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

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Sadly, very few people actually want to get rid of them and it appears the courts are quite reluctant to do so as well.

It seems like we want to respect and care for every minority and we bend over backwards for people with gender dysphoria, for example, (that make up probably no more than two percent, at most, of the nation's population) as they are doing real damage to female athletes yet that doesn't seem to bother some.

Yet the one minority that receives very little popular consideration is the religious in this country. And I can hear people crying boo-hoo and good, get rid of them even as I post this. So if we don't respect the beliefs of others how can anyone complain when they feel they are being short changed? (it's a rhetorical point...they can't)

The Supreme Court made a religious exemption in the Public Accommodation law for true believers so it's a sensible compromise when two opposing sets of rights come into conflict.

If you happen to run into one of the rare fundamentalist bakers or florists simply give someone else your business. I don't know what could be more fair or simple. As I've said continually we wouldn't expect the courts to force a Jewish baker to make a cake honoring Hitler or a black baker making a cake for the KKK.

Let's all act grown up for a change (and this is not targeted at you specifically).

 

[dblack]

So you support people making up "deeply held religious beliefs" to get around the business laws they were supposed to follow by getting a business license.

Not "making up" anything, a-hole. It's in the Constitution. I'm not surprised you don't know or seem to care.
I know you troll as a hobby but your comments really are pathetic.

Interpreting the free exercise clause to grant special exemption for religious belief is a direct violation of the first amendment, and one for Court's bigger mistakes. The PA laws being discussed DO violate the free exercise clause, but that doesn't mean religious people should get a special exemption. It means the entire law should be struck down.

I don't disagree, but you're not going to get rid of them. There's no political will to do it. Why do you think the SCOTUS punted?

Predictions of success or failure don't really influence my opinions regarding matters of principle.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Incorrect. As you have been shown repeatedly, it was not the judgement the plaintiffs (and all the bigots) were seeking.

That's your spin. You are welcome to believe your own
propaganda.

Lame. Why would I move to China?

Because you seem to have respect for no one's freedoms but your own. You seem to love authoritarian bull crap.

If gay were replaced with interracial, with the same situations as you perceive them, you'd be calling them racist bigots. If a baker said he'd make cookies for the couple but not a wedding cake because their religion forbids it, you'd be okay with that?

Your first point is so painfully jumbled and looks like it was written by an alcoholic in the middle of bender I can't really comment on it except to say if it's like all your other idiocy I'm sure it's better left undeciphered.

As for the other, yes I would be okay with that and so was the Supreme Court.

The Kleins of Gresham, Oregon sold
baked goods to gay customers all the time and only when their labor was to be used specifically for something they considered and abomination (gay marriage) did they refuse to let their labor contribute something they felt was so immoral. Try and wrap your tiny, poorly functioning mind around that. I doubt you can, however.

Poor baby...but I'm not angry at all. Just stating facts.

Not even remotely.

 

[dblack]

So you support people making up "deeply held religious beliefs" to get around the business laws they were supposed to follow by getting a business license.

Not "making up" anything, a-hole. It's in the Constitution. I'm not surprised you don't know or seem to care.
I know you troll as a hobby but your comments really are pathetic.

If it's in the Constitution, you should be able to make the exact same arguments to discriminate against blacks or Jewish people...but you can't. How come anti gay bigots get this "freedom" but racist bigots do not?

Because most people are stupid and hypocritical. But that doesn't really address the merits and flaws of the policies in question.

PA laws are not stupidity. You can argue for or against their merits but they aren't coming from a bad or stupid place.

They're coming from a fundamentally authoritarian place, from people who are convinced the know better, people convinced they are justified in forcing their values in others with government.

Do away with them and we find out quickly why they're needed.

I believe we'd discover that they aren't needed, that it's ok for people to be bigots (and suffer the social consequences of their stupidity). There's no need to legislate on the matter.

 

[mdk]

Sadly, very few people actually want to get rid of them and it appears the courts are quite reluctant to do so as well.

It seems like we want to respect and care for every minority and we bend over backwards for people with gender dysphoria, for example, (that make up probably no more than two percent, at most, of the nation's population) as they are doing real damage to female athletes yet that doesn't seem to bother some.

Yet the one minority that receives very little popular consideration is the religious in this country. And I can hear people crying boo-hoo and good, get rid of them even as I post this. So if we don't respect the beliefs of others how can anyone complain when they feel they are being short changed? (it's a rhetorical point...they can't)

The Supreme Court made a religious exemption in the Public Accommodation law for true believers so it's a sensible compromise when two opposing sets of rights come into conflict.

If you happen to run into one of the rare fundamentalist bakers or florists simply give someone else your business. I don't know what could be more fair or simple. As I've said continually we wouldn't expect the courts to force a Jewish baker to make a cake honoring Hitler or a black baker making a cake for the KKK.

Let's all act grown up for a change (and this is not targeted at you specifically).

I think it should be up to the individual business whom they wish to do business with or not. The government should't have much say in the matter and by forcing people to do business with each other is a violation of property rights, business rights, association rights, and, lessens individual liberty. A solution already exists without big government intervention as the free market will decide if these practices will be rewarded or rebuked.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yeah, they can just as much as anti gay bigots can. The bible is just as clear on the separation of races as it is on "being gay is a sin".

That's a lie and that's why you make me puke with your blatant dishonesty. Your "mark of Cain" bullshit was an earlier attempt to justify that lie and it failed miserably. But it is funny and instructive to see you borrowing and using the same arguments as Klan preachers
and other stone cold bigots.

Just because you agree with the anti gay bigots and disagree with the racist bigots does not make THEIR "deeply held religious beliefs" any less deeply held.

They can firmly and passionately believe the earth is flat or hollow. That doesn't make it so, a-hole. Get a new argument that isn't so idiotic.

Besides, who said the bigots have to be Christian?

Right. Just look at you.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I think it should be up to the individual business whom they wish to do business with or not. The government should't have much say in the matter and by forcing people to do business with each other is a violation of property rights, business rights, association rights, and, lessens individual liberty. A solution already exists without big government intervention as the free market will decide if these practices will be rewarded or rebuked.

That's a libertarian view and I can respect it for being intellectually valid. However the government has taken the position that anyone who wants to do business with you has the right to do so.
I would probably reluctantly come down slightly in favor of Public Accommodation law believing the free market is great in theory but in practice is not always practical or fair.

 

[dblack]

I think it should be up to the individual business whom they wish to do business with or not. The government should't have much say in the matter and by forcing people to do business with each other is a violation of property rights, business rights, association rights, and, lessens individual liberty. A solution already exists without big government intervention as the free market will decide if these practices will be rewarded or rebuked.

That's a libertarian view and I can respect it for being intellectually valid. However the government has taken the position that anyone who wants to do business with you has the right to do so.
I would probably reluctantly come down slightly in favor of Public Accommodation law believing the free market is great in theory but in practice is not always practical or fair.

Then buck up and quit whining about the bakers. They have to take one for the team just like everyone else.

 

[Seawytch]

Incorrect. As you have been shown repeatedly, it was not the judgement the plaintiffs (and all the bigots) were seeking.

That's your spin. You are welcome to believe your own
propaganda.

Those are facts, real facts not "alternative facts". Facts like the writ of centori. This is directly from the Supreme Court documents: (https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/16-00111qp.pdf)

The question presented is: Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.​

The court did NOT answer that question.

Lame. Why would I move to China?

Because you seem to have respect for no one's freedoms but your own. You seem to love authoritarian bull crap.

I served my country, this country, for 20 years. Did you serve?

Public Accomodation laws have been in effect in this country since the 60s. You love this country? Then you love "authoritarian bullshit".

But let's be real, you don't hate PA laws like mdk and dblack do. You're fine with PA laws that protect the groups you're cool with you just don't like the ones that protect gays. (definition of a homophibic bigot)

If gay were replaced with interracial, with the same situations as you perceive them, you'd be calling them racist bigots. If a baker said he'd make cookies for the couple but not a wedding cake because their religion forbids it, you'd be okay with that?

Your first point is so painfully jumbled and looks like it was written by an alcoholic in the middle of bender I can't really comment on it except to say if it's like all your other idiocy I'm sure it's better left undeciphered.

Yeah, sorry, I used too many big words.

As for the other, yes I would be okay with that and so was the Supreme Court.

Uh, no they would not. You would not be able to deny an interracial couple a wedding cake even if you'll bake them cookies, in any of the 50 states, idiot. It's against the law. It's been to the SCOTUS and lost. (Piggy Park, remember now, moron?)

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah, they can just as much as anti gay bigots can. The bible is just as clear on the separation of races as it is on "being gay is a sin".

That's a lie and that's why you make me puke with your blatant dishonesty. Your "mark of Cain" bullshit was an earlier attempt to justify that lie and it failed miserably. But it is funny and instructive to see you borrowing and using the same arguments as Klan preachers
and other stone cold bigots.

The Klan believes in their bible verses just like you do. How do you not understand that? I don't agree with them or YOU. I don't believe the bible should be used to justify racism or homophobia. You only think it shouldn't be used to justify racism.

Just because you agree with the anti gay bigots and disagree with the racist bigots does not make THEIR "deeply held religious beliefs" any less deeply held.

They can firmly and passionately believe the earth is flat or hollow. That doesn't make it so, a-hole. Get a new argument that isn't so idiotic.

You saying the bible justifies anti gay bigotry doesn't make is so either, but you believe it. It's your "sincerely held religious belief" just as whatever their sincerely held religious belief is theirs. Why do YOU get to dictate someone else's sincerely held religious belief but I don't get to dictate yours? Oh, because you're a homophobic asshole. Kudos for not being a racist too I guess.

Besides, who said the bigots have to be Christian?

Right. Just look at you.

I don't support the racist or homophobic parts of the bible despite them being there. That makes me a bigot?

 

[Seawytch]

So you support people making up "deeply held religious beliefs" to get around the business laws they were supposed to follow by getting a business license.

Not "making up" anything, a-hole. It's in the Constitution. I'm not surprised you don't know or seem to care.
I know you troll as a hobby but your comments really are pathetic.

If it's in the Constitution, you should be able to make the exact same arguments to discriminate against blacks or Jewish people...but you can't. How come anti gay bigots get this "freedom" but racist bigots do not?

Because most people are stupid and hypocritical. But that doesn't really address the merits and flaws of the policies in question.

PA laws are not stupidity. You can argue for or against their merits but they aren't coming from a bad or stupid place.

They're coming from a fundamentally authoritarian place, from people who are convinced the know better, people convinced they are justified in forcing their values in others with government.

Do away with them and we find out quickly why they're needed.

I believe we'd discover that they aren't needed, that it's ok for people to be bigots (and suffer the social consequences of their stupidity). There's no need to legislate on the matter.

And I guarantee you that if you get rid of them, some gas station or grocery store won't serve the Muslim family in town or a hotel won't let them stay and we're back where we started. Just because blacks aren't the primary target of all the assholes, doesn't mean the assholes have gone away.

 

[dblack]

Not "making up" anything, a-hole. It's in the Constitution. I'm not surprised you don't know or seem to care.
I know you troll as a hobby but your comments really are pathetic.

If it's in the Constitution, you should be able to make the exact same arguments to discriminate against blacks or Jewish people...but you can't. How come anti gay bigots get this "freedom" but racist bigots do not?

Because most people are stupid and hypocritical. But that doesn't really address the merits and flaws of the policies in question.

PA laws are not stupidity. You can argue for or against their merits but they aren't coming from a bad or stupid place.

They're coming from a fundamentally authoritarian place, from people who are convinced the know better, people convinced they are justified in forcing their values in others with government.

Do away with them and we find out quickly why they're needed.

I believe we'd discover that they aren't needed, that it's ok for people to be bigots (and suffer the social consequences of their stupidity). There's no need to legislate on the matter.

And I guarantee you that if you get rid of them, some gas station or grocery store won't serve the Muslim family in town or a hotel won't let them stay and we're back where we started.

How so? We started with slavery. Then Jim Crow laws. If either of those "come back", I'll be fighting them even harder than PA laws.

But telling people who they have to serve? Who they have to hire? Who they have associate with? That violates rights so basic, the founders saw no reason to mention them in the Constitution (with the exception of the Ninth Amendment, but apparently we've decided to ignore that one). You just can't control society that way with laws. And it's an abuse of government's authority to try. Government is supposed to serve the people, not tell them how to live.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Then buck up and quit whining about the bakers. They have to take one for the team just like everyone else.

What? What "whining" are you talking about. These bakers have stood up for their principles and prevailed in court under current laws They have taken one for the team and I can't figure out anything I've said that disputes that. Stop with the nonsense.

 

[Seawytch]

If it's in the Constitution, you should be able to make the exact same arguments to discriminate against blacks or Jewish people...but you can't. How come anti gay bigots get this "freedom" but racist bigots do not?

Because most people are stupid and hypocritical. But that doesn't really address the merits and flaws of the policies in question.

PA laws are not stupidity. You can argue for or against their merits but they aren't coming from a bad or stupid place.

They're coming from a fundamentally authoritarian place, from people who are convinced the know better, people convinced they are justified in forcing their values in others with government.

Do away with them and we find out quickly why they're needed.

I believe we'd discover that they aren't needed, that it's ok for people to be bigots (and suffer the social consequences of their stupidity). There's no need to legislate on the matter.

And I guarantee you that if you get rid of them, some gas station or grocery store won't serve the Muslim family in town or a hotel won't let them stay and we're back where we started.

How so? We started with slavery. Then Jim Crow laws. If either of those "come back", I'll be fighting them even harder than PA laws.

But telling people who they have to serve? Who they have to hire? Who they have associate with? That violates rights so basic, the founders saw no reason to mention them in the Constitution (with the exception of the Ninth Amendment, but apparently we've decided to ignore that one). You just can't control society that way with laws. And it's an abuse of government's authority to try. Government is supposed to serve the people, not tell them how to live.

How so? The same way we got PA laws in the first place. I know you think the free market will take care of people that want to discriminate, but that's pretty naive. There is no free market in some places. You're the only Muslim family in some hick southern town and the only grocery store decides they won't give the "rag heads" gas or food and guess what? We end up with PA laws again.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Those are facts, real facts not "alternative facts". Facts like the writ of centori. This is directly from the Supreme Court documents: (https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/16-00111qp.pdf)

Great summation of the issues. So what amI supposed to see?

The court did NOT answer that question.

It ruled in his favor. That is a real answer that you obviously would like to ignore.

I served my country, this country, for 20 years. Did you serve?

Yes. Thank you for asking. I did. US Navy. Medical support overseas during Vietnam war era, for all that matters. Thanks for your service...too bad you are such a moron.

Public Accomodation laws have been in effect in this country since the 60s. You love this country? Then you love "authoritarian bullshit".

If you read my posts, which you don't, you see I have no problem with Public Accommodation laws in general. Only when they are applied indiscriminately and in a doctrinaire manner that run over the rights of other people.

You don't seem smart enough or fair minded enough to realize this issue is a clash between two competing sets of rights and that the business owner must prevail in this case because to compel someone to preform work against his will and religious beliefs is state sponsored slavery.
The gays can get a cake anywhere. Where does the bakery owner go to get his business back?

But look at who I am expecting to look at this matter with a detached fair minded eye....no fucking way!

But let's be real, you don't hate PA laws like mdk and dblack do. You're fine with PA laws that protect the groups you're cool with you just don't like the ones that protect gays. (definition of a homophibic bigot)

That's bullshit and because I side with the Supreme Court in this case and believe they have gotten things right is no reason at all to play the homophobe card. But what else have you got?
Nothing!

 

[dblack]

Because most people are stupid and hypocritical. But that doesn't really address the merits and flaws of the policies in question.

PA laws are not stupidity. You can argue for or against their merits but they aren't coming from a bad or stupid place.

They're coming from a fundamentally authoritarian place, from people who are convinced the know better, people convinced they are justified in forcing their values in others with government.

Do away with them and we find out quickly why they're needed.

I believe we'd discover that they aren't needed, that it's ok for people to be bigots (and suffer the social consequences of their stupidity). There's no need to legislate on the matter.

And I guarantee you that if you get rid of them, some gas station or grocery store won't serve the Muslim family in town or a hotel won't let them stay and we're back where we started.

How so? We started with slavery. Then Jim Crow laws. If either of those "come back", I'll be fighting them even harder than PA laws.

But telling people who they have to serve? Who they have to hire? Who they have associate with? That violates rights so basic, the founders saw no reason to mention them in the Constitution (with the exception of the Ninth Amendment, but apparently we've decided to ignore that one). You just can't control society that way with laws. And it's an abuse of government's authority to try. Government is supposed to serve the people, not tell them how to live.

How so? The same way we got PA laws in the first place. I know you think the free market will take care of people that want to discriminate, but that's pretty naive.

I'm not saying the market will punish everyone you think deserves it. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. I'm just saying that if society wants to censure them, that's the way to do it. Using laws, and a coercive state mechanism to punish them, isn't justified. It's an overreach of government.

 

[dblack]

Then buck up and quit whining about the bakers. They have to take one for the team just like everyone else.

What? What "whining" are you talking about. These bakers have stood up for their principles and prevailed in court under current laws

That remains to be seen. But if you're saying that religious people should be allowed to pick and choose who they do business with, but the rest of us can't, that's deeply hypocritical.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

That remains to be seen. But if you're saying that religious people should be allowed to pick and choose who they do business with, but the rest of us can't, that's deeply hypocritical.

No hypocrisy at all if you follow the dictates of a certain religion that precludes homosexuality.

And by the way, "pick and choose" is a highly deceptive and inflammatory term which implies the Kleins of Gresham, Oregon who, by all accounts, had many gay customers before they turned down work on a gay wedding cake, simply and randomly decided they didn't want to serve homosexuals anymore. That isn't the case.

In their rationale work on a gay wedding cake made them willing and active participants in the wedding itself and that was something they refused to do.

I've respected your posts up till now but I must say you've taken a somewhat devious turn.

 

[dblack]

That remains to be seen. But if you're saying that religious people should be allowed to pick and choose who they do business with, but the rest of us can't, that's deeply hypocritical.

No hypocrisy at all if you follow the dictates of a certain religion that precludes homosexuality.

It's hypocritical because you're supporting PA laws, which violate the rights of business people to say "no", but you're arguing for an exemption if it's for religious reasons. ie "It's different when we do it".

I've respected your posts up till now but I must say you've taken a somewhat devious turn.

Devious? How so?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It's hypocritical because you're supporting PA laws, which violate the rights of business people to say "no", but you're arguing for an exemption if it's for religious reasons. ie "It's different when we do it".

I reluctantly support PA laws not because I think they are good things all the time but because letting businesses
simply ignore such laws takes us back inevitably to Jim Crow era practices.

If I'm wearing a hat with a flag on it I don't want to be turned away by some leftist ass just because he can.
To say I can always just go somewhere else isn't always a realistic or practical answer
and I don't believe that letting the market regulate itself ever works except in a very abstract theoretical way.
I love libertarians but they exist in a "what should be" bubble instead of the "what is" world the rest of us live in.

As far as exemptions only for rare religious reasons we have this thing called the Constitution which protects
the right to practice one's religion. What can I say?

Devious? How so?

Perhaps not devious so much as contentious and argumentative (such as comments about "whining"
which aren't really accurate as much as pejorative).