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

[Toronado3800]

We have God to thank. Hopefully this will put an end to this harassment by Satan's disciples, aka Homosexuals.

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

My, what hatred. I thought this was supposed to be a Christian nation.

Oh well. What's your dream? That businesses, something all of us and big government helps give birth to, don't have to serve blacks, Muslims, christians or you?

Muslims, Christians and Blacks are not the subject here skippy.

What, ppl who decide to kneel and do weird things aren't the subject?

 

[Seawytch]

​

SCOTUS gave Oregon a hint...like they did Colorado. You got stuffed...deal with it.

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.

 

[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...

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.​

 

[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?

 

[Toronado3800]

Weddings are traditionally between a man and a woman. Gay weddings are aberrant. I see no need to extend any special rights for such aberrant behavior. We TOLERATE benign aberrant behavior as "odd" or "kinky" or "abnormal." But we are not obliged to accept being coerced into pretending that behavior as normal in the course of human society. Before you knee-jerk radicals descend on me, I am not advocating any kind of hate or violence toward gay folks, they are unfortunately handicapped mentally. They need help.

I don't care what you accept. You just can't enjoy the benefits of incorporation which gay taxes go to support and not treat everyone equally. Hypocrites.

Go ask Donald about the socialist benefits f incorporation

You 'don't care'......That says a lot about your own hatred of those you disagree with. Gays are obliged to pay taxes the same as any other sexual fetishist. Why is their fetish somehow deserving of 'special rights?'

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.

 

[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.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No, the decision has to do with religious freedom that was denied to Aaron and Melissa by a 'state body.' It was NOT about any 'rights' the gay couple were entitled to. In fact, according to the 14th the gay couple was NOT denied equal protection as they could always go somewhere else.

There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to a wedding cake and if there were there is no right that compels the person you choose to make your cake to make it for you.
Labor cannot be forced or mandatory....that's called slavery.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

Denying equal service or no, the fact remains that some people of faith are extremely uncomfortable performing this type of service because, again, it makes them feel complicit in the gays' sin of homosexuality. It's just not as simple as declaring bigotry disguised by religious tenets because that is not necessarily true in all cases.

I happen to not agree that homosexuality is a sin but homosexuals don't get special considerations. A person's religious beliefs should be considered and respected just as much as the gay's rights.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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?

Moses had an Ethiopian wife. Women in the Scriptures: Moses' Ethiopian Wife
I didn't notice anywhere in the bible Moses being defamed or cast out because he married a black woman.

Try again. Next time learn about the subject before making ridiculous arguments.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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

Apparently Moses never read that verse and apparently God didn't reject Moses because of it.

I have to laugh when leftists use religion to further their disreputable goals.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

Apparently Moses never read that verse and apparently God didn't reject Moses because of it.

I have to laugh when leftists use religion to further their disreputable goals.

They invariably end up looking like a fool when they do

 

[Coyote]

You know the trolling doesn't help the conservative side right?
Satan's disciples.... really?
When liberals try to claim that conservatives are haters etc... you make their day.

He didn’t necessarily accuse all homos of being ‘satan’s disciples’. Only the evil ones attempting to impose their fascist wills. That may be most but that would be on them.

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?

 

[Coyote]

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

Apparently Moses never read that verse and apparently God didn't reject Moses because of it.

I have to laugh when leftists use religion to further their disreputable goals.

I have to laugh when righties think that leftists can’t be religious. It is possible to be religious without bigotry ya know.

 

[daveman]

You 'don't care'......That says a lot about your own hatred of those you disagree with. Gays are obliged to pay taxes the same as any other sexual fetishist. Why is their fetish somehow deserving of 'special rights?'

What special rights? The only special rights here is the religious nuts trying to use our secular law to leave gay law-abiding, tax-paying citizens out of equal protection.....all while getting tax-exempt status.

A bakery owned by Christians is tax-exempt?

No...but christian churches are....special rights.

So...only Christian churches are tax-exempt? Muslim, Buddhist, and Scientologist houses of worship pay taxes?

Yes, them also....religion has special rights.

Nothing stopping you from starting your own. Scientology was made up from whole cloth by a guy looking to cash in on tax exemption.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

Apparently Moses never read that verse and apparently God didn't reject Moses because of it.

I have to laugh when leftists use religion to further their disreputable goals.

I have to laugh when righties think that leftists can’t be religious. It is possible to be religious without bigotry ya know.

If you're claiming you're religious it helps when you know what you're talking about. Obviously she didn't.

 

[daveman]

Yes, them also....religion has special rights.

If not paying taxes is a right then the poor have more rights than those who make an income. Talk about inequality!! Funny.....But actually, Churches are not taxed for several reasons...I KNOW the link is religion ne:

5 reasons we should never tax churches, even if John Oliver is right (COMMENTARY) - Religion News Service


1. Government can’t pick some churches to tax & regulate but not others.
Oliver focused on churches that preach the “Prosperity Gospel” and do so in a public way. His audience (myself included) laughed as he ridiculed some prominent TV preachers. Making pronouncements, giving blessings, and issuing calls for faithful giving is, well, something found in nearly every house of worship in America. Government can’t pick and choose which ones are silly and which ones are legitimate. It must practice “benevolent neutrality.” If you tax the TV evangelist you don’t like, then you also must tax the Unitarian/Universalist congregation, the synagogue, the Catholic parish, the Amish house church, and every other religious community.

READ Five things I teach foreign students about American religion & politics

2. If we tax churches, then we will need to tax all not-for-profit organizations.
Government may exempt churches from property taxes and other taxes so long as they do so for other charities. There are some who argue that, as in the case of religious groups on public campuses (Rosenberger v UVA), government can’t select just religious groups to tax while leaving all other organizations like schools, women shelters, soup kitchens, and fraternal organizations tax-exempt.

3. To tax churches, government would need to have the (currently unconstitutional) authority to audit and regulate churches.
Income is revenue minus expenses. So, to tax revenue, the government has rules about what counts as legitimate business expenses and regulations on how businesses perform their accounting. The government may also audit organizations. To do this for churches means that the government would define what is and is not legitimate and then act to ensure compliance. This raises a constitutional issue as Congress cannot make laws that affect the free exercise of religion.

4. Taxation would benefit large churches and ministries and harm smaller ones.
As with any organization, larger is better. Big churches would have the resources to hire lawyers and accountants that would minimize their tax burden. Smaller churches that currently operate on shoestring budgets would face a relatively greater cost in order to comply with new regulations.

5. It wouldn’t solve the problem.
Most of the discussion of taxing churches offers so-called megachurches or television-based ministries as examples of abuse. But if we tax churches, then churches will do what other businesses do—they’ll increase expenditures in order to reduce taxable income. Again: income is revenue minus expenditures. The TV preacher’s million dollar income? That’s an expense. His clothes for his show? An expense. His jet to travel for business? Another expense. The cost of all those fundraising mailings? More expenses. By the end, there won’t be any income to tax.

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.'

He's not? What is he then? A tolerant gentleman he ain't.

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.'

He's not? What is he then? A tolerant gentleman he ain't.

Seems to me it was the gays who were intolerant.

Of course...christians are the victims here.

Ooops, sorry, forgot -- only leftist special interest groups are allowed to be victims.

 

[dblack]

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.

You answered your own question.

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?

Who knows? Their beliefs are their business. Doesn't give you, or the state, a right to bully them.

 

[WEATHER53]

Jesus would have told gay cakes hissy fitters to turn the other cheek and let he who is without sin.....

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I have to laugh when righties think that leftists can’t be religious. It is possible to be religious without bigotry ya know.

And I have to laugh when someone produces a quote, it's staring them right in the face, and then they totally misrepresent what was said. A real straw man job.

You can be as religious as a leftist as you like. I never claimed otherwise.

Just don't lie about what is in the bible and use it for your own partisan agenda. Got that?