Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Silhouette]

Hetero Couple: We want a gay themed wedding cake.

Baker: Sorry, I don't serve them to anybody.

Exactly what Pop23's argument is. The conscientious-objector can object to any lifestyle or ideology, or celebration thereof s/he finds wholly repugnant. The sad reckoning of the false premise "gay is innate" just happened with the USSC. And also there's this:

************

Gay Customer: I'd like a cake that says "gay pride" for our usual parade this Saturday in June.

Secular agnostic baker: Is that the parade where the penis float is right behind the S&M bondage group, just before naked dykes on bikes, followed by the local chapter of Boy Scouts? All down Main Street at noon right?

Gay Customer: Yep that's the one.

Secular agnostic baker: I'm sorry, I will not do or create anything that supports that event.

Gay customer: That's discrimination. I saw the cake you made for the Elk's Lodge parade just last month!

Secular agnostic baker: sorry. I don't condone or want any part whatsoever with an event that celebrates public sex acts put on where children are invited to watch, or would be watching.

Gay customer: You're gonna hear from my lawyer!!

Secular agnostic baker: ok. Just as long as I don't hear from my conscience.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Gay customer: You're gonna hear from my lawyer!!

Secular agnostic baker: ok. Just as long as I don't hear from my conscience.

Assholes unite over literal liturgical litigiosity!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Hetero Couple: We want a gay themed wedding cake.

Baker: Sorry, I don't serve them to anybody.

Heterosexual pair: Ah, we see. You promote the institutionalized bigotry of the heterosexual majority by discriminating against the gay minority. Big of you!
Meanwhile, our mom still needs a wedding cake...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hetero Couple: We want a gay themed wedding cake.

Baker: Sorry, I don't serve them to anybody.

Except that Mr. Phillips agreed in court documents that there was never any discussion of design. He refused services as soon has it because known who the customers were.


.>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Gay customer: You're gonna hear from my lawyer!!

Secular agnostic baker: ok. Just as long as I don't hear from my conscience.

Assholes unite over literal liturgical litigiosity!

Again, it's OK Grumblenuts. It's gonna be alright.

You had to know that when you folks wanted out of the closet, that it meant that all of your habits would be exposed to the light of day; the good, the bad and the ugly. Have I mentioned pride parades put on in anticipation of kids watching? Oh, right, I've mentioned that. I wonder if the USSC Justices have ever seen a pride parade with kids watching? Do you suppose they have?

 

[Aba Incieni]

Hetero Couple: We want a gay themed wedding cake.

Baker: Sorry, I don't serve them to anybody.

Heterosexual pair: Ah, we see. You promote the institutionalized bigotry of the heterosexual majority by discriminating against the gay minority. Big of you!
Meanwhile, our mom still needs a wedding cake...

Nope. Just sell certain kinds of cakes, that's all. Do you want to force me to sell you something I don't, Herr Goebbels?

 

[Aba Incieni]

Hetero Couple: We want a gay themed wedding cake.

Baker: Sorry, I don't serve them to anybody.

Except that Mr. Phillips agreed in court documents that there was never any discussion of design. He refused services as soon has it because known who the customers were.


.>>>>

Argue with the SCOTUS.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope. Just sell certain kinds of cakes, that's all.

Mr. Phillips maintains a catalog of wedding cakes on his web site. He would not have sold a wedding cake to same sex customers even if they had picked one from the catalog.

There is no "certain kind" of cake. They are the same cake the difference being who is buying it.

Do you want to force me to sell you something I don't, Herr Goebbels?

Nope, I think Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and rights of property and association restored to private business owners.

But you don't get to lie and make up shit either. You tried to infer it was refused because of design, that was false as Mr. Phillips and the customers never discussed design.


.>>>>

 

[LittleNipper]

Gender is fixed. Yes, it is. Race is fixed. LGBT is a habitual lifestyle. Just one repugnant lifestyle of a zillion out there. According to the 14th Amendment, how is it that just one lifestyle may order Christians around to agree with it while others cannot? Please be specific. And remember that LGBT pride parades perform deviant sex acts with the anticipation that children will be watching. Just in case you're going to try to firm up an argument around "some lifestyles are just not (subjectively) acceptable for special privileges etc."

How utterly ridiculous. You seem to know so little about what you're saying, you can't even articulate what you meant by their lifestyle. Have you ever been to a gay rights parade? Do you know anything about LGBT people other than what you read on the net?

For years, people have express their dissatisfaction with the LGBT community’s propensity for over-the-top parades and flamboyant displays of pride. Admittedly, I too used to be uncomfortable with Pride parades, and even just Pride in general. My own impressions of these events came from stereotypical images shown throughout mainstream media; pictures of half-naked individuals and extravagant drag queens. I knew these parades scared certain people, even some of those trying to be more open-minded, so I thought, why alienate them further with displays of gayness?

I guess what I really never gave much thought to was most LGBT people have spent the majority of their lives hiding their true identities, ashamed and worried about what the public, the family, and friends might think if they knew who they really were. Gay pride is about coming out, expressing yourself, thumbing your noise at traditions that have destroyed million lives over the year.

The media concentrates on the most over the top behavior but what you don't see in the media are tens of thousands of people, gay and straight, adults, kids, and families taking a stance against discrimination and violence toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Many of these marchers have kids, brothers, and sisters, and friends that been victims violence, abuse, and discrimination. These people are marching to promote self-affirmation, dignity and equality, pride as opposed to shame.

How many homosexuals have died of AIDS? How many homosexuals have committed suicide? How many of those who committed suicide also had AIDS? Not all behavior patterns are dignified. And not all behaviors are equally productive. I'm sorry that some find that their only mode of expression is sexual in nature --- I find that rather limited.

Their only mode of expression is sexual. LBGTs are heavy into art, music, and drama and just as diverse in expressing themselves as heterosexuals.

The fact that sexual preference is what separates homosexuals from heterosexuals causes people to assume that sex is their only interest and activity and it dominates their lives. Studies have show that gays and lesbians are no more or less sexually active than heterosexuals. The fact is there are many homosexuals that are essential asexual with little or no interest in sexual activity. They just prefer those of their own sex.

Then they should embrace the similarities and reject that which is of no use or productive or at the very least not either flaunt it publicly nor demand everyone else to provide amenities in support of their sexual business (which is no one elses business so long as the LGBT community keep it among themselves).
I am well aware that actors & actresses, comedians, makeup artists, hair dressers, and artists are capable of living heterosexual lifestyles, as well as, one which is homosexual in nature (that is true in all professions)---- that's why it is considered a choice by many. No one needs to be homosexual in order to fulfill their destiny --- and they certainly will not have any children behaving as such. And I find nothing wrong with celibacy. It can be a gift from GOD or a very lonely road if one rejects GOD.

Actually many homosexuals like heterosexuals have a very low sex drive. In fact about 1% are asexual which raises an interesting question. Do Christians that consider homosexuality a sin, consider a gay couple who are asexual and thus do not perform any sex acts sinful?

People who do not perform any sex acts cannot be considered sexual anymore than a child or a baby. Thinking about lying is not sinful. Telling a lie is. There is nothing wrong with love; however, the act of sex was created by GOD so that man might procreate.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Nope. Just sell certain kinds of cakes, that's all.

Mr. Phillips maintains a catalog of wedding cakes on his web site. He would not have sold a wedding cake to same sex customers even if they had picked one from the catalog.

There is no "certain kind" of cake. They are the same cake the difference being who is buying it.

Do you want to force me to sell you something I don't, Herr Goebbels?

Nope, I think Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and rights of property and association restored to private business owners.

But you don't get to lie and make up shit either. You tried to infer it was refused because of design, that was false as Mr. Phillips and the customers never discussed design.


.>>>>

He doesn't sell certain cakes to anyone. Doesn't matter where they put their weiners.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Argue with the SCOTUS.

No need to argue with the SCOTUS, they did not rule that Mr. Phillips was exempt from the generally applicable Public Accommodation law. They ruled that the Commission tainted the process -- that was it. They even said that the fundamental issue of freedom of religion exempting one from generally applicable laws would have to wait for a later case.

As a matter of fact the SCOTUS as issued rulings that Public Accommodation laws are Constitutional and that religious reasons and free speech do not exempt one from generally applicable law. See such cases as Employment Division v. Smith, Newman v. Piggie Park, letting the State court ruling stand in Elane Photography v. New Mexico, Bob Jones University v. United States.

There is another case that the SCOTUS has had since (IIRC) November called Arlene's Flowers v. Washington State, a case very similar to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case where the State Supreme Court ruled against a Florist. A case without the same type of taint as the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. It will be interesting to see if the SCOTUS accepts the writ of certiorari in that case (accepting it for review) or will let the State court ruling stand.


.>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

He doesn't sell certain cakes to anyone. Doesn't matter where they put their weiners.

If he didn't sell wedding cakes to anyone, then there would be no issue.

However Mr. Phillips did sell wedding cakes and refused base on who the customers were.


.>>>>

 

[Aba Incieni]

Argue with the SCOTUS.

No need to argue with the SCOTUS, they did not rule that Mr. Phillips was exempt from the generally applicable Public Accommodation law. They ruled that the Commission tainted the process -- that was it. They even said that the fundamental issue of freedom of religion exempting one from generally applicable laws would have to wait for a later case.

As a matter of fact the SCOTUS as issued rulings that Public Accommodation laws are Constitutional and that religious reasons and free speech do not exempt one from generally applicable law. See such cases as Employment Division v. Smith, Newman v. Piggie Park, letting the State court ruling stand in Elane Photography v. New Mexico, Bob Jones University v. United States.

There is another case that the SCOTUS has had since (IIRC) November called Arlene's Flowers v. Washington State, a case very similar to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case where the State Supreme Court ruled against a Florist. A case without the same type of taint as the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. It will be interesting to see if the SCOTUS accepts the writ of certiorari in that case (accepting it for review) or will let the State court ruling stand.


.>>>>

Yeah, I know what they ruled. Tainted it, you say. Tainted it how, exactly?

 

[Aba Incieni]

He doesn't sell certain cakes to anyone. Doesn't matter where they put their weiners.

If he didn't sell wedding cakes to anyone, then there would be no issue.

However Mr. Phillips did sell wedding cakes and refused base on who the customers were.


.>>>>

Then Jewish delis and muslim falafel shops will be forced to sell pork.

Maybe you can force the darkies to pick cotton while you're at it.

 

[BigTruck]

Interesting. I think this is a good decision because few bakeries will turn down business for this reason. Gays don't need that protection as they are not at risk of not being able to have their cake.

The owner offered to sell them other cakes, just not a wedding cake, I wonder if he does that to fornicators, adulterers or inter-racial relationships?

What the hell does a fornicators cake look like?

People’s religious beliefs are protected by the Constitution. If you don’t like that, go find a different country.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Gay customer: You're gonna hear from my lawyer!!

Secular agnostic baker: ok. Just as long as I don't hear from my conscience.

Assholes unite over literal liturgical litigiosity!

Again, it's OK Grumblenuts. It's gonna be alright.

You had to know that when you folks wanted out of the closet, that it meant that all of your habits would be exposed to the light of day; the good, the bad and the ugly. Have I mentioned pride parades put on in anticipation of kids watching? Oh, right, I've mentioned that. I wonder if the USSC Justices have ever seen a pride parade with kids watching? Do you suppose they have?

What you failed to respond to there was me poking fun at both speculative litigants. But hey, any excuse to spread more hatred and division amiright!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Hetero Couple: We want a gay themed wedding cake.

Baker: Sorry, I don't serve them to anybody.

Heterosexual pair: Ah, we see. You promote the institutionalized bigotry of the heterosexual majority by discriminating against the gay minority. Big of you!
Meanwhile, our mom still needs a wedding cake...

Nope. Just sell certain kinds of cakes, that's all. Do you want to force me to sell you something I don't, Herr Goebbels?

Ah, and I can see your cute little sign now too: "Whites only complimentary water-ice with any order over 1 dollar!" Nice touch!

 

[jillian]

Wrong, he refused to sell two gays a wedding cake. The baking is clearly all irrelevant. Even if he had one freshly baked and all ready for a customer who just called cancelling the order, he would not have sold them that cake! His excuse being, since it's a wedding cake, the Bible tells him he can't "engage" in their ceremony, past, present, or future. Correct? And these are not simply "people", but members of a persecuted minority class attempting to celebrate their recent decision to formally and legally commit to taking care of one another long term. Marriage. So you would not be "hurt" if both you and a partner went to buy a wedding cake and the store owner told you "Sorry, I can't service your kind. The Bible tells me so."? Sure you wouldn't. "not saying bigots should be allowed to hurt people"? Yes, you are.

No, actually the baker did offer to bake various other things for their wedding, just not the wedding cake.

He was totally willing to sell things to homos.

Then they shouldn’t run a bakery.

 

[Grumblenuts]

He doesn't sell certain cakes to anyone. Doesn't matter where they put their weiners.

If he didn't sell wedding cakes to anyone, then there would be no issue.

However Mr. Phillips did sell wedding cakes and refused base on who the customers were.


.>>>>

Then Jewish delis and muslim falafel shops will be forced to sell pork.

Maybe you can force the darkies to pick cotton while you're at it.

Sure hope your life never ends up depending upon your reading comprehension.

 

[AZGAL]

wedding cake emoji with tears next?