You Don't Have to Bake a Gay Cake - SCOTUS

a reply to: Gryphon66

I was unaware of that connection yes and you are correct in that perhaps another “less dirty” universally accepted amoral act would have been a more appropriate comparison.

You make a lot of good points and a good amount I could argue against. However, I’m not going to pick apart your post and turn this into a long winded back and forth.

You are right, he did discriminate against that couple and that was against the law. But unfortunately for the gay couple, the Supreme Court ruled in the cake maker’s favor and sided with him. So if you disagree with their decision then your argument is with them not me. Perhaps you might write the Supreme Court a letter detailing your grievances.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

the Supreme Court ruled in the cake maker’s favor and sided with him.

No they didn't. They ruled that the ruling was hostile towards the baker's religion. What he has won is a rehearing. He can sue Colorado.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

I've stated several times that I agree with the SCOTUS ruling and why. The Court has created a precedent which makes it clear that anti-discrimination laws that protect folks from discrimination based on sexual preference not only pass Constitutional muster but are indeed expected.

a reply to: RowanBean

I’m pretty sure that’s the term used when the court rules for one side or the other, let’s see who agrees with me....

....oh look

’Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same-sex wedding cake case’
CBS NEWS

”Supreme Court rules in favor of baker who would not make wedding cake for gay couple”
THE WASHINGTON POST

”Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same-sex wedding cake case”
USA TODAY

A lot of this has to be because of the can of worms that it could open.

Like right now businesses reject birth control due to religious reasons. Hospitals reject patients due to religious reasons based on the treatment they need.

So to force a business to go against their religious beliefs open a can of worms bigger then just LBGT rights.

This is the short reason why the judges ruled in favor of the businesses right to choose. If you went the other way.. He’ll would of broken lose and there would be even more protests in regulars to women’s health care.

Doctors refusing to do treatments on women in situations that are life and death threatening like abortion because it is a Christian hospital and their beliefs are the mother should die with the child. As abortion is against god.

Currently they can do that, but if something this small would of awarded the complaintent then he’ll would break lose in reguards to more serious matters.

A lot of people see that it is a victory for the baker, but at the same time it is a loss for all of society.

When a person could go to court for being refused a life saving treatment by siding with the complaintent it would throw all religious views out of the window.


Personally, I think all religions should be kept private, and not interfere with the daily lives. Doctor or Baker - your profession is a service, the right to fall back on religious reason is just an immoral way to get out of providing a service to people you don’t see as equals to you.

I wonder how it would turn out if a fire fighting team refused to put out a church fire because of their religious beliefs being different..

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Oh look

Frank Luntz
@FrankLuntz
I’m seeing a lot of headlines and tweets inaccurately describe today’s #SCOTUS decision. The Court ruled 7-2 that the baker didn’t get a fair shake at his state commission hearing, not that religion may always be invoked to refuse service to LGBT people.

Eugene Gu, MD
@eugenegu
The Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Christian bakers at Masterpiece Cakeshop had the right to refuse service to a gay couple. #SCOTUS ruled only that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission didn’t give them a fair hearing. 1st Amendment and equal rights issues remain unresolved.

It isn't the first time the MSM make inaccurate headlines nor will it be the last time.

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Oh look

Frank Luntz
@FrankLuntz
I’m seeing a lot of headlines and tweets inaccurately describe today’s #SCOTUS decision. The Court ruled 7-2 that the baker didn’t get a fair shake at his state commission hearing, not that religion may always be invoked to refuse service to LGBT people.

Eugene Gu, MD
@eugenegu
The Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Christian bakers at Masterpiece Cakeshop had the right to refuse service to a gay couple. #SCOTUS ruled only that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission didn’t give them a fair hearing. 1st Amendment and equal rights issues remain unresolved.

It isn't the first time the MSM make inaccurate headlines nor will it be the last time.

The Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Christian bakers at Masterpiece Cakeshop had the right to refuse service to a gay couple. #SCOTUS ruled only that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission didn’t give them a fair hearing. 1st Amendment and equal rights issues remain unresolved.

Did you read the baker’s appeal? Are you sure that in the baker’s appeal they didn’t mention that the baker feels that he didn’t get a fair shake with the lower court and that they feel that they deserve another hearing? Yeah I’m pretty sure it was in there and that’s exactly what the Supreme Court ruled on and in FOVOR of the appellant.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

In that case yep. He wins a rehearing. And he can sue the state.
But the fact remains is that he still can't discriminate.

a reply to: RowanBean

But the fact remains is that he still can't discriminate.

Was he forced to make the cake? Was he jailed or punished in any way for not making the cake?

Your “fact” is I believe, a bit premature.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: soberbacchus

Curious, do you think cakes are baked gay? or do cakes become gay sometime after baking through socializing with other gay cakes?

A gay cake is called a cupcake

I thought this was called a cupcake? Now I am just confused.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Who said they tried to force him to make wedding cake? But anyway he broke the anti-discrimination law.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: soberbacchus

Curious, do you think cakes are baked gay? or do cakes become gay sometime after baking through socializing with other gay cakes?

A gay cake is called a cupcake

I thought this was called a cupcake? Now I am just confused.

Is that Trump. Maybe it is since the picture has an orange hue.

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Who said they tried to force him to make wedding cake? But anyway he broke the anti-discrimination law.

Isn’t the point of the gay couple sueing the Baker because he didn’t make them a cake?

But yet he still hasn’t made the cake. And has he been punished for not making the cake? No. Therefore as I said before, your “fact”.....

But the fact remains is that he still can’t discriminate

..... is as of yet premature. Because it is ongoing and that decision has not been made yet.

The gay couple didn't sue the baker; the ACLU filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that Mr. Philips (the baker) had indeed discriminated against Craig and Mullins (the gay guys). Unfortunately, members of the Commission also made several comments that unfairly attacked Mr. Phillips' religious faith.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (the Christian group handling the case for Philips) takes it to the Colorado Court of Appeals who also find Philips had broken the Anti-Discrimination Act on two occasions.

The Colorado Supreme Court decided not to hear the case, which allowed Philips lawyers to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

SCOTUS found that the government (in this case, Colorado) had failed in a neutral manner toward religion when enforcing the law and failed to do so thereby violating Mr. Philips' First Amendment rights and directly the neutrality toward religion required.

SCOTUS reversed the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's finding with the effect that legally speaking, the complaints against Philips are null and void.

The Court did not say that religious people can discriminate as they wish against gay people, in fact, they found the opposite that Colorado has a right and a duty to defend civil rights in public accomodation:

The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths. Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.

CITATION

that is bad

A very gay cake or just a cake celebrating God's promise?

originally posted by: RowanBean

A very gay cake or just a cake celebrating God's promise?

Either way, it's gross.

I wouldn't make it either.

Another religious appropriated symbol.

God said He wouldn't drown everyone again, not just the gays, like last time.

lol.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

God said He wouldn't drown everyone again, not just the gays, like last time.

Damn you said it!!!! Maybe the baker needs to know that?

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

Another religious appropriated symbol.

LOL, yes but approriated from whom by whom?

The rainbow is recognized as sacred in every world culture from the Sumerians to the Austrailian Aboriginal tribes.

Rainbows in Mythology

originally posted by: soberbacchus


I thought this was called a cupcake? Now I am just confused.

Is he gay? Hard to put the 70s into the 2010s...everything looks cupcake from that era.