Colorado Bakers in a Landslide

[Coach]

Supreme Court Rules For Baker In Gay Rights Case. 7-2

I have an issue with this title, what about the Baker' rights? See how the media tries to frame things?

Only Two judges ( one is likely a lesbian ) felt the couple were in the right, asking a man who's practices were clear to compromise his views.

I suspect this case was a set up, as there are dozens of other bakers to work with in the area.

 

[Coach]

I heard this on Michael Savage coming home from work last night (Ad libbing):

It wasn't just Christians who took up the lawsuit. Yes, the original bakers did, but they ended up having the backing of both Jewish and Muslim groups as well. The media doesn't want you to know that- it would destroy their whole narrative.

Am I reading this right. The Muslims and Jews supported the baker?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Am I reading this right. The Muslims and Jews supported the baker?

Yes, but not in the way you're thinking (I think). I believe she is saying she heard that other religions got in on the lawsuit realizing that if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Colorado, anyone of any religion could have been forced to provide their goods/services and omit their religious beliefs. No one in any religion wants this.

Example: I just heard on the news...if a Muslim T-Shirt company owner was asked to make 25 T-Shirts that poked fun at Mohammed, he would have also HAD to make those shirts.

Or a Jewish printer would have had to print Nazi-themed party flyers for a white supremacist group.

The Supreme Court's ruling, at least for now, allows the Jew, the Christian and the Muslim to adhere to their religious beliefs while operating in the free market.

And to that point, someone I know posted this last night. This is really how we should be looking at this issue:

It is the right decision, made by a 7-2 majority, no less. The First Amendment guarantees a right to free association, and that right does not end simply because you own a business and sell cakes.

The question of bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, is one that should (and to a large degree already has been) settled by the marketplace of ideas.

This baker has decided to 1) limit his potential customer base by refusing to provide a specific service of his to a group of people 2) invite the negative reaction, feedback, business ratings, etc that come from that refusal. That limits his businesses' potential, and causes it to be at a competitive market disadvantage against other cake shops that are willing to offer said services to everyone.

That's how this should be settled. And in the environment of 2018, that *is* how it is settled, and there should be absolutely no room for what amounts to forced labor against the will of a craftsman or craftswoman. Particularly when, as was pointed out repeatedly, Phillips is willing to sell ready-made products to anyone who enter his store, but, he simply declined to use his artistry to express messages or celebrate events that violate his beliefs. Rational, and not at all unreasonable.

 

[Troglodyte]

We are stunned.

So what’s your point? If you were a baker, you would also refuse to make a cake for a gay couple?

 

[Superman]

I'd love to see links that support this. That's bombshell stuff.

found this with a Jewish organization praising...

https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-groups-decry-supreme-court-ruling-in-gay-wedding-cake-case/

At least one major Jewish organization “welcomed” the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Orthodox Union Advocacy Center praised the high court for affirming what it sees as religious protections from a hostile state government.

“Too many pundits and politicians have lately engaged in rhetoric that seeks to paint religious liberty in a negative light, especially as they seek to advance policies to which some have sincere dissent,” said Nathan Diament, the OU’s executive director for public policy.

“Today, the United States Supreme Court sent a clear message: that the demonization of religious beliefs – especially in policymaking – is constitutionally unacceptable,” he said.

 

[Superman]

So what’s your point? If you were a baker, you would also refuse to make a cake for a gay couple?

the point is, genius, that they can cite their religious background to not provide their services for hire.

which, by way of capitalism, can hurt them. you should be breathlessly applauding this, since no Christian baker will be putting crucified Jesus on gay cupcakes. This can cause the gay couple to find a different baker... maybe even a GAY baker ... to bake their cupcakes, wedding cakes, etc. thus putting more money in the pockets of the gay baker.

 

[Coach]

Yes, but not in the way you're thinking (I think). I believe she is saying she heard that other religions got in on the lawsuit realizing that if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Colorado, anyone of any religion could have been forced to provide their goods/services and omit their religious beliefs. No one in any religion wants this.

Example: I just heard on the news...if a Muslim T-Shirt company owner was asked to make 25 T-Shirts that poked fun at Mohammed, he would have also HAD to make those shirts.

Or a Jewish printer would have had to print Nazi-themed party flyers for a white supremacist group.

The Supreme Court's ruling, at least for now, allows the Jew, the Christian and the Muslim to adhere to their religious beliefs while operating in the free market.

And to that point, someone I know posted this last night. This is really how we should be looking at this issue:

Thanks makes perfect sense. These lefties want to make parts of religion as hate speech, and they are pressing legal action. It blew up in their faces.

 

[Troglodyte]

the point is, genius, that they can cite their religious background to not provide their services for hire.

which, by way of capitalism, can hurt them. you should be breathlessly applauding this, since no Christian baker will be putting crucified Jesus on gay cupcakes. This can cause the gay couple to find a different baker... maybe even a GAY baker ... to bake their cupcakes, wedding cakes, etc. thus putting more money in the pockets of the gay baker.

Go back and follow along, genius. Tim was no longer referring to the baker.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

Yes, but not in the way you're thinking (I think). I believe she is saying she heard that other religions got in on the lawsuit realizing that if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Colorado, anyone of any religion could have been forced to provide their goods/services and omit their religious beliefs. No one in any religion wants this.

Example: I just heard on the news...if a Muslim T-Shirt company owner was asked to make 25 T-Shirts that poked fun at Mohammed, he would have also HAD to make those shirts.

Or a Jewish printer would have had to print Nazi-themed party flyers for a white supremacist group.

The Supreme Court's ruling, at least for now, allows the Jew, the Christian and the Muslim to adhere to their religious beliefs while operating in the free market.

And to that point, someone I know posted this last night. This is really how we should be looking at this issue:

Yes, that's exactly why. Muslim bakers didn't want to have to make anything condoning homosexuality or using pork products. rabbis didn't want things forced to be made in celebration of mixed-religion marriages. Savage then said that tolerance should go both ways. Gays shouldn't single out Christian businesses and expect (demand) them to do things against their belief. just as a Christian shouldn't go to a known Muslim establishment and force them to do something they would object to.

 

[deljzc]

This really isn't all that big a win for "using religion" to discriminate or choose who you serve/don't serve.

You guys really need to read the ruling/majority opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

In many ways, if this incident had happened AFTER the Supreme Court upheld/ruled that same sex marriage is legal, the Plaintiff (the Baker) would have lost. There is significance in the fact this happened in 2012 and not 2018 for instance.

If anything this ruling is completely about how COLORADO and it's Civil Rights Commission handled this case from the beginning and not at all about the merits of the Baker's reasoning to refuse service.

If you read the decision, the Supreme Court was severe in their criticism of the Commission in how they first handled the complaint (or defense) by the Baker. The Supreme Court found there was lack of consistency in how the Commission handled this case vs. others. It found the Commission was biased and hostile towards the Baker.

Again, all of these parts of this ruling are very case specific and not at all precedent setting. It is a ruling AGAINST the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, not really a ruling in FAVOR of the Baker.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Thanks makes perfect sense. These lefties want to make parts of religion as hate speech, and they are pressing legal action. It blew up in their faces.

Apparently there were already other cases cited as precedent of bakeries refusing to make cakes with swastikas, KKK themes, etc. that were held up in court. So if the gay folks had won then I could go to a Muslim bakery in Dearborn, MI and force them to decorate a cake for me with pile of **** made from chocolate frosting on top of a Quoran and Mohammed. While that idea has a certain appeal, I'm all about the greater good.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

So what’s your point? If you were a baker, you would also refuse to make a cake for a gay couple?

That you are for destroying the Constitution and our Rights.

I'll repeat, we are stunned - a Leftist catering to identity groups at the expense of others rights. Whodathunkit.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Go back and follow along, genius. Tim was no longer referring to the baker.

This is 90% of your problem on this board. You think you know so much that simply isn't so. Where is Ronald Reagan when you need him? Yeah Flogo, I've been talking about the baker since I started this thread.

 

[Coach]

The problem is liberals think that rights should be ranked based on the person, kind of like you rank poker hands

High Card = Religious rights related (not including muslims)
1 pair low = white male (includes non-muslim Indians and Far East Asians)
1 pair face cards = gun rights
2 pair = conservative woman (any race)
3 of a kind = straight male minority citizen (unless conservative, then they count as a white man)
Straight = gay man or woman
Flush = Black (non conservative)
Full House = Illegal Immigrant
4 of a Kind = Transgender
Straight Flush = Outspoken liberal celebrity, politician, or talking head.
.

What would liberals who use terrorism against the United Stated government be? A royal flush?

 

[Troglodyte]

That you are for destroying the Constitution and our Rights.

I'll repeat, we are stunned - a Leftist catering to identity groups at the expense of others rights. Whodathunkit.

Nope. You deleted my second sentence where I stated that I support the bakers right to refuse business.

You avoided my question because your own church accepts gays and that compromises you in this discussion.

 

[AggieSteel]

Libs forget that all the time. They praise anybody who kneels for the anthem, then denounce Trump or anybody else who says they should stand. You can't have it both ways. You can't say they have the right to kneel and then tell the other side to shut up.

There's a difference between disagreeing/denouncing and telling the other side to "shut up". I don't think, at any point throughout the whole "anthem protest" saga, has anyone on the left said the other side should "shut up" or not have the "freedom" or "rights" to have that opinion. That is a pretty huge logical leap and convenient in order to paint people as hypocrites. Which, by the way, I've noticed is a popular theme to the handful of your posts I've seen in this forum. Every "group" of people has hypocrites within its ranks, and I'd argue that every person acts hypocritically in his or her life at least sometimes. Raging against hypocrisy of a messenger is a convenient way to get around debating the actual issue at hand.

 

[Superman]

There's a difference between disagreeing/denouncing and telling the other side to "shut up". I don't think, at any point throughout the whole "anthem protest" saga, has anyone on the left said the other side should "shut up" or not have the "freedom" or "rights" to have that opinion. That is a pretty huge logical leap and convenient in order to paint people as hypocrites. Which, by the way, I've noticed is a popular theme to the handful of your posts I've seen in this forum. Every "group" of people has hypocrites within its ranks, and I'd argue that every person acts hypocritically in his or her life at least sometimes. Raging against hypocrisy of a messenger is a convenient way to get around debating the actual issue at hand.

ah. have you been introduced to Shaun King?
https://twitter.com/shaunking

this guy, pretty much saying white people are to blame for the backlash against kneeling:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...hites-nfl-anthem-protests-20170927-story.html

and, of course, blaming white people for being against BLM:
https://theestablishment.co/why-whi...ovement-and-why-that-must-change-4cda83727063

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...-racial-exclusion-lisa-durden-tucker-carlson/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-damiani/every-time-you-say-all-li_1_b_11004780.html

I'm sure you know how to google.

 

[AggieSteel]

ah. have you been introduced to Shaun King?
https://twitter.com/shaunking

this guy, pretty much saying white people are to blame for the backlash against kneeling:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...hites-nfl-anthem-protests-20170927-story.html

and, of course, blaming white people for being against BLM:
https://theestablishment.co/why-whi...ovement-and-why-that-must-change-4cda83727063

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...-racial-exclusion-lisa-durden-tucker-carlson/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-damiani/every-time-you-say-all-li_1_b_11004780.html

I'm sure you know how to google.

None of these links show anyone saying people shouldn't have the "right" or "freedom" to their opinion, which is what tape's post is all about

 

[hamster]

I'd like to see the Denver Broncos renamed the Colorado Bakers.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Nope. You deleted my second sentence where I stated that I support the bakers right to refuse business.

You avoided my question because your own church accepts gays and that compromises you in this discussion.

Aaaannnddddd....as a typical Liberal, you spin this into "I hate gays." I have family members that are gay. I do not have homophobia. Far from it. As you mention, my very church has a rather famous gay couple in it. We are better for it too.

Now...is it possible to you Liberals to consider the fact that there ARE degrees to things? I hate flag burning, but support the right for it to be burned because to a greater degree, Free Speech is more important. I support the rights of gay individuals, but to a greater degree it is more important that we protect Freedom of Religion.

It's not an either or thing Flog. I know that's how your narrow Leftist minds work.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Raging against hypocrisy of a messenger is a convenient way to get around debating the actual issue at hand.

And that issue is what, because I was pretty sure this thread was about the Colorado Baker victory, not the Anthem protests? I know you didn't inject the anthems into this thread, not pointing a finger.

And I disagree. Raging against hypocrisy is necessary. It is essential. Otherwise, we begin to tolerate double standards that shouldn't exist. You know, like Petraeus goes to prison but Hillary doesn't. Nixon is impeached for political espionage, and Obama has essentially been vindicated for a much larger and more sinister political spying scheme.

Fighting against hypocrisy is often THE battle.

 

[Troglodyte]

Aaaannnddddd....as a typical Liberal, you spin this into "I hate gays." I have family members that are gay. I do not have homophobia. Far from it. As you mention, my very church has a rather famous gay couple in it. We are better for it too.

Now...is it possible to you Liberals to consider the fact that there ARE degrees to things? I hate flag burning, but support the right for it to be burned because to a greater degree, Free Speech is more important. I support the rights of gay individuals, but to a greater degree it is more important that we protect Freedom of Religion.

It's not an either or thing Flog. I know that's how your narrow Leftist minds work.

Nope. You refuse to acknowledge that I expressed support for the bakers rights in my first two posts. Your’s is the narrow mind of an alt right zealot.

But I’m really curious with your “degrees” and “not either or thing” and your evasiveness of my original question. Are you confirming that while your church accepts gays and is better for it, you still wouldn’t bake a cake for them? WTF?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Nope. You refuse to acknowledge that I expressed support for the bakers rights in my first two posts. Your’s is the narrow mind of an alt right zealot.

But I’m really curious with your “degrees” and “not either or thing” and your evasiveness of my original question. Are you confirming that while your church accepts gays and is better for it, you still wouldn’t bake a cake for them? WTF?

Oh I clearly saw you DISAGREED with the bakers while simultaneously saying you support their rights. That hot mess didn't escape me in the least.

And your last sentence shows your binary thinking. I still wouldn't. I can love another human being and disagree with their principles. I can stand for my religious beliefs while doing so and refuse them service. You forget that these people had other bakers and they passed them by. They could have bought any product in the store. They demanded that the baker make something he was uncomfortable with. They asked him to disavow his religion and they sought him out for just that purpose. Yeah, if the gay couple in my church asked me to make a cake and I was that religious and they demanded it depicted something supporting gay rights, I'd say no. Doesn't mean I have to "hate them" for it. I simply say this goes against my beliefs and I won't.

Why are these things so hard for you Alt Left radicals to understand?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I'm just dropping this here. It could apply in other threads as well. My great source, Dean, comes through again.

RANT:: The Gulf of Tonkin incident was an intentional provocation to create a larger war that the US wanted without seeming like the aggressor. The reality is that the two sides were primed for conflict. It was just lacking an inevitable catalyst.

All these incidents - Roseanne, Samantha Bee, kneeling for the anthem, the various responses, the cake baking, Super bowl invites, and disinvites. It's all been festering for some time. If you haven't already, I highly encourage you to read the article I posted yesterday. As it rightfully suggested, this is not because of Trump. Trump is a response. It's a pent-up response. I'm not entirely sure if it is a good response, yet. But, I also don't know if there is an alternative response.

Republicans, conservatives have tried nice. Mitt Romney was a nice man. He was vilified for putting a dog on his roof; having "binders of women"; causing cancer. He bullied a kid in 5th grade. Mitt was a good and decent man they made to be entirely unsavory. It seems no matter how nice, how accommodating, they remained ruthless. Their ruthlessness is complex. It has various volumes and degrees of intensity - sometimes subtle, sometimes vicious. And that subtle, ruthless nature has now crept into virtually every aspect of American life.

It's provocation, agitation. By design. In virtually every aspect of American life. And it's been going on for some time. And it seems as though Trump is brawling in a new way.

I recently read a commencement address the late Antonin Scalia gave for his sons graduating high school class in 1985. He mentioned that laws were necessary when the ability to self-govern and self-mediate failed among people of good will. When reasonable people could no longer agree to things that were otherwise obvious, common & good. It reminded me of the St. Augustine quote "In essential things unity, in doubtful matters liberty, in all things charity". These last few weeks, I find little unity, liberty or charity.

 

[Steelworth]

I'm just dropping this here. It could apply in other threads as well. My great source, Dean, comes through again.

Great thoughts from Dean. I know this is simplified, but when people literally hate other people over their political views, what do you think you're gonna get? I read that the MSM is speculating Melania Trump has been physically abused by her husband and thus the reason why she hasn't been in the public eye much at all lately (contrary to her attending a function last night and a CNBC reporter confirming seeing her walking the White House grounds with aides).

Are there any grounds whatsoever to base this on? Has Trump or ANY of his past wives/relationships ever even hinted at a propensity for violence in him? And here I didn't think they could stoop any lower. Boy I'm still naive I guess.

Can we just give civility a chance for a bit, and that includes everybody (POTUS)?