Supreme court rules in favor of Baker in cake descrimination case
#21
(06-05-2018, 09:18 AM)GPnative Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 08:18 AM)GCG Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 07:39 AM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-04-2018, 08:46 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(06-04-2018, 06:29 PM)GPnative Wrote: I think the age old sign "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason." Is as far as this needed to go. Bunch of crybabies these days. Boohoo he won't bake me a cake.....well then stfu and go to someone who will.

Yeah OK fuck the constitution ?  People who stand up for their rights are not crybabies. And you are totally minimizing this by thinking it's only about someone baking a cake.

Since you invoke the Constitution, the freedom of religion part of that must have slipped your mind?  It's even in writing and everything.  Nothing specifically about marriage of any kind as far as I can see, though.

Legalities aside, as a practical matter, why would anyone want a cake baked by someone that didn't want to bake it for them? Wedding or otherwise?... but ESPECIALLY a wedding cake? If someone makes it clear to me that they are cooking for me against their will, I'm going somewhere else... or going hungry.

That would be the normal, common sense approach for most folks, unless you are a gay bully who is intolerant of the beliefs of others.
 Actually most gays who have an ounce of self worth and who live in a country where freedom is often touted as our greatest asset. Would also file a complaint when some back woods bigot who believes in mythology tells them to take a hike because they are different.
Reply
#22
(06-05-2018, 01:32 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 07:39 AM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-04-2018, 08:46 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(06-04-2018, 06:29 PM)GPnative Wrote: I think the age old sign "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason." Is as far as this needed to go. Bunch of crybabies these days. Boohoo he won't bake me a cake.....well then stfu and go to someone who will.

Yeah OK fuck the constitution ?  People who stand up for their rights are not crybabies. And you are totally minimizing this by thinking it's only about someone baking a cake.

Since you invoke the Constitution, the freedom of religion part of that must have slipped your mind?  It's even in writing and everything.  Nothing specifically about marriage of any kind as far as I can see, though.
Look for sexual orientation.

Yeah.  It's not there.  At the very least, it's not one of the enumerated freedoms LISTED, as the freedom of religion is.  Your hate for believers is distasteful at best, and pure bigotry at worst.  You seem almost violent over the idea.

Quote:There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that specifically bans discrimination based on sexual preference. There is not even a direct ban on discrimination based on race, color, or creed. What we do have are provisions that are often interpreted that way. The 15th and 19th Amendments, which ensured that blacks and women could vote, hint at a policy of non-discrimination, but they are actually quite specific. They only involve suffrage and nothing else. However, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that discrimination based on traits such as race are a violation of due process and not constitutional (when done by the government or an agent of the government). It is a complex issue. Again, a ban on discrimination based on sexual preference is not a part of the Constitution, but has been extended, to some degree, based on the 14th Amendment by the courts.
https://usconstitution.net/constfaq_q134.html
Reply
#23
(06-05-2018, 01:57 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 01:32 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 07:39 AM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-04-2018, 08:46 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(06-04-2018, 06:29 PM)GPnative Wrote: I think the age old sign "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason." Is as far as this needed to go. Bunch of crybabies these days. Boohoo he won't bake me a cake.....well then stfu and go to someone who will.

Yeah OK fuck the constitution ?  People who stand up for their rights are not crybabies. And you are totally minimizing this by thinking it's only about someone baking a cake.

Since you invoke the Constitution, the freedom of religion part of that must have slipped your mind?  It's even in writing and everything.  Nothing specifically about marriage of any kind as far as I can see, though.
Look for sexual orientation.

Yeah.  It's not there.  At the very least, it's not one of the enumerated freedoms LISTED, as the freedom of religion is.  Your hate for believers is distasteful at best, and pure bigotry at worst.  You seem almost violent over the idea.

Quote:There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that specifically bans discrimination based on sexual preference. There is not even a direct ban on discrimination based on race, color, or creed. What we do have are provisions that are often interpreted that way. The 15th and 19th Amendments, which ensured that blacks and women could vote, hint at a policy of non-discrimination, but they are actually quite specific. They only involve suffrage and nothing else. However, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that discrimination based on traits such as race are a violation of due process and not constitutional (when done by the government or an agent of the government). It is a complex issue. Again, a ban on discrimination based on sexual preference is not a part of the Constitution, but has been extended, to some degree, based on the 14th Amendment by the courts.
https://usconstitution.net/constfaq_q134.html

Just curious what other things you'd like to discriminate against?  Or, alternatively, why do you feel this is worthy of discrimination but any number of other things you claim your church is against is not worthy of the same treatment??
Reply
#24
(06-05-2018, 01:31 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 07:39 AM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-04-2018, 08:46 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(06-04-2018, 06:29 PM)GPnative Wrote: I think the age old sign "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason." Is as far as this needed to go. Bunch of crybabies these days. Boohoo he won't bake me a cake.....well then stfu and go to someone who will.

Yeah OK fuck the constitution ?  People who stand up for their rights are not crybabies. And you are totally minimizing this by thinking it's only about someone baking a cake.

Since you invoke the Constitution, the freedom of religion part of that must have slipped your mind?  It's even in writing and everything.  Nothing specifically about marriage of any kind as far as I can see, though.
No one was trying to stop the bigot Christian from practicing his backwards religion of hate towards gay people.
He just can't refuse them service.

With your logic why couldn't any religion claim part of their religious freedom  is to not do business with black people?
I don't see any difference.

um, yes he can, and a 7-2 Supreme Court ruling agrees.  The baker has individual freedom and as the ruling stated:

“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,” the decision stated.
Reply
#25
(06-05-2018, 02:15 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 01:57 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 01:32 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 07:39 AM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-04-2018, 08:46 PM)tvguy Wrote: Yeah OK fuck the constitution ?  People who stand up for their rights are not crybabies. And you are totally minimizing this by thinking it's only about someone baking a cake.

Since you invoke the Constitution, the freedom of religion part of that must have slipped your mind?  It's even in writing and everything.  Nothing specifically about marriage of any kind as far as I can see, though.
Look for sexual orientation.

Yeah.  It's not there.  At the very least, it's not one of the enumerated freedoms LISTED, as the freedom of religion is.  Your hate for believers is distasteful at best, and pure bigotry at worst.  You seem almost violent over the idea.

Quote:There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that specifically bans discrimination based on sexual preference. There is not even a direct ban on discrimination based on race, color, or creed. What we do have are provisions that are often interpreted that way. The 15th and 19th Amendments, which ensured that blacks and women could vote, hint at a policy of non-discrimination, but they are actually quite specific. They only involve suffrage and nothing else. However, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that discrimination based on traits such as race are a violation of due process and not constitutional (when done by the government or an agent of the government). It is a complex issue. Again, a ban on discrimination based on sexual preference is not a part of the Constitution, but has been extended, to some degree, based on the 14th Amendment by the courts.
https://usconstitution.net/constfaq_q134.html

Just curious what other things you'd like to discriminate against?  Or, alternatively, why do you feel this is worthy of discrimination but any number of other things you claim your church is against is not worthy of the same treatment??

Personally I would have baked the cake.  If it is my business to bake cakes for money, I wouldn't discriminate against anyone.  But I was not the baker in this case.  It was his choice, and yes, RIGHT, to choose on the grounds of his religious idealism to refuse service.  I think he limits his client base and ability to make his living, but it is his choice.

I hope this answered your accusational questions.
Reply
#26
(06-05-2018, 02:18 PM)GPnative Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 01:31 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 07:39 AM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-04-2018, 08:46 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(06-04-2018, 06:29 PM)GPnative Wrote: I think the age old sign "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason." Is as far as this needed to go. Bunch of crybabies these days. Boohoo he won't bake me a cake.....well then stfu and go to someone who will.

Yeah OK fuck the constitution ?  People who stand up for their rights are not crybabies. And you are totally minimizing this by thinking it's only about someone baking a cake.

Since you invoke the Constitution, the freedom of religion part of that must have slipped your mind?  It's even in writing and everything.  Nothing specifically about marriage of any kind as far as I can see, though.
No one was trying to stop the bigot Christian from practicing his backwards religion of hate towards gay people.
He just can't refuse them service.

With your logic why couldn't any religion claim part of their religious freedom  is to not do business with black people?
I don't see any difference.

um, yes he can, and a 7-2 Supreme Court ruling agrees.  The baker has individual freedom and as the ruling stated:

“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,” the decision stated.
Yes I know the decision.  I know it's backwards and wrong too.
Reply
#27
(06-05-2018, 03:02 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 02:15 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 01:57 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 01:32 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 07:39 AM)Someones Dad Wrote: Since you invoke the Constitution, the freedom of religion part of that must have slipped your mind?  It's even in writing and everything.  Nothing specifically about marriage of any kind as far as I can see, though.
Look for sexual orientation.

Yeah.  It's not there.  At the very least, it's not one of the enumerated freedoms LISTED, as the freedom of religion is.  Your hate for believers is distasteful at best, and pure bigotry at worst.  You seem almost violent over the idea.

Quote:There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that specifically bans discrimination based on sexual preference. There is not even a direct ban on discrimination based on race, color, or creed. What we do have are provisions that are often interpreted that way. The 15th and 19th Amendments, which ensured that blacks and women could vote, hint at a policy of non-discrimination, but they are actually quite specific. They only involve suffrage and nothing else. However, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that discrimination based on traits such as race are a violation of due process and not constitutional (when done by the government or an agent of the government). It is a complex issue. Again, a ban on discrimination based on sexual preference is not a part of the Constitution, but has been extended, to some degree, based on the 14th Amendment by the courts.
https://usconstitution.net/constfaq_q134.html

Just curious what other things you'd like to discriminate against?  Or, alternatively, why do you feel this is worthy of discrimination but any number of other things you claim your church is against is not worthy of the same treatment??

Personally I would have baked the cake.  If it is my business to bake cakes for money, I wouldn't discriminate against anyone.  But I was not the baker in this case.  It was his choice, and yes, RIGHT, to choose on the grounds of his religious idealism to refuse service.  I think he limits his client base and ability to make his living, but it is his choice.

I hope this answered your accusational questions.

No, you didn't. What I would like to get at is if we are going to need a menu at the entrance of each business listing who they will or won't serve. After all it should be incumbent upon the business to be up front about these things. Shouldn't it?

And don't be so thin skinned.
Reply
#28
(06-05-2018, 04:19 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 03:02 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 02:15 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 01:57 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 01:32 PM)tvguy Wrote: Look for sexual orientation.

Yeah.  It's not there.  At the very least, it's not one of the enumerated freedoms LISTED, as the freedom of religion is.  Your hate for believers is distasteful at best, and pure bigotry at worst.  You seem almost violent over the idea.

Quote:There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that specifically bans discrimination based on sexual preference. There is not even a direct ban on discrimination based on race, color, or creed. What we do have are provisions that are often interpreted that way. The 15th and 19th Amendments, which ensured that blacks and women could vote, hint at a policy of non-discrimination, but they are actually quite specific. They only involve suffrage and nothing else. However, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that discrimination based on traits such as race are a violation of due process and not constitutional (when done by the government or an agent of the government). It is a complex issue. Again, a ban on discrimination based on sexual preference is not a part of the Constitution, but has been extended, to some degree, based on the 14th Amendment by the courts.
https://usconstitution.net/constfaq_q134.html

Just curious what other things you'd like to discriminate against?  Or, alternatively, why do you feel this is worthy of discrimination but any number of other things you claim your church is against is not worthy of the same treatment??

Personally I would have baked the cake.  If it is my business to bake cakes for money, I wouldn't discriminate against anyone.  But I was not the baker in this case.  It was his choice, and yes, RIGHT, to choose on the grounds of his religious idealism to refuse service.  I think he limits his client base and ability to make his living, but it is his choice.

I hope this answered your accusational questions.

No, you didn't. What I would like to get at is if we are going to need a menu at the entrance of each business listing who they will or won't serve. After all it should be incumbent upon the business to be up front about these things. Shouldn't it?

And don't be so thin skinned.
Exactly Cuzz Like a sign that says no darkies and no fags. Laughing Laughing
Reply
#29
(06-05-2018, 04:19 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 03:02 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 02:15 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 01:57 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 01:32 PM)tvguy Wrote: Look for sexual orientation.

Yeah.  It's not there.  At the very least, it's not one of the enumerated freedoms LISTED, as the freedom of religion is.  Your hate for believers is distasteful at best, and pure bigotry at worst.  You seem almost violent over the idea.

Quote:There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that specifically bans discrimination based on sexual preference. There is not even a direct ban on discrimination based on race, color, or creed. What we do have are provisions that are often interpreted that way. The 15th and 19th Amendments, which ensured that blacks and women could vote, hint at a policy of non-discrimination, but they are actually quite specific. They only involve suffrage and nothing else. However, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that discrimination based on traits such as race are a violation of due process and not constitutional (when done by the government or an agent of the government). It is a complex issue. Again, a ban on discrimination based on sexual preference is not a part of the Constitution, but has been extended, to some degree, based on the 14th Amendment by the courts.
https://usconstitution.net/constfaq_q134.html

Just curious what other things you'd like to discriminate against?  Or, alternatively, why do you feel this is worthy of discrimination but any number of other things you claim your church is against is not worthy of the same treatment??

Personally I would have baked the cake.  If it is my business to bake cakes for money, I wouldn't discriminate against anyone.  But I was not the baker in this case.  It was his choice, and yes, RIGHT, to choose on the grounds of his religious idealism to refuse service.  I think he limits his client base and ability to make his living, but it is his choice.

I hope this answered your accusational questions.

No, you didn't. What I would like to get at is if we are going to need a menu at the entrance of each business listing who they will or won't serve. After all it should be incumbent upon the business to be up front about these things. Shouldn't it?

And don't be so thin skinned.

I thought I was clear, and now your questions, as pertained to me, are nonsensical.  If I find I don't like the way a business acts, I don't support that business.  I go elsewhere.  You should too.
Reply
#30
Can we get separate water fountains for gays?
Reply
#31
(06-05-2018, 05:14 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 04:19 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 03:02 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 02:15 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 01:57 PM)Someones Dad Wrote: Yeah.  It's not there.  At the very least, it's not one of the enumerated freedoms LISTED, as the freedom of religion is.  Your hate for believers is distasteful at best, and pure bigotry at worst.  You seem almost violent over the idea.

https://usconstitution.net/constfaq_q134.html

Just curious what other things you'd like to discriminate against?  Or, alternatively, why do you feel this is worthy of discrimination but any number of other things you claim your church is against is not worthy of the same treatment??

Personally I would have baked the cake.  If it is my business to bake cakes for money, I wouldn't discriminate against anyone.  But I was not the baker in this case.  It was his choice, and yes, RIGHT, to choose on the grounds of his religious idealism to refuse service.  I think he limits his client base and ability to make his living, but it is his choice.

I hope this answered your accusational questions.

No, you didn't. What I would like to get at is if we are going to need a menu at the entrance of each business listing who they will or won't serve. After all it should be incumbent upon the business to be up front about these things. Shouldn't it?

And don't be so thin skinned.

I thought I was clear, and now your questions, as pertained to me, are nonsensical.  If I find I don't like the way a business acts, I don't support that business.  I go elsewhere.  You should too.

I don't follow your first sentence. I thought I was clear.

Relating to the rest.. exactly. But I want to know up front if they're assholes so I can go elsewhere. That's fair isn't it? If they're going to be hypocritical and shun any particular group of citizens I should be able to disagree and not do business with them. If they want to hide that they are doing that, then they aren't being honest and I really don't want to do any business with them.
Reply
#32
(06-05-2018, 05:14 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 04:19 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 03:02 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 02:15 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 01:57 PM)Someones Dad Wrote: Yeah.  It's not there.  At the very least, it's not one of the enumerated freedoms LISTED, as the freedom of religion is.  Your hate for believers is distasteful at best, and pure bigotry at worst.  You seem almost violent over the idea.

https://usconstitution.net/constfaq_q134.html

Just curious what other things you'd like to discriminate against?  Or, alternatively, why do you feel this is worthy of discrimination but any number of other things you claim your church is against is not worthy of the same treatment??

Personally I would have baked the cake.  If it is my business to bake cakes for money, I wouldn't discriminate against anyone.  But I was not the baker in this case.  It was his choice, and yes, RIGHT, to choose on the grounds of his religious idealism to refuse service.  I think he limits his client base and ability to make his living, but it is his choice.

I hope this answered your accusational questions.

No, you didn't. What I would like to get at is if we are going to need a menu at the entrance of each business listing who they will or won't serve. After all it should be incumbent upon the business to be up front about these things. Shouldn't it?

And don't be so thin skinned.

I thought I was clear, and now your questions, as pertained to me, are nonsensical.  If I find I don't like the way a business acts, I don't support that business.  I go elsewhere.  You should too.
They were not nonsensical and you are thin skinned.

He asked....Just curious what other things you'd like to discriminate against?  Or, alternatively, why do you feel this is worthy of discrimination but any number of other things you claim your church is against is not worthy of the same treatment??


 





Reply
#33
SD.....If I find I don't like the way a business acts, I don't support that business.  I go elsewhere.  You should too.


There it is. If the sign says NO DARKIES the the darkies should just go elsewhere.

If the sign says NO WOMEN the women should just go elsewhere.

If the sign says no Jews the Jews should go elsewhere.

If the sign says no one over 55 then seniors should go to a different bingo hall. Razz
Reply
#34
(06-04-2018, 08:41 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(06-04-2018, 05:53 PM)Juniper Wrote:
(06-04-2018, 05:31 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(06-04-2018, 05:15 PM)Juniper Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...e23f404755





Quote:The decision to grant the case came as a surprise, because the court first considered it last September. It was continually relisted for further discussion at the private conferences at which the justices decide which cases to take.


Now actually I am in favor of the Baker on this one. The reason being, he didn't refuse to sell them a cake based on their orientation, but rather not to decorate it when it violated his own beliefs. I don't think he should have to violate his own religious beliefs.  I realize this sets up a potential slippery slope, but I do agree that the baker has rights too.  

And they call me a libtard.

he didn't refuse to sell them a cake based on their orientation, but rather not to decorate it when it violated his own beliefs

Wait what? I don't see the difference? He refused to do business with them because they were gay.whether that means not selling a cake or not decorating a cake it seems like the same thing to me.

I don't think he should have to violate his own religious beliefs.

Then he should find another job.



he didn't refuse to sell them a cake based on their orientation, but rather not to decorate it when it violated his own beliefs


Here's what he said.....

But Phillips refused to discuss the issue, saying his religious beliefs would not allow him to have anything to do with same-sex marriage. He said other bakeries would accommodate them.

Actually, and I'm not going to searching for this, way back when this started, he did say he would sell them a cake.  He didn't have a problem with that.  He would decorate and sell them a same sex wedding cake.

Then he is a big fat liar. Anyway what's important is what he says NOW.
OK, but my opinion is based on the former.
Reply
#35
(06-05-2018, 05:47 PM)tvguy Wrote: SD.....If I find I don't like the way a business acts, I don't support that business.  I go elsewhere.  You should too.


There it is. If the sign says NO DARKIES the the darkies should just go elsewhere.

If the sign says NO WOMEN the women should just go elsewhere.

If the sign says no Jews the Jews should go elsewhere.

If the sign says no one over 55 then seniors should go to a different bingo hall. Razz


I don't think it's the same.  He offered to sell them any premade cake they wanted. He just refused to create a same sex wedding cake.
Reply
#36
(06-05-2018, 05:24 PM)chuck white Wrote: Can we get separate water fountains for gays?

Water fountains? Where?  Straights are perfectly free to go thirsty if they don't like it.
Reply
#37
Okay then but how does that make sense anyway you slice the cake he refused to serve them because they were gay
Reply
#38
(06-05-2018, 06:34 PM)tvguy Wrote: Okay then but how does that make sense anyway you slice the cake he refused to serve them because they were gay

I don't know anything about that. Really, I don't. I'm only saying that he had the right not to decorate a same sex wedding cake.  Just like he would have the right to not decorate a Klan cake or a cake for a polygamous family.  He can sell them them the cake. He doesn't have to decorate it.  Back when this story came out, that was the original story and the point.
Reply
#39
(06-05-2018, 06:40 PM)Juniper Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 06:34 PM)tvguy Wrote: Okay then but how does that make sense anyway you slice the cake he refused to serve them because they were gay

I don't know anything about that. Really, I don't. I'm only saying that he had the right not to decorate a same sex wedding cake.  Just like he would have the right to not decorate a Klan cake or a cake for a polygamous family.  He can sell them them the cake. He doesn't have to decorate it.  Back when this story came out, that was the original story and the point.

So, they can have cake but not icing??
Reply
#40
(06-05-2018, 06:48 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 06:40 PM)Juniper Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 06:34 PM)tvguy Wrote: Okay then but how does that make sense anyway you slice the cake he refused to serve them because they were gay

I don't know anything about that. Really, I don't. I'm only saying that he had the right not to decorate a same sex wedding cake.  Just like he would have the right to not decorate a Klan cake or a cake for a polygamous family.  He can sell them them the cake. He doesn't have to decorate it.  Back when this story came out, that was the original story and the point.

So, they can have cake but not icing??
Big Grin
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)