Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[airplanemechanic]

How many threads on this forum did I say that there was no way making this guy bake this cake was legal. I'm pretty sure I said if it went to the SCOTUS the baker would win.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

To the baker participating in the celebration via providing a cake for THAT EXPLICIT PURPOSE was the issue.

The baker admitted he would not deny point of sale items to gay couples or anyone else for that matter.

But the baker is not participating in the celebration. The people at the party are participating. He'll be at home reading his bible like a good boy.

The Supremes said "his business, his choice". That is a good thing.

Now if they would just do that with other things then it would be even better.

We don't need the government, especially a filthy ass Civil Rights Commission, telling us how to lead our lives, do we?

Nah, not what they said.

Read the part where Kennedy (in the majority opinion) admonished the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for way over stepping their authority to interfere with the man's business.

The 7-2 decision sends the case back to Co. with an explicit order to take the baker's religious objection into consideration. That is where the next decision will come from. As has been pointed out by several posters, the baker is inconsistent with the sins he objects too. Remember there is precedent against using religion as a tool to discriminate.

I think the Co. Commission will again rule in the couples favor.

And they will get stuffed again, Constitutional law takes precedent over dumbass PA laws

 

[task0778]

Not up to you to decide, and not up to government unless there is a compelling interest.

The 1st amendment protects free exercise, it doesn't force a person to justify said exercise.

Oh so that makes this bakers reasoning sound?

I think he should have to point to where it says in the bible that it is a sin to provide services to a sinner

it makes the baker's reasoning none of the government's fucking business in this case.

Government cannot compel people to spell out what their free exercise will be, that impinges on free exercise.

I'm not talking about the government.

I'm talking about this baker's flawed reasoning

It's flawed to you maybe, but again, you don't have a say in it, and neither should government.

BINGO. The government should not be a way for one group to punish others for (in their viewpoint) NoGoodBadThink.

+1. Apparently that gay couple weren't looking for a cake, they were looking for a fight.

 

[Penelope]

It doesn't matter. If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin, then it's up to the baker to make sure he isn't committing a sin isn't it?

nope

just follow his teachings.

But this baker obviously believes the teachings include that baking a cake for a sinner is a sin so if baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then it is up to the baker to follow the teachings and not bake cakes for sinners

To the baker participating in the celebration via providing a cake for THAT EXPLICIT PURPOSE was the issue.

The baker admitted he would not deny point of sale items to gay couples or anyone else for that matter.

But the baker is not participating in the celebration. The people at the party are participating. He'll be at home reading his bible like a good boy.

The Supremes said "his business, his choice". That is a good thing.

Now if they would just do that with other things then it would be even better.

We don't need the government, especially a filthy ass Civil Rights Commission, telling us how to lead our lives, do we?

Then he needs to close his door to the public.

 

[Polishprince]

A bakery had a right to refuse to bake a child's birthday cake because the baker didn't like the child's name.

Child named after Adolf Hitler is refused cake request

As well it should be. If the Triple K brought they sheets down to an African American cleaner to have them dry cleaned and pressed, the cleaners would have the right to turn down the business if they wanted.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Only if the cake was designed to celebrate gluttony, and even then government shouldn't be calling people out on their religious beliefs.

The baker is exercising their constitutional rights. They were on record saying they are not contesting point of sale items, just specific items for a specific ceremony.

If the glutton was going to eat the cake then the baker is complicit in the sin of gluttony

And FYI a wedding cake is not for the wedding ceremony it is for the party after the ceremony

Again, government shouldn't get involved in it. It's up to the person's own beliefs.

And your second statement is splitting hairs. the party after the ceremony is part of the same celebration, honoring the same thing as the ceremony.

Are you such an anti-religious bigot that you have to make other's miserable to satisfy your own hatred?

And use government to do your dirty work?

I really don't care if people deny service. I have said that before it's just that the reason this guy gives is flat out ridiculous

This guy shouldn't be in business at all if he thinks baking a cake for a sinner is a sin

How much do you want to bet if he was denied service because he is a christian that he would be suing over it?

So he want's to not bake a cake in one narrow situation and thus can't bake any cakes ever?

The reason is his own, it's based on his religion, and in this country that is protected.

And your theoretical is just that, an assumption in an attempt to create and "Oh yeah? so's your mother" situation.

Like I said IDGAF if he bakes a cake I am saying that if he lived by his reasoning in this case that it would be impossible to bake any cakes for any sinners without committing a sin

Where did you acquire the omnipotence to see into a sinner's heart, and judge them to be a sinner without their knowledge?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

nope

just follow his teachings.

But this baker obviously believes the teachings include that baking a cake for a sinner is a sin so if baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then it is up to the baker to follow the teachings and not bake cakes for sinners

To the baker participating in the celebration via providing a cake for THAT EXPLICIT PURPOSE was the issue.

The baker admitted he would not deny point of sale items to gay couples or anyone else for that matter.

But the baker is not participating in the celebration. The people at the party are participating. He'll be at home reading his bible like a good boy.

The Supremes said "his business, his choice". That is a good thing.

Now if they would just do that with other things then it would be even better.

We don't need the government, especially a filthy ass Civil Rights Commission, telling us how to lead our lives, do we?

Then he needs to close his door to the public.

Let the public decide and cease being the Gaytapo

 

[Polishprince]

+1. Apparently that gay couple weren't looking for a cake, they were looking for a fight.

That's obvious. If the baker had said "sure" when the homosexuals came in, the homosexuals would have said "never mind"

They wanted a court case, not a wedding cake.

 

[boedicca]

This is a correct decision by the supreme court. Its time that these Homosexuals and other deviants accept that everyone does not have to accept, or be forced to accept their perverted lifestyle.

That's a rather narrow viewpoint. The proper one is that the government cannot discriminate against someone based on his religious beliefs.

 

[martybegan]

To the baker participating in the celebration via providing a cake for THAT EXPLICIT PURPOSE was the issue.

The baker admitted he would not deny point of sale items to gay couples or anyone else for that matter.

But the baker is not participating in the celebration. The people at the party are participating. He'll be at home reading his bible like a good boy.

The Supremes said "his business, his choice". That is a good thing.

Now if they would just do that with other things then it would be even better.

We don't need the government, especially a filthy ass Civil Rights Commission, telling us how to lead our lives, do we?

Nah, not what they said.

Read the part where Kennedy (in the majority opinion) admonished the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for way over stepping their authority to interfere with the man's business.

The 7-2 decision sends the case back to Co. with an explicit order to take the baker's religious objection into consideration. That is where the next decision will come from. As has been pointed out by several posters, the baker is inconsistent with the sins he objects too. Remember there is precedent against using religion as a tool to discriminate.

I think the Co. Commission will again rule in the couples favor.

Why does government get to decide about someone's religious consistency?

 

[GreenBean]

Local laws are local laws

Local Laws ? You mean like Dred Scott ? Oh My...

Dred Scott was a person, not a law.

The Bakers were people and the fags were semi human as well - The reference to Dred Scott refers to a case , a legal decision that addressed local laws.

 

[BlindBoo]

A bakery had a right to refuse to bake a child's birthday cake because the baker didn't like the child's name.

Child named after Adolf Hitler is refused cake request

As well it should be. If the Triple K brought they sheets down to an African American cleaner to have them dry cleaned and pressed, the cleaners would have the right to turn down the business if they wanted.

No dice, the KKK are not designated as protected by Co. laws.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Praise Jesus! The SCOTUS affirmed our liberty and our 1st Ammendment right.

Basically it seems like they ruled in favor of the baker, but NOT in favor of all religious people who want to discriminat

LOL. Wanna bet? The decision applies to everyone, not just that baker.

Perhaps you might actually read the decision? Very narrow ruling..with Justice Kennedy making sure to point out the importance of protecting gay rights. This decision was all about the Colorado commission and their open hostility to religion. They got slapped down..and rightfully so.

You're trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear, dude

Not I...I agree with the ruling..as written. I'm just a bit amazed at all the false interpretations that are being attributed to it. I would think that you would cheer..as do I ...the Justices recognizing the religious hostility of the Colorado Commission..and re-affirming our religious freedom. That they did so..while still upholding Gay rights...was a rare breath of sanity, IMO. 7-2 is a SCOTUS landslide, these days.
This was a finely nuanced decision--and not likely to settle the larger matters.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Only if the cake was designed to celebrate gluttony, and even then government shouldn't be calling people out on their religious beliefs.

The baker is exercising their constitutional rights. They were on record saying they are not contesting point of sale items, just specific items for a specific ceremony.

If the glutton was going to eat the cake then the baker is complicit in the sin of gluttony

And FYI a wedding cake is not for the wedding ceremony it is for the party after the ceremony

Again, government shouldn't get involved in it. It's up to the person's own beliefs.

And your second statement is splitting hairs. the party after the ceremony is part of the same celebration, honoring the same thing as the ceremony.

Are you such an anti-religious bigot that you have to make other's miserable to satisfy your own hatred?

And use government to do your dirty work?

I really don't care if people deny service. I have said that before it's just that the reason this guy gives is flat out ridiculous

This guy shouldn't be in business at all if he thinks baking a cake for a sinner is a sin

How much do you want to bet if he was denied service because he is a christian that he would be suing over it?

Of course, the baker never refused to bake the cake. His objection was, and correct me if I’m wrong, was being forced to attend the event.

Was he being forced to attend?

I've been to a lot of weddings and the guy who baked the cake was never forced to attend

Have you been to these person's gay wedding? That is the only one applicable.

 

[martybegan]

nope

just follow his teachings.

But this baker obviously believes the teachings include that baking a cake for a sinner is a sin so if baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then it is up to the baker to follow the teachings and not bake cakes for sinners

To the baker participating in the celebration via providing a cake for THAT EXPLICIT PURPOSE was the issue.

The baker admitted he would not deny point of sale items to gay couples or anyone else for that matter.

But the baker is not participating in the celebration. The people at the party are participating. He'll be at home reading his bible like a good boy.

The Supremes said "his business, his choice". That is a good thing.

Now if they would just do that with other things then it would be even better.

We don't need the government, especially a filthy ass Civil Rights Commission, telling us how to lead our lives, do we?

Then he needs to close his door to the public.

When it cam to public transactions there wasn't an issue with serving or not serving. Only in the specific case of a same sex wedding, which this guy found morally objectionable.

How about we make Jewish and Islamic butchers carry pork products all the time?

 

[boedicca]

Oh so that makes this bakers reasoning sound?

I think he should have to point to where it says in the bible that it is a sin to provide services to a sinner

it makes the baker's reasoning none of the government's fucking business in this case.

Government cannot compel people to spell out what their free exercise will be, that impinges on free exercise.

I'm not talking about the government.

I'm talking about this baker's flawed reasoning

It's flawed to you maybe, but again, you don't have a say in it, and neither should government.

BINGO. The government should not be a way for one group to punish others for (in their viewpoint) NoGoodBadThink.

+1. Apparently that gay couple weren't looking for a cake, they were looking for a fight.

Indeed. It's sad to see people who a couple of decades ago were fighting for tolerance of their differences to now want to persecute others for being different from them.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Praise Jesus! The SCOTUS affirmed our liberty and our 1st Ammendment right.

Basically it seems like they ruled in favor of the baker, but NOT in favor of all religious people who want to discriminat

LOL. Wanna bet? The decision applies to everyone, not just that baker.

Perhaps you might actually read the decision? Very narrow ruling..with Justice Kennedy making sure to point out the importance of protecting gay rights. This decision was all about the Colorado commission and their open hostility to religion. They got slapped down..and rightfully so.

You're trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear, dude

Not I...I agree with the ruling..as written. I'm just a bit amazed at all the false interpretations that are being attributed to it. I would think that you would cheer..as do I ...the Justices recognizing the religious hostility of the Colorado Commission..and re-affirming our religious freedom. That they did so..still still upholding Gay rights...was a rare breath of sanity, IMO. 7-2 is a SCOTUS landslide, these days.
This was a finely nuanced decision--and not likely to settle the larger matters.

Yeah sure....you lost

 

[GreenBean]

I think the Co. Commission will again rule in the couples favor.

Depends on how deep the left stacks the case and steers it to a favorable adjudicator

 

[OldLady]

AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. Links forthcoming.

This will have a massive effect.

This is huge. Up until this point this guy had lost every legal battle but he finally won in the Supreme Court. There is hope for this country.

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

I use that link because it was hilarious they said they ruled narrowly in favor. It was a 7-2 to vote it wasn't even close

SC dodged the question and decided the case based on the baker's treatment by the Civil Right's Commission. This is what Justice Kennedy said:
“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

They're not saying 7-2 is a narrow ruling. They are saying the circumstances of the case are very narrow, specific only to this case. The Court did not look at the underlying, important questions here. For 50 years, they have upheld PA laws that prohibit discrimination, and they have not reversed that yet.

 

[airplanemechanic]

So if a person who is 600 lbs overweight wants a cake is it a sin to bake it for him?
Gluttony is one of the big seven sins so baking a cake for a glutton is endorsing gluttony is it not?

This baker is just one more hypocrite

Nope, totally different.

Gluttony is the act of overeating. Not being fat. You can commit the sin of gluttony and be skinny as a bean pole and never have committed it and be a tub of lard. Being overweight does not indicate gluttony.

Baking a cake for a fat person is not endorsing him overeating it. He has to exercise self control. But taking your thought process, why sell food to a fat person? Why stop at a wedding cake? Why give them ANYTHING? Or what is allowed? Can they have cheese? Bread? Tacos? Spinach?

A cake by itself is not endorsing gluttony. But a wedding cake FOR A GAY COUPLE can easily be seen as directly against Christianity. But another baker might ask the Lord for forgiveness and bake the cake because he needs the money. But that choice is up to the person, not the fags and most certainly NOT the gov't.