SCOTUS Rules in favor of Colorado Bakers

Kacper said:
Idiot No. 5 of the thread. This has been addressed multiple times.
Click to expand...

Let's see, asswipe. I start at post number one and go from there. Your posts did not quote the article you referenced, shitstain. That simple.

Comprende, fucktard?
 
Kacper said:
You are going for the super idiot award. For us to try again YOU would actually have to first try by making the effort to read through the thread to see this discussed ad nauseam.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you see, cumstain, I read post by post and respond to those. Comprende, douchenozzle? Why would anyone read an entire thread first, only to return to the first posts?
 
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...
because we all know gay marriage is about racism......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
actually it IS the precedent.......
Click to expand...

No ,it is not. The court made it clear it is not about freedom of speech and religion at all. The Supremes made a ruling based on the hostility to the bakers position they saw in the Colorado panel that decided the case. They turned it over that.
 
As I read it, the bases for reversal (ruling in favor of the baker) can be summed up as follows:

  1. Equal Protection under the law: The commission fining this Baker subsequently found in favor of three other bakers who declined to decorate cakes with Bible verses offensive to gays… on the basis the message was offensive to the baker.


  2. Protection of Religious Freedom: The commission was openly derogatory towards the religion and beliefs of the Baker. Multiple references to this in all but Ginsberg’s decent. Government has a Constitutional Duty to protect religious freedom without interjection of personal bias.


  3. Freedom of Speech: The “wedding cake” was deemed “expressive” (as art is commonly considered) and as such, protected under the “flip side” of the “free speech” clause: being compelled to say something you don’t believe. Happily, Thomas’ Concurring Opinion challenges the “PC Culture” specifically and states emphatically… our Constitution allows us to think and believe differently. I read this to mean the government may not compel gays to accept (some) Christian beliefs that gayness is a sin… or, on the other side, compel Christians to accept gayness as normal and acceptable in the eyes of their Church or God.


  4. Least Intrusive Clause: They phrase it differently and with more words, but in a conflict of “rights” involving religious freedom, the government may only intrude on religious freedom in a “least intrusive” form. This had already been offered by the baker: I’ll sell you a cake, cookies, whatever… but I won’t make a wedding cake as it involves my personal expression and, in this case, violates my personal beliefs and my strongly held religious beliefs.


  5. The above was predicated on the denial of service being “rejection of an ideology” and not “a protected class.” The baker would decline to sell a cake to ANYONE wishing to use the product in a gay ceremony… whether that person was gay, straight or other. To me, that was a pretty fine hair... though I agree with it here.
The opinions all reaffirm sexual orientation as a protected class entitled to publicly available goods and services.
 
If I sincerely believed those bakers worked hard every day of their lives not to break any other bs rules in their chosen religion then I might understand their stance but show me a Christian who uses his or her religion to hate/discriminate against someone and you will find a motherfucker who is quite happy to break all sorts of religious rules when convenient but hides behind religion when choosing to hate/discriminate.

Fucking hypocrites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top