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

by Simon 252 Replies latest social current

  • Ruby456
    Ruby456

    you've obviously lost the argument so you need to resort to the above.

    we can continue without you but perhaps this is not allowed anymore as it was in the past?

  • Simon
    Simon
    you've obviously lost the argument so you need to resort to the above.

    I do not believe that is obvious and even if people disagree with my opinion I think they will agree that I have put forward sound logical reasoning for my position.

    I think you resorting to making personal comments toward me in the hope that it will antagonize me and you can "claim victory" as a result or at least derail the discussion. Sorry, not going to happen. Any further off topic comments by you will simply be removed.

    we can continue without you but perhaps this is not allowed anymore as it was in the past?

    I honestly can't recall the last time you contributed anything meaningful to any discussion.

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    @jws & recluse - I don't deny racism exists because it obviously does.

    It's wrong and should be fought so that it is as reduced as possible.

    But do you really expect me to believe that a black couple can't get a wedding cake in Hicktown, Texas?

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    Just trying to put this case in perspective ...

    First, I think it's not good that the baker refused to bake a wedding cake for the gay couple.

    But I think it's worse that the reflex reaction of the gay couple was to use a court of law to force the baker to act against his beliefs.

    I'm glad the ruling was overturned in favour of the baker.

    We enjoy lots of freedoms in the West. I'm sure the gay couple got a wedding cake in the end and got hitched - good for them.

    As tolerant as we are, not everyone is on the same page re homosexual relationships and gay marriage. What's the best way to tackle this problem?

    Should gay couples immediately go to the law and sue or force a baker to act against his beliefs if they don't get what they want?

    Or perhaps a more mature approach is called for - with gay couples demonstrating some of that quality that they vociferously demand from the rest of us - tolerance.

    Also, as Simon mentioned, there's the fact that these activists only start this issue with christians but not with any other religion. So a reasonable conclusion to draw is that gay activists are looking to punish christians for their beliefs.

    Finally, there's the bigger picture to consider.

    In some backward hellholes gays have it really bad. Forget refusal of wedding cakes, in some places gays have to hide their relationships, or even hide their orientation and enter into a heterosexual marriage just to seem 'normal'. In some countries, the legal system proscribes the death penalty for consensual homosexual relations.

    Activists like our gay couple would do well to reflect on the above.

  • recluse
    recluse
    @LoveUniHateExams - i never claimed that a black couple can't get a wedding cake in Hicktown, Texas. im not familiar with texas at all.
  • Drearyweather
    Drearyweather

    An interesting comment made by Solicitor General Noel Francisco: "Accordingly, the government may not enact content-based laws commanding a speaker to engage in a protected expression: An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write."

    So many what if scenarios to contend with.

    What if the gay couple approached a Christian musician and asked him to play music at their gay wedding?

    Or What if they approached a professional emcee to compere at their gay wedding and the emcee refuses?

    Does abiding by non-discrimination law mean that you should abandon your religious beliefs?

  • scotsman
    scotsman

    Nothing gives some members of JWD a raging hard-on quite like a gay topic.

    Looks very like a short term win for the baker if you read the grounds for the decision: it wasn't about protecting Masterpiece's right to freedom of religious belief but about the fact that Colorado was hostile to their religious views, describing them "despicable". It was this that was impermissible. The ruling does not settle the wider issues referred to in this thread.

    If the USA were to allow bakers, photographers, MC, musicians, venues to say no to legal gay weddings on religious grounds, are they to post "Heterosexuals Only" in their shops and on their websites? I'd rather know than ask and be refused...

    For the record, I think marriage and weddings are an anachronism.

  • Simon
    Simon
    Nothing gives some members of JWD a raging hard-on quite like a gay topic.

    There's really no need for such crudeness and I'd warrant that the % of topics that you comment on that are 'gay' is higher than most so I don't quite see what your point is. This topic is less about people being gay so much as injustice being done.

    If the USA were to allow bakers, photographers, MC, musicians, venues to say no to legal gay weddings on religious grounds, are they to post "Heterosexuals Only" in their shops and on their websites? I'd rather know than ask and be refused...

    The difference between these two scenarios has already been detailed and I think everyone gets it (well, then you show up).

    The baker wasn't refusing to serve the gay couple. Your scenarios is a "what-if' that isn't close to what the situation was.

    This is clearly people specifically targeting Christians and I'm sure you'd object if people were specifically targeting gay business for any kind of harassment. Apart from a few nuts, Christians don't seem to go out of their way to do that. Maybe gay people could learn a thing or two about tolerance.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard
    Looks very like a short term win for the baker if you read the grounds for the decision: it wasn't about protecting Masterpiece's right to freedom of religious belief but about the fact that Colorado was hostile to their religious views, describing them "despicable". It was this that was impermissible. The ruling does not settle the wider issues referred to in this thread.

    In this case, true. Not to worry, however. The activists went to florists too.

    If the USA were to allow bakers, photographers, MC, musicians, venues to say no to legal gay weddings on religious grounds, are they to post "Heterosexuals Only" in their shops and on their websites? I'd rather know than ask and be refused...

    This could do whatever they want in this regard. They should not be forced to put any sign out. But if that floats their boat...

  • Simon
    Simon

    Just a reminder - off topic comments will be deleted. Don't hijack busy topics just to spread your own copy-pasted political propaganda.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit