Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Pop23]

"So, what part of the PA is the Cafe owner violating?"
"that would be federal and state Public Accommodation laws for refusing service based on the religion of the customer."

The Owner is simply observing the religion that the customer has proclaimed as his own.

So some new right to interpret another's religion for them grants you power to discriminate against them? Gee, really gotta wonder what part of "refusing service based on the religion of the customer." you still don't grok?

Nope, he specifically told the Cafe Owner what the Religion demanded, and the Cafe Owner, knowing the "fluid" nature of Religion made a very well thought out policy, thus avoiding future issues.

It's all very considerate and kind of him.

Says you, and obviously in direct violation of PA laws says everyone with two remaining healthy synapses to rub together.

"Say's you" is an argument forwarded by either a 12 year old or an adult with severe immaturity problem.

I'm thinking it's the latter with you.

Actually it was just a statement of fact. You said it. I said you said it. Quoted it and all! There's no "argument" to be had there,... but I've noticed how you never let facts ruin any apparent new opportunity to make a complete ass of yourself. Poor fella. Your gun control advocate face feels for ya, I can just tell.

I was right, you have a severe immaturity problem.

 

[Pop23]

Eeeww, seems my little exploration of Richard Ds has struck a noive or three!

Who knew simply mentioning 3 Dicks would drive y'all nuts?
All you devout haters, more pork knee-jerky, please!

You like 3 Dicks? I would'nt doubt that dude.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Eeeww, seems my little exploration of Richard Ds has struck a noive or three!

Who knew simply mentioning 3 Dicks would drive y'all nuts?
All you devout haters, more pork knee-jerky, please!

You like 3 Dicks? I would doubt that dude.

He's got room for one more.

 

[Flopper]

The need is for essential goods and services. Housing, food, etc. What the PA's did were to trivialize what were essential law. Equating the need for Housing to the need for a specific decoration bastardizes the entire idea that created these laws in the first place and become overly political and cumbersome.

I don't disagree. I will note that anti-employment and anti-housing laws are different sections of the federal and state law and not Public Accommodation laws.


.>>>>

Might be a bit tough since 45 states have such laws. The only ones that don't are as expected, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas. They are still fighting the civil rights act.

 

[Silhouette]

You like 3 Dicks? I would doubt that dude.

He's got room for one more.

I guess that happens over time.

 

[Silhouette]

Might be a bit tough since 45 states have such laws. The only ones that don't are as expected, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas. They are still fighting the civil rights act.

How is it under the new USSC "neutrality" mandated on states that they can pick one repugnant subjectively-defined behavioral group that likes to do graphic deviant sex stuff in public parades where they invite kids to watch and other behavioral groups equally subjectively defined are given no protections at all? Who decides? According to the 14th is such favoritism in the "protected lifestyle" category legally-disallowed when paired with this recent USSC decision?

How many other lifestyles are included automatically (see : 14th)? Which are disallowed? Which are allowed? Why? I mean the bar has been set pretty low (see pride parades in front of kids).

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Court didn't spin their response to that. They suggested Colorado remain "respectful" of the baker's faith. Now what was that all about?

The court didn't say that the Colorado Commission and courts must side with the baker, only that the Commission could not be openly hostile. Of note is the court specifically sayings that the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision did not rule on a religious exemption to generally applicable laws, that decision would have to be addressed in a later case.


.>>>>

 

[dblack]

The Court didn't spin their response to that. They suggested Colorado remain "respectful" of the baker's faith. Now what was that all about?

The court didn't say that the Colorado Commission and courts must side with the baker, only that the Commission could not be openly hostile. Of note is the court specifically sayings that the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision did not rule on a religious exemption to generally applicable laws, that decision would have to be addressed in a later case.


.>>>>

More Roberts' deflection. He's a master at finding excuses to avoid ruling on important issues.

 

[WorldWatcher]

More Roberts' deflection. He's a master at finding excuses to avoid ruling on important issues.

The ruling was 7-2 and the opinion was written by Kennedy.


.>>>>

 

[AZGAL]

Roberts still influenced the decision...Roberts: “wobbly.”

 

[dblack]

More Roberts' deflection. He's a master at finding excuses to avoid ruling on important issues.

The ruling was 7-2 and the opinion was written by Kennedy.


.>>>>

Fair to say. But it's his Court, and they clearly like to punt on first down.

 

[Flopper]

Might be a bit tough since 45 states have such laws. The only ones that don't are as expected, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas. They are still fighting the civil rights act.

How is it under the new USSC "neutrality" mandated on states that they can pick one repugnant subjectively-defined behavioral group that likes to do graphic deviant sex stuff in public parades where they invite kids to watch and other behavioral groups equally subjectively defined are given no protections at all? Who decides? According to the 14th is such favoritism in the "protected lifestyle" category legally-disallowed when paired with this recent USSC decision?

How many other lifestyles are included automatically (see : 14th)? Which are disallowed? Which are allowed? Why? I mean the bar has been set pretty low (see pride parades in front of kids).

I wonder how many businesses actually have a problem with public accommodations laws. The purpose of business is to make money and you don't do that by refusing to serve your customers.

If you can't serve homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics, people with disabilities, etc.. then maybe your business should not be open to the public because you are not serving the public.

It is possible to have a private business operated as a private club or through a religious or nonprofit organisation or to sell through retailers that do serve the public but to open your doors to the public and exude millions of people because of your personal prejudices, not in this country.

 

[Silhouette]

How is it under the new USSC "neutrality" mandated on states that they can pick one repugnant subjectively-defined behavioral group that likes to do graphic deviant sex stuff in public parades where they invite kids to watch and other behavioral groups equally subjectively defined are given no protections at all? Who decides? According to the 14th is such favoritism in the "protected lifestyle" category legally-disallowed when paired with this recent USSC decision?

How many other lifestyles are included automatically (see : 14th)? Which are disallowed? Which are allowed? Why? I mean the bar has been set pretty low (see pride parades in front of kids).

If you can't serve homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics, people with disabilities, etc.. then maybe your business should not be open to the public because you are not serving the public.

Blacks, can't help or change their race. Hispanics can't help or change their race. Disabled, can't help or change their disability. Homosexuals are "gender fluid" and have habitual behaviors they can and often do change. Many harbor closeted hetero sexuality in that they still are sexually attracted to the trappings of the opposite gender. It's a habitual lifestyle adopted after being born. They aren't in the same class as static immutable genetic traits or permanent injury not chosen.

This will dawn on you as it has begun to dawn on the USSC. You can't force people to condone, participate in or promote a lifestyle that embraces "in pride" lewd sex acts where they hope children will be watching, every year, in every city, down main street in the middle of the day since the 1960s. That you would lump these people in with blacks, Hispanics and disabled is extremely insulting to those other groups.

Promoting groups that openly espouse and embrace child sex crimes as endemic to their "identity" is against the law.

 

[Flopper]

Might be a bit tough since 45 states have such laws. The only ones that don't are as expected, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas. They are still fighting the civil rights act.

How is it under the new USSC "neutrality" mandated on states that they can pick one repugnant subjectively-defined behavioral group that likes to do graphic deviant sex stuff in public parades where they invite kids to watch and other behavioral groups equally subjectively defined are given no protections at all? Who decides? According to the 14th is such favoritism in the "protected lifestyle" category legally-disallowed when paired with this recent USSC decision?

How many other lifestyles are included automatically (see : 14th)? Which are disallowed? Which are allowed? Why? I mean the bar has been set pretty low (see pride parades in front of kids).

The correct term is protected class not lifestyles but call it what you want. It is illegal in Colorado for a retail business to discriminate because of race, religion, ethnic group, sex, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, or ancestry. So if you are in the retail business in Colorado, you better follow the same policy in serving your customers.

We are all members of a number of these classes. Contrary to popular beliefs, public accommodation laws just like civil rights laws provides protection to everyone against discrimination.

 

[Silhouette]

It's illegal to promote or condone groups who hold endemic to their identity deviant sex acts in public hoping kids will be watching.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nothing to do with the unsourced inaccuracies asserted by JimBowie there. But agree, he clearly shouldn’t run a bakery (subject to PA laws) if he bakes wedding cakes but refuses to sell them to gays.

Look fuckface, the baker was selling baked goods to fagots, but he only refused to bake a fagot wedding cake.

Thats the truth and until you can provide some proof otherwise fuck you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's illegal to promote or condone groups who hold endemic to their identity deviant sex acts in public hoping kids will be watching.

OK, can you repeat that in Engrish this time?

 

[Silhouette]

It's illegal to promote or condone groups who hold endemic to their identity deviant sex acts in public hoping kids will be watching.

OK, can you repeat that in Engrish this time?

It means that if LGBTs as a culture are proud of the illegal deviant-sex act parades they hold, hoping kids are watching (and sometimes even marching along), not one single soul on earth can be made to approve of or promote their culture in any way.

 

[Slyhunter]

Since some simply remain bent upon bouncing off the walls and non sequituring all over the place,... Richard Dawson says:
Survey says: "Americans Like Gays But Hate When Gays Act Gay" - a real like/hate relationship if there ever was one, lol
Richard Dawkins says: "homosexuality does not conflict with the evolutionary principle. In a talk at Kennesaw State University, he said that "[Evolution] is the explanation for why we exist. It is not something to guide our lives in our own society. […] What we need is a truly anti-Darwinian society--anti-Darwinian in the sense that we do not wish to live in a society where…the strongest suppress the weak…I want to live in a society where we take care of the sick, take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed."
Richard Darwin is known for his work on Star Trek: Beyond (2016), X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) and Lost in Space (1998), but otherwise had no comment.

First of all, evolution is not an explanation of why we exist. It is a theory on how we came to exist. There is no why to it.

The part about caring for others could have paraphrased any one of the Gospels.

If you flipped the numbers. Make 95% of the population Gay, and 5% Straight, and all following generations are split 95% gay and 5% straight, you see that within a short period of time that there would be no population left for evolution to even have an effect on.

Cut the crap. Not only does Science find these arguments absurd, simple math does as well.

Without heteros there would be no homos.

#HeteroPride.

Without normal people there would be no genetic defected people. Gay is just another genetic abnormality.

 

[Flopper]

It's illegal to promote or condone groups who hold endemic to their identity deviant sex acts in public hoping kids will be watching.

Link?