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

What moral code makes you think you are entitled to enforce your morals on someone else's life?

 

Let's not forget this happened when gay marriage wasn't legal in Colorado.

 

do you discriminate on who can listen to your music.

 

The world doesn't run on what is normal to you or any other religious whacko or bigoted hater thinks is normal. I am sure that to the millions of homosexuals in the world today, what they are doing is perfectly natural and that their lifestyle is normal. I have known many homosexual men and women who are definitely not mentally ill and they seem quite normal to me as I don't really care what they do in their bedrooms.

 

I only have one position. That religion needs to be reigned in, not expanded; hence my anger at this ruling. I believe religion is dangerous, and any expansion of its authority is to me a step in the wrong direction.

 

My guess is "the LW authoritarian 'do as we say, not as we do' code".

 

as a contractor, I'm here to tell you that if I don't want to do a job for someone who calls me out for an estimate, I won't. and there's not a gcddam thing SJWs can do about it.

 

You still hanging around? After all the wrong headed idea's, advice and legal opinion you spew........

 

Translation: I want to shred the First Amendment.

How do you plan to do that? Stomp it out like Stalin and Mao? Do you believe Atheism should be reined in?

 

Lol it wouldn’t be anarchy. A Christian baker could have a sign in the window displaying their policy and customers could shop elsewhere. It would have been very easy for these two homosexuals to find another cake baker who would take the money and business, but this lawsuit was always about forcing conservative Americans to obey the culture of the new rulers, who are not just non-Christian, but are fiercely anti-Christian.

 

The only reason that the lower court ruling was reversed is that the Court ruled that the commission did not give a fair hearing to the baker. That's it. Nothing about religious liberty got expanded except in that very narrow sense.

In fact, the concurring opinions make it explicitly clear that Colorado can still protected gay people, and therefore "can treat a baker who discriminates based on sexual orientation differently from a baker who does not" -- but only if the state's decisions "are not infected by religious hostility or bias."

 

No, I don't want it shredded. I want folks to do their religious, spiritual practice in the privacy of their homes and their churches without feeling like the world owes them something for their "duties."

 

Still here.

 

Is there any doubt that if a gay or atheist baker refused to make a cake with a Christian theme, the Left would applaud them for doing so?

 

Yes because he claimed it violated his religious beliefs. What is the reason in this scenario you are trying to create?

 

Sure. This was done in order to force religious folks to do something against their religion. Christian haters have just been defanged.

 

So if a person wears a crucifix necklace, you want them arrested? Beaten? What? What is your plan to make this happen?

 

Sure it would. You'd have the leftists denying the rightists and the gays denying the straights and blacks and whites denying each other and everyone would go ****ing crazy.

I'm fine with displaying signs. You want to deny service, do it before I walk in the door. You won't like what I have to say if you have a superficial reason for denying me once I am in there, so spare us both the grief.

 

Religious beliefs.

BTW, you are accusing me when I was making an example to another poster. Please switch to decaf.

 

Is this supposed to be some veiled attempt to smear other posters?

 

I don't care if they wear a damned necklace. I care that they stand on the corner and tell kids they are going to hell for having the audacity of being born.

I care that they pass out pamphlets telling people they will rot in hell for eternity for not paying tithes.

 

Not sure what you mean by that, but the SCOTUS stated the commission violated the baker's First Amendment/Free Exercise Clause. I suppose that might be construed as not giving the baker a fair hearing.

For the record they stated the following in their opinion:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

Excerpts:

Held: The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise Clause. Pp. 9–18. (a) The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.

(c) For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.

The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same​

 

Better get to changing the Constitution then. This ruling said he has the Constitutional right to not participate in a gay wedding. For some reason, you think gays have the right to force others to participate in their wedding. I have no idea what you base that on.

 

Most people would want to make the most money possible and would serve everyone. The ones who would deny service to others would be on the fringe, but they would have their right protected.

 

You are the one creating this scenario

On what basis? Merely because they are Christian and you refuse to sell them something in your display case? Or because you are Jewish and you do not wish to participate in a Christian ceremony celebrating the birth of Jesus as your savior? No to the first and yes to the second.