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 it matters if it has very specific instructions. They should not be free to discriminate and, for now, the courts do not allow them to discriminate. This ruling just says that the courts and bureaucrats should not tell the bigoted immoral homophobes that they are bigoted immoral homophobes.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
Prove is the keyword here. If this guy said he practices Steve-ism and made a 5 minute pamphlet in Microsoft Word saying that part of his religion is to not participate (even tacitly) in any homosexual ceremony, I'd give him more credit.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that many Jews, Christians, and Muslims are widely understood to abhor homosexuality as a matter of legitimate religious faith.

I trust that the Justices were satisfied that Mr. Phillips' belief was deeply-held and sincere.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion by ruling that Phillips violated state anti-discrimination law.

Feel free to put your ludicrous scenario to the test, though.
 
Flash said:
A person has a better chance of proving the sincerity of his beliefs if he is a member of some larger sect that possesses those beliefs. For example, a guy has an easier chance of getting conscientious objector status in the draft if he is a Quaker.

A person's beliefs can be based on morals rather than religion. An atheist can have strong moral beliefs against all war to get conscientious objector status but cannot be against just a specific war.
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
Nordberg said:
yes there was. But the Supremes were not ruling on that. This is about Phillips getting a panel in Colorado that had a guy on it who was anti refusal of gays on religious grounds. Supremes saw that as a hostile decision and ruled on that. Only that. This decision is very narrow. No precedences.
Click to expand...

And you are in error; because the I believe it was presented that he had sold cakes to the two individuals before and only refused to MAKE them a wedding cake.

A wedding cake doesn't come out of the oven, all ready "decorated".
 
Timshel said:
Nope, they said, don't be so mean to the bigoted homophobic snowflakes. I kind of agree with the court but think they probably should have addressed more substance.
Click to expand...

UUUUUUUHHHHHHHH; I wasn't able to find what you referred to, as being anywhere in their ruling.

But they essentially did say --->:fu::tongout:
 
SmarterthanYou said:
now sue the fuck out of that civil rights commission and impeach every judge who ruled the other way
Click to expand...

the decision actually goes out of its way to say that the reason they are doing it is because the civil rights commission was biased. With the supreme court on record putting that in the actual decision I dont see how you can not sue. Seems like easy money.

Note that the two who actually said this are 2 liberal justices.
 
Kacper said:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/s...n-to-baker-over-gay-couple-dispute/ar-AAydEGF

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a narrow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's handling of the claims brought against Jack Phillips, saying it had showed a hostility to religion.

_____________________________

What cracks me up is MSNBC calls 7-2 a "narrow victory" :palm:
Click to expand...

The article said "a victory on narrow grounds". Narrow grounds does not mean narrow victory. Brush up on your reading comprehension.
 
Trump Diva said:
Your predictions haven't been the best lately. lol
Click to expand...

Hello Minty,

I only got 1 thing wrong, I put my faith in America and they let me down.

I've always said you racist baggers are gonna fuck up everything, and that's exactly what is happening. :cool:
 
tsuke said:
the decision actually goes out of its way to say that the reason they are doing it is because the civil rights commission was biased. With the supreme court on record putting that in the actual decision I dont see how you can not sue. Seems like easy money.

Note that the two who actually said this are 2 liberal justices.
Click to expand...

I hope he sues for his lost business income, his expenditures, defamation of character, slander, his lawyer fees, and then hit the idiots with a huge punitive damage award.
 
Kacper said:
I directly quoted the article when I posted the thread. The article has since been changed by MSNBC undoubtedly because the internet is kicking their ass for calling this a "narrow victory". They must be paying you to come defend their HUGE mistake. Even teh POTUS called them out for calling this a "narrow victory."
Click to expand...

Suuuuure, it's been changed. Odd, I don't see any notation of an edited article.
 
TTQ64 said:
Hello Minty,

I only got 1 thing wrong, I put my faith in America and they let me down.

I've always said you racist baggers are gonna fuck up everything, and that's exactly what is happening. :cool:
Click to expand...

tumblr_mi8g6d2qnu1ri4k12o1_400.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top