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

[cabse5]

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

As far as I know, most Americans support same-sex marriage. But, even if they didn't, keep in mind that we're not a pure democracy. We're a constitutional republic based on federalism, so "majority rule" means nothing.



"Lynch mentality?"

How so?

Who have I indicated should be lynched?

Who is to be lynched, in your opinion? In your bombastic, IMO, discourse on the effect of the free market on bakers who don't want to bake the cake for gay couples, I'd say you want bakers who don't want to bake a cake for gay couples lynched. You certainly don't seem to agree with SCOTUS decisions in this regard.


A majority of Americans now agree with same sex marriage but, when state supreme courts were deciding that same sex marriage was constitutional, this was contrary to the sentiment of a greater majority of Americans that thought same sex marriage wasn't acceptable.

One must understand the change in sentiment of Americans towards same sex marriage had more than a little to do with the inevitability of same sex marriage it being mandated by the courts. IMO, the popular opinion about gay marriage didn't change as much as the judiciary bullied Americans into accepting gay marriage.

 

[AGENT J]

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

Who is to be lynched, in your opinion? In your bombastic, IMO, discourse on the effect of the free market on bakers who don't want to bake the cake for gay couples, I'd say you want bakers who don't want to bake a cake for gay couples lynched. You certainly don't seem to agree with SCOTUS decisions in this regard.


A majority of Americans now agree with same sex marriage but, when state supreme courts were deciding that same sex marriage was constitutional, this was contrary to the sentiment of a greater majority of Americans that thought same sex marriage wasn't acceptable.

One must understand the change in sentiment of Americans towards same sex marriage more than a little to do with the inevitability of same sex marriage it being mandated by the courts. IMO, the popular opinion about gay marriage didn't change as much as the judiciary bullied Americans into accepting gay marriage.

your FEELINGS on it being accepted dont really matter. just like my FEELINGS dont matter. Its about rights and equal rights are winning...

When Loving v Virginia 1967 passed something like 75% o the country was against it, maybe more . . . doesnt matter. Law rights and the constitution trumps all that. Heck it wasnt until 1995 that the majority supported it.(interracial marriage)

People are still completely free to feel how they want, nobody has to accept it or like it (and i will defend that right too) but they can not infringe on the rights of others.

 

[Lutherf]

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

Who is to be lynched, in your opinion? In your bombastic, IMO, discourse on the effect of the free market on bakers who don't want to bake the cake for gay couples, I'd say you want bakers who don't want to bake a cake for gay couples lynched. You certainly don't seem to agree with SCOTUS decisions in this regard.


A majority of Americans now agree with same sex marriage but, when state supreme courts were deciding that same sex marriage was constitutional, this was contrary to the sentiment of a greater majority of Americans that thought same sex marriage wasn't acceptable.

One must understand the change in sentiment of Americans towards same sex marriage had more than a little to do with the inevitability of same sex marriage it being mandated by the courts. IMO, the popular opinion about gay marriage didn't change as much as the judiciary bullied Americans into accepting gay marriage.

There is a certain incentive to the “accept it or suffer the wrath of the state”. There were better ways to handle the issue but they were eschewed in favor of a bite force tactic.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

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

It's someone who disparages most of America by labeling them racists.

I'll let you think about that.

How in the hell are there so many illiterate posters in this forum?

A bigot is a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

Also, most Americans are racist. I say that not only because it's true but also to annoy you. Have you noticed that only a tiny handful of conservatives and no one else has been as butt hurt about that statement as you (and one other poster) have? I wonder why.

 

[cabse5]

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

SCOTUS made no such decisions at all
ZERO laws were determine to be unconstitutional in this case no matter how you want to spin it . . .ZERO LMAO

Fact remains: discrimination against sexual orientation is still illegal in Colorado and everywhere that has laws to protects it. NOTHING changed in that regard.

Unless you're a baker named Phillips. Face it. The law in this case in Colorado has just been declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. You may hate to give up on this but the handwriting is on the wall.

One may 'freshen up' the law to make it constitutional but as it sits, now, it is unconstitutional.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

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

Psychotic people and their imaginary God? Please...
The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government can never deprive people in the U.S. of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion.

How erudite. This is not the conversation for you.

 

[prometeus]

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

Unless you're a baker named Phillips. Face it. The law in this case in Colorado has just been declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

How did you come up with that? Do you understand the decision at all?

 

[Desert Storm]

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

How in the hell are there so many illiterate posters in this forum?

A bigot is a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

Also, most Americans are racist. I say that not only because it's true but also to annoy you. Have you noticed that only a tiny handful of conservatives and no one else has been as butt hurt about that statement as you (and one other poster) have? I wonder why

We're not butthurt, we just like throwing the 'bigot' word back at a Liberal for a change :lol:

Clearly its bothering you or you wouldnt waste this much time trying to defend your bigotry

 

[AGENT J]

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

1.) Unless you're a baker named Phillips.
2.) Face it. The law in this case in Colorado has just been declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. You may hate to give up on this but the handwriting is on the wall.
3.)One may 'freshen up' the law to make it constitutional but as it sits, now, it is unconstitutional.

1.) nope still illegal for him too. guess you didnt read anythign about ths case huh?
2.) please keep repeating that lie because it never happened and shows you know nothing about this case, the law, the constitution or rights.
3.) again see #2 that never happened no "LAW" was declared unconstitutional . .

disagree?? simply qoute the part of the ruling that said the AD/PA laws are unconstitutional . . we'll be waiting, thanks! LMAO

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

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

So what? You are arguing semantics.

The lawsuit was against the CO. Civil Rights Commission who proved themselves to be disrespectful of the baker's religious conviction.
You don't know what you are talking about because you refuse to admit why the big beautiful CO. Civil rights commission lost.

Semantics? One thing is a court. Other things are not courts. That isn't semantics.

Like I said, this topic is way too advanced for you, but I'll leave you another nugget. The law that the CCRC was enforcing is still the law of the land in my beautiful state and if that baker-bigot starts baking wedding cakes again in an hour, he will be forced by our beautiful laws to sell his beautiful wedding cakes to beautiful gay couples.

Let that sink in.

 

[Bullseye]

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

1.) facts dont care what you feel it sounds like, fact remains nobody is forced and nobody is fighting for the right to fore anybody :shrug:

Horse manure. [/quote]I was expressing facts. Sorry I'm writing above your grade level. Being sued and taken before bureaucratic boards and judicial hearings IS forcing.

2.) nope not stupid at all just more facts whether you accept them or not they remain facts LMAO but i do agree your illogical non-analogous example is COMPLETELY stupid LMAO

the facts are that some religious rituals ARE prohibited, but not the simple practice of faith. Like I said the couple wasn't asking him to kiss a rattlesnake.

I actually agree with that point, in fact I'm arguing for it. The couple's right to get their cake should have ended where Phillip's religious rights began. It didn't - bureaucracy got involved and it took the Supreme Court to end it.

 

[cabse5]

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

your FEELINGS on it being accepted dont really matter. just like my FEELINGS dont matter. Its about rights and equal rights are winning...

When Loving v Virginia 1967 passed something like 75% o the country was against it, maybe more . . . doesnt matter. Law rights and the constitution trumps all that. Heck it wasnt until 1995 that the majority supported it.(interracial marriage)

People are still completely free to feel how they want, nobody has to accept it or like it (and i will defend that right too) but they can not infringe on the rights of others.

And SCOTUS just ruled the state of Colorado can't infringe on the religious practices rights of the Phillips baker.

 

[ludin]

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

I didn't know that, thanks. Well then, he might find himself in trouble again :shrug:

It is possible he could end up back in court or be targeted for harassment if he does open it back up.
the CO commission still has to abide by the SCOTUS ruling though.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

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

Nope. I'm pretty sure "separate but equal" doesn't apply to cake baking. More like important rights like education, housing, employment, e.g. fundamental rights. The right to practice one's religion is written in the First Amendment - the "right" to force someone to bake you a cake is not.

You're making the same mistake as other posters. No one forced the baker to operate a bakery that is a place of public accommodation. He forced himself to bake a cake for gay people. Then he bitched about the rules of the game that he volunteered to play and broke the law because he thought the law doesn't apply to him because he's a Christian.

It's absurd and illegal.

 

[ludin]

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

I'm not really what you would call a religious person at all but, the fact is, religion has been around for thousands if not tens or even hundreds of thousands of years, if not into the millions of years. People all over the world have set faiths and things they believe in. To have the left in this country totally discount religion as being totally irrelevant to anything is abhorrent to my belief of tolerance. The left is always talking about tolerance but they have no tolerance for religion or other's beliefs. Hell, this country was founded on religious freedom and now the left want to claim that religion has no place in society and should not be protected by the constitution. This Supreme Court ruling slaps the left in the face, saying that, YES, religion and one's religious beliefs are not irrelevant and do not have zero basis in law.

most of the people on the left have no idea what the definition of tolerance is.
that is the first problem.

the next problem their definition of tolerance is:

As long as you agree with me then i am tolerant.

that is the exact opposite of tolerance.

 

[ludin]

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

No. A great day for liberty will be when the Supreme Court is willing to recognize that religious exemptions are unconstitutional and satisfying neutrality doesn’t have to mean setting aside equal protection to create a separate class of citizenry which can violate the law with impunity because of their superstitions. That isn’t today, but will certainly be within my lifetime. As it relates to this case, the SC didn’t rule on the merits - only on a procedural technicality.

and yet the constitution says they are not unconstitutional hmmm interesting how our own constitution says that you are wrong.

 

[Bullseye]

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

Actually, it's not. The baker agreed to restrictions on his free speech when he chose to open a bakery. He wasn't forced. That is why your argument, which I have seen repeated often, doesn't hold a drop of water. The "long term standing" that you need to understand sooner or later is the CRA of 1964.

I'm pretty sure CRA 1964 doesn't say "gays rule all others follow". CRA was meant to address more important and serious issues, like housing, employment, not buying cakes.

 

[AGENT J]

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

1.) Horse manure. I was expressing facts. Sorry I'm writing above your grade level. Being sued and taken before bureaucratic boards and judicial hearings IS forcing.
2.)the facts are that some religious rituals ARE prohibited, but not the simple practice of faith. Like I said the couple wasn't asking him to kiss a rattlesnake.
3.) I actually agree with that point, in fact I'm arguing for it. The couple's right to get their cake should have ended where Phillip's religious rights began.
4.) It didn't - bureaucracy got involved and it took the Supreme Court to end it.

1.) stomp your feet, yell horse manure and then hold your breath the fact remains nobody was forced to bake a cake and nobody is in relation to this topic.... Your inaccurate feelings cant change facts.
2.) regardless of your reframe practice is limited and always has been
3.) there is no right to get a cake please stop making up retarded lies and strawmen and phillips in that regard had no rights violate of his
4.) nothing was ended in that regard LMAO, it is still illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation, what was ended is how the state conducted itself. That was the ruling.

seems were up to 4 people now that think this rulling changed somethign in Colorado, it didnt, discrimination against sexual orientation is still illegal :shrug:

 

[cabse5]

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

Discrimination against sexual orientation is still illegal
If the hall is a public access business venue he has to follow the law

Discrimination against allowing a person their religious practices is also illegal. Are you proposing a hierarchy of discriminations? Does, for example, a discrimination against a person's sexual orientation count for, let's say, ten points and discrimination disallowing a person their religious practices a lesser than 10 point award, in your opinion?

 

[AGENT J]

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

And SCOTUS just ruled the state of Colorado can't infringe on the religious practices rights of the Phillips baker.

i love that you have no idea what the ruling is about

discrimination against sexual orientation is still illegal in Colorado, even for "the phillips baker" LMAO

 

[Bullseye]

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

1.) stomp your feet, yell horse manure and then hold your breath the fact remains nobody was forced to bake a cake and nobody is in relation to this topic.... Your inaccurate feelings cant change facts.
2.) regardless of your reframe practice is limited and always has been
3.) there is no right to get a cake please stop making up retarded lies and strawmen and phillips in that regard had no rights violate of his
4.) nothing was ended in that regard LMAO, it is still illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation, what was ended is how the state conducted itself. That was the ruling.

seems were up to 4 people now that think this rulling changed somethign in Colorado, it didnt, discrimination against sexual orientation is still illegal :shrug:

Ok, I give up I'm getting tired and I think you're enjoying.

 

[AGENT J]

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

Discrimination against allowing a person their religious practices is also illegal. Are you proposing a hierarchy of discriminations? Does, for example, a discrimination against a person's sexual orientation count for, let's say, ten points and discrimination disallowing a person their religious practices a lesser than 10 point award, in your opinion?

I repeat, I love that you have no idea what the ruling is about

discrimination against sexual orientation is still illegal in Colorado, even for "the phillips baker" LMAO

 

[ludin]

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

You copy and pasted my own post back to me? How clever.

Thank you for your banal synopsis of the ruling. What you forgot to include is that the baker is still required to bake cakes for gay people in CO. You seem to have missed that as well as the fact that AD laws do not and have not violated the 1A since 1964.

well when you want to post your typical nonsense hyperbole i have no problem quoting it back to you.

I never said he wasn't required to bake cakes. in fact if he refused to bake a normal cake then i absolutely would agree with him being fined and the justices would not have heard the case.
This however wasn't just about baking any ol cake.

baking a cake would be hard to prove some sort of religious argument on.

a wedding is an entirely different story. in a category all on it's own.

you should probably read the court ruling again

1. The state cannot be openly hostile against views that they consider offensive.
2. The state cannot discriminate against religious views that people may or may not hold.
3. The state must apply their laws equally to all people regardless of the situation.

IE that gay baker that refuses to make a religious cake celebrating a man and a women or that is against homosexual marriage
would be charged with the same offense if they refuse.

this ruling protects their right to refuse which i agree with as well.

 

[AGENT J]

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

Ok, I give up I'm getting tire and I think you're enjoying.

I always enjoy when people argue and lose against facts, its funny.
We can discuss this topic all day and we can discuss where opinions differ but i will not ignore facts for anybodys feelings. If its an area where its ALL feelings thats fine too but that wasnt the case with some of your claims. they were factually wrong.

 

[cabse5]

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

i love that you have no idea what the ruling is about

discrimination against sexual orientation is still illegal in Colorado, even for "the phillips baker" LMAO

You're parsing words. The Colorado law still makes it illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation but SCOTUS' ruling has declared the Colorado law unconstitutional.