Bakery pays over $135K for refusing to make cake for gay wedding

They were going to have gay sex at their wedding?

 

I don't believe his story for a minute.
He made it up.

 

The inmates are truly running the asylum.

 

When a similar case - the one regarding the NM Photographer who refused to photograph a lesbian wedding, and lost several court battles -- made it's way to the Supreme court, the SCOTUS declined to hear it.

So the ruling stood. Bigots lost.

 

How old are you ? I mean what is your mental age ?

 

I think the same. Or he was thrown out but there was a massive amount of alcohol involved and I do not believe that it was the Mexican cool hitting the tequila

 

ha ha ha he he he !!! nothing like a little girl on girl action for the SCOTUS to ponder

 

In the United States we have a document that all laws are required to inhere to, and can not violate. That document is the US Constitution. The first ten amendments of that Constitution are call the Bill of Rights. The First of these states:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Since any law that forces anyone to do something that violates their religion is in fact unconstitutional. The Christian Bible, like many others, specifically speaks out against homosexuals. It forbids Christians from having anything to do with the lifestyle. Since marriage is considered by Christians to be an ordination of God, Christians are forbidden to participate in the process to any extent. That includes baking a cake. Any law that attempts to force a Christian based business to violate their religious freedom is unconstitutional. For precedence on this topic, I refer you to the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby ruling.

Here is the problem specific to this case. A lesbian goes into a bakery that is clearly a Christian establishment. She wants to get a cake for a planned wedding. A check on Google Maps shows nine other bakeries within 30 minutes of Sweet Cakes. Several have five star ratings. Since we don't know where the customer was coming from, it is possible that some of them were possibly closer. So, why did she choose that particular bakery? It seems to me a favorable ruling for the couple would allow gay couples to target bakeries owns by Christians. The bakeries would then be forced to violate their faith, or pay. That ruling would fly in the face of the very concept of Freedom of Religion.

 

144k is too much imho. that being said, those bakers should have acted like adults from the start.

 

I know. It doesn't work though.

That's not how it's ever been interpreted though, for the obvious reason that it would be a mess. There are various religious concepts that call for certain people to be put to death (especially if you include all of the extremist and literalist interpretations). Your principle would mean that religious people couldn't be convicted for murdering anyone on that basis.

The constitution has certainly established the principle that the state can't directly or intentionally prevent free exercise of religion (though even that's been broken in some cases) and there have certainly been examples of concessions to the religious written in the various laws but the idea of an unconditional exemption is ridiculous, however easily it can be read in the wording of the constitution. Hence my statement that SCOTUS will never make such a ruling.

IIRC her mother had used them before and recommended them. There is zero evidence of the ulterior motive you're ever so subtly trying to accuse them of.

 

As I said fine was too much and I do not believe that there is such a thing as gay marriage since that is a oxymoron IMHO !!! Now regarding the establishment clause and you claiming that the prohibition against the government setting up a religion and a baker baking a cake is the same thing - well that dough batter will not rise up to meet the test of being against the Constitution. Owning a bakery which is a for profit business open to all is not the same as being a house of worship. Baking and selling a cake is not the same thing as being a minister-priest- rabbi- eelman etc. Bakers /bakery owners do not as and within the course baking and selling cakes perform marriages. So the law did not tell the baker to marry the two gay people.

There are a multitude of things in the Bible - Old and New Testament or in the hated Khuran that people may believe in but if they act out on it they will be in violation of some law. Example: Jews and Christians are directed by the Bible to kill neighbors who fail to keep the Sabbath. To kill children who disrespect parents. To stone women who commit adultery. To kill homosexuals in various ways. We can quote more and more such things that the Bible says we are to do. If our laws prevent the stoning of adulteresses or the killing of friends who fail to keep the Sabbath Holy that is not deemed as preventing someone from practicing their religion. Likewise any law that made it mandatory to stone adulteresses, kill neighbors who do not keep holy the Sabbath, or put unruly foul mouthed children to the sword such a law would be unConstitution because it would violate the establishment clause.

My suggestion to you is that you do not off any lesbians who decide to have a big fat Greek wedding ...

 

I love it!

Perhaps if people could keep their bronze age superstitions to themselves, this wouldn't have happened. The fee is large as a warning to what happens when you put your idiotic religious beliefs above common sense.

Plus, the money was crowd sourced from other religious whackadoos who can be bothered to donate to bigotry but not a charity like their fairy tales tell them to.

 

You are opening the door for Muslims to justify Sharia with your nonsense logic. People should not be able to discriminate because their religion permits them to.

 

You have every right to your beliefs but you should let other people have and hold to their religious beliefs as long as such a belief is not in violation of a law. You do not have to believe in their religion or in any religion but why make fun of their beliefs and call those beliefs fairy tails ? I say again unto you that you have every right to not believe, believe, or make believe that you believe and yes even laugh at those who believe, but why do it.

 

If they think baking a cake is wrong, they shouldn't be in that business. For I doubt they had to take their pants off to bake it.

 

Maybe some parts of Sharia as to the religious parts. But hey you may be correct depending on what attitude sings with the SUPREMES at any point is time.

 

Well let us hope that taking off the pants is not the way cake batter is induced or seduced to size.

 

Probably for the same reason the couple could have just gone to another baker, but chose not to.

 

And people wonder why Trump is polling so strongly. Trump is America lifting it's middle finger to the Establishment.

 

they were not sued

a homosexual commisioner levied the fine and demanded that the Christians pay 135 large to the lesbians for having hurt their feelings

 

I make fun and have disdain for superstitions that have been used for purposes other than peace, understanding, and acceptance as believers claim they are. I cannot think that the jesus I read of from the bible would look at kim davis, or the the bigot bakers and feel proud of them. As I said, if people want to believe in nonsense, that's fine. When I have a problem is when they try to force their beliefs on others.

Clearly, the bakers were trying to make a statement. That statement was roundly praised by the hypocrites of organized religion as being honorable. However, the judgement of the courts in excess of 100k, also clearly being a statement, is wrong.

Religion has been used as an excuse to suppress women, minorities, and as a justification for slavery. Religious types have had their way for far too long and have been able to hide behind their superstitions because a large majority have shared those superstitions. Now that logic and reason are beginning to take hold, they cry "religious persecution." It works both ways. Tolerance of religious intolerance is not tolerance.

 

race and how one chooses to engage in sex aren't even closely related

 

What if the owners of Hot Cross Buns bakery professes to be of some unspecified Christian faith and they are also the bakers. Rachel Stein the wife of Saul the real nice friendly guy who owns Steins Drug and Condom Shoppe comes in and says that she needs a nice big cake for her son's Bar Mitzvah. Mathew and Mary tell Rachel that oh no we cannot make a cake that celebrates something of the Jewish faith because after all our Minister Jeb Stuart Jefferson Davis says that "you people" killed our dear Savior Jesus Christ so that is against "our" religion. Also our Bible as Pastor Jeb and we interpret it says so also.

Now those of you who believe that baking and selling a cake to a lesbian pair is against Christian tenets of faith how would you rule if Rachel and Saul Stein took Mathew and Mary to court for refusing to bake a Bar Mitzvah cake.

 

and please note how you quickly label Christians as being bigots yet you claim to be righteous.

Christians have no axe to grind with any person

We do take exception to certain actions be it stealing, violence and yes, gay sex.

The bakers no doubt welcomed the women into their bakery but could not participate in the celebration of a sin, namely gay-sex.

If those 2 women went off and got married to 2 men, the bakers would no doubt have made 2 cakes.

Same women, just no gay-sex.

That is what you need to understand.

 

That was a 14A issue, because it was states that were enforcing segregation. There are no comparable constitutional constraints on private entities.

Thanks ever so much for advertizing your Stalinist inclinations.

Last I heard he's all in for "gay marriage".