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

The US Constitution's 1st Amendment makes it "correct". Our Constitution is NOT "void where prohibited by law"..it is the OPPOSITE.

 

The problem here is that you are trying to bind what can and can't happen in the terms of what you think is,and that simply isn't reality. No, a man cannot get a man pregnant and a woman cannot get a woman pregnant, at least not yet, and even then it will only be with medical/scientific intervention. But procreation can still happen and within the context of their marriage. The big thing to remember is that marriage is NOT required for procreation, nor to provide the offspring with access to both father and mother. We can see plenty of examples of this in heterosexual people today.

As to what nature intends, first off, since nature is not a sentient being it intends nothing, despite centuries of anthropomorphising it. When looking at nature, we have just as many examples of the father staying with the mother either for life, or at least through nurturing, and we also have plenty of examples of the father knocking up the mother and then hightailing it.

Looking at your nuclear family, that didn't start appearing in any significance until the 17th century, with the term not until 20th. A mere 4 centuries, at the longest, as compared to how long of human history? And even when it started, all the other family variations still existed and have never gone away.

 

This a stupid analogy. First off, a gay wedding is not a protected class - being gay is. It is illegal to refuse service to a gay customer, but it should NOT be illegal to refuse to make a product for an event that goes against your belief.

 

I think this is a ridiculous issue and the baker should get off his high horse and make the damn cake. If you are so opposed to a gay wedding there's something wrong with you....

 

That's called freedom. Now, the gays have won their equality in that they cannot be denied service simply for their sexual orientation, but forcing a Christian bakery to make a cake for a gay wedding, it immoral and un-Constitutional.

I'm for gay marriage, btw - but the Constitution is on the baker's side.

 

Please, don't use this argument. It is pretty much what was used when it was first attempted to get SSM, or interracial marriage, or freed slaves, or women's vote, or any number of things and they initially failed in court and/or legislature. That it was settle law and those things wouldn't happen. We have violated rights before. Please don't think it can't happen again if we are not vigilant about it.

 

Would you tell a Muslim to 'get off his high horse' and, say, bake a meal with pork in it ?

Would you tell a Jew to 'get off his high horse' and, say, bake a cake that reads "Bless the holocaust" ?

 

Haha you may well be right on the constitutionality I don't have a dog in this fight, but, I think the baker is being very ignorant here.

 

Is that the squad that attacks the LBGT or the one attacking for the LBGT? Or are the two attack squads fighting over the name as well?

 

I think it's uncivil to use violence against an otherwise peaceful person simply due to whom he chooses to do (or not do) business with.

 

I am so happy you made that analogy. Yes I absolutely would tell a Muslim that. Did you know in London there have been cases of Islamic cabbies not picking someone up if they have alcohol on them? That's where we are headed if this baker wins.

 

You do have a dog in this fight as it's about individual religious beliefs, which includes non-belief.
Forcing an atheist owner to make a cake for a Christian event is around the corner.

 

I said violence is civil? Where?

 

WRONG - once again, Muslim cabbies work for a company and must adhere to the policy. If a Muslim uber driver refuses to pick up people with pork or alcohol, that is their right.

 

This is why this is getting out of hand, no atheist baker would refuse piously to not make a cake for a christian wedding. That would be so dumb!

 

NO ONE is attacking the LGBT Attack Squad; they are just PUSHING BACK, FINALLY.

 

I didn't say you said anything. It's not about you.

I simply said that I think it's uncivil to use violence against an otherwise peaceful person simply due to whom he chooses to do (or not do) business with.

 

I couldn't disagree more! Who the hell are they to make up a rule in their own mind, now everyone has to abide by it? No way. You can believe anything you want but while in society, you can't just use religion as an excuse to not do normal things.

 

No the market is, or at least should if freedoms are observed, rights based. All sellers and buyers are free to chose whom and whom not to do business with, for what ever reason. Which means that while the business can discriminate on anything, from race to orientation to clothes choice (just like the buyers can), the buyers can use their market pressure to run the business....well out of business.

 

Oh, and to make the connection obvious, by violence I mean the violence of the state. While choosing to abstain from doing business with non-white, for example, is clearly abhorrent to most people's sensibilities, I think using violence against otherwise peaceful people is even more abhorrent.

 

When someone agrees to work for a company, they can either follow policy or quit. For example, a Muslim flight attendant cannot refuse to serve alcohol. Now, if a Muslim owns an airline, they have the right to make a no-alcohol policy.

There's a massive difference between an employee and an owner.

 

In US society, it leads to 67% of the HIV cases.

 

This is why I don't believe in top down enterprises!

 

We got rid of the one forcing business to segregate their business (Jim Crow Laws) even if the business want to be integrated.

By this argument, then I should not be allowed to discriminate against the shirtless person, or the shoeless person wanting to come into my business.

 

you're changing goal posts. you also probably don't believe in property or individual businesses.