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 Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Another progressive attack on the Constitution destroyed, good job Supreme Court.

The baker didn't win.



Court sides with Baker


You lose.

He still can't discriminate. SCOTUS merely corrected the Commission.

So you lose twice.


You cannot trample on religion to force someone bake a gay cake, win win.

The baker disobeyed anti-discrimination law. Lose-lose.
If they don't like that law, then vote it away.


Supreme Court says he don't have to bake no gay cake.


No they did not.

They said he didn't get a fair hearing.




posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP



Supreme Court says he don't have to bake no gay cake.

Do you have a link for that?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Another progressive attack on the Constitution destroyed, good job Supreme Court.

The baker didn't win.



Court sides with Baker


You lose.

He still can't discriminate. SCOTUS merely corrected the Commission.

So you lose twice.


You cannot trample on religion to force someone bake a gay cake, win win.

The baker disobeyed anti-discrimination law. Lose-lose.
If they don't like that law, then vote it away.


The State bureaucracy trampled over one person's constitutionally-recognized freedom to hyper-defend another's State-recognized civil rights. The SCOTUS said it doesn't work like that.
edit on 4-6-2018 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Nope. The SCOTUS said don't be so hostile towards the baker's religion and to give him a fair hearing.
A win for Civil rights. For him? Not so much.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Another progressive attack on the Constitution destroyed, good job Supreme Court.

The baker didn't win.



Court sides with Baker


You lose.

He still can't discriminate. SCOTUS merely corrected the Commission.

So you lose twice.


You cannot trample on religion to force someone bake a gay cake, win win.

The baker disobeyed anti-discrimination law. Lose-lose.
If they don't like that law, then vote it away.


Supreme Court says he don't have to bake no gay cake.







He could have just baked a cake, what qualifies a cake to be gay?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Another progressive attack on the Constitution destroyed, good job Supreme Court.

The baker didn't win.



Court sides with Baker


You lose.

He still can't discriminate. SCOTUS merely corrected the Commission.

So you lose twice.


You cannot trample on religion to force someone bake a gay cake, win win.

The baker disobeyed anti-discrimination law. Lose-lose.
If they don't like that law, then vote it away.


Supreme Court says he don't have to bake no gay cake.







He could have just baked a cake, what qualifies a cake to be gay?

When they use the eggs from gay chicken.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Trump just tweeted, win for the baker so it's officially a win.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Trump just tweeted, win for the baker so it's officially a win.

LOL. No. Get your head out of the orange cloud. If Trump tells you to bend over and kiss his feet, you'd do it and call it a win.




posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Trump just tweeted, win for the baker so it's officially a win.

LOL. No. Get your head out of the orange cloud. If Trump tells you to bend over and kiss his feet, you'd do it and call it a win.



It's too late for you progs, Trump has planted his flag and declared win. Better luck next time.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Trump just tweeted, win for the baker so it's officially a win.


Yes, it's a win for the baker, because the Court ruled he didn't get a fair hearing. The Court didn't rule he could discriminate.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Trump just tweeted, win for the baker so it's officially a win.

LOL. No. Get your head out of the orange cloud. If Trump tells you to bend over and kiss his feet, you'd do it and call it a win.



It's too late for you progs, Trump has planted his flag and declared win. Better luck next time.






What has he won?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Trump just tweeted, win for the baker so it's officially a win.

LOL. No. Get your head out of the orange cloud. If Trump tells you to bend over and kiss his feet, you'd do it and call it a win.



It's too late for you progs, Trump has planted his flag and declared win. Better luck next time.






What has he won?


Biggly of course.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: Metallicus
Don't you think race, creed, religions, sex orientation and disability should be protected? Can we trust people?



Ok first, no you can't trust anybody but yourself and even then, only half the time. And what does "protected" mean? Special rights, or the same rights as everyone else? I treat everybody with respect unless they break that trust.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: thov420

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: Metallicus
Don't you think race, creed, religions, sex orientation and disability should be protected? Can we trust people?



Ok first, no you can't trust anybody but yourself and even then, only half the time. And what does "protected" mean? Special rights, or the same rights as everyone else? I treat everybody with respect unless they break that trust.

The protection came first from women demanding the same right then later black people I believe. Actually if I remember correctly the protection came around when they said that children shouldn't be forced to work. We've come a long way to trust people. This baker doesn't help much with that.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
"The Bill Of Rights protects an individual's right to be as bigoted as they want."







People should have this right of free expression, regardless of whether it stems from religious beliefs or not.


AMEN

I am sick of the PC culture.....

of being told how I should think and how I should feel


I am fully aware of how I feel and what I think!!



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   
As has been discussed... the ruling merely said the Bakers rights were utterly trampled by the State of Colorado.

It will be interesting if he decides to sue for libel and tortious interference.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

This should never have been an issue . Because in the US we have freedom of religion. If they wanted a cake bad enough why did they not just get a friend to order wedding cake and day of ceremony they could have put whatever topper they chose. No they decided to sue because they thought they could get easy money.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: dasman888
As has been discussed... the ruling merely said the Bakers rights were utterly trampled by the State of Colorado.

It will be interesting if he decides to sue for libel and tortious interference.

Didn't think about that but yeah you're right. He should go ahead and sue.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 09:59 PM
link   


Sorry I can't sell you those condoms because I'm Catholic, you'll have to go to register 5. But she's Muslim, so she can't sell you that ham. You could try register 8 but he's Mormon, so he can't sell you that Coke. Try register 2 maybe but she's a Jehovah's Witness and won't sell you that birthday card. Maybe try register 4 because he's gay who believes in equality. He'll sell you anything because he's not a small minded bigoted a**hole, that hides his bigotry behind religion.


(I transcribed this from a meme spread on facebook, I cannot provide a link).



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa


Sorry I can't sell you those condoms because I'm Catholic, you'll have to go to register 5. But she's Muslim, so she can't sell you that ham. You could try register 8 but he's Mormon, so he can't sell you that Coke. Try register 2 maybe but she's a Jehovah's Witness and won't sell you that birthday card. Maybe try register 4 because he's gay who believes in equality. He'll sell you anything because he's not a small minded bigoted a**hole, that hides his bigotry behind religion.


(I transcribed this from a meme spread on facebook, I cannot provide a link).



Yeah or "I am sorry sir but we arent going to be able to serve you today." Private property open to the public can refuse service to people.

The Bill of rights only applies to the individual to protect them from government action. They do not apply to an individual verse an individual (the exceptions being state constitution / state laws / people whom represent any agency in government with the authority to act in their name or under color of law.

Do I think the Baker is an idiot? Absolutely I do.
Is this ruling giving him the green light to refuse cakes? Absolutely not.

The ruling, as I and others have pointed out, revolves around the application of Colorado's law unfairly on the baker and based solely on the actions/comments/views of the people on the hearing board who found he violated the law.

Application of law and judgement has to be neutral and blind. The moment a person in a position to enforce those laws puts their own personal views above the facts of the case are no longer acting in good faith. That lack of impartiality is where the line was crossed.

It is the same with the idiot lady who wouldn't sign marriage certificates for gay people to marry or the idiot judge in the south who instructed state judges not to comply with a supreme court ruling on the same issue.

Why people would run a business and then refuse that business is beyond me and it hearkens back to the days of separate entrances, bathrooms, water fountains, bus seating etc etc.

Substituting one form of bias for another is apparently ti circle we are currently stuck in.

Scotus did not rule he could refuse to make the cake. They said the hearing he got was prejudiced by the views of certain people who decided he violated the law.




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join