Supreme Court to hear case of baker's refusal to make wedding cake for gay couple

Religious freedom is actually specified in the Constitution. Gay marriage is mentioned nowhere so why should it get more legal pull?

 

The religious case is very much a valid one, but I see the racial discrimination as indeed a legal violation under the Civil rights Acts. the religious case is by definition under the Bill of Rights not subject to Federal abridgement of any kind, while the racial one is subject to legislation.

Neurotic, harmful sexual fetishes are not even remotely the same as a being a real 'minority' in the first place re discrimination laws, regardless of Civil Rights arguments in any case; claiming wanting to commit homosexual acts constitutes a legal 'minority' is simply ridiculous and stupid 'logic', and it shows how dumbed down and idiotic a society has become when it actually takes such nonsense seriously.

 

Bingo.

 

You bring up an excellent point. The LGBT community's relentless pursuit to pretend their sexual fetish is actually equal to racial discrimination.

 

According to the Bible Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews and the God of the armies, really gets ticked off if people make idols or graven images or any kind of artwork. So everyone gets tossed into the lake of fire, including the baker for making any kind of decorated cakes. Therefore, since none of the parties are following the religious rules they will all end up in the lake of fire.

 

Did you know that if you stop me from stoning someone who ticks me off that you are interfering with my religious freedom and interfering with my Constitutional right to practice my religion?

 

Because that's the same as not wanting to bake a cake.

 

Cakeless gays is the next great Republican Dream. With any luck and the grace of god, all of these weirdos will have to start baking their own cakes. Maybe then, all of the good people can go back to beating up and humiliating these perverts like the good old days. Thank god for Donald Trump!!

 

Not at all.

You not forcing me to make you a cake to celebrate your wedding I am religiously opposed to is.

And we're going to get that back, again, thankfully...

It is a crime to assault anyone, not just gays...unlike what you apparently delude.

And no one assaults/murders more gays , than do other gays....

 

Your religious freedom does not allow you to physically assault someone.

Thanks, however, for demonstrating so clearly why John Adams explained that the Constitution is solely suited for a moral and religious people.

 

Because with time comes change. Homosexuality was deemed offensive, almost a lynching crime when the Constitution was written. Allowing a man and a man, or a woman and a woman to have a cake made is the change. Change needs to be recognized, otherwise we just sit here, blank like a deer in the headlights.

 

You are making the case for an amendment not for judges to circumvent existing law.

If times have changed as much as you would like to believe that's why the amendment process is there.

 

That's why my initial response dealt, not only by testing Gorsuch's ability to not allow his religious convictions to interfere with his conscience, but for this hearing to be the start of the acceptance of gay marriage in America. As well as highlighting the issue of why, even mom and pop businesses, need to follow separation of Church and Business.

 

I'm so torn on this.

On the one hand, I totally agree with the concept that no private business should be compelled into an engagement they object to.

On the other hand, it has the capacity to be a slippery slope. Where does it stop? If you serve the public, you have to serve the public, and maybe don't get to pick and choose what "the public" is.

And what's the most absurd thing about this is it's all over a freaking cake. A cake. Get a cake from someone else. It's a cake.

 

That's a fallacy. Nobody opens a business to "serve the public". Nobody opens a business to "stimulate the economy and provide jobs". Nobody opens a business so that they can "exclude certain factions to offend them". Everybody opens a business because it is usually something they enjoy doing but most of all, make a living. When either of the latter two items are missing, a business has a right to stop doing it or refuse to contract or provide services except where it suits them.

 

Well, that comes down to a personal choice of 1. Do you want to make as much money as you can and 2. What kind of reputation do you want your business to have? I'm not even thinking about this religiously, I'm thinking about this in business terms. Given profits are literally the lifeline of a business, why would you create hell for yourself by possibly cutting off that stream of profits, simply because your personal convictions are bleeding into your business decisions? To help put this in perspective, let's say I open a recording studio. A Pro-Trump act, literally everything I'm against personally, wants to come and have their record produced, one of their songs including a sentiment about why God comes first before anything else. Would I still cater to this flawed sentiment? Yes, because as a business owner, I literally have to deal with different creatures that come through that door.

And that's the point I'm trying to get across here.

 

I agree. Especially in this case the baker gave the couple whom he refused the names of three or four other bakers who would have gladly made their cake. I don't know what else should have been expected.

 

I'm torn on this issue.

 

Too bad there is no law to go with your feelings. Right now it favors religious freedom not forcing people to accept someone's psychological disorder.

The bottom line is the amendment process was created to deal specifically with this issue.

But your side doesn't have the votes for it which is why you don't pursue it knocking a huge hole in your claim that times are changing as much as you believe they are.

 

Even if you are torn the law is the law.

Gay advocates always claim that the majority of people support them. If that were true they would pursue an amendment which is what the law calls for when enough people in the country or the people they chose to represent them call for it.

 

Using your points, perhaps they didn't want to be seen as another gay catering business. Perhaps making a small buck here would lose them big bucks from a larger demographic. The point is we should have the right to choose who we do business with. Should you be forced to buy real estate from Donald Trump? It's a two way street, not a one way avenue.

Had I been the baker, it would have been simple. It's a customized cake, I'll charge $10,000 for making that one. That's how you get rid of undesirable customers, particularly pain in the ass ones.

 

As pointed out in another thread on this forum, I believe there was a recent survey conducted that said that the oppression against same-sex marriage by Republicans is at a all time low, primarily by the younger generation who do not see it as a crime against the sanctity of marriage. Older individuals, like Gorsuch, are more likely to see it as a crime against the sanctity of marriage, because they grew up in a much more sensitized society, a generation that is worlds apart from younger Republicans.

The inherent problem with this amendment process upholding religious liberty is it lacks to hold up overtime. What might have been acceptable, or was effective when Thomas Jefferson was president is much different from the time when Barack Obama was president. That's why trying to avoid change, which is also a problem of being a traditionalist, can only hurt over help us.

 

So you don't believe we should follow the Constitution despite the fact the amendment process gave slaves their freedom and women the right to vote.

Now explain to us all here how gay marriage is more important than those acts of suffrage. I'd love to hear this.

Your emotional argument is exactly why the amendment process exists. You do not speak for all Americans or even the majority or one of your liberal congressmen or senators would have proposed it by now. They know they can't win so they did was liberals usually do when they lose in the forum of public opinion. They find activist judges willing to disregard the law for their feelings.

 

Who cares? Religious people have a right to their faith. They do not have a right to disregard the rights of others because of that faith.

Christians would do well to learn what a right is, how it works, and how it applies to them. I am so ****ing sick of their petty, sniveling bullshit.

 

This isn't even about religion really. It's about the right to refuse. Period. Rhetorically? I don't like your attitude? I don't like your looks? Go somewhere else.