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.

 

Supreme Court hands narrow win to baker over gay couple dispute

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Good. And if a muslim baker doesnt want to make a jeezus cake then thats ok too. This was a pub stunt in the 1st place and just wastes court time and money....plus needlessly ruins a persons life. a reply to: howtonhawky



of course that is OK if a muslim baker does not want to bake a cake for a Christian event. that is of course is what this is all about. the right not to be forced to violate your religious beliefs (and lets be honest it should also include other moral beliefs, such as a PeTA member not having to produce things for things that go against their moral beliefs like doing specialty items for hunting organizations) in your own businesses. in fact it has been fairly well proven that many muslim bakeries refused to make cakes for gay weddings, but for some reason they were never put through the same persecution that Christian bakers were as a result.

and you are absolutely correct. the whole thing against Christian bakers was just a huge publicity stunt and targeted persecution based on religious beliefs.

now lets hope this is applied to all Christian bakeries (and other religious or moral belief bakeries if there are any), all have their religious/moral persecutions reversed. with of course a return of all monies lost in such perspective judgements, PLUS interest returned to them (things like fines or settlements/awards, legal fees, lawyer fees, court costs, or any other thing they were ordered by the courts to pay). plus of course full compensation for loss of income and locations/properties due to having to close down due to these persecutional judgements. such harmed defendants should also be given the right to sue those who targeted them for such persecution as well.




posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: howtonhawky




eta the win is narrow cause not much can be garnered from this ruling other than religious exceptions


It's a sin to wear brown shoes and I don't want my other customers or employees exposed to this heresy. btw, I don't have to explain my religious beliefs to you or anyone else.


you do indeed have to explain your religious beliefs if you invoke them in order to discriminate against someone wearing brn shoes

i do not think you are as free as you think you are

it is all fun and games until reality kncks at the door wearing brown shoes



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


So, a sign in the window that says' "No Liberals Served here" or "No Gays Wedding Cakes Made Here (but you can buy a birthday cake)"?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: howtonhawky




eta the win is narrow cause not much can be garnered from this ruling other than religious exceptions


It's a sin to wear brown shoes and I don't want my other customers or employees exposed to this heresy. btw, I don't have to explain my religious beliefs to you or anyone else.


you do indeed have to explain your religious beliefs if you invoke them in order to discriminate against someone wearing brn shoes

i do not think you are as free as you think you are

it is all fun and games until reality kncks at the door wearing brown shoes



Show me the statute where it says I have to explain my religious beliefs.


Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
edit on 4-6-2018 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: howtonhawky




eta the win is narrow cause not much can be garnered from this ruling other than religious exceptions


It's a sin to wear brown shoes and I don't want my other customers or employees exposed to this heresy. btw, I don't have to explain my religious beliefs to you or anyone else.


you do indeed have to explain your religious beliefs if you invoke them in order to discriminate against someone wearing brn shoes

i do not think you are as free as you think you are

it is all fun and games until reality kncks at the door wearing brown shoes



Show me the statute where it says I have to explain my religious beliefs.


find it yourself

are you trying to claim it does not exist

you are being silly



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: luthier


So, a sign in the window that says' "No Liberals Served here" or "No Gays Wedding Cakes Made Here (but you can buy a birthday cake)"?


you shouldn't be able to refuse to sell say a birthday cake to a liberal. but you certainly should be allowed not to make a cake for say a liberal victory celebration. just as a democrat should be allowed to refuse to make and sell a Trump election victory party cake.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12


Just curious if you actually read the article at all?


There must have been some level of evidence that the baker was religious, and forcing him to violate his beliefs would clearly violate his 1st amendment.

There is no amendment protecting your right to buy a cake... so when the supreme law of the land (constitution) sides with the baker , and the Supreme Court agrees with the baker (7-2 which means some more left leaning judges sided with the baker) ... where exactly is your problem with the ruling?

ETA:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."


If you force them to violate their beliefs you are prohibiting the excercising of their religious reedoms.

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



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: howtonhawky




eta the win is narrow cause not much can be garnered from this ruling other than religious exceptions


It's a sin to wear brown shoes and I don't want my other customers or employees exposed to this heresy. btw, I don't have to explain my religious beliefs to you or anyone else.


you do indeed have to explain your religious beliefs if you invoke them in order to discriminate against someone wearing brn shoes

i do not think you are as free as you think you are

it is all fun and games until reality kncks at the door wearing brown shoes



Show me the statute where it says I have to explain my religious beliefs.


find it yourself

are you trying to claim it does not exist

you are being silly


You're the one making the claim.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: generik


Yeah. I thinks that's already incorporated in the law that says you have the right to refuse service for any reason, other than "discrimination" as defined by law. Liberals and conservatives aren't protected classes.
edit on 4-6-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: luthier


So, a sign in the window that says' "No Liberals Served here" or "No Gays Wedding Cakes Made Here (but you can buy a birthday cake)"?


Yeah that would be nice. Or maybe a cute list of symbols to choose from like emogee that explains which persons you discriminate against. It could be a digital sign so you can always add more people you don't agree with.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: generik

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: luthier


So, a sign in the window that says' "No Liberals Served here" or "No Gays Wedding Cakes Made Here (but you can buy a birthday cake)"?


you shouldn't be able to refuse to sell say a birthday cake to a liberal. but you certainly should be allowed not to make a cake for say a liberal victory celebration. just as a democrat should be allowed to refuse to make and sell a Trump election victory party cake.


Except a Jahova's Witness. They of coarse could deny anyone any celebration cakes. Just desert cakes sold there.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Does anyone know if this works for fair housing act? Can people deny a gay couple a home?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

In instances like this, I advocate "controlling" people via community protest or with individual wallets. If a guy wants to be a douche, regardless of why, then he can face the consequences of public backlash, but I absolutely do not want government entities telling a private business owner who they must serve or what product that they must produce--that pretty much goes against the idea of private business and it starts wading in the waters of gov't-controlled private business, which is not the design nor intent of the American capitalist system.

I'm all about dick moves being taken to task, just not with the heavy hand of government, because once government dips their toes in the pool of control, it's a short escalation to them just jumping into the deep end and then taking over the entire pool.

I fully back this baker's right to bake or not bake for whatever reason he deems appropriate for his business, but I also would choose to do business elsewhere considering that I have many gay friends and a gay uncle.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
If someone comes into my shop wearing brown shoes, they will politely be asked to leave, and if they don't, I'll sic the dog on em.... I don't need a reason, it's my store, I pay the rent, bills, taxes etc.


You'll get nailed because of the dog attack.

💥🔑



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: luthier

In instances like this, I advocate "controlling" people via community protest or with individual wallets. If a guy wants to be a douche, regardless of why, then he can face the consequences of public backlash, but I absolutely do not want government entities telling a private business owner who they must serve or what product that they must produce--that pretty much goes against the idea of private business and it starts wading in the waters of gov't-controlled private business, which is not the design nor intent of the American capitalist system.

I'm all about dick moves being taken to task, just not with the heavy hand of government, because once government dips their toes in the pool of control, it's a short escalation to them just jumping into the deep end and then taking over the entire pool.

I fully back this baker's right to bake or not bake for whatever reason he deems appropriate for his business, but I also would choose to do business elsewhere considering that I have many gay friends and a gay uncle.



I said exactly the same thing in the first page.

I am also just pointing out how dumb it seems to me. Which is my right. Like you say I know gay people. I would boycott such a person (the baker) Others may seek them out. Freedom is messy.

I just think it's stupid and am making that point, where does it stop.

Can you say I don't want to sell my home to any Jews? Gays? People who celebrate birthdays?

I am just making the point they made the right decision but both parties are in the wrong morally in my eyes. But who am I. Just a dude on the Internet.

Or I don't want to provide Healthcare for redheads or blacks?

Why people want to interact with society this way is beyond me.


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



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: olaru12
If someone comes into my shop wearing brown shoes, they will politely be asked to leave, and if they don't, I'll sic the dog on em.... I don't need a reason, it's my store, I pay the rent, bills, taxes etc.


You'll get nailed because of the dog attack.

💥🔑


Nah trespassing. No brown shoes.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: howtonhawky




eta the win is narrow cause not much can be garnered from this ruling other than religious exceptions


It's a sin to wear brown shoes and I don't want my other customers or employees exposed to this heresy. btw, I don't have to explain my religious beliefs to you or anyone else.


you do indeed have to explain your religious beliefs if you invoke them in order to discriminate against someone wearing brn shoes

i do not think you are as free as you think you are

it is all fun and games until reality kncks at the door wearing brown shoes



Show me the statute where it says I have to explain my religious beliefs.


find it yourself

are you trying to claim it does not exist

you are being silly


You're the one making the claim.


ok there for all my mental midgets out there

i may have made the claim but due to the fact that i am not the first to make the claim and it has been upheld by the courts i have no responsibility to cite anything outlining normal operating procedure.

It is up to you to conform to the law...



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I bet the gay community is really butthurt about this,,,,,,,,,oh wait...



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:18 PM
link   


The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds


How is a 7-2 decision narrow?

The way Reuters has this written, specifically author Lawrence Hurley, you would think it was a 5-4 decision.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Good. And if a muslim baker doesnt want to make a jeezus cake then thats ok too. This was a pub stunt in the 1st place and just wastes court time and money....plus needlessly ruins a persons life. a reply to: howtonhawky



The cake was a genetic cake from their catalog.

This decision is so wrong.




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join