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

Your opinion means nothing. Its what the law says and right now there is no public accomodation for homosexuals anywhere in the Constitution.

And why should there be "protection" for a psychological disorder?

You aren't going to embarrass yourself and link homosexuality with race or sex are you?

If they told them it was for a gay wedding and they did, then they knew. Seriously, that had to be explained to you?

 

The 20th century had Hitler, the 21st has gay wedding cakes.

It's our moral duty to stand up to this moral outrage, taking no prisoners until ALL Hate Cakes (aka gay wedding cakes) are no more.

And once again, we can count on Russia being our ally.

Let's roll!

 

The accommodation isn't for homosexuals per se', or for any race or any other criteria. All laws apply whether the person they are applying to is homosexual or heterosexual, black or white, cis or trans. Thus the protections to one group applies to all.

I was not addressing that specific case but the generality, since your point seem to address the generality as well. You specifically said:

So you are not addressing the specific case. I can force you to participate in my poly wedding (assuming that you would be religiously against that too, which given your posts is a likely bet) by having you make a product for it that does not have any special added to say it is for a poly wedding or telling you it is for a poly wedding.

 

And that is also incorrect. Race and sex are both protected from discrimination under federal law. Homosexuality is not.

Wrong again. My focus has always been the case of forcing gay marriage on a couple for religious purposes. Do I seriously have to quote the unending posts of myself in this thread arguing the same thing over and over again?

Since you brought it up if a religious person is taught by their religion that polygamy is a sin then absolutely.

You keep missing the obvious that you cannot force someone to participate in a gay wedding or any other kind of wedding with a person who has a religious objection to it.

Come back when you can show me in federal law where you can force someone to participate in a marriage of any kind they have a religious objection to. Go ahead cat.

 

Happy to say that this rather...

...creative...

...argument will not prevail with SCOTUS.

Batten down the hatches and batter up the pans - the gay cakes are coming!

 

You will notice religion and religious practice is a protected class by not only the First Amendment to the Constitution as a constitutional right but also Codified in the Civil Rights Act. Alas LGBT is simply not there. That puts them in the same category as folks with red hair or thick mustaches and bushy eyebrows.

 

No.

I'd brace myself before the ruling if I were you...

 

The SCOTUS will uphold the Constitution.

 

You talked about how they (the gay couple of the case presumably) had told the baker, thus they knew. But your previous statement that I quoted was not talking about that specific case. Thus it covered a more broader area. Maybe you intended to be talking about only that specific case, but you worded it poorly.

BTW who is forcing a gay marriage on a couple for religious purposes? Who is going around and finding two people of the same sex and forcing them to marry because that person's religion says they need to force these people into a gay marriage?

I don't need a law to do it. I come into your bakery, order a wedding cake, ask you to include several wedding cake toppers of people, individuals preferred but couples will do, for me to decide on what I will put on top later. I just forced you to participate in my poly wedding, but you did so unknowingly. Hence why I specified about knowingly participating. I have already stated before that I believe that a business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone for any reasons, religious or not. My point was that you can indeed be forced to participate by being kept in the dark as to the nature of the event.

 

You will also notice that sex is included and several cases, including, but not limited to, Macy v. Department of Justice and David Baldwin v. Dep't of Transportation determined that sexual orientation and gender identity are included in the category of sex. SO yes they are covered by the Civil Rights Act.

 

Indeed.

 

So the act has been amended? Post a link please.

 

I didn't say amended. I cited two of several cases in which it was determined that the category of sex, as a protected status, applied to both sexual orientation and gender identity. Although it has been amended in and of itself. See the Civil Right Act of 1991.

 

Why when you refuse to discuss the matter?

 

There is no federal public accommodation law that says the baker has to bake you a special cake.

 

At the request of another poster, but if you have questions that haven't been asked and answered repeatedly, they can certainly be discussed.

 

No special cake.

A wedding cake for people getting married.

Bake wedding cakes for the public?

Bake wedding cakes for the public.

So super easy.

(As has been explained literally hundreds of times.)