First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last

Supreme Court rules 7-2 in favor of Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple

Post Reply
25119 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
778 / The White House
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/7/18
Finally that poor baker gets some justice against all of the bigots and attention seekers that have sought to destroy his business and his life.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

SCOTUS finds that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not consider this case with religious neutrality and violated the Free Exercise Clause.

The government should not be able to compel you to create art, to attend a wedding ceremony, nor to provide specialty cake services for anyone. Anyone can buy a cake but you should not be forced at gunpoint to provide a specialty cake for something you do not support.

7-2 is pretty high too.
1141 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
29 / F
Online
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/4/18
Sadly the big question of rather,or not his cakes were protected under the first amendment was left unanswered.

EDIT- After reading the full ruling,i"m going to have to agree on it since the commission did act hostile towards the baker's religious rights instead of being neutral. This still doesn't change any of the actual laws,and doesn't give us a answer to some of the broader issues that we wanted answered.
790 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
100
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/8/18
I don't think this should have gone this far. I think the couple should have found another non-bigot baker and then just post how much better and cheaper the cake was on the internet
10255 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
20 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/16/18
Good, business owners should be able to choose who they offer their services to without getting harassed. The baker isn't a "bigot" ^^^
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/8/18
That took years
1141 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
29 / F
Online
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/4/18

MonoDreams wrote:

Good, business owners should be able to choose who they offer their services to without getting harassed. He wasn't a "bigot" ^^^


You should read the ruling because they didn't rule that business owners are free to choose who they offer their services to.
10255 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
20 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/8/18

danagram wrote:


MonoDreams wrote:

Good, business owners should be able to choose who they offer their services to without getting harassed. He wasn't a "bigot" ^^^


You should read the ruling because they didn't rule that business owners are free to choose who they offer their services to.


I did read it, that's just my opinion.
790 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
100
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/16/18

MonoDreams wrote:

Good, business owners should be able to choose who they offer their services to without getting harassed. The baker isn't a "bigot" ^^^


yeah he clearly is
4507 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/4/18

MonoDreams wrote:

Good, business owners should be able to choose who they offer their services to without getting harassed. The baker isn't a "bigot" ^^^


Nice slippery slope you've got there.
5581 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/8/18

Cato_Sicarius wrote:


MonoDreams wrote:

Good, business owners should be able to choose who they offer their services to without getting harassed. The baker isn't a "bigot" ^^^


yeah he clearly is


Do you even know what bigot means?
7262 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
29 / F
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/4/18
I suppose I congratulate the Baker and give my sympathy of the harassment they experienced from the incident (if the information is true), but to see how long this situation unnecessary extended is sad, but not surprising with mankind.
12539 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/8/18

D4nc3Style wrote:


Do you even know what bigot means?


Well, obviously, it's anyone who isn't up to date with the Current Truth. EG Barack Obama was not a bigot in 2012 for supporting natural marriage, but the Current Truth was different then. Now anyone who believes in natural marriage is a bigot, because the Current Truth has changed.

That said, this is a small victory in basic human rights: right to freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and involuntary servitude.
790 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
100
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/4/18

D4nc3Style wrote:

Do you even know what bigot means?


big·ot
ˈbiɡət/Submit
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
so yeah bigot
5581 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/17/18

Cato_Sicarius wrote:

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/Submit
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
so yeah bigot


You can post the meaning, but I still don't think you know what it means. If anything, it's the gay couple who are bigots. Not the baker. He refused for religious beliefs, yet would still offer services, as stated in the document.
Banned
runec 
43177 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/4/18
Given the way the commission treated the case this ruled the right way. Reading the full ruling the court really threaded the needle to avoid ruling on the central issue.



karatecowboy wrote:
Now anyone who believes in natural marriage is a bigot, because the Current Truth has changed.


I really like how this sentence is a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.




karatecowboy wrote:
That said, this is a small victory in basic human rights: right to freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and involuntary servitude.


Your capacity for histrionics continues to impress.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.