Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon 266 Replies latest social current

  • Simon
    Simon

    Seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.

    As the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.

    If this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.

    I also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended. It really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people. It's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html

  • cofty
    cofty

    Very pleased to see the right outcome in this case.

    Nobody should be compelled to act contrary to their conscience even if we disagree with their opinions.

  • blownaway
    blownaway

    The leftards will say this was wrong but what would they say if a Muslim sculpture were told to make a crucifix of Christ? I am an atheist and see that you do not have the right to force someone to make or participate in something antithetical to their conscience. If they want a gay cake, have the guy make a cake and then they can stick on the two guys or girls or dog and a guy what ever it is they are doing these days.

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    It's easy to see both points of view.

    What if the couple was black? And, the baker was a white supremacist who sincerely believes that the Bible condemns the black race (for all that stuff with Noah's son Ham). The bigoted baker would claim it violates his conscience/religious rights to bake a cake for the black couple (or even more interesting, an interracial couple wanting to marry -- I recall one old JW sister commenting that the Bible says they should breed only with their own "kind". Yep no kidding about that!).

    Wouldn't that be racial discrimination? Substitute "gay" for "black" (or "colored") or "interracial" and what's the difference? I'm assuming discrimination based on sexual orientation is also illegal in the City/State where this happened.

  • cofty
    cofty
    The bigoted baker would claim it violates his conscience/religious rights to bake a cake for the black couple

    No it wouldn't that would rightly be illegal. This is NOT what happened in this case.

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    Thank goodness common sense reigns in this instance (OP).

    It's my personal view that a baker should make a wedding cake for a gay couple but if it goes against beliefs, then a baker shouldn't be forced to bake this cake.

    We live in a very tolerant society in the West.

    These professionally outraged-type people who have a meltdown when a cake hasn't been baked should tolerate others' beliefs, however much their beliefs are retarded ... as long as no-one comes to harm or is threatened with violence.

  • cofty
    cofty

    The baker should not be allowed to refuse service because the customer was gay. The issue was being asked to make a cake for a gay wedding.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard
    What if the couple was black? And, the baker was a white supremacist who sincerely believes that the Bible condemns the black race (for all that stuff with Noah's son Ham).

    Let them do it. I would love for those people to advertise themselves.

    I believe this case was about religious freedom, but to me there is a better argument to be made regarding private property rights.

  • humbled
    humbled

    I agree that this is a good outcome. They should not be required to essentially “bless” gay marriage. I wouldn’t want the bad mojo from those bakers anyway.

    To DoC’ s point to refuse service for perceived “color” : that must be condemned. It is beyond question that there are things we ARE BORN with. We are born to color and too bad if they believe that b—llsh-t about Hamm.

    Many people- especially those bound by archaic religious text -deny there are but two gender realities with which we are born. And this new world of fluid sexuality is still foreign to society. But the gap is disappearing as well it should on color.

    They damn well better decorate a cake for whatever colored couple walks through the door-unless they are gay.

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    The baker should not be allowed to refuse service because the customer was gay. The issue was being asked to make a cake for a gay wedding.

    I'm not sure I see the difference.

    If there IS a (legal?) difference, it's a matter of really "splitting hairs". Seems doubtful that a gay customer would order a wedding cake for his/her "straight" wedding.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit