Supreme Court Backs Christian Baker

Stupid comparison. The blacks were denied ALL serviceand even seats at the counter. The baker here did not refuse to sell the cake. He refused to design it in a way celebrating gay marriage

 

He is hiding because he refused them because he discriminates based on their lifestyle, not his religious beliefs, if the baker is soo devout, has he ever refused a message on a wedding cake to a couple on their 2nd marriage, bible rails against divorce much more than homosexuality. Its not religion, its prejudice that drives him, he uses religion as his shield for his hate.

 

These are not off-the-shelf cakes. They are made to order cakes. That being the case I don't believe the creator of the cake should be required by law to create anything he finds offensive or against his beliefs, or just something that he doesn't feel like creating for whatever reason.

 

Many private businesses serve the public. Did you not phrase your response correctly?

 

I misunderstood nothing. I don't care if he doesn't want to sell me a cake. I believe that is his right.

 

The did take into it that the 13th amendment does not allow "involuntary servitude", even if paid. That is what I would have claimed. The 13th amendment is the most unused amendment that applys to everyone, not just minorities.

 

Big difference between a national chain and a privately owned bakery. Calm down and look at this as a business opportunity for YOU. Start a bakery and advertise you want to specialize in selling cakes to everyone you feel is shunned by the Colorado bakers.

 

This is awesome for my business. I can’t wait to tell some Christian fundamentalist that I can’t adjust their bill or offer them a refund because it’s against MY religion !

 

Other than as a personal declared intense hatred and bigotry against Christian fundamentalists, that message makes no sense whatsoever.

 

No hatred involved. Just business. It would work equally well against Jews, Muslims, Druids, Wiccans, transgenders........... but by now you might actually be seeing the point.

 

So what if he does? Is it not his cake, his life. Are you forced to have gay friends, black friends, white friends, yellow friends. NO. Your freedoms come before anyone elses.

 

My post was directed to and at user "Jake Starkey" above, not to you. I don't know how your post got commingled with his in my quote. Sorry.

 

That's a pretty lazy reading of the case and an ignorant reading of the First Amendment. It has to be a bona fide religious belief (and yours doesn't appear to be), not a frivolous claim made to torque up Christian fundamentalists.

 

If managers of hotels asked questions, they would be empty. A little common sense here.

Then again, what if a bunch of college freshmen with cases of bear wanted to rent a room, shouldn't the manager have the right to deny them the room?

 

The liberal bureaucrats wanted to humiliate a Christian and they ended up getting taken to the woodshed by the Supreme Court.

Very satisfying.

 

But my hypothesis assumed that the manager would not ask the question. He'd be told by the couple that "we are gay and we just got married and we want the honeymoon suite to physically consummate the marriage."

 

Yes. No bears allowed.

 

Who is going to decide if my claim is frivolous or not ? Judges’ biases guide their decisions. If Roy Moore, for example, heard my case, I would lose. Someone else , I would win. I can dress up my “belief” enough to make a legitimate case, even a constitutional one.

 

Yes, yes, and yes, if that's what the PRIVATE business owner wants to do.

 

Then the baker will lose business. Why do you want to force someone you think hates you to bake you a food that you have to pay for? Do you really think Jews or Muslims are going to each others stores to buy food or other services from one another? Just asking for them to do something to your food. So why would gays go to Christians for a cake to be made if gays think Christians hate gays?

 

Your interpretation of the ruling is wrong. The baker's can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple and that wasn't the issue. The issue was decorating the cake with figurines of a gay couple and or adorn it with pro gay marriage words which is against their religion.

 

The couple could have easily went somewhere else. They could have sent someone in the wedding party to order the cake and then gotten the topper someplace else like a Party City. But noooo, they had to make a stink about it.

In most of the normal country, a bar/restaurant can be smoking or non-smoking. You don't have to go there. Go someplace else. Same as most guys won't take their wife to Hooters. It's a choice of the business owner that pays taxes. It is not the governments job to tell a business how it has to be run.

 

The case wasn't about anti discrimination laws it was about religious freedom and the ruling is a huge victory for that.

 

I don't think you have a point for anyone to see except you are mad about the ruling

 

Apart from the fact that all these complaints when a craftsman, shop owner, bar owner, etc. refuse anyone they do not like to operate are totally ridiculous and as a judge I would punish the plaintiffs for stupidity and harassment of the courts ...

... because if I own a shop, etc., then I decide who I want to have as a customer and who not because this is my business decision - Basta ....

This Christian baker was not really Christian in his decision. But it is nothing new that many Christians are hypocritical idiots as far as their faith is concerned, as I still know as an atheist!