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

Okay then. When did HE specifically state that his reasoning was that they are gay? I know that you read the verbal argument earlier this year - was it in that? Are you going to blow my mind here? I doubt it!

No, its not like saying that at all I'm afraid. Why would someone believe that a woman should not attend college if not purely because they are a woman? There is no alternative.

Lets say a black baker refused to provide a wedding cake for a black and white couple. Would this be discrimination on the basis of race? Should the baker be found guilty of breaking public accommodation laws if they were taken to court?

What have I said to make you think that I am engineering a narrower definition of the protected classes? I just asked you if you could explain why the listed categories include ALL races, ALL sexual orientations and ALL religions. If public accommodation laws are, as you said, "oriented to protecting specific minorities", then why aren't these "specific minorities" specifically written into the law?

You've completely misunderstood what I'm talking about. When the hell did I even mention "atheists?" I was asking you for your thoughts on the secular bakers that came up in this Supreme Court case:

So. Your thoughts?

Why did you bring up discrimination by the government in the first place? It is totally irrelevant.

 

That is exactly where corruption is. There was Zero evidence has been presented that marriage is based on sexual orientation.
If it is based on some kind of orientation then the couples without orientation should qualify for marriage benefits.

 

Simple wrong that is not how he conducts his business.

The restaraunt was not being ask to participate in something.

He was being requested to become a part of it as he does in his business.

If the mass murderer is celebrating his murders it is. DUH.

Nope just the one.

His weddings cakes are specific to the wedding celebration. Again you are lacking the fundemental knowledge of the issues.

Far from it.

They are based on the facts of each incident which are entirely different from each other.

 

Because you did not deny you were the father.

I believe some states now allow adopted kids to later find out.
Why do you believe deadbeat dads should be allowed to be deadbeat dads and notbheld responsible for the children they father?

No I stating the right of a child to their parents and the taxpayer not footing the bill for children instead of their parents.

And if the father is not married to the mother?

 

It does with this baker, that's his business model.

 

They also judged correctly.

 

Baking a wedding cake to be used in a wedding certainly does.

 

That would depend on whether the leftist media found that speech offensive, and whether they thought they could sell a 1A violation as an act of justice.

 

Left Slams Refusal to Join Gay Weddings, Celebrates Restaurant's Refusal to Serve Sarah Sanders

 

That kind of bizarro thinking is what’s possible from the party of goodness. As CK said ‘the right thinks the left is wrong - the left thinks the right is evil’.

 

no, the scotus ruled that a baker doesn't have to attend the wedding or participate in it, as in catering.

It is still illegal to refuse to bake a cake for a same sex couple for their wedding in Colorado.

 

CK?

 

The late Charles Krauthammer. Read "Things That Matter" - thoughtful book.

 

It's not illegal anymore.

 

They "RULED" this? Yeah, I'm pretty sure this didn't come up! It was irrelevant to the case.

 

You do know that the Supreme Court ruling wasn't a landmark decision right? Unfortunately this law still applies in Colorado and it can be grossly misused again at any moment.

 

If the CO law is misused there is now precedent from the SCOTUS to correct the misuse.

 

Only if they accept future cases and only after business owners have the time, energy, will power and money to take it to this level.

 

of course it is. This ruling applied to this specific case, and nothing else. It is still quite illegal in Colorado. you should probably read the actual ruling.

 

They are small-minded, hate-filled black and white thinking, bigots.

 

The party of goodness is actually controlled by illiberal regressives. They show no interest in the truth and their policies like illegal immigration, minimum wage, and identity politics harm the low income quintiles of US citizens which are the very people they purport to want to help. Now that Trump has relentlessly pointed this out by trash talking at every opportunity they are advocating stalking and violence. It's only a matter of time before some nut job like the one who shot up the R baseball team acts again.

 

They have been openly inciting violence since they lost the election. I don't think the Left wants to continue to hold elections, they want to rule by intimidation and force, problem is, we're 'Mericans and we rule ourselves, and we want OUR border secured against lawless entry.

 

Obviously! That's what I said. And, I pointed out that had I wanted to, I could have had a paternity test. But, at that point the child would still be ours to support.

Nothing I have EVER said implies what you claim about me. Besides, it's off topic, isn't it??

I don't know that children have legal rights to their parents. But, parents certainly have responsibilities to the government for the care of their children.

We have large numbers of children where the biological parents were never married at all. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

We have children arriving from extra-marital behavior, IVF with sperm donation, surrogates, adoption, etc. We have divorce, single people having families, etc.

I think the idea that something about this demands there be no same sex marriages is just plain ridiculous. If you are at all thinking of the kids, you surely want their lives to have the elements of stability that are possible. Obviously, marriage is one of those elements.

 

Hetero marriages involve opposite sex orientation. Same sex marriages involve same sex orientation. For the issues in this thread, we can consider that is the full menu.

If you plan to be married, you will most likely choose a partner based on your orientation. That is, your orientation is up to you. The civil marriage is identical. It's just that you get to choose your marriage partner.

THAT is the ONLY difference. And, it has nothing to do with civil marriage law - in only has to do with YOU.

 

The baker didn't testify at the oral arguments. Surely it isn't common for a defendant to testify at the oral argument of the SC. That's usually left for serious legal issues argued by lawyers and the court.

At the oral argument, all sides accepted the contention that the baker denied service because of his religious objections to same sex marriage. The baker's team argued that his product was "speech" and was thus protected. The court pointed out that many if not most of the items gathered for the wedding involved art and the notion that they all represented the speech of the person fabricating the items is highly questionable, since nobody knows who made them, they were made with design participation by the customer, and the only real message at the wedding comes from those married. There isn't some cacophony of background voices from the many various vendors who included creativity in their work.

Of course there are alternatives - the woman could go to a different school, for example. Plus, school is only one example. It could involve ANY job. We've had purely sexists objections to women doing almost every job that exists in America, for example.

Trying to solve this with ridiculous examples doesn't work. The law protects the customer. Whether the vendor is a member of a minority is irrelevant. That's easy to see from the law.

DUH!!! The ARE specifically written into the law.

The court has noted that there are speech concerns that are specific to images and words. This is not new. Those don't apply to the cake case before the court as there were no words or images.

There are also concerns that would come into play if the artist were famous - such that it was seen at the wedding as HIS speech, rather than a cake specified by the couple coming from an anonymous bakery.

You asked "What do you mean that they can discriminate?"

I answered.