SCOTUS Rules in favor of Colorado Bakers

The baker is not much of a businessman? If I was a baker, it's all about money and reputation?!! It would not faze me to make a gay wedding cake?!! I would do my best to satisfy their needs!
 
Nordberg said:
Not at all. It was about a person on the Colorado panel that ruled against Phillips showing open hostility to Phillips position. No precedence. The court made it very clear this was about the bad treatment he got in Colorado, but not bigger than that. Court made it clear it was not bigger than that. that is why it is referred to as a narrow decision.
Click to expand...

Reversing a decision against a person getting unfair treatment from a state commission that resulted in his punishment was a victory for free speech, religion, and civil rights for Mr. Phillips. Most Supreme Court decisions only apply to the party in that case.

They will soon vote whether to accept a case involving a florist refusing to do a same sex wedding.
 
Kacper said:
a 7-2 ruling is not a "narrow victory". It is a pretty resounding victory even if it was as a result of a narrow holding.
Click to expand...
Victory in the sense that this single case was deemed unfair due to comments made by the civil rights commission. Court did NOT rule on the legality of discrimination.

The good news? This sets precedent for the Muslim ban.
 
Timshel said:
Can't you read? Again, they were using a different context.

It was not narrow in the sense of the vote of the jurist but in regards to the legal issues involved.

Maybe read beyond a headline and you will be able to figure these things out on your own.
Click to expand...

You can read into it anything you want; but the bottom line is, the SC said :fu::tongout:
 
Mr.Badguy said:
I still don't understand how baking a cake could possibly go against their religion.
Click to expand...

Religious beliefs are absolute. A person can believe anything they choose--it does not have to make sense or be consistent with any religious teachings or writing.

In this case using artistic creativity to design a cake for a certain purpose (gay marriage) would indicate his approval for the act (according to the baker).
 
Flash said:
Religious beliefs are absolute. A person can believe anything they choose--it does not have to make sense or be consistent with any religious teachings or writing.

In this case using artistic creativity to design a cake for a certain purpose (gay marriage) would indicate his approval for the act (according to the baker).
Click to expand...

But he claims to be Christian so therefore should have to prove with some holy text that he's not simply discriminating IMO.
 
Nordberg said:
What a shit ruling. Much was based on the "indignity" the baker would suffer if he made a cake for gays. How about the indignity of people walking into a shop and being told "we don't serve your kind". What a slap in the face that is? However, if they want to spare that to all, store owners should place large signs in their windows listing the people they refuse to sell to. Perhaps their religious beliefs rejects Scientologists, Muslims, Sikhs and perhaps they translate the bible into refusing blacks. They should have a huge sign in the window to protect them from the indignity? We could have a pink triangle. It worked for Nazis.
Click to expand...

Excellent point, except for one LITTLE thing.

They were never told he didn't serve "their kind" (your words).
 
Mr.Badguy said:
What about it? I think they're in the wrong too. Is your point a "they did it too, but aren't getting the media circus" argument?
Click to expand...

You didn't watch it, because the video is 5:05 in duration.

You responded 3 minutes after I posted it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top