It's Hot, it's Humid and Nasty - Let's have a discussion
 

This weather drives me indoors, so this morning I had the TV on while I was working around the house and I heard something that caught my attention:

A Baker won his case in the Supreme Court to not have to bake the wedding cake for a same sex couple's wedding.

Personally I have no interest in this case one way or the other, my only interest is if you don't want to bake a cake for someone why can't you just refuse. I am aware and know and understand all the legal arguments, but it still seems ridiculous that this would have ended up in the Supreme Court. What a crazy world we are making.

FYI..It's humid here in Maine also ..Rain and 49 degrees...But I love it

I agree...how is this news??!! So-called news MUST be sensationalized to keep the viewers (readers).

If I recall, the baker did refuse but the couple pushed the discrimination issue against the baker and tried to force him to bake for them.

Old folks convertible road rally yesterday - had to put the heater on. Also the furnace went on here in the Adirondack's last two nights. I'll just have to suffer. It is 55 degrees now at 1:30 pm. Think I'm going to light a fire.

Forcing someone to bake you a cake is a *CLEAR* violation of the 13th Amendment.
It is a violation of property rights...Self-Ownership.
How this even got to the supreme court proves America is failing as a civil society.

Been going on a really long time.

Couple wanted cake
Baker did say no
Couple sued on basis of discrimination since it was public place
court
court
blah blah blah
Wow they can decide who they bake for.
Now others are talking about the doom of our civilization if people can discriminate who can roll around in their cakes.

:icon_hungry:

Why would you WANT a cake from someone who doesn't want your business. Take pleasure in spending the money elsewhere---like Village pickleball courts, for example.

We're also in the Adirondacks and just turned on our pellet stove.

What a nice sob story!

Why didn't the same-sex couple go to another bakery or why did they insist the baker place two male figurines on the cake? Why not just accept flowers or whatever? Obviously they wanted to see if they could rock the boat and perhaps hoping to make some money off the lawsuit. Because they had other options, I have no sympathy or empathy for them.

Another nice sob story.

Personally I have no interest in this case one way or the other, my only interest is if you don't want to bake a cake for someone why can't you just refuse. I am aware and know and understand all the legal arguments, but it still seems ridiculous that this would have ended up in the Supreme Court. What a crazy world we are making.

They got their five minutes of fame.

Speaking of weather, I have sweat dripping from places that shouldn't be dripping. Probably not getting any catcalls today...........Oh, wrong thread.

Well, if the baker had been forced to bake the cake, he might have been sorely tempted to lace the chocolate icing with ex lax...

In my book of life's rules to live by... it contains the rule: "Never upset the cook before you have your meal" (actually mine is shortened to "Don't **** off the cook").


If for some reason you do not like the service (for whatever reason) don't fight it out with the person who will be soon making your food.

:agree: Beware the kitchen's revenge!

There's a right thread for that? What am I missing!

This case isn’t the end of the issue. There are a few other cases going before the Supreme Court to decide whether civil rights or religious freedom will prevail. This was decided on a very limited basis — that a government entity cannot ignore religious beliefs (a commissioner made some disparaging remarks about religion when ruling that the baker should in fact have baked the cake.

Given the logic that it is okay to refuse to bake a cake, photograph a wedding, etc. due to the sexual preferences of the couple, does that mean the baker can refuse an interracial couple? Or a black couple? How about if they don’t speak English? What if they’re Catholic? The Civil Rights Act was created for a reason. LGBT people are to be accorded the same rights as you or me. So, if he’s selling to the public, why should he be able to discriminate and other companies can’t?

As to the gay couple just going to another baker, why should they and why should they shut up? Originally, they didn’t file a civil suit against the baker, they went to a local commission to have it rule whether this was discrimination. The commission said it was. The baker appealed. The ACLU appeared for the gay couple. So, they should just keep quiet and accept discrimination? I’m missing something or you guys are.

Went to the pool today. According to my weather app, it’s 91, with a heat index of 105. How is that possible so early in June?!

PS. Am ignoring any political commentary.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

IMHO the case was a set up, just as was the shakedown case that cost The Villages the Life long Learning College. Those two homosexuals entered that bakery to force a baker to violate his religious beliefs. They wanted their rights to take precedence over his rights. As for the ACLU, I find it revealing that it chose to back the homosexuals' "right" to force a baker to provide a homosexual wedding cake over his right to follow his religious beliefs in his business in a state in which same sex marriage may not be recognized or maybe even legal.

The two men got married in Massachusetts where same sex marriage is legal but wanted the cake baked in Colorado for their reception in Colorado where same sex marriage may not be recognized or legal? The whole story smells.

It's like going to a kosher deli and asking for a ham sandwich and a glass of milk!

Ridiculous lawsuits seem to be quite the trend these days. Man sues hundreds over disability violations | abc7.com

You are not missing a thing:bowdown:

The "local commission" was not elected. They appointed themselves.

Their views are meaningless legally or otherwise.

No wonder the commission treated that baker so miserably. It is a kangaroo court with an agenda!

Colorado Civil Rights Commissioners

Anthony Aragon, Democrat, Representing State or Local Government Entities, Denver (term expires: 3/16/19)
Miguel "Michael" Rene Elias, Republican, Representing Community at Large, Pueblo (term expires: 3/13/20)
Carol Fabrizio, Unaffiliated, Representing Business, Denver (term expires: 3/16/19)
Charles Garcia, Democrat, Representing Community at Large, Denver (term expires: 3/13/21)
Rita Lewis, Democrat, Representing Small Business, Denver (term expires: 3/16/19)
Jessica Pocock, Unaffiliated, Representing Community at Large, Colorado Springs (term expires: 3/13/20)
About the Commission

Commissioners are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state Senate to serve four-year terms. They are selected from across Colorado and represent both political parties. Two commissioners represent business (one of whom represents small business), two represent government, and three represent the community at large. At least four of the commissioners are members of groups who have been or might be discriminated against because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, or age.

As for the governor who appoints the members of this commission, Colorado has legalized marijuana. As a result all sorts of problems such as increasing vehicular deaths are resulting and he is lying to cover up the mess.

Governor Hickenlooper is dead wrong about pot in Colorado

That's why I don't send back anything to the kitchen.

Paraphrasing part of the opinion by the majority judge. Forcing the baker to bake a cake would be equal to forcing an artist to paint a picture. There is a creative process involved, which is different from most discrimination cases where all things are equal.

You're blurring the lines in your post.....the decision was based on religious beliefs, refusing a black couple, a non-english speaking couple etc has no basis in religion. It was a narrow decision, let it be that rather than trying to expand it into an area that was not part of, or relates to, the decision.

Yes, beware! One of my sons worked in a restaurant kitchen when he was in high school. He told us that if a customer ticked off a waitress, cook, etc., his food would be spit upon and then delivered to him. After I learned about this, I always took great care to never complain to any of the help. If it was bad enough, I did not return to that restaurant.

:0000000000luvmyhors

I agree with you. Whether or not people agree with his religious convictions, they are his religious convictions and they are not illegal.

So, have them bake the cake and stick Ken and Ken figurines on later! :1rotfl::1rotfl:

Yes he refused a couple of months ago & the couple took him to court. 🤷*♀️


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You didn't miss a single thing. :bowdown:

You've also went straight to the point...of what's currently wrong in this country.

The hard fought gains in the last 60 years, to try and equal the playing field for all...are now under constant assault. :ohdear:

I swear I wrote my post, even if it's almost verbatim to yours (even including the emoji :D )...before I read this one. :cool:


:thumbup:

This is ignoring that people's religious views also are protected in this country. We may not agree with them, but they are protected.

Even if he was "forced" to make the cake, who in their right mind would have eaten that cake.

:yuck:

Baloney.

There are a number of 'off-beat religions' (KKK anyone?)...that prescribe exactly what Redwitch described.

What now stops someone from starting their own religion, then practice whatever prejudice/discrimination they so choose, claiming "it's their religious beliefs"...based on this goofy Supreme Court ruling? :oops:

In fact, I predict with the current climate in this country, we will read about that exact thing happening...in a very short order.

And BTW, does the 'Westboro Baptist Church'...ring a bell?

Well, get ready for a lot more of those types of sick mentalities...sooner rather than later. :ohdear:

To me, it is a civil rights issue. The baker is free to practice his religion of choice. He is not free to force that religion on another person. He chose to have a business open to the public. He should not have the right to reject someone’s business because they don’t follow his moral code. If he had chosen to run a bakery that was sold only to members of his church, then I believe he would be within his Constitutional rights.

Once upon a time, people felt it was right to refuse service to someone because of the color of their skin. The argument then was freedom of choice. Now, it is under the purview of freedom of religion. Bigotry is bigotry regardless of the reason behind it.

:bigbow:...:bigbow:...:bigbow:

Reality is this decision is so narrow in scope it will have no real effect one way or the other. It is really a wrist slap against one commissioner for speaking disdainfully of the baker’s religion (and religion in general). It really said nothing about civil rights nor freedom of religion, just that religious beliefs should be respected. A cheesy way to get out of making a decision.

As I said, there are other cases coming before the USSC. One of those is a videotographer, who [B]I believe[B] is simply an individual, not a company by any legal definition, who worked out of his home, it might be the compelling case or the court again will find a way to wiggle out without making a true decision