ADVERTISEMENT

Supreme Court to hear christian baker case

I don't see how the Supreme Court could possibly think it is legal or moral to force someone to do something against their will, so I hope it fails hard.

That said the baker is a backwards ignorant piece of shit and I hope their business fails as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SADUCFKNIGHT17
This is a fine line. The baker definitely has a point that their work is art. So their business and their first amendment rights are intertwined. However, I think if a gay couple asks for a generic wedding cake that could be equally at home in a straight couple wedding then there is no first amendment issue. A wedding cake probably doesn't fall under the basic goods and services category like a house or groceries, or a car does.
 
There was a different case where I believe a neo nazi family asked for a cake that said Heil Hitler on it. The firm declined to make the cake. Which I think is absolutely their right to do so. And I think that would fall under a first amendment issue.
 
NinjaKnight said:
I don't see how the Supreme Court could possibly think it is legal or moral to force someone to do something against their will, so I hope it fails hard.

That said the baker is a backwards ignorant piece of shit and I hope their business fails as well.
Click to expand...
I disagree I think this should be covered by the civil rights act.
 
Why didn't these guys just go to another shop? If someone told me they didn't want my money I'd say OK, I'll give it to someone else. Let the free market decide.
 
MACHater02 said:
I disagree I think this should be covered by the civil rights act.
Click to expand...
Scary. What about the civil rights of the baker? Does he not have any? So you think it's a good idea for the government to be able to compel people to do things against their will?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
fabknight said:
Scary. What about the civil rights of the baker? Does he not have any? So you think it's a good idea for the government to be able to compel people to do things against their will?
Click to expand...

LOL, they make me pay taxes against my will. Nevertheless...

I agree with the notion that this should be a matter that is resolved on the open market. These cake people sound like assholes and also sound rather stupid for turning down business. How are they any different from a company that provides shitty customer service? You don't want my money? You don't want to treat me with respect? Fine. Fukc you and I'll take my business elsewhere. And along the way, I'll write a lovely review of you online for the world to read.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CommuterBob, ucflee and fabknight
KnighttimeJoe said:
LOL, they make me pay taxes against my will. Nevertheless...

I agree with the notion that this should be a matter that is resolved on the open market. These cake people sound like assholes and also sound rather stupid for turning down business. How are they any different from a company that provides shitty customer service? You don't want my money? You don't want to treat me with respect? Fine. Fukc you and I'll take my business elsewhere. And along the way, I'll write a lovely review of you online for the world to read.
Click to expand...
All other things aside it’s a totally ignorant business practice . If they are that dumb they’ll be gone soon anyway
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuvalKnight and KnighttimeJoe
KnighttimeJoe said:
LOL, they make me pay taxes against my will. Nevertheless...

I agree with the notion that this should be a matter that is resolved on the open market. These cake people sound like assholes and also sound rather stupid for turning down business. How are they any different from a company that provides shitty customer service? You don't want my money? You don't want to treat me with respect? Fine. Fukc you and I'll take my business elsewhere. And along the way, I'll write a lovely review of you online for the world to read.
Click to expand...
he offered to make them a generic cake, just not decorate it. its a bad business decision, but its his personal beliefs and good for him for sticking to it knowing something like this might happen.

btbones said:
All other things aside it’s a totally ignorant business practice . If they are that dumb they’ll be gone soon anyway
Click to expand...
he used to have 11 employees. after this he is down to 3. he no longer does wedding cakes at all. he hopes to start doing those again after this decision.
 
UCFWayne said:
he offered to make them a generic cake, just not decorate it. its a bad business decision, but its his personal beliefs and good for him for sticking to it knowing something like this might happen.


he used to have 11 employees. after this he is down to 3. he no longer does wedding cakes at all. he hopes to start doing those again after this decision.
Click to expand...

Yes, and a generic cake is still stupid. And whether or not it’s good for him that he stood up for his beliefs...sure, but as he’s seen, it’s at the expense of his bottom line. The customer isn’t always right but the customer is still the customer.
 
UCFWayne said:
he offered to make them a generic cake, just not decorate it. its a bad business decision, but its his personal beliefs and good for him for sticking to it
Click to expand...

There's nothing noble or good about sticking to ignorant beliefs.

Do you say the same thing to Nazis? Good for them for sticking with their beliefs.
 
NinjaKnight said:
That said the baker is a backwards ignorant piece of shit and I hope their business fails as well.
Click to expand...
I've been following this case for a long time.

At first, the bakers may have been amenable to some accommodation. But then they had $20,000 of vandalism. That's when they dug-in. Since they people have caused them over 6 figures of damage to their personal property.

Oh, and the city and state started dicking them over some 6 figures beyond that, even though their case is on-going.

I'm tired of people who live in shadows, and the government who doesn't hesitate to harass people with other things still amidst their right to 'due process,' to the point they are out a quarter million dollars -- before even looking at their legal fees.

I guess that's why I've joined the 'backlash,' especially as the Mainstream Media doesn't understand the concept of "reasonable accommodation" ... except when it comes to those of Islamic faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne and ucflee
UCFWayne said:
he offered to make them a generic cake, just not decorate it.
Click to expand...
That's what won me over. They will service anyone and not tell them how to live their lives, but reserve the right on whether to put specific messages or symbols on what they deliver.

I understand they even gave them the names of several other bakers that not just give them a cake with whatever they wanted, but would even finish off their cake for them.

That passes my "Golden Rule" test.

UCFWayne said:
he used to have 11 employees. after this he is down to 3.
Click to expand...
The Mainstream Media refuses to cover people vandalizing them to the tune of 6 figures, and the gov't using every other regulation and statute to harass them to the tune of another 6 figures, things that have nothing to do with this case, but they suffer through.

UCFWayne said:
he no longer does wedding cakes at all. he hopes to start doing those again after this decision.
Click to expand...
That's their lawyers. Very smart move too.

The Kentucky clerk also attempted this, after (finally) consulting lawyers, and refusing to issue any marriage licenses, since those licenses bore her name. That's allowed in some states, including Alabama, but not under Kentucky law.

Unfortunately for Kentucky, unlike North Carolina, they have no "reasonable accommodation" solution. That's how North Carolina dealt with it, clerks could claim "religious exemption," and another clerk could handle it for them with their name, instead of the clerk claiming the "religious exemption" under "reasonable accommodation."

That's how this is supposed to work ... if "reasonable accommodation" is possible, "religious exemption" is possible. That's how those of Islamic faith can work jobs where alcohol is involved, even though they aren't consuming it, some claim they need a religious exemption to not even be around people who do consume it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
MACHater02 said:
I disagree I think this should be covered by the civil rights act.
Click to expand...
I think you should read both the '64 and '68 acts again. They only cover equality of access and representation.

This is what Gary Johnson tried to covey in the Nazi cake -- an extremely outstanding argument Johnson made (that even anti-Johnson Libertarians misquoted). And that is ...

If you tell a baker he must put something on a cake, then you must allow a swastika too. Remember, the swastika has been a symbol long in use before the Nationalist Party of Germany, and someone could make a very strong civics argument that they want it for a purpose that has nothing to do with the Nazis.

MACHater02 said:
The government compels people to do things against their will every day.
Click to expand...
fabknight said:
And that makes it right?
Click to expand...
MACHater02 said:
Yes, it helps society function.
Click to expand...
"Government Knows Best" ... Right? I don't think people realize that actually means "Majority Knows Best" ... or better yet ... "Today's Majority Knows Best."

That scares the dickens out of me ... and I'd argue 9 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices too. Thank our founders that they created a system of Constitutional review that is as far removed from the majority as possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne and fabknight
UCFBS said:
MACHater02 said:
I disagree I think this should be covered by the civil rights act.
Click to expand...
I think you should read both the '64 and '68 acts again. They only cover equality of access and representation.

This is what Gary Johnson tried to covey in the Nazi cake -- an extremely outstanding argument Johnson made (that even anti-Johnson Libertarians misquoted). And that is ...

If you tell a baker he must put something on a cake, then you must allow a swastika too. Remember, the swastika has been a symbol long in use before the Nationalist Party of Germany, and someone could make a very strong civics argument that they want it for a purpose that has nothing to do with the Nazis.

MACHater02 said:
The government compels people to do things against their will every day.
Click to expand...
fabknight said:
And that makes it right?
Click to expand...
MACHater02 said:
Yes, it helps society function.
Click to expand...
"Government Knows Best" ... Right? I don't think people realize that actually means "Majority Knows Best" ... or better yet ... "Today's Majority Knows Best."

That scares the dickens out of me ... and I'd argue 9 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices too. Thank our founders that they created a system of Constitutional review that is as far removed from the majority as possible.
Click to expand...
How does this not fall under equality of access?
 
MACHater02 said:
How does this not fall under equality of access?
Click to expand...
Because they didn't deny the customer access. They will do anything for the customer they will do for any other customer.

Where most bakers or other places of goods or services have gotten into trouble is where they deny the service to one customer, but not another seeking the same good or service.

That's really the major, key takeaway on where the CRA ends. Unless the government can approve they denied a service to this customer that they would provide to another, the CRA really has no effect. The common law on its usage has been pretty much at that line.

This baker's lawyer then had them doubled-down when they just stop doing wedding cakes altogether. So now some are arguing the court has to order they must make wedding cakes, which really, really gets into a very murky area.

The government is now defining and forcing the goods or services a business provides. That's going to be even more difficult to force beyond just forcing them to put whatever messages and symbols they want on a cake.

Which goes back to Johnson's swastika reality ... if you force people to do everything the customer asks, there's nothing to stop them from asking something vulgar, repulsive and otherwise of extremely poor tastes, totally against their beliefs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
UCFBS said:
Because they didn't deny the customer access. They will do anything for the customer they will do for any other customer.

Where most bakers or other places of goods or services have gotten into trouble is where they deny the service to one customer, but not another seeking the same good or service.

That's really the major, key takeaway on where the CRA ends. Unless the government can approve they denied a service to this customer that they would provide to another, the CRA really has no effect. The common law on its usage has been pretty must at that line.

This baker's lawyer then had them doubled-down when they just stop doing wedding cakes altogether. So now some are arguing the court has to order they must make wedding cakes, which really, really gets into a very murky area.

The government is now defining and forcing the goods or services a business provides. That's going to be even more difficult to force beyond just forcing them to put whatever messages and symbols they want on a cake.

Which goes back to Johnson's swastika reality ... if you force people to do everything the customer asks, there's nothing to stop them from asking something vulgar, repulsive and otherwise of extremely poor tastes, totally against their beliefs.
Click to expand...
You sound ridiculous. You're essentially saying its perfectly fine for a baker to tell someone who is gay that he won't allow them to buy his cakes. They are however free to buy the birthday candles he carries. That's discrimination no matter how you want to spin it.
 
MACHater02 said:
You sound ridiculous. You're essentially saying its perfectly fine for a baker to tell someone who is gay that he won't allow them to buy his cakes.
Click to expand...
No, that would be a CRA violation! Did you not read what I said?

"They will do anything for the customer they will do for any other customer."​

This baker will sell cakes to anyone in the LGBT community! He just refuses to put select words and symbols on the cake.

MACHater02 said:
They are however free to buy the birthday candles he carries.
Click to expand...
No, they are allowed to buy the same cakes as any other customer.

The common law on this has been rather plain ... as long as a place of business does that, the CRA is not being violated.

MACHater02 said:
That's discrimination no matter how you want to spin it.
Click to expand...
You obviously will take whatever I say and change it to fit your argument.

We're done. Honestly. Don't ever become a lawyer. You need to look up what "contempt of court" means, legally.
 
So let me get this straight:

Liberals in private industry can hang signs on their windows that read "Trump supporters not welcome" and it's fine. The CEO of Camping World can declare that Trump supporters should not shop at his stores. And he's cheered.

Yet a small bakery gets drug through the mud by these PC warriors because they respectfully declined to take a job on religious grounds.

I guess it makes sense. Modern liberals absolutely detest religion, and religious people, yet hail the tenants of government. It's their new religion. Refusing service along partisan political lines is fine, yet doing so under Constitutionally protected religious freedom lines is not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne and crambone
UCFKnight85 said:
So let me get this straight:
Liberals in private industry can hang signs on their windows that read "Trump supporters not welcome" and it's fine. The CEO of Camping World can declare that Trump supporters should not shop at his stores. And he's cheered.
Click to expand...
Yep, Progressive hypocrisy.

UCFKnight85 said:
Yet a small bakery gets drug through the mud
Click to expand...
And vandalized to the tune of 6 figures ...

Imagine if Camping World got vandalized? The local police would be all over that.

UCFKnight85 said:
by these PC warriors because they respectfully declined to take a job on religious grounds.
Click to expand...
No, it's better than that ... they took the job, just refused to put select words and/or symbols on the cake. As I pointed out, the courts have been clear that is all the CRA calls for.

So what the lawsuits are now about is whether or not the government can force businesses to have to write messages and draw symbols that may be against their religious beliefs.

I don't think the Progressives realize that will undo most Islamic protections as well.

UCFKnight85 said:
I guess it makes sense. Modern liberals absolutely detest religion, and religious people,
Click to expand...
Christianity and Judism, not Islam, although they will blame Trump for anti-semitic crimes ... until proven to be false flag, even though Trump is the most pro-Israel President yet.

UCFKnight85 said:
yet hail the tenants of government. It's their new religion.
Click to expand...
They claim 'enlightenment' and 'science', but most don't even understand American civics, and cannot follow the science they speak of, they don't have the background.

Which makes it just as 'bind faith' as someone who believes religion. I will revert back to the full discussion of Gary Johnson pointing out that this view will require bakers to put a swastika on a cake.

UCFKnight85 said:
Refusing service along partisan political lines is fine, yet doing so under Constitutionally protected religious freedom lines is not.
Click to expand...
In the mind of a Progressive ... yes. But in the mind of a true Liberal ... no.

But true Liberals are few and far between now. It's career suicide to go against the Progressives.

I've personally got my popcorn ready for the "war on sexual harassment/extortion/assault" to turn into the "war on sex." It's one thing to watch hypocrites get caught, Larry Flynn was outstanding at exposing them. But now the Progressives are even pointing the finger at Larry Flynn as a form of "legal human trafficker."

This is how freedom dies.
 
NinjaKnight said:
Dude. No one cares. No one even reads your 20 page novellas.
Click to expand...
Yes, we know, your total ignorance of many facts and much civics showcases how you don't even read my posts, among others. So if it makes you feel better to make fun of my length and detail, that's fine. It doesn't remove the fact that you have the depth of an 8 year-old, just like the media programs you.

I was pro-LGBT and marriage equality when it was unpopular ... back during DOMA in 1994, which Clinton signed. I guess that's what bothers me most about Progressives and people like yourself. It's only something you support when it's "cool." Just like not supporting Bill's accusers until 2017.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brandon

***UCF Transfer Portal Update***

Replies
373
Views
19K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
RoverKnight
RoverKnight
Brandon

OT: Parent blasts Dabo Swinney for belittling his son

Replies
25
Views
1K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
SCKnight
SCKnight
UCFChargeOn

Is Georgia the next Baylor?

Replies
24
Views
1K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
litehedded
L
Brandon

Mike Aresco: An Open Letter on Power 5 - Group of 5 Branding

Replies
57
Views
1K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
UCFhockey77
UCFhockey77
Brandon

***Stanford OL transfer Drake Metcalf loved weekend visit to UCF***

Replies
42
Views
3K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
AGLamb
AGLamb
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back