Thread: Supreme Court rules 7-2 for Religious Liberty

Muleman1994 - 6/4/2018 at 03:29 PM

Supreme Court sides with Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cake for same-sex couple

www.foxnews.com

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, in one of the most closely watched cases of the term.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker -- while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people. The opinion was penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing justice in tight cases.

The narrow ruling here focused on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips.

"The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion.

READ THE DECISION :

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2018/06/04/supreme-court-ruling -in-colorado-bakers-case-read-decision.html

The court said the broader issue, though, "must await further elaboration."

Baker Jack Phillips had refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. (Alliance Defending Freedom)

“The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions. The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws," Kenney wrote. "Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach."

At issue was a July 2012 encounter. At the time, Charlie Craig and David Mullins of Denver visited Masterpiece Cakeshop to buy a custom-made wedding cake. Phillips refused his services when told it was for a same-sex couple. The state civil rights commission sanctioned Phillips after a formal complaint from the gay couple.

Mullins has described their case as symbolizing “the rights of gay people to receive equal service in business … about basic access to public life."

But the Trump administration backed Phillips, who was represented in court by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian nonprofit. He had lost at every step in the legal appeals process, bringing the case down to the Supreme Court's decision Monday.

Phillips has said he lost business and had to let employees go because of the controversy.
And he has maintained that it’s his choice: "It's not about turning away these customers, it's about doing a cake for an event -- a religious sacred event -- that conflicts with my conscience," he said last year.

The court in December specifically examined whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the local baker to create commercial "expression" violated his constitutionally protected Christian beliefs about marriage.

By wading again into the culture wars, the justices had to confront recent decisions on both gay rights and religious liberty: a 2015 landmark opinion legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide and a separate 2014 decision affirming the right of some companies to act on their owner's faith by refusing to provide contraception to its workers.

The Trump administration agreed with Phillips' legal claims to a large extent. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in October issued broad guidance to executive branch agencies, reiterating the government should respect religious freedom, which in the Justice Department's eyes extends to people, businesses and organizations.

But civil rights groups were concerned the conservative majority on the court may be ready to peel back protections for groups with a history of enduring discrimination – and predicted that giving businesses the right to refuse service to certain customers would undermine non-discrimination laws and hurt minorities.

When the justices heard arguments in December, Kennedy was plainly bothered by certain comments by a commission member. The commissioner seemed "neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs," Kennedy said in December.

Liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the conservative justices in the outcome. Kagan wrote separately to emphasize the limited ruling.

But Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

"I see no reason why the comments of one or two Commissioners should be taken to overcome Phillips’ refusal to sell a wedding cake to Craig and Mullins," Ginsburg wrote.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-sides-with-colorad o-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-same-sex-couple.html




BoytonBrother - 6/4/2018 at 04:02 PM

Seems odd to turn away revenue for your business, but whatever makes them happy.


robslob - 6/4/2018 at 04:31 PM

One caveat here which I didn't see mentioned in the article (forgive me if I missed it): At the time of the baker's refusal, gay marriage was NOT legal in Colorado. I'm not saying that makes it right, I'm saying if it WERE legal, likely the court would have ruled differently.


Muleman1994 - 6/4/2018 at 04:45 PM

quote:
Of course the deplorable MAGA types will see this as a green light to openly discriminate against the LBGTQ community.

Very exciting times for rightists!



Wrong son.

We The People see the ruling as a victory for the people's religious freedom and liberty.

Cool how President Trump's Make American Great Again promise has turned out better than expected.




[Edited on 6/4/2018 by Muleman1994]


Muleman1994 - 6/4/2018 at 04:53 PM

The citizen’s religious freedom and liberty rights are clearly enumerated in The Constitution.

The Constitution extends no enumerated rights to the LGBTQRSTU or any other version of perversion.


BoytonBrother - 6/4/2018 at 05:05 PM

The article states that the decision was about this particular baker, and that the ruling is not about all future cases, which still has to be decided.

quote:
We The People see the ruling as a victory for the people's religious freedom


But Trump’s adultery with a pornstar and profanity is ok.


BoytonBrother - 6/4/2018 at 05:12 PM

I feel like Mule has never been a happy person until Trump won. Now he’s riding the red wave for the next 2-6 years, and then back to anger and misery.


2112 - 6/4/2018 at 05:19 PM

So, does that mean a Catholic baker could refuse to bake Trump a cake since he has committed adultry, which breaks one of the 10 Commandments, as well as his being a multiple divorcee?


BoytonBrother - 6/4/2018 at 06:12 PM

quote:
The Constitution extends no enumerated rights to the LGBTQRSTU or any other version of perversion.


Such as adultery with a pornstar, and unprotected too!


emr - 6/4/2018 at 06:18 PM

This was a tough one. The baker said he'd have no problem letting the couple into his story or selling a pre-made cake. His issue was creating essentially art to order for something he didn't believe in. I think may people who are against this ruling would have a hard time if asked to create a "Make America Great Again" B-Day cake for fearless leader,


goldtop - 6/4/2018 at 06:18 PM

Reality Check for Mule....it was won on the 1st amendment right to artistic expression on what he would design on the cake. If in fact they tried to buy a cake already made and sitting in his cooler he couldn't then stop them from purchasing it...Then the SCOTUS would have ruled in favor of the client

He won over artistic expression....you should learn the facts before claiming some victory....

I have another question..when you send thoughts and prayers are you waiting for a large voice from the sky to tell you what to do next???


LeglizHemp - 6/4/2018 at 06:31 PM

quote:
The narrow ruling here focused on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips.

"The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion.


no precedent was set


BoytonBrother - 6/4/2018 at 06:41 PM

quote:
This was a tough one. The baker said he'd have no problem letting the couple into his story or selling a pre-made cake. His issue was creating essentially art to order for something he didn't believe in.


I’m ok with the ruling about this specific baker according to what I’ve read about it, because he has demonstrated other actions in the past that backed up his religious motives. However, in an effort to make sense of the baker’s opinion, what if the gay couple wanted an identical design as his other cakes? Why would he be ok with selling a pre-made cake to them for their wedding, but not create a new one of the same design?

quote:
I think may people who are against this ruling would have a hard time if asked to create a "Make America Great Again" B-Day cake for fearless leader,


Apples and oranges. There’s no discrimination based on gender, race, age, sexual orientation, etc.


BrerRabbit - 6/4/2018 at 06:51 PM


Muleman1994 - 6/5/2018 at 01:24 PM

Left Wing Justices Kagan and Breyer vote for Religious Liberty in a decision written by Justice Kennedy who often sides with the homosexuals.

How do the far-left extremists here react?

Trump! Trump! Trump!

Noticeably missing from the lefties is any argument why the homosexuals should win over the baker’s Constitutional rights.

Maybe that is why they cry about President Trump who had nothing to do with this case.




goldtop - 6/5/2018 at 02:23 PM

quote:

Noticeably missing from the lefties is any argument why the homosexuals should win over the baker’s Constitutional rights.




Because they are American citizens and the constitution says all men are created equal...no matter what you say its a form of discrimination...and that in this country should be unacceptable...but then again if you live with your head shoved firmly up your azz then I guess you can see the good in this


LeglizHemp - 6/5/2018 at 02:47 PM

quote:
When the justices heard arguments in December, Kennedy was plainly bothered by certain comments by a commission member. The commissioner seemed "neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs," Kennedy said in December.

Liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the conservative justices in the outcome. Kagan wrote separately to emphasize the limited ruling.


again, the ruling was against the board that heard the complaint, not for denying service to LBGTQ customers.


jkeller - 6/5/2018 at 02:52 PM

Question for Mule. If a baker refused to bake a wedding cake for someone because he found out it was their third marriage and his religion prohibited divorce, would that be OK with you?


BIGV - 6/5/2018 at 03:45 PM

"Tolerance"!...screams the left...But then can't handle it when anybody disagrees...Is it possible that the Baker really did have religious beliefs that kept him from making this cake?

Is it possible? If you said yes, then why on Earth did not these two just go to another bakery? But NO!...EVERYONE must know how important this is to our agenda!...EVERYONE must fall in line.

What a couple of whining children, they act like 99 bakeries in a row told them NO! Most sane people would say.. "This guy is a clown. let's take our business somewhere where we are appreciated"..But not these two!...

The Court got it right.


BIGV - 6/5/2018 at 03:54 PM

quote:
quote:
Is it possible that the Baker really did have religious beliefs that kept him from making this cake

Is it possible who cares what he reason was?

Bigotry is bigotry.

Zero tolerance for bigots.

quote:
The Court got it right.

Again, who cares. I don't need a bunch of conservative idiots, judges or otherwise, setting my moral compass for me.


Gee whiz, that works out just great!....Because I have zero interest in assisting you in anyway shape or form. To disagree with you makes one an idiot

Or this absolutely charming response:
quote:
And you sir, are a bigoted piece of sh1t. Hope that answers your question.


Were your Parents as enchanting as you are?


BIGV - 6/5/2018 at 04:01 PM

quote:
I'm quite proud to not be like my parents.


Yeah, you are a real piece of work.


jkeller - 6/5/2018 at 04:09 PM

quote:
"Tolerance"!...screams the left...But then can't handle it when anybody disagrees...Is it possible that the Baker really did have religious beliefs that kept him from making this cake?

Is it possible? If you said yes, then why on Earth did not these two just go to another bakery? But NO!...EVERYONE must know how important this is to our agenda!...EVERYONE must fall in line.

What a couple of whining children, they act like 99 bakeries in a row told them NO! Most sane people would say.. "This guy is a clown. let's take our business somewhere where we are appreciated"..But not these two!...

The Court got it right.


Sorry, Jaspar, but if anyone disagrees with you your response is to attack the person who disagrees with you. Your responses to LeafontheWind are pure personal attacks on someone who disagrees with you.

You are a bigot and a hypocrite that doesn’t have enough smarts to notice it or the intestinal fortitude to openly admit it.

Please resume your personal attacks on the tolerant left.


BoytonBrother - 6/5/2018 at 04:10 PM

Saw this online:

quote:
15 year old: Mr. Florist, I want some flowers for my bat mitzvah.
Florist: I will not sell flowers for a religious ceremony that doesn't acknowledge the divinity of Christ. Go see the florist next door with the yellow star in the window.

What sayeth the Supreme Court?


BIGV - 6/5/2018 at 04:17 PM

quote:
You are a bigot and a hypocrite that doesn’t have enough smarts to notice it or the intestinal fortitude to openly admit it.


No. I am someone with the audacity to have a different view and this is how YOU CHOOSE to respond.

Now ask yourself "Who has attacked who here"?

I am a Libertarian who believes in Rights and the law. The couple who wanted the cake has the right to negotiate the purchase of that cake anywhere. The Bakery owner has the right to refuse service to anyone he pleases, be they tall, blue. stupid or from another planet. If you do not care for the owner's behavior, seek out another purveyor, but stomping your feet and crying while shouting about feelings makes me want to buy cakes from no one else but this guy in support of what he believes to be right.

7-2 is not even close


Bhawk - 6/5/2018 at 04:25 PM

quote:
The Bakery owner has the right to refuse service to anyone he pleases, be they tall, blue. stupid or from another planet.


Actually, you can't refuse service to a protected class (race, color, religion or national origin). Orientation, however, isn't a protected class at the Federal level.

SCOTUS deftly avoided any larger issue by simply ruling that the Colorado Civil Rights officials overstepped their bounds.

These types of cases are far from over. The religious aspect of protected class is going to come up sooner rather than later.


Bhawk - 6/5/2018 at 04:39 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
The Bakery owner has the right to refuse service to anyone he pleases, be they tall, blue. stupid or from another planet.


Actually, you can't refuse service to a protected class (race, color, religion or national origin). Orientation, however, isn't a protected class at the Federal level.

SCOTUS deftly avoided any larger issue by simply ruling that the Colorado Civil Rights officials overstepped their bounds.

These types of cases are far from over. The religious aspect of protected class is going to come up sooner rather than later.

This is all true but in this era of extreme intellectual laziness, the SCOTUS decision is a win for right anyhow. I mean, look at the thread title to see what I mean.

Who has the authority to add LGBTQ to list of protected class citizens, does it have to go to SCOTUS again or?


Congress. Current law was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


emr - 6/5/2018 at 04:41 PM

quote:
Question for Mule. If a baker refused to bake a wedding cake for someone because he found out it was their third marriage and his religion prohibited divorce, would that be OK with you?


This is where a case like this gets tough. I think most people would agree that someone shouldn't be denied entrance into a restaurant for any reason other than dress/comportment/noise. But baking a cake - I think its different.

And what if a caterer is Hallal or Kosher and someone wants them to do a pig roast. Think that is a no-brainer - but how much different is it than the baker being religiously against something

Again; I don't think a place of business (hotel/restaurant) should be able to turn anyone away. Crafted items; different issue


BIGV - 6/5/2018 at 04:51 PM

quote:
quote:
The Bakery owner has the right to refuse service to anyone he pleases, be they tall, blue. stupid or from another planet.


Actually, you can't refuse service to a protected class (race, color, religion or national origin). Orientation, however, isn't a protected class at the Federal level


"At the federal level"..


LeglizHemp - 6/5/2018 at 04:51 PM

quote:
"I think the most important thing for us that we want people to understand is that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act is still fully in effect in Colorado. "Nothing has changed about that. It is still illegal to turn a gay couple away from a business just because of who they are." Dave Mullins


BIGV - 6/5/2018 at 04:53 PM

quote:
Then you attacked me.


omg


Bhawk - 6/5/2018 at 04:54 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
The Bakery owner has the right to refuse service to anyone he pleases, be they tall, blue. stupid or from another planet.


Actually, you can't refuse service to a protected class (race, color, religion or national origin). Orientation, however, isn't a protected class at the Federal level.

SCOTUS deftly avoided any larger issue by simply ruling that the Colorado Civil Rights officials overstepped their bounds.

These types of cases are far from over. The religious aspect of protected class is going to come up sooner rather than later.

This is all true but in this era of extreme intellectual laziness, the SCOTUS decision is a win for right anyhow. I mean, look at the thread title to see what I mean.

Who has the authority to add LGBTQ to list of protected class citizens, does it have to go to SCOTUS again or?


Congress. Current law was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.



Well I reckon they need to get on that then.

Any day now, right?


No political stomach for that, which is why its been left to the states.


Bhawk - 6/5/2018 at 04:58 PM

quote:
And what if a caterer is Hallal or Kosher and someone wants them to do a pig roast. Think that is a no-brainer - but how much different is it than the baker being religiously against something


"We don't prepare pork in our kitchens," - legal

"We don't serve Christians," - illegal


BIGV - 6/5/2018 at 05:02 PM

quote:
quote:
And what if a caterer is Hallal or Kosher and someone wants them to do a pig roast. Think that is a no-brainer - but how much different is it than the baker being religiously against something


"We don't prepare pork in our kitchens," - legal

"We don't serve Christians," - illegal


Fair enough.

"I don't serve the LGBT community" - illegal

"I don't serve whiny, rude people. Please leave my store" - legal


BoytonBrother - 6/5/2018 at 05:06 PM

quote:
What a couple of whining children, they act like 99 bakeries in a row told them NO! Most sane people would say.. "This guy is a clown. let's take our business somewhere where we are appreciated"..But not these two!...


quote:
"Tolerance"!...screams the left...But then can't handle it when anybody disagrees..



Bhawk - 6/5/2018 at 05:09 PM

quote:
"I don't serve the LGBT community" - illegal


Depending on what state you are in, yes.


emr - 6/5/2018 at 06:52 PM

quote:
quote:
And what if a caterer is Hallal or Kosher and someone wants them to do a pig roast. Think that is a no-brainer - but how much different is it than the baker being religiously against something


"We don't prepare pork in our kitchens," - legal

"We don't serve Christians," - illegal


"We don't put decorations with two grooms on cakes" ?legal

"We don't serve LGBT" ? illegal


Bhawk - 6/5/2018 at 07:59 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
And what if a caterer is Hallal or Kosher and someone wants them to do a pig roast. Think that is a no-brainer - but how much different is it than the baker being religiously against something


"We don't prepare pork in our kitchens," - legal

"We don't serve Christians," - illegal


"We don't put decorations with two grooms on cakes" ?legal

"We don't serve LGBT" ? illegal


"We don't serve LGBT" ? illegal <---All depends on what state you live in.

Same-sex relations and same-sex marriage are allowed by Federal Law and are free from discrimination. After that, it gets very complicated.


sckeys - 6/5/2018 at 09:30 PM

While organized religion is bad, it sure is fun to watch.


BrerRabbit - 6/5/2018 at 11:51 PM

quote:
While organized religion is bad, it sure is fun to watch.


Not a huge fan of slapstick comedy myself. Although some of the sci-fi and horror is pretty good.


BIGV - 6/6/2018 at 12:37 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
And what if a caterer is Hallal or Kosher and someone wants them to do a pig roast. Think that is a no-brainer - but how much different is it than the baker being religiously against something


"We don't prepare pork in our kitchens," - legal

"We don't serve Christians," - illegal


Fair enough.

"I don't serve the LGBT community" - illegal

"I don't serve whiny, rude people. Please leave my store" - legal


Great workaround. Anti-discrimination laws be damned!


Do whiny and rude people come in one color or sexual preference?


BIGV - 6/6/2018 at 12:44 AM

“The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions"
From Justice Kennedy

Do the beliefs and convictions of the LGBT community override those with sincere Religious faith?

7-2


BoytonBrother - 6/6/2018 at 01:37 AM

quote:
What a couple of whining children, they act like 99 bakeries in a row told them NO! Most sane people would say.. "This guy is a clown. let's take our business somewhere where we are appreciated"..But not these two!...



quote:
"Tolerance"!...screams the left...But then can't handle it when anybody disagrees..



"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley





[Edited on 6/6/2018 by BoytonBrother]


BIGV - 6/6/2018 at 02:24 AM

quote:
quote:
What a couple of whining children, they act like 99 bakeries in a row told them NO! Most sane people would say.. "This guy is a clown. let's take our business somewhere where we are appreciated"..But not these two!...



quote:
"Tolerance"!...screams the left...But then can't handle it when anybody disagrees..



"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley


Maybe it's just because I see and hear such hypocrisy in those that scream for tolerance and then will not tolerate a dissenting opinion. In this case the "offended" couple went straight to the ACLU and filed suit. Where was their "Tolerance" of Mr. Phillips' beliefs?

I'll ask that again...Where was their "Tolerance" of Mr. Phillips' beliefs?


BoytonBrother - 6/6/2018 at 02:55 AM

quote:
Maybe it's just because I see and hear such hypocrisy in those that scream for tolerance and then will not tolerate a dissenting opinion.


Then why are you doing it to the gay couple if you despise it so much? Serious question.

quote:
In this case the "offended" couple went straight to the ACLU and filed suit. Where was their "Tolerance" of Mr. Phillips' beliefs?

I'll ask that again...Where was their "Tolerance" of Mr. Phillips' beliefs?


Most people would probably say they showed tolerance by following due process. If someone believes their rights have been violated, why is excercising their right to file a civil suit to have a judge hear your case objectionable to you?





[Edited on 6/6/2018 by BoytonBrother]


jkeller - 6/6/2018 at 03:06 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
What a couple of whining children, they act like 99 bakeries in a row told them NO! Most sane people would say.. "This guy is a clown. let's take our business somewhere where we are appreciated"..But not these two!...



quote:
"Tolerance"!...screams the left...But then can't handle it when anybody disagrees..



"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley


Maybe it's just because I see and hear such hypocrisy in those that scream for tolerance and then will not tolerate a dissenting opinion. In this case the "offended" couple went straight to the ACLU and filed suit. Where was their "Tolerance" of Mr. Phillips' beliefs?

I'll ask that again...Where was their "Tolerance" of Mr. Phillips' beliefs?


It was in the same place that Mr. Phillips’ tolerance for the gay couple was. Or is the gay couple not eligible for any tolerance since they don’t think like you do? You constantly whine about the “tolerant left” while you have no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with you. There is a word that describes people like that. I’ll let you figure out what it is.


BIGV - 6/6/2018 at 04:02 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
What a couple of whining children, they act like 99 bakeries in a row told them NO! Most sane people would say.. "This guy is a clown. let's take our business somewhere where we are appreciated"..But not these two!...



quote:
"Tolerance"!...screams the left...But then can't handle it when anybody disagrees..



"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley


Maybe it's just because I see and hear such hypocrisy in those that scream for tolerance and then will not tolerate a dissenting opinion. In this case the "offended" couple went straight to the ACLU and filed suit. Where was their "Tolerance" of Mr. Phillips' beliefs?

I'll ask that again...Where was their "Tolerance" of Mr. Phillips' beliefs?


It was in the same place that Mr. Phillips’ tolerance for the gay couple was. Or is the gay couple not eligible for any tolerance since they don’t think like you do?


There you go making it about Color. Race or Gender, Always the assumption....You are for the offended and I stand for the business owner. It could have been two young white skateboarders, asking for a cake with a Swastika. I don't care......

Since the action triggered their reaction, just how difficult would it have been to have just found another Bakery? Wouldn't that have been the epitome of tolerance? Or had they said "Oh, we understand and appreciate your Religious views, we'll find a bakery better suited to our needs". But see, we've no idea as to who spoke the first "Mean" words in the Bakery...Either someone was offended or someone was very rude....take your pick. My whole point is that tolerance is a two way street and yes, that would include and immediate response that you find unacceptable. Imho. anything beyond that is an argument and then, you are both wrong.

"He started it"!...For adult's sake, be the bigger people and just walk away, hit him in the wallet, take your business to someone who will treat you with the respect you deserve.

Once again I find the hypocrisy almost humorous.




BrerRabbit - 6/6/2018 at 04:39 AM

It was a fair decision. Anyone gloating over it being a gay smackdown has missed the point and is out to lunch shoveling down idiot stew, because the sword of liberty is double edged and can cut them just the same.

(btw I think ol JC would have made them a real good cake, maybe using the opprtunity for a parable or at least one or two solid one-liners, transform that raggedy old cake of contention into wondrous food for thought and sustenance for the soul.)


Bhawk - 6/6/2018 at 12:15 PM

quote:
“The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions"
From Justice Kennedy

Do the beliefs and convictions of the LGBT community override those with sincere Religious faith?

7-2




Well...thing is, Colorado has an anti-discrimination law on the books that prohibits discrimination based on orientation.

This is why this particular baker has been very consistent and careful to say "I serve everyone, I just don't make custom cakes for all occasions."

The couple filed a complaint per the parameters of the Colorado law. In their view, it wasn't about tolerance, it was about discrimination.

SCOTUS completely punted on the matter of LGBT rights. All they ruled on was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission unfairly discounted religious belief.


BoytonBrother - 6/6/2018 at 01:17 PM

quote:
You are for the offended


Do you feel this way about all people who file a civil suit?

quote:
and I stand for the business owner. It could have been two young white skateboarders, asking for a cake with a Swastika. I don't care......


Odd comparison....what’s the relation?

quote:
Since the action triggered their reaction, just how difficult would it have been to have just found another Bakery? Wouldn't that have been the epitome of tolerance?


Exercising due process, having a judge settle the dispute, is America. Why does that bother you?
quote:
Or had they said "Oh, we understand and appreciate your Religious views, we'll find a bakery better suited to our needs". But see, we've no idea as to who spoke the first "Mean" words in the Bakery...Either someone was offended or someone was very rude....take your pick. My whole point is that tolerance is a two way street and yes, that would include and immediate response that you find unacceptable. Imho. anything beyond that is an argument and then, you are both wrong.


Sounds like you are the one offended by an American asking for due process....strange.


quote:
Once again I find the hypocrisy almost humorous.


Same here! Read your Buckley quote, and then read your posts about the gay couple’s decision to exercise due process. Humorous indeed.


Muleman1994 - 6/6/2018 at 08:51 PM

A 7-2 decision which included two of the court's left-wing justices.

Of course if you read the lefties responses it appears they don't believe in the court upholding someone's Constitutional rights.

The far-left's ideology loses again.


BrerRabbit - 6/6/2018 at 09:02 PM

Must not be any "lefties" on this thread then. Folks replying think it was a fair decision by the Supreme Court. They just don't share your view that the decision was a US proclamation against what you refer to as "perversion".


BoytonBrother - 6/8/2018 at 01:32 PM

quote:
What a couple of whining children, they act like 99 bakeries in a row told them NO! Most sane people would say..


Still hoping to discuss....why is exercising due process to have a judge hear their case considered to be “whining children” and not sane?


BIGV - 6/8/2018 at 04:26 PM

quote:
quote:
What a couple of whining children, they act like 99 bakeries in a row told them NO! Most sane people would say..


Still hoping to discuss....why is exercising due process to have a judge hear their case considered to be “whining children” and not sane?


Not the case or the suit itself. You feel discriminated against?..More power to you....It's the "This guy won't bake our cake" that I refer to as whining and Imho, that is exactly what it is.... Not the Venue, not the wedding license...a Cake. For goodness sake, be adults and go to another Bakery

It is that simple. No response is necessary. You believe one thing and I believe another.


BoytonBrother - 6/8/2018 at 05:36 PM

quote:
Not the case or the suit itself. You feel discriminated against?..More power to you....It's the "This guy won't bake our cake" that I refer to as whining and Imho, that is exactly what it is.... Not the Venue, not the wedding license...a Cake. For goodness sake, be adults and go to another Bakery


Are you saying discrimination should be overlooked depending on the object in question?

quote:
It is that simple. No response is necessary. You believe one thing and I believe another.


Actually, we both agree that the outcome was correct for this particular case. I was more curious about why you got enraged by the whole thing, rather than express curiousity over the outcome. When a Trump supporter filed a lawsuit against a NYC bar for resusing service to him, did you feel the same way, that he was a whiny child crying over a stupid beer? I'm just curious to know your position.


Muleman1994 - 6/8/2018 at 06:03 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
What a couple of whining children, they act like 99 bakeries in a row told them NO! Most sane people would say..


Still hoping to discuss....why is exercising due process to have a judge hear their case considered to be “whining children” and not sane?


Not the case or the suit itself. You feel discriminated against?..More power to you....It's the "This guy won't bake our cake" that I refer to as whining and Imho, that is exactly what it is.... Not the Venue, not the wedding license...a Cake. For goodness sake, be adults and go to another Bakery

It is that simple. No response is necessary. You believe one thing and I believe another.



The homosexuals could have gone to many other bakers but they chose to target this baker because he actually practices his faith which is his constitutional right.

The lefties support the homosexuals demand for their so-called "rights" which do not exist.

Two left-wing justices sided with the Constitution but you'll notice the lefties here do not mention that fact.


BrerRabbit - 6/8/2018 at 06:16 PM

quote:
The homosexuals could have gone to many other bakers but they chose to target this baker because he actually practices his faith which is his constitutional right.

The lefties support the homosexuals demand for their so-called "rights" which do not exist.

Two left-wing justices sided with the Constitution but you'll notice the lefties here do not mention that fact.


Nice try, but fail. You are just trying to morph this into a gay rights debate, while your thread title is correct, it is about religious liberty .

READ YOUR THREAD. NOT ONE respondent has said the Supreme Court's decision was wrong.


BoytonBrother - 6/8/2018 at 07:08 PM

He appears to be off his meds today.....


BoytonBrother - 6/8/2018 at 07:16 PM

quote:
Two left-wing justices sided with the Constitution but you'll notice the lefties here do not mention that fact.


Well, if you approve of the judge's decision, then don't complain when NYC bartenders throw out people wearing a red MAGA hat because that is exactly what you are casting your vote for.


BIGV - 6/8/2018 at 07:25 PM

quote:
When a Trump supporter filed a lawsuit against a NYC bar for resusing service to him, did you feel the same way, that he was a whiny child crying over a stupid beer? I'm just curious to know your position.


I know nothing of this case and w/o any further info I will write this. I side with the NYC Bar for refusing service to anyone they choose. They are serving alcohol and pay insurance premiums dearly for that privilege. Now?...Just for the hat? Pretty funny to me. I'll wager it started with the Bartender saying something like "Hey Pal, You wanna drink here?, you gotta take off the hat"..either in a good-natured way or in all seriousness and it just escalated from there. Once again, don't like the way this establishment (Bar) is treating you? there is another right around the corner.


BrerRabbit - 6/8/2018 at 07:33 PM

Yeah, bar dress code stuff, probably had zero to do with the logo on the cap - lots of places especially NYC won't let you in if too casual: jeans, sneakers, ball caps, etc.


BIGV - 6/8/2018 at 07:41 PM

quote:
probably had zero to do with the logo on the cap


Even if it did, so what? Alluding to the "quote" from the fictional Bartender in my post above, he may have meant "Damn Trump supporter"...and it started from there.

Take off the hat and buy some shots for the girls, make some friends....or take your business elsewhere


BoytonBrother - 6/8/2018 at 07:50 PM

[qutoe]I know nothing of this case and w/o any further info I will write this. I side with the NYC Bar for refusing service to anyone they choose. They are serving alcohol and pay insurance premiums dearly for that privilege. Now?...Just for the hat? Pretty funny to me. I'll wager it started with the Bartender saying something like "Hey Pal, You wanna drink here?, you gotta take off the hat"..either in a good-natured way or in all seriousness and it just escalated from there. Once again, don't like the way this establishment (Bar) is treating you? there is another right around the corner.




Sounds like you are consistent in your legal decisioning. In both examples, however, you've made underhanded remarks about the liberal perspective - the gay couple were whiny and not sane, and you laugh at the bartender for "just for the hat".

I think I get it now. Since liberals fight for tolerance and inclusion of all types, then they shouldn't be critical of other perspectives because it creates a hypocrisy. But you and conservatives can do it all day because you never fought for tolerance and inclusion. Do I have that right?


BrerRabbit - 6/8/2018 at 08:03 PM

Agreed. Point was I have never seen a bar where it is ok to argue with the bartender.

Back in my longhair roadrunner days: Run out of a Tennessee grocery store at shotgun point, denied service in cafe in Louisiana bayou, denied service at a truckstop in Nebraska, and on and on it was normal. Exactly like the EZ Rider film, those scenes were real. No place around the corner, just pick up your gear and gypsy roll on.



[Edited on 6/8/2018 by BrerRabbit]


Bhawk - 6/8/2018 at 09:33 PM

quote:
quote:
probably had zero to do with the logo on the cap


Even if it did, so what? Alluding to the "quote" from the fictional Bartender in my post above, he may have meant "Damn Trump supporter"...and it started from there.

Take off the hat and buy some shots for the girls, make some friends....or take your business elsewhere


Curious...do you believe in the concept of a protected class? Should, for instance, a racist reserve the right to be racist and refuse to serve someone explicitly based on their race? That is illegal. Should it be?

Not trying to ask a trap question, I'm just always curious how far different libertarians are willing to take the concepts.


BIGV - 6/8/2018 at 09:52 PM

quote:
Sounds like you are consistent in your legal decisioning. In both examples, however, you've made underhanded remarks about the liberal perspective - the gay couple were whiny and not sane, and you laugh at the bartender for "just for the hat".


The left, so ready to play the Victim. I don't care that they are Gay, it would no difference to me if they were from Mars. You mentioned sanity, I never brought that up. I question their inability to walk away over a Cake

"and you laugh at the bartender for "just for the hat""...Not laughing at the Bartender, suggesting he was anti-Trump and the probable instigator

quote:
think I get it now. Since liberals fight for tolerance and inclusion of all types, then they shouldn't be critical of other perspectives because it creates a hypocrisy. But you and conservatives can do it all day because you never fought for tolerance and inclusion. Do I have that right?


Look, all I have ever believed is that the sole act of asking for "Tolerance" is not going to magically make it happen. If you state an opinion and I state something to the contrary, that is an exchange of ideas. Any disagreement, that drops to a level of name calling is an argument. At some point "Tolerance" is long gone.

I have never claimed to be "Tolerant"..I do not preach what I can not practice. The fact that I do not preach it, in turn does make it Hypocritical, it is merely an opinion that is different than yours. I will however continue call it out when I read it, especially when said orator has clearly written in support of Tolerance and then proceeds to shout down those he thinks foolhardy. That, is completely different than stating a non-popular point of view.


BoytonBrother - 6/8/2018 at 11:00 PM

quote:
Look, all I have ever believed is that the sole act of asking for "Tolerance" is not going to magically make it happen. If you state an opinion and I state something to the contrary, that is an exchange of ideas. Any disagreement, that drops to a level of name calling is an argument. At some point "Tolerance" is long gone.

I have never claimed to be "Tolerant"..I do not preach what I can not practice. The fact that I do not preach it, in turn does make it Hypocritical, it is merely an opinion that is different than yours. I will however continue call it out when I read it, especially when said orator has clearly written in support of Tolerance and then proceeds to shout down those he thinks foolhardy. That, is completely different than stating a non-popular point of view.


Sounds good, but when you throw gas on a fire, expect to get burned. Anytime someone responds to your inflammatory comments, you get defensive and post the Buckley quote instead of discussing your comments.

quote:
The left, so ready to play the Victim.


There you go again throwing matches. If someone bites, try debating them for a change instead of posting the Buckley quote.


porkchopbob - 6/8/2018 at 11:40 PM

quote:
The left, so ready to play the Victim. I don't care that they are Gay, it would no difference to me if they were from Mars. You mentioned sanity, I never brought that up. I question their inability to walk away over a Cake

"and you laugh at the bartender for "just for the hat""...Not laughing at the Bartender, suggesting he was anti-Trump and the probable instigator


Ok, I'll bite. A good friend of mine tends bar at The Happiest Hour, the bar in question. It's a high end, expensive cocktail bar on the edge of Greenwich Village. It attracts a lot of d-bags, that is to say they put up with a lot night in and night out (example, the Olson Twins had their birthday party there).

The dude in question dropped $200 there, and was eventually asked to leave because he was being obnoxious to the staff. Bars don't suffer fools. His MAGA hat didn't help (never mind it could be considered gang apparel).

Afterwards the MAGA Hat Guy played victim, claiming his MAGA hat denied him service. Political affiliation isn't legally protected, so he claimed it was part of his religion, and a judge did not agree. In return, other MAGA folks sent the bar manager death threats.

Dude could have (and most likely did) gone to another bar, but woke up the next day intent on have a prolonged legal tantrum. MAGA Hats tend to be giant "Victim" signs.


StratDal - 6/8/2018 at 11:43 PM

When you get down to it, the one true religion we can all relate to is $$$.

I remember discussing with an owner of a restaurant I frequent how she dealt with a customer who was vulgar and disrespectful. Here response was "Yep. He was a dick but ultimately he paid his tab, left the servers alone. The best customer is the one who pays" Fortunately, he's never returned to the establishment. Well done June!


BIGV - 6/9/2018 at 01:51 AM

quote:
Afterwards the MAGA Hat Guy played victim, claiming his MAGA hat denied him service.


He sounds like a whiny little sh*t....


BIGV - 6/9/2018 at 02:06 AM

quote:
Should, for instance, a racist reserve the right to be racist and refuse to serve someone explicitly based on their race? That is illegal. Should it be?


Interesting because I view this somewhat like I see abortion. I believe in a Woman's right to control what goes on with her own body. That being said, I think we all might agree on some sort of future Utopian society where no one has an abortion by choice? The question you pose about racism is on my radar simply because I want to believe we are beyond this type of thing, that it just does not happen anymore, that a Law forbidding it seems redundant. Illegal? I would rather see Society take care of it through the use of the almighty $$ and our simple growth as human beings.


BoytonBrother - 6/9/2018 at 06:47 PM

But it wasn't happening, so laws were needed. F waiting around for the ignorant.


OriginalGoober - 6/10/2018 at 01:11 AM

quote:
quote:
Afterwards the MAGA Hat Guy played victim, claiming his MAGA hat denied him service.


He sounds like a whiny little sh*t....



Not buying this coming from a Donald Trump supporter, more believable if it was a Bernie Sanders supporter.


BrerRabbit - 6/10/2018 at 03:06 AM

The ability to piss off both left and right is the sign of a freethinker.


porkchopbob - 6/10/2018 at 01:32 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Afterwards the MAGA Hat Guy played victim, claiming his MAGA hat denied him service.


He sounds like a whiny little sh*t....



Not buying this coming from a Donald Trump supporter, more believable if it was a Bernie Sanders supporter.


Believe it, or keep denying reality. It's up to you. Here's FOX News' report on the matter just for you:

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2018/04/25/judge-rules-new-york-city-bar- can-refuse-service-to-trump-supporter-wearing-maga-hat.html


LUKE - 6/10/2018 at 11:07 PM

Oh stop it Cliffy!Get your finger outta there ,i know what your trying to do.
The Grocery Hole Blues saga continue's.


LUKE - 6/11/2018 at 06:47 PM

quote:
quote:
Oh stop it Cliffy!Get your finger outta there ,i know what your trying to do.
The Grocery Hole Blues saga continue's.

You need your hillbilly ass kicked, but I reckon we taxpayers would just end up footing your ER bill.

Well may i make a suggestion Little Leafy Poopsy Whoopsy?Why don't you just bring your little big mouthed candy as* down,over,up,(wherever the hell you live and are) here,and give it your best shot.Ya claim to be Rob Prine,have threatened to kick my as* over and over,called me a poser,and all kind's of other hot air jive.I am and have been in the same home for 34 year's.But you(being as you claim to be Rob Prine)oughta know exactly where i live.So name a place close by little nut's and i will see you there.Otherwise shut that grocery hole mouth of your's up! As far as that rant about taxpayer's paying my ER bill.Now why would i or even be able,or want to do that?My wife and i have a group policy thru Blue Cross Blue Shield,that include's dental,vision,script coverage,and yes medical/ER>.Just curious,did you huff airplane glue as a child and teenager?Or do you huff spray paint,duster fumes etc now as an adult i presume.Man you are one toasted cat!!!And a puss as well.


Muleman1994 - 6/12/2018 at 04:22 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Oh stop it Cliffy!Get your finger outta there ,i know what your trying to do.
The Grocery Hole Blues saga continue's.

You need your hillbilly ass kicked, but I reckon we taxpayers would just end up footing your ER bill.

Well may i make a suggestion Little Leafy Poopsy Whoopsy?Why don't you just bring your little big mouthed candy as* down,over,up,(wherever the hell you live and are) here,and give it your best shot.Ya claim to be Rob Prine,have threatened to kick my as* over and over,called me a poser,and all kind's of other hot air jive.I am and have been in the same home for 34 year's.But you(being as you claim to be Rob Prine)oughta know exactly where i live.So name a place close by little nut's and i will see you there.Otherwise shut that grocery hole mouth of your's up! As far as that rant about taxpayer's paying my ER bill.Now why would i or even be able,or want to do that?My wife and i have a group policy thru Blue Cross Blue Shield,that include's dental,vision,script coverage,and yes medical/ER>.Just curious,did you huff airplane glue as a child and teenager?Or do you huff spray paint,duster fumes etc now as an adult i presume.Man you are one toasted cat!!!And a puss as well.



Prine was a keyboard coward then and continues under his latest screen name.
By any name he is still chickschit.




Muleman1994 - 6/12/2018 at 05:44 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Oh stop it Cliffy!Get your finger outta there ,i know what your trying to do.
The Grocery Hole Blues saga continue's.

You need your hillbilly ass kicked, but I reckon we taxpayers would just end up footing your ER bill.

Well may i make a suggestion Little Leafy Poopsy Whoopsy?Why don't you just bring your little big mouthed candy as* down,over,up,(wherever the hell you live and are) here,and give it your best shot.Ya claim to be Rob Prine,have threatened to kick my as* over and over,called me a poser,and all kind's of other hot air jive.I am and have been in the same home for 34 year's.But you(being as you claim to be Rob Prine)oughta know exactly where i live.So name a place close by little nut's and i will see you there.Otherwise shut that grocery hole mouth of your's up! As far as that rant about taxpayer's paying my ER bill.Now why would i or even be able,or want to do that?My wife and i have a group policy thru Blue Cross Blue Shield,that include's dental,vision,script coverage,and yes medical/ER>.Just curious,did you huff airplane glue as a child and teenager?Or do you huff spray paint,duster fumes etc now as an adult i presume.Man you are one toasted cat!!!And a puss as well.



Prine was a keyboard coward then and continues under his latest screen name.
By any name he is still chickschit.





Washington Post called, was wondering if you'd be starting any more threads based on their exclusive reporting based on anonymous sources.



still chickschit.


LUKE - 6/12/2018 at 08:03 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Oh stop it Cliffy!Get your finger outta there ,i know what your trying to do.
The Grocery Hole Blues saga continue's.

You need your hillbilly ass kicked, but I reckon we taxpayers would just end up footing your ER bill.

Well may i make a suggestion Little Leafy Poopsy Whoopsy?Why don't you just bring your little big mouthed candy as* down,over,up,(wherever the hell you live and are) here,and give it your best shot.Ya claim to be Rob Prine,have threatened to kick my as* over and over,called me a poser,and all kind's of other hot air jive.I am and have been in the same home for 34 year's.But you(being as you claim to be Rob Prine)oughta know exactly where i live.So name a place close by little nut's and i will see you there.Otherwise shut that grocery hole mouth of your's up! As far as that rant about taxpayer's paying my ER bill.Now why would i or even be able,or want to do that?My wife and i have a group policy thru Blue Cross Blue Shield,that include's dental,vision,script coverage,and yes medical/ER>.Just curious,did you huff airplane glue as a child and teenager?Or do you huff spray paint,duster fumes etc now as an adult i presume.Man you are one toasted cat!!!And a puss as well.



Prine was a keyboard coward then and continues under his latest screen name.
By any name he is still chickschit.





Washington Post called, was wondering if you'd be starting any more threads based on their exclusive reporting based on anonymous sources.



still chickschit.




Don't think it's Prine.HOWEVER,if it is,the boy has sunk to a new low.


LUKE - 6/12/2018 at 08:09 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Oh stop it Cliffy!Get your finger outta there ,i know what your trying to do.
The Grocery Hole Blues saga continue's.

You need your hillbilly ass kicked, but I reckon we taxpayers would just end up footing your ER bill.

Well may i make a suggestion Little Leafy Poopsy Whoopsy?Why don't you just bring your little big mouthed candy as* down,over,up,(wherever the hell you live and are) here,and give it your best shot.Ya claim to be Rob Prine,have threatened to kick my as* over and over,called me a poser,and all kind's of other hot air jive.I am and have been in the same home for 34 year's.But you(being as you claim to be Rob Prine)oughta know exactly where i live.So name a place close by little nut's and i will see you there.Otherwise shut that grocery hole mouth of your's up! As far as that rant about taxpayer's paying my ER bill.Now why would i or even be able,or want to do that?My wife and i have a group policy thru Blue Cross Blue Shield,that include's dental,vision,script coverage,and yes medical/ER>.Just curious,did you huff airplane glue as a child and teenager?Or do you huff spray paint,duster fumes etc now as an adult i presume.Man you are one toasted cat!!!And a puss as well.



Prine was a keyboard coward then and continues under his latest screen name.
By any name he is still chickschit.





Washington Post called, was wondering if you'd be starting any more threads based on their exclusive reporting based on anonymous sources.



still chickschit.




Don't think it's Prine.HOWEVER,if it is,the boy has sunk to a new low.
Little Leafy boy could not even give the name and breed of his last dog,cept for F off & F you!I do know the name and breed of his dog,and thought if it was him he would surely know.Like i said ,all i got was a F off & F you.My birth name is Luke.However this little turd goes by Leafy Grocery Hole Boy Lost in the Porta Potty Wind screen name.Boy love's from what I've heard to hang out by the john at gig's and sniff the porta fume
s.Maybe that's what scrambled his little gravy brain.


BrerRabbit - 6/12/2018 at 10:05 PM

LOL!!! porta potty fumes, ooooooh yeah. Hey man dont bogart that unit, its the only freshie in the bunch.

I'd say the whipping post is pretty much toast.


Muleman1994 - 6/12/2018 at 10:07 PM

quote:
LOL!!! porta potty fumes, ooooooh yeah. Hey man dont bogart that unit, its the only freshie in the bunch.

I'd say the whipping post is pretty much toast.



It is fun to watch Brother Luke slap leafy-boy around.



LUKE - 6/13/2018 at 11:32 AM

I'd rather flip the hell outta his ear lobe in person,while staring him dead in them little eye's. But that ain't never gonna happen,being as he's just a small minded little person.Come's on here and call's folk out like he's King Kong on steroid's,all the while cowing down behind some made up name.What get's me is when myself or other folk will give their take on something,without mentioning one person's name on here.And BAMM!!!outta the blue here come's Little Leafy Boy beatin his 3 cent gum's.Way i was raised,ya gotta bone to pick with a man,ya meet and face him head on.But not Little Leafy Boy!He'll send ya a PM saying he'll kick your as*,just name the place and time.LMFAO!And just who is this mystery turd of the century?We all know the answer to that,it's The Mighty,Strong & Brave Little Leafy Boy.Blowin hot air like a leaf on the wind.Keep blowin Leafy!!!!You just might make it to the rank's of Master Blower one day.


BoytonBrother - 6/13/2018 at 12:58 PM

How mature.


BrerRabbit - 6/13/2018 at 07:55 PM

Let me show all you rocknroll hippys how I converted this here porta potty into a bong. We run a pipe down into the chem tank, then we installed a big steel strainer in the seat, now out back of this here there is a big hookah arrangement, got hookups for a hundred tubes, run those out to the crowd. Real good times, real good, we run a hippy in there with a blowtorch and a sack once in a while to keep it stoked. Between the paraquat and the angeldust run thru that chem fluid, real nice mentholated smoke, good buzz, good times, real good. Did a test run at the Black Oak Arkansas tribute reunion, works great.


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://hittintheweb.com/

Url of this website:
http://hittintheweb.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=146625