Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same sex wedding cake case.

Actually, the joke of a so called 'libertarian' greens candidate in the 2016 US election, Gary Johnson, said that he would want to compel Jewish bakers to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding!

 

That because you do not understand what I am talking about.
E.g.
Group A - have special rights, that is fundamentally different from the other groups of people.
Group B - is a rest of the population

Government divides Group B and makes Group C and Group D
Group C 100% equal with Group D but different from Group A.

Government gives to Group C the same benefits that it gives to Group A, but bans Group D from receiving benefits.

I hope it helps.
But your confusion is derived from the fact that you want Gays to have marriage rights without any reason.

 

Nope, you merely claim he has. Again and again.

 

SCOTUS has never ruled in favor of forced speech. Drawing a picture is speech, religion isn't even a factor. You can't compel speech, even if you are a black gay woman in a wheelchair.

 

Sure; I bake on a For-Profit basis.

 

What are you saying?

 

I bake for Lucre, not Morals.

If I were Serious about the Greater Glory of my Immortal Soul, I would Only bake on a Not-for-the-profit-Lucre-over-morals.

 

SCOTUS has never ruled in favour of attacking someone's religious beliefs either, but that didn't stop Colorado State from doing exactly that to this baker did it? My point is that I wouldn't put it PAST a Constitution hating state to try to compel bakers to bake a cake with certain imagery so I was just making a joke because it seems that states will do anything to protect what they consider to be gay people's rights, one of those rights being the right to a wedding cake even if the baker simply doesn't feel comfortable putting their labor into producing the centrepiece for a gay wedding. The state just assumed that they were refused simply because they are gay. They were wrong and the law was grossly misapplied.

 

Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong. It's meaningless.

Article 1 Section 1

The clause is quite specific about which legal instruments comprise the Supreme Law of the Land, AKA federal law. Three are included, which means a great many are excluded. I leave it to you to figure out whether court rulings are among the former or the latter.

 

You would serve the KKK?

 

What are the three?

 

I never said otherwise. I'm on the baker's side, here.

 

Why? Christians seem to violate them all the time. You wouldn't be as moral and ethical without a belief in a supernatural being? I could make a case that Christianity allows one to be LESS moral throughout their life.

It was rhetorical. What do you think? You just said belief in a supernatural god makes you more moral and ethical....so
If it was proven beyond doubt that no such being exist would you suddenly become and immoral and unethical person?

 

on a purely for-profit basis. it really is, Only about the capital under our form of Capitalism.

 

this is incoherant

 

yep

 

You don't suppose that it may result in boycotts to your business?

 

Of course, but I would argue less so than if they were not Christians.

You could? Then why don't you?

No I didn't. I said belief strengthens morality and ethics and makes it harder for them to be compromised. It's not a more or less thing.

I would certainly be tempted to let my morals and ethics 'slip.'

 

And the premise of that is...........

A Christian has no fear of living an immoral and unethical life since all they have to do is ask for forgiveness in their last dying breath. Christianity is a pretty easy set of principles to live by since you can be forgiven for any and every bad thing you might do in your life with no consequences.

What is the distinction you are trying to make here? Why would a Christians morality and ethics be stronger than mine simply because they believe in supernatural beings? Especially one that offers unlimited forgiveness no matter what you do up to the moment of your death.

In fact if you look at prison inmates here atheist do not even show up

https://www.statista.com/statistics/234653/religious-affiliation-of-us-prisoners/

And here just .1%
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-prisoners-less-likely-to-be-atheists/

here just .07%
https://www.alternet.org/tea-party-...americas-scientists-and-07-percent-its-prison

At the lowest estimates atheist are about 3.5% of the general population and some estimates as high as 25%.

Then my morals and ethics must be stronger than yours since I don't do it under threat of punishment even when that punishment can be absolved simply by asking for it to be so.

 

No, the point here is that laws on who may marry do not include anything about ability to procreate.

People both single and married may acquire children through a number of means.

If you are going to continue to try to address this issue, you need to accommodate these facts.

 

AGAIN you refuse to answer the question.

These groups of yours are hypothetical nonsense until you state exactly who is in the group and what right or privilege you are talking about.

In other words, you need to answer the question.

 

You can't marry anyone or anything.
Marriage is a set of public benefits that couple will receive from the government, if government decides to do so.
Married couples should have equal benefits and equal responsibilities.
As I point out gay couple have no responsibilities by default, they only can be responsible if they want to be responsible.
Heterosexual couple (i.e. man and woman) has responsibility for the children that might be born while married.

 

only in your mind, because you can't think for yourself, you only repeat what the corrupt government tells you.

 

Group A = heterosexual couples
Group B = homosexual couples, related couples that live togheter
Group C = homosexual couples only
Group D = all other couples that are capable to receive and enjoy government benefits.

If you are the government, then in order to provide benefits to Group A you need justification, in our case the justification is a potential for procreation.
Why in the world homosexual couples should receive government benefits, know one knows and no one can answer that question.

So it is you who should answer first, why homosexual couples get benefits that have nothing to do with homosexuality.
Neither you nor anyone can answer that question.
The court says they need benefits because of the animus, and that is outrageously stupid that in turn demonstrate government corruption.

 

Well, no, there are benefits and there are responsibilities that come with marriage. For example, a married couple become responsible for each other's debts and maintenance ("in sickness and in health").

So, this part is total bs.

Every married couple is responsible for all their dependants (unless specific legal action is taken). Birth by a spouse is one way to become responsible for a dependant, but it is only one of many. A male having sex with some other female partner is another way. There are other ways, too.

In short, you have NOT come up with an example of what you are claiming.