Quantcast
US Supreme Court: Christian baker does not have to bake 'the gay cake'

Forums - Politics Discussion - US Supreme Court: Christian baker does not have to bake 'the gay cake'

Maxosaurus-rex said:
zygote said:

I think the problem here is not that this guy has the right to choose how to run his business and will reap the results.  The problem is that the Supreme Court set a precedence for future actions in the country.  So now, any business has the right to do the same with their services.  Suddenly, it becomes trendy to refuse services to a minority.  They still make money, even moreso because they were in the news and have the backing of those also against the minority.  Then those ideas start to strengthen as the majority cannot fully relate to the minority and superiority is a very addictive quality to humans.  If you cannot be a success in life, at least you can be better than this one group of people.

These are the seeds that can blossom into a widespread and common distaste for that particular minority which can eventually escalate to mass actions such as camps or forced migration.  Not long and we have a culture obsessed with a task that doesn't benefit anyone and anything but their own egos.

It shouldn't be up to companies and citizens to protect the writes of minorities and stand up for them.  It should be the job of the nation's leadership to protect every citizen.

You and insidb need to check your hyperbole 

They might be right. This guy is the second coming of Hitler. The jews are next .No more kosher cakes, then a few months later, Gas chamber's.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Around the Network
I'm so torn over how to feel about this ruling. While I believe in religious freedom, the baker is also running a business. If you're going to discriminate who you bake cakes for, then all your customers should be screened, right? You shouldn't be baking for homosexuals, fornicators, adulterers, liars, people who cheat on income tax, people who do not pay back their debtors, theives (petty theft included), non-Christians, gluttons, etc; I find a lot of times religious people choose to follow their religion's respective guidelines when it's convenient for them.

eva01beserk said:
Maxosaurus-rex said:

You and insidb need to check your hyperbole 

They might be right. This guy is the second coming of Hitler. The jews are next .No more kosher cakes, then a few months later, Gas chamber's.

Considering this was a ruling which only had an impact on this case, I'm not worried about those things happening.

 

Next up, they are probably going to uphold the travel ban. 



CrazyGamer2017 said:

Laws/customs/culture can be very strange sometimes.

Here in Belgium, if a store refuses to serve someone based on their gender/beliefs/sexual orientation/color etc... That store would be guilty of discrimination.

I am really surprised that this is not the case in America. This ruling is clearly discriminatory, it's NOT the job or responsibility of the bakery to judge a customer's personal choices or life style. What's next? A store not serving a customer because he/she is black and then a tribunal upholding the ignorance of such a racist store?

Did you not read anything else before commenting?  That is not what happened.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-abortion-immigrant/us-high-court-throws-out-immigrant-teen-abortion-ruling-idUSKCN1J01RB

Around the Network
But of course, nobody should be forced to do anything they don't want to, that's absurd.
He doesn't want to make it, it's his own choice, how was that even a thing to be judged on?

Teeqoz said:
From wikipedia:
"The Court avoided ruling broadly on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and rights to free exercise.[29] Kennedy's decision specifically noted the hostility towards Phillips made by the Commission as their reason to reverse the ruling, but because of the existence of this hostility in the current case, they could not rule on the broader issue regarding anti-discrimination law and the free exercise of religion. Kennedy stated that "The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market".[30][31]"

Unless I'm misunderstanding (and perhaps my memory of how the US justice system works is flawed), this ruling isn't of the same type as the supreme court rulings that sets presedence for how the law is interpreted in future cases - it only relates to how this specific case was handled by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Just thought I should add this.

Thanks.  Most people don't seem to understand that the Supreme Court punted.  All they really did was acknowledge that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's specific behavior violated the the baker's rights by treating him with hostility instead of neutrally because of his religious beliefs.  Because of the narrowness of the ruling, they were able to cobble together a 7-2 majority.

It's been noted that Kennedy, who wrote the opinion, was torn between the two sides.  His expansive views of the rights of homosexuals and his strong 1st Amendment instincts were in conflict.

Court watchers are wondering if this will be Kennedy's last year on the court.  His refusing to answer the question could be interpreted as his method for protecting his legacy by not coming down on either side.



MasterThief said:

honestly. the two things aren't the same. sexuality is a difference subject that has to do with how you view it religiously as well. religion doesn't tell you to be racist tho

They're both biological factors one has little control over. How are they different when it comes to discrimination? Is one more okay to discriminate against than another? If serving a certain race conflicted with your religion, would it be okay to refuse them service because of that?



Kirin_gaming said:
CrazyGamer2017 said:

Laws/customs/culture can be very strange sometimes.

Here in Belgium, if a store refuses to serve someone based on their gender/beliefs/sexual orientation/color etc... That store would be guilty of discrimination.

I am really surprised that this is not the case in America. This ruling is clearly discriminatory, it's NOT the job or responsibility of the bakery to judge a customer's personal choices or life style. What's next? A store not serving a customer because he/she is black and then a tribunal upholding the ignorance of such a racist store?

So in Belgium, you can go to a Jewish owned bakery and demand a cake that says kill all Jews?

How does that even come close to the issue of the bakery? How do you compare a customer asking for a gay wedding cake to a customer demanding a line that says kill all Jews?

In what universe those two cases could ever bare the smallest similarity to each other?



.

No more bullying from mods with their abusive bans against me.

CrazyGamer2017 said:
Kirin_gaming said:

So in Belgium, you can go to a Jewish owned bakery and demand a cake that says kill all Jews?

How does that even come close to the issue of the bakery? How do you compare a customer asking for a gay wedding cake to a customer demanding a line that says kill all Jews?

In what universe those two cases could ever bare the smallest similarity to each other?

Both instances of being forced to do something you dont want to do. How different or severe thouse acts are is irrelevant.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.