jetero
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:20 pm

Blerg wrote:
It's historic as it represents one of the first large and important victories for those who are fighting to preserve natural marriage.


It's historic for those who believe that not baking a cake somehow "preserves" "natural" marriage. Blerg.

Blerg wrote:
The fight between conservatives and leftists is far from over, despite the ruling. Interesting times ahead if you are a conservative ... especially as Trump keeps on appointing Christian judges.


You allude to the politicization of the judiciary, which is decidedly not conservative in the least. Nor is the idea of using religious beliefs as a basis for court decisions--not sure why that one's up for debate, either.

(Oh yay . . . glad this one jumped on top of the original post. I'll say it was God's will . . . thanks God!)
Last edited by jetero on Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Blerg
Topic Author
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:24 pm

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a Colorado Christian who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Two liberal judges joined the five conservative ones in a historic ruling. It's historic as it represents one of the first large and important victories for those who are fighting to preserve natural marriage.

The Court stated that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed impermissible hostility towards religion when it claimed the baker violated the state's anti-discrimination law. They concluded that the commission violated the baker's religious rights enshrined in the US Constitution (First Amendment).

The two liberal judges who sided with the Christian baker were Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions expressed his satisfaction with the decision. He stated the following:

'"The First Amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against citizens on the basis of religious beliefs," Sessions said. "The Supreme Court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs. In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom First Amendment rights of all Americans."'

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme ... asons.html

The fight between conservatives and leftists is far from over, despite the ruling. Interesting times ahead if you are a conservative ... especially as Trump keeps on appointing Christian judges.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2528
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:30 pm

Blerg wrote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a Colorado Christian who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Two liberal judges joined the five conservative ones in a historic ruling. It's historic as it represents one of the first large and important victories for those who are fighting to preserve natural marriage.

The Court stated that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed impermissible hostility towards religion when it claimed the baker violated the state's anti-discrimination law. They concluded that the commission violated the baker's religious rights enshrined in the US Constitution (First Amendment).

The two liberal judges who sided with the Christian baker were Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions expressed his satisfaction with the decision. He stated the following:

'"The First Amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against citizens on the basis of religious beliefs," Sessions said. "The Supreme Court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs. In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom First Amendment rights of all Americans."'

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme ... asons.html

The fight between conservatives and leftists is far from over, despite the ruling. Interesting times ahead if you are a conservative ... especially as Trump keeps on appointing Christian judges.

The court was very explicit that this ruling is about due process, and not the actual result. Also, considering this court is ideologically identical to the court that made the 2015 marriage ruling and is different by only one justice (Scalia vs. Gorusch), I wouldn’t get too excited about the “fight for natural marriage.” For what it’s worth, the author of the majority opinion was the same as in Obergefell vs. Hodge, Anthony Kennedy.

As a married gay man, I personally believe people should be entitled to serve whomever the please in their PRIVATE businesses, as long as they don’t turn that into a grandiose crusade to have the government tell me what I can and cannot do in my home. For those who do not agree with gay marriage, remember that. For all the squawking about government intrusion when it comes to cakes, many of those same people have no qualms whatsoever with the government intruding on the ability of others to engage in a personal contract with whomever they please, affecting things like taxes, decedent benefits, and health care. In my humble opinion, such a pushback wouldn’t have been so forceful if there hadn’t been such a bullish and petty effort such as DOMA and the various state laws that followed it. Gays are people just like everybody else, and can be just as resentful and vindictive as anyone else. So while I don’t want anyone’s rights trampled on, remember that we reap what we sow.

My take is live and let live. You don’t want me in your bakery? Fine. Politely say so and I’ll take my six figure income elsewhere and you’ll stay out of my personal legal matters that don’t affect you. I don’t want you there any more than you wanted to cater my wedding.
Last edited by luckyone on Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
jetero
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:44 pm

slider wrote:
I'm glad you acknowledged the "reap what you sow" concept, because the plaintiffs in this case were spiteful, vindictive, and pursued this as bullies, IMO.


Ermmmmmmmm . . . OK. :?
 
slider
Posts: 6994
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:46 pm

Luckyone- well said! I agree with your sentiment completely.

Freedom of association is a critical thing to protect. Likewise, as long as one's civil rights aren't being breached, live and let live entirely. I'm glad you acknowledged the "reap what you sow" concept, because the plaintiffs in this case were spiteful, vindictive, and pursued this as bullies, IMO. You're spot on about finding someone else that will gladly exchanges goods and services in this economy freely and take my money and business elsewhere. I'm with you all the way on your post.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2528
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:56 pm

slider wrote:
I'm glad you acknowledged the "reap what you sow" concept, because the plaintiffs in this case were spiteful, vindictive, and pursued this as bullies, IMO.

Yup, the nastiness you describe was an equal retort to years of petty policies.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 13343
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:04 pm

I do fear this case will overly encourage the anti-GLTBQ, phony religious people and affect future cases before the SCOTUS on gender rights and other discrimination issues.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 15549
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:10 pm

Blerg wrote:
It's historic as it represents one of the first large and important victories for those who are fighting to preserve natural marriage.


What exactly is "natural marriage" and how does one "preserve" it? Methinks you're talking nonsense. :crazy:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
seb146
Posts: 16998
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:29 pm

So it will be Constitutional when I refuse service to someone based only on their Christianity. Cool.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 1898
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:30 pm

scbriml wrote:
Blerg wrote:
It's historic as it represents one of the first large and important victories for those who are fighting to preserve natural marriage.


What exactly is "natural marriage" and how does one "preserve" it? Methinks you're talking nonsense. :crazy:

If we want to pull the fancy books out and argue the points, then marriage itself is about as unnatural as it gets.

The way the male and female reproductive urges and inbuilt desire for a male to spread it around is part of humans' genetic heritage.

So this makes marriage into something anchored in another powerful force. That of love. So why does this mean it can't be two men or two women?

It's just unnatural, and is anchored in the emergent property of love. You know, that thing the Jesus feller is supposed to have preached about....
 
User avatar
jdstJD
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:40 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:00 pm

ltbewr wrote:
I do fear this case will overly encourage the anti-GLTBQ, phony religious people and affect future cases before the SCOTUS on gender rights and other discrimination issues.


I agree. In it's opinion, though, the court does attempt to stress that the ruling is limited to the specific facts as presented in the record and the application of the competing constitutional principles raised by this particular case. I think the court recognizes that the scope of this opinion will have to be flushed out through future litigation that will test limitations of the ruling.

I do definitely see a flood gate opening where many social conservatives will take this opportunity to rely on this opinion to promote their beliefs that they should be able to discriminate on a number of bases beyond that of LGBTQ and the ground that to provide a service to the person/persons would compel them to act in contrevention on their religious beliefs.

Now, the facts of this case and the fundamental basis for the Court's position today is that the cake shop owner successfully argued that it was the unique nature of his artistic talent in making the cakes he makes that make this form of service one that he should be allowed to offer only to particular people in accordance with his religious beliefs. This is one way the opinion will be said in the future to be very limited. Future plaintiffs will have to show that the service being denied them on a discriminatory basis was one that is not particularly unique or artistic in nature so as to take the service out of the realm of "public" for the purpose of the constitutional "equal protection" analysis. In my experience, the more localized and personalized a discriminatory act is, the less likely a court will find it justified to interfere with the actor's constitutional rights (whatever the might be given the claim that is raised). Constitutional protections are there, for the most part, to restrict government overreach into the private affairs, actions, and conduct of citizens. It is only under extreme circumstances that the courts will intervene when purely private disputes arise regarding the provision of goods and services. It is typically only when the dispute implicates civil rights protections afforded by federal statute and when the actor's conduct had the likelihood of burdening a large number of citizens who are similarly situated, or when the discriminatory conduct or it's effects could reasonably be attributed to the government that the court will find it more justifiable to intercede.

So basically, as in most cases that are addressed by the courts, whether a particular opinion will or will not affect future similar scenarios down the road, as we lawyers find ourselves saying almost on a daily basis, it depends.
Lawyer, frequent air traveler and aviation enthusiast.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:03 pm

Don't get it, if you are against same-sex marriage, just marry someone for the opposite sex, problem solved. Why do you want to put your own morals on others when it doesn't effect you.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:32 pm

It just goes to show you, that you cannot have your cake, nor can you eat the cake that you cannot have. :trophy:
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling
 
jetero
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:43 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
A business owner should be allowed to serve or not serve whoever they want.


There's a rather fraught history in the U.S. with such a position.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11368
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:48 pm

Who cares?? I wouldn’t have a problem if a gay baker refused to bake for a straight couple. A business owner should be allowed to serve or not serve whoever they want.
 
2122M
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:52 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Who cares?? I wouldn’t have a problem if a gay baker refused to bake for a straight couple. A business owner should be allowed to serve or not serve whoever they want.


Well, that gets a little tricky. Can a landlord refuse to rent an apartment to a gay couple? Can a private bank refuse a loan to a black person? My understanding is that the Supreme Court took pains to be clear that this result applied to this specific example only to avoid going down that rabbit hole.

And for the record, I agree with you. I don't know why a gay couple would want an openly bigoted baker making their wedding cake. If I were black probably wouldn't go shopping at David Duke's garage sale either. But the tricky bit is deciding at what point it is illegal to refuse service based on sexuality/race/gender etc...
 
jetero
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:31 pm

Blerg wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Don't get it, if you are against same-sex marriage, just marry someone for the opposite sex, problem solved. Why do you want to put your own morals on others when it doesn't effect you.


Because it's not just about marriage, it's also about indoctrination.


Indoctrination of what?

The whole love-your-neighbor thing?
 
Blerg
Topic Author
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:33 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Don't get it, if you are against same-sex marriage, just marry someone for the opposite sex, problem solved. Why do you want to put your own morals on others when it doesn't effect you.


Because it's not just about marriage, it's also about indoctrination. You live in Europe, we almost had the Estrella report passed in the European Parliament which would basically teach two year old how to masturbate and what interracial gay sex is. So it's not about who you marry it has to do with much more than that.

This decision is important because it sends a message to conservatives that the battle is not yet over and if they fight hard they can win... something that was impossible under the Obama administration.

Also, you are complaining about others putting their morals on others while you are doing exactly that.
 
bagoldex
Posts: 680
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:33 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:42 pm

Blerg wrote:
jetero wrote:
Blerg wrote:

Because it's not just about marriage, it's also about indoctrination.


Indoctrination of what?

The whole love-your-neighbor thing?


Just because Christians fight to defend natural marriage doesn't mean they hate their opponents. After all, it seems to me these two gentlemen (bride and groom?) were the ones who were hateful as their harassment of a random Colorado baker went all the way to the US Supreme Court.


Christianity is a choice. Human sexuality isn't. Your religious beliefs do not supersede the rights of other people.
Last edited by bagoldex on Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
jetero
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:45 pm

Blerg wrote:
jetero wrote:
Blerg wrote:

Because it's not just about marriage, it's also about indoctrination.


Indoctrination of what?

The whole love-your-neighbor thing?


Just because Christians fight to defend natural marriage doesn't mean they hate their opponents. After all, it seems to me these two gentlemen (bride and groom?) were the ones who were hateful as their harassment of a random Colorado baker went all the way to the US Supreme Court.


Wow. Blerg.

Blerg buddy, your view of the world has direct implications for my life as I have no doubt that you would be happy to legislate all kinds of things that are part and parcel of who I am illegal.

Any "live and let live" view of the world on this matter has zero direct implications on your life, except somehow your "feelings" get out of whack.

Only an arrogant person would speak on behalf of God with such certainty. All of the New Testament stories that I grew up with make it quite clear to me that Jesus would've stepped in and baked the "bride and groom" (WTH is that, BTW, Blergy?) a cake himself.

Definite Blerg.
 
Blerg
Topic Author
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:46 pm

jetero wrote:
Blerg wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Don't get it, if you are against same-sex marriage, just marry someone for the opposite sex, problem solved. Why do you want to put your own morals on others when it doesn't effect you.


Because it's not just about marriage, it's also about indoctrination.


Indoctrination of what?

The whole love-your-neighbor thing?


Just because Christians fight to defend natural marriage doesn't mean they hate their opponents. After all, it seems to me these two gentlemen (bride and groom?) were the ones who were hateful as their harassment of a random Colorado baker went all the way to the US Supreme Court.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 10127
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:48 pm

I don't think religious fanatics should really go down the road of the right to indoctrinate...
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 7742
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:53 pm

Blerg wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Don't get it, if you are against same-sex marriage, just marry someone for the opposite sex, problem solved. Why do you want to put your own morals on others when it doesn't effect you.


Because it's not just about marriage, it's also about indoctrination. You live in Europe, we almost had the Estrella report passed in the European Parliament which would basically teach two year old how to masturbate and what interracial gay sex is. So it's not about who you marry it has to do with much more than that.

I am curious what is the concern with teaching kids about sex and relations etc? My children all knew about sexuality at a young age as it is a human condition (and are currently stable, non-sex-crazed nor confused young adults working on graduating from high school with straight A's etc.).

Are you thinking that you should not teach children if your religion proclaims that children should not be educated? Already we deal with the foolish idea that kids shouldn't be taught about evolution and the origins of the universe etc. Honestly it is the adults that have the problem, not the children.

Now regarding the baker and the "cake decision": Would a baker be required to bake a "halal" cake for a Muslim person, or a kosher cake for a Jewish person?

Tugg
Last edited by Tugger on Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
Blerg
Topic Author
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:55 pm

Aesma wrote:
I don't think religious fanatics should really go down the road of the right to indoctrinate...


I absolutely agree with you on that one.
 
bagoldex
Posts: 680
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:33 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:58 pm

Blerg wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Blerg wrote:

Because it's not just about marriage, it's also about indoctrination. You live in Europe, we almost had the Estrella report passed in the European Parliament which would basically teach two year old how to masturbate and what interracial gay sex is. So it's not about who you marry it has to do with much more than that.

I am curious what is the concern with teaching kids about sex and relations etc? My children all knew about sexuality at a young age as it is a human condition (and are currently stable, non-sex-crazed nor confused young adults working on graduating from high school with straight A's etc.).

Are you thinking that you should not teach children if your religion proclaims that children should not be educated? Already we deal with the foolish idea that kids shouldn't be taught about evolution and the origins of the universe etc. Honestly it is the adults that have the problem, not the children.

Tugg


I was referring to the Estrella report which proposed to teach kids as early as 3 about sex and sexual intercourse. Are you telling me that's an appropriate age for that?


Is it an appropriate age to be taught the fairy tales of Christianity? I don't think either is appropriate at that specific age but I'd rather have kids versed in the reality of their own lives than fiction.
 
Blerg
Topic Author
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:59 pm

Tugger wrote:
Blerg wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Don't get it, if you are against same-sex marriage, just marry someone for the opposite sex, problem solved. Why do you want to put your own morals on others when it doesn't effect you.


Because it's not just about marriage, it's also about indoctrination. You live in Europe, we almost had the Estrella report passed in the European Parliament which would basically teach two year old how to masturbate and what interracial gay sex is. So it's not about who you marry it has to do with much more than that.

I am curious what is the concern with teaching kids about sex and relations etc? My children all knew about sexuality at a young age as it is a human condition (and are currently stable, non-sex-crazed nor confused young adults working on graduating from high school with straight A's etc.).

Are you thinking that you should not teach children if your religion proclaims that children should not be educated? Already we deal with the foolish idea that kids shouldn't be taught about evolution and the origins of the universe etc. Honestly it is the adults that have the problem, not the children.

Tugg


I was referring to the Estrella report which proposed to teach kids as early as 3 about sex and sexual intercourse. Are you telling me that's an appropriate age for that?
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 7742
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:59 pm

Blerg wrote:
I was referring to the Estrella report which proposed to teach kids as early as 3 about sex and sexual intercourse. Are you telling me that's an appropriate age for that?

Hmmm.... well I know we discussed about where our kids came from with them at around that age (3? 4? 5?) when they asked. Also they knew that others should not be touching them in that area etc.

Is sex and sexual intercourse a bad thing to you? Do you think kids will go off and "do it" immediately upon learning about it? Haven;t kids been 'playing doctor" long enough without being told/taught anything long enough?

So I guess my answer is: Age appropriate education about sex and sexuality is appropriate at that and all ages (key words here: age appropriate).

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 15549
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:02 pm

Blerg wrote:
I was referring to the Estrella report which proposed to teach kids as early as 3 about sex and sexual intercourse. Are you telling me that's an appropriate age for that?


It doesn't matter, because the report was rejected. Worry about shit that does happen.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
seb146
Posts: 16998
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:06 pm

ltbewr wrote:
I do fear this case will overly encourage the anti-GLTBQ, phony religious people and affect future cases before the SCOTUS on gender rights and other discrimination issues.


That was already decided when Mitch McConnell decided to not hold hearings on Obama's nominee for Supreme Court justice and when McConnell also decided not to seat or hold hearings on many of Obama's court nominees.....
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
Blerg
Topic Author
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:09 pm

scbriml wrote:
Blerg wrote:
I was referring to the Estrella report which proposed to teach kids as early as 3 about sex and sexual intercourse. Are you telling me that's an appropriate age for that?


It doesn't matter, because the report was rejected. Worry about shit that does happen.


It was rejected because people actually got worried about it and fought against it.
 
User avatar
CitizenJustin
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:12 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:27 pm

Blerg wrote:
jetero wrote:
Blerg wrote:

Because it's not just about marriage, it's also about indoctrination.


Indoctrination of what?

The whole love-your-neighbor thing?


Just because Christians fight to defend natural marriage doesn't mean they hate their opponents. After all, it seems to me these two gentlemen (bride and groom?) were the ones who were hateful as their harassment of a random Colorado baker went all the way to the US Supreme Court.


Well I’m sure you’d support my right to deny you service based on your religion. I find Christians to be hostile towards many different things that are essential to my core beliefs. I’ve also been treated poorly both emotionally and physically by Christians throughout my life due to my sexual orientation. Therefore, I can’t allow you in my place of business and take the risk of you disrespecting members of my staff or customers. I’ll also deny you a job because you belong to a primitive belief system that continues to discriminate, oppress and behave violently towards several minorities.

I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but the sword swings both ways.
 
jetero
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Blerg wrote:
CitizenJustin wrote:
Blerg wrote:

Just because Christians fight to defend natural marriage doesn't mean they hate their opponents. After all, it seems to me these two gentlemen (bride and groom?) were the ones who were hateful as their harassment of a random Colorado baker went all the way to the US Supreme Court.


Well I’m sure you’d support my right to deny you service based on your religion. I find Christians to be hostile towards many different things that are essential to my core beliefs. I’ve also been treated poorly both emotionally and physically by Christians throughout my life due to my sexual orientation. Therefore, I can’t allow you in my place of business and take the risk of you disrespecting members of my staff or customers. I’ll also deny you a job because you belong to a primitive belief system that continues to discriminate, oppress and behave violently towards several minorities.

I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but the sword swings both ways.


The last time I checked it was two gays forcing a Christian to bake them a cake despite his primitive belief system that discriminated against them.


Force is strong with this one, boys. Total BLERG.
 
Blerg
Topic Author
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:29 pm

CitizenJustin wrote:
Blerg wrote:
jetero wrote:

Indoctrination of what?

The whole love-your-neighbor thing?


Just because Christians fight to defend natural marriage doesn't mean they hate their opponents. After all, it seems to me these two gentlemen (bride and groom?) were the ones who were hateful as their harassment of a random Colorado baker went all the way to the US Supreme Court.


Well I’m sure you’d support my right to deny you service based on your religion. I find Christians to be hostile towards many different things that are essential to my core beliefs. I’ve also been treated poorly both emotionally and physically by Christians throughout my life due to my sexual orientation. Therefore, I can’t allow you in my place of business and take the risk of you disrespecting members of my staff or customers. I’ll also deny you a job because you belong to a primitive belief system that continues to discriminate, oppress and behave violently towards several minorities.

I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but the sword swings both ways.


The last time I checked it was two gays forcing a Christian to bake them a cake despite his primitive belief system that discriminated against them.
 
DLFREEBIRD
Posts: 891
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:39 pm

its a Pyrrhic victory for Christian.
 
User avatar
CitizenJustin
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:12 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:54 pm

jetero wrote:
Blerg wrote:
CitizenJustin wrote:

Well I’m sure you’d support my right to deny you service based on your religion. I find Christians to be hostile towards many different things that are essential to my core beliefs. I’ve also been treated poorly both emotionally and physically by Christians throughout my life due to my sexual orientation. Therefore, I can’t allow you in my place of business and take the risk of you disrespecting members of my staff or customers. I’ll also deny you a job because you belong to a primitive belief system that continues to discriminate, oppress and behave violently towards several minorities.

I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but the sword swings both ways.


The last time I checked it was two gays forcing a Christian to bake them a cake despite his primitive belief system that discriminated against them.


Force is strong with this one, boys. Total BLERG.




What do you mean?
 
jetero
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:56 pm

CitizenJustin wrote:
jetero wrote:
Blerg wrote:

The last time I checked it was two gays forcing a Christian to bake them a cake despite his primitive belief system that discriminated against them.


Force is strong with this one, boys. Total BLERG.


What do you mean?


It seemed to me like your analogy flew right over Blerg's head . . . :crazy:
 
User avatar
CitizenJustin
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:12 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:00 pm

Blerg wrote:
CitizenJustin wrote:
Blerg wrote:

Just because Christians fight to defend natural marriage doesn't mean they hate their opponents. After all, it seems to me these two gentlemen (bride and groom?) were the ones who were hateful as their harassment of a random Colorado baker went all the way to the US Supreme Court.


Well I’m sure you’d support my right to deny you service based on your religion. I find Christians to be hostile towards many different things that are essential to my core beliefs. I’ve also been treated poorly both emotionally and physically by Christians throughout my life due to my sexual orientation. Therefore, I can’t allow you in my place of business and take the risk of you disrespecting members of my staff or customers. I’ll also deny you a job because you belong to a primitive belief system that continues to discriminate, oppress and behave violently towards several minorities.

I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but the sword swings both ways.


The last time I checked it was two gays forcing a Christian to bake them a cake despite his primitive belief system that discriminated against them.


Yes, and I agree that he shouldn’t be forced to. I agree with the Supreme Court like I said. However, you can’t expect others to bake you a cake if they dislike your religion or sexuality either.
 
jetero
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:03 pm

CitizenJustin wrote:
I just hope this doesn’t open the flood gates, where in 10 years all companies have a required list of banned people hanging on the door. I can see Christians feeling empowered to discriminate against all the other minorities they hate.


In fairness the ruling was extremely limited (hence the 7-2 result) and did acknowledge the rights of states and municipalities in enacting and enforcing nondiscrimination regulations with regard to public accommodation.

But yes certainly not outside the realm of possibility that some of these "alt-right" groups interpret the Bible in some sort of way that allows them to exclude any of a large number of minorties. Hell, the Mormons didn't effectively allow for African-Americans to participate fully in the religion until 1978.
 
jetero
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:03 pm

CitizenJustin wrote:
jetero wrote:
CitizenJustin wrote:

What do you mean?


It seemed to me like your analogy flew right over Blerg's head . . . :crazy:


Oh I thought you meant the force is strong in me. Lol


I'm sure it is, but in a much more positive way!
 
User avatar
CitizenJustin
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:12 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:06 pm

I just hope this doesn’t open the flood gates, where in 10 years all companies have a required list of banned people hanging on the door. I can see Christians feeling empowered to discriminate against all the other minorities they hate.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2528
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:11 pm

CitizenJustin wrote:
I just hope this doesn’t open the flood gates, where in 10 years all companies have a required list of banned people hanging on the door. I can see Christians feeling empowered to discriminate against all the other minorities they hate.

I’m willing to bet that after the dust settles not that many bakers who identify as Christian will actually implement this policy, for much the same reason as they don’t turn away people who’ve had premarital sex—they want the cash. This will eventually settle down and stop being such a lucrative rallying cry for unscrupulous religious leaders. Take the long view.
 
User avatar
CitizenJustin
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:12 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:11 pm

jetero wrote:
CitizenJustin wrote:
jetero wrote:

Force is strong with this one, boys. Total BLERG.


What do you mean?


It seemed to me like your analogy flew right over Blerg's head . . . :crazy:


Oh I thought you meant the force is strong in me. Lol
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:16 pm

DLFREEBIRD wrote:
its a Pyrrhic victory for Christian.


That's a great word. I'm going to add that to my vocabulary.
Stay curious
 
jetero
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:22 pm

luckyone wrote:
CitizenJustin wrote:
I just hope this doesn’t open the flood gates, where in 10 years all companies have a required list of banned people hanging on the door. I can see Christians feeling empowered to discriminate against all the other minorities they hate.

I’m willing to bet that after the dust settles not that many bakers who identify as Christian will actually implement this policy, for much the same reason as they don’t turn away people who’ve had premarital sex—they want the cash. This will eventually settle down and stop being such a lucrative rallying cry for unscrupulous religious leaders. Take the long view.


Again, the opinion did not establish the right of bakers (or any business owner for that matter) to deny service to gay people. The ruling was with regard to religious bias in the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who ruled against the baker.

Not that that won't stop some business owners from hanging up a sign that says, "Gays go home!"
 
User avatar
CitizenJustin
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:12 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:26 pm

luckyone wrote:
CitizenJustin wrote:
I just hope this doesn’t open the flood gates, where in 10 years all companies have a required list of banned people hanging on the door. I can see Christians feeling empowered to discriminate against all the other minorities they hate.

I’m willing to bet that after the dust settles not that many bakers who identify as Christian will actually implement this policy, for much the same reason as they don’t turn away people who’ve had premarital sex—they want the cash. This will eventually settle down and stop being such a lucrative rallying cry for unscrupulous religious leaders. Take the long view.



Good point. You’ve managed to divert my apocalyptic fears.............for now.
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:26 pm

luckyone wrote:
CitizenJustin wrote:
I just hope this doesn’t open the flood gates, where in 10 years all companies have a required list of banned people hanging on the door. I can see Christians feeling empowered to discriminate against all the other minorities they hate.

I’m willing to bet that after the dust settles not that many bakers who identify as Christian will actually implement this policy, for much the same reason as they don’t turn away people who’ve had premarital sex—they want the cash. This will eventually settle down and stop being such a lucrative rallying cry for unscrupulous religious leaders. Take the long view.


Of course that's what's going to happen. Most Christians don't care.

But the option to refuse service to a customer should be a right of a business owner. That's what this was all about.
Stay curious
 
jetero
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:27 pm

CCGPV wrote:
But the option to refuse service to a customer should be a right of a business owner. That's what this was all about.


Er, no. The Supreme Court stated otherwise in the decision today.
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:44 pm

jetero wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
But the option to refuse service to a customer should be a right of a business owner. That's what this was all about.


Er, no. The Supreme Court stated otherwise in the decision today.


Read what I said again. Read it carefully and literally. Each sentence is unrelated to the others. You can do this.

A niche business (artists, high-skilled rare jobs, etc) is still able to deny service to a homosexual couple if it violates their personal beliefs in this case.

Regardless of the outcome of future cases a business should be allowed to turn away customers for any reason what so ever.
Stay curious
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 16464
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:00 am

You know your religion has jumped the shark when some inbred Neanderthal won’t bake a cake because his imaginary friend tells him not to. Hard to believe Christianity is hemorrhaging adherents! #blessed
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 7742
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:02 am

CCGPV wrote:
jetero wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
But the option to refuse service to a customer should be a right of a business owner. That's what this was all about.


Er, no. The Supreme Court stated otherwise in the decision today.


Read what I said again. Read it carefully and literally. Each sentence is unrelated to the others. You can do this.

A niche business (artists, high-skilled rare jobs, etc) is still able to deny service to a homosexual couple if it violates their personal beliefs in this case.

Regardless of the outcome of future cases a business should be allowed to turn away customers for any reason what so ever.

Actually no, as a business owner you do not have the absolute right to deny service to the public you have opened your business to serve. While anyone can say "get out" for any reason, they risk being brought to the attention of those that enforce business permitting rules. And in general the right to refuse to serve is a "limited right to refuse to serve if it is damaging or otherwise harmfully impacting to your business". Refusing without fairly clear and "reasonable" cause could land you in a heap of costs. But I do think you know or understand this.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos