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

Here it comes folks and it will have implications nationwide. If they follow the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act they will have no choice but to side with the Masterpiece Cakeshop.

You will notice religion and religious practice is a protected class by not only the First Amendment to the Constitution as a constitutional right but also Codified in the Civil Rights Act.

However, nothing is for sure with the lefties that Obama appointed to the SCOTUS. I wish this hadn't come up until Ruth Buzzie Ginsberg retired which should happen before Trump is out of office and nominated a replacement. We'll just have to wait and see. If Christians lose their right to freely practice their Religious beliefs then so do Muslims and every other Religion. The snowball effect of not following the Constitution would be too far reaching. If a Company has a right to tell an employee they can't wear a Cross openly, then they can do so with a hijab...and on and on and on. Myself I think the SCOTUS will side with the Cakeshop...but I won't bet on it.

 

I can't wait to see the results of this case.

 

This case will likely have the same lasting implications that Roe v Wade had.

 

I was saddened that Kennedy decided not to retire for at least another year.

 

There is little doubt how the court will rule. The LGBT Attack Squad has been trampling the rights of other Americans for far too long, forcing them to participate in their lifestyle, regardless of their religious beliefs.

 

I heard on the radio, the "The LGBT Attack Squad" referred to as the Gaystapo.

 

I support the Baker.

 

I couldn't care less about the religious justifications. I have a serious problem with the govt forcing a private business to cater to anyone.

I dont care if it's a white guy refusing service to a black guy, or a Muslim grocery refusing to sell to a Christian. Its a private business and they should be free to decide who they serve.

 

Couldn't agree with this more.

 

Notice how the left ignores this thread like an ex-wife with a child support order?

 

They are still in shock over the travel ban being reinstated, the ass whuppin' for the Georgia House seat, the USSC ruling on church's being eligible for public grants, the US military putting an indefinite hold on "transdgender" soldiers, Trump telling the EU to shove the Paris Accord where the sun doesn't shine, the steady arrest and deportation of illegal immigrant criminals, the creation of a Federal election fraud commission, uh-oh!), the impending repeal of Obamacare, the removal of funding for Planned Parenthood, the realization that their "Trump/Russia Collusion" Sacred Witch Hunt, is coming to a close, and the net result will be investigation and likely prosecution of NUMEROUS Obama Adm. members involved in domestic wiretapping, and Obama himself exposed for DOING NOTHING during the (Democrat claimed) Russian cyberattacks last year.

The left's collective butt is so sore right now, that they cannot even sit down....

 

What I'm really hoping on this case is, that this will give Gorsuch a chance to show his religious convictions doesn't impair his ability to rule. This ruling should rule in favor of the gay couple, as well as begin proceedings for a law that separates Religion from Business.

 

It's the US Constitution's "religious convictions" that will be upheld.

Americans are sick of the LGBT Attack Squad forcing us to be part of their genital preferences...

 

So, you're saying that the baker will be ruled in favor because of a religious bias? It seems a little hypocritical for those to claim America to be land of the free, yet continue putting pressure on the LGBT community. So, someone wants to identify as trans. It does harm to no one.

 

It doesn't matter the group. The Govt should not be able to require a private business enter into a contract.

 

It's about reducing as many conflicts of interest as much as possible. My assistant manager is Jewish, do you think she will turn customers down based on her religion? No. As much as this LGBT argument might seem absurd, the religious argument is even more ludicrous. Partially because it'd be so easy to break down that barrier.

 

None of that has anything to do with what you quoted.

A private business, not publicly held, should have the ability to decide who they enter into contracts with. The govt has no place in that arena.

A cake for religious purposes. A grocery store for racial purposes. A barber shop just cause he would rather watch TV instead. None of the specific circumstances matter. What matters is that a private business is being forced by govt into entering into contracts against their will.

 

the supreme court has been busy lately, are they trying to wear down RBG and make her retire?

 

See, the problem with this argument is when you open for business, you are serving the public. And what comes with serving the public is adapting to what the public wants. This argument can morph into many different facets. Whether that means a grocery store catering to a black group, a barber cutting hair to sacrifice America's Got Talent, or in this case, a cake for a gay couple, you're serving the public You enter a contract with the general public. And if the government has to intervene to keep that ground rule planted, so be it.

What you do after closing time is up to you, until then though some things have to be put aside.

Unless you, of course, open a business that caters to a select class of people, like a Church.

 

As a private business, you enter into a contract with an individual. We arent talking about publicly held corporate establishment's. Just properly held businesses, mostly mom and pop places.

 

How about one that separates politics from business too? We can have another that separates free speech from business too.

 

Moral convictions.

 

Tell me if this were a black lady who advertised she would sing at special events and the KKK tried to hire her to sing white supremacist songs and she refused would you also take the position she can therefore not engage in her profession at all?

 

It means you should be able to serve whomever you choose to serve just as they get to choose who will serve them. Why do you say it should be a one way street?

 

boy you arent kidding