Supreme Court tosses ruling against bakers who refused cake for gay couple

[blarg]

Which religion is against Christians?....oh, Muslims can...I guess.

not so sure about this 1


why need a religion at all its easy to strongly feel that its wrong to serve any one especially people who wont serve others

 

[blarg]

Hey if its against your religion to bake cakes for a Christian wedding I have no problem with it. I'd just find another bakery with bakers that I would prefer to have my money.

not sure its against any christians religion to do so and whats with exempting some citizens from the law because of their faith

 

[CanadaJohn]

You have a right to your opinion. Using the bible to rationalize one's bigotry is b.s., in my opinion. It's an excuse either to overcompensate for one's own homosexual tendencies or a way not to admit one thinks same-sex love is "icky".

So, there are some constitutionally protected rights you agree with but others you feel simply rationalize bigotry. You won't find me defending organized religion but you will find me defending the constitutional rights of those individuals who believe in and practice a religion, regardless of what I may or may not think about that religion.

And not to be disrespectful, but your comment above sounds pretty bigoted to me.

 

[lurchadams]

So, there are some constitutionally protected rights you agree with but others you feel simply rationalize bigotry. You won't find me defending organized religion but you will find me defending the constitutional rights of those individuals who believe in and practice a religion, regardless of what I may or may not think about that religion.

And not to be disrespectful, but your comment above sounds pretty bigoted to me.

<shrug> I disagree.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[pamak]

So, there are some constitutionally protected rights you agree with but others you feel simply rationalize bigotry. You won't find me defending organized religion but you will find me defending the constitutional rights of those individuals who believe in and practice a religion, regardless of what I may or may not think about that religion.

And not to be disrespectful, but your comment above sounds pretty bigoted to me.

The question is not if someone has a constitutionally right to believe in whatever he wants, but if he has the constitutional right to make decisions based on his personal beliefs in a public domain where people of different religions and ideologies interact (such as in a business environment).

Another issue is if sexual orientation should be added to the protected classes (race, religion). I think we can agree that if someone was using his religion as an excuse not to serve a person of a different religion, such justification would not survive a legal challenge. Considering the fact that consistently crime data show that gays are actually more vulnerable to hate crime than even Muslims and Jews, I think that sexual orientation should be added to the protected classes.

And I can go even farther to add that gender should be added to the protected classes. "Originalist" legal scholars like like the deceased Scalia believe that the women do not have a Constitutional protection against discrimination (Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination | HuffPost). In other words, if the future composition of the courts includes judges such Scalia, it is possible that it will refuse to overturn state laws inspired by some fundamentalist political-religious activists passing legislation that infringes women rights.

 

[pamak]

How about a Catholic hospital that refuse to preform abortions but accepts Medicare? Would you deny them access to Medicare patients if they didn't allow abortions to be preformed in their hospital?

If such hospitals and religious organizations serve the general public and not just their catholic community, I would consider revoking their tax exempt status. Again, it is not that I am interested in forcing a Catholic doctor performing abortions. Such hospitals could still offer abortions by employing doctors who do not have such objections. But I will admit that I have not thought about all the pros and cons in your scenario.

 

[OscarLevant]

The part you're trying to highlight? Yes, they've moved past it:

Romans 7:6

But they will cherry pick Leviticus, old testament, to hide their bigotry.

 

[OscarLevant]

Apparently the SCOTUS disagrees on how the Bakery was treated.

Well, they didn't actually rule

The justices handed bakers in the Portland, Oregon, area a small victory by throwing out a state court ruling against them and ordering judges to take a new look at their refusal to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

[...]

But the import of the order is that it keeps the case off the docket for a term that will end in June 2020 amid the presidential election campaign. The justices already have agreed to decide in their election-year session whether federal civil rights law protects people from job discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Seems to me all that happened is they didn't want to deal with this particular hot potato at this moment in time.

 

[OscarLevant]

In your opinion and personally I have no problem taking care of gay patients. And I don't see the harm in making a wedding cake for a gay couple. But my opinion and your opinion make no difference. It is what the Baker's convictions are that counts. The government should not try to force him to violate his personal religious convictions. He has the freedom to practice his religion as he chooses.

I disagree. Treating a group of people as second class citizens is unjust, and hiding behind the bible doesn't make it acceptable.

And no where in the bible does it say " thou shall not trade with a gay person". They argue that they now follow the New Testament, but cling to the line in Leviticus of the Old Testament that says god don't like gay people, therefore, they rationalize, they shouldn't serve a gay person because god doesn't like gays in the old testament though it doesn't actually tell them that they can't trade with gays. I mean, Jesus accepted all sorts of sinners into his flock, right?

That's cherry picking -- Their convictions are bigotry, and that doesn't fly with me.

There are tons of examples of slavery being acceptable in the Bible, but I dont see "convictions" by religous bigots to acquire slaves.

Of course, it's against to the law to have slaves, (because it's wrong) just as it should be against the law to discriminate based on sex orientation (because it, too, is wrong).

 

[Glitch]

I disagree. Treating a group of people as second class citizens is unjust, and hiding behind the bible doesn't make it acceptable.

And no where in the bible does it say " thou shall not trade with a gay person". They argue that they now follow the New Testament, but cling to the line in Leviticus of the Old Testament that says god don't like gay people, therefore, they rationalize, they shouldn't serve a gay person because god doesn't like gays in the old testament though it doesn't actually tell them that they can't trade with gays. I mean, Jesus accepted all sorts of sinners into his flock, right?

That's cherry picking -- Their convictions are bigotry, and that doesn't fly with me.

There are tons of examples of slavery being acceptable in the Bible, but I dont see "convictions" by religous bigots to acquire slaves.

Of course, it's against to the law to have slaves, (because it's wrong) just as it should be against the law to discriminate based on sex orientation (because it, too, is wrong).

You can disagree all you like, but the First Amendment - as the courts have repeatedly determined - specifically protects the right of everyone to believe anything they like. Furthermore, the government does not have the right to compel anyone to violate their beliefs. If you do not like those beliefs then you can choose not to do business with them, but you cannot compel them to do business with you in any manner you please. Every business has the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.

Compelling others to provide you a service is also called slavery.

 

[dixon01767]

The Roman rich and wealthy including emperors did it, I would say that creates a precedent. If you learned how to count you would see that is reason 3.

What is arguably the first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire according to controversial[115] historian John Boswell.[116] These were usually reported in a critical or satirical manner.[117]

Child emperor Elagabalus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, as his husband.[118] He also married an athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.[119][120][121]

The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other males on different occasions. The first was with one of Nero's own freedmen, Pythagoras, with whom Nero took the role of the bride.[122] Later, as a groom, Nero married Sporus, a young boy, to replace the adolescent female concubine he had killed[123][124] and married him in a very public ceremony with all the solemnities of matrimony, after which Sporus was forced to pretend to be the female concubine that Nero had killed and act as though they were really married.[123] A friend gave the "bride" away as required by law. The marriage was celebrated in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.[125]

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[126] Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."[127]
Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia

I saw a guy marry his horse once.

 

[Obscurity]

nothing in our constitution, properly gives the federal government that power.

That's because this was initially a STATE law. State law dictates business ethics and laws. Not discriminating and hiding behind your fake ass religion is one of the requirements of the majority of businesses in the majority of states.

The Baker is a ****ing bigoted moron. His religion is odious filth.

 

[Obscurity]

You can disagree all you like, but the First Amendment - as the courts have repeatedly determined - specifically protects the right of everyone to believe anything they like. Furthermore, the government does not have the right to compel anyone to violate their beliefs. If you do not like those beliefs then you can choose not to do business with them, but you cannot compel them to do business with you in any manner you please. Every business has the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.

Compelling others to provide you a service is also called slavery.

Again. Baking a cake is not participating or condoning gay marriage.

Like I repeat constantly; everyone here is just focused on making everyone else ****ing miserable.

It's pathetic.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Would you support them if they denied to bake a wedding cake for a black couple?

If the black couple kept calling bakeries looking to see if anyone would refuse them in order to politicize it I would.

 

[Glitch]

Again. Baking a cake is not participating or condoning gay marriage.

Like I repeat constantly; everyone here is just focused on making everyone else ****ing miserable.

It's pathetic.

They didn't stop at requesting a simple baked cake, which the baker had offered to sell them. They insisted that the baker print a message which violated the baker's religious belief. The baker had every right to refuse to provide them service under those circumstances. The lesbians were intentionally trying to provoke a confrontation, and the State of Oregon illegally and unconstitutionally persecuted the baker for their religious belief.

 

[jmotivator]

well i dont think thats right but at least its not hypocritical

Personally I would thank any such baker for the warning that they wouldn't be all that enthused about my business. Why would I want a cake from someone who is being forced to bake it?

 

[SLC]

I've heard that. I've heard that for months. The unfortunate thing is that trump's lawless and weaponized DoJ has set the precedent that subpoenas can be ignored so I guess we'll not be seeing her in front of congress anytime soon

Morning Lurch! Trump's weaponized DoJ? I guess you missed the Mueller investigation and the SPYING on the Trump campaign by the FBI. The DoJ is simply doing its job now and you say that is weaponized? I'm not interested in seeing her in front of Congress. I want to see her in front of a Grand Jury. Also speaking of the DoJ setting a precedent of ignoring subpoenas I thought that precedent was set by Eric Holder.

 

[SLC]

If such hospitals and religious organizations serve the general public and not just their catholic community, I would consider revoking their tax exempt status. Again, it is not that I am interested in forcing a Catholic doctor performing abortions. Such hospitals could still offer abortions by employing doctors who do not have such objections. But I will admit that I have not thought about all the pros and cons in your scenario.

Catholic hospitals have diverse medical staff. The have doctors that are Catholics and also those that aren't. Catholic hospitals will not allow abortions nor sterilizations to be preformed in their facilities. So you would use the force of the government to attempt to change how someone can practice their religion. Isn't that against the constitution?

 

[SLC]

Well, they didn't actually rule



Seems to me all that happened is they didn't want to deal with this particular hot potato at this moment in time.

If they agreed on how the baker was treated they would have agreed with the lower court.

 

[SLC]

They didn't stop at requesting a simple baked cake, which the baker had offered to sell them. They insisted that the baker print a message which violated the baker's religious belief. The baker had every right to refuse to provide them service under those circumstances. The lesbians were intentionally trying to provoke a confrontation, and the State of Oregon illegally and unconstitutionally persecuted the baker for their religious belief.

I suppose the baker would refuse to bake a cake with a X Rated message on it also.

 

[cabse5]

Personally I would thank any such baker for the warning that they wouldn't be all that enthused about my business. Why would I want a cake from someone who is being forced to bake it?

Answer to your last: because they have to. That everyone is forced to acknowledge their existence as a couple.

 

[Jay59]

Well, they didn't actually rule. Seems to me all that happened is they didn't want to deal with this particular hot potato at this moment in time.

This is a ruling. They ruled that specific case law was controlling. Since the lower court danced around that case, it was a rebuttal.

 

[SLC]

I disagree. Treating a group of people as second class citizens is unjust, and hiding behind the bible doesn't make it acceptable.

And no where in the bible does it say " thou shall not trade with a gay person". They argue that they now follow the New Testament, but cling to the line in Leviticus of the Old Testament that says god don't like gay people, therefore, they rationalize, they shouldn't serve a gay person because god doesn't like gays in the old testament though it doesn't actually tell them that they can't trade with gays. I mean, Jesus accepted all sorts of sinners into his flock, right?

That's cherry picking -- Their convictions are bigotry, and that doesn't fly with me.

There are tons of examples of slavery being acceptable in the Bible, but I dont see "convictions" by religous bigots to acquire slaves.

Of course, it's against to the law to have slaves, (because it's wrong) just as it should be against the law to discriminate based on sex orientation (because it, too, is wrong).

They served this gay couple on several occasions they just refused to bake them a custom cake with a message that they objected to.

 

[Obscurity]

They didn't stop at requesting a simple baked cake, which the baker had offered to sell them. They insisted that the baker print a message which violated the baker's religious belief. The baker had every right to refuse to provide them service under those circumstances. The lesbians were intentionally trying to provoke a confrontation, and the State of Oregon illegally and unconstitutionally persecuted the baker for their religious belief.

Not sure why you have to insist on delving into labels. But I digress.

The baker is a miserable person who is someone I'd not want to be around. They use their religion as a bludgeon against whom they think are opponents.

The state didn't illegally or unconstitutionally persecute anyone. The state says "If you do business with the public you are not allowed to discriminate." The baker was not asked to go gay. Nor was the baker asked to go to the wedding.

The baker is an incomparable douchebag and a self serving religious zealot who should be barred from opening any businesses anywhere in this country. If they want an exclusive club then open a club.

 

[Obscurity]

Catholic hospitals have diverse medical staff. The have doctors that are Catholics and also those that aren't. Catholic hospitals will not allow abortions nor sterilizations to be preformed in their facilities. So you would use the force of the government to attempt to change how someone can practice their religion. Isn't that against the constitution?

I reject the idea an entity can be religious. It's simply a way for individuals to excuse poor behavior and exert their moral force on others.