Supreme Court to hear christian baker case
- Thread starter UCFWayne
- Start date
Man, must be one hell of a basketball game. You’ve been getting ready for what, two weeks straight?
What is it they requested to put on the cake that is against his morals? I haven't followed this case closely and I agree that if they deny specific words/symbols for everyone it's not discrimination. However, this case is always described as a Christian baker not providing a cake for a gay couple which is oversimplified if it is specific words/symbols that are actually the issue.
LOL
The struggle is real. This affluent gay couple couldn't get the cake they wanted from one of the 3,000 other bakeries in this country that would take the job, which is exactly like then systematic racism that Rosa Parks faced.
She faced being imprisoned for her actions; the gay couple faced having to choose a different bakery .5 miles down the road.
They are so, so alike.
HOW DARE YOU QUESTION NINJA?!?!!!? Dont you know hes always right?!?! You are obviously wrong and should just accept it. Ninja is so smart and brave its not even funny!
The latter is what this case is about.
If it was just them denying them a cake to the gay couple altogether, then it would have been a CRA violation and their ability to appeal would be exceedingly limited (and the SCOTUS wouldn't hear it). Furthermore the bakers are no longer baking any wedding cakes for anyone, which should also be addressed in the ruling.
The CRA only addresses when a good or service provider serves some but not others.
Here in Alabama, several county clerks refuse to issue any marriage licenses with their name. That is allowed, since the counties are not discriminating, and the Alabama Constitution and Law does not require a county to issue marriage licenses.
However, in Kentucky, it is required.
In North Carolina, they require counties to issue marriage licenses, but clerks can be "reasonably accommodated" on "religious grounds" by having another county issue a license for them, without their name.
This case is about whether the government can force you ...
A) To put words or symbols on a good or service you deliver that is against your creed, culture or other religious basis,
As well as ...
B) To provide a good or service that you decide you wish to no longer deliver to the public (not discriminating, but to anyone at all)
I cannot help it if people just want to make it about what they want.
BTW, the courts in the same state, and the appeals have been upheld, have ruled that 3 bakers that refused to put the following on a cake:
Are protected, and do not have to bake the cake.
We're basically at the point where Bible scripture is not allowed, and can be refused -- not because it's religious, but because it's "offensive" (read the court ruling), but all sorts of other things are allowed.
The government is basically defining "offensive" now, which is a very, very scary precedent.
"Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2"
Are protected, and do not have to bake the cake.
We're basically at the point where Bible scripture is not allowed, and can be refused -- not because it's religious, but because it's "offensive" (read the court ruling), but all sorts of other things are allowed.
The government is basically defining "offensive" now, which is a very, very scary precedent.
Knew I would trigger you with this.
I only wish you were smart enough to understand why i posted it. I'll give you another shot to redeem yourself. Go back and read it again, maybe slower and sound out each syllable. Don't be afraid to ask for help if you need it.
No I understand exactly what you're doing, you're just not smart enough to understand how dumb it is.
I do have to say, that does get tiring. Not only does everyone converge on this location, but they vandalize and harass the bakers.
They'd even bake a cake for them, just not with what they wanted on it. They could then take it to another location.
Indeed. Tired of people making apples to oranges comparisons.
Even the ACLU hasn't been forward with all those details. It's a big argument in the Libertarian community right now, some taking the ACLU's side, others saying "taste" and "offensive" words cannot be defined by the government -- ergo, Nazi cakes.
I'm in the latter camp, the government cannot defined "taste" and "offensive." If we force this, we have to force Nazi cakes too.
Guess I need to break out the crayons (again)
FNB made the extremely ignorant post that these people were freaking out about a cake. I'm sure if he was alive 50 years ago he would have made the same flippant comment about Rosa Parks flipping out about a bus seat.
My point was it doesn't matter how petty the point seems, discrimination is discrimination.
Of course I don't agree with the premise of this case, because the gov should not be able to dictate how a private company serves it's customers, but don't let that fact stop you from following your 4 step arguing process for idiots.
FNB made the extremely ignorant post that these people were freaking out about a cake. I'm sure if he was alive 50 years ago he would have made the same flippant comment about Rosa Parks flipping out about a bus seat.
My point was it doesn't matter how petty the point seems, discrimination is discrimination.
Of course I don't agree with the premise of this case, because the gov should not be able to dictate how a private company serves it's customers, but don't let that fact stop you from following your 4 step arguing process for idiots.
But you missed his point.
Rosa Parks couldn't "just go to another bus" or "just another seat." It was widespread discrimination ... by the government! Then they even outlawed private citizens giving each other rides, to force people to ride the bus! Total, systematic control of private lives. Now they're doing the opposite ...
This would be like Rosa Parks in a private cab and holding up a sign out of the window, "Black people rule." It is, at best, bringing unwanted attention or, at worst, offensive to the owners of the private van. But the government says it's protected speech, and holds a gun to the private cab's owners saying, "you must allow her with her sign out the window."
What you're saying is that this Rose Parks is no different than Joe white person, and the cab owner is discriminating against her because she's black, ignoring her sign.
FNB is saying that because there are other cabs that allows such, and she could ride in one of those, she should just choose one of those, instead of bringing the government down with their guns to force everyone to 'conform' to her agenda that everyone might not agree with.
I don't completely agree with FNB, but I certainly agree with his point more than yours. Conservatives are sick of a-hole Progressives, and I don't blame them. It's how Trump got elected! The silent majority Republican and even moderates were sick of the special interest hypocrisy of the Clintons and Progressives.
And my point is that you're missing all the details.
Then pay attention to the details. This isn't as simple as (pun) black'n white (pun).
Whaaaat?! You are telling me these two cases aren't exactly the same down to every detail?!? Thanks so much for amazing insight!
Fuk off with your red stapler bullshit novels.
Fuk off with your red stapler bullshit novels.
And you're the type of a-hole Progressive that good Americans are tired of hearing from and how to live their lives. I'm a hardcore Libertarian, but even we disagree with how this case is proceeding. It doesn't help that your arrogant demeanor continues to misuse non-relevant rulings, like the case of Ms. Rosa Parks. But that's how most Progressives act.
Again, most of the time you respond, you respond with the same, pig-headed, arrogant Progressiveness that I expect out of media sheepism that follows the logic of an 8 year-old. You talk in absolutes, like this is Rosa Parks all over again. Then you backtrack.
I really hate defending Conservatives, but at least the Conservatives have their facts straight, even if I disagree with their application of those facts. Progressives really need to stop being sheep and looking like they never got past the 3rd grade.
A Rosa Parks argument is a 3rd grader argument. Case closed.
So what was asked to be put on the cake that was refused? Was it two male (or female) symbols together? Was it just the two male (or female) names together which insinuates they're gay? Just curious.
Time to get out the crayons for you, I'll use red since it's your favorite color.
Bob was making fun of these people for taking a case about a cake to the supreme Court. Implying that small details like cakes aren't important.
I pointed out that Rosa Parks did the same thing over a similar "small detail", in her case a bus seat.
The point that I was making (that you, FNB and 85 are unable to comprehend) was that the reason doesn't matter.
Bob was making fun of these people for taking a case about a cake to the supreme Court. Implying that small details like cakes aren't important.
I pointed out that Rosa Parks did the same thing over a similar "small detail", in her case a bus seat.
The point that I was making (that you, FNB and 85 are unable to comprehend) was that the reason doesn't matter.
This is the classic backtracking a Progressive does when a Libertarian enters the debate between the Progressive and a Conservative.
Now the question should be why is the Libertarian taking more issue with the Progressive than the Conservative?
That's simple ... the Progressive is the one arguing for a gun to a private citizen's head.
The "custom [wedding] cake" is at the heart of the case. I believe it was the names and a symbol, but since the service was refused (and never made), lawyers both sides will play that as they wish. But the "custom [wedding] cake" is the agreed upon focal.
The bakery was more than willing to service the gay couple in buying anything else, including a "generic [wedding] cake," just not a "custom [wedding] cake."
The baker has since stopped baking any "wedding cakes," including "custom cakes," and will only bake "generic cakes." This has hurt 40% of their bottom line.
The baker has been a victim of 6 figures of damage. The baker has also come under unrelated local and state government harassment to the tune of 6 figures in fines now too.
Another point is to understand this was 2012, over 2 years before the federal ruling, even before we consider Colorado's own laws on the matter. It'll be interesting how that factors in. It may be that the SCOTUS finds in favor of the defendant -- no ex-post facto -- however, the provide advisement that -- going forward -- they would side with the plantiff (or at least on some of the terms).
A different case in Colorado has already addressed the case where Biblical scripture can be denied if the state considers it 'offensive.' So, again, what bothers me most is that the state and federal government is now defining what "taste" and "offensive" are for private citizens.
This is civics nightmare.
For the love of everything holy STFU about libertarians. You and Wayne are a fuking embarrassment to the word.
you literally bring nothing but insults to the forum. you must be a very sad and hate filled person. i actually feel sorry for you.
Give me something where Conservatives are holding a gun to a private citizen's head, and I'll quickly take your side.
Yeah, he's just lashing out more and more. Sad. I actually respect him for his service. But I wish he'd stop just going where he goes.
Go to my first post in this thread. Post #2
Read it.
Apologize for being an embarrassment to libertarians.
I did. Then I read this ...
That's the thing. You're arguing with Conservatives, then I come in, and you start treating me like a Conservative. Then when you quickly realize my arguments are anything but, you lash out. Don't know what to tell you.
How? You still haven't explained this.
Wow, I had assumed you wouldn't stoop to 8 year-old arguments, related media sheepism and then lashing out ... but, some things never change.
Did you ever stop to think why I don't enter an argument right away? I want to see where things go, by others first, before I enter.
Yet you have also failed to even address my 2-3 statement responses. We're done. You obviously have no counter but this.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
I'm not playing BS's non-sense games of I'm a libertarian therefore I know all.
From a discrimination standpoint there is no debate really, he clearly discriminated against them because of their sexual orientation. I don't buy the nonsense of cake making being art form, and therefore protected by free speech.
Of course we don't want the government involved, but would businesses have handicap ramps if they weren't? Would blacks still not be allowed to sit in a restaurant without government intervention?
I want ruling to tell us specifically when a good or service provider can deny a specific, custom service based on disagreement over "poor taste" or "offensive" words/symbols. That's what I want.
Since when do I say we Libertarians know-it-all? I merely point it out for various reasons, including the fact that we don't have a mainstream media outlet, unlike the left or right, to spout from. That's what good, civic-wielding, freedom-loving Americans care about. If that makes me a "bad Libertarian," so be it. I'm in good company with Gary Johnson and others.
Your argument is that gay couples are a protected class. I.e., they can order whatever custom cake they want, because they are a protected class, and to not service them is discrimination, period.
My argument is that the courts had better state exactly what a gay couple is or isn't entitled to, when it comes to custom cakes. E.g., what if a gay couple wants a Christian baker to make a cake with the phrase, "Jesus loves gays"? Where is the line?
Now, let's look at the other arguments. One is that the provider of a good or service has a right to not sell something with words/symbols they consider in "poor taste" or "offensive" or otherwise "against their religion."
In the case of people ordering 3 cakes with Bible text on them, and being refused service, this seems to be allowed. So the government is saying some providers can deny services based on words/symbols they find "offensive."
That's the slippery slope. What qualifies as "poor taste"/"offensive" that someone can deny service? I'm not interested in the "fast food 8 year-old logic US media sheep" version. I want the specific ruling.
How are they discriminating though? That's the key point. They will service the gay couple. They just won't make them a 'custom cake' with words/symbols they disagree with, based on their idea of "poor taste" and "offensive" phrasing/symbols.
Your argument is that gay couples are a protected class. I.e., they can order whatever custom cake they want, because they are a protected class, and to not service them is discrimination, period.
My argument is that the courts had better state exactly what a gay couple is or isn't entitled to, when it comes to custom cakes. E.g., what if a gay couple wants a Christian baker to make a cake with the phrase, "Jesus loves gays"? Where is the line?
That's just but one argument to all this. But the lawyers seemingly convinced the defendant may be the best argument to make. Based on Common Law, it probably is their best chance.
Now, let's look at the other arguments. One is that the provider of a good or service has a right to not sell something with words/symbols they consider in "poor taste" or "offensive" or otherwise "against their religion."
In the case of people ordering 3 cakes with Bible text on them, and being refused service, this seems to be allowed. So the government is saying some providers can deny services based on words/symbols they find "offensive."
That's the slippery slope. What qualifies as "poor taste"/"offensive" that someone can deny service? I'm not interested in the "fast food 8 year-old logic US media sheep" version. I want the specific ruling.
You're just as bad as Ninja. That is a total CRA violation. That is direct, absolute denial because they are black, just like the baker would have been denying service if he didn't let the gay couple order any cake!
What we're talking about here is if the government can hold a gun to the head of a Christian baker to bake a custom cake with something like "Jesus loves gays."
Last edited:
Saying you will make wedding cakes for heterosexual couples, but not gay couples is discrimination.
