You Don't Have to Bake a Gay Cake - SCOTUS

a reply to: Edumakated

This situation is what happens when you try to legislate equality. In order to force (enforce) one person's rights you have to take some away from someone else.

If a bakery doesn't want to make a cake for someone, regardless of the reason, they shouldn't have to. Especially not because the customer thinks they are special for some reason. I am sure there are plenty of gay bakeries out there. Or at the very least bakeries who don't care either way. Why go through all the trouble of trying to force someone to bend to your will? All that effort has nothing to do with cake, with the possible exception of having your cake and eating it too...

Here is where the SCOTUS drew the line:

That consideration [of religious liberty] was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

This is a direct quote from the ruling and seem to be the facts that caused the court to rule 7-2 in Phillips' favor.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Bud? You've insulted me deeply and made a powerful enemy today with your hateful bigotry and stereotyping.

Can I make it up to you with a NASCAR poster and a sixer of Coors Lite?

Make it PBR and you've got yourself a deal.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: RowanBean

Or Mardi Gras. Girls showing their boobs to guys... for some beads. That's the problem with the straight community. Bunch of perverts.

Only straight girls have boobs?

With girls, is it either straight or gay? There aren't shades of gray in between there?

The comparison doesn't really work now, does it?

LOL. She was comparing the other post about the gay community being as, uh, too "showy".

a reply to: XAnarchistX

seems obvious: your rights cease where mine begin.

There isn't a religion on the planet that forbids servicing Christians. So there would be no claim of religious persecution by the shop owner. On the other hand, the Chrsitian being turned away was persecuted and had their civil rights violated.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: RowanBean

Or Mardi Gras. Girls showing their boobs to guys... for some beads. That's the problem with the straight community. Bunch of perverts.

Or the prostitute that grew her own vegetables and got called a "garden hoe".

✅🤦‍♀️

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: howtonhawky

a christian does not have that same type of resentment as shown here by the couple

You sure about that? I can name a few on Fox News.

i am 100% positive bout that

reason being is because of the selective nature of christians to accept what and who they want

ex. i do not see many gays shunning their own kind

christians denounce eachother all the time

ex. christian a does something and is not remorseful then christian b can just not acknowledge christian a as being a christian

only half joking here

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Make it PBR and you've got yourself a deal.

Cool, I kinda like PBR, it's retro cool now. But you're only getting tall boys.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There isn't a religion on the planet that forbids servicing Christians.

Did you forget about the Quran?

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: RowanBean

Or Mardi Gras. Girls showing their boobs to guys... for some beads. That's the problem with the straight community. Bunch of perverts.

Or the prostitute that grew her own vegetables and got called a "garden hoe".

✅🤦‍♀️

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
a reply to: Edumakated

A win for freedom!

The baker didn't win yet.
Sorry buddy.

He'll win the civil suit against Colorado.

They were over zealous and extremely jealous.

😲

Thou shall not discriminate against race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender... Unless they categorically discriminate against each other based on the same categories....then it's ok.

There's no right or wrong ruling here. This is a case that never should have gone this far in the first place.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: DBCowboy

I believe they just drew it, what also comes into play is the state had anti-discrimination laws that stated you couldn't discriminate based on Sexual/Gender identity.

what happens if a Christian gets denied at a Store from another faith? would the "war on Christian" people accept it quietly?

Yeah, pretty much. No lawsuit, nor any "equality" commission was mobilized for these folks.
www.washingtontimes.com...

Mind you, the article makes it fairly clear that they had been passing out fliers in the area, not in the coffee shop, as proven by the fact that the place was fine serving them until they had been identified by other customers as having been activists.

a reply to: Edumakated

The ruling was a narrow ruling in that it only applied to this one case. They ruled in favor of the Baker solely on the grounds that the way Colorado's anti discrimination law was interpreted / applied was anti-religious.

The ruling does not apply nationwide (hence narrow) and only applies to this baker in this one case with these unique circumstances.

You cant violate a persons right to protect the rights of others.

Because the government of Colorado is responsible for enforcing said law the state violated the bakers right. The protections in the Constitution / Bil of Rights protect the individual from government action only.

a reply to: Xcathdra

unless they come up with a defense that is not hateful toward christians then yes this ruling will be applied nation wide.


home.ubalt.edu...

Before describing the protections of the Bill of Rights, it is important to note that they originally were interpreted as restrictions only on the power of the federal government, and not the power of the states. It was not until the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to hold some of these rights enforceable against the states

a reply to: mamabeth

I read your post three times and am still confused.

What religious group would put Gays in Camps? If you're thinking Muslim Fundamentalists.....think again. From what I've read, they don't put Gays in camps. Their either throw them off roofs or behead them in the town center at the beheading stump which is usually next to the stoning pit.

Do Hindus put Gays in Camps? I dunno.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Make it PBR and you've got yourself a deal.

Cool, I kinda like PBR, it's retro cool now. But you're only getting tall boys.

The damn hipsters have made all things redneck "retro cool." Sort of makes me consider going clean shaven, switching to imported beer, and listening to pop music. Sort of, but not there yet.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: XAnarchistX

seems obvious: your rights cease where mine begin.

There isn't a religion on the planet that forbids servicing Christians. So there would be no claim of religious persecution by the shop owner. On the other hand, the Chrsitian being turned away was persecuted and had their civil rights violated.

If your username is true, would you be okay with a Christian choosing not to serve you because gluttony is a sin?

why would you NOT want to bake a cake for a Gay Couple unless it was outright offensive, like overtly sexual.

Which God says you can't and shouldn't do this? LOL

a reply to: CriticalStinker

If your username is true, would you be okay with a Christian choosing not to serve you because gluttony is a sin?

At least he would be exercising because he would have to keep walking to the other businesses.