Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Silhouette]

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.

Lifestyles don't have Constitutional rights. But a person does have the right to their deep spiritual convictions. Passively refusing to condone or promote another lifestyle is not "a crime". The baker didn't whip the gay lifestyle men with a cat 'o nine tails or throw a brick in their face. He merely said "no, my deeply held convictions will not allow me to do that."

The courts just began to clear away the murkiness by saying others must be "respectful" of the baker's passive pass on baking a "gay wedding" cake. Making the repugnant (see gay pride parades put on in anticipation of children attending for details) gay lifestyle more special than others was a miscarriage of justice and unconstitutional. It was subjective and done by just 5 unelected lawyers in DC; one of which who was telling the press weeks before the Hearing about her clear and undeniable bias on the case...

Gay is a lifestyle. We will come back to this point again and again until it sinks in. If one repugnant lifestyle gets special rights and privileges then all repugnant lifestyles must. Are you wholly unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment and how it works? What is more repugnant than a group that loosely identifies their lifestyles by deviant sex acts and who celebrate that lifestlye by performing those deviant sex acts in a public "pride" parade, hoping children will be watching? No, I mean really. What is more repugnant than that? If that clears the bar, then they all do. Will a Christian have to condone and promote ALL of the potential lifestyles or face banishment from the marketplace?

 

[Flopper]

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?

Most assuredly, no. A tow truck driver that offers his services to public, will certainly be opening himself up for a discrimination law suit either based on State Accommodates laws or federal civil rights laws if he refuses a tow based on his religion beliefs.

Some people have the mistaken idea that they can discriminate based on race, religion, age, sex, etc if they can find a verse in some holy book that appears to say it's ok. It's been tried over and over and rarely works such as the girl who claimed prostitution was part of her religion, an ancient Egyptian sect. Jehovah Witness has tried many times to get favorable court rulings based on violation of 1st amendment rights. Most of the time it failed. Judges aren't dummies. They can usually determine if the action required by law prevents free exercise of religion. However in some case, such as the baker, determining whether the action would prevent free exercise of religion is not clear.

 

[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?

Most assuredly, no. A tow truck driver that offers his services to public, will certainly be opening himself up for a discrimination law suit either based on State Accommodates laws or federal civil rights laws if he refuses a tow based on his religion beliefs.

Some people have the mistaken idea that they can discriminate based on race, religion, age, sex, etc if they can find a verse in some holy book that appears to say it's ok. It's been tried over and over and rarely works such as the girl who claimed prostitution was part of her religion, an ancient Egyptian sect. Jehovah Witness has tried many times to get favorable court rulings based on violation of 1st amendment rights. Most of the time it failed. Judges aren't dummies. They can usually determine if the action required by law prevents free exercise of religion. However in some case, such as the baker, determining whether the action would prevent free exercise of religion is not clear.

You are proving my point, no one is hurt by the right to refuse service to anybody. It’s all about control with you guys isn’t it?

 

[Silhouette]

They can usually determine if the action required by law prevents free exercise of religion. However in some case, such as the baker, determining whether the action would prevent free exercise of religion is not clear.

Jude 1 of the New Testament makes it crystal clear. If a Christian allows gays to hijack the paramount social icon of marriage (thus uber-normalizing that lifestyle in his society), most absolutely he knows his soul will burn in hell for an eternity. The Big Guy doesn't like "blending" of the basic social fabric (with its random flaws) He created. In other words, He doesn't want the entire fabric to be flawed by attrition that always comes when perverse social trends run amok (Obergefell) and escalates over a generation or three. No soul alive then will have the faintest clue what God's basic fabric used to be.

Scalia was right for secular reasons:. Obergefell is a grave, grave fuck up. But it's a fuck up for even more important reasons as well. Hence why the Christian must be left to passively refuse.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Most assuredly, no. A tow truck driver that offers his services to public, will certainly be opening himself up for a discrimination law suit either based on State Accommodates laws or federal civil rights laws if he refuses a tow based on his religion beliefs.

Some people have the mistaken idea that they can discriminate based on race, religion, age, sex, etc if they can find a verse in some holy book that appears to say it's ok. It's been tried over and over and rarely works such as the girl who claimed prostitution was part of her religion, an ancient Egyptian sect. Jehovah Witness has tried many times to get favorable court rulings based on violation of 1st amendment rights. Most of the time it failed. Judges aren't dummies. They can usually determine if the action required by law prevents free exercise of religion. However in some case, such as the baker, determining whether the action would prevent free exercise of religion is not clear.

The Bible does not abhor towing cars.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

Also amazing how the most "original intent" / "strict constitutionalist" blowhard always winds up being the first to change everything once granted the power.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I don’t care.

Yet keep coming back for some reason... "Issues perhaps?" Insanity, what is it?

 

[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.

Also amazing how the most "original intent" / "strict constitutionalist" blowhard always winds up being the first to change everything once granted the power.

There’s nothing constitutional about forcing a baker to make baked goods for someone else

 

[Grumblenuts]

There’s nothing constitutional about forcing a baker to make baked goods for someone else

Great, if only you could actually show one being forced to bake a thing...
.Your choice to live in some dream world is just that.

 

[Rustic]

There’s nothing constitutional about forcing a baker to make baked goods for someone else

Great, if only you could actually show one being forced to bake a thing...
.Your choice to live in some dream world is just that.

The right to refuse service to anyone is the best policy, that way no one is controlling someone else

 

[Pop23]

I don’t care.

Yet keep coming back for some reason... "Issues perhaps?" Insanity, what is it?

Why don’t you include the entire post?

Because you practice dumbfuckery?

That’s my best guess

 

[Pop23]

There’s nothing constitutional about forcing a baker to make baked goods for someone else

Great, if only you could actually show one being forced to bake a thing...
.Your choice to live in some dream world is just that.

Duress and fines are considered force.

I thought all adults knew that.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The right to refuse service to anyone is the best policy, that way no one is controlling someone else

Iow, you can't show a baker/proprietor being physically forced or threatened with violence to bake a damn thing here in the U.S.. Big surprise.
People have always created or accepted government control when population growth naturally made the group unmanageable otherwise. Most understand (almost innately) that no person, government, or law can suit everyone. A more perfect union.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Duress and fines are considered force.

I thought all adults knew that.

See, you thought. Clearly no help to be found there! Stop doing that.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Using terms like "fag" or "homo" or "cum guzzler" are expressions of childish homophobia.

Well..homophobia for sure. Childish? Nah..kids are not naturally homophobic. It take adults to program that into them.

Bullshit. Any normal boy would be offended, even sickened, at the thought of having sex with another male. That doesn't take training to be homophobic because it's not homophobic. It's being normal.

Bullshit. Homophobia is not about wanting or not wanting to have sex with another male. It's about hating some else for their decisions or who they are. What does it matter to you what someone else chooses to do with another consenting adult?
Homophobia is not natural..and it is declining rapidly in the US. That is what bothers many here on this board...their prejudices are not being passed on to the next generation.

Your political correctness makes you look like a pussy

I suspect that appearances may be deceiving..LOL! I note you did not actually address what I said..and I doubt that what I said is 'politically correct' as much as it is simply correct.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

except this is a perfectly fine law. If you are a homophobic baker, then you have options.

1) Do the service you promised to do.
2) Find something else to do for a living where you won't have to deal with icky, icky, gay folks.

 

[Grumblenuts]

1) Do the service you promised to do.
2) Find something else to do for a living where you won't have to deal with icky, icky, gay folks.

I'd suggest running for office, but... then again, probably need support from at last some of them icky, gay folks...
What a bummer, huh? People - can't live with 'em - can't live without 'em!

 

[JoeB131]

Lifestyles don't have Constitutional rights.

Being gay isn't a lifestyle... it's a sexual orientation. No matter how hard to pray away the gay, you are still queer... I'm telling you this for your own good, before you end up next to a rent-boy and a pile of blow..

But a person does have the right to their deep spiritual convictions.

So If I deeply believe I need to cut out my enemies' hearts to appease the Winged Serpent, you are okay with that, right?

The courts just began to clear away the murkiness by saying others must be "respectful" of the baker's passive pass on baking a "gay wedding" cake. Making the repugnant (see gay pride parades put on in anticipation of children attending for details) gay lifestyle more special than others was a miscarriage of justice and unconstitutional. It was subjective and done by just 5 unelected lawyers in DC; one of which who was telling the press weeks before the Hearing about her clear and undeniable bias on the case...

Yup, because here's the thing.

When you get right down to it, all your fucked up homophobic arguments boil down to two things.

1) You think it's icky. (In fact, you think it's so fucking icky you can't stop talking about it.)

2) Your Imaginary Friend in the sky says it's bad. (Although he says a lot of things are bad, and I don't see you running around stoning people who work on Sunday.

 

[JoeB131]

Jude 1 of the New Testament makes it crystal clear. If a Christian allows gays to hijack the paramount social icon of marriage (thus uber-normalizing that lifestyle in his society), most absolutely he knows his soul will burn in hell for an eternity.

1) SHow me where Jude 1 is in the constitution.
2) Prove to me that Hell actually exists

thanks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No constitutional provision provides anyone to practice any particular living.