Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Oct 18 21:51:00 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / The Baker Won
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Mon Jun 04 09:58:12

Remember the baker that refused to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage couple?

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the bakery.

yankeessuck123
Member
Mon Jun 04 10:07:33
"Gay rights groups had feared a ruling against the couple could set a precedent for treating gay marriages differently to heterosexual unions, but the Supreme Court's verdict instead focuses specifically on Mr Phillips' case.

The decision does not state that florists, photographers, or other services can now refuse to work with gay couples."

worth noting
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Mon Jun 04 10:11:09

Yeah, the SC did not go that far.

John Adams
Member
Mon Jun 04 10:17:43
Correct decision based upon the circumstances.
McKobb
Member
Mon Jun 04 10:18:50
So you can't force Kosher Kakes to make Swastikakes? What is this world coming too!
McKobb
Member
Mon Jun 04 10:26:35
"(CNN) The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection.

The ruling was 7-2."

Dead CNN, what do narrowly mean?
CrownRoyal
Member
Mon Jun 04 10:46:20
The ruling was narrow, meaning they did not address all the hot issues, 1st amendment, civil rights, etc. Extremely narrow, in fact, they just ruled about this single incident. The vote was not narrow, I suppose a better headline can be written. But the narrow word refers to the scope
McKobb
Member
Mon Jun 04 11:19:42
"(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs.

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation."

Better
murder
Member
Mon Jun 04 13:28:29

Good. Medical care on the other hand ...

Aeros
Member
Mon Jun 04 15:49:58
Every "civil rights commission" in this country is controlled by the worst types of far left activists. This ruling may not be as narrow as they like. The Supreme Court basically said they have to take religious belief into account. This is going to be really hard for the "current year" crowd to do. Especially since these civil rights commissions are notoriously lacking in things like due process.

It's another example of the Federal Courts smacking down these kangaroo courts that have cropped up to try and police people's feelings.
kargen
Member
Mon Jun 04 16:15:00
This will be back in the courts probably sometime this month. Some other same sex couple is going to go ask this baker to make them a cake for their wedding and when he refuses they will go to court.

I still have to ask why the hell would you force someone to bake you a cake when you know it goes against their beliefs to do so?
murder
Member
Mon Jun 04 16:22:50
Why would you want to give them your business?
Forwyn
Member
Mon Jun 04 17:02:52
It was never about giving them business; it was about shopping for outrage.

He never denied them service. He denied them full cake service - custom creation, delivery, and service. He also provided them with info for alternative venues in which to seek those services.

And it wasn't just about them being gay. He was also known to refuse custom service for events such as Halloween.

Sucks that this guy had to spend six years in court battling whiny faggots just looking for a new goalpost of judicial activism.
Aeros
Member
Mon Jun 04 17:26:29
Exactly. And the Supreme Court is notoriously unsympathetic to manufactured cases. The "victims" actively sought out being victimized. There was no interest in justice here, just a naked effort to push the boundaries of US common law. This was the correct decision, to smack them down on procedural grounds. It's also put all these "civil rights commissions" that have been cropping up on notice.

The Federal Courts are not going to be amused if their lunacy keeps forcing them to intervene and overturn their bullshit.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share