Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 happata
Joined: 3/21/2018
Msg: 1
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...Page 1 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-baker-who-would-not-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple/2018/06/04/50c68cf8-6802-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html?tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.6c8a5ec809f9

e Supreme Court on Monday ruled for a Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple.

In an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that leaves many questions unanswered, the court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had not adequately taken into account the religious beliefs of baker Jack Phillips.

In fact, Kennedy said, the commission had been hostile to the baker’s faith, denying him the neutral consideration he deserved. While the justices split in their reasoning, only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Kennedy wrote that the question of when religious beliefs must give way to anti-discrimination laws might be different in future cases. But in this case, he said, Phillips did not get the proper consideration.

“The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws,” he wrote. “Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power” needed to be done in a setting where “religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor.”

As he had in oral arguments in the case, Kennedy noted comments from Colorado commissioners that he thought denigrated Phillips’ faith, implying that, as Kennedy put it, “religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.”

2:18
Baker, same-sex couple address public outside Supreme Court
Still, to achieve a wide majority, the opinion withholds judgment on how future cases might be decided in instances where the state displays no religious animosity.

“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market,” Kennedy wrote.

Such cases already are lined up.

Ginsburg, joined by Sotomayor, said that the actions of a few commission members did not obscure that Phillips had violated the Colorado Anti-discrimination Act.

“What matters is that Phillips would not provide a good or service to a same-sex couple that he would provide to a heterosexual couple,” Ginsburg wrote.

Phillips contended that dual guarantees in the First Amendment — free speech and the free exercise of religion — protect him against Colorado’s public accommodations law, which requires businesses to serve customers equally regardless of “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.”

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who represented Phillips, praised the ruling. “Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic toward Jack’s religious beliefs about marriage,”she said “The court was right to condemn that. Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a society like ours. This decision makes clear that the government must respect Jack’s beliefs about marriage.”

Scattered across the country, florists, bakers, photographers and others have claimed that being forced to offer their wedding services to same-sex couples violates their rights. Courts have routinely turned down the business owners, as the Colorado Court of Appeals did in the Phillips case, saying that state anti-discrimination laws require businesses that are open to the public to treat all potential customers equally.

There’s no dispute about what triggered the court case in 2012, when same-sex marriage was prohibited in Colorado. Charlie Craig and David Mullins decided to get married in Massachusetts, where it was legal. They would return to Denver for a reception, and those helping with the plans suggested they get a cake from Masterpiece bakery.

The couple arrived with Craig’s mother and a book of ideas, but Phillips cut short the meeting as soon as he learned the cake was to celebrate the couple’s marriage.

Phillips recalled: “Our conversation was just about 20 seconds long. ‘Sorry guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.’”

The couple then learned that Colorado’s public accommodations law specifically prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation, and they filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The commission ruled against Phillips, and the appeals court upheld the decision.

On Monday, Craig and Mullins issued a statement on the ruling: “Today’s decision means our fight against discrimination and unfair treatment will continue,” the couple said. “We have always believed that in America, you should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are. We brought this case because no one should have to face the shame, embarrassment, and humiliation of being told ‘we don’t serve your kind here’ that we faced, and we will continue fighting until no one does.”
 ja6425
Joined: 1/16/2018
Msg: 2
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/4/2018 6:23:51 PM
Definitely a great decision by the SCOTUS. The Colorado Commision was way out of line. And what a great thing by SCOTUS to call them on it!!!!!
 flowersinthelake
Joined: 5/11/2018
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/5/2018 8:02:53 AM
Read the following, carefully:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/lgbt-nondiscrimination-protections/masterpiece-bakery-wins-battle-loses-war

By James Esseks, Director, ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Project
JUNE 4, 2018 | 4:15 PM

Open to All
In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled for a bakery that had refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. It did so on grounds that are specific to this particular case and will have little to no applicability to future cases. The opinion is full of reaffirmations of our country’s longstanding rule that states can bar businesses that are open to the public from turning customers away because of who they are.

The case involves Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, a same-sex couple who went to the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver in search of a cake for their wedding reception. When the bakery refused to sell Dave and Charlie a wedding cake because they’re gay, the couple sued under Colorado’s longstanding nondiscrimination law. The bakery claimed that the Constitution’s protections of free speech and freedom of religion gave it the right to discriminate and to override the state’s civil rights law. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled against the bakery, and a state appeals court upheld its decision.

TELL CONGRESS TO PASS THE EQUALITY ACT

In reversing the lower court’s ruling, the Supreme Court focused on how this particular case was handled by the commission, which decides cases under Colorado’s nondiscrimination law. The court raised concerns about comments from some of the Colorado commissioners that they believed revealed anti-religion bias. Because of that bias, the court held that the bakery wasn’t treated fairly when the commission decided the discrimination claim.

But — despite arguments from the Trump administration and other opponents of LGBT equality — the court didn’t decide that any business has a right to discriminate against customers because of who they are. Instead, the court’s decision affirms again and again that our nation’s laws against discrimination are essential to maintaining America’s open society and that states can pass and enforce those laws, including in the context of LGBT people.

First, the court reaffirmed that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are entitled to equal dignity. The ruling makes clear that it “is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.” The decision continues:

“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts.”

The court also reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination. It noted that while the “religious and philosophical objections” of business owners:

“are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”

CONGRESS: PASS THE EQUALITY ACT NOW

TAKE ACTION NOWThe court further recognized the danger of free speech and freedom of religion claims that the bakery advanced in this case, stating that:

“any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs say­ing ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,’ something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.”

The decision also recognizes that adopting a rule — as advocated by the bakery — that would allow businesses to turn gay people away carries a significant risk of harm. It outlines its own fear that “a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons.” This would result, the decision continues, “in a community-wide stigma in­consistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations.”

Significantly, the court cited an earlier case, Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., where it rejected precisely the kind of claims that the bakery made here. Piggie Park was a chain of barbeque restaurants in Columbia, South Carolina, that claimed its religion required it to refuse to serve Black customers alongside white ones and that applying the 1964 Civil Rights Act would violate its religious freedom. The courts rejected that argument, with the Supreme Court calling it “frivolous.”

The court on Monday ruled for the bakery because it “was entitled to the neutral and respectful consideration of [its] claims in all the circumstances of the case,” and the justices in the majority believed the bakery didn’t receive that basic fairness. The court said that “these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

All of us deserve a dispassionate evaluation of our claims, either when we face discrimination or are accused of it. Those are principles we can all agree on.

Monday’s decision gives a very narrow victory to the bakery. But the court has clearly signaled that the broader rule the bakery was seeking here — a constitutional right to discriminate and turn customers away because of who they are — is not in keeping with American constitutional tradition.

There are many other cases in the pipeline that may soon give the court the opportunities to sort through the legal issues at the center of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. One is Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers, in which a florist shop refused to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding. The Washington state Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the shop had no constitutional right to turn the couple away, and a petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court remains pending.

In the meantime, Congress should pass the Equality Act, which would update our civil rights laws to provide all people with full protection from discrimination. At the ACLU, we will continue working to ensure that the Supreme Court strikes the right balance between equality and the freedoms of speech and religion. In the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, the court reaffirmed that the latter should not be used to undermine the former.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 feirene
Joined: 1/3/2017
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/5/2018 5:50:24 PM
Where's it say in the bible that you can't bake cakes for homosexuals?
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 5
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/5/2018 6:09:51 PM
It's likely found in the fine print at the end of the ten commandments...you know, those commandments that are regularly and frequently broken by the thumpiest of the Bible who use it to assuage their guilt of treating others not the way they would like to be treated. If it's not found in plain language in there, they'll find a way to twist it to make something apply...and then it will eventually be rewritten yet again by mortals as it always has been.
 47Seagulls
Joined: 3/16/2018
Msg: 6
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/5/2018 6:29:47 PM

It's likely found in the fine print at the end of the ten commandments...you know, those commandments that are regularly and frequently broken by the thumpiest of the Bible who use it to assuage their guilt of treating others not the way they would like to be treated. If it's not found in plain language in there, they'll find a way to twist it to make something apply...and then it will eventually be rewritten yet again by mortals as it always has been.


Exactly. SCROTUS can openly cheat on 3 wives, evade the draft 5 times and then insult a POW, he can ride a porn star bareback while his wife is at home with their new child....but the Trumpanzees hail a homophobe when he wins a case about baking a cake. OMFG - you have to be a real fcking jesus freak, closed minded son of bytch to not bake a cake, a friggin cake. Its not like they were asking this baker to give up his first born or cut off his pinky toe....bake a cake. These are the inbreds that marry their cousin and take condoms to a family reunion and support Trump. Disgusting human beings....in fact, they aren't human beings and they certainly aren't "christian".
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/5/2018 6:51:16 PM
I don't care what your religious beliefs are, and I don't care that you offer certain products/services but not others...you refuse to offer your product/service of your business to someone because you don't approve of them based on some religious stance, you should be ****ing whipped. Whipped bloody. And any judge supporting this nonsense should be whipped bloody also. ****ing blood on the ground for that bullshit. I'm not kidding.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/5/2018 7:00:58 PM
There is a similar case in the uk just now. It has now been referred to the supreme court for judgement. Personally i think the geezer should just have taken his business elsewhere. But I'm sure there will be a nice wad of compensation money involved...........



"The cake was to be decorated with the words ‘Support Gay Marriage’ and an image of Sesame Street’s Bert and Ernie, but Ashers returned Lee’s money and declined the business.

Ashers did not refuse to sell Gareth a cake because he is gay. It declined an order to produce a cake which would, in effect, run counter to its owners’ beliefs.

Was this also unacceptable? There are many more scenarios. Should a West Indian or Asian business be forced to make a product featuring British National Party (BNP) or English Defence League (EDL) slogans? Should a Jewish-run business be able to decline an order from a Holocaust denier? And so on. In short, where does freedom of conscience end and equality legislation begin?

If freedom of conscience, the right to follow one’s own beliefs in matters of religion and morality, means anything, people have to be able to act on their beliefs as they see fit.

The Equality Commission is part of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

It is an arm of the state. If it prosecutes Ashers it will, in effect, be saying that the bakers are not allowed to act according to their beliefs. It will be saying that there is an official set of sanctioned beliefs and then there are backward ones, beliefs that the state will prosecute you for holding. There’s a word for that kind of society: totalitarian.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/gay-cake-why-we-should-be-free-to-bake-what-we-want/15378#.Wxc6s0vTVcs


"At the heart of the case are two issues that have got muddled. The first is that of discrimination against an individual by virtue of his sexuality or religious or political beliefs. The second is the freedom to express one’s beliefs.

Such freedom must necessarily include also the right not to express a view with which with one disagrees.

“Although I strongly disagree with Ashers’ opposition to marriage equality,” the veteran LGBT and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has observed, “in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be compelled to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.” He is right.

• Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/06/gake-cake-fight-why-bakers-had-right-to-refuse-order
 ja6425
Joined: 1/16/2018
Msg: 9
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/5/2018 7:43:06 PM
David French


Tolerance, it appears, is not a one-way street.
Since the rise of the gay-marriage movement, it has become fashionable to decry dissenters as haters and bigots, to attempt to write them out of polite society in the same way that the larger American body politic has rightfully rejected the Klan. Politicians thunder against Christian bigots. Media organizations put the words “religious liberty” in scare quotes, as if the expression of deeply held religious beliefs is a mere pretext, used to conceal darker motivations. And ideologues in state agencies give full vent to their rage, mocking faithful Christians as if they stand in the shoes of slavers and murderers.

Today, the Supreme Court said, “enough.” Today, the Court breathed a bit of life back into religious-liberty jurisprudence. And the justice who did it is none other than Anthony Kennedy, the architect of the Obergefell opinion and the justice most responsible for the gay-rights revolution.

Here’s how he did it. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, raised two constitutional defenses to Colorado’s charge that he unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple when he refused to custom-design a cake for their same-sex wedding. He first argued that creating a custom cake constituted an act of protected expression under the First Amendment, and he could not be compelled to exercise that expression to support a same-sex wedding.

The Lord works in mysterious ways, and it is no small irony that the same justice who just struck a blow for the dignity of the faithful is also the man most responsible for creating the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

The Court essentially punted on the question, noting that it raised complex and difficult issues. To the extent that the dicta provides any guidance going forward, it seems that the greater the obvious expressive content, the greater the constitutional protection. In other words, a cake that contains words or symbols might enjoy greater protection than a cake with no obvious expressive meaning. But that’s speculation. The case wasn’t decided on that basis.

Instead, the Court focused on Phillips’s second claim, holding (by a 7–2 margin) that Colorado violated his right to free exercise of religion when it held him in violation of state public-accommodation law. Justice Kennedy focused on two critical aspects of the case to support his ruling. He first condemned anti-religious comments made by state commissioners during the hearings before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. He especially singled out a commissioner’s claim that “freedom of religion” has been used to “justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history,” including slavery and the Holocaust. The commissioner called Phillips’s religious-freedom claim “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use.”

Kennedy’s response was devastating:

To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical — something insubstantial and even insincere. . . . This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s antidiscrimination law — a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.

Kennedy could have stopped his opinion right there. As he notes, there was no objection to those comments from other commissioners, and they weren’t disavowed at any time during the proceedings. One of the actual adjudicators of the case was expressing outright hostility to Phillips’s religious expression, a situation different from and more egregious than lawmakers’ expressing hostility to religious faith when passing legislation.

Had Kennedy stopped his opinion at that point, Phillips’s victory would have been important, but profoundly limited. The obvious response would be for the commissioners to reconsider the case, cleanse their rhetoric of outright hostility, deliver the same result on a cleaner record, and put the more difficult free-speech claim right back in the Court’s lap. But Kennedy didn’t stop. He found a separate ground for concluding that Colorado was motivated by anti-religious animus, and that separate ground will make it difficult for states to take aim at “offensive” religious exercise, even when it occurs in a commercial context.

It turns out that the state of Colorado had protected the right of bakers to refuse to create cakes with explicitly anti-gay messages. Here’s Kennedy again:

On at least three other occasions the Civil Rights Division considered the refusal of bakers to create cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text. Each time, the Division found that the baker acted lawfully in refusing service. It made these determinations because, in the words of the Division, the requested cake included “wording and images [the baker] deemed derogatory.”

But wait. Can the state make those distinctions? Can it protect the right of one baker to refuse an “offensive” message without extending protection on an equal basis to other bakers? Kennedy’s words are key:

A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of these two instances cannot be based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness. Just as “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943), it is not, as the Court has repeatedly held, the role of the State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive. . . . The Colorado court’s attempt to account for the difference in treatment elevates one view of what is offensive over another and itself sends a signal of official disapproval of Phillips’ religious beliefs.

Let’s put it differently. All bakers — regardless of religion — have the same rights and obligations. At the same time, gay and religious customers enjoy equal rights under state public-accommodation statutes. Any ruling the commission imposes will have to apply on the same basis to different litigants, regardless of faith and regardless of the subjective “offensiveness” of the message.

This is a severe blow to the state. It hoped for a ruling declaring that the cake wasn’t protected expression and a free-exercise analysis that simply ratified the public-accommodation law as a “neutral law of general applicability.” Such a ruling would have permitted the favoritism on display in this case. It would have granted state authorities broad discretion to elevate favored messages and suppress dissent, all while operating under the fiction that they weren’t suppressing protected expression or religious exercise.


Instead, civil-rights commissions now have to understand that restrictions on religious bakers will carry with them the same implied restrictions on secular bakers, and the protections given gay customers will extend on an equal basis to religious customers. In other words, the Court not only prohibited favoritism, it imposed a high cost on censorship.


No, the Court did not issue the sweeping free-speech ruling that many advocates hoped for and others feared. Instead it issued a ruling that reminded state authorities that people of faith have the exact same rights — and are entitled to the exact same treatment — as people of different faith or no faith at all. And it did so in an opinion that decisively rejected the exact talking points so favored by the anti-religious left.

The Lord works in mysterious ways, and it is no small irony that the same justice who just struck a blow for the dignity of the faithful is also the man most responsible for creating the constitutional right to same-sex marriage. State bullies beware, when Justice Kennedy declared in Obergefell that the First Amendment still protects religious people as they seek to teach and uphold those “principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths,” he meant what he said. Tolerance, it appears, is not a one-way street.
 happata
Joined: 3/21/2018
Msg: 10
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/5/2018 8:06:56 PM
^^^^Lot of truth in this..i assume the source is not info wars. Atheists, at least some of those reflected on this board, have zero tolerance of others who don't think like them. Narrow minded bigoted atheists shouldn't be any more welcomed on the left as by the right.
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 11
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/5/2018 8:18:04 PM
I guess we'll have to see what transpires when an atheist baker refuses to bake a cake for religious folk based on the baker not being religious. It's bound to happen because this ruling is only the beginning of the beginning and not even the beginning of the end with respect to this matter.
 happata
Joined: 3/21/2018
Msg: 12
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/5/2018 8:47:45 PM
Actually, it was a narrowly drawn opinion recognizing rights of religious as well as the gay couple. No slippery slope here imho.
 billybonds
Joined: 8/8/2014
Msg: 13
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/6/2018 3:30:35 AM
I heard it was 7-2 ...It's a difficult one this because why should the baker serve the gay couple when homosexuality is so offensive to his beliefs. That said there is a slippery slope here. So I have no problem with the couple going through
the entire yellow pages or whatever until they find a baker that won't do it and going to court over it. Feck the expense.

That said, we should really elect me god and i would create three countries in seven days. Sorry six.
A conservative one for the dessicated. A liberal one for the wets. And a classy one for me. I bet you
**stards would invade.
 from site to sight
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 14
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/6/2018 4:16:34 AM
If the baker is part of a Christian religion, should he have the right to discriminate against people who are in a non-Christian religion-like Muslim, Buddhists, etc? Is there anything in the Bible about that?
 happata
Joined: 3/21/2018
Msg: 15
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/6/2018 5:19:27 AM
^^^^there is a balancing act. There is also nothing wrong with the religious, i dated and almost married a girl in college who was one of the most perfect women i ever dated. Protestant, gorgeous blue eyes, beautiful, kind, sensitive, loved sex...very religious. Maybe our religious differences killed our chances, but she has always been my standard of high quality and decency..what a woman should be....and yet some of the leftist trash around here would think they were better than her because they are non believers. You people couldn't be more wrong about that. You all couldn't have shined her shoes.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 16
view profile
History
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/6/2018 5:21:26 AM
I wasn't familiar with the colorado baker case so I've been having a wee browse. Do yous no think that the decision by the colorado civil rights commission to rule in favour of three other bakers who refused to bake cakes with anti homosexual messages might have had a bearing on the judgement?.........



"There is very little principled analysis in any of the Court’s five opinions except for that of Justice Thomas, who concluded that Phillips was denied his freedom of speech.

Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion focused mainly on the despicable treatment Phillips received in front of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

In particular, Justice Kennedy noted that the Commission ruled against Phillips for his refusal to bake a pro-gay cake, but ruled in favor of three other bakers who refused to bake anti-gay cakes.

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/william-j-olson/scotus-masterpiece-decision-kicks-religious-liberty-vs-homosexual-dignity


"Muslim bakers and florists have flown under the media radar during the recent uproar over Christian-owned businesses and gay rights, but a hidden-camera video may have changed that.

The video showing Muslim bakers in Michigan reluctant to bake a cake for a gay wedding went viral last weekend, snaring more than 2.2 million views in three days and igniting debate over whether Christian business owners are being singled out for lawsuits, complaints and media focus."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/


"Gender vs religion: Woman refused haircut by Muslim barber highlights problem of colliding rights
We are forced to draw lines between which rights Canadians consider to be legitimate rights, and therefore, inviolable, and things we call “rights,” but may be something less"

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/gender-vs-religion-woman-refused-haircut-by-muslim-barber-highlights-problem-of-colliding-rights


"An unnamed male-to-female transgender is suing a spa in Canada after a female Muslim employee refused to wax him, citing religious grounds.

According to the filed complaint, the trans woman tried to get a body waxing at Mad Wax beauty spa in March but was turned away when no one was available to perform the waxing. The employee who typically waxes male customers was out on sick leave, and the other employee working, a Muslim woman, refused, as she will not make physical contact with any male she is not related to."

https://www.dailywire.com/news/30807/transgender-woman-sues-muslim-amanda-prestigiacomo

And the madness continues over here............

"As more trans women who were convicted as men hope to follow rapist Martin Ponting into female wings, prison governors fear vulnerable inmates could be attacked"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5798945/Trans-women-convicted-men-attack-vulnerable-inmates.html
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 17
view profile
History
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/6/2018 6:52:52 AM
Inevitably, this case was going to produce one of these guys:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/south-dakota-lawmaker-let-businesses-turn-away-people-of-color-later-apologizes/ar-AAyhmlJ?ocid=ientp

“A South Dakota lawmaker on Monday said businesses should be able to turn away customers based on race. In a Facebook comment, state Rep. Michael Clark, a Hartford Republican, said business owners should have the final say in who they serve...

...Clark's initial comment came in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's narrow decision Monday siding with a Colorado baker that refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding. ‘He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants,’ Clark wrote. ‘If he wants to turn away people of color, then that('s) his choice.’”

So what the Supreme Court is saying is that so long as a business owner has deeply held legitimate religious beliefs about it, he can deny service to anyone. So why not because the potential customer is black or Hispanic or Asian? After all, having grown up in rural Alabama, I can tell you most white people in that area believe race mixing is a sin, and it most definitely is a deeply held belief and they can find justification for it in the bible, so it is “legitimate.” Yeah, sure, the Civil Rights Act claims that discrimination against people of color is illegal, but Colorado’s laws said discrimination against gay people was illegal and the Supreme Court didn’t care. (Including 2 so-called liberals in that 7-2 ruling.)

Obviously most people can see both sides of this case. If I’m running a public business, shouldn’t I be allowed to not serve skinheads? Does it even matter if that’s part of my religious beliefs? Personally, I think these kinds of cases need to be decided at least partially on access. In this specific case, the couple had many other baker options in their immediate vicinity (even if this baker might have skills that others did not) and simply shaming the guy out of business probably would be sufficient punishment enough. But again going back to where I grew up, there was only one place that served gas in town (if you want to call it that) while I was growing up (now there are 2) – if my family or other people of color weren’t allowed to buy gas there, then we would have had to drive 15-20 miles further to get gas. Which really would have sucked if we had almost no gas to begin with. I’m not sure I agree with this very narrowly tailored SC decision but fact of the matter is, the bigoted baker basically caused the gay couple no harm (as this was years ago, I’m sure they eventually had a lovely wedding with a great cake from somewhere else). That’s one big difference between this guy and the nutball in Kentucky who refused to issue gay marriage licenses... considering she had a monopoly on marriage licenses in that county. (Not to mention, she worked for the government, not a private business.)

Nevertheless, Rep. Wallace deserves to be turned out of office for his statements – after all, he’s a government employee advocating something both illegal and blatantly discriminatory. But probably won’t happen in South Dakota – after all, his state’s neighbor Montana couldn’t even find a Republican to run against the federal congressman who body slammed a reporter on the eve of the special election last year. In places like those, the man farthest to the right is king, no matter how much of an idiot he is. One could say that about our entire country these days. (That’s a dig at Trump, if you’re thick.)
 47Seagulls
Joined: 3/16/2018
Msg: 18
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/6/2018 7:10:35 AM

If the baker is part of a Christian religion, should he have the right to discriminate against people who are in a non-Christian religion-like Muslim, Buddhists, etc? Is there anything in the Bible about that?


I would think that this court ruling will not open the doors to people closing their doors to anyone they deem not worthy or dirty or soiled or not someone they support because of colour, gender, religion. No anyone can say "no Jews allowed" or "no African Americans allowed" or "I don't serve anyone in a turban".


^^^^there is a balancing act. There is also nothing wrong with the religious, i dated and almost married a girl in college who was one of the most perfect women i ever dated. Protestant, gorgeous blue eyes, beautiful, kind, sensitive, loved sex...very religious. Maybe our religious differences killed our chances, but she has always been my standard of high quality and decency..what a woman should be....and yet some of the leftist trash around here would think they were better than her because they are non believers. You people couldn't be more wrong about that. You all couldn't have shined her shoes.


I'm sure if she saw what you have become, how you've turned into the Gollum character from the Lord of the Rings movie equating the forums with "Precious" , she'd be saying "man, I sure dodged a bullet there".
 feirene
Joined: 1/3/2017
Msg: 19
view profile
History
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/6/2018 8:10:51 AM

Atheists, at least some of those reflected on this board, have zero tolerance of others who don't think like them.


Refusing to bake cakes for homosexuals isn't tolerance either. It's the exact opposite.
 happata
Joined: 3/21/2018
Msg: 20
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/6/2018 8:24:10 AM
"""Refusing to bake cakes for homosexuals isn't tolerance either. It's the exact opposite."""

You get no argument from me. Intolerance of diffrences is evidence of a poor character. I suppose i have intolerance of those with poor character myself.
 happata
Joined: 3/21/2018
Msg: 21
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/6/2018 8:29:51 AM
Hawk, if the door was opened, it was opened just a small amount. I don't see this case being any support for racism or bigotry. The country is never going back to separate but equal, even under trump
 feirene
Joined: 1/3/2017
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/6/2018 9:03:36 AM

And the madness continues over here............

"As more trans women who were convicted as men hope to follow rapist Martin Ponting into female wings, prison governors fear vulnerable inmates could be attacked"

http://www.dailyfail.co.uk/news/article-5798945/Trans-women-convicted-men-attack-vulnerable-inmates.html


There's no madness here. Women can be rapists too. Prisons for either gender should have policies in place that protect their prisoners. Anyone can be vulnerable to a rapist, there's a lot of jokes about prison rape. It's not so funny though if you go to prison and are then raped. https://www.google.com/search?q=trans+woman+raped+in+prison&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b

Ponting is a predator, he can identify as female if he wants to because there are female predators. I doubt many women would want to relate to a female sexual predator even in prison, but he ended up there because here our judiciary system gives people rights. He has the right to identify as whatever gender he wants, and he got the surgery because at least one person assessed him as suitable for that and needing it because being male caused him considerable distress.

You just have no empathy because he is a rapist. I don't have any empathy for his rapist side myself. But i know there are genuine trans people with dysphoria and it causes them a lot of suffering. He may be genuine, idk could be a liar also seeing as he's a rapist but the people involved with him saw fit to believe him and it took years for them to.

That lawsuit for barbers is interesting also. If the trans person identifies as female then no staff had the right to deny them that and consider them male, if they're legally defined as female this would make their case easy, legally. The fact that the salon supports the right of their staff not to give a service to someone is sort of ok but that person they are supporting made an incorrect judgment.

Transgenderism isn't that hard really. People feel suffering from being born the gender they are and want to identify as the opposite gender. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness that affects a persons abilities to function, the wanting to be the opposite gender is not the illness but the things that come about from being their own gender are.

I do think one of your freedoms supports the bigot though:
Free Exercise Clause

Free Exercise Clause refers to the section of the First Amendment italicized here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. Free-exercise clauses of state constitutions which protected religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] The Clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.”[2] The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons. In the terms of economic theory, the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects.[3]

It's kind of confusing though because it's worded in a way that says it won't make laws to support religion but it gives religions the right to commit actions on behalf of their religion. If they support the right for religious freedom and actions based on it then there's no need to make laws anyway.
Christians will support bigotry because that's ingrained into them, liberals will not because we're progressive and see people as individuals and not a collective.
 happata
Joined: 3/21/2018
Msg: 23
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/6/2018 9:42:20 AM
Sorry Feirene, you have a very, very limited understanding of the First Amendment based on whatever site you were using to quote the above.

This is really what is wrong with Leftists who don't understand even simple issues and make so many assumptions:



Christians will support bigotry because that's ingrained into them, liberals will not because we're progressive and see people as individuals and not a collective.


There are a load of inaccurate assumptions in your quote...are some Christians bigots? Of course.... but many leftists are bigots too... bigoted against the religious. Are all Christians bigots? Leftist bullsh^t without any support by the facts.

Some Liberals, i.e., Leftists....are about as backward as can be as evidenced by a few on this board...narrow minded, hypocritical..they want to control thoughts and minds as much as the worst of the religious.


The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons.


Actually, this gets it bass-ackwards...the Religious don't get to violate any laws anymore than the non-religious...its just that laws that unreasonably violate the First Amendment will be deemed unconstitutional and therefore are not legal laws. Everything is a balancing act....a child can not be deprived of medical care because his parents don't believe in medical care..not legally...and if a child dies, the parents can be charged with murder. On the other hand, the religious do have the right to send their children to religious school, so any law that proclaimed it illegal to do so would be unconstitutional. Its really a balancing act of what is an important State interest vs. an important religious interest. It all depends on what is at stake.

If there is one thing boards like this have taught me, the non-religious are very possibly worse than the too religious. I know a few orthodox people who very strongly believe in their religions. Even the local Jewish Rabbi of Chabad...he won't drive in a car on the Sabbath, he won't even turn on his computer...but he would never think of telling me not to drive my car on the Sabbath. And yet I see the non-religious on this board loudly demanding what the religious are allowed to do or not do.

I of course do not support people who try to throw their religion around...like that dufus woman who would not issue marriage licenses...that wasn't her right...but how many religious people act like that? Its kind of like my trying to say that all leftists are like Jovan (and others here) and demand that the religious stop being religious, or accuse them of being mentally ill. Or demanding religious women stop circumcising their children even though there is no medical reason not to circumcise. I mean some people have incredible audacity.

Its the attempted thought control from these people that is abhorrent. The attempt to tell the Religious how they have to limit the practice of the their religion because those leftists don't agree. But of course not all leftists are leftist trash. ..many leftists truly are open minded and all for individual freedoms, they truly do try to be reasoned about their opinions....which means not trying to take away the freedoms from others who are religious or are not leftist. . . which oftentimes means trying to see the other sides point of view...sometimes there are legitimate reasons for why people do things and should not have to shut down because an ignorant leftist tells them to.

Bottom line... nobody should have tolerance for religious bigots, but nobody should have tolerance for leftist bigots either.



 feirene
Joined: 1/3/2017
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/6/2018 9:58:07 AM
I said bigotry is ingrained into them. It's ingrained into plenty of non-religious people too but religions, by the way they work, ingrain bigotry into people. And the fact that a person used his religion to deny someone a service that he'd give to anyone not homosexual proves it.

bigotry
ˈbɪɡətri/
noun
noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries

intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.
"the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry"
synonyms: prejudice, bias, partiality, partisanship, sectarianism, discrimination, unfairness, injustice; More
 happata
Joined: 3/21/2018
Msg: 25
Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...
Posted: 6/6/2018 10:02:51 AM

I said bigotry is ingrained into them.


I know what you said....and I said I know of zero facts that support this opinion.


It's ingrained into plenty of non-religious people too but religions


Fine, then bigotry is ingrained into SOME people....what's religion have to do with it.

I never learned "bigotry" in my religious teachings. I have dated many non-Jewish women over the years and never found a one of them bigoted (although granted if they were bigoted, I wouldn't have dated them). Like so many others here you are offering opinions that are based on . . . . fairy dust and nothing more.

It reminds me of Hopeless nutcases arguments much earlier in the Israel Thread, when he posted as Screwn*.... when he wanted to know why the Talmud said bad things about Gentiles (He gave a few false quotes which I have no doubt he picked up at a hate site somewhere)...

The Talmud never said anything about Gentiles or bad about non-jews.... it never taught that Jews were superior to non-jews....Judaism was always about following Gods law because the Jews were chosen to and accepted to follow Gods' law.

So... you are still stuck in that mindless claptrap...like so many others.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Baker Wins...Gay Couple Loses...