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

Start with your post #628. That linked failed. Then in Post #643, you provide a different link, but it does not contain the type of statistics you claim of the 9%-40%. But we have no real context of what population they (homosexual pedophiies) are 9%-40% of.

 

I don't believe anyone is arguing that pedophiles should be able to adopt...
You are starting to dance around in circles.

 

Oh yeah, and #648, you also make a claim that you have yet to back up.

 

Actually he specifically referred to OUR SOCIETY and OUR laws in response to a post about OUR marriage laws.

 

Here WOULD have been the time and place to specify this denial of homosexual rights you speak of.

If you weren't so full of ****, this would have been the time and place to show an example of this homosexual marriage.
Yeah, Nero dressed up Sporos to look like one of his concubines he had killed and married him, BUT, "It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases)."

 

If you ask me, this was never about religion. Its a right to property case. Who has the right to property.

Is the shop and it's contents the property of the owner or whoever demands he assemble it in a way he refuses to.

I think the religious angle is going to lose. It will set a precedent that will have some difficult reprocussions. If I can disobey this law and claim it's religious expression what's to stop someone from claiming that discriminating against women or blacks is religious expression.

I may be wrong, but we shall see.

 

Someone else used the surgeon example and I was replying. As far as the baker enjoying preferred citizenship and legal protection for committing acts that are illegal for others to commit against him, that just doesn't seem like justice to me. This isn't the only case. Other bakers and wedding venues have refused to serve gays.

But he doesn't have that right. One may not refuse service based on religion, race, gender, or disability. The question here is if gays should have the same rights.

Fair enough. We will just have to be miles apart on this one.

 

species extends outside the US.

he, like you, were shown to be laughably incorrect.

Which is nothing new for you.

 

The bible does not recognize same sex marriage. It's really no more complex than that and no one can compel someone to provide a service that is in such fundamental conflict with their sincerely held religious views.

Especially when a wedding cake, gay or not, can be obtained so easily from so many other bakers.

I'm only aware of one other case
here in Oregon. You can't force a Jew to provide t-shirts that celebrate the holocaust, for example, to white supremacists.
Why is this case so exceptionally different?

 

You seem to be under the impression that human nature, at least in America, has changed completely in the past 50 years. Fifty years ago many people believed there was nothing wrong with openly discriminating against blacks. Today many people believe there is nothing wrong with openly discriminating against LGBTs. You don't see that discrimination is discrimination. You don't see that who is at the receiving end of discrimination changes arbitrarily over the course of time.

Discrimination is always a majority discriminating against a minority. Perhaps that is why so many people fear immigration from Latins and Muslims.

 

Inaccurate communication on my part. I should have said: I would consider him a major league ****** but I think he should have the right to do (or not do) business with whomever he wishes. I don't, however, think he'd be in business for very long after Facebook found out about his actions.

 

True, but in one study, 86% of the prisoners who had molested an underage male, SELF identified as homosexual. And of the remaining 14%, I don't doubt that some of them incorrectly self identified as heterosexual. I imagine self identifying as homosexual might piss off the wife.

 

Heterosexual relations are vital to the survival of the species around the world so not sure of your point.

 

My point was obvious. Homosexuality is in no way harmful to society, or the species.

 

What the bible/quran says is irrelevant. What bothers me the most is that using their business to force their beliefs onto others will only serve to weaponize the court system against them and make lawyers a lot of money. Its just plain stupid.

 

I don't encourage or promote parents divorcing neither does the state. You said homosexual couples "they" can procreate, no they can't and they cannot provide a mother AND a father which is what we promote and encourage and sanction through heterosexual marriage. And TWO parents made up of a mother AND a father is what is the nuclear family and as nature intends. And sure love and support beyond that is not oblivated by having the committed mother AND father and they in a committed marriage. THAT is what we encourage and support and promote and sanction through heterosexual marriage.

 

Who do you think you are? It is not up to you or the state to encourage/discourage anything when it comes to marriage/divorce. “Lets stay together and be miserable because some guy on the internet thinks its best!”

Gay women can absolutely procreate. (Turkey baster may be required.) Gay men can use a surrogate or adopt. Would you prefer an unwanted child was raised by 2 gay men or do you believe “the system” can do a better job?

There are plenty of bad parents out there and having the correct combination of genitalia does not equate to raising happy, self-confident children.

 

This whole case is ridiculous, it's clearly discrimination to not make a cake for someone because of their sexual orientation. However, if one is OK with discrimination, that's the argument that must be made.

 

And I have already notwithstanding the flawed court decision

"In a predictably raging dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia accuses the majority of writing “the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie,” and howls that its “opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.” The opinion's “showy profundities,” he writes, “are often profoundly incoherent.” He also calls the ruling a “threat to American democracy.”

Chief Justice John Roberts penned the principal dissent, despairing that “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment.” His dissent, while more measured than Scalia’s, is quite sharply worded:

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...e_sex_marriage_bans_are_unconstitutional.html

 

The first directive of our species.

If they are never legally married what's wrong with that? Do you need a piece of government paper to tell someone you love them and will be with them for the rest of your life?

 

none of which is a legal argument to ban same sex couples from marriage. which is why you lost in court.

 

lol, not sure how quoting a dissenting opinion in any way helps you?

It's over. It's settled law. You can't ban same sex couples from marriage, because you can't demonstrate a governmental interest in DENYING them the right of marriage.

It's why you lost in court.

 

this is also not a valid legal argument to deny same sex couple the right to marry.

 

It is Constitutionally correct. The ruling was not. The upcoming review of the violation of the baker's rights will be more In line with what the Constitutional ACTUALLY says, as opposed to the euphemistic wish of what the left pretends it does.

 

They have made plenty of cakes for gay people, but they should have a right to say 'i don't want to make a cake for a wedding that I don't believe is valid.'