Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

I just quoted you the case.... read the pdf... the boston globe linked to the pdf.
I don't know what mislead you but you are dead ass wrong.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/po...edding-cake/zEa90Ok1DbXrTJZ1Ln0hSP/story.html


UsualName said:
You are off your rocker. The court did not rule the baker had the right to discriminate but maintained the lower court’s ruling that businesses cannot deny equal access to goods and services.

As I mentioned before go read Newman v piggy park 1968. Religion is not a qualified standard to deny equal access.
More...
 
Last edited:
I am not a legal scholar, but I see it as:

Not selling a cake to someone because of their religious, sexual, (and soon to be political) believes and choices, is discrimination.

Forcing a baker to do a cake based on your 'own' religious, sexual, (and soon to be political) believes and choices is stupid liberal logic.
 
if you saying - if you sell cakes you can't refuse to sell cakes to a gay person but at the same time you don't have to create a cake with a pro gay message on it... you are probably guessing where this current court is.

its a very slippery slope but at least yesterday's decision avoided over the top fascism that the most lefties seem to support.

Optionpro007 said:
I am not a legal scholar, but I see it as:

Not selling a cake to someone because of their religious, sexual, (and soon to be political) believes and choices, is discrimination.

Forcing a baker to do a cake based on your 'own' religious, sexual, (and soon to be political) believes and choices is stupid liberal logic.
More...
 
jem said:
"For these reasons, the Commissions treatment of Phillip's case violated the States duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or a religious viewpoint.
More...

This is disappointing, Trojan Horse language from the Court. I can see it being exploited to challenge reasonable measures to counter Islamic terrorism. So we are not allowed to oppose jihad, a core muslim belief? And please, no one embarrass themselves by saying it means struggle. Jihad means to fight the enemies of islam, eg all other religions, by any means necessary.
 
UsualName said:
In short, if you want to open your business to the public you have to abide by the public laws, including discrimination.
More...

What if the state passed a law requiring you to post a pro Trump poster in your window. Would that be ok? After all, they passed a law and applied it to people running a business. The correct answer is it would be illegal under the First Amendment. The state cannot force anyone to advocate for a political question.

So why aren't you willing to give the free exercise clause the same deference? Why aren't the baker's constitutional rights paramount to some SJW's hurt feelings? The fact that progressives do not respect religion is not really an adequate answer.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
What if the state passed a law requiring you to post a pro Trump poster in your window. Would that be ok? After all, they passed a law and applied it to people running a business. The correct answer is it would be illegal under the First Amendment. The state cannot force anyone to advocate for a political question.

So why aren't you willing to give the free exercise clause the same deference? Why aren't the baker's constitutional rights paramount to some SJW's hurt feelings? The fact that progressives do not respect religion is not really an adequate answer.
More...

Come on, that is such a weak and invalid argument, it’s not even relevant.
 
I will type this for you in the court's exact words...
your news sources must be slanted... for you to have this so wrong. .


" The judgement of the Colorado Court of Appeals is reversed."


Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court... "


I quoted you the holding one page back.
The Colorado Govt was intolerant of the bakers rights and the baker won.


UsualName said:
What are you arguing? Are you saying the scotus ruling overturned the lower court’s ruling and found the baker is allowed to deny gay people wedding cakes?
More...
 
Last edited:
jem said:
I will type this for you in the court's exact words...
you news sources must be slanted... for you to have this so wrong. .
look at the very last words of the opinion...

"reversed.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court... "
More...

What do you think was reversed?
 
I know the ruling of the Colorado Appellate court was reversed. Its a fact.


The Colorado appellate court affirmed the ruling of the Colorado administrative law court in favor of the gay couple and against the baker. The lower state court rejected the baker's claim that requiring to bake a cake for a same sex wedding would violate his first amendment rights and his right to the free exercise of religion.
(you can read this in the first paragraph of the US. Supreme Court opinion)

then

the US supreme court reversed the Colorado Court. Finding for the Baker saying the state of Colorado was intolerant of the Baker's rights.




UsualName said:
What do you think was reversed?
More...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top