Supreme Court hands narrow win to baker over gay couple dispute

[jaeger19]

The baker was decent and fair. He allowed them to go to any other baker they wished. He also, no doubt, will treat any future gay couples in a similar manner. What could be more fair than that? I suppose you mean fair as in trampling his religious rights; that sort of fair.

The baker was an A hole that discriminated based on hate. and that's it. Do you think that the Baker made sure he vetted EVERY marriage including heterosexual marriages to make sure that they met his "Christian values".. Somehow.. I doubt it. "he allowed them to go to any other baker they wished".. wow what a bunch of BS.

When the local hospital wouldn't treat my friends family member because he was black.. why that was okay.. because they let him go to any hospital that would accept him.. which was in the next town over.

You don't have a religious right to be a A hole to people particularly when you operate a public business.

 

[jaeger19]

No. It matters not if the purpose is religious or secular, free choice to act on behalf (or not act) is a standard of liberty.

Not when it impinges on other peoples rights.. like right to accommodations etc

 

[FreeWits]

You are so clueless. There are way more laws that include restrictions that never even make it to the judicial system and are all fully enforcable. Judicial review is not part of the law making process. A law only is subject to judicial review when challenged.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Ah, okay. So just about every restaurant in Wisconsin is breaking the law then, because there is a law on the books that states restaurants have to give out water and pickles for free. Most don't. There's a law in North Carolina that says atheists can't run for public office, so I guess any atheist that runs for public office is breaking the law. The worst ignorance I can think of is when you not only don't understand something, but you are so sure you understand it that you go around telling others how little they understand because of your own false interpretation. I can only pity people who do this.

 

[maxparrish]

Not when it impinges on other peoples rights.. like right to accommodations etc

Those are mostly fake rights, coercive seizures of the liberty voluntary associations by a third party (the leviathanic state) who interferes with free contract.

 

[AGENT J]

Those are mostly fake rights, coercive seizures of the liberty voluntary associations by a third party (the leviathanic state) who interferes with free contract.

fake rights? based on what facts? lol
and liberty as you describe it would be anarchy . . no thanks
i like my rights and the rights f my fellow americans being protected by the government just like it should be.

 

[maxparrish]

The baker was an A hole that discriminated based on hate. and that's it. Do you think that the Baker made sure he vetted EVERY marriage including heterosexual marriages to make sure that they met his "Christian values".. Somehow.. I doubt it. "he allowed them to go to any other baker they wished".. wow what a bunch of BS.

When the local hospital wouldn't treat my friends family member because he was black.. why that was okay.. because they let him go to any hospital that would accept him.. which was in the next town over.

You don't have a religious right to be a A hole to people particularly when you operate a public business.

Declining to do business as either a supplier or consumer does not, alone, make one an "a-hole". I chose not to be married by paying for the services of a minister because I am an agnostic, does that make me an 'a-hole'?

If a Muslim Iman declines to marry Christians, does that mean he is an a-hole?

The baker did not act out of hate for the couple, but of a choice to not provide creative labor on behalf of sanctification of someone else's ritual. The "harm" to needlessly coerce labor from an unwilling party when the consumer (or supplier) can easily find equal or better alternatives makes no sense - UNLESS, of course, that person is the one full of hate.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Declining to do business as either a supplier or consumer does not, alone, make one an "a-hole". I chose not to be married by paying for the services of a minister because I am an agnostic, does that make me an 'a-hole'?
2.)If a Muslim Iman declines to marry Christians, does that mean he is an a-hole?
3.) The baker did not act out of hate for the couple, but of a choice to not provide creative labor on behalf of sanctification of someone else's ritual.
4.) The "harm" to needlessly coerce labor from an unwilling party when the consumer (or supplier) can easily find equal or better alternatives makes no sense - UNLESS, of course, that person is the one full of hate.

1.) correct it doesnt "alone" but bigotry does make one an ahole so in this case he is an ahole
2.) i would need more info . . .are you talking about in his place of worship? no he wouldnt be an ahole
does he run a PA venue and advertises that he does marriages but then choose not to do christian marriages because of bigotry . . then yes he would be an ahole
3.) he did it based on bigotry and stupidity really . . probably hypocrisy but i dont know that for sure
4.) no labor is being coerce that lie fails every time, its intellectually dishonest

 

[AGENT J]

The law, as designed, is hostile to Christians serious about their religion, so the law itself is what is at fault.
2.) Even had the Commission made no disparaging comments, this case would have still had the same merits.

1.) thats factually not true, im christian and this law is not hostile to me at all in any way LMAO no PA/AD laws are
2.) no it wouldnt and history proves that. DIshonest people and bigots tried the dishonest religious thing against women and minorities and interracial marriage and gay marriage etc etc its been tried agsint rights and PA/AD laws before. ALl failed . . why? becuase there no intellectual merit to take it seriously when in the realm of rights and legality

 

[veritas1]

1.) thats factually not true, im christian and this law is not hostile to me at all in any way LMAO no PA/AD laws are
2.) no it wouldnt and history proves that. DIshonest people and bigots tried the dishonest religious thing against women and minorities and interracial marriage and gay marriage etc etc its been tried agsint rights and PA/AD laws before. ALl failed . . why? becuase there no intellectual merit to take it seriously when in the realm of rights and legality

Of course the law is hostile to any Christian who seriously abides by the dictates of their religion. For those who wish to pick and choose which parts of Christianity they like, then there's no problem. Let's be clear here as well. We are not talking about anything beyond this specific case, which was about forcing a Christian to participate, as it were, in a gay wedding. Saying it doesn't impact you personally is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

 

[roguenuke]

Of course not. No law should prohibit a man's labor on behalf of another, and none should mandate a man's labor on behalf of another.

That's called freedom.

Consistent, yet that is still not right, especially not given our dependent society. We are dependent on each other for service and sometimes that means that we have to force people to do business so that groups are not allowed to fairly function, live within a society due to widespread discrimination.

 

[roguenuke]

Ironically, I am of the camp that legally a private business should be able to refuse for any reason. And then we should all have the right to call them out on it and not grace them with our money. My main point was that it doesn't have to be a religious reason.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

I actually figured that, but plenty of those who fight for religious freedom, do not feel that way. There is more like three different groups on this issue, those like me who feel that it balances the power by forcing businesses to serve people, regardless of things such as race, religion, sex, sexuality, etc, those like you who feel that no one should be forced to serve anyone for any reason, and those who believe that in some cases a business should be forced to serve people regardless of their race, religion, sex, sexuality, etc, unless it conflicts with their specifically approved of religious beliefs (the list could vary per person).

 

[roguenuke]

Ah, okay. So just about every restaurant in Wisconsin is breaking the law then, because there is a law on the books that states restaurants have to give out water and pickles for free. Most don't. There's a law in North Carolina that says atheists can't run for public office, so I guess any atheist that runs for public office is breaking the law. The worst ignorance I can think of is when you not only don't understand something, but you are so sure you understand it that you go around telling others how little they understand because of your own false interpretation. I can only pity people who do this.

Some laws are not enforceable due to past precedents set (which don't always have to be set by the SCOTUS). Others are unenforceable if they have not been enforced in a long time, despite having been violated throughout that time.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Of course the law is hostile to any Christian who seriously abides by the dictates of their religion.
2.) For those who wish to pick and choose which parts of Christianity they like, then there's no problem.
3.) Let's be clear here as well. We are not talking about anything beyond this specific case
4.) which was about forcing a Christian to participate, as it were, in a gay wedding.
5.) Saying it doesn't impact you personally is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

1.) no its factually not, if you disagree simply factually prove your statement. I bet anythign you cant.
2.) doesnt matter what christians pick and choose its factually not hostile to me in anyway
3.) fine by me you still will not be able to support your false claim with ONE fact that makes it true not ONE
4.) thats factually not true either LMAO . .maybe i made i mistake i was hoping for honest discussion but ill still be waiting for you to factually prove your false claims
5.) it is because im christian and you it proves you wrong and most importantly you cant prove otherwise . . hence why instead of just supplying a fact to support you, you did all these deflections

but again ill simply be waiting for you to prove AD laws are hostile towards christians LMAO, please do so now, thanks!

 

[veritas1]

1.) no its factually not, if you disagree simply factually prove your statement. I bet anythign you cant.
2.) doesnt matter what christians pick and choose its factually not hostile to me in anyway
3.) fine by me you still will not be able to support your false claim with ONE fact that makes it true not ONE
4.) thats factually not true either LMAO . .maybe i made i mistake i was hoping for honest discussion but ill still be waiting for you to factually prove your false claims
5.) it is because im christian and you it proves you wrong and most importantly you cant prove otherwise . . hence why instead of just supplying a fact to support you, you did all these deflections

but again ill simply be waiting for you to prove AD laws are hostile towards christians LMAO, please do so now, thanks!

1. Scripture is clear on homosexuality. If that has escaped you or you don't like what it says, that has nothing to do with this baker and his beliefs.

2. As I said, you are irrelevant to this case.

3. It all depends on what you accept as fact. This baker accepts as fact that he shouldn't be making a cake for an event he sees his religion as condemning. Therefore, the law is hostile to him and, by extension, to anyone who believes as he does.

4. I'm being totally honest. You just don't like my opinion. Whether you're a Christian is completely irrelevant to this case. Nobody asked you to do anything. We also were not discussing ALL laws, only the law in this case.

 

[AGENT J]

1. Scripture is clear on homosexuality. If that has escaped you or you don't like what it says, that has nothing to do with this baker and his beliefs.

2. As I said, you are irrelevant to this case.

3. It all depends on what you accept as fact. This baker accepts as fact that his religion forbids him making a cake for an event he sees his religion as condemning. Therefore, the law is hostile to him and, by extension, to anyone who believes as he does.

4. I'm being totally honest. You just don't like my opinion.

5.) Whether you're a Christian is completely irrelevant to this case. Nobody asked you to do anything.

1.) scripture also has nothign to do with this law or opening a business or baking or wedding cakes or discrimination etc etc LMAO
2.) repeat it a million times did say i was, seems you are getting desperate
3.) how is the law hostile to him or christianity.
where in christianity does it say he must open a public access business, agree to that business contract and law that come with do such, be a baker, sell products that anybody can by break the law and the contract and discriminate against certain people?

is that part of scripture or christianity? i missed that in the bible and was never told that in my church. . . .can i not practice my faith if i dont open a public accuse business, bake, choose to sell wedding cakes but deny gays them?

see told you that you would complete fail and not be able to provide one fact that makes this law hostile to christians, your failed and retard claim is like saying rape laws are hostile to virgins or theft laws are hostile to poor people its absolutely absurd. it has no rational or intellectual merit and will never be taken serious by anybody honest, educated and objective

4.) i dont care about your opinion like or dislike wise im just pointing out that your opinion is factually wrong. i just proved it and at the same time showed you cant provid one fact that makes your claim true.

as always if you disagree simply provide those facts that make your false claim true in your next post

5.) this deflection already failed, repeating it doesn't help your factually wrong claims

ill be waiting for you to answer number 4 but i bet the farm youll run away or dodge/deflect by going on the attack and still not post ONE SINGLE FACT that makes your proven wrong claim true, ill be waiting Thanks!

 

[veritas1]

1.) scripture also has nothign to do with this law or opening a business or baking or wedding cakes or discrimination etc etc LMAO
2.) repeat it a million times did say i was, seems you are getting desperate
3.) how is the law hostile to him or christianity.
where in christianity does it say he must open a public access business, agree to that business contract and law that come with do such, be a baker, sell products that anybody can by break the law and the contract and discriminate against certain people?

is that part of scripture or christianity? i missed that in the bible and was never told that in my church. . . .can i not practice my faith if i dont open a public accuse business, bake, choose to sell wedding cakes but deny gays them?

see told you that you would complete fail and not be able to provide one fact that makes this law hostile to christians, your failed and retard claim is like saying rape laws are hostile to virgins or theft laws are hostile to poor people its absolutely absurd. it has no rational or intellectual merit and will never be taken serious by anybody honest, educated and objective

4.) i dont care about your opinion like or dislike wise im just pointing out that your opinion is factually wrong. i just proved it and at the same time showed you cant provid one fact that makes your claim true.

as always if you disagree simply provide those facts that make your false claim true in your next post

5.) this deflection already failed, repeating it doesn't help your factually wrong claims

ill be waiting for you to answer number 4 but i bet the farm youll run away or dodge/deflect by going on the attack and still not post ONE SINGLE FACT that makes your proven wrong claim true, ill be waiting Thanks!

Obviously, this guy saw the law as hostile to him and his religious view or he wouldn't have had his case in front of the SCOTUS. He saw it as so hostile that he refused to obey it. I mean, is this really difficult for you?

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Obviously, this guy saw the law as hostile to him and his religious view or he wouldn't have had his case in front of the SCOTUS.
2.) He saw it as so hostile that he refused to obey it.
3.) I mean, is this really difficult for you?

BOOM nailed it, deflections and not ONE single fact that makes your claim true . .


1.) how he sees it doesn't matter, killers and rapist see the law as hostile to them too. You claim is still factually wrong
2.) again what "he" saw/feels does matter, just like what I or you see/feel doesnt matter to facts/law. did you honestly just try to move the gal post from "any christian" to "this guy"? :lamo
3.) actually it was VERY easy for me to prove your statment factually wrong. so you can keep trying deflections like these or simply post with honesty and integrity and admit to the fact that this law is not hostile towards christians/christianty

your choices are limited here

a.) post with honesty and integrity and admit you misspoke and your claim was inaccurate (we all make mistakes lord knows i have)
b.) keep denying facts and people will keep mocking your claim and proving it false
c.) provide one fact that makes your claim true (which we already know cant be done)

let me know, thanks!

 

[FreeWits]

Some laws are not enforceable due to past precedents set (which don't always have to be set by the SCOTUS). Others are unenforceable if they have not been enforced in a long time, despite having been violated throughout that time.

Almost like the judicial branch makes the decision of how to interpret what limitations there are on people's rights.

 

[veritas1]

BOOM nailed it, deflections and not ONE single fact that makes your claim true . .


1.) how he sees it doesn't matter, killers and rapist see the law as hostile to them too. You claim is still factually wrong
2.) again what "he" saw/feels does matter, just like what I or you see/feel doesnt matter to facts/law. did you honestly just try to move the gal post from "any christian" to "this guy"? :lamo
3.) actually it was VERY easy for me to prove your statment factually wrong. so you can keep trying deflections like these or simply post with honesty and integrity and admit to the fact that this law is not hostile towards christians/christianty

your choices are limited here

a.) post with honesty and integrity and admit you misspoke and your claim was inaccurate (we all make mistakes lord knows i have)
b.) keep denying facts and people will keep mocking your claim and proving it false
c.) provide one fact that makes your claim true (which we already know cant be done)

let me know, thanks!

This guy is a Christian. That is the basis of his opposition. Therefore, the law would be hostile to any other Christian with the same views. Those are facts no matter what you say. I'd be interested in what you think the basis of his complaint was if not a religious one. Your position is that the law is not hostile to YOU and so it is not hostile to anybody else. It may not be hostile to your view of Christianity but that is not pertinent here.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)This guy is a Christian. That is the basis of his opposition.
2.) Therefore, the law would be hostile to any other Christian with the same views.
3.) Those are facts no matter what you say.
4.) I'd be interested in what you think the basis of his complaint was if not a religious one.
5.) Your position is that the law is not hostile to YOU and so it is not hostile to anybody else.

so you choose B, keep denyign facts and have your claims mocked and proven wrong LMAO . . so be it

1.) thats what he says
2.) i already proved ita factual not be and thats further proven by you inability to show how it is.
He CHOOSE to be a baker and open a PA store and sell cakes and then break the law . .those were all his choices and NONE of them have to do with christianity and he didn't CHOOSE to be a open up a PA store, sell cakes and illegally discrintines discontinued he could still be a chrisitian
3.) LMAO no they are not kid hence how easily they were proved wrong and hence why you cant post ONE fact that makes them true.
4.) his feelings about the basis of his complaint are irrelevant to whether the law law is hostile towards him or christianity, like my examples about virgins and rapist, poor people and theft.

they too would complain and make thier feelings the basis of it . . doesn't matter there's no hostility when he CHOOSE to do what he did

5.) nope wrong again, but please continue to make up other retarded strawman because it further expose your false claims

my position is your statment below is factually wrong and i proved it already

The law, as designed, is hostile to Christians serious about their religion, so the law itself is what is at fault.

so now that all those deflections are destroyed he we are again, you can

a.) post with honesty and integrity and admit you misspoke and your claim was inaccurate (we all make mistakes lord knows i have)
b.) keep denying facts and people will keep mocking your claim and proving it false
c.) provide one fact that makes your claim true (which we already know cant be done)

let me know, thanks!

 

[veritas1]

so you choose B, keep denyign facts and have your claims mocked and proven wrong LMAO . . so be it

1.) thats what he says
2.) i already proved ita factual not be and thats further proven by you inability to show how it is.
He CHOOSE to be a baker and open a PA store and sell cakes and then break the law . .those were all his choices and NONE of them have to do with christianity and he didn't CHOOSE to be a open up a PA store, sell cakes and illegally discrintines discontinued he could still be a chrisitian
3.) LMAO no they are not kid hence how easily they were proved wrong and hence why you cant post ONE fact that makes them true.
4.) his feelings about the basis of his complaint are irrelevant to whether the law law is hostile towards him or christianity, like my examples about virgins and rapist, poor people and theft.

they too would complain and make thier feelings the basis of it . . doesn't matter there's no hostility when he CHOOSE to do what he did

5.) nope wrong again, but please continue to make up other retarded strawman because it further expose your false claims

my position is your statment below is factually wrong and i proved it already



so now that all those deflections are destroyed he we are again, you can

a.) post with honesty and integrity and admit you misspoke and your claim was inaccurate (we all make mistakes lord knows i have)
b.) keep denying facts and people will keep mocking your claim and proving it false
c.) provide one fact that makes your claim true (which we already know cant be done)

let me know, thanks!

Why did this man refuse to make the cake? See if you can answer that in under 7 paragraphs.

 

[AGENT J]

Why did this man refuse to make the cake? See if you can answer that in under 7 paragraphs.

so you choose B again a deflection and ZERO facts to support your proven wrong claim LMAO i love it!

he claimed he couldn't based on his feelings, that does nothign whatsoever to support your false claim of hostility

but lets play this fun!

can he be a christian and not run a PA business? yep
Can he be a christian and not illegally discriminate? yep
does christianity require him to run a pa business and illegally discriminate? nope

based on your claims protecting sexual orientation would be hostile towards judaism and islam too . . why do you only bring up christianity?
do you also falsly claim that PA/AD laws are hostile to those that claim thier religion sees minorities, women or other religions as lessers? if not thats called hypocrisy and if so then by your factually proven wrong logic EVERY AD/PA law IS HOSTILE TO EVERYBODY runnnnnnnnn the sky is falling LMAO

once again here we are
so now that all those deflections are destroyed he we are again, you can

a.) post with honesty and integrity and admit you misspoke and your claim was inaccurate (we all make mistakes lord knows i have)
b.) keep denying facts and people will keep mocking your claim and proving it false
c.) provide one fact that makes your claim true (which we already know cant be done)

let me know, thanks!

who wants to bet another deflection is posted and ZERO facts to support the false claim

 

[veritas1]

so you choose B again a deflection and ZERO facts to support your proven wrong claim LMAO i love it!

he claimed he couldn't based on his feelings, that does nothign whatsoever to support your false claim of hostility

but lets play this fun!

can he be a christian and not run a PA business? yep
Can he be a christian and not illegal discriminate? yep
does christianity require him to run a pa bueins and illegsly discinrte? nope

based on your claims protecting sexual orientation would be hostile towards judaism and islam too . . why do you only bring up christianity?
do you also falsly claim that PA/AD laws are hostile to those that claim thier religion sees minorities, women or other religions as lessers? if not thats called hypocrisy and if so then by your factually proven wrong logic EVERY AD/PA law IS HOSTILE TO EVERYBODY runnnnnnnnn the sky is falling LMAO

once again here we are
so now that all those deflections are destroyed he we are again, you can

a.) post with honesty and integrity and admit you misspoke and your claim was inaccurate (we all make mistakes lord knows i have)
b.) keep denying facts and people will keep mocking your claim and proving it false
c.) provide one fact that makes your claim true (which we already know cant be done)

let me know, thanks!

who wants to bet another deflection is posted and ZERO facts to support the false claim

I see you couldn't meet the paragraph challenge.:lol:

He refused to make the cake based on his "feelings"? He refused based on his Christian beliefs, not some nondescript feelings. Oh, and yes, it would be hostile to Judaism and Islam, too, in a similar situation. Bringing up women and minorities and whatever other themes you'd like to throw into your word goulash, is simply a distraction to change the topic under discussion.

You can blabber all you want about AD/PA laws but we are only talking about THIS law as applied in THIS case. When and if another case comes up, I'll be happy to discuss it.

 

[roguenuke]

Almost like the judicial branch makes the decision of how to interpret what limitations there are on people's rights.

Yep. And I have little issue with that. Consider it a check on the laws made by the other 2 branches, and the states. If they don't like it, they can change the laws. Hell, some states do not include sexuality at all in their laws.

 

[Grim17]

What do you mean "went to the state"? They lived there, in that town. No one forced him to refuse to provide service to them or the others he was found to have denied service to.

The "state" is the government. The couple went to the state and cried "He won't bake us a cake".

Now what "others" are you talking about?

Additionally, again, you dodge. Should a baker who sees interracial marriages as against his religious beliefs be forced to create cakes for an interracial wedding?

Explain how I am dodging a scenario that you never presented to me?

When you acknowledge that you did not present such a scenario to me in the first place and retract the accusation I was "dodging" it, they I will be glad to address it.

.