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

[AGENT J]

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

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

1.) nope haven't done that one time hence your inability to prove that false claims
2.) no they didnt in any way shape or form :lamo

again if you disagree please simply qoute the part of the ruling that made the Colorado law unconstitutional, this is the second time i asked, we are wanting, thanks!

 

[Jack Hays]

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

Colorado Made the Masterpiece Case Easy for the Court
Robert George, NY Times

 

[Bullseye]

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

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.

Also idiotic. The blanket assertion that you can't exercise your rights in a place of public accommodation is obscene. There needs to be some form or remediation or weighing of competing rights. I've mentioned that "my rights don't allow it" shouldn't be allowed against things like housing, employment, healthcare to name a few - basic life necessities. In a case like this one a reasonable alternative should rule - if another baker nearby was willing to bake the cake - case closed, no harm, no foul.

 

[cabse5]

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

1.) nope haven't done that one time hence your inability to prove that false claims
2.) no they didnt in any way shape or form :lamo

again if you disagree please simply qoute the part of the ruling that made the Colorado law unconstitutional, this is the second time i asked, we are wanting, thanks!

SCOTUS said Colorado can't penalize the Phillips because they have religious grounds against baking the gay wedding cake. This nullifies the Colorado law which says under no circumstances can anyone discriminate against a person's sexual orientation.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

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

You seem to think that I've been arguing a particular position as to the facts of this case. I have not been. I have been addressing entirely, based on what your accusation of what I "think" the First Amendment is, what I actually do think the First Amendment is.

Anyway, your analysis is wrong. Just because he agreed to follow CO law, it doesn't matter that he did if CO law runs afoul of the First Amendment. You seem to think First Amendment claims disappear, or traditional First Amendment analysis doesn't apply, just because he's subject to a CO law. The reality is, the CO law has to be justified against First Amendment rights, not the other way around. You seem to think it's the other way around.

Your constant digs at his beliefs, of course, having nothing to do with any of this. It simply shows the animosity you bring which renders your arguments emotional. (Never mind that the First Amendment doesn't simply protect someone having a belief, but specifically the free exercise thereof, without which simply having a belief doesn't mean anything.)

And because of that, you can't discuss the First Amendment rationally, as I said. You hate his beliefs. So what? That's completely irrelevant to First Amendment analysis.

The CO law doesn't run afoul of the 1A. How are you not comprehending that? The SCOTUS left the law intact. The law is also enforceable for all the other reasons I already gave you. See Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States. See Katzenbach v. McClung. You're obsessing over the 1A because, I'm guessing, you realize that when you incorporate the 14A (just as valid, binding, and powerful as the 1A, by the way), you realize that fifty-four years or jurisprudence proves you unequivocally wrong.

I'm a little surprised that you lowered yourself to claiming that I am making "constant digs" at the baker's beliefs. I'm not. I'm making constant digs at his ****ty treatment of other human beings, which he justifies with his religion. I am a spiritual person, but that's none of your business. Focus on the subject.

The 1A can be and is restricted in hundreds of different ways. You romanticizing its intention and its effects to cover for a bigoted baker who wants to have marriage rights for himself but not for other people is frankly pathetic. I noted that you sloppily resorted to an "emotional" thing again, but you've overused it so badly by now that I know it's just something you say.

I'll end with a rhetorical device whereby I turn your worthless words back on you. You can't discuss the 1A rationally. You tolerate, condone, and encourage discrimination against gay people. So what? That's completely irrelevant to 14A analysis. There is a mountain of case law. Your internet postings do nothing to change it.

 

[AGENT J]

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

SCOTUS said Colorado can't penalize the Phillips because they have religious grounds against baking the gay wedding cake. This nullifies the Colorado law which says under no circumstances can anyone discriminate against a person's sexual orientation.

Translation: you cant qoute any part of the ruling that says the law is unconstitutional, thats what i thought. LMAO
please let us know when you can, thanks!

Fact remains: discrimination against sexual ore nation is still illegal in Colorado, the law stands and remains constitutional.
ZERO laws were found unconstitutional by this ruling . . ZERO. This isnt rocket science.

 

[Bullseye]

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

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.

LOL, you have a funny definition of "facts".
1. Gay couple wanted Phillips to bake cake, he said no.
2. Couple filed complaint, complaint was answered in favor of couple
3. Case went to trial and Phillps lost.
4. SCOTUS heard case and found for Phillips.

So, my question is: would ANY of that happened if Phillips had said "yes" in #1? Why is that not punishment for not baking the cake?

Second question: if another gay couple comes in for a cake -will he bake it?

 

[ludin]

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.

"The creator" finds a cake for two gay dudes "offensive"?

Y'all believe in an unbelievably ****ed up god.

*sigh*

You seriously do not know what you are talking about.

An artist can refuse to paint any painting he might find offensive.
a song writer can refuse to write a song that he might find offensive.

Creative expression has been ruled constitutional and protected by the 1A for decades in court after court ruling
no matter if the state or government finds that expression offensive or not.

No the Creator find certain types of marriage offensive.

see how dishonest you are?

he offered to sell them other stuff in the store he simply refused to make a wedding cake that would signal that he support
a marriage that he doesn't.

just as a homosexual baker is free to not make a religious cake that they find offensive, and in fact they have declined to make
such cakes and it was found that they didn't discriminate.

therefore equal protection must apply.

which is one of the things the justices nailed the state on.

The court pushed for a more pluralist approach, noting both that “gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” and that “[a]t the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

The majority opinion not only left open the very distinct likelihood that custom-made wedding services with expressive functions would be protected under free speech doctrines, but also explicitly rejected blanket hostility of state actors to religious claims.

Symposium: And the winner is ? pluralism? - SCOTUSblog

 

[Jack Hays]

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

The CO law doesn't run afoul of the 1A. How are you not comprehending that? The SCOTUS left the law intact. The law is also enforceable for all the other reasons I already gave you. See Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States. See Katzenbach v. McClung. You're obsessing over the 1A because, I'm guessing, you realize that when you incorporate the 14A (just as valid, binding, and powerful as the 1A, by the way), you realize that fifty-four years or jurisprudence proves you unequivocally wrong.

I'm a little surprised that you lowered yourself to claiming that I am making "constant digs" at the baker's beliefs. I'm not. I'm making constant digs at his ****ty treatment of other human beings, which he justifies with his religion. I am a spiritual person, but that's none of your business. Focus on the subject.

The 1A can be and is restricted in hundreds of different ways. You romanticizing its intention and its effects to cover for a bigoted baker who wants to have marriage rights for himself but not for other people is frankly pathetic. I noted that you sloppily resorted to an "emotional" thing again, but you've overused it so badly by now that I know it's just something you say.

I'll end with a rhetorical device whereby I turn your worthless words back on you. You can't discuss the 1A rationally. You tolerate, condone, and encourage discrimination against gay people. So what? That's completely irrelevant to 14A analysis. There is a mountain of case law. Your internet postings do nothing to change it.

Per the link in #652, the SCOTUS took considerable offense at the apparent anti-religious bias of Colorado officials.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

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

He'll probably just go a different day when you're not there to pester him, lol

I was thinking of where to get lunch today, I was leaning towards Panda Express, but now maybe I'll get a delicious Spicy Chicken sandwich.

I love the whole "make the world a livable place" as if Chick-fil-A did anything to make the world unlivable. Is there something about delicious chicken sandwiches that makes the world "unlivable"? lol Chick-fil-A doesn't discriminate, the owner happens to have an unpopular opinion, but that doesn't come through the company's practices. There's really nothing to protest, but some silly notion of "making the world a livable place", when actually doing NOTHING along those lines.

lol

I'm sure he will. He's a grown man. He can make his own decisions. He wisely acquiesced to me over the weekend.

Your lunch habits don't particularly interest me, but I do acknowledge your ability to counteract my influence and my ability to counteract your influence. Congratulations.

The delicious (and they are delicious) chicken sandwiches have nothing to do with my post. I could offer you an education about how the corporation and its owners try to make life more difficult and less fair for LGBTQ Americans, but I can tell I would be wasting my time.

And "lol" is a thing that twelve-year-old girls say.

 

[Ikari]

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

I'm sure he will. He's a grown man. He can make his own decisions. He wisely acquiesced to me over the weekend.

Your lunch habits don't particularly interest me, but I do acknowledge your ability to counteract my influence and my ability to counteract your influence. Congratulations.

The delicious (and they are delicious) chicken sandwiches have nothing to do with my post. I could offer you an education about how the corporation and its owners try to make life more difficult and less fair for LGBTQ Americans, but I can tell I would be wasting my time.

And "lol" is a thing that twelve-year-old girls say.

You banal insults add nothing, and likely you could offer no education in general, which is why you'll run away.

But you will not "make the world a livable place" by avoid Chick-fil-A, that's just a delusion of grandure.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

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

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

Uh, that's a brain dead thing to say. I have many bigoted positions. I don't like people who treat women like property, injure LGBTQ people, abuse children, etc. I've said it several times because you and trix are slobbering all over a liberal describing himself that way. I'm not defending anything. I'm simply using English words as they are commonly defined.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

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

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.

Go read it.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

 

[AGENT J]

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

1.) LOL, you have a funny definition of "facts".
2. Gay couple wanted Phillips to bake cake, he said no.
3. Couple filed complaint, complaint was answered in favor of couple
4. Case went to trial and Phillps lost.
5. SCOTUS heard case and found for Phillips.
6.) So, my question is: would ANY of that happened if Phillips had said "yes" in #1?
7.) Why is that not punishment for not baking the cake?

Second question: if another gay couple comes in for a cake -will he bake it?

1.) wrong AGAIN i have no personal definitions facts are facts regardless of my feelings or yours and some of your claims were factually wrong proven by your inablity to prove otherwise and basic definitions.
2.) correct a couple wanted a cake
3.) not sure how that part went down exactly but well just stick with it because its meaningless to the fact youll be wrong in the end either way
4.) yes
5.) not quite they found against colorado conduct but again meaningless to the fact youll still be wrong in the end
6.) no, my follow up question would be would any of that happened if he choose not to be baker, choose not to open a PA business, choose to not make wedding cakes and then choose not to break the law (i say break the law because it fits your narrative of the story but still doesnt support your factual wrong claim of force in any way)
7.) and this is the easiest of all, because theres no CRIMES for "not baking a cake" theres ZERO laws against "not baking a cake" the crime he was accused of was discrimination.

failed and factually wrong logic like you just presented is like saying shooting a gun is a crime when its not, murder is the crime. Or sombdoy saying they got arrested for sex when they got arrested for rape lol

its intellectually dishonest and has not logical merit. Nobody forced this guy to be a baker, open up a PA store and agree to the rules and sell cakes and deny somebody (seemingly against the law - colorado conduct)

if you can show this guy was forced to be a baker, open a pa store, sell wedding cakes and then break the law (for example sake) then you could claim he is forced but since none of that happened there is no force and there most certainly is no force to bake a cake.

Fact remains there was no force to bake a cake :shrug:

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

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

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.

No, it doesn't. You fundamentally misunderstand the ruling. The CCRC, not the law, discriminated against the baker's religion. The law still stands. No baker who bakes wedding cakes can refuse to bake a wedding cake because of the customer's sexual orientation anywhere in the great state of CO. That includes this baker. Why do you think he doesn't sell wedding cakes anymore?

 

[Desert Storm]

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

Uh, that's a brain dead thing to say. I have many bigoted positions. I don't like people who treat women like property, injure LGBTQ people, abuse children, etc. I've said it several times because you and trix are slobbering all over a liberal describing himself that way. I'm not defending anything. I'm simply using English words as they are commonly defined

Actually, you're the one with the brain-dead comment. You said most Americans are racist, at least 50+% have to be racist, which equals well over 150 million people. I'd just like to know, how did you determine its over 150 million Americans who are racist?? Did you ask all 150 million personally what their "racist" views are??

 

[trixare4kids]

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

Actually, you're the one with the brain-dead comment. You said most Americans are racist, at least 50+% have to be racist, which equals well over 150 million people. I'd just like to know, how did you determine its over 150 million Americans who are racist?? Did you ask all 150 million personally what their "racist" views are??

He knows everything, just ask him....

 

[Bullseye]

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

Go read it.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

Fine, could you point out where it says "this section supersedes Amendment One to the US Constitution" I can't seem to find it.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

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

Also idiotic. The blanket assertion that you can't exercise your rights in a place of public accommodation is obscene. There needs to be some form or remediation or weighing of competing rights. I've mentioned that "my rights don't allow it" shouldn't be allowed against things like housing, employment, healthcare to name a few - basic life necessities. In a case like this one a reasonable alternative should rule - if another baker nearby was willing to bake the cake - case closed, no harm, no foul.

You're getting worthlessly loose with your language. Most people can exercise their rights in a place of public accommodation; and I hereby dismiss your straw man. The owners and operators of such a place voluntarily agree to certain restrictions of their rights only as it relates to that place. No one can force you to clean your kitchen at home, but if you choose to operate a kitchen in a public setting, you can bet your ass that you will be required to clean it. Are health codes another curtailment of rights that aggravate you?

You don't get to decide which goods and services are "basic life necessities" (thankfully). If there is no other baker nearby willing to make a cake for a gay dude, what is his remedy and weight of competing rights?

 

[ludin]

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

No, it doesn't. You fundamentally misunderstand the ruling. The CCRC, not the law, discriminated against the baker's religion. The law still stands. No baker who bakes wedding cakes can refuse to bake a wedding cake because of the customer's sexual orientation anywhere in the great state of CO. That includes this baker. Why do you think he doesn't sell wedding cakes anymore?

we know you don't understand the ruling otherwise you wouldn't be posting this stuff.

actually they can.
he is going to start selling wedding cakes again.

The reason he stopped was to get around CO law.

Now with the SCOTUS support he is going to start selling them again.
only this time the CO commissions can't discriminate against him or his
religious views.

 

[Bullseye]

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

1.) wrong AGAIN i have no personal definitions facts are facts regardless of my feelings or yours and some of your claims were factually wrong proven by your inablity to prove otherwise and basic definitions.
2.) correct a couple wanted a cake
3.) not sure how that part went down exactly but well just stick with it because its meaningless to the fact youll be wrong in the end either way
4.) yes
5.) not quite they found against colorado conduct but again meaningless to the fact youll still be wrong in the end
6.) no, my follow up question would be would any of that happened if he choose not to be baker, choose not to open a PA business, choose to not make wedding cakes and then choose not to break the law (i say break the law because it fits your narrative of the story but still doesnt support your factual wrong claim of force in any way)
7.) and this is the easiest of all, because theres no CRIMES for "not baking a cake" theres ZERO laws against "not baking a cake" the crime he was accused of was discrimination.

failed and factually wrong logic like you just presented is like saying shooting a gun is a crime when its not, murder is the crime. Or sombdoy saying they got arrested for sex when they got arrested for rape lol

its intellectually dishonest and has not logical merit. Nobody forced this guy to be a baker, open up a PA store and agree to the rules and sell cakes and deny somebody (seemingly against the law - colorado conduct)

if you can show this guy was forced to be a baker, open a pa store, sell wedding cakes and then break the law (for example sake) then you could claim he is forced but since none of that happened there is no force and there most certainly is no force to bake a cake.

Fact remains there was no force to bake a cake :shrug:

You're playing silly semantics games.

 

[AGENT J]

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

You're playing silly semantics games.

Nope just posting facts but thats a common deflection when a claim is proven factually wrong lol

 

[trixare4kids]

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

sad that you won't acknowledge that you are unwilling to accept that your big beautiful CO. State law did not triumph over First amendment rights.

Pick a better argument to win. Your cantankerous insults aren't cutting it.

 

[Ikari]

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

sad that you won't acknowledge that you are unwilling to accept that your big beautiful CO. State law did not triumph over First amendment rights.

Pick a better argument to win. Your cantankerous insults aren't cutting it.

I believe with this ruling, the actual law wasn't challenged. I think it's still rather unclear as to whether or not the baker could refuse service. What they ruled on was that a state civil rights commission was hostile to him while allowing other bakers to refuse to create cakes that demeaned gays and same-sex marriages. So the actual law wasn't overturned. I don't know if this ruling by the SCOTUS can be used later to successfully challenge the law. The ruling itself seemed very narrow, but it may open up avenues for the baker to challenge the actual law. It's still a rather large mess. We'll see what comes out in the wash.

 

[Bullseye]

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

You're getting worthlessly loose with your language. Most people can exercise their rights in a place of public accommodation; and I hereby dismiss your straw man. The owners and operators of such a place voluntarily agree to certain restrictions of their rights only as it relates to that place.

I hereby dismiss your assertion that operating a business is a waver of rights.

No one can force you to clean your kitchen at home, but if you choose to operate a kitchen in a public setting, you can bet your ass that you will be required to clean it. Are health codes another curtailment of rights that aggravate you?

I'm pretty sure there's no constitutional right to have a dirty kitchen. You're trying to conflate public health with constitutional rights.

You don't get to decide which goods and services are "basic life necessities" (thankfully).

I don't but legislators could. There have been several attempts to do so, most get shouted down by the loony left because they're too reasonable.

If there is no other baker nearby willing to make a cake for a gay dude, what is his remedy and weight of competing rights?

Bake it himself. He has no constitution right to a cake. If he was being denied housing it would be a different story.