SCOTUS Rules in favor of Colorado Bakers

Mr.Badguy said:
I know they object but the argument that it's based on religion is flimsy IMO. If you profess to be of a certain religion then you should need to prove that somewhere within the tenets of that religion gives you specific instructions to do something like discriminate.
Click to expand...
I don't think the couple in question will pursue this again, but they should see if the Christian baker makes cakes for divorced people who are marrying again?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Staying true to my beliefs or in this case, the baker holding true to his.

If an adult sibling of yours asked you to fuck them, would you?
Why or why not?
Click to expand...


What are your specific beliefs on this issue though? That by baking a cake you'd be tacitly endorsing the sin of homosexuality?

And did you really just compare baking a cake to incest?
 
katzgar said:
The idea that you have any idea at all what I hope for and don't hope for is arrogant and absurd
Click to expand...

AWWWWWWWWWWWWW, did my comment make you rethink your dreams and desires AND then you realized that your disappointment was going to continue to grow??

:evilnod:
 
Mr.Badguy said:
What are your specific beliefs on this issue though? That by baking a cake you'd be tacitly endorsing the sin of homosexuality?

And did you really just compare baking a cake to incest?
Click to expand...

I answered your question, without questioning it; so why are you refusing to or are unable to answer the one posed to you, without trying to flip the script (so to speak)?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I answered your question, without questioning it; so why are you refusing to or are unable to answer the one posed to you, without trying to flip the script (so to speak)?
Click to expand...

No I would not have sex with a sibling because that's gross and illegal. I'd certainly bake a cake for my sibling's wedding however, which is neither gross nor illegal.
 
Last edited:
Mr.Badguy said:
No I would not have sex with a sibling because that's gross and illegal. I'd certainly bake a cake for my sibling's wedding however, which is neither gross nor illegal.
Click to expand...

Since you included the word "gross", that would mean that it goes against your beliefs and principals.

Are we now to question the extent of your beliefs and principals, like others who have been raising questions regarding those of Mr. Phillips?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Since you included the word "gross", that would mean that it goes against your beliefs and principals.

Are we now to question the extent of your beliefs and principals, like others who have been raising questions regarding those of Mr. Phillips?
Click to expand...

Question away.

The problem with your analogy is that I have inalienable rights over my own body. If a gay man asked you to have sex with him, you'd be well within your rights to say no. If a gay man came to your job and asked you to perform the same service for him that you'd offer a straight man and you declined, that's discrimination.

So why exactly, or what specific part of your belief system, gives you the right to discriminate?
 
katzgar said:
the ruling was about process, not about the bakers right...this aint over.
Click to expand...

Its over. Cannot go higher than Supremes. Phillips won. But that is only him getting his case returned due to hostility of Colorado panel. Has nothing to do with his bigotry based in religion. Can you imagine that. A religion that teaches you to hate some of gods people?
 
Nordberg said:
Its over. Cannot go higher than Supremes. Phillips won. But that is only him getting his case returned due to hostility of Colorado panel. Has nothing to do with his bigotry based in religion. Can you imagine that. A religion that teaches you to hate some of gods people?
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are trying to rationalize losing. This is really simple. The guys right to his religional beliefs were trampled. That is all this is about, nothing else. The SC sided with them on that. Case closed.
 
MB #176

discriminate (dî-skrîm´e-nât´) verb
discriminated, discriminating, discriminates verb, intransitive
To make a clear distinction; distinguish

verb, transitive
To distinguish by noting differences

[Latin discrìminâre, discrìminât-, from discrìmen, discrìmin-, distinction.]
- discrim´inate (-nît) adjective
- discrim´inately adverb

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

Through our legal convention of stare decisis this ruling establishes a right of bakers to violate civil rights standards, and discriminate against the otherwise consuming public.

34345910_10161086521050725_2256619329632075776_n.jpg


"Reshaped judiciary"?!

This quite likely will do damage to U.S. judicial standards that may prevail for generations.
 
Nordberg said:
Exactly as I stated it. The original case was about first amendment rights of Phillips and Colorado rejected it. The Supremes rejected that decision on the basis of a hostile panel and gave the victory to Phillips. However that is all. No precedence, no rights conferred to other bigots cloaked behind religion. Therefore narrow.
Click to expand...

If there had been no hostile comments from the commission it would be just as likely he would still have won since three other bakers were allowed to refuse to bake cakes based on their beliefs. Government cannot give preference to religious beliefs based on whether they are bigoted.

What do you mean by "no precedence" and where is that stated in the decision?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top