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

a reply to: Gryphon66

It’s like the baker got off on a technicality - the baker was not found innocent of the charges by the Supreme Court, but the Colorado Civil Rights Commission handled the case poorly.

It’s like when a thief steals something, but the police raided his home without a warrant. The thief is guilty, but he gets off on a technicality (illegal search and seizure).

My wife showed me a tweet about this. It went something along the lines of "Funny how a man who makes cupcakes for a living has a problem with homosexuality."

I know stereotypes are often a load of rubbish, but it did make me laugh.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I can understand feeling that way about it. Here's what I see: the Commission handled the case SOOO poorly as to possibly violate Mr. Phillips' civil rights. That is serious, and just as wrong as Mr. Philip's violating the rights of the two gay guys. I believe that the wall of separation of church and state created by the First is vital to our way of life. I do not want to see our govenrments at any level other than the judiciary feeling that they have the right to determine when and how the Constitution applies.

Also, I will say, a lot has changed in the past six years since this issue started in 2012. It becomes more and more clear that American of every class and distinction have the same basic rights as all. Folks like the baker, with such strong religious convictions, need to choose businesses where their beliefs don't put them into (painful) conflict with truely neutral public law rather than expecting public law to cater to them.

The crux of the matter on the religous freedom side is sacred practice vs. personal interpretation. I'm very concerned about how that can be resolved without being politically charged.

I feel like we're going to see a lot more businesses go to a subscription/private club model.

Given that, I dearly hope that at some point we can all get over the past, stop the rancor toward each other (both sides) and get back to business as usual.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Gryphon66

It’s like the baker got off on a technicality - the baker was not found innocent of the charges by the Supreme Court, but the Colorado Civil Rights Commission handled the case poorly.

It’s like when a thief steals something, but the police raided his home without a warrant. The thief is guilty, but he gets off on a technicality (illegal search and seizure).

So, what happens now if he does it again?

He's still wrong.

Looks like Amyx Hardware in Tennessee put up their "No Gays Allowed" sign again...

a reply to: kaylaluv

Thats not accurate. Its spin.

The reality: SCOTUS was rather clear that the issue here wasn't that anyone was discriminated against other than the bakers religious protection. They chastised the Colorado commission for not respecting the bakers right to religious freedom in the public sphere, while denoting that the objective is to provide for respect and dignity for all.

In that vein, the baker has been clear that he doesn't have issue with being gay or anything like that. His issue is he doesn't want his business being forced to support things he doesn't agree with, including gay marriage and halloween. That isn't intolerance, thats having an opinion.

Side note: i've dealt with employees who had a religious intolerance to halloween. They shut up after their christmas decorations were disallowed in order to be fair to all.

a reply to: Annee

What if Dwayne Johnson were approached about doing a movie whereby he played a gay man getting married, and he chose not to do it because he didn't want to support gay marriage in that kind of way. But was clear that he didn't have issue with gay people.

SHould he be sued for failing to provide a service to the LGBT community?

LOL ... whether an actor takes a given role or not is not in any way comparable to direct discrimination by an individual against individuals in public accomodation. Nothing anyone one has ever said here would support such a ... comparison.

Also, Masterpiece Cakeshop et. al. most certainly did make it clear that the States have the right (and in some cases, the obligation) to prevent unfair discrimination against indiviudals due to sexual orientation, and further by citing the precedent cases, that religion is NOT a reason to discriminate in public accomodation.

... and the Conservative majority signed off on it.

Times, they are a changin'

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I mean, that is not the same kind of service

a reply to: Gryphon66

No where in the Constitution does it say anything about separation of church and state. The 1st amendment references religion and the freedom to worship and the Establishment clause only says the government can't establish a state religion.

Also the answer to your other question was the 1964 civil rights act and the commerce clause.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
LOL ... whether an actor takes a given role or not is not in any way comparable to direct discrimination by an individual against individuals in public accomodation. Nothing anyone one has ever said here would support such a ... comparison.

Also, Masterpiece Cakeshop et. al. most certainly did make it clear that the States have the right (and in some cases, the obligation) to prevent unfair discrimination against indiviudals due to sexual orientation, and further by citing the precedent cases, that religion is NOT a reason to discriminate in public accomodation.

... and the Conservative majority signed off on it.

Times, they are a changin'

you have gone mental if that is truly how you see it
to hoping you get your senses back soon

a reply to: howtonhawky

I don't usually respond to blatant ad hom arguments, but I can see that you're learning to think critically and debate, so I'll make an exception, at least, initially.

Perhaps your argument would have a bit more weight if you listed WHY you think I have "gone mental."

Concrete reasons based in facts; I'd love to hear your thought.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Gryphon66

It’s like the baker got off on a technicality - the baker was not found innocent of the charges by the Supreme Court, but the Colorado Civil Rights Commission handled the case poorly.

It’s like when a thief steals something, but the police raided his home without a warrant. The thief is guilty, but he gets off on a technicality (illegal search and seizure).

no it's is not like that at all

it is more like when people throw away their common sense and fill that space with hate while attempting to change society in order to placate 1% of people

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

No where in the Constitution does it say anything about separation of church and state. The 1st amendment references religion and the freedom to worship and the Establishment clause only says the government can't establish a state religion.

Also the answer to your other question was the 1964 civil rights act and the commerce clause.

Of course it does, and I've demonstrated that fact on multiple occassions. Does the Constitution contain the words "separation of church and state."

Nope, and I didnt' claim it did, so you can take down your strawman.

Government can't establish religion, government can't keep someone from practicing their religion - Government doesn't have a place in religion and religion doesn't have a place in government. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson both referred to the First Amendment's clear separation of church and state as well as several SCOTUS decisions (that actually quoted Jefferson in their interpretations of the First).

Every politician and government employee, as Americans, can certainly have religious beliefs, and can even use those beliefs to guide their behavior, but religion cannot be established by the government (or restricted).

Religious conviction does not allow for ignoring the laws of the land.

EDIT: What supposed question of mine is your response "1964 Civil Rights Act and the Commerce Clause" supposed to be the answer to?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: howtonhawky

I don't usually respond to blatant ad hom arguments, but I can see that you're learning to think critically and debate, so I'll make an exception, at least, initially.

Perhaps your argument would have a bit more weight if you listed WHY you think I have "gone mental."

Concrete reasons based in facts; I'd love to hear your thought.

i wanted a weightless comment for such a weightless one sided thesis of "yall blew it"


I get the feeling that those two cake eaters will not rest on any issue no matter what happens and that has to be addressed in the debate



MY friend ask your self this question honestly

of the three amegios in this case which do you honestly think has hate for the other.



i dont see the baker having hate but the hate in the form of offence coming from the femboy is over the top all in the name of equality

Not serving people from group (X) will quickly result in loss of revenue for a business. So natural market factors would probably get rid of them.. eventually.

However, in the meantime, do we really want businesses with signs that say "NO BLACKS" or "NO GAYS" or "NO (X)" ?? I'm kind of thinking no.

I believe the SCOTUS ruled accurately on this case, but sort of hinted that they will look at it in a broader context later. The issue here was the way the state of Colorado came down on the baker and bullied him using state powers - that was a dumb thing for them to do as it took the focus away from discriminating against gay people and turned it into a case about the state oppressing freedom of religion. Those are definitely two separate issues, but not in this particular case because how stupidly Colorado handled it.

a reply to: oriondc

If you read the SCOTUS decision, signs saying "No Gays" is not something that is protected.

Mutual respect and dignity is the driving force behind the decision, which was based on someone not wanting to promote a message that was contrary to their religious beliefs. Serving gay people isn't a problem, and the baker has stated this repeatedly. Its that he doesn't want to support gay marriage, or halloween, due to religious belief.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: howtonhawky

I don't usually respond to blatant ad hom arguments, but I can see that you're learning to think critically and debate, so I'll make an exception, at least, initially.

Perhaps your argument would have a bit more weight if you listed WHY you think I have "gone mental."

Concrete reasons based in facts; I'd love to hear your thought.

i wanted a weightless comment for such a weightless one sided thesis of "yall blew it"

You're dealing with your interpretation of what I said, not what I actually said.

I get the feeling that those two cake eaters will not rest on any issue no matter what happens and that has to be addressed in the debate

If you're referring to the two guys that made the initial complaint, they haven't been involved in some time, and they've long been married and had their cake ... and probably ate it too.

There is no debate about discrimination based on sexual orientation in Colorado ... it's illegal.

MY friend ask your self this question honestly

of the three amegios in this case which do you honestly think has hate for the other.

i dont see the baker having hate but the hate in the form of offence coming from the femboy is over the top all in the name of equality

Hmmm ... I'm not in the habit of attempting to read minds. Also, it's not a matter of hate. The guys went into the baker's shop and tried to make an order for his services, and he refused to serve them because they were gay. The baker broke the law in Colorado.

That's about the extent of the pseudo-logic in your post that I can deal with.

I'm not sure who the "femboy" is in your scenario ... is your life experience really so narrow as to believe that all gay men are effeminate? LOL.

a reply to: oriondc

However, in the meantime, do we really want businesses with signs that say "NO BLACKS" or "NO GAYS" or "NO (X)" ?? I'm kind of thinking no.

maybe they could get hitlers dna and bring him back to help remove the signs and peoples freedom

this is only a problem cause we let tptb tell us it is a problem


if black entertainment television can be tolerated then so can some fly by nite haters that will burn themselves out as you said in the long run of capitalism

Nobody has a RIGHT to have a cake made for them. These people could have gone elsewhere to get their cake but chose to be attention shores and martyr themselves over it.

You can be refused service at any private business for any reason deemed fit by the owner. Don't like it? Don't shop there. It isn't your right to be able to, it's a convenience, make your own damn cake.