- Joined
- Nov 16, 2017
- Messages
- 87,556
- Reaction score
- 86,914
- Location
- Southern CA.
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
That's a lie.
That's a lie.
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case[W:426, 1367]
- Thread starter TheGoverness
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 17,916
- Reaction score
- 14,855
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
As Kennedy noted, the record on this is both debated and fuzzy. However, it seems to be that Phillips said he would sell them anything in the bakery, and make them anything other than a wedding cake. It is unknown if there were such a thing as an over-the-counter generic wedding cakes, and it would seem that the discussion ended before any discussion of wedding cake themes.
Whatever the exact nature of the refusal, under first amendment principles everyone retains the right to not be compelled to convey expressions or work to irreligious ends. A wedding cake is a symbol of honor and good luck in marriage, a message he did not wish to convey from him through a creative process.
As Kennedy noted, the record on this is both debated and fuzzy. However, it seems to be that Phillips said he would sell them anything in the bakery, and make them anything other than a wedding cake. It is unknown if there were such a thing as an over-the-counter generic wedding cakes, and it would seem that the discussion ended before any discussion of wedding cake themes.
Whatever the exact nature of the refusal, under first amendment principles everyone retains the right to not be compelled to convey expressions or work to irreligious ends. A wedding cake is a symbol of honor and good luck in marriage, a message he did not wish to convey from him through a creative process.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2017
- Messages
- 87,556
- Reaction score
- 86,914
- Location
- Southern CA.
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
Can you imagine if the CCRC's decision had stood? The baker's freedom to design cakes based on his personal religious convictions would have been eroded, his bakery, his livlihood, no doubt would have financially suffered.
The SC, though a narrow ruling, gave the right opinion.
Can you imagine if the CCRC's decision had stood? The baker's freedom to design cakes based on his personal religious convictions would have been eroded, his bakery, his livlihood, no doubt would have financially suffered.
The SC, though a narrow ruling, gave the right opinion.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 57,470
- Reaction score
- 14,587
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
Religious bigots are just as sorry. Your hypocritical stance pretty much removes anything you have to say as an argument.
You decry bigotry yet claim your own and do nothing about it. So therefore you have 0 weight to support any of your arguments.
Yes you guys are picking the wrong fight and look nothing but a lot of sore losers.
He isn't on the losing side he won. Please see the SCOTUS ruling.
He will be just fine just like chick fil a was just fine.
in fact they were more than fine.
You militants are the people that are going to lose. As it is common course in history for you to do so.
instead of letting people let live and letting the market decide if he stays open.
You guys will make fools of yourself shouting and screaming at the clouds. All this will do is rally people to his side
not yours. So congrats on having the opposite affect.
he will stay open and more people will come to get his cakes.
Religious bigots are just as sorry. Your hypocritical stance pretty much removes anything you have to say as an argument.
You decry bigotry yet claim your own and do nothing about it. So therefore you have 0 weight to support any of your arguments.
Yes you guys are picking the wrong fight and look nothing but a lot of sore losers.
He isn't on the losing side he won. Please see the SCOTUS ruling.
He will be just fine just like chick fil a was just fine.
in fact they were more than fine.
You militants are the people that are going to lose. As it is common course in history for you to do so.
instead of letting people let live and letting the market decide if he stays open.
You guys will make fools of yourself shouting and screaming at the clouds. All this will do is rally people to his side
not yours. So congrats on having the opposite affect.
he will stay open and more people will come to get his cakes.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2017
- Messages
- 11,506
- Reaction score
- 3,207
- Location
- Colorado, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
The syllabus? Read the ruling. Better yet, ask a grown up to explain it to you.
The syllabus? Read the ruling. Better yet, ask a grown up to explain it to you.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2017
- Messages
- 11,506
- Reaction score
- 3,207
- Location
- Colorado, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
Um, I just addressed my bigotry. In writing. In public. This conversation is over your head. Let's move on.
Um, I just addressed my bigotry. In writing. In public. This conversation is over your head. Let's move on.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2017
- Messages
- 11,506
- Reaction score
- 3,207
- Location
- Colorado, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
Oh, FFS and jesus christ. You don't know one ****ing thing about the subject of this thread. What I said is true. You're still baby-babbling about the baker's right to refuse service to gay people, which he has not had since 2008, including this very day.
Oh, FFS and jesus christ. You don't know one ****ing thing about the subject of this thread. What I said is true. You're still baby-babbling about the baker's right to refuse service to gay people, which he has not had since 2008, including this very day.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2017
- Messages
- 11,506
- Reaction score
- 3,207
- Location
- Colorado, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
Mmhmm. Check out the Denver news at 10:00.
Mmhmm. Check out the Denver news at 10:00.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 17,916
- Reaction score
- 14,855
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
Among your questions is a nugget that should be emphasized: is it right to compel people to act against there conscious?
In the discussion of fundamental liberty as traditionally understood, this question usually does not arise because traditional rights tend to be reciprocal and exercised voluntarily. They are based on self-ownership of one's actions or inactions (as well as one's body and property). Under this paradigm, two parties have an identical right to chose to trade their labor or property, as long as it does not impinge on one of party's right of voluntary trade and possession through coercion by force or fraud (from any source, including government).
There are two contrary moralistic paradigms, hostile to this basic liberty.
In the first type there is coercion under threat of force or expropriation, for one or both parties to NOT do something between them. For example, government removes the liberty of the parties to trade or purchase drugs (or cooking oil in SF), or other products and services.
In the second type, favored by the Mafia and the government, is coercion to DO something. For example, the Mafia coercion to purchase "business health insurance", or Government coercion to purchase "approved Obamacare insurance plans".
Of the two, the second is intuitively more obnoxious and odious to its victims rights. Making people do things they do not wish to do, especially as a matter of conscious, is almost always one step too far on increased level of authoritarianism.
I recall in one Oklahoma town they had an old "morals" law on the books that banned organized dancing on Sundays (and/or every other day of the week). Imagine how much more odious such a law would be if it mandated that people in the city limits MUST go dancing on Tuesdays and Thursdays?
Unfortunately, anti-discrimination law often cross that line.
Among your questions is a nugget that should be emphasized: is it right to compel people to act against there conscious?
In the discussion of fundamental liberty as traditionally understood, this question usually does not arise because traditional rights tend to be reciprocal and exercised voluntarily. They are based on self-ownership of one's actions or inactions (as well as one's body and property). Under this paradigm, two parties have an identical right to chose to trade their labor or property, as long as it does not impinge on one of party's right of voluntary trade and possession through coercion by force or fraud (from any source, including government).
There are two contrary moralistic paradigms, hostile to this basic liberty.
In the first type there is coercion under threat of force or expropriation, for one or both parties to NOT do something between them. For example, government removes the liberty of the parties to trade or purchase drugs (or cooking oil in SF), or other products and services.
In the second type, favored by the Mafia and the government, is coercion to DO something. For example, the Mafia coercion to purchase "business health insurance", or Government coercion to purchase "approved Obamacare insurance plans".
Of the two, the second is intuitively more obnoxious and odious to its victims rights. Making people do things they do not wish to do, especially as a matter of conscious, is almost always one step too far on increased level of authoritarianism.
I recall in one Oklahoma town they had an old "morals" law on the books that banned organized dancing on Sundays (and/or every other day of the week). Imagine how much more odious such a law would be if it mandated that people in the city limits MUST go dancing on Tuesdays and Thursdays?
Unfortunately, anti-discrimination law often cross that line.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2017
- Messages
- 87,556
- Reaction score
- 86,914
- Location
- Southern CA.
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
Your replies on this thread have become more toxic in natured by the day. That's on you.
The fact that you keep hunkering down with the same repetitious blather, that in fact you know more than everyone else, tells me a lot about you. You are not interested in having a civil discussion. You are interested in being heard. In fact, there has never been a reply from you to me where you have even tried to disagree civilly or wanted to know from where my opinions were formed on the subject. IF you are going to make a valid statement, back it up with facts instead of derailing the thread with angry rhetoric toward the participants. If you cannot do that, convince me why anyone here should be subjected to your abusive reprimands?
FWIW, not that you give a damn what anyone thinks... but If I were the baker, I would have designed and baked the cake for the Gay couple's wedding, but I am not Phillips and he fully had the right to be heard fairly by an unbiased CCRC. If you don't get why the SC ruled narrowly in his favor, you're more lost than I thought.
Your replies on this thread have become more toxic in natured by the day. That's on you.
The fact that you keep hunkering down with the same repetitious blather, that in fact you know more than everyone else, tells me a lot about you. You are not interested in having a civil discussion. You are interested in being heard. In fact, there has never been a reply from you to me where you have even tried to disagree civilly or wanted to know from where my opinions were formed on the subject. IF you are going to make a valid statement, back it up with facts instead of derailing the thread with angry rhetoric toward the participants. If you cannot do that, convince me why anyone here should be subjected to your abusive reprimands?
FWIW, not that you give a damn what anyone thinks... but If I were the baker, I would have designed and baked the cake for the Gay couple's wedding, but I am not Phillips and he fully had the right to be heard fairly by an unbiased CCRC. If you don't get why the SC ruled narrowly in his favor, you're more lost than I thought.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2017
- Messages
- 87,556
- Reaction score
- 86,914
- Location
- Southern CA.
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
Are you a grownup?
Your posts say otherwise.
I can read just fine and I am not wrong about any of this.....
Are you a grownup?
Your posts say otherwise.
I can read just fine and I am not wrong about any of this.....
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 17,916
- Reaction score
- 14,855
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
Frankly I am disappointed that the ruling dodged the core issue. I am also disappointed that Justices did not choose earlier the far more egregious and unfair process in the Oregon baker case (wherein a fine of 125,000 dollars was imposed on a Christian couple for not making a custom wedding cake). THAT case might have even caused Ginsburg and Sotomayor's concern.
And I am equally disappointed the justices did not earlier select the New Mexico wedding photographer case, the most obnoxious and unjust finding of the three.
Frankly I am disappointed that the ruling dodged the core issue. I am also disappointed that Justices did not choose earlier the far more egregious and unfair process in the Oregon baker case (wherein a fine of 125,000 dollars was imposed on a Christian couple for not making a custom wedding cake). THAT case might have even caused Ginsburg and Sotomayor's concern.
And I am equally disappointed the justices did not earlier select the New Mexico wedding photographer case, the most obnoxious and unjust finding of the three.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2017
- Messages
- 87,556
- Reaction score
- 86,914
- Location
- Southern CA.
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
Details from your link above... "Friends of Bernie, and four others," wrote,
Sad that the friends of Bernie don't have a clear understanding of why the SC narrowly ruled in Phillip's favor. Seems like bigotry is a one way street with some regarding civil rights advocates, Phillip's civil rights be damned.
Details from your link above... "Friends of Bernie, and four others," wrote,
Charming...:roll:
Sad that the friends of Bernie don't have a clear understanding of why the SC narrowly ruled in Phillip's favor. Seems like bigotry is a one way street with some regarding civil rights advocates, Phillip's civil rights be damned.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2017
- Messages
- 87,556
- Reaction score
- 86,914
- Location
- Southern CA.
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
I share your sentiments. Eventually the SC justices are going to have to give us more than a roundabout type opinion.
I don't know anything about the NM case. I see I have more reading to do. Thanks.
I share your sentiments. Eventually the SC justices are going to have to give us more than a roundabout type opinion.
I don't know anything about the NM case. I see I have more reading to do. Thanks.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 88,714
- Reaction score
- 65,726
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
'merica
'No Gays Allowed': Hardware store emboldened by Supreme Court cake ruling hangs discriminatory sign
Following the Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, an East Tennessee business owner is celebrating by reposting a sign that reads, “No Gays Allowed.”
“Christianity is under attack. This is a great win, don’t get me wrong, but this is not the end, this is just the beginning,” Amyx said. “Right now we’re seeing a ray of sunshine. This is happy days for Christians all over America, but dark days will come.”
Following the Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, an East Tennessee business owner is celebrating by reposting a sign that reads, “No Gays Allowed.”
“Christianity is under attack. This is a great win, don’t get me wrong, but this is not the end, this is just the beginning,” Amyx said. “Right now we’re seeing a ray of sunshine. This is happy days for Christians all over America, but dark days will come.”
'merica
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 57,470
- Reaction score
- 14,587
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
no need to watch a bunch of people acting like fools.
there are more entertaining things to watch on TV.
again sore losers don't rally people to their cause they do the exact opposite.
yea you have 0 right to call anyone a bigot.
no need to watch a bunch of people acting like fools.
there are more entertaining things to watch on TV.
again sore losers don't rally people to their cause they do the exact opposite.
yea you have 0 right to call anyone a bigot.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 57,470
- Reaction score
- 14,587
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-hardware-store-no-gays-allowed-sign/
more research less outrage.
lol
The sign was not initially displayed in response to the Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop decision in June 2018.
The “No Gays Allowed” sign has been displayed at Amyx Hardware for the past three years. As of this writing, it is still on display on the shop’s front door:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-hardware-store-no-gays-allowed-sign/
more research less outrage.
lol
The sign was not initially displayed in response to the Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop decision in June 2018.
The “No Gays Allowed” sign has been displayed at Amyx Hardware for the past three years. As of this writing, it is still on display on the shop’s front door:
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 57,470
- Reaction score
- 14,587
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
They will have to re-file their cases with the same arguments made in CO.
this is not the last time the court will hear this case.
the seattle commission did the same thing to those bakers as well.
They were outwardly hostile towards their religious views and they did not
take them into account.
also they unequally apply the discrimination law.
They will have to re-file their cases with the same arguments made in CO.
this is not the last time the court will hear this case.
the seattle commission did the same thing to those bakers as well.
They were outwardly hostile towards their religious views and they did not
take them into account.
also they unequally apply the discrimination law.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 57,470
- Reaction score
- 14,587
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
these militant types do not care about equal protection or equal rights.
these militant types do not care about equal protection or equal rights.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 17,916
- Reaction score
- 14,855
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
The New Mexico case (several years old by now) was the clearest case of a violation of first amendment rights. A Christian photographer declined a contract to photograph a couples gay wedding. Incensed, they filed suit and won. It was appealed to a higher court, and the opinion sustained. The Supreme Court declined to hear it.
As the courts have already found photography and its products an expression of free speech in other cases, this should be a slam dunk for the photographer. Instead, years later, SCOTUS chooses a more ambiguous case.
The New Mexico case (several years old by now) was the clearest case of a violation of first amendment rights. A Christian photographer declined a contract to photograph a couples gay wedding. Incensed, they filed suit and won. It was appealed to a higher court, and the opinion sustained. The Supreme Court declined to hear it.
As the courts have already found photography and its products an expression of free speech in other cases, this should be a slam dunk for the photographer. Instead, years later, SCOTUS chooses a more ambiguous case.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 17,916
- Reaction score
- 14,855
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
Also, you can find details on the 2013 case here: https://fstoppers.com/wedding/court...ing-photographer-same-sex-discrimination-2542
Here is one of several libertarian arguments against it: https://www.cato.org/blog/we-support-gay-marriage-oppose-forcing-people-support-it
Also, you can find details on the 2013 case here: https://fstoppers.com/wedding/court...ing-photographer-same-sex-discrimination-2542
Here is one of several libertarian arguments against it: https://www.cato.org/blog/we-support-gay-marriage-oppose-forcing-people-support-it
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2014
- Messages
- 7,671
- Reaction score
- 4,606
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
Calling bigotry a "sincere religious belief" is the problem. It may be sincere, for an ignorant douche, to hate gay people but to call that hate "religion" poisons faith and always has. If faith is nothing but a magical excuse to be an ass to other people, then he should hang himself and go dwell in the magical hereafter. Leave the human world for those of us willing to be human to each other.
His religion deserves no respect if it is so capricious as to be manifest as batter and frosting. Any god who demands that cake be the battleground of faith is a ridiculous one.
Calling bigotry a "sincere religious belief" is the problem. It may be sincere, for an ignorant douche, to hate gay people but to call that hate "religion" poisons faith and always has. If faith is nothing but a magical excuse to be an ass to other people, then he should hang himself and go dwell in the magical hereafter. Leave the human world for those of us willing to be human to each other.
His religion deserves no respect if it is so capricious as to be manifest as batter and frosting. Any god who demands that cake be the battleground of faith is a ridiculous one.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 88,714
- Reaction score
- 65,726
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Hicup
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,081
- Reaction score
- 2,709
- Location
- Rochester, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
The thing that gets me and is often omitted from these discussions is that it is only the loonies on both sides that have the loud voices. Mainstream religious folks don't care, nor are mainstream gays unwilling to ignore bigotry and just shop elsewhere.. It's the nuts that usually get the headlines, and in most cases, seek it out. Trust me, if no bigotry existed the nuts on both sides would find one..
They're not happy unless they're making life difficult for someone else, and both sides are to blame.
Tim-
The thing that gets me and is often omitted from these discussions is that it is only the loonies on both sides that have the loud voices. Mainstream religious folks don't care, nor are mainstream gays unwilling to ignore bigotry and just shop elsewhere.. It's the nuts that usually get the headlines, and in most cases, seek it out. Trust me, if no bigotry existed the nuts on both sides would find one..
They're not happy unless they're making life difficult for someone else, and both sides are to blame.
Tim-
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 57,470
- Reaction score
- 14,587
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
not my fault you were wrong and didn't do any research on the subject.
not my fault you were wrong and didn't do any research on the subject.