It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 8
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Should they be forced to sell guns to 4 year olds? Are guns capable of killing people? Are cakes capable of killing people? You are comparing apples to oranges. Guns are a safety issue. Cakes are not.



Think of the children, please.




posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   
This sounds like a decent ruling. The only issue is when the real bizarre religions like the ones who want to do potential harm to children, like don’t give them medicine or other bizarre stuff beliefs like the white man is the devil. Or cant mary black people or can marry children

Where do we draw the line in religious freedom?

edit on 4-6-2018 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

Think of the children, please.


Too many fatty boombahs eating too much cake.




edit on 4-6-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

No. See, it's not a choice between one theocracy or another. We have a secular government with secular laws.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Except, as we have seen in the thread, there are those who are desperately trying to interpret this to mean that religion dominates law and precedent.

It still doesn't.


looks like it did this morning anyhow

actually the christian religion dominates law and indeed precedent because we are a christian nation founded on the principles and morals of Christianity


Every statement you made is incorrect.


according to the viewpoint of a lost liberal hoping america fails so that sharias law can be implimented

no cake for you


LOL ... you just claimed that religion tops the law and precedent, and you have an issue with "sharias law"?

Facts have nothing to do with any political spectrum. The SCOTUS ruling is narrow (meaning that it only affects the case in question). Colorado overstepped protecting civil rights and trampled on religius rights and SCOTUS corrected that.

No, the United States is not a Christian nation, see John Adams and the Treaty of Tripoli.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

LOL X2



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: WarPig1939

Should business owners have absolute rights (based on skin color/religion/nationality/sexual orientation) to refuse service or not?


I don't know, lets just say they did. There wouldn't be any business being conducted at all for anyone. The point I think helps is that I don't announce to the world what skin color I am or what my nationality is or what my sexual orientation is.

I ask for a service. If they deny me and don't tell me why. I go elsewhere, I don't argue about it.

Now if I ask for a service and they tell me we don't like "Mexicans" and they assume my ethnicity, THEN its considered discrimination. I have a right to take them to court over it. They admitted they discriminated based on an assumption when I never said anything to make them say I was a Mexican.


That is how I see it. I am not a legal expert so I'm not going to pretend I know anything other than the laws already on the books.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I do support Creative Design.

When a gay couple orders a generic wedding cake from a catalog -- they should get it. Religious belief should not be a factor.

However, if they request 2 grooms on the cake or something written that the cake designer does not agree with -- that is violating Creative Design.

As -- no one should be forced to put Swastikas on a cake, etc.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha




SCOTUS accusation of hostility


the hostility was the attempt to force someone to do something that goes against their religious convictions

so no they can not legally force anyone who cites religious exception to bake a cake unless they come up with new argument as to how it is discriminatory toward gayers and such.


it could indeed end up in court again but would have no legs



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

Think of the children, please.


Too many fatty boombahs eating too much cake.





Someone say cake?

I didn't know there'd be cake!



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: WarPig1939

If you don't want to sell cakes to the public, then don't own a bakery. "Holy crap! It isn't that hard to figure out!"



That is on the baker himself. I couldn't careless. His problem to sort out.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


Shouldn't you be walking your dog?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Except, as we have seen in the thread, there are those who are desperately trying to interpret this to mean that religion dominates law and precedent.

It still doesn't.


looks like it did this morning anyhow

actually the christian religion dominates law and indeed precedent because we are a christian nation founded on the principles and morals of Christianity


Ha. Good one.

This country is founded on using religion to justify actions.

If this guy was so bothered by selling a cake to a gay couple then he shouldn't sell to obese couples either... Gluttony is a sin the same as homosexuality. Religion doesn't tell us what we can chose to tolerate, or which sins we dislike more.

I personally don't care if a cake maker decides not to sell to someone... Again no one needs a cake. And I don't think he should have been punished the way he was.

That being said, to hide his disdain for someone's life choices are his, not his religion's. If he was consistent in those beliefs, he can't sell to obese, anyone who has been angry or ever expressed hate... Aka the whole market.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
I do support Creative Design.

When a gay couple orders a generic wedding cake from a catalog -- they should get it. Religious belief should not be a factor.

However, if they request 2 grooms on the cake or something written that the cake designer does not agree with -- that is violating Creative Design.

As -- no one should be forced to put Swastikas on a cake, etc.





But they ordered a custom cake.

You STILL havn't looked that up yet ?

😀



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: DBCowboy


Shouldn't you be walking your dog?


He's too cute.

I carry him in a little papoose pouch on my belly.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Don't you mean pupoose pouch?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

I did read it, its a good ruling it covered the case without giving a green light to all the hyperbole some of our resident SJW's are frothing about.

I was hoping one of them would tell me in an articulate manner why this ruling was wrong instead they are going on about discriminating because of shoes, skin color, jim crow laws.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Here a link to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Dig with a titanium shovel.

They ARE shovel ready.

pick poison

🔓



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: WarPig1939




The gay couple got denied and lost the case. They will get over it or they will find a hard life to live if they can't figure out there is a thing called "choice".


Wrong. The Colorado law that prohibits discrimination against gay people wasn't challenged and still stands. The Civil Rights Commissioners were found to have been biased and hostile to the baker's claims. SCOTUS didn't rule the baker had the right to deny gay couple a cake. They ruled that the Commission handled the case improperly, with hostility and a bias against religion.



Thank you. For making that clear.

I've been following your postings (all threads) because you are straight forward, logical, and make sense.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Except, as we have seen in the thread, there are those who are desperately trying to interpret this to mean that religion dominates law and precedent.

It still doesn't.


looks like it did this morning anyhow

actually the christian religion dominates law and indeed precedent because we are a christian nation founded on the principles and morals of Christianity


Every statement you made is incorrect.


according to the viewpoint of a lost liberal hoping america fails so that sharias law can be implimented

no cake for you


LOL ... you just claimed that religion tops the law and precedent, and you have an issue with "sharias law"?

Facts have nothing to do with any political spectrum. The SCOTUS ruling is narrow (meaning that it only affects the case in question). Colorado overstepped protecting civil rights and trampled on religius rights and SCOTUS corrected that.

No, the United States is not a Christian nation, see John Adams and the Treaty of Tripoli.


I also seen this as a narrow ruling but i am seeing it a bit different now.

The colo.defense of the gays was mean and such. Unless they come up with better reasoning as to how it is discriminatory then the ruling will indeed be used in future rulings.

as far as the founding goes it was done long ago

it was indeed based on christian values that are indeed not compatible with sharias lawyers.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join