Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same sex wedding cake case.

It looks like what pissed off the Supreme Court was the way the state of Colorado mocked and dismissed the baker's legitimate religious objections.

Secular liberals in government overplayed their hand.

 

Homosexuals are mentally ill to start with, so they don't accept reality.

Acceptance is not enuf for the homosexuals. You must approve and embrace homosexuality.

That is the only thing a homosexual will allow for.

A normal person would not want to have food made by someone that hates them...but leave it to the homosexuals. The key word 'normal' is missing from their life - homosexuals are abnormal.

 

I never claimed to be tolerant, so spare me your indignation. I'm also not against the people that compose Abrahamic religious flocks. I am against the dogma they teach and the trappings that delude people into believing what they believe.

Get it right.

 

People shouldn’t be required to serve whatever fetish-of-the-week group the left cooks up in their ongoing holy war against the West.

 

Well, by your post history and Eurocentric stance, you ought to be demanding these "Christians" revert to shamanism and paganism, right? I mean, Christianity is a middle eastern religion. At the end of the day, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I am all for religious liberty.

In your home.

In your head.

Away from me, my kin, and anyone who doesn't want to hear your bullshit.

 

Did the baker say the gay couple had to believe what he does? Nope.

So, your meltdown is unfounded and not based on reality.

 

How do you explain him serving this couple in the past?

oops!

 

go figure on the dissenters

 

I think that the civil rights act of 1964 ruled that if you are a business that is open to the public you may not discriminate against people for race creed or color. The question here is whether people can be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, as that was not covered at the time. However, if a person feels because of his religion that he has the right not to participate or lend credence to something his religion views as evil or sinful. It's a pretty tough call in my opinion. Slippery slope.

 

I explain it like this: The baker is a demagogue who deserves to go bankrupt for their poor business decisions.

 

And I think people should be able to do business with whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. So apparently I believe in it just a tad more than you, who wants the Govenrment to force people who don’t like each other to do business.

 

If it was for one of their birthdays he would have baked them a birthday cake.

 

No, it wasn't.

 

Did you get your ass handed to you from a bible thumper after school? Something is off with you, your attitude towards people of faith is not right........ You are not right in the head and this is coming from me, a heathen who does not believe myself but do respect how others wish to take this journey.

just sayin, no need to wet the bed. This decision from SCOTUS was a narrow ruling dealing with that one baker and the State of Colorado law.

The irony of pointing out Jesus freaks, while you freak.

 

Not really.

 

Again Freedom of does not mean Freedom from...

 

Read the ruling it was also about his religious and moral beliefs and included was the notation of the hostile position the government agency took against both.

 

Yes, it was.

 

I'm fine with businesses having a specific set of customers. But you cannot say you're open to the public and not disclose you won't serve portions of the public for esoteric reasons.

This is why private clubs have existed.

As far as denial of service goes, it would be anarchy if you allowed all business the right to refuse for any reason and you know it.

 

Oh course really.

 

The court ruled that the Commission did not give the baker a fair hearing and, for that reason alone, set aside the ruling.

 

Prove it.

 

Your meltdown is showing again.

Please explain how this baker serving this couple in the past supports your position?

 

No it doesn't, depends on what service they are asking. My music performance is open to the public but I can turn down an event if i choose.

 

What moral code makes you think you are entitled to someone else's services?