days...

Ah, whenever you hear one of these guys talking about "Freedom" what they really mean is 'White Male Christian Privilege"

 

[Aba Incieni]

You mean he should be FORCED out of business

That works, too.

First of all you should educate yourself... Catholics represent Catholics they speak for Catholics and only Catholics.

That’s why I say the right to refuse service to anybody hurts nobody, except for control freaks. That way you get rid of all control...

I'm sure you pine for these Good Old Days...

View attachment 199104

Ah, whenever you hear one of these guys talking about "Freedom" what they really mean is 'White Male Christian Privilege"

Your Democrat signs prove our point. Blacks were forced to labor by Democrats against their will, too.

 

[Rustic]

You mean he should be FORCED out of business

That works, too.

First of all you should educate yourself... Catholics represent Catholics they speak for Catholics and only Catholics.

That’s why I say the right to refuse service to anybody hurts nobody, except for control freaks. That way you get rid of all control...

I'm sure you pine for these Good Old Days...

View attachment 199104

Ah, whenever you hear one of these guys talking about "Freedom" what they really mean is 'White Male Christian Privilege"

Lol
You do realize I’ve lived in a socialist controlled environment my whole adolescence, it’s called the pine ridge Indian reservation... being 100% Oglala Sioux

 

[JoeB131]

L9l
You do realize I’ve lived in a socialist controlled environment my whole adolescence, it’s called the pine ridge Indian reservation... being 100% Oglala Sioux

Sure you are Chief Running Gag.

Your Democrat signs prove our point. Blacks were forced to labor by Democrats against their will, too.

Um, no, those signs were put up by business owners you want to have free range to discriminate.

 

[Aba Incieni]

L9l
You do realize I’ve lived in a socialist controlled environment my whole adolescence, it’s called the pine ridge Indian reservation... being 100% Oglala Sioux

Sure you are Chief Running Gag.

Your Democrat signs prove our point. Blacks were forced to labor by Democrats against their will, too.

Um, no, those signs were put up by business owners you want to have free range to discriminate.

Democrat business owners from the south during the Dem's Jim Crow heyday.

The same people who forced blacks to pick cotton and enter through back doors and drink from different fountains and force others to bake cakes.

 

[Rustic]

L9l
You do realize I’ve lived in a socialist controlled environment my whole adolescence, it’s called the pine ridge Indian reservation... being 100% Oglala Sioux

Sure you are Chief Running Gag.

Your Democrat signs prove our point. Blacks were forced to labor by Democrats against their will, too.

Um, no, those signs were put up by business owners you want to have free range to discriminate.

Lol
See you just made my point you can’t stand not being in control...

 

[Flopper]

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.

Yep. Somebody is butthurt about this USSC Decision.

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

Actually Windsor I don't have much problem with; other than individual states not inviting children into the contract-revisions they were attempting to make new terms that extinguish hope for life for beneficiaries to both a mother and father. But the 56 times Windsor averred that marriage is solely up to the states to define is a sound principle.

Too bad Obergefell pretended to draw from Windsor while ignoring the essence of Windsor (the reason she won: "states only define, not feds"). Talk about having your cake and eating it too! (since we're on a cake theme). Check out the 56 quotes from Windsor here: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

The Free Exercise Clause of the 1st amendment reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. If the state was forcing the baker to commit or facilitate a homosexual act and in so doing prevents the baker from exercising his religious beliefs then one could argue that the law violates his constitutional rights. However, that is not what happened. The gay couple only asked the baker to sell them a cake to celebrate their marriage. They never asked the baker to create a cake or participate in their marriage. The simple act of selling a wedding cake to a gay couple would in no way involve the baker in any homosexual acts. If that were the case, the agent that rented the couple a limousine, the real estate agent that rented them their apartment, the grocery store that sells them food would all be facilitating homosexual acts which would be ridiculous.

BTW, there is no gay lifestyle just as there is no straight lifestyle. Gays are as diverse in the ways they lead their lives as anyone else. The phrase "gay lifestyle" is used to denigrate lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.

Commentary: Here’s Why the Supreme Court Wedding Cake Case Is So Complicated

 

[Rustic]

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.

Yep. Somebody is butthurt about this USSC Decision.

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

Actually Windsor I don't have much problem with; other than individual states not inviting children into the contract-revisions they were attempting to make new terms that extinguish hope for life for beneficiaries to both a mother and father. But the 56 times Windsor averred that marriage is solely up to the states to define is a sound principle.

Too bad Obergefell pretended to draw from Windsor while ignoring the essence of Windsor (the reason she won: "states only define, not feds"). Talk about having your cake and eating it too! (since we're on a cake theme). Check out the 56 quotes from Windsor here: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

The Free Exercise Clause of the 1st amendment reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. If the state was forcing the baker to commit or facilitate a homosexual act and in so doing prevents the baker from exercising his religious beliefs then one could argue that the law violates his constitutional rights. However, that is not what happened. The gay couple only asked the baker to sell them a cake to celebrate their marriage. They never asked the baker to create a cake or participate in their marriage. The simple act of selling a wedding cake to a gay couple would in no way involve the baker in any homosexual acts. If that were the case, the agent that rented the couple a limousine, the real estate agent that rented them their apartment, the grocery store that sells them food would all be facilitating homosexual acts which would be ridiculous.

BTW, there is no gay lifestyle just as there is no straight lifestyle. Gays are as diverse in the ways they lead their lives as anyone else. The phrase "gay lifestyle" is used to denigrate lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.

Commentary: Here’s Why the Supreme Court Wedding Cake Case Is So Complicated

Why force the baker into the whole situation that they find absolutely repugnant? What are you some type a fucked up control freak? Why force that repugnant shit on people that want nothing to do with it?

Progressives in your collective are so fucked in the head they can’t even see that the right of refuse service to anyone helps everybody… It takes away all unnecessary control

 

[dblack]

I'm sure you pine for these Good Old Days...

No excuse for a bad law. You do get that, right? There are bad laws that need to be corrected. Happens all the time. That doesn't mean those who want them corrected are miscreants or want some terrible outcome. You're just clinging to a strawman.

 

[Flopper]

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.

So I am a worshiper of Quezacoatl, the Winged Serpent of Aztec belief.

Do I have a right to go around cutting out the hearts of my enemies, in my belief that we need to do so to keep the Sun God happy? Clearly by not doing so I risk the threat of being consigned to rivers of blood in Mictlan... so your silly murder laws should not apply to me, as my beliefs take precedence.

See how silly your argument sounds now?

The Supreme Court has never defined religion but the courts do not in general uphold religious beliefs as a justification for crime unless the person is brainwashed or is criminally insane. Where things get murky is when one constitution right, the freedom to worship is claimed to result in the violation of another person's constitutional right.

I'm always amazed how some people seem to believe the constitution was divinely inspired; that is the founding fathers always selected the right word of phrase and their beliefs are all as valid today as they were then. Constitutional scholars labor over the intended meaning of each phrase just as religious scholars labors over each verse in the bible.

 

[Pop23]

You mean he should be FORCED out of business

That works, too.

First of all you should educate yourself... Catholics represent Catholics they speak for Catholics and only Catholics.

That’s why I say the right to refuse service to anybody hurts nobody, except for control freaks. That way you get rid of all control...

I'm sure you pine for these Good Old Days...

View attachment 199104

Ah, whenever you hear one of these guys talking about "Freedom" what they really mean is 'White Male Christian Privilege"

Nope, none of those are “fluid”

 

[Pop23]

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.

Yep. Somebody is butthurt about this USSC Decision.

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

Actually Windsor I don't have much problem with; other than individual states not inviting children into the contract-revisions they were attempting to make new terms that extinguish hope for life for beneficiaries to both a mother and father. But the 56 times Windsor averred that marriage is solely up to the states to define is a sound principle.

Too bad Obergefell pretended to draw from Windsor while ignoring the essence of Windsor (the reason she won: "states only define, not feds"). Talk about having your cake and eating it too! (since we're on a cake theme). Check out the 56 quotes from Windsor here: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

The Free Exercise Clause of the 1st amendment reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. If the state was forcing the baker to commit or facilitate a homosexual act and in so doing prevents the baker from exercising his religious beliefs then one could argue that the law violates his constitutional rights. However, that is not what happened. The gay couple only asked the baker to sell them a cake to celebrate their marriage. They never asked the baker to create a cake or participate in their marriage. The simple act of selling a wedding cake to a gay couple would in no way involve the baker in any homosexual acts. If that were the case, the agent that rented the couple a limousine, the real estate agent that rented them their apartment, the grocery store that sells them food would all be facilitating homosexual acts which would be ridiculous.

BTW, there is no gay lifestyle just as there is no straight lifestyle. Gays are as diverse in the ways they lead their lives as anyone else. The phrase "gay lifestyle" is used to denigrate lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.

Commentary: Here’s Why the Supreme Court Wedding Cake Case Is So Complicated

If heterosexual lifestyle is not demeaning, then why would homosexual lifestyle be?

Issues perhaps? But then again, I don’t care.

 

[Rustic]

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.

So I am a worshiper of Quezacoatl, the Winged Serpent of Aztec belief.

Do I have a right to go around cutting out the hearts of my enemies, in my belief that we need to do so to keep the Sun God happy? Clearly by not doing so I risk the threat of being consigned to rivers of blood in Mictlan... so your silly murder laws should not apply to me, as my beliefs take precedence.

See how silly your argument sounds now?

The Supreme Court has never defined religion but the courts do not in general uphold religious beliefs as a justification for crime unless the person is brainwashed or is criminally insane. Where things get murky is when one constitution right, the freedom to worship is claimed to result in the violation of another person's constitutional right.

I'm always amazed how some people seem to believe the constitution was divinely inspired; that is the founding fathers always selected the right word of phrase and their beliefs are all as valid today as they were then. Constitutional scholars labor over the intended meaning of each phrase just as religious scholars labors over each verse in the bible.

People just interpret the Bible, they do not determine its meaning...That’s up to an higher power.
It’s like these dumbasses that think that the old and New Testament are opposed to each other in anyway. If the Bible is not taken as an whole it’s gibberish.
It’s a Christian thing some may not understand