Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ode2Joy

Supreme Court sides with baker in gay cake flap

211 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, Manny said:

NBC is saying this 7-2 decision is “narrowly.” This is likely being done on purpose to make it look like those mean conservatives are responsible. NBC employees can get their cake made elsewhere. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna872946

Good grief... they are saying it was narrowly decided because the scope of the decision was extremely narrow.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hst2 said:

Fortunately, this court does not affirm discrimination, yet. It appears to have ruled that the state must take the baker's absurd religious beliefs seriously before ruling against him.

Where do you get the authority to decide if someone else's religious beliefs are serious or absurd.  You need to check your privilege as the saying goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

Then I as a Catholic have every right not to patronize your business. You have the right to not baking my cake.....I have the right to take my money and find someone that will. Simple as that.

You can't tell me.....that in ALL of Colorado there is not ONE baker that could make that cake. 

No, sorry IMO....this whole thing was more about SJ's making a statement....not about the cake. 

Ridiculous. You may want us to go back to "No Colored"  type signs in business windows, but I hope most people find that antithetical to the principles to which our nation aspires. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the ruling cited above.

Quote

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and BREYER, ALITO, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Southerners attempted to use religious beliefs in their opposition to segregation. Court basically punted on the hard questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SemiAuto said:

Where do you get the authority to decide if someone else's religious beliefs are serious or absurd.  You need to check your privilege as the saying goes.

"Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Baltimatt said:

So, should we scrap discrimination laws?

No. 

But maybe we as a people should start using a bit of common sense. As it appears the court did. 

Look, there is a product that only ONE entity can provide....(like much of what the government provides).... then yes....the law should apply. But as I said....he is the one and only baker? If all the bakers in Colorado got together and would not bake a cake for the couple. Yes sure.

So..... I love fresh Polish produce and sausage and stuff. Should I be able to sue Giant because they don't carry it? I want it .... I want it my way? 

Yes set up a Guido section in the Giant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 minutes ago, hst2 said:

"Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."

Link

II am really tired of your nonsense and pseudo intellectualism.  

Edited by Guido2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, michiganjoe said:

Southerners attempted to use religious beliefs in their opposition to segregation. Court basically punted on the hard questions.

I think you meant integration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hst2 said:

Ridiculous. You may want us to go back to "No Colored"  type signs in business windows, but I hope most people find that antithetical to the principles to which our nation aspires. 

 

As opposed to aspiring to be anti-white.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, michiganjoe said:

Southerners attempted to use religious beliefs in their opposition to segregation. Court basically punted on the hard questions.

ahhhh didn't you mean de-segregation. If not.... I am confused base on what I know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Guido2 said:

II am really tired of your nonsense. 

Then don't respond or put him on ignore.  Pretty simple.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

30 minutes ago, SemiAuto said:

It is the right call even though I don't agree with what Mr. Phillips is doing.  If he wants to put his religion ahead of doing business then that is up to him.   It is a terrible way to run a bakery.

I agree with you on this. It's kind of a legal/moral argument. It's still discrimination but it didn't pass the "being unconstitutional" test. Bigotry, even acts of bigotry, is not unconstitutional. Now if the gay couple would have had their own religion (sincere of course ;) ) and made their argument on religious grounds, then they might have had a stronger argument.

Edited by NCBirdfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 minutes ago, Baltimatt said:

Then don't respond or put him on ignore.  Pretty simple.  

Nahhh it is too much fun taking pot shots and showing what ... he is. 

Edited by Baltimatt
Personal attack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

No. 

But maybe we as a people should start using a bit of common sense. As it appears the court did. 

Look, there is a product that only ONE entity can provide....(like much of what the government provides).... then yes....the law should apply. But as I said....he is the one and only baker? If all the bakers in Colorado got together and would not bake a cake for the couple. Yes sure.

So..... I love fresh Polish produce and sausage and stuff. Should I be able to sue Giant because they don't carry it? I want it .... I want it my way? 

Yes set up a Guido section in the Giant. 

Colorado is a big state.  What if you had to drive to Cumberland if you needed something that wouldn't be sold to you (but to other people).

As far as the Polish sausage and stuff, Giant is not discriminating against you, they just don't sell the stuff.

http://ostrowskiofbankstreetsausage.com/where_to_buy_our_sausage

Or if you're up my way https://www.facebook.com/Polish-Deli-172663522837537/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hst2 said:

"Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."

Link

The government exists with the free exercise of religion.   Mr. Phillips is not a law of the land, just for his bakery.

If the Mormons want to practice polygamy then that is up to them. :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

ahhhh didn't you mean de-segregation. If not.... I am confused base on what I know. 

Desegregation or integration, take your pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

Nahhh it is too much fun taking pot shots and showing what ... he is. 

Then prepare to have posts edited or removed for personal attacks, or even getting a warning point.

Edited by Baltimatt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NCBirdfan said:

I agree with you on this. It's kind of a legal/moral argument. It's still discrimination but it didn't pass the "being unconstitutional" test. Bigotry, even acts of bigotry, is not unconstitutional. Now if the gay couple would have had their own religion (sincere of course ;) ) then they might have had a stronger argument.

Question:

If I as a white guy walk into a BMW dealership....all scruffy from working in the yard....smelling of beer....haven't shaved in a week.

Do you think the salesperson(s) will discriminate against me? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Guido2 said:

Question:

If I as a white guy walk into a BMW dealership....all scruffy from working in the yard....smelling of beer....haven't shaved in a week.

Do you think the salesperson(s) will discriminate against me? 

Not if was a good salesperson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

II am really tired of your nonsense and pseudo intellectualism.  

Posting a link to a previous supreme court ruling is nonsense and pseudo intellectualism? This coming from the poster child of "what if" scenarios that'll never happen and "back in my day" tirades that deviate far from the topic at hand?

You may criticize a poster for doing certain things, sure, but posting links to supreme court decisions is not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Baltimatt said:

Colorado is a big state.  What if you had to drive to Cumberland if you needed something that wouldn't be sold to you (but to other people).

As far as the Polish sausage and stuff, Giant is not discriminating against you, they just don't sell the stuff.

http://ostrowskiofbankstreetsausage.com/where_to_buy_our_sausage

Or if you're up my way https://www.facebook.com/Polish-Deli-172663522837537/

By the lines.

Yes it is....nor do I know if there is another bakery within reasonable driving distance....but I bet there is. 

No they are discriminating. Just because they don't carry it....they should....they are discrimination against my taste buds. 

And If I am supposed to go to NJ to get my kielbasa fix....a large distance.....then why can't they drive to find a cake. 

BTW I know you have a stake in this....so....I understand your thinking 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to see all of our Legal Scholars posting today!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NCBirdfan said:

Not if was a good salesperson.

To bad you live so far away. I would invite you over for about 2 days yard work....a few beers.....and we could take a ride over to a BMW or Mecedes dealership. Ohhhhh and we could use my beat up 1986 Jeep for trade in.

And watch what happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0