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

Exactly. But if he/she wants to be a bad businessperson, that's their lookout. They have the right to do business badly ... don't they? Or are you saying business success should be compulsory?

 

Very true..for all the bakers know their cakes are being eaten at orgies or by a woman that just had an abortion.

 

The VA does that.

 

I think that the business owner is going to win this one. For starters he isn’t discriminating against gays. He has given them baked goods in the past. So, any argument about him saying no service to gays goes out the window. He has a problem with gay weddings. He is being forced to violate his civil/conditional rights to do business with them and in turn violating the fundamentals rights of this country.

 

The arguments for making the shop bake the cake are entirely irrational. I couldn't give a toss whether you're religious or not, it has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It's a property right which is being violated, not the right to freedom of religion.

"Serving the public" is the most openly-BS reasoning, picked only to serve their end goals. The same applies to anti-discrimination laws. We've trashed property rights to protect feelings and prevent perceived offense.

 

Matthew 19:4-5 - 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

You should stick to subjects you know even a little about.

 

As my earlier post stated, most of these bakers have demonstrated that they have no problem serving gay customers. So it's more about...Do business owners have the right to disagree with and not participate in gay marriage.

 

That is the thing. The Colorado supreme court basically ruled that anything involving a gay person is defacto discrimination even if it is not about their sexual preference just because they are gay. It was a bad ruling in that regard.

 

They pay for those roads, fire and police through taxes. Seriously that's the best argument you've got?

This has to be the most transparent liberal belief that its some kind of a benefit to get city services when you already pay for them.

A hospital isn't a bakery. Try to understand the difference.

 

Makes perfect sense but you do have to think about it just for a second. Every person has a gender or now we have to call it sex because you guys have made up so many new freakish options for gender. It has nothing to do with a couple.

And those rulings have as much legal justification as blocking Trump on a travel ban and we've seen where that is going.

What you and those rulings fail to address is that homosexuality or cross dressing is not in the Constitution anywhere in any shape or form but religious freedom is.

No just the ones who refuse to read the law as you have.

You and your activist judge buddies ignore the entire process of the amendment process written specifically to address these needs of yours. But you know you don't have the votes which is why you refuse to acknowledge it.

 

They should be informed that most are.

Tell them that even their most angelic confections are regularly fated to be devil's food!

The Kathy Griffin Cake is delivered to Barron's Birthday Party

​

.....
.........The wages of cinnamon is death!​

 

I suppose you can fancy that your scriptural injunction, for whatever it's worth, declares that every dude should move out of the family habitat and meld with a lady, but where is your taboo regarding baking?

No religion has a juju concerning cake.

 

Agreed, Constitutional rights should take precedence over rights created by city and state statutes. But lately it seems that standard procedure is abandoned whenever sexual minorities are involved.

 

If they will sell a gay couple all but one thing, then yes, they do have a problem serving gay customers. Do you think that selling someone a product that will be used at an event is participating in that event?

 

they were not refusing to serve anyone. They simply refused to decorate a cake for a homosexual event nor would they deliver to a homosexual themed event. The bride and bride or was it groom and groom were welcome to buy a cake from the baker and decorate it themselves.

 

Which ignores the salient distinction. He had aokd the persons cakes before, would do so in the future.

As I said, ciminal acts which some on your list are not.

Yes and when rights are involved theg will normally not step on a persons right which would be the baker in this case.

 

When you are asked to create sonething unique to and celebrating that unique event yes.

 

A cake isn't a celebration of anything. It's a cake.

Nobody should be forced against their will to perform a gay wedding or attend a gay wedding. Delivering an item of food that the people who are celebrating the gay marriage isn't joining in the celebration.

The gay couple was acting ridiculous. But so was the baker. Both sides were ridiculous.

 

Specious, that is not what the baker in this case said.

 

I'll be making a 4th of July cake to take to the party next Tuesday, it will look like the flag and have Happy Birthday USA. It celebrates the founding of our nation.

 

They would equally oppose baking a cake for a marriage between two heterosexual of the same sex. The customers sexual orientation is irrelevant. But of course, ANY time a sexual minority is involved, it is PRESUMED that the discrimination is based upon animus towards that sexual minority.

 

Okay, this seems like it might be legitimate. It would be one thing if the bakery had a standard wedding cake style that was available without customization and that was refused. But if every cake is extensively customized for the event, then I could see that as a valid argument. I think that should be a free expression defense, though, rather than a religious one.

 

Right next to where it says a business gets the same rights as an individual, where businesses must accommodate those with disabilities, and where it says a business cannot refuse service to people because of their race, religion, gender, etc. An individual can refuse to allow black people into his home. That's his right. A business does not have that right.

 

No, that's the creation of state statutes and local ordinances. You wont find it anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution ONLY prohibits discrimination BY THE GOVERNMENT.

 

You simply don't get it or maybe you're ticked that you know I'm right. The Cakeshop will win in the supreme court. Your argument would hold water is he refused to serve all gays. But that's not what happened. He HAS served Gays in his Cakeshop and Heaven's knows the Denver area is full of them. So their sexual orientation isn't the issue, as I pointed out Matthew is very specific in the Bible what Jesus said about marriage. If you don't like it I guess that's just too bad, but it's our right under the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act. Your time would be better spent writing your Congressman to change the Constitution.