How will the USSC rule on the Bakery vs the Gay wedding case?

wolfsgirl said:

If the baker feels that selling cakes is a sin, he should look for another line of work.

Click to expand...

100% correct or just like i said in the other thread



he could:

CHOOSE not to illegally discriminate
CHOOSE not to agree to rules and regulations he doesn't like and run a public accommodation business

etc etc

Cephus said:

The right to swing your fists ends at someone else's nose. You can't scream about your personal freedom when your so-called freedom infringes on someone else's.

Click to expand...

Duh....



At least some people try to defend the reframing of this as some kind of victimization of Christians who will have their religion insulted if they cannot discriminate against gay people when selling cakes.

Your comment was simply bad.

Mr Person said:

Duh....



At least some people try to defend the reframing of this as some kind of victimization of Christians who will have their religion insulted if they cannot discriminate against gay people when selling cakes.

Your comment was simply bad.

Click to expand...

The sad part is this has nothign to do with Christianity . . makes me sad . . it simply has to do with a bigoted asshole baker that doesn't care about the rights of others, laws or the contract he agreed to that regulates the business he choose to participate in. He wants "special" treatment based on his feelings.

wolfsgirl said:

Which could create a hole in anti-discrimination laws big enough to drive a train through. If the baker can claim religious belief to refuse a service why can't everyone else?

Click to expand...

I specifically said that the baker may very well lose this case if it is found that he dismissed the couple without even talking about the design of the cake, but that bakers and others would be cleared through the court's decision to refuse to bake a gay designed wedding cake (or whatever) if it is against their beliefs.

maxparrish said:

That is a comment without intellectual or moral content.

I am sure they know that the country, meaning society, is not entirely secular (and, by the way, supposedly protects religious exercises of belief in its constitution). And I am sure they know that the government is almost entirely secular but is supposed to be free and non-repressive.

And they are aware that they don't have act in a sinful manner, knowing they will pay a price for not doing so - it's called civil disobedience.

Click to expand...

And civil disobedience carries civil penalties. You don't get to break the law and get away with it.

TurtleDude said:

Tomorrow, I believe, the USSC will hear the appeal of the Bakery that refused to serve a gay wedding. How do you think the Court will rule?

Click to expand...

I voted "The Supreme Court will uphold the lower court ruling" at least that's what I think will happen. Why would they rule differently. Didn't two cases already rule against the illegal discrimination? For some time now we have been moving towards protecting sexual orentation under the term sex (which in my opinion it definitely should be). As a christian I see the religious claim and that angle for what it is, complete BS. Religion is not a factor here just like its not a factor when discriminating against other things. Religion isn't an acceptable argument to discriminate against me as a woman or blacks why on earth would anybody claim it's ok for this?

LaylaWindu said:

I voted "The Supreme Court will uphold the lower court ruling" at least that's what I think will happen. Why would they rule differently. Didn't two cases already rule against the illegal discrimination? For some time now we have been moving towards protecting sexual orentation under the term sex (which in my opinion it definitely should be). As a christian I see the religious claim and that angle for what it is, complete BS. Religion is not a factor here just like its not a factor when discriminating against other things. Religion isn't an acceptable argument to discriminate against me as a woman or blacks why on earth would anybody claim it's ok for this?

Click to expand...

I don't know all the facts of this case but from what I have seen, it appears the gay plaintiffs went out of their way to try to create a court case. I know around here, the gay groups rate or endorse various businesses. One of the ladies who is a volunteer in the nonprofit athletic organization I run is a child counselor. If you google her name you will see she is rated by the local gay advocacy group as a five star because she is gay and very sympathetic to gay and trans youth. Now if I had a child who had issues with his or her sexuality I'd want a counselor like her rather than say someone who got top ratings from a group like "Citizens for Community values" which is anti gay, anti porn, anti abortion, and anti most sex. From what I heard (and I could be wrong since I didn't investigate the underlying facts all that much) was that there were closer bakers to this couple and bakers they KNEW would be more than happy to service their requirements

TurtleDude said:

I don't know all the facts of this case but from what I have seen, it appears the gay plaintiffs went out of their way to try to create a court case. I know around here, the gay groups rate or endorse various businesses. One of the ladies who is a volunteer in the nonprofit athletic organization I run is a child counselor. If you google her name you will see she is rated by the local gay advocacy group as a five star because she is gay and very sympathetic to gay and trans youth. Now if I had a child who had issues with his or her sexuality I'd want a counselor like her rather than say someone who got top ratings from a group like "Citizens for Community values" which is anti gay, anti porn, anti abortion, and anti most sex. From what I heard (and I could be wrong since I didn't investigate the underlying facts all that much) was that there were closer bakers to this couple and bakers they KNEW would be more than happy to service their requirements

Click to expand...

Can't say I know about the whole background either. It's possible they did go there knowing the owner would break the law but honestly that doesn't bother me one bit. It's a non-factor really. As long as the discrimination actually happened his goose is cooked IMO. A crime is a crime. Nobody forced the baker to break the law that was his poor choice just like any other crime.

LaylaWindu said:

Can't say I know about the whole background either. It's possible they did go there knowing the owner would break the law but honestly that doesn't bother me one bit. It's a non-factor really. As long as the discrimination actually happened his goose is cooked IMO. A crime is a crime. Nobody forced the baker to break the law that was his poor choice just like any other crime.

Click to expand...

its a civil violation not a crime. and its why I think the justices might not be all that fond of the plaintiff's side. I personally believe that any business can refuse service for any reason just as a potential buyer has the absolute right not to patronize a business for any reason. I don't have much use for people who affirmatively try to be offended.

TurtleDude said:

its a civil violation not a crime. and its why I think the justices might not be all that fond of the plaintiff's side.

Click to expand...

It's not something that would be handled in criminal court correct but it's still a crime by general definition. I agree that since sexual orentation isn't protected nationally that the court could punt or something but I see no reason for them to rule against colorado. Based on what grounds? If they did then all laws of similar nature would be in question

TurtleDude said:

I personally believe that any business can refuse service for any reason just as a potential buyer has the absolute right not to patronize a business for any reason. I don't have much use for people who affirmatively try to be offended.

Click to expand...

As far as business refusing service that's fine by me but I would never support a public accommodation business discriminating based on race, religion, sex etc. On a personal level it goes against everything civil and decent in me. As for the law I fully support illegal discrimination and public accommodation laws as they protect us all in a civil society and try to help keep such vile practices at bay.

TurtleDude said:

I don't have much use for people who affirmatively try to be offended.

Click to expand...

I don't know what that means."Try to be offended". I can only speak for myself. I know if I was discriminated against based on being a woman or christian I most certainly would be offended. But let me be clear, me being offended would have nothign to do with my support for illegal discrimination and public accommodation laws. Being offended is not a just reason to just make a law. I would support them regardless because again, I think they are everything a civil society should be about when it comes to public accommodation commerce such as storefronts etc. If a person can't behave with a certain about of civility like controlling their bigotry then public accommodation business probably isn't for them. They can go into private, on line (anonymous) and or membership business etc. It's actually kind of perplexing to me. If I knew I was so bigoted to some degree why would I go into a business that is regulated by laws that is going to conflict with that. It's really stupid.

EMNofSeattle said:

The bakery is not arguing a right to discriminate against gay people, only homosexual marriages.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing a right to discriminate against black people, only people who are in interracial relationships. I don't have a problem serving Muslims, but will not serve a wedding cake to a Muslim marrying a Christian. I'm not discriminating against women, only women not accompanied by men, as per my personal religious beliefs.

Same arguments.

Unless you are one of those who feel that any business should have the right to discriminate for any reason, then you are a hypocrite. The law however, has decided that a business owner cannot discriminate for simply any reason, so under our current laws, if a particular thing is protected, it should not be legal for anyone to discriminate, even if based on their personal beliefs, for those reasons. Don't like it, change the laws through the legal process. Those laws do not violate the rights of any business owners.

AGENT J said:

The sad part is this has nothign to do with Christianity . . makes me sad . . it simply has to do with a bigoted asshole baker that doesn't care about the rights of others, laws or the contract he agreed to that regulates the business he choose to participate in. He wants "special" treatment based on his feelings.

Click to expand...

How does this have nothing to do with Christianity, a large part of the Christian population believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and he obviously advocates for that. I'm not supporting his views I'm just trying to say that it obviously has to do with religion. Also I don't believe calling him an asshole is a correct claim. He wasn't rude to the gay couple, he didn't scream get out of my shop you Fag**. He simply said I won't make a wedding cake to you due to my religious beliefs, but I will sell you something else in the store, just not a wedding cake. I personally think him not wanting to sell to a gay couple is wrong, and his life would've been a hell of a lot easier these past 5 years if he didn't deny them service but I believe he is entitled to his opinion and he will reap the effects of it.

Can anyone tell me what law the ACLU is saying was broken by this cake baker?

mg2514 said:

Can anyone tell me what law the ACLU is saying was broken by this cake baker?

Click to expand...

State public accommodation/antidiscrimination within business laws. A complaint was filed with the state Commission that covers these things and the baker was found guilty and fined. He appealed.

TurtleDude said:

Tomorrow, I believe, the USSC will hear the appeal of the Bakery that refused to serve a gay wedding. How do you think the Court will rule?

Click to expand...

As much as I support a business owner having the right to deny service to anyone, he knew exactly what he got into when he opened his business. The law in place in Colorado states "Places of public accommodation include a restaurant, hospital, hotel, retail store and public transportation, among others.

Prohibited discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation must be based on certain protected classes and include these adverse actions: denial of service, terms and conditions, unequal treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation.

Protected classes for places of public accommodation are: Race, Color, Disability, Sex, Sexual Orientation (including transgender status), National Origin/Ancestry, Creed, Marital Status and Retaliation"

Is the supreme court deciding if this law above is unconstitutional based on freedom of religion, because if not I don't know why it would've gone this far. He clearly broke the law denying service based on sexual orientation.

mg2514 said:

As much as I support a business owner having the right to deny service to anyone, he knew exactly what he got into when he opened his business. The law in place in Colorado states "Places of public accommodation include a restaurant, hospital, hotel, retail store and public transportation, among others.

Prohibited discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation must be based on certain protected classes and include these adverse actions: denial of service, terms and conditions, unequal treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation.

Protected classes for places of public accommodation are: Race, Color, Disability, Sex, Sexual Orientation (including transgender status), National Origin/Ancestry, Creed, Marital Status and Retaliation"

Is the supreme court deciding if this law above is unconstitutional based on freedom of religion, because if not I don't know why it would've gone this far. He clearly broke the law denying service based on sexual orientation.

Click to expand...

and I believe that law should be overturned. and I note that the instigators of this chose him purely to create controversy. Its akin to taking a wild pig you shot to a muslim taxidermist and asking him to stuff the beast for you

wolfsgirl said:

If the baker feels that selling cakes is a sin, he should look for another line of work.

Click to expand...

Bake a cake = a sin.

Treat people like crap = AOK.

SMH.

This is why I don't go to church. My relationship with God is private, and conducted in the privacy of my home.

mg2514 said:

1.) How does this have nothing to do with Christianity, a large part of the Christian population believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and he obviously advocates for that.
2.) I'm not supporting his views I'm just trying to say that it obviously has to do with religion.
3.) Also I don't believe calling him an asshole is a correct claim. He wasn't rude to the gay couple, he didn't scream get out of my shop you Fag**.
4.) He simply said I won't make a wedding cake to you due to my religious beliefs, but I will sell you something else in the store, just not a wedding cake.
5.) I personally think him not wanting to sell to a gay couple is wrong, and his life would've been a hell of a lot easier these past 5 years if he didn't deny them service but I believe he is entitled to his opinion and he will reap the effects of it.

Click to expand...

1.) easy because the majority of Christian are just fine with serving cake to gays, just like the majority of Christian understand RELIGIOUS marriage has nothing to do with LEGAL marriage.
2.) nope, it has to do with the BAKER and him choosing to be a BIGOT, not religion.
3,?( you are free to believe what you want but asshole is subjective and him being a bigot, breaking the law and treating these people as lessers 100% makes him an asshole in my book. Just like a racist, or a person that wont promote women etc. ASSHOLES
4.) yeah just like racist back in the day that would serve black people whatever they wanted they just couldnt get inside the restaurant, or people that hire women but wont give them positions of authority. . . ASSHOLES
5.) yes he is entitled to his asshole opinion just like im entitled to call him an asshole.

He doesnt fool me or millions of other Christians who dont try to get special treatment based on religion, his OPINION is his to have but he doesnt get to break the law.

TurtleDude said:

and I believe that law should be overturned. and I note that the instigators of this chose him purely to create controversy. Its akin to taking a wild pig you shot to a muslim taxidermist and asking him to stuff the beast for you

Click to expand...

Its not like that at all. :shrug: unless of course the Muslims taxidermist does pigs for ONLY straights but not gays.

My position on this is not as clear as it once was... I'm torn.

My position was, that since they are declining to make a cake to a gay wedding event.... because it's a gay wedding event.... and they were not declining to make the cake based on the fact that they were gay, then they should be free to not make the cake.
My reasoning is, you can't discriminate against individuals because individuals are protected, but you can discriminate against events... events do not have rights.

But when I did a thought experiment on how I would feel if it were a mix race couple trying to do a wedding and the bakers said they decline to bake the cake because it's going to be a mixrace wedding and they do not agree....then I feel differently..... and corresponding the two examples, they are pretty much the same thing....

And this is strictly thinking about how I think the law should be interpreted.... If it were completely up to me, I think people have the right to discriminate regardless...I think those people are jerks, but I don't think you should be able to force anyone to do anything.

celticwar17 said:

1.)My position on this is not as clear as it once was... I'm torn.

My position was, that since they are declining to make a cake to a gay wedding event.... because it's a gay wedding event.... and they were not declining to make the cake based on the fact that they were gay, then they should be free to not make the cake.
My reasoning is, you can't discriminate against individuals because individuals are protected, but you can discriminate against events... events do not have rights.

But when I did a thought experiment on how I would feel if it were a mix race couple trying to do a wedding and the bakers said they decline to bake the cake because it's going to be a mixrace wedding and they do not agree....then I feel differently..... and corresponding the two examples, they are pretty much the same thing....

And this is strictly thinking about how I think the law should be interpreted.... If it were completely up to me, I think people have the right to discriminate regardless...I think those people are jerks, but I don't think you should be able to force anyone to do anything.

Click to expand...

and that position is completely false and makes no sense. What "event" are you talking about?
what other things can i call an event? the event of black people eating in my restaurant? the event of promoting women?
They are not "pretty much" the same thing they are the same thing, discrimination

Lastly the baker isnt being "forced" to do anything, there is no force the baker CHOSE to open a public accommodation buinsess and he CHOSE to make wedding cakes, then he CHOOSE to break the laws, rules and regulations that he AGREED to so now he has to face the the consequence and take personal responsibility. nobody forced him to do any of that, nobody is to blame but him.

AGENT J said:

and that position is completely false and makes no sense. What "event" are you talking about?
what other things can i call an event? the event of black people eating in my restaurant? the event of promoting women?
They are not "pretty much" the same thing they are the same thing, discrimination

Lastly the baker isnt being "forced" to do anything, there is no force the baker CHOSE to open a public accommodation buinsess and he CHOSE to make wedding cakes, then he CHOOSE to break the laws, rules and regulations that he AGREED to so now he has to face the the consequence and take personal responsibility. nobody forced him to do any of that, nobody is to blame but him.

Click to expand...

Makes sense to me.

They are discriminating against the event not the people. You can refuse business to an event all you want, for any reason you want, the bakers don't mind to bake a cake for gay people, they mind to bake a cake for a gay wedding specifically(they do not agree with what deems as religious symbolism to them in the ceremony, they find it to be a violation of their beliefs).... it's the event that matters to them, not the individuals. But if you refuse business to someone because they are gay or have a certain skin color, that's illegal. If they said, because you are gay I will not sell you a cake...that is a bigger violation in my eyes...

Do you at least get the point? I'm not even sure if I agree with it now or not... but it seems you have trouble even understanding the logic lol.... which is an issue.

I said I am aware that it breaks the law to refuse service to a gay person because they are gay... I'm saying, I do not agree with the law... I think people should be free to discriminate, you should not be able to force someone to do a service they do not want to do.... I understand your argument that when someone engages in public exchange that they mus abide by laws...I am saying I do not agree with the law... I don't agree that someone can be forced to do a service they do not want to do in order to stay in business or fear being shot at by the government. But since that is the law... people certainly should abide by them..

celticwar17 said:

1.)Makes sense to me.
2.)They are discriminating against the event not the people.
3.) You can refuse business to an event all you want, for any reason you want, the bakers don't mind to bake a cake for gay people, they mind to bake a cake for a gay wedding specifically.... it's the event that matters to them, not the individuals. But if you refuse business to someone because they are gay or have a certain skin color, that's illegal.
4.) If they said, because you are gay I will not sell you a cake...that is a bigger violation in my eyes...
5.)Do you at least get the point? I'm not even sure if I agree with it now or not... but it seems you have trouble even understanding the logic lol.... which is an issue.

Click to expand...

1.) its still factually wrong (your description of event vs people)
2.) factually false as proven many times in this thread and others. Its factual discrimination based on sexual orientation.
3.) what event? LMAO thats the most retarded claim ever. Event like what, black people eating inside the restaurant?
What If i said i dont mind serving black people or hiring women just not in my store or has supervisor? Would you make the retarded claim its the event of blacks eating or women being supervisors then/ do you think that would work? of course not thats why it doesnt work here either its completely intellectually dishonest and void of logic lol Its COMPLETELY about giving gays a wedding cake. Just liek it would be completely about serving BLACKS in the restaurant or promote WOMEN
4.) bigger or smaller violation in your eyes doesnt matter just the law does
5.) thats because there is ZERO logic behind what you claim. Facts definitions and history already destroy it for the stupidity it is so theres ZERO issue LMAO.

Its factual discrimination based on sexual orientation, theres no disputing that fact and it will never changes. The court case will determine if the discrimination LEGAL or not but it can never change the fact its sexual orientation discrimination.

AGENT J said:

1.) its still factually wrong (your description of event vs people)
2.) factually false as proven many times in this thread and others. Its factual discrimination based on sexual orientation.
3.) what event? LMAO thats the most retarded claim ever. Event like what, black people eating inside the restaurant?
What If i said i dont mind serving black people or hiring women just not in my store or has supervisor? Would you make the retarded claim its the event of blacks eating or women being supervisors then/ do you think that would work? of course not thats why it doesnt work here either its completely intellectually dishonest and void of logic lol Its COMPLETELY about giving gays a wedding cake. Just liek it would be completely about serving BLACKS in the restaurant or promote WOMEN
4.) bigger or smaller violation in your eyes doesnt matter just the law does
5.) thats because there is ZERO logic behind what you claim. Facts definitions and history already destroy it for the stupidity it is so theres ZERO issue LMAO.

Its factual discrimination based on sexual orientation, theres no disputing that fact and it will never changes. The court case will determine if the discrimination LEGAL or not but it can never change the fact its sexual orientation discrimination.

Click to expand...

You sound too emotional for a discussion lol... I would probably take a breather man

celticwar17 said:

You sound too emotional for a discussion lol... I would probably take a breather man

Click to expand...

LMAO nice deflection but it wont work. Let me know when you can actually defend you failed postion with any facts or logic

or how about this, answer these simple questions lets see if you can show honesty and integrity:

Are you claiming that if i serve blacks at my restaurant but not inside my its ok? if i make them come to the kitchen door in the alley its fine right? I mean im still serving them, im not against blacks just the EVENT of them eating in my dinning room. Thats legal right and NOT discrimination against blacks? YES or NO

what about if i hire woman at my company but not as supervisors, thats fine too right? i mean i still hire them, im not against women. im just against the event of making them supervisors or them supervising. Thats legal right, and NOT discrimination against women? YES or NO

opcorn2: