[Tweety Bird]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

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

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

[cmj1210]

Originally Posted by KEVIN & JOSIE

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.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by redwitch

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.

You didn't miss a single thing.

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.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Spikearoni

You are not missing a thing

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

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

You didn't miss a single thing.

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.

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

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by KEVIN & JOSIE

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.

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

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by JoMar

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.

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?

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.

[redwitch]

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.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by redwitch

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.

......

[redwitch]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

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 belll

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

[manaboutown]

As I see it this decision confirms a normal person has rights, too, not just the looney fringe.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by JoMar

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.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by coldnomore

you didn't miss a single thing.

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.

tbs

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by Bjeanj

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.

A heat index of 105 - Likely the "icing on the cake" if you are a frog.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by redwitch

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 I believe 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

I agree with you on the actual 'reality' of the narrow decision, but it's still my opinion that those who would like to only serve/service those who they want (based on any reason)...will think they now have justification to do so.

We'll see I guess.