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

originally posted by: Annee
Anyone who's actually followed this case KNOWS this is so wrong.

It was not about Creative Freedom.

The gay couple asked for a cake in a catalog that was already designed.

They did not ask for anything special.

We are so going backwards.

Would be helpful if you could cite all that word for word.

You know, for clarity of opinions and such.

🔐⏳ (cue up the Jeopardy waiting song)

a reply to: burdman30ott6

But, but...they STOLE God's rainbow and CORRUPTED it, amiright? Nice guys just don't do that.

a reply to: Edumakated

As a gay person, I have no problem with this.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: xuenchen

Yes, we are talking about discrimination. And the Supreme Court just allowed it to happen. So they might as well go all the way now, and get all up into people's business before they sell anything to them.

So I guess a Christian should be able to force a Muslim restaurant to serve pork sandwiches too.

Oh goodie goodie gumdrops !!

😎🚪💡

Pork is not on their menu.

The gay couple in this case asked for a cake that had already been designed, was in a catalog, and had already been used for a straight wedding.

They did not ask for anything special.

This is terribly wrong decision that is going to have repercussions.

a reply to: WarPig1939

Yep. They're eeeeevil I tell ya.

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: Edumakated

As a gay person, I have no problem with this.

You should.

Have you actually followed the case from the beginning?

a reply to: Annee

That's what I thought. I've never heard of a case in the U.S. where a baker was forced to decorate something specific on a cake.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Edumakated

So if a gay couple asks for a plain white wedding cake, exactly the same cake as the straight couple ordered 5 minutes earlier...?

On Tuesdays..they would bake the cake for the gay couple but damn...if it is Wednesday they are SOL. Any more ludicrous analogies?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Edumakated

The rainbow is a sign from God promising never to destroy the earth
with another flood.The gay community stole the rainbow and corrupted
it's meaning to fit into their agenda.

This is very true and bears quoting.

There is no evidence that the earth was ever destroyed by a flood. AND, rainbows are natural phenomena cause by the refraction of light. It wasn't some magical invention of something that didn't exist before the mythical person "Noah".


Judea/Christians don't own rainbows!

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: xuenchen

Yes, we are talking about discrimination. And the Supreme Court just allowed it to happen. So they might as well go all the way now, and get all up into people's business before they sell anything to them.

So I guess a Christian should be able to force a Muslim restaurant to serve pork sandwiches too.

Oh goodie goodie gumdrops !!

😎🚪💡

Pork is not on their menu.

The gay couple in this case asked for a cake that had already been designed, was in a catalog, and had already been used for a straight wedding.

They did not ask for anything special.

This is terribly wrong decision that is going to have repercussions.

How is this decision going to effect the future negatively IYO?

What reprecussions?

I think you are wrong with your premise because the scotus gave no parameters for future use of the decision beyond this case.

I agree with the decision 100%, a business should be allowed to conduct itself as it chooses and deal with the repercussions on their own time. It's ridiculous that this ever went to court to begin with. I'm sure there are plenty of other bakeries in that area that would have been more than happy to bake their gay cake, maybe even for cheaper. Looks like these people had their feelings hurt and just wanted an easy pay day, too bad so sad.

a reply to: WalterTilley

What's ludicrous about ordering a generic wedding cake?

Can someone that is outraged by the ruling give some sort of substantial reason why I should be upset, its a very narrow ruling that even the some left leaning judges sided with baker!


Not I should be offended, or this is wrong, give us some substance so a discussion can occur or else its going to devolve into a round robin of childish insults.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee
Anyone who's actually followed this case KNOWS this is so wrong.

It was not about Creative Freedom.

The gay couple asked for a cake in a catalog that was already designed.

They did not ask for anything special.

We are so going backwards.

Would be helpful if you could cite all that word for word.

You know, for clarity of opinions and such.

🔐⏳ (cue up the Jeopardy waiting song)

Plenty of threads here on ATS with all the "gory" detailed.

Of course, you already know that.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Annee

That's what I thought. I've never heard of a case in the U.S. where a baker was forced to decorate something specific on a cake.

The couple ordered a custom cake from the shop.

Stop being a side-stepper and a tangent builder.

🚬

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: WarPig1939

Yep. They're eeeeevil I tell ya.

Evil no. Annoying? Yes.

No one gives a flip about gay people. People are tired of hearing about it. No one should deserve special rules for sexual attraction. They got denied based off of religious principle. They can find another place to shop at. No one owes that couple anything other than mutual respect of understanding. People are allowed to disagree.

Freedom of choices...

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

That's exactly what the South argued, in favor of their Jim Crow laws.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee
Anyone who's actually followed this case KNOWS this is so wrong.

It was not about Creative Freedom.

The gay couple asked for a cake in a catalog that was already designed.

They did not ask for anything special.

We are so going backwards.

Would be helpful if you could cite all that word for word.

You know, for clarity of opinions and such.

(cue up the Jeopardy waiting song)

Plenty of threads here on ATS with all the "gory" detailed.

Of course, you already know that.

I knew you would balk.

Thanks anyway.

💡🚪

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Annee

That's what I thought. I've never heard of a case in the U.S. where a baker was forced to decorate something specific on a cake.

The couple ordered a custom cake from the shop.

Stop being a side-stepper and a tangent builder.

🚬

Link?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

That's exactly what the South argued, in favor of their Jim Crow laws.

💡💡