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

Good, I have to question it because there are so many here that have no substance in their thought or remarks. I at least try to be consistent and rational.

Pandering to their evangelical base. This is all about votes

The problem is our government that is supposed to protect all people, not make laws designed specifically to enable hate and discrimination.

That is where you are incorrect, affluent gay people are very good at getting the word out. Some people hate gay people, according to recent polls its almost 25% of the country thet believes they should be incarcerated.

I don’t like to speculate, they directly named her orientation as a “distraction”.

I’m going to plead the fifth on that one lol. Many people believe they are Christians but are in name only, very few follow the rules as set forth in the New Testimate.

It’s absolutely discrimination, I don’t care what people believe or who they like or don’t like - I care how they act and treat one another

 

I don’t believe it is.

Regional filters make it next to impossible to read local stories unfortunately.

The laws simply need to be equal, if you can deny service to a gay couple you should be able to deny it to a Christian. It’s unequal when you can do one but not the other.

Pandering to the base, they are simply pointing to a dislikes minority and saying “see we hate them too! Vote for us!”

 

Moving the goal post now.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not the same as was stated. And I have already responded to such inquiry scroll back.

 

I never said heterosexuality and homosexuality were the same, especially in terms of reproduction but they are similar in the unions they create and the child care they may choose to engage in, the question is of marital benefits. If you cannot answer a simple question maybe you should rethink your position.

I assure you, my position has remained steadfast.
That you believe I am moving the goalposts shows you are playing a game.

 

They are not the same and they can never be a nuclear family with a mother and father, one of the two most important influences in their life will be missing. I don't think an adult should be able to do that to a child, purposely deny a mother or a father to a child simply to satisfy their own wants and desires except under the most extraordinary conditions like a refugee child and only after all efforts to place the child into a home with a mother and a father have been exhausted.

 

In this case it is, it is the basis of his business model.

 

Why do you feel all other options should be excluded before placement with a same sex couple?
Should they be considered before a single parent adoption?

You still didn’t answer the question I noticed; Why should an infertile heterosexual couple be allowed to marry while a fertile homosexual couple with a child should not be able to?

This is the problem I have with 99% of the supporters of the baker, most of you believe gay people should not only be denied marriage rights (and they have been identified as a right) but many of y’all feel they pose an actual danger to society as a whole. Very rarely do you hear someone that supports same sex marriage, which is 2/3’s of the population, agree that religious belief should be able to allow discrimination against gay people.

 

Just to confirm then: Baked goods = NOT part of a wedding. Goods cooked by other cooking methods = PART of a wedding? Surely you can't be serious.

Which context are you talking about? In the case of Colorado for example, public accomodations cannot deny service to gay people OR Christians. I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

 

I don’t believe the cake, food, or clothes indicate support for an event.

In many states this is not the case.

 

But you WOULD consider them to be PART of a wedding?

 

Now I'm REALLY confused! What is the connection between therapists and evangelicals?

So what poll are these that say 25%? 25% is just too extraordinary to be even remotely true.

Okay, well if they said that, then she definitely WAS discriminated against because of her sexual orientation!

However, I'm having trouble finding that they said this. I googled, "Stacy Bailey distraction" and the most relevant thing I found was this:

I don't mean to try and discredit you, but it seems that this is what you had in mind instead.

So if you acknowledge this, then why, based on the gallup polls, do you think that most religious people do not like gay people?

So then you retract the below?:

 

Looks like this thread is gonna run and run?

 

Post in error.

 

How do you know that he refused service specifically because they were a gay couple? I can't imagine that the couple revealed their sexual orientation to the baker.

Doesn't what the gay couple asked for ALSO convey a political message? If you think that a cake in support of traditional marriage is a "specific political message",
then why isn't a GAY WEDDING cake a political message in and of itself? Wouldn't a gay wedding cake SCREAM support for same sex marriage?

Can't you see that in both cases, it is the PERSONAL CONVICTION of the bakers which has led them to decide to refuse the service? NOT because one hates gay people and the other hates Christians?

Isn't this exactly what the aforementioned secular bakers did?

Okay, but the baker in this case has gotten this far hasn't he? Why would it be different for others?

 

The item itself? Of course

 

It belongs to a whole push of laws to discriminate against gay people on the basis of religion. Adoption is another area being attacked.

Unfortunately is it, most of the people that are against gay marriage are against homosexuality being legal. Only about 8% fall in the group of being against same sex marriage but not belong they should be locked up.

The original termination was cited as causing disruption and parental pushback.

Because the polls indicate as such

Legally it’s accurate, for discrimination against their religion.

 

I agree. However, the baker in this case didn't argue that making the cake would've made him
"part of the ceremony" or wedding. Did you think that this was his argument? If not, what do you think it was? And if you don't know, do you have any idea of what his possible reason was?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission
Wikipedia sums it up pretty well, the baker argued it was against his beliefs to bake a wedding cake for same sex couples - he did not object to a design he objected to the customers themselves.

I have seen various people indicate that he became very personally involved during the making of such cakes but that was not laid out in any court brief that I could find. He had said they could buy any other item in the store - just not a wedding cake.

 

If the same poll was run in cities only, do you think the results would be different?

Yes, but you've said that "many people believe they are Christians but are in name only." So how then do you accept that what the polls indicate is an accurate representation of the number of genuinely religious people who have been polled?

Oh right, you mean that federal law says that people cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their religion. I thought that you were saying that its not discrimination when it is against a religious person! You've certainly had plenty of opportunities to correct me, as I think that I made it clear that I was under the impression that you were saying that religious discrimination doesn't exist!

 

No clue, the polls have never asked that. I do know that the majorities of only two groups support incarceration of homosexual persons, individuals over 65 years old and evangelicals.

There is no way to tell this as everyone’s view of what a genuine religious person is, some believe only snake handlers and people speaking in tongues are real believers. It’s all subjective which is what makes these religious freedom bills so dangerous.

I was misunderstanding your point, of course it exists, if there is one thing people are good at it’s hating other people.

 

And do you consider this to be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

Would this change your perspective or something if you saw it in the court brief?

 

The poll that you provided doesn't say this? Where are you getting this from? I'd like to see it too.

Sure, but I have a feeling that you would have a VERY good idea of who out of your friends and family are living religious lives.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

My friends and family that are religious are the good kind, only a few of them really dedicate themselves to the practice though.

 

It’s absolutely discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Honestly I really struggle with this entire topic. On the one hand I wouldn’t ever want to force someone to serve me if they didn’t want to nor would I want to be forced but I understand the amount of humiliation and pain that is caused when someone says your kind isn’t welcome here. I also know this is not a concentrated issue; Gay rights are being attacked across the spectrum in adoption, housing, medical, spousal rights - states are passing exclusion laws across the nation at an increasing pace.

I really wish this was just about a cake.
Discrimination is not an American value and most of those cheering it do so not from a place of peace understanding or tolerance but of hate or disgust. They just know getting up and saying we hate these people would have the public turn against them even quicker than what’s currently happening.

 

What if he refused to make a same sex wedding cake for a heterosexual friend who is ordering on behalf of a gay couple?