U.S. top court's cake case pits gay rights versus Christian faith

[Rigby40]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

To be fair, one can find assorted of idiocy being broadcast on the internet.

 

That doesn’T make it true but it can be at least claimed as having been ‘read’, ‘heared’ or ‘said’.

Hey it's all good man. This couldn't possibly be happening, nobody is fighting back against the gay agenda, it's all in my head ? You're right, I'm wrong.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Rigby40

[seajae]

thankfully the baker won and charges were dismissed, as he stated he would have sold them any cakes that were already made but because of his strong beliefs he could not use his own imagination/artistry to create something special that went totally against his beliefs. He also refused to make special products for those that were anti gay or any other hate group as again it was not be what he believed in, at the time it was also illegal for them to marry in the same state and the wedding was taking place in another state , this really does sound like a set up to push a point. Everyone has a right to self determination, he was not promoting hate etc he was simply going with his beliefs, at no time did he refuse to sell them anything else already made, just not something he would have to do from scratch, only those with something to push are offended by this, really need to accept he was no out to cause conflict but simply to follow what he believed in which is why he finally won(7 to 2) as the court agreed just as they had their rights he had his religious rights as well and could not be forced to go against them

 

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by seajae

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, Rigby40 said:

Hey it's all good man. This couldn't possibly be happening, nobody is fighting back against the gay agenda, it's all in my head ? You're right, I'm wrong.

Don’t get me wrong Rigby, I don’t dispute their are people resisting the demands of gay people to be treated equally and without discrimination on the basis of the sexual orientation.

 

What surprises me is the eagerness of illiberals, who elsewhere rant against people imposing their religious beliefs on others, cheering in support of a baker claiming the right to discriminate against others on the basis of his own faith.

 

 

[Jonah Tenner]

On 12/10/2017 at 1:16 AM, Jingthing said:

A clever tactic by the religious right to attack gay civil rights. They've been open about their plans for years now. 

It's easy to get suckered into seeing their POV as reasonable. That's why this tactic is so INSIDIOUS. 

 

 

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/12/08/clueless_straight_white_guys_excuse_religious_homophobia.html

 

The best description of homophobia.

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Jonah Tenner

[Jingthing]

 
First statement: "I heard a lot of those bakers are taking their money and..."
 
Next statement: "I heard some people talking about doing it..."
 
From 'doing it' to 'talking about doing it'.  I fully expect the next statement to be "A friend of a friend told me that she heard some people were talking about it..."
 
The reality is, it's not happening no matter who you overheard "talking about it".  
 
 

Sounds like something "trump" would say. He often says dodgy stuff like people are saying when it's basically him saying it. Cheap propaganda trick but it works for some.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

What surprises me is the eagerness of illiberals, who elsewhere rant against people imposing their religious beliefs on others...

 

 

 

I think your basic misunderstanding is that the baker in question didn't impose his religious beliefs on others but that he imposed it on himself. 

[Krataiboy]

On 12/2/2017 at 10:10 AM, Krataiboy said:

I'm not sure you're right. A lot of people think the stand this baker made was justified and that an important principle is at stake here. Why should the rights of one minority group trump those of another? 

A victory for common sense:

 

US Supreme Court backs Colorado baker's gay wedding cake snub

 

Details: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44361162

 

• Share this with Facebook
•  
• Share this with Twitter
•  
• Share this with Messenger
•  
• Share this with Email
•  
• Share

 

Image copyrightREUTERS  

 

•  

• LinkedIn

 

[Rigby40]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Don’t get me wrong Rigby, I don’t dispute their are people resisting the demands of gay people to be treated equally and without discrimination on the basis of the sexual orientation.

 

What surprises me is the eagerness of illiberals, who elsewhere rant against people imposing their religious beliefs on others, cheering in support of a baker claiming the right to discriminate against others on the basis of his own faith.

And don't get me wrong either, I was in full support of gay marriage then I saw what it morphed into and now I'm fully in support of those who are against it. I should be thanking people like you for helping me see the light, so to speak : )

Continue to double down though because we just keep gaining momentum when people leave your side and join ours. Many thanks.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, lannarebirth said:

 

I think your basic misunderstanding is that the baker in question didn't impose his religious beliefs on others but that he imposed it on himself. 

What because he really wanted to sell the gay couple a cake?

 

Clearly rationalising support of religion over other people’s right to be treated without prejudice requires some mental gymnastics, but I expected something more astute than that bit of nonsense.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Rigby40 said:

And don't get me wrong either, I was in full support of gay marriage then I saw what it morphed into and now I'm fully in support of those who are against it. I should be thanking people like you for helping me see the light, so to speak : )

Continue to double down though because we just keep gaining momentum when people leave your side and join ours. Many thanks.

 

You know gay rights will not be rescinded. 

 

Hence your anger.

 

 

[Rigby40]

6 minutes ago, Jonah Tenner said:

 

The best description of homophobia.

 

ugh.. this is extremely homophilic.

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What because he really wanted to sell the gay couple a cake?

 

Clearly rationalising support of religion over other people’s right to be treated without prejudice requires some mental gymnastics, but I expected something more astute than that bit of nonsense.

 

That's a really stupid reply. It is exactly what I expected. You seem like the kind of person who would go into a kosher deli and order a pulled pork sandwich and then raise holy hell because they wouldn't serve it to you.

[Rigby40]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You know gay rights will not be rescinded. 

 

Hence your anger.

 

 

oh I'm not angry one bit. I know this world is doomed to be taken over by evil and degeneracy anyway.

All I can do is live my life the way I see it and raise all my children in the same manner.

[Jonah Tenner]

8 minutes ago, Rigby40 said:

ugh.. this is extremely homophilic.

Only in your mind, for me, neutral.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

That's a really stupid reply. It is exactly what I expected. You seem like the kind of person who would go into a kosher deli and order a pulled pork sandwich and then raise holy hell because they wouldn't serve it to you.

Now there’s a stupid argument.

 

Why would anyone go into a Kosher deli and ask for pulled pork?

 

You’re resort to hyperbole needs to be grounded in at least a bit of logic.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, Rigby40 said:

oh I'm not angry one bit. I know this world is doomed to be taken over by evil and degeneracy anyway.

All I can do is live my life the way I see it and raise all my children in the same manner.

Just keep them away from all this ‘evil and degeneracy’ you’re so obsessed with (oddly).

[Opl]

17 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

That's a really stupid reply. It is exactly what I expected. You seem like the kind of person who would go into a kosher deli and order a pulled pork sandwich and then raise holy hell because they wouldn't serve it to you.

The comparison is not relevant: a kosher deli defines what it sells by opposition to what it does not.

A kosher deli does not define it's business by discriminating its service to customers relying on the business owner's faith and beliefs!   

Edited June 7, 2018 by Opl

[spidermike007]

This does seem to be a case of narrow mindedness. A man very blinded by church dogma. I do not want to sound too critical or judgmental here (as we are discussing the case of a man who appears to be overly judgmental), but my guess is that if this guy really took his religion or spirituality seriously (I am not referring to someone who calls himself a Christian, goes to church once a week, or twice a month, and never, ever spends any time in prayer, contemplation, meditation, or makes an attempt to perceive spiritual truth, and does real "inner" work) he might have been more capable, and willing to embody a greater sense of understanding, compassion, empathy, community, love, generosity, and kindness of spirit. 

 

Sorry, but this does look like an example of what I refer to as a pseudo Christian, who wears his so called beliefs on his shirt sleeve, and is making an "outward" point by refusing these gentlemen the service of baking a cake for them. In other words, a way of earning brownie points with other pseudo religious folks, with little to no understanding of truth or spirit, and a high degree of intolerance, combined with a very closed mind, and an astonishing degree of ignorance. 

 

Just my opinion, and point of view. I do not mean to offend. However, I see alot of people who call themselves religious, whether they be Jews, Christians, Muslims or Buddhists, but their behavior on an everyday basis, and the way they treat their fellow man, and conduct their lives, and their business rarely conveys, or reflects what they claim to be their religion, or belief system. 

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, Berkshire said:

While what you're saying may make perfect sense to, say, a typical Christian, I do wonder about the precedence that it sets.  Which is to say, "discrimination is perfectly ok so long as it's based on religious teachings."  So discrimination could be ok against people of other religions, ethnicities, race, sex...so long as it's based on my religious convictions....?  What if a Muslim baker refuses to service a female customer who's not wearing a hijab?  I assume your support of religious freedom includes all religions. 

I agree that a Muslim baker should have the right to refuse to serve a woman that does not conform to his beliefs. As long as someone can get a cake somewhere else, who cares? 

IMO such regulations should only apply to FEDERAL and LOCAL GOVERNMENT agencies, as they have a duty to serve everyone.

Private business owners should have the right to live as they choose.

Apparently, PC has bred a generation of people that are choosing to destroy other people because they disagree with their opinions, and unfortunately the federal government is assisting them to do so.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

making an "outward" point by refusing these gentlemen the service of baking a cake for them.

Apart from pointing out he didn't refuse to bake them a cake ( he only refused to make it overtly homosexual ), his reasons for declining service should be nothing to do with the federal government. Where he went wrong was giving them the ammunition to attack him with. He should have declined without stating a reason. Surely it is still up to an individual that works for themselves to decide what they do?

[spidermike007]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree that a Muslim baker should have the right to refuse to serve a woman that does not conform to his beliefs. As long as someone can get a cake somewhere else, who cares? 

IMO such regulations should only apply to FEDERAL and LOCAL GOVERNMENT agencies, as they have a duty to serve everyone.

Private business owners should have the right to live as they choose.

Apparently, PC has bred a generation of people that are choosing to destroy other people because they disagree with their opinions, and unfortunately the federal government is assisting them to do so.

Well, the same thing can be said about intolerance in general. It is ugly. It demonstrates a tremendous degree of ignorance, and has nothing to do with religion or especially with spirituality. It is about separation, not a sense of community. I do not like governmental interference in one's affairs. But, I dislike ignorant intolerance even more. In the extreme, the Wahhabi Muslims, and the orthodox Jews are great examples of this, and both demonstrate an extreme arrogance, and sense of superiority, that is dangerous to society. 

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Well, the same thing can be said about intolerance in general. It is ugly. It demonstrates a tremendous degree of ignorance, and has nothing to do with religion or especially with spirituality. It is about separation, not a sense of community. I do not like governmental interference in one's affairs. But, I dislike ignorant intolerance even more. In the extreme, the Wahhabi Muslims, and the orthodox Jews are great examples of this, and both demonstrate an extreme arrogance, and sense of superiority, that is dangerous to society. 

Agreed about that.

However in the case in the OP, he may have offended them, but he did not deny them the right to have a cake, as they obviously had one. This, IMO, is more about activists using the power of the government to destroy people they disagree with. If I were to sue everyone that has offended me, I'd be involved in hundreds of cases.

[spidermike007]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Agreed about that.

However in the case in the OP, he may have offended them, but he did not deny them the right to have a cake, as they obviously had one. This, IMO, is more about activists using the power of the government to destroy people they disagree with. If I were to sue everyone that has offended me, I'd be involved in hundreds of cases.

Just like Tiny Don. He was involved in 3,600 lawsuits, at the time he took office. Perhaps more than any man in history? Quite a legacy.

[Jingthing]

The odd thing about this case is that even though the anti-gay bigots are celebrating this ruling as a huge legal victory, actually, it is not.

 

Quote

 

NEW YORK TIMES In Masterpiece, Kennedy Solidifies His L.G.B.T. Legacy

By ruling narrowly in the case, the Supreme Court declined an invitation to set off political dynamite.

 

The most talented and subtle politician in the country showed this week, once again, that he has L.G.B.T. Americans’ back. Justice Anthony Kennedy led a seven-member Supreme Court majority in a decision that superficially looks like a defeat for gay and lesbian people — but is, in reality, one more rung quietly added to the rising ladder of equality.

 

 

 

http://www.paywallnews.com/life/Opinion-|-In-Masterpiece--Kennedy-Solidifies-His-L-G-B-T--Legacy.rkPcj3Sx7.html

 

But if those guys THINK it is, I do fear more of those haters will act out against LGBT people in real life. We already see that with the "trump" election -- the haters feel empowered and backed up from the top. 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Jingthing

[Rigby40]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

But if those guys THINK it is, I do fear more of those haters will act out against LGBT people in real life. We already see that with the "trump" election -- the haters feel empowered and backed up from the top. 

Yes, expect more hate crime hoaxes.

[thaibeachlovers]

I just googled and the baker won his case, though it probably ruined him anyway.  7 to 2 for him.  Seems that SCOTUS supports those of us that believe the baker was unfairly penalised.  Chalk up a win for common sense.

 

Unfortunately, this judgement was only about him- expect more similar cases in the future.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The odd thing about this case is that even though the anti-gay bigots are celebrating this ruling as a huge legal victory, actually, it is not.

 

 

 

http://www.paywallnews.com/life/Opinion-|-In-Masterpiece--Kennedy-Solidifies-His-L-G-B-T--Legacy.rkPcj3Sx7.html

 

But if those guys THINK it is, I do fear more of those haters will act out against LGBT people in real life. We already see that with the "trump" election -- the haters feel empowered and backed up from the top. 

This case was nothing about "hate" and all about activists using the power of the state to penalise people that they didn't like.

The SCOTUS doesn't support hate.

 

If one wants to see real hate, just read some of the media opinions about POTUS.

Edited June 7, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[manarak]

18 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Nope. Business offering goods and services to the public are required to operate under the law. By your POV, it would be OK to not sell cakes or hotel rooms to people based on any flavor of identity. Face it, this was a case at all because LGBT people are of a class of people that sorely lacks equal legal civil rights in the USA. 

 

The USA has been there/done that with other groups of people. Still work to do for LGBT people.

 

 

 

I would make an exception to the laws for small businesses, artists, freelance workers, etc.

Employees in a corporation are not entitled to choose their customers. I think it's different for small business owners.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

 

[Credo]

I am sure there will be more court challenges and some will likely make clear where the line in the sand is drawn on this and similar issues that involve religious beliefs.   

Some may recall that there have been problems with Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to transport people carrying alcohol or who have a dog (including seeing-eye dogs).   Since one of the largest airports, Minneapolis-St. Paul, had something like 3/4 of the drivers being Muslim, this is/was a big issue.