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

What are you "nope"-ing about, exactly? The Civil Rights Act clearly includes protections against discrimination based on sex:

 

Sex not Gender.

You and your liberal buddies have worked hard to redefine Gender to mean whatever you want but Sex is still man and woman. Deal with it.

 

If this is an issue of "religious freedom" who's religion are we talking about ?

EX: The gay couple belongs to a religion that approves of gay marriage. They go to a cake shop and the baker claims his religion forbids him from making the cake. Who's religious freedom was denied ?

I really think that this is more of a civil rights issue, but I guess the religious zealots can make anything about their religion.

 

This is really that hard for you to follow? The rights are with the private business because a customer can go to another bakery. This isn't the power company for God's sake.

And what civil rights? The LGBT community from cross dressers to homosexuals have no basis in civil rights. They are not a race or specific sex. They are a psychological condition. Science has spoken.

 

Is the free exercise of religion limitless? If not then why would the bakery win? If yes does not that set a ridiculous standard where one could do any deplorable act if it is done in a religious context?

 

We uphold individual rights, not mob rule. Go read about the damn constitution, and get back to us. Fail.

 

No, why do you ask?

 

Typical false logic. We are talking about public places of business, not personal rights.

 

Hey Muslim baker, make us a ham sandwich! But I don't make ham sandwiches. Homophobe!!!! But you can buy one across the street.

Hey Baker, make us a wedding cake! But I don't make gay wedding cakes. Homophobe!!!! We'll make you a cake, just not for a gay weddding. And you can buy one across the street. Doesn't matter.

Hey agent, you have to represent me. But I don't want to represent you. Homophobe!!!!

We want to eat at your restaurant! We require a jacket and tie and you're in shorts and a tshirt. Homophobe!!!! But You can go eat anywhere. Doesn't matter.

I want a job. But you're not qualified. Are you saying you won't hire me because I'm gay? No you're not qualified. BIGOT!!! I think I'm qualified and you're trampling on my rights as an unemployed person!!!! BIGOT!!!

Let me into this club!!! But you're old and ugly! BIGOT!!! But this is a club for young hip people. You know that. Why do you want to come in? BIGOT!!!!

You can do this forever.

 

because the baker isn't denying service he is limiting his custom services by not providing a custom service that goes against his religious beliefs and he isn't discriminating against any person he is doing so against a particular event

 

You really cannot figure this out?

The one whose religious beliefs were violated was the one who was forced to provide a service against his will.

Religious freedom doesn't mean that you have the right to force someone to do something!

 

were is it written you give up ones personal rights to own and operate a business?

 

Um...you don't believe that certain personal rights remain, regardless of where you are?

And places of business are private; not public.

 

It's not necessarily religious it is about personal morals. The baker will sell them one of his standard cakes, he had been selling to them for quite a while as I recall. They asked for a cake celebrating homosexuality which violates his personal moral beliefs to partake in that celebration. I mean do you really have ZERO empathy for the baker in this situation? And how does the baker refusing to violate his own moral violate the other person's moral beliefs? He's not preventing them from obtaining a cake or even making one themselves. He's not telling them under some authority they can't have a cake. He's just saying using his own artistic talents to create a cake celebrating homosexuality violates how own personal morals. He should not be forced to do so.

 

Of course, religions aren't allowed to conduct human sacrifices are they? They certainly cannot engage in a crime. I have no problem with a black singer refusing to be hired to sing at a KKK event. Would you?

 

so I will ask who is the arbitrator of your morals? your self? the law?
if you use the law as your moral arbitrator you have a very low set of morals
if you use your self then you can change them any time you want to fit your whims believing you will not suffer any consequences doing so

 

It's my personal business and my personal talent. Why can't I conduct both as I see fit?

 

You can do it forever, but in these examples, the person isn't being rejected because of a specified prohibited reason. For instance, if the rules say you have to have a jacket and tie to enter, and the person wanting to get in is in shorts, the owner can deny that person access for that reason and wouldn't be in any trouble at all.

 

The Public Accommodation Laws of 1964 (Title II of the Civil Rights Act). Unless you have the business designated as "private" (as in a private club), you have to serve the public at large. The law says you can own a public business, and you can operate a public business. But you can't discriminate based on (insert protected class here) if you're operating a public business. That's the law on the books today unfortunately.

 

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

 

I can't find where is says "Bakers" or for that matter anyone who is merely making something and selling it.

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

42 U.S.C. §2000a(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public-accommodations

 

The limit is the basis of the denial of service. Is freedom of religion without limits?

 

So what is the limit in terms of religious freedom?

 

What in the hell are you talking about. Your saying that because someone is gay they have no religious rights ? There are 2 sides to any transaction, and both sides have the same right. All I am saying is that ones rights cannot trump the same rights afforded another. Just because someone can go somewhere else, does not mean that you have the right to make them go somewhere else.

"psychological condition".......how very Fox News of you

 

I disagree. If you go into business you are forced to do a lot of things against your will. Their are rules and regulations that every business owner must follow. Health codes are one of those things. Can they claim "religious freedom" to not pay taxes ? NO.

Please explain how ones right to religious freedom can trump someone else religious freedom. The best example of that was the Clerk of Court in Kentucky who refused to issue a marriage license. Somehow her "freedom" had more right than the freedom of the gay couple to get married in their church ?