• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case[W:426, 1367]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

HowardBThiname said:
That's a good point, but while the Constitution protects religion, society is moving to reduce it -- and to seek peace without the need for a spiritual entity. That's what society is doing now -- rejecting homophobes.
Click to expand...

To bad they can't, and they only in turn become the bigots that they fail and hate so much.
The irony cannot be passed up or pointed out.

The constitution is there to protect those views just as much as anyone else's.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

ludin said:
Our constitution whether people like or not gives religious protects. It affects a swathe of beliefs including non-belief.
That is the cool thing of about freedom.
Click to expand...

No religion requires the ownership of public accommodations. Everyone is free to practice. Christianity doesn't require opening a bigoted business that's supposedly open to the public, right?

Anything a business produces for one person it must produce for another. That's America. And, because we do care about individual rights, we have private clubs that can set any rule they like.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

ludin said:
The constitution is there to protect those views just as much as anyone else's.
Click to expand...

Those views, sure. But not those actions. Opening a public accommodation and operating it in a bigoted manner is an action not a view.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

ludin said:
Our constitution whether people like or not gives religious protects. It affects a swathe of beliefs including non-belief.
That is the cool thing of about freedom.
Click to expand...

Agreed but freedom doesnt allow others to break the law and violate the rights of others. My religion doesnt give me a free ticket to do what i want.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

ludin said:
To bad they can't, and they only in turn become the bigots that they fail and hate so much.
The irony cannot be passed up or pointed out.

The constitution is there to protect those views just as much as anyone else's.
Click to expand...

no irony at all

protect VIEWS, FEELINGS, OPINIONS yes
theres no protections to violate the laws, rights or force those views feelings and opinions on others ;)

This is why equal rights continues to win time and time again over those that try to FALSELY use religion to infringe on e the rights of others. They tried against minorities, against women, against interracial marriage and against gay marriage. Lost time and time again because religion had nothing to do with it. those individuals were just hateful bigots against equal rights. They had no logic arguments based on legality and rights.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

ecofarm said:
No religion requires the ownership of public accommodations. Everyone is free to practice. Christianity doesn't require opening a bigoted business that's supposedly open to the public, right?
Click to expand...
What it also says is that public accommodation is not an unlimited right.
That businesses can and do refuse people for a wide variety of reasons including
Not making things they find offensive in nature.

Anything a business produces for one person it must produce for another. That's America. And, because we do care about individual rights, we have private clubs that can set any rule they like.
Click to expand...

Sorry no they don't. A song writer or a painter does not have to write a song or paint a painting for everyone.
That is the cool thing about the 1A.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

ecofarm said:
Those views, sure. But not those actions. Opening a public accommodation and operating it in a bigoted manner is an action not a view.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS thinks otherwise.
One of the main reasons the case was a win was because of religious discrimination towards the baker.
A religious bigotry is still a bigot even if it is aimed at Christianity.

As the SCOTUS said the state must remain neutral in its atttitude.
Even when it pertains to opinions or views they might personally find offensive.

So evidently they agreed with this bakers argument.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

ecofarm said:
No religion requires the ownership of public accommodations. Everyone is free to practice. Christianity doesn't require opening a bigoted business that's supposedly open to the public, right?

Anything a business produces for one person it must produce for another. That's America. And, because we do care about individual rights, we have private clubs that can set any rule they like.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court says otherwise, and ruled last Monday 7 to 2 Monday in favor of Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The ruling reversed the state’s decision to punish Phillips for living and working consistent with his religious beliefs about marriage.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

trixare4kids said:
The Supreme Court says otherwise, and ruled last Monday 7 to 2 Monday in favor of Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The ruling reversed the state’s decision to punish Phillips for living and working consistent with his religious beliefs about marriage.
Click to expand...

No it factually did not . . are there people that STILL dont know what the ruling actually sad 1500+ posts and days later? LMAO
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

ludin said:
The SCOTUS thinks otherwise.
One of the main reasons the case was a win was because of religious discrimination towards the baker.
A religious bigotry is still a bigot even if it is aimed at Christianity.

As the SCOTUS said the state must remain neutral in its atttitude.
Even when it pertains to opinions or views they might personally find offensive.

So evidently they agreed with this bakers argument.
Click to expand...

No they factually didnt, they didnt even rule on the bakers argument they ruled against the conduct of the state.
The LAW in colorado still stands
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

AGENT J said:
No it factually did not . . are there people that STILL dont know what the ruling actually sad 1500+ posts and days later? LMAO
Click to expand...

I feel confident that Phillip's team of attorneys know more than you do about this case.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 Monday in favor of Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The ruling reversed the state’s decision to punish Phillips for living and working consistent with his religious beliefs about marriage.
Click to expand...


Read it and learn...
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Alliance Defending Freedom
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

trixare4kids said:
I feel confident that Phillip's team of attorneys know more than you do about this case.


Read it and learn...
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Alliance Defending Freedom
Click to expand...
"feel" however you want LMAO you are still 100% factually wrong. The ruling proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. the law in Colorado still stands.

"Anything a business produces for one person it must produce for another." is a true statment in this regard. You falsely claimed its wrong and said SCOTUS disagrees with that statment.
THeres nothing you posted that agrees with your claim, what you posted above doesnt say what you claimed in anyway. If you dont understand that fact thats your issue not mine.

If you disagree give it your best shot and factually prove otherwise we'd love to read it, thanks!
 
danielpalos said:
The bottom line is, Bakers operating a for-profit basis, instead of a not-for-profit basis are in business to make a profit, not engage in morals.
Click to expand...

Then go to a business that doesn't care about your morals but your money.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

ludin said:
To bad they can't, and they only in turn become the bigots that they fail and hate so much.
The irony cannot be passed up or pointed out.

The constitution is there to protect those views just as much as anyone else's.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing my entire point, which is how society can influence social change more effectively than the law can.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

trixare4kids said:
The Supreme Court says otherwise, and ruled last Monday 7 to 2 Monday in favor of Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The ruling reversed the state’s decision to punish Phillips for living and working consistent with his religious beliefs about marriage.
Click to expand...

The ruling wasn't that broad. It was more narrow, than that.
 
Maccabee said:
Then go to a business that doesn't care about your morals but your money.
Click to expand...

That is what, for-the-profit-Lucre, structures are for. If that Laity baker were Religiously serious about Morals, he would structure His business, on a not-for-the-profit-Lucre, over morals, basis.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

HowardBThiname said:
I think you're missing my entire point, which is how society can influence social change more effectively than the law can.
Click to expand...

society can try to influence change. that is why there is a law to counter societies stupidity.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

ludin said:
What it also says is that public accommodation is not an unlimited right.
That businesses can and do refuse people for a wide variety of reasons including
Not making things they find offensive in nature.



.
Click to expand...

Exactly!!! Good luck selling reality to a bunch of authoritarian illiberals.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

danielpalos said:
The ruling wasn't that broad. It was more narrow, than that.
Click to expand...

My information comes right from Phillip's legal team.
Yours?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

danielpalos said:
The limited scope of the ruling.
Click to expand...

Yes, but we already know this, and it doesn't negate my point above.
Want to try this again?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

trixare4kids said:
My information comes right from Phillip's legal team.
Yours?
Click to expand...

No it actually didnt what you qoute does not say in anyway what you claim it does, your own links and the ruling prove you factually wrong.:lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom