(June 4, 2018 at 7:36 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(June 4, 2018 at 11:30 am)Tiberius Wrote: Apparently the ruling was more about the treatment of the baker by the courts rather than actual discrimination. SCOTUS didn’t think Colorado gave him a fair trial, which is why the decision was 7-2 and not 5-4. Their decision actually had little to do with gay rights or selling a cake, it seems:

Which means the broader question has yet to be answered

No.  It was answered.  Right in the article.

Quote:Kennedy acknowledged that business owners generally cannot deny equal access to goods and services under a neutral public accommodations law. Otherwise, he said, "a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws."

Where states have enacted anti-discrimination laws they can be enforced.  The problem is all the redneck, jesus-freak, asshole, deplorable states which would rather amputate their own balls with a broken bottle than pass anti-discrimination laws.

SCOTUS out of touch with the population.  Well, to be certain.  There are too many conservatards on the court.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-c...SKCN1J02WN

Quote:Most Americans oppose businesses refusing to serve gay people: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Quote:In the poll, 72 percent of respondents said business owners, because of their religious beliefs, should not be allowed to refuse to serve customers based on sexual orientation, while 14 percent said they do have that right. Another 9 percent said businesses have the right “only in certain circumstances” and 6 percent said they do not know.

The xhristards will be praying their balls off wondering how it all went so wrong for them!

It should be noted, that the baker did not refuse to serve homosexuals. In fact he offered to make them any other type of baked goods. He also does not make cakes for bachelor or halloween parties.

Seems like there is a lot of twisting of the narrative in this case, to say something that was not being stated. Similarly designers refused to make dresses for Melania in President Trumps inauguration. I see hardly anyone advocating that someone should be able to refuse to sell to a person, simply because they are homosexual. Rather it is the right to refuse a particular service that goes against one’s conscience.

In 50 years, the people on the wrong side of this will be looked at the same way as the people who got upset when Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus.

Quote:It should be noted, that the baker did not refuse to serve homosexuals. In fact he offered to make them any other type of baked goods. He also does not make cakes for bachelor or halloween parties. 

Does not matter he refused a good he would have made for a straight couple on a similar occasion .That's discrimination .

Quote:Seems like there is a lot of twisting of the narrative in this case, to say something that was not being stated.

Nope 

Quote: Similarly designers refused to make dresses for Melania in President Trumps inauguration.

Not the same thing in the slightest .

Quote: I see hardly anyone advocating that someone should be able to refuse to sell to a person, simply because they are homosexual. Rather it is the right to refuse a particular service that goes against one’s conscience.

Saying you won't sell a wedding cake to a gay couple when you would do so for straight couple is straightforward discrimination.Your conscience has bearing on anything your a public for profit business not a church or a commision based business .

---

(June 4, 2018 at 11:40 pm)Cecelia Wrote: In 50 years, the people on the wrong side of this will be looked at the same way as the people who got upset when Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus.

After all they let Rosa on the bus it not like she was refused to ride on the bus because she was black . They just didn't let he sit in the same spot as the white people . Why won't people consider the conscience  of the racist bus driver to deny a service to a black person that they would a white person . FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE MAN!!!

Given the mental instability of so many people the baker is really trusting that the guys are of sound mind and won't hold a grudge.

http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-al...story.html

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-...-teenagers

Quote:Tizheruk

Saying you won't sell a wedding cake to a gay couple when you would do so for straight couple is straightforward discrimination.

---

When I flew banner planes, we flew all kinds of banners for all kinds of customers. But I recall getting a call from a pro-life organization that wanted to fly an anti-abortion banner. They sent over the art work that wanted to fly. It was a picture of an aborted fetus. We refused to fly it. Why? Because we disagreed with the content and didn't want our business to be associated with it.

So the obvious argument here is well that's a different situation because you wouldn't fly that particular banner for anyone no matter who was paying the bill. 

Now lets go back to our baker. He will happily create a wedding cake that says 'Congratulations Bill and Hilary' on it. But he won't create a cake that says 'Congratulations Bill and Jim'. Same as with the banner company, he does this because he disagrees with the content and does not want his business associated with it. And same as with the banner company he would refuse to create this cake even if Bill and Hilary were the ones ordering it. How is that discrimination?

Businesses should be free to refuse to serve anyone they choose. Likewise the public should be free to refuse to patronize those businesses.

(June 5, 2018 at 8:52 am)johan Wrote: Businesses should be free to refuse to serve anyone they choose. Likewise the public should be free to refuse to patronize those businesses.

Your sentiments, such as they are, are simply not consistent with law.

(June 4, 2018 at 11:40 pm)Cecelia Wrote: In 50 years, the people on the wrong side of this will be looked at the same way as the people who got upset when Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus.

It is sad that we have one party and a vile president trying to undo progress. The good thing is that I don't think this trend can last because the younger generations are not buying the bullshit bigotry of the past.

(June 5, 2018 at 8:52 am)johan Wrote: Businesses should be free to refuse to serve anyone they choose. Likewise the public should be free to refuse to patronize those businesses.

As long as they put a list of who they refuse to serve on their front window and all their advertisements so we know who to boycott.