Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Colorado Baker

[Amarok]

Which goes back to a point I already covered. The baker was willing to sell them other items. The baker does not want to do wedding cakes for gay weddings. Its not an item he wants to sell. He wouldn't sell one to the gay couple. I'm heterosexual and he wouldn't sell one to me if I tried to buy one for a gay wedding. If that gay couple came into his shop and wanted to buy a wedding cake the wedding of some heterosexual friends of theirs, the baker would be more than willing to fill that order.

It doesn't matter who is buying the cake he is refusing the service on the grounds that it is for gay people, that is the definition of discrimination. It is the same discrimination as refusing to sell someone a cake because it's for a Black wedding, even if the person ordering the cake was white. It is clear cut discrimination I don't know why your having such a hard time with this, the question isn't even if it's discrimination the question is should a business owner have the right to discriminate.

---

Which goes back to a point I already covered. The baker was willing to sell them other items. The baker does not want to do wedding cakes for gay weddings. Its not an item he wants to sell. He wouldn't sell one to the gay couple. I'm heterosexual and he wouldn't sell one to me if I tried to buy one for a gay wedding. If that gay couple came into his shop and wanted to buy a wedding cake the wedding of some heterosexual friends of theirs, the baker would be more than willing to fill that order.

Lets go back to the sign maker. He makes signs. Someone from the Whitesboro Baptist Church comes in and wants him to make a sign that says God Hates Fags. Should there be a law forcing the sign maker to produce that particular sign just because he produces other signs for other groups? Lets take it further. Lets say the Whitesboro Baptists come in and they don't want him to make their God Hates Fags signs because they take great pride in making those signs themselves. But lets say they want the sign maker to make them some exit signs and some men's/women's room signs for their little church of hate. And again, the sign maker refuses. The sign maker makes those exact signs for other customers. But he doesn't want to make them for members of this particular church. Should there be a law forcing the sign maker to do so. I don't think there should, but that's exactly what some here are arguing for.

No, because under discrimination laws a business owner can refuse service as long as they can show good reason for the refusal. So if you refused to do business with westboro baptist church because they are a hate group then you can do that. But if you refused service to christians then it would be considered discrimination under the law.

Because it gets his right wing panties in a bunch .

[Joods]

The bakery owner stated that he would be willing to sell anything else to the couple, meaning cookies, birthday cakes, cupcakes. He would not sell them a wedding cake because their marriage went against his religious beliefs.

---

That's what I got out of watching an interview with CNN Tuesday morning.

What a dick that guy is .

---

Ok so its not the same because you say so. Got it.

No it objectivity is not got nothing to do with me 

 If you can't explain it, then you haven't got a valid argument.

Does not follow .Someone can choose to not elaborate further (because they don't need too) and still be 100% valid . There is no contradiction in that .

I would like to clarify something in your post above . The quotes used in your post that don't have my name attached, do not belong to me.

[Amarok]

Yup those are johans not joods

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

If a business is selling standard goods to the general public then it should be required to accept all customers.  

---

---

All customers? Even those who refuse to pay? Even those who steal from them? Even those who are lewd and drive away other paying customers? 

---

Would you be OK if every single food establishment and grocery store in your county refused to sell you food?  Suppose it then extended to the entire State?  Are you still OK with it?  And then to entire nation.  Are you still OK with that?

Well obviously I wouldn't be happy about it but is that what we're really discussing here? Is the issue really every business that exists refusing to serve someone? Is that what you're honestly arguing is the reason why we need a law? So that doesn't happen?

---

---

Still not the same thing

A guy paints signs. I want to hire him to paint a sign that say his wife is a dirty whore. He refuses. Discrimination?

---

[robvalue]

A guy who makes signs wouldn't make a sign saying, "Blacks are bad and kill them Nazi power is the best" for anyone. He would simply have a policy that he wouldn't produce offensive messages on his signs. Whether or not it's a Nazi buying it is irrelevant.

But if someone asked him to make a, "Wedding this way!" sign and he agreed, but then he refused to make the exact same thing for a gay couple, then he's discriminating. He'd have to refuse to make such a sign for anyone, for whatever reason, to avoid discrimination.

PS: I imagine some cogs spinning, and some people are thinking a sign saying "Gay wedding this way" could be considered offensive to some bigoted Christian sign seller guy. The important thing would be whether he would make that sign for anyone at all, not who is buying it. He could reserve the right to only produce messages he personally "approves", but he can't reserve the right to choose which people can have which messages.

[johan]

Hmm, wait. He would sell a gay couple cipcakes but not a wedding cake? Are we sure that’s accurate?

Accurate.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politic...-t-n880061

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A victory for MAHA.

[A Theist]

SCOTUS turned upside downland right side up when it determined that state agencies can't discriminate against Christian Bakers.

#shut down state sponsored bigotry against Christians!

I'm not saying you can't be a christian baker.  I'm just saying if you own a business, learn to separate your mythology from your business.

Yeah but that had little to do with the central issue, though. The question was, can a state agency and courts inject their own biases in their determinations. The U.S. Supreme Court saw that the Colorado civil rights commission and the courts showed an open bias and hostility toward the Baker's faith and ruled against them. The SCOTUS decision had little to do with gay rights and the Baker's refusal to bake a wedding cake.

[Mr.wizard]

Hmm, wait. He would sell a gay couple cipcakes but not a wedding cake? Are we sure that’s accurate?

Accurate.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politic...-t-n880061

Not completely accurate, the Baker would sell them baked goods provided they weren't for a gay wedding as he stated in his Colorado court case. The Baker also made a wedding cake for the "marriage" of two dogs, I guess that let's you what he thinks of gay people.

[The Grand Nudger]

Such is the nature of his "strongly held religious beliefs"..and "conscience".  It;s really no wonder that a couple of admins on a civil rights court treated him with contempt, he;s a disgusting piece of shit, lol.  

That, in any case, is what scotus sided with, him being treated like the piece of shit he is.....not his silly ass right to discriminate, which he doesn;t have.