Winning! Supreme Court Tosses Ruling Against Christian Bakers Who Refused Cake For Gay Couple

[Seawytch]

Yeah, now Trump can stage an event to give the bigot the Medal of Freedom.

Good idea!! And NO, the Baker is not a 'bigot.'

So if a baker said to an interracial couple "I can't bake your cake because the bible says mixing races is a sin", he's not a bigot?

Where in the Bible does it say interracial marriage is a sin? Verse please

Where in the Bible? Good question....this Virginia judge had a "deeply felt belief" that it was God's plan:

On October 28, 1964, after waiting almost a year for a response to their motion, the ACLU attorneys brought a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This prompted the county court judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile (1890–1967), to issue a ruling on the long-pending motion to vacate. Echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, Bazile wrote:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.[24]

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia

I didn't ask that, shitferbrains

But I answered it, twit.

Winning! Supreme Court Tosses Ruling Against Christian Bakers Who Refused Cake For Gay Couple

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

And Paul was probably a closeted gay man.

LOL....we'll leave this as another failed argument, probably, since you can't even say for sure Paul was
gay and even if so, his sexuality does nothing to change biblical teachings on homosexuality.

And? Nothing you posted counters what the facts are...The bible has been used to justify slavery and segregation.

Not with any success or actual theological authority, it hasn't. Try and drive that thought through your very thick skull, if you can. You aren't citing facts. You are citing failed arguments that carry no weight.

A restaurant went to the Supreme Court saying his religion prevented him from serving blacks. Those were his "sincerely held religious beliefs". Why do your beliefs trump his?

And how did that work out for him?
Not well I'm guessing since racism has never been justified by the courts on religious grounds, or any other for that matter.

My beliefs are not the issue here...it's the beliefs of the cake makers in Oregon and Colorado that were ruled upon by the US Supreme Court. I would probably grudgingly make the cake for the gays just to get rid of them since I really don't care if they marry or not.

But the fact is that labor cannot be compelled or forced by law if it violates someone's freedom of thought and religion. This is not Communist China, though you act like you wish it were.

 

[Seawytch]

So, this is good news. But I wonder how many people cheering for it have consistent principles? And how many are hypocrites? F'rinstance - how many of you respect Facebook's right to refuse to serve people who they think are 'sinners'?

He should have a sign: "I reserve the right to not serve you for any reason I choose it's my friggin" business not yours"

That is not an absolute right...

Not interested in parsing what you mean by "absolute". That usually points to a strawman. But everyone should have the basic right to say "no". Compulsive service is slavery.

Interestingly enough....that same baker would NOT be allowed to say no to a muslim, or a buddhist or a pagan based on religion.

And the same hypocritical bakers will say yes to cloning cakes, divorce cakes and dog wedding cakes...

 

[Seawytch]

And Paul was probably a closeted gay man.

LOL....we'll leave this as another failed argument, probably, since you can't even say for sure Paul was
gay and even if so, his sexuality does nothing to change biblical teachings on homosexuality.

And? Nothing you posted counters what the facts are...The bible has been used to justify slavery and segregation.

Not with any success or actual theological authority, it hasn't. Try and drive that thought through your very thick skull, if you can. You aren't citing facts. You are citing failed arguments that carry no weight.

A restaurant went to the Supreme Court saying his religion prevented him from serving blacks. Those were his "sincerely held religious beliefs". Why do your beliefs trump his?

And how did that work out for him?
Not well I'm guessing since racism has never been justified by the courts on religious grounds, or any other for
that matter.

My beliefs are not the issue here...it's the beliefs of the cake makers in Oregon and Colorado that were ruled upon by the US Supreme Court. I would probably grudgingly make the cake for the gays since I really don't care if they marry or not. But the fact is that labor cannot be compelled or forced by law if it violates someone's freedom of thought and religion. This is not Communist China, though you act like you wish it were.

Not with any success? Are you not from America? Very, very, VERY young? Just incredibly stupid?

How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

The Southern Argument for Slavery [ushistory.org]

They even had an entire pamphlet

 

[Dana7360]

Can a business owner refuse service to anyone they want for reasons besides religious ones?

PA laws...vary in some states....tho I believe all states have PA laws that state businesses cannot discriminate based on religion or race or handicap. About 30 states include sexual orientation.

Gender is included.

Which sexual orientation doesn't need to be in the list if they include gender and all of them do.

It's illegal to deny someone a contract based on their gender.

The business owner is denying people the contract to make a cake or take photos etc, because one of them is of the wrong sex.

That's so extremely illegal here in every part of America.

So a way to get around homophobia to ensure homosexuals have equal rights, use the existing laws of those states.

I had the chance to discuss marriage equality with a couple supreme court justices of my state. I told them the same thing. That our contract laws are being violated when a homosexual is denied a marriage license. They agreed with me and said they had never considered it that way.

So if someone doesn't want to enter into a contract because someone is of the wrong sex, they are so violating our equality laws and can be prosecuted. A PA law for sexual orientation isn't needed.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The racists disagree. They are just as convinced of the bible verses supporting their beliefs as you are of yours. You seem to think your hate is more supported than theirs, but they don't.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. (Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)

Let the racist prove their case then. There is absolutely nothing in the bible that justifies the belief that God doesn't want the races to mix or intermingle. Nothing! They can cite nothing because there is nothing.

Billy Graham, a very well known and respected Christian, rejected the racism of Bob Jones. I will accept his authority when it comes to the bible and race. Wise the fuck up!


Let the racists make better arguments if they want to be taken seriously. The "logic" here is dumbfoundingly stupid.

If God didn't want the races to intermingle he would not have created them to begin with through biology and evolution and he would have put up immense physical barriers keeping them separate or removed any desire to intermingle.
Clearly there are no biblical pronouncements on keeping people racially segregated. You lose.

 

[dblack]

So, this is good news. But I wonder how many people cheering for it have consistent principles? And how many are hypocrites? F'rinstance - how many of you respect Facebook's right to refuse to serve people who they think are 'sinners'?

He should have a sign: "I reserve the right to not serve you for any reason I choose it's my friggin" business not yours"

That is not an absolute right...

Not interested in parsing what you mean by "absolute". That usually points to a strawman. But everyone should have the basic right to say "no". Compulsive service is slavery.

Interestingly enough....that same baker would NOT be allowed to say no to a muslim, or a buddhist or a pagan based on religion.

Yep. The core problem here is the notion of "public accommodation" and its application to civil rights legislation. Homosexuality and religion are irrelevant.

 

[bodecea]

Their fetish is deserving of the same rights.

Businesses are a strange partnership between the owners and us all. Businesses are given legal status, the ability to sue, get sued and declare bankruptcy by the law of gays, puritans, muslims, lutherans, them all. So to be fair, businesses have to serve them all.

Ask Donald about the advantages of incorporation.

Yes, a gay man can marry a woman and a gay woman can marry a man same as all normal people. The 14th was not meant to make men into women and women into men.

So...you advise that gay people marry someone of the opposite gender? How has that worked down the line? It destroys families. Of course what you suggest reminds me of this story:

An American soldier and a Soviet soldier met in a bar in Berlin after WWII ended and they started talking about their countries rights. The American said, "In the United States we have freedom of speech. I can call President Truman a son of a bitch and not get in trouble." The Soviet soldier said, "We too have freedom of speech in the Soviet Union. I also can call President Truman a son of a bitch and not get in trouble."

 

[bodecea]

I had no idea trying to claim equal rights was fascist.

Maybe you lot ought to quit whining when twitter and fb exercise their umh "freedom of conscience" by blocking your haters.

No one has a right to force another into a political or religious view. That would be the fascism I referred to. In this case, homofascism.

Who is being “forced”? Under public accommodation laws in certain states, my business can not discriminate against heterosexuals. I have to serve them just as I would any other customers, but nothing forces me to approve of their behavior.

The funny thing is...Jesus would have served homosexuals...just as he washed the feet of a prostitute... A humble and powerful man. What the fuck is wrong with his followers?

There is a difference between a business serving a homosexual and a business being forced to endorse that behavior choice.

No one is endorsing. It is providing a service or product. I might not like Trump but if a Trump supporter with a MAGA hat comes in to my bakery and orders a birthday cake, I am to serve him the same as any customer even though I don’t endorse his behavior choice.

Wearing a MAGA hat is not the same as anal sex.

It's turning into much worse.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Not with any success? Are you not from America? Very, very, VERY young? Just incredibly stupid?

How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

The Southern Argument for Slavery [ushistory.org]

They even had an entire pamphlet

I'm trying not to be outright rude to you but your circular posts about how slave holders attempted to use the bible to justify slavery is so fucking idiotic and plainly fails to make it's point you are making it very difficult on me.

Your reasoning is absurd and just because someone claims something doesn't make it so. Hitler and his adherents had all sorts of arguments and reasons why Aryans were the master race. Somehow it wasn't true anyway.

You are only succeeding in proving how dense you are by this line of specious thought and non reasoning.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not with any success? Are you not from America? Very, very, VERY young? Just incredibly stupid?

How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

The Southern Argument for Slavery [ushistory.org]

They even had an entire pamphlet

I'm trying not to be outright rude to you but your circular posts about how slave holders attempted to use the bible to justify slavery is so fucking idiotic and plainly fails to make it's point you are making it very difficult on me.

Your reasoning is absurd and just because someone claims something doesn't make it so. Hitler and his adherents had all sorts of arguments and reasons why Aryans were the master race. Somehow it wasn't true anyway.

You are only succeeding in proving how dense you are by this line of specious thought and non reasoning.

Three paragraphs, ^^^ and three ad hominems. Typical rhetoric of someone whose emotions get out of hand when someone offers an opinion which challenges him.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Not with any success? Are you not from America? Very, very, VERY young? Just incredibly stupid?

How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

The Southern Argument for Slavery [ushistory.org]

They even had an entire pamphlet

I'm trying not to be outright rude to you but your circular posts about how slave holders attempted to use the bible to justify slavery is so fucking idiotic and plainly fails to make it's point you are making it very difficult on me.

Your reasoning is absurd and just because someone claims something doesn't make it so. Hitler and his adherents had all sorts of arguments and reasons why Aryans were the master race. Somehow it wasn't true anyway.

You are only succeeding in proving how dense you are by this line of specious thought and non reasoning.

Three paragraphs, ^^^ and three ad hominems. Typical rhetoric of someone whose emotions get out of hand when someone offers an opinion which challenges him.

Don't use opinions...use facts

 

[Dana7360]

No, they punted. Do you even know what the Masterpiece ruling was?

Thus, the Court said, we don't need to look at the validity of the general law (at least not today). We can look more specifically at the Colorado adjudication to end the case. The Court did not, then, consider the strength of the First Amendment versus LGBT rights. It merely sent the case back to Colorado to adjudicate it fairly. That leaves room for Colorado to make the same ruling against the cake shop, but this time the CO Commission will have to be careful that it does not disrespect Phillips' religious arguments.
​

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Decided June 4, 2018)


All anti discrimination laws protecting gays remain firmly in place...deal with it.

"Masterpiece Cakeshop became involved in a similar case in 2018, stemming from an incident in June 2017. The bakery refused to bake Autumn Scardina, a Colorado lawyer, a cake to celebrate her gender transition, which would have had a pink interior and blue exterior. Philips stated later that he refused to bake such a cake based on his Christian beliefs that one does not get to choose their gender."

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

"In March 2019 the suit and countersuit between Phillips and the state were dropped, with the state believing that while the core issue on the intersection of discrimination against sexual orientation or gender identity and religious beliefs of service business remain in question, the specific case around Scardina was not the proper vehicle to answer those questions. The agreement allowed Scardina, should she want, to pursue her own civil action against Masterpiece.[50] In June 2019, Scardina, represented by attorneys Paula Greisen and John McHugh, brought civil suit against Phillips in federal district court on the perceived discrimination. Greisen stated they felt the state did not represent Scardina's case well, thus taking action directly"

I wonder what did Jesus say about gender identity?

Ya got stuffed....deal. This is devine

Pretty desperate to spin this as a win. Denying gays equal services will still result in lawsuits where the bigots lose.

These cases are not cases of denying gays equal service, it's refusing to engage in an activity that contradicts their religious beliefs. It's the difference between

"I refuse to serve you because you're gay."

and

"I refuse to perform this particular service for you because I feel it would make me complicit in your sin."

Yes, actually that is exactly what they are. Couple A, a man and a woman, order cake number 5 from baker. Couple B, two men, walk in to purchase the same cake, you've denied them equal service and in some places that's illegal. On the other hand, the gay must serve the Christian in all 50 states.

Actually that's illegal in every place and every state in the US.

Not according to PA laws. According to contract law.

They are denying the gay couple a contract based on sex. One of them is of the wrong sex according to the business person.

That's extremely illegal in every one of our 50 states.

 

[Dana7360]

So, this is good news. But I wonder how many people cheering for it have consistent principles? And how many are hypocrites? F'rinstance - how many of you respect Facebook's right to refuse to serve people who they think are 'sinners'?

He should have a sign: "I reserve the right to not serve you for any reason I choose it's my friggin" business not yours"

That is not an absolute right...

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

What Do the Anti-Discrimination Laws Say?

At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations against a particular group of people, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people.​

No one can deny someone a contract based sex. It's against the law. The PA laws don't have to enter the situation. Contract law does.

What it all comes down to is the business person is denying a contract to someone based on that person's sex.

That's illegal in America.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

"Masterpiece Cakeshop became involved in a similar case in 2018, stemming from an incident in June 2017. The bakery refused to bake Autumn Scardina, a Colorado lawyer, a cake to celebrate her gender transition, which would have had a pink interior and blue exterior. Philips stated later that he refused to bake such a cake based on his Christian beliefs that one does not get to choose their gender."

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

"In March 2019 the suit and countersuit between Phillips and the state were dropped, with the state believing that while the core issue on the intersection of discrimination against sexual orientation or gender identity and religious beliefs of service business remain in question, the specific case around Scardina was not the proper vehicle to answer those questions. The agreement allowed Scardina, should she want, to pursue her own civil action against Masterpiece.[50] In June 2019, Scardina, represented by attorneys Paula Greisen and John McHugh, brought civil suit against Phillips in federal district court on the perceived discrimination. Greisen stated they felt the state did not represent Scardina's case well, thus taking action directly"

I wonder what did Jesus say about gender identity?

Ya got stuffed....deal. This is devine

Pretty desperate to spin this as a win. Denying gays equal services will still result in lawsuits where the bigots lose.

These cases are not cases of denying gays equal service, it's refusing to engage in an activity that contradicts their religious beliefs. It's the difference between

"I refuse to serve you because you're gay."

and

"I refuse to perform this particular service for you because I feel it would make me complicit in your sin."

Yes, actually that is exactly what they are. Couple A, a man and a woman, order cake number 5 from baker. Couple B, two men, walk in to purchase the same cake, you've denied them equal service and in some places that's illegal. On the other hand, the gay must serve the Christian in all 50 states.

Actually that's illegal in every place and every state in the US.

Not according to PA laws. According to contract law.

They are denying the gay couple a contract based on sex. One of them is of the wrong sex according to the business person.

That's extremely illegal in every one of our 50 states.

Good grief

 

[dblack]

No one can deny someone a contract based sex. It's against the law. The PA laws don't have to enter the situation. Contract law does.

What it all comes down to is the business person is denying a contract to someone based on that person's sex.

That's illegal in America.

How so? I've never heard of such a thing. "Deny someone a contract" is a non-sensical phrase. The entire concept of a contract is based on mutual consent.

 

[Dana7360]

No one can deny someone a contract based sex. It's against the law. The PA laws don't have to enter the situation. Contract law does.

What it all comes down to is the business person is denying a contract to someone based on that person's sex.

That's illegal in America.

How so? I've never heard of such a thing. "Deny someone a contract" is a non-sensical phrase. The entire concept of a contract is based on mutual consent.

Before the women's movement women were denied contracts based on their sex. Contracts for everything from a credit card to a business contract.

Then the women's movement changed things. We have very specific contract laws because of it. It's very illegal to deny anyone a contract based on sex.

When you go into a bakery to buy a cake, a contract is created. The baker is agreeing to bake your cake, you agree to pay that baker for their services.

Our contract laws in every one of our 50 states prohibits anyone from denying a contract based on sex.

There are only 3 requirements to enter into a legal contract:

1. All parties must be of 18 years of age or older.
2. All parties must be in their right mind.
3. No parties can enter into that contract under duress.

That's it.

You might want to take a business law class. I took several of them. They were required for my degree in accounting and finance.

What I posted is week one of a business law 101 class.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No one can deny someone a contract based sex. It's against the law. The PA laws don't have to enter the situation. Contract law does.

What it all comes down to is the business person is denying a contract to someone based on that person's sex.

That's illegal in America.

It's not illegal in America for Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. to believe in their religious faith and scriptures. It's irrelevant if you think it's all hogwash or not.

People are not (NOT) however being denied the service of cake making based on gender per se but on the issue of gay marriage with deeply offends some people's faith.

People still have the right to enter into a same sex marriage regardless of what Christians may think of it but according to the Supreme Court, quite correctly in my view, your marriage cannot be used as a means by which you can compel by force of law someone to violate his deeply held beliefs.

A cake that can be obtained in many places doesn't trump someone's Constitutional rights. That's what the Supreme Court has ruled, anyway. And has been pointed out, a contract for services requires mutual consent. A party must agree to sell what someone wishes to buy.
Mutual consent cannot be coerced or forced on to one party by the other.

I don't know why I should have to repeat these simple facts over and over again but perhaps this time it will sink in, somehow.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not with any success? Are you not from America? Very, very, VERY young? Just incredibly stupid?

How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

The Southern Argument for Slavery [ushistory.org]

They even had an entire pamphlet

I'm trying not to be outright rude to you but your circular posts about how slave holders attempted to use the bible to justify slavery is so fucking idiotic and plainly fails to make it's point you are making it very difficult on me.

Your reasoning is absurd and just because someone claims something doesn't make it so. Hitler and his adherents had all sorts of arguments and reasons why Aryans were the master race. Somehow it wasn't true anyway.

You are only succeeding in proving how dense you are by this line of specious thought and non reasoning.

Three paragraphs, ^^^ and three ad hominems. Typical rhetoric of someone whose emotions get out of hand when someone offers an opinion which challenges him.

Don't use opinions...use facts

Some opinions are self evidence and thus facts. Do you see three paragraphs? Did he use, "fucking idiot" in P1; use "your absurd reasoning" in P2; and, 'dense" in P3?

The conclusion is more than an opinion, the evidence is at least clear and convincing to most readers.

 

[dblack]

How so? I've never heard of such a thing. "Deny someone a contract" is a non-sensical phrase. The entire concept of a contract is based on mutual consent.

Before the women's movement women were denied contracts based on their sex. Contracts for everything from a credit card to a business contract.

Then the women's movement changed things. We have very specific contract laws because of it. It's very illegal to deny anyone a contract based on sex.

Under what law? Again, I've never heard of such a thing.

Our contract laws in every one of our 50 states prohibits anyone from denying a contract based on sex.

There are only 3 requirements to enter into a legal contract:

1. All parties must be of 18 years of age or older.
2. All parties must be in their right mind.
3. No parties can enter into that contract under duress.

That's it.

You might want to take a business law class. I took several of them. They were required for my degree in accounting and finance.

What I posted is week one of a business law 101 class.

Then it should be easy to link us to some kind of proof.