patrick.net

HappyGilmore says

The US is a secular nation. If you want to do business here, you must follow the laws.

The US is a Constitutional Republic. That means that laws have to follow the Constitution. The local statute in question in this case clearly does not, as will be borne out by the impending SCOTUS decision shortly.

Quigley says

That means that laws have to follow the Constitution. The local statute in question in this case clearly does not, as will be borne out by the impending SCOTUS decision shortly.

Perhaps. We shall see.

But until it's ruled unconstitutional, the law must be followed.

And I don't believe it's a local statute--it's a State civil rights case.

Just because you sit on a Civil Rights Commission, you don’t get the right to start violating the Constitution. I’d give this case about a 95% chance of favoring the baker, with probably a 7-2 split. The two will be Obama’s trash, Kagen and the “wise Latina.”

Quigley says

Just because you sit on a Civil Rights Commission, you don’t get the right to start violating the Constitution. I’d give this case about a 95% chance of favoring the baker, with probably a 7-2 split. The two will be Obama’s trash, Kagen and the “wise Latina.”

I think you must mean a State Legislature.

Which specific provisions of the Constitution does it violate? Funny that all the Federal Judges are missing such a clear violation...

No, the actions of Colorado’s civil rights commission are what’s being legally adjudicated here. Was it correct to demand that a man bake a gay cake? Remember, he wasn’t declining to bake a cake for the gay couple; just declining to bake them a specifically gay cake!

Also the fact that Federal judges are constantly making horrendous extra-legal decisions based on nothing but politics is because they were appointed by the Big Zero. All that’s changing, however, as Trump appoints thousands of responsible judges to fill vacancies of retiring or outgoing judges. Perhaps the law will be actually upheld instead of twisted to resemble whatever politically expedient opinion is currently popular? It’s a lot to hope for, but change is coming!

Quigley says

Was it correct to demand that a man bake a gay cake? Remember, he wasn’t declining to bake a cake for the gay couple; just declining to bake them a specifically gay cake!

They didn't ask for a "gay" cake. They asked for a wedding cake.

Quigley says

No, the actions of Colorado’s civil rights commission are what’s being legally adjudicated here

It is a State Law. Civil Rights commission determines if violations have occurred.

Still waiting for what sections of the Constitution were violated here. (I'd think it would be easier to argue that being gay shouldn't be a protected class vs. a Constitutional argument. There is a lot of case law already concerning discrimination and protected classes)

I want a Hitler cake. A cake with statue of Hitler doing a Nazi salute on top, preferably from a Jewish bakery. I will sue the baker's pants off if he refuse to bake me a Hitler cake.

anon_28052 says

I want a Hitler cake. A cake with statue of Hitler doing a Nazi salute on top, preferably from a Jewish bakery. I will sue the baker's pants off if he refuse to bake me a Hitler cake.

Except that Nazis aren't a protected class so it's a poor analogy.

A better analogy would be a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a black man.

Quigley says

twenty years.

@Quigley, I respect you, but you've overlooked the enormous progress that occurred from 1998-2015. In 1998, Texas prosecuted sodomy, but only if the couple were gay. The military had the Clintonian "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which got Americans killed in Iraq because qualified translators were replaced with local contractors who lied in order to call in military strikes against their tribal enemies. Gay couples didn't get the equal protection of the laws until 2015.

As for the baker, he claimed to get personally involved in every wedding he bakes a cake for. He did not offer to sell the couple a generic wedding cake. He did offer other pastries, but not a wedding cake. One possible result would be for SCOTUS to say the couple could ask for a cake just like some other wedding cake that he's already sold, or one already on display, except without the lettering. IOW, if he writes usually something like "Happy Wedding Adam and Eve," they could get a generic cake without lettering or even maybe "Happy Wedding," but they'd have to write in their own names.

Beware the temptation of political charlatans who offer to protect your religion from government interference. Islam says to kill you, and you will probably want your government to interfere with devout Muslims following what Islam commands. The KKK is also a religious organization, and exempting their beliefs from civil rights laws would have left segregated lunch counters and other businesses across the southeastern USA.

Beware the temptation of political charlatans who offer to protect your religion from government interference. Islam says to kill you, and you will probably want your government to interfere with that. I know I do.

——————

It’s too late

Christians have already destroyed the country and defecated on The Constitution

Fine, where does it end? Apparently with mandatory re-education for anyone not embracing the homosexual lifestyle. That’s what the civil rights board decided in this case. I don’t agree with that decision. I also don’t agree with sodomists being jailed as per Old Texas law. I think we agree more than we disagree on this subject, but I’m a libertarian at heart. My rights end where yours begin, and vice versa. You can’t sic the government on me for “incorrect” or even outrageous speech, and you can’t prosecute me for having a “currently unfashionable” faith.

The courts have ruled many times that art is speech and thus protected. Cakes, photography, and even flower arrangement can be considered art and thus protected free speech. First Ammendment is a real bitch for progs! All kinds of things they hate with speech and religion and assembly.

HappyGilmore says

anon_28052 says

I want a Hitler cake. A cake with statue of Hitler doing a Nazi salute on top, preferably from a Jewish bakery. I will sue the baker's pants off if he refuse to bake me a Hitler cake.

Except that Nazis aren't a protected class so it's a poor analogy.

A better analogy would be a bakery refusing the bake a cake for a black man.

What a Christian cake, with a cross on top, from a devout Wahabi Muslim?

curious2 says

anon_4480e says

cause

No, HIV is a virus that spread mostly by heterosexual transmission in Africa. You and Fortwhine can meet at the Reseda truck stop and engage in monogamous sodomy every day for decades, and if neither of you got HIV from someone else, then neither of you will "cause" it, no matter how many times you might try.

There's zero doubt that man on man sex (whether gay or bisexual) greatly increases the risk for HIV contraction, and so does on average the lifestyle. The percentages in relation to the general population prove that, no matter whether one regards gay sex as immoral or not. Didn't cause AIDS but certainly helped spreading it. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_and_men_who_have_sex_with_men#

FIFY...
mell says

There's zero doubt that man Dan on man Goat sex (whether gay or bisexual) greatly increases the risk for HIV contraction, and so does on average the lifestyle.

Quigley says

. First Ammendment is a real bitch for progs! All kinds of things they hate with speech and religion and assembly.

So true. The first amendment is the most important.

Who would want to buy a cake baked by someone that vehemently did not want to bake it?

Quigley says

The courts have ruled many times that art is speech and thus protected. Cakes, photography, and even flower arrangement can be considered art and thus protected free speech. First Ammendment is a real bitch for progs! All kinds of things they hate with speech and religion and assembly.

Ah--so a cake is free speech? That's your Constitutional argument?


anon_28052 says

What a Christian cake, with a cross on top, from a devout Wahabi Muslim?

Nope--once again, Christians are not a protected class. Look up "protected class" and you can learn about what types of discrimination are against the law.

anon_3b28c says

Christians are not a protected class. Look up "protected class"

Looked it up for you:
"Federal protected classes include:
Race.
Color.
Religion or creed.
National origin or ancestry.
Sex.
Age.
Physical or mental disability.
Veteran status.
Genetic information.
Citizenship."
I believe Christian falls under religion.

Onvacation says

I believe Christian falls under religion.

You mean we can't say anything we want that ridicules Christianity? I know we can't with Islam.

Strategist says

You mean we can't say anything we want that ridicules Christianity? I know we can't with Islam.

That falls under the first amendment.

The bill of rights are constitutional law but also a list of inalienable rights not given by law but possessed by humanity.

Ok by me if you ridicule christ, allah, god, mohammed, even joseph smith.
It's your God given right.

anon_3b28c says

Quigley says

The courts have ruled many times that art is speech and thus protected. Cakes, photography, and even flower arrangement can be considered art and thus protected free speech. First Ammendment is a real bitch for progs! All kinds of things they hate with speech and religion and assembly.

Ah--so a cake is free speech? That's your Constitutional argument?


anon_28052 says

What a Christian cake, with a cross on top, from a devout Wahabi Muslim?

Nope--once again, Christians are not a protected class. Look up "protected class" and you can learn about what types of discrimination are against the law.

Religion is a protected class.

Federal protected classes include:
Race.
Color.
Religion or creed.
National origin or ancestry.
Sex.
Age.
Physical or mental disability.
Veteran status.
And in many states, sexual orientation.

But when two protected classes clash, the best solution is to refrain from giving th government power to force anyone to do anything about it.

Also for those of you who are confused, the first Ammendment gives you freedom of speech to say anything you wish about any religion at all. You can say Mohammed was a pedophile murderer psychopath and the government can not punish you. The first amendment also bars GOVERNMENT from making any law respecting or restricting a religion or religious practice.

Like I said above, it’s a pesky little Ammendment for progressives, who wish to “progress” to a Totalitarian State!

Onvacation says

Ok by me if you ridicule christ, allah, god, mohammed, even joseph smith.
It's your God given right.

Allah and Mohammad are my favorite assholes. Good thing one never existed, and the other is dead.

anon_28052 says

anon_28052 says

What a Christian cake, with a cross on top, from a devout Wahabi Muslim?

Nope--once again, Christians are not a protected class. Look up "protected class" and you can learn about what types of discrimination are against the law.

Religion is a protected class.

Quigley says

Federal protected classes include:
Race.
Color.
Religion or creed.
National origin or ancestry.
Sex.
Age.
Physical or mental disability.
Veteran status.
And in many states, sexual orientation.

But when two protected classes clash, the best solution is to refrain from giving th government power to force anyone to do anything about it.

Agreed on both. The problem with "protected" classes are that people are not equal anymore after those laws who are really at their core unconstitutional. And it is extremely easy for government to abuse those laws and selectively enforce case, which is already the case in most of the western world. If you bbq pork in front of a mosque or object to an oriental prayer-room in your company you're fucked, if you're Christian and demand prayer-room or even break at your work place you're laughed at.

mell says

selectively enforce

Selective enforcement is unconstitutional. The phrase "protected class" can cause confusion; in reality, there are prohibited classifications, e.g. race or color. For example, you can sue for race discrimination in employment regardless of whether you are white, black, or any other color. If Chobani says the CEO's Muslim religion requires him to discriminate against disbelievers, please get that in writing or otherwise on record. Alas, since Hobby Lobby, even large and seemingly secular corporations can impose the managers' religious beliefs and claim exemption from laws of general application, so Chobani yogurt could conceivably claim the CEO has a right to kill disbelievers or at least subordinate them.

anonymous says

Evidence from a national survey experiment.

Interesting survey, though it asked only about photography, not cakes. It found a huge disparity between Evangelical "Christians" vs the population as a whole:



Sometimes majorities of Evangelicals say things that make me question if they are really Christian:

curious2 says

I like what this sign says, however it is a complete lie. The Bible is clear about it's hate towards Gay's. It says they are going to hell, period. Therefore a gay person can never be a true Christian.
What I see in this sign is an ongoing reinterpretation of the Bible for the positive. They reinterpret slavery, blasphemy, gays, burning witches etc. Awesome. It's a sign of becoming civilized.
Can you name another religion that continues to interpret it's religion the way it was written? I'll give you a hint. They are barbarians from the 7th century, stuck in a time warp.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/04/supreme-court-sides-with-masterpiece-cakeshop-in-same-sex-wedding-ruling/

Guess that’s been decided. 1st Ammendment trumps civil rights commissions!
Hurray for the Constitution!
Suck it, Leftist fucks!

Quigley says

Just because you sit on a Civil Rights Commission, you don’t get the right to start violating the Constitution. I’d give this case about a 95% chance of favoring the baker, with probably a 7-2 split. The two will be Obama’s trash, Kagen and the “wise Latina.”

Damn, I’m good! Although it was Ginsburg and the wise Latina.

Quigley says

Gay rights haven’t been about rights for twenty years. They’ve been about enforcing their brand of morality onto the country. Same as any religious asshole. Only difference is these assholes like to get dicked.

This

Finally short break from liberal fag assault.

Maybe I just think I’m in business not to be your bitch and bake you a cake just cause you want one.

Normal society should not accept gay shit.

HEYYOU says

Does anyone notice how Rep/Con/hypocrite Christians are so focused on dick sucking & anal fucking?
Closeted?

HEYYOU says

Does anyone notice how Rep/Con/hypocrite Christians are so focused on dick sucking & anal fucking?

Ever notice how Dem/Lib/Left hypocrites say sex pref, race, and gender don't matter, but are so focused on everybody believing what some self-appointed spokesperson says with regard to gays, race, and women?

Liberals:
"Employees on the clock have a right to disrespect the flag to show their stance on particular issues."
Also Liberals:
"Business owners have no right not to bake a cake that requires them to endorse positions they disagree with."

It’s retardation, mental disorder. Not normal. And hence not ok.

Shitting in public also is natural, but also not ok. We are society and not animals who ok every retard thing left wants to do.

HEYYOU says

FortWayne says

Maybe I just think I’m in business not to be your bitch and bake you a cake just cause you want one.

Normal society should not accept gay shit.

Same sex,sex, has been around for ever. It is normal.
I must have gotten close to home.

HEYYOU says

Same sex,sex, has been around for ever. It is normal.

It's what the left has been doing for the past 50 years--it's called the normalization of deviancy.

Quigley says

Quigley says

Just because you sit on a Civil Rights Commission, you don’t get the right to start violating the Constitution. I’d give this case about a 95% chance of favoring the baker, with probably a 7-2 split. The two will be Obama’s trash, Kagen and the “wise Latina.”

Damn, I’m good! Although it was Ginsburg and the wise Latina.

Absolutely. You were dead on correct.

I read tgrough all your old comments in this thread. You had it right down to small details.

I’ll say I’m shocked(and hopeful) that Kagen sided with the majority. Not due to politics, but due to upholding the constitution. I’d be very please if Trump gets to nominate a replacement for Ginsburg and we have a Supreme Court that largely follows the intent of the constitution.

Freedom and liberty are in the balance and the fewer sjw supporters on the court, the better.

FortWayne says

Maybe I just think I’m in business not to be your bitch and bake you a cake just cause you want one.

Normal society should not accept gay shit.

HEYYOU says

Does anyone notice how Rep/Con/hypocrite Christians are so focused on dick sucking & anal fucking?
Closeted?

In a normal society, people are free to pursue whatever leads them to happiness. This court case was about striking a balance in that and was much more about religious freeedom.

If you don’t like homosexuality, fine. But keep in mind that God and Jesus are there for whomever, whenever, as soon as that person is ready. Regardless of sin, as we are all sinners.

If you want to make a difference, concentrate on that. You won’t “fix” gay people I don’t think. But you can make a stand for the religious freedoms that were under attack when Barrack Obama was president. And you can speak to Christianity as a way to repentance and salvation.

Compelling an artist to make a work that is contrary to his beliefs is unconstitutional, immoral and unamerican. It is basically involuntary conscription.

A better analogy would be a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a black man.

That's a straw man. The baker was not refusing to bake for gays in general, just not for a specific event.

A "better analogy" would be a black baker who accepts white customers, but will not make a Confederate Flag cake. Or a Jewish caterer who accepts Morman customers, but will not provide services for a polygamous wedding.