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

The LGBT Attack Squad here cannot get their minds around that obvious distinction.

 

I agree. The courts ruling in Obergfell is constitutionally correct based on the 14th amendment. The states couldn't demonstrate a governmental interest served by denying them the right of marriage, thus they failed strict scrutiny.

lol, have you ever read the 14th amendment?

 

They're being cynical pricks.
There's a difference between a black baker refusing to make a cake for a white customer, and a black baker refusing to make a cake that reads "White pride, white power."

 

As long as you are open about advocating a right to discriminate, then you're at least honest.

 

This is not a Supreme Court case I'm pinning any high hopes on, unless someone can tell me which one of the 5 gay activist judges is going to flip their vote and side with the baker.

 

Just popped in to catch the latest in religiously fueled idiocy and bigotry. The usual fairy tale believers are present.

 

Yeah, the ones who delude that the Constitution specifies protection for genital preference.

 

I would not visit a bakery that refused to make a wedding for a gay wedding, but I'm willing to let the free market do its thing. I would, though, based on my internet browsing, visit a bakery owned by two hot lesbians.

 

Are our rights market based?

 

Apparently not to this baker from Colorado.

What? No one if asking the gay couple to adopt the beliefs of the baker or to give him their business.

And no one forced them to take the baker to court.....everything considered it would have been much simpler, cheaper, better
to take their business elsewhere and perhaps leave some nasty comments online to inform others.

 

Very good! No one would expect a Jewish baker to decorate a cake celebrating the Holocaust
for some white supremacists. Why is this baker being punished because he doesn't wish to contribute to a marriage he finds an anathema to him?
He will undoubtedly be vindicated at the Supreme Court.

 

Every one of us should have the right to do business with or not do business with anyone we please.

Additionally, I'd rather know who the bigots are, so I can avoid doing business with them.

 

Deleted due to quote failure.

 

There is a difference between being ok with something and willing to defend someone's right to something. A person might not be ok with someone else being Wiccian, but is still willing to defend their right to follow that religion. The same applies here. Some of us are not ok with discrimination itself, but will still defend a business owner's private property rights and freedom of association.

 

I stand with the Constitution which clearly sides with the baker. If the SC finds in favor of the gay couple, it would be the obligation of every patriotic American to refuse to condemn the ruling.

 

Yes, this is just an extension of "no shirts, no shoes, no service."
It is wrong and illegal for an owner to refuse to serve a gay person, but it is NOT illegal to refuse to make a product that goes against your beliefs.

You would not see this outrage from the left if a black baker were forced to make a "White Pride" shirt, or a Jewish baker to make a "Heil Hitler" shirt.

 

So we can get rid of civil rights laws forcing businesses to serve non whites?

I hear your argument, I just disagree. I think businesses shouldn't be able to discriminate unless the customers are acting violent or stealing, etc.

 

This is probably one of the few things you have put out that I can fully agree with. Such is the basis of our polygamist marriage. We don't need the paper for the marriage. Nor do heterosexual couples. However, if there is going to be a legal version, then it needs to be for all, not just heterosexuals.

As far as the supposed first directive (I will agree it is a prime directive, no Star Trek puns intended, but not the prime directive.), marriage is not needed for that any more than government recognition is needed for a religious or social marriage.

 

Interesting argument here. I just wish people would get over religion, it's such a stupid thing to fight over when people don't have clean water or access to medical care.

 

It's not silly to the believer - I'm agnostic but freedom of religion is one our most cherished rights. This Christian baker should have the right to only make cakes for events that do not conflict with his religious beliefs.

I promise you if I this passes, people will go to a Jewish bakery and demand they make a "Long live Hitler" cake. This is not a door that needs to be opened.

 

In your worldview. Others disagree with you. It's called "Freedom".

 

I think we should. Every person should have a right to do business or not do business with whomever they want.

And I think that those businesses that refuse to serve non-whites would be destroyed by the competition.

 

I cannot blame them if they feel that the business treated them unfairly. Who does he think he is deciding which beliefs are superior and who is worthy of being served by a Christian?

Believing that it is okay to love someone of the same sex is no better or worse than believing that we were sinners thousands of years before we were born because a talking snake convinced a naked lady to eat an apple. We are free to believe whatever we want. Gay business owners may not deny goods, services, employment, or housing to christians based on their beliefs and allowing the opposite creates preferred citizenship. This does not resemble freedom, justice, or equality.

 

Of course it isn't silly to the person who believes it, but it doesn't make it correct. The Christian baker should learn some science and understand that gays are not evil, there is no hell, etc. It's made up nonsense.

That's probably true, but doesn't make it right.

 

I respect your opinion but disagree strongly. I think we all have to be civil, and not serve someone because of ancient beliefs.