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

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: Edumakated

My question would be, if the baker sells a cake to gays that doesn't have anything on it or he doesn't know they are gay, does he still go to hell?

You are asking a question that challenges the logic of religion. I don't necessarily disagree that whole situation is illogical... I mean, I can say the same thing about people who won't eat pork or any manner of other religious beliefs that are idiotic.

The example I gave above is the gist of it. What the baker doesn't know won't hurt him, but asking him to engage at the level where he is specifically designing a gay cake crossed the line for him. It is his choice as it is his business.

a reply to: queenofswords

So, let's ask the question. What "liberty" or right is Big Enough to trump religious liberty?

Religious liberty is also abstaining from religion all together. Just because you pick a God doesn't give you more rights because I choose none.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Right. But that doesn't answer the question, does it.

Has the Supreme Court sided with freedom over feelings?

a reply to: Edumakated

Thoughts?

My thoughts. SCOTUS didn't rule in favor of the baker's discriminatory actions, clearing the way for others. SCOTUS ruled that the commission was hostile to the baker's religious claim for blaming the cake baker for, essentially, the Holocaust! NEVER INVOKE THE HOLOCAUST!

The case's outcome hinged on the actions of the Colorado commission. In one exchange at a 2014 hearing cited by Kennedy, former commissioner Diann Rice said that "freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust."

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's what I understood but what exactly does that mean? It doesn't seem like a win for the baker. It just basically telling Colorado not to make any more hostile rulings.

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.

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 !!

😎🚪💡

a reply to: Edumakated

Ya know a few years ago, I was working in a Chinese part of town. I went in to one of the restaurants there for lunch...and was told to leave straight up...because I was not Chinese....you know what I did? I walked into the Vietnamese retaurant next door and tried pho and Vietnamese coffee for the first time and it was #ing awesome.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Right. But that doesn't answer the question, does it.

It does. My religion is abstinence from religion.

Just wait until a religion you don't follow start using this ruling in there favor.

I bet your tune changes. No one's liberty trumps another.... That's when we get problems.

So glad common sense prevailed in this case and set the tone for future issues down the road. Hence the phrase, "deal with it".

Freedom of choice and there are plenty of other places to choose from if you get denied a service based off of the same conditions as this case.

a reply to: xuenchen

It doesn't work that way and you know it.

If you don't sell wedding cakes at all, then you don't have to sell a wedding cake to anyone, regardless of their religion, sexual orientation, whatever.

Same with pork.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Those mean ole horrible disgusting evil gays!

That does it. I'm joining Antifa. SCOTUS is racist!!!

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.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Those mean ole horrible disgusting evil gays!

Never said that, so take your hyperbolic nonsense elsewhere.

It's a cake, I don't care. But this is a can of worms.

In the coming months when a right wing news source publishes a Muslim denying someone business and people are outraged.... Expect a troll thread from me... I'm thinking something like,

"You can't have your cake and eat it too".

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Those mean ole horrible disgusting evil gays!

It's funny because every time I look on the news or on tv or hollywierd, it's always the .05% of LGBTQXYZWTF trying to change/demand more things that the 99.95% never asked for or wanted to change or wanted to accept as normal or socially acceptable.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I think you're just livid because of the bitter jealousy involved.

And you fail to see the State Commission was/is a bitter nit-picky schlock outfit as well.

The whole thing is based on clinical jealousy.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Are you hearing yourself? You said, "no one's liberty trumps another".

So, when we have a conflict, we take it to the highest court in the land. They decide based on what the Constitution enunciates...not on what you feel. Religious rights won this time.

Someday, another case will come before the SC regarding religious liberty. All we can hope and expect is that our Constitution and the Rule of Law will win.