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

Some things will stray from the Constitution, others will follow the Constitution. Gay marriage is one of those subjects that strays away from the Constitution.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, is no more important than freeing slaves or giving women the right to vote. It's main objection is against this idea of religious freedom, where the idea of Christianity trumps everything else.

 

You have no right to be baked a cake.

Show us in the Constitution where it states you can force a private business to bake you a cake.

Go ahead.

 

In your opinion. Not in the law.

Its not even in the same ballpark. The fact you can't face that speaks volumes.

I've got news for you. All 3 major religions dictate homosexuality is a Sin so your anti Christian argument is worthless.

 

It's always about religion. Don't fool yourself. The Jewish invented Christian religion has been playing this game for ages.

 

Maybe for you it is. There's a pile of agnostics who despise homosexuals. What if they were circus folk, with tiny hands and smelled like cabbage? Right to refuse.

 

See, what your problem is you think the law is the law, and shouldn't be changed to properly adapt to Modern-Day America. The idea of homosexuality being a sin, like the idea of hell, is medieval fear-mongering. Apparently, it's still working in this day in age from the assumptions you just made.

Did I ever say it was in the same ballpark? No, they don't even resonate on the same levels. But like there was the issue of giving women the right to vote in the 60's, it being a vital social issue in that time period, gay marriage is a vital social issue in this time period. At the end of the day, they all benefit the human condition.

 

The issue with that attitude is you are no better than the people who segregated against blacks in the 50's. It's no worse than putting up a sign that says, "Whites Only" in neon. Segregation is supposed to be a thing of the past, but with sentiments like these, it seems like it could easily be resurrected in its ugliest of forms.

 

50's? Try 2017. Go to any inner city after 10 pm and see how welcome you are. PS, have a nice boat? I'm calling dibs.

 

Laughably false. I've repeated the same Constitutional way the law can be changed. The amendment process. You just don't want to face it.

I could care less what a book says is a sin or not a sin. To me this is allowing a psychological disorder to be treated like a genetic condition without any science to back it up.

Your quote:

Gay marriage, on the other hand, is no more important than freeing slaves or giving women the right to vote.

You equated it to freedom for slaves and women's right to vote. You made no effort to distinguish it in any way whatsoever.

And again that was a law that was passed. Why are you so against following the lawful way to get your pet social issue made into law legally?

 

No religion of which I am aware imposes a taboo on baking cakes.

If someone is in business to serve the public, and wishes to discriminate against certain members of the public, that is a matter of personal prejudice.
He cannot cite any religious tenet as an excuse unless he makes up a religion.

 

There is not much of a problem in businesses being allowed to deny service based on race, religion, etc., as long as there are alternate businesses available to public. In the current example (the bakery), this couple could just have went down the road to another bakery. They chose to make this an example, and for that purpose, it works just as well as any other business.

The problem with letting a company deny business is more keen when there is no viable option. Example: (we could use any group, but for this, let us use race). Small town of 500 in the middle of nowhere (Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, etc.). No other town within 30 miles. A guy owns the only market in town, along with the only gas pumps. There simply is not enough business to support more. He has had it with those uppity moon crickets, and decides he is not going to serve them in his establishments. This affects the two black families in town. They can no longer get bread, milk, groceries. They cannot even get gas for their vehicle. Result. They have been effectively run out of town.

 

To explain to the usual folks, on both sides, who don't understand the situation here:
A business does not have protected moral convictions or religious beliefs, individuals do. The business must serve the couple, but the baker himself does not have to do it. He can hire someone who is not a bigot to do the work if it bothers him so. Or he can stop doing wedding cakes altogether. Ultimately, LGBT discrimination is simply gender discrimination. If the person who requested the cake was the opposite gender, the baker wouldn't have a problem with it. Furthermore, this is not equivalent to someone being forced to create a message that they do not agree with. The baker is well within his rights to say that he will bake and generally decorate the cake, but will not put any pro-gay messaging on it (who would ask for that on a wedding cake, anyway?). If the couple wants a same-sex wedding topper, the baker can simply point out that he doesn't stock those and the couple will have to provide their own. There is a similar case, also in Colorado, where the baker's right to refuse to produce a message was upheld. I know this sounds like splitting hairs, but the difference is clear if you suppress the knee jerk and think for 10 seconds.

To boil it down: the baker would make this same, exact cake for a male-female couple. The only factor is that one member of the couple is not the gender that the baker expects, so he will not serve them. That's gender discrimination, which businesses in Colorado are legally prohibited from engaging in.

With the current make-up of the court, I fully expect a 5-4 decision in favor of the couple. Maybe 6-3, since Roberts is not so originalist-crazy sometimes.

 

Blah blah blah. Right to refuse my ass. Business owners lose a semblance of rights when they are licensed by the states, in accordance with that states specific laws.

 

Nice recap.

 

No, the Constitution. They are free to spend their money in a Bakery that wants their business. Have gays been refused service at either the Pizza place or the Bakers because of their gender/sexual orientation or because they are getting married and the proprietor has refused to participate? No gays have been refused service at any of them based on their sexual orientation, only the fact that participating in a gay wedding violates the religious beliefs of the proprietor. A right that is not only guaranteed by the Constitution and an inalienable RIGHT but codified in the Civil Rights Act. If they refused a gay person(s) all service in their establishment, it would be discrimination.

 

Or he can just tell them he's too busy or going on vacation at the time they need the cake.

 

That would be smart. The business owner can be as religious as they want, but once they are open for business, they are no longer acting as an individual. My sister in law served her country and is married to another woman. If a business owner pointed a righteous finger at her and said "We don't serve your kind here." that would create a double standard. Religious people enjoy legal protection from discrimination based on their religion and should never enjoy legal protection for denying the same rights to others.

 

Sure, making an excuse would be the easiest thing. However, it's easy to imagine that repeatedly doing so could be interpreted as a pattern of discrimination.

 

We all all bigots. Don't pretend the word can be used as a weapon.

LGBT discrimination is not in the Constitution. No matter how much you may scream and cry people with a psychological condition does not make them a protected class any more than someone who claims to be Sheena Queen of the Jungle has the "right" to be treated as royalty.

We have freedom of religion in this country. We also have private business. You have no right as gay or cross dresser to force anyone to accept your mental condition if they believe it goes against their faith.

Disagree? Do the legal act of drafting an Amendment. That's why the process exists.

The age of bullying citizens into accepting your psychological disorder is over.

 

The Civil Rights Act protects against discrimination based on race and gender. LGBT discrimination is gender discrimination. Disagree? Get the law repealed.

 

Do you believe you can only be moral if you are religious?

 

The LGBT condition is not a race or gender. All people have those.

Try again.

 

Nope although Obama and the Democrats tried to amend it in 2015

Obama Supports Bill to Amend Civil Rights Act To Ban Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity Discrimination
The summary of the bill states: “Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation.”

 

I explained it in the post that you quoted. Male-female couple orders a cake for a wedding and gets it. Same-sex couple orders the same cake for their wedding and is refused. If the gender of one of the members of that couple was different, they wouldn't have been refused. That's gender discrimination. There are a number of cases that have been decided in that light at the state level, and there are government organizations that interpret laws that ways (e.g. the EEOC).

 

Wrong again. We all have gender. You cannot claim gender discrimination based on a couple. Gender is singular for a person not plural.

You really need to rethink your argument here if this is the best you've got.

And yes I'm well aware of the liberal activist judges who pretend they can use their personal opinion and circumvent the law.

But we have SCOTUS and hopefully will get more of the liberals out of there so the law can be followed not circumvented.