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

My wife and I still have all of our benefit rights too. Gay marriage didn't change anything for us and hasn't affected us in any way at all. I'm trying to wrap my head around this one.

 

Wait... what?

 

Before supreme court decision we had 3 types of couples
1. Heterosexual unrelated couples
2. Homosexual couples
3. Related couples (sexuality is irrelevant)
Before SCOTUS decision only Type number one was allowed to recieve government benefits


SCOTUS handed down benefits to 2nd type of coples but banned from benefits the 3rd type

Moreover SCOTUS has delivered special rights to gays

 

Wrong. He argued with First Amendment at the Supreme Court.

 

Ummm.... Nope, didn't happen. I still have the same rights as Ive always had.
Can you provide a link in the SCOTUS decision that backs up this bizarre claim of yours? I can't find it.

 

Is this a problem?

 

You mean that people used to be able to marry their sister and the gays came along and ruined it???

 

Why you ask for a link if you so certain that something did not happen?
Do you know what you are asking?

 

Are you denying the fact that three categories of arrangement and cohabitation between two people do exists?

 

I guess any kind of special rights have to be justified by the government.
In case of gay marriage public benefits have been delivered without any reason.

 

I’m simply asking you to back up this claim you are making. Should be easy enough to do if what you say actually happened or is indeed true.

Shouldn’t be difficult if what you are claiming is true. All I’m asking you to do is to point it out, would you kindly.

 

This is a simple question, why gay couples deserve government benefits while related do not?
SCOTUS had given benefits to gay couples but did not provide same benefits to related couples.
Why is that?
Either justices were illiterate ( out of their mind) or they are just corrupt politicians.

 

Back up what? That we have three categories of couples?
Or that only two categories are allowed to receive public benefits?

 

Okay, if you don’t even know what your own claim is in which you should back up then we are at an impasse.

As an aside, my benefits have not changed.
Have a good night.

 

if you are trying to deny reality, then you better educate yourself about a world you live.
enjoy your special privileges.

 

Okay. No need to flame bait. I’m pretty well educated and well aware of the world I live.

Also, I’m married to a woman and have been for nearly twenty years so I’m not sure what that last quip was supposed to mean. My privileges and benefits are unchanged.

Enjoy your night.

 

I believe all efforts should be exhausted finding a nuclear family for the baby or child, especially the baby before other options are explored.

Why do I have to keep repeating myself to you scroll back.

Yes I did several times, the heterosexual couple can still provide a nuclear family for a child even if that child was not created between them and we should encourage them to do so and support and sanction that. Now that's the last time I am going to express again on the matter when you refuse to address it.

You know when all you have left is having to define the other person's position for them and misrepresenting is a derogatory manner and then argue against that you know you haven't anything left and I don't care to participate in such, have fun.

 

Isn't the justification equality?

 

Okay, so to confirm: Refusing service because of a religious objection to same sex marriage is the same as refusing service because someone's sexual orientation is homosexual? Surely you can't be serious. I'm sorry, but the law does not say that gay people have to get the same services that straight people get. Of course this didn't stop the double standard-embracing Colorado Civil Rights Commission from treating it as if this was the case. The law simply says that people cannot be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation! And discrimination based on sexual orientation is not clear in Jack's case given the counter evidence that he happily serves gay people! Whether he discriminated based on sexual orientation or not should have been put to the legal test and SCOTUS identified that the Commission did not apply the same 'proof of intent to discriminate' to Jack that it did to the secular bakers! DISGRACEFUL DOUBLE STANDARD!

The above is ONE HELL of a smackdown by the Supreme Court! The jokers at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission should
be ashamed of themselves and their pathetic, incompetent, totally BIASED practice of the law.

This is where you are just WAY off! You clearly haven't followed the case as closely as I thought you did. While speech was certainly one of the arguments,
the case focused much more on the Free Exercise of Religion, turning it much more into a First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion case.

You think that the Supreme Court would even take on a case such as this?

The Supreme Court wouldn't recognise anything else. Understanding the objection to same sex weddings should be acknowledged, given the well known debate against
same sex marriage, religious debate or secular. So the laws should be changed to allow people, religious or secular, to refuse services on the basis of the event being a same sex
wedding and I would even be happy for gay rights activists to test the business owners to get proof of intent to discriminate, by expressing that they are gay and trying to purchase a non-same sex wedding service.

You think that he would say that his is free to adopt a 'no gays allowed' policy and refuse service to all gay people because of their sexual orientation?

 

The case was grossly mishandled by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who didn't apply the same 'proof of intent to discriminate' to Jack that it did to the secular bakers! This is where the baker denied the discrimination as per the law. After he was found guilty of illegally discriminating under state law, he took it to the Supreme Court and the only way for the Supreme Court to overturn it would be for it to identify how the ruling conflicts with the constitution and this is why Jack's argument became a First Amendment argument

 

No one has ever said related couples do not, This is a straw man you have created, this has nothing to do with same sex marriage,

The case was not about related couples, they cannot rule on issues that are not presented. Feel free to petition the court if you feel so strongly about the matter but this has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

Or it could be you have no idea how our legal system works. Naw, that couldn’t possibly be it...

 

The issue with everything you have written above is the pretense that a male and female make better parents than do other types of couples.
This is simply untrue, I keep asking where you are getting this from but I guess it’s just a “sincely heald belief” and not based on study or practice, you are entitled to your feelings but not entitled to subject others to laws based on those feelings. Cheers

 

Quite possibly but that'd be down to the political mess that is your legal system. I stand by my position on the moral principles of the case.

 

The Australian legal system?

What, that people should be compelled by government gun to participate in events which they do not wish to participate in? That's your MORAL principle? Really?

 

No guns, just formal legal process and it shouldn’t be required because the moral principle is that people shouldn’t be discriminating in the first place. Ultimately, some people are always going to end up having to do something they don’t want to regardless of which way the law goes.