SCOTUS sides with Masterpiece Cakeshop, 7-2

[Incorruptible]

Private business has the right to serve who they want, This is good news for religious liberty and disgusting that the left wing scumbags are attacking Christians.

 

[Darwin333]

nah what would be great is if a muslim baker brought the same type of case up to the supreme court and lost definitively

Oh that would be a great end result but in the meantime the conservatives would be going absolutely batshit insane.

 

[Darwin333]

Private business has the right to serve who they want, This is good news for religious liberty and disgusting that the left wing scumbags are attacking Christians.

The ruling doesn't mean what you think it means...

 

[Phenzyn]

Private business has the right to serve who they want, This is good news for religious liberty and disgusting that the left wing scumbags are attacking Christians.

It's disgusting that homophobes can hide behind the thin veil of Religion.

The ruling doesn't mean what you think it means...

No surprise since these ignorant "Christians" don't even understand their own religion or what JC was trying to teach. He'd be disgusted by the entire world and how they've butchered his teachings, if he existed today (or indeed ever did)

 

[Phenzyn]

That doesn't sound right. I'm told that Christians are the most persecuted people in this country!

Close but if you want to get specific, it's actually white male Christians

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Private business has the right to serve who they want, This is good news for religious liberty and disgusting that the left wing scumbags are attacking Christians.

fuck you, indigestible. if it was a muslim bakery not wanting to make something due to their beliefs you'd be all over them. you're so fucking transparent

 

[Paratus]

Except he did not break the law right? As of right now homosexuality is not a protected class. I am purposely keeping the discussion in the moral arena for that reason.

Thus the baker is morally wrong to hold his views and society should work on dealing with this. Depending on the state will grant those discriminated in the short run, but society well benefit more if we don't use the state.

He did. He would have backed the cake if the mans fiancé had vagina instead of a penis. Homosexual discrimination is fundamentally sex discrimination which is illegal.

 

[Noah Abrams]

Oh that would be a great end result but in the meantime the conservatives would be going absolutely batshit insane.

That would be tough for conservatives...hate..hate..choices choices..I think the order of hate would be like this

- Muslims, because they are both brown...and well....Muslims
- Gays, because they are only gays...at least not brown...

Now, for Muslim gays...

 

[realibrad]

He did. He would have backed the cake if the mans fiancé had vagina instead of a penis. Homosexual discrimination is fundamentally sex discrimination which is illegal.

No, homosexual discrimination is not sex discrimination. Unless people hate both men and women lol. Most that dislike male male marriage also feel female female is equally wrong in terms of marriage.

 

[theeedude]

They didn’t need the liberal justices to do anything. The conservative majority could have made a sweeping decision in favor of religion, putting major wind in the sails of evangelicals heading into the midterms.
Instead, they gave a slap to an oversight organization that overstepped its mandate. Two liberal judges sides with what was the right decision.
I am sorry the conservative justices didn’t feed the authoritarian narrative.

They chickened out because the country wouldn't accept a decision that allowed discrimination against gays while hiding behind religion. And they'll chicken out on abortion too, because promising bullshit to evangelicals is a whole lot easier than taking heat for its consequences.

 

[Phenzyn]

because God destroyed a city because of it, it was spoken of many times in the old testament, and christ himself said that a man is to leave his family to join his wifes family, Christ never gave a single endorsement to homosexual relations, which where quite common at the time thanks to Rome. The mere fact Christ stated a marriage is between a man and wife, and that to have sexual relations outside of wedlock is a sin would seem to point anyone thinking clearly that since a homosexual couple can not have both a husband and a wife they are not considered married by God, and then they are commit the act of adulty by engaging in any sexual activity.

Our issue with it stems form the fact that the gay rights people made it an issue, we would have left it all alone had they remained behind closed doors, but instead they came out and are trying to convince our Children that it's ok to be a pervert, and that isn't ok. A christian will stand for God's word no matter how unpopular. Anyone that supports Gay rights can not be a christian.

Wow. You are beyond ignorant! The amount of hypocrisy, tyranny, ignorance and narcissism in your words are almost too numerous to address but I'll address a few of them any way.

I'll explain it like you're 5 so that you can perhaps understand.

First off, you are no doubt referring to Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities. Both cities were destroyed along with two neighboring cities so it was actually 4 cities that your "God" destroyed. Not "A city"

Second this so called God of yours destroyed ALMOST everything in this area, supposedly, because of an abundance of Vice and debauchery. But what about the 5th city? Neighboring Zoar (Bela) was the only city to be spared so did he just miss this city? Or was there somehow less happening in this one city then every other city in that area?

Homosexuality is only a tiny fraction of the activities taking place in these cities (supposedly) along with Bestiality, and oral and anal sex (even among heterosexual people). Hence the reason anal, oral and bestiality are referred to as sodomy regardless of the sex of the two people engaging in it.

Third Its disingenuous for modern day Christians to acknowledge this event in the context of your Gods wrath and discount many other events that occurred in all 3 mono-theistic religions. This event is written about in the old testiment as well as the Hebrew bible and the Quran. You will throw out other hyperbole when it suits you or are you someone that believe all of the "miracles" and everything else that happened in the old testament?

If god is so angry by acts of "sodomy" then why isn't the entire world being bombed? If Vice and "sodomy" overall was the concern then why hasn't Vegas been struck down by your gods wrath? Why not LA? Why not the entire internet when 90% of it is just porn?

Actually I changed my mind, I'm not even going to address your next statement about how its the "gays" fault for bringing it into the open and the other obvious hatred your POV suggests of your personality. You are beyond saving and even acknowledging this post is more than it deserves.

 

[realibrad]

because God destroyed a city because of it, it was spoken of many times in the old testament, and christ himself said that a man is to leave his family to join his wifes family, Christ never gave a single endorsement to homosexual relations, which where quite common at the time thanks to Rome. The mere fact Christ stated a marriage is between a man and wife, and that to have sexual relations outside of wedlock is a sin would seem to point anyone thinking clearly that since a homosexual couple can not have both a husband and a wife they are not considered married by God, and then they are commit the act of adulty by engaging in any sexual activity.

Our issue with it stems form the fact that the gay rights people made it an issue, we would have left it all alone had they remained behind closed doors, but instead they came out and are trying to convince our Children that it's ok to be a pervert, and that isn't ok. A christian will stand for God's word no matter how unpopular. Anyone that supports Gay rights can not be a christian.

That is quite utterly bullshit. There were many laws that prohibited gay sex behind closed doors. Hell, there are still starte with the laws on the books. That was a very ignorant thing to say.

This is what annoys so many about Christians like you. You are either ignorant or lying and rewriting history.

 

[brycejones]

Wow. You are beyond ignorant! The amount of hypocrisy, tyranny, ignorance and narcissism in your words are almost too numerous to address but I'll address a few of them any way.

I'll explain it like you're 5 so that you can perhaps understand.

First off, you are no doubt referring to Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities. Both cities were destroyed along with two neighboring cities so it was actually 4 cities that your "God" destroyed. Not "A city"

Second this so called God of yours destroyed ALMOST everything in this area, supposedly, because of an abundance of Vice and debauchery. But what about the 5th city? Neighboring Zoar (Bela) was the only city to be spared so did he just miss this city? Or was there somehow less happening in this one city then every other city in that area?

Homosexuality is only a tiny fraction of the activities taking place in these cities (supposedly) along with Bestiality, and oral and anal sex (even among heterosexual people). Hence the reason anal, oral and bestiality are referred to as sodomy regardless of the sex of the two people engaging in it.

Third Its disingenuous for modern day Christians to acknowledge this event in the context of your Gods wrath and discount many other events that occurred in all 3 mono-theistic religions. This event is written about in the old testiment as well as the Hebrew bible and the Quran. You will throw out other hyperbole when it suits you or are you someone that believe all of the "miracles" and everything else that happened in the old testament?

If god is so angry by acts of "sodomy" then why isn't the entire world being bombed? If Vice and "sodomy" overall was the concern then why hasn't Vegas been struck down by your gods wrath? Why not LA? Why not the entire internet when 90% of it is just porn?

Actually I changed my mind, I'm not even going to address your next statement about how its the "gays" fault for bringing it into the open and the other obvious hatred your POV suggests of your personality. You are beyond saving and even acknowledging this post is more than it deserves.

Candle_86 is a pretty obvious troll. Best to ignore the troll.

 

[Paratus]

No, homosexual discrimination is not sex discrimination. Unless people hate both men and women lol. Most that dislike male male marriage also feel female female is equally wrong in terms of marriage.

I’m going to disagree with you here.

While I agree on the surface it seems different from sex/gender discrimination it’s really not.

Sex or gender discrimination is simply treating one sex differently than another.

Simply stated the owner would serve Alex and Betty but would not serve Alex and Bob.

What is the difference between Betty and Bob? Betty is female and Bob is male. Bob is discriminated against, (treated differently, not served), due to his sex/gender which the cake store owner agreed not to do, (whether he realized it or not) when he started the business.

It doesn’t matter that the owner would generically serve Alex and Bob other types of cake. It’s that there exists a specific circumstance where he would not serve Bob but he would serve Betty.

I don’t feel it’s appropriate for people to legally agree to do certain things in exchange for something of value and then renege, claiming a religious exemption, yet keeping the thing of value.

 

[Darwin333]

That would be tough for conservatives...hate..hate..choices choices..I think the order of hate would be like this

- Muslims, because they are both brown...and well....Muslims
- Gays, because they are only gays...at least not brown...

Now, for Muslim gays...

Oh shit, if a gay Muslim set up a fundme to do basically the same thing as the "Christians" in this story I would so donate enough to get sideline seats to the ensuing shitshow. Of course I'd have to invest in body armor as well but sometimes you just gotta take risks.

 

[Paratus]

Oh shit, if a gay Muslim set up a fundme to do basically the same thing as the "Christians" in this story I would so donate enough to get sideline seats to the ensuing shitshow. Of course I'd have to invest in body armor as well but sometimes you just gotta take risks.

I’d expect no less than three very concerned threads from Incorruptible if this happened.

 

[IronWing]

because God destroyed a city because of it, it was spoken of many times in the old testament, and christ himself said that a man is to leave his family to join his wifes family, Christ never gave a single endorsement to homosexual relations, which where quite common at the time thanks to Rome. The mere fact Christ stated a marriage is between a man and wife, and that to have sexual relations outside of wedlock is a sin would seem to point anyone thinking clearly that since a homosexual couple can not have both a husband and a wife they are not considered married by God, and then they are commit the act of adulty by engaging in any sexual activity.

Our issue with it stems form the fact that the gay rights people made it an issue, we would have left it all alone had they remained behind closed doors, but instead they came out and are trying to convince our Children that it's ok to be a pervert, and that isn't ok. A christian will stand for God's word no matter how unpopular. Anyone that supports Gay rights can not be a christian.

Can you explain what your screed has to do with our Constitution?

 

[realibrad]

I’m going to disagree with you here.

While I agree on the surface it seems different from sex/gender discrimination it’s really not.

Sex or gender discrimination is simply treating one sex differently than another.

Simply stated the owner would serve Alex and Betty but would not serve Alex and Bob.

What is the difference between Betty and Bob? Betty is female and Bob is male. Bob is discriminated against, (treated differently, not served), due to his sex/gender which the cake store owner agreed not to do, (whether he realized it or not) when he started the business.

It doesn’t matter that the owner would generically serve Alex and Bob other types of cake. It’s that there exists a specific circumstance where he would not serve Bob but he would serve Betty.

I don’t feel it’s appropriate for people to legally agree to do certain things in exchange for something of value and then renege, claiming a religious exemption, yet keeping the thing of value.

So you mean to tell me that supreme judges missed this fact? Think this though. The baker would not serve Bob if Bob wanted a male gay cake, and the baker would not serve Betty is she wanted a female gay cake. This is not sex discrimination. It's sexual orientation discrimination. There is a difference between sex and sexual orientation that is not arbitrary.

 

[pcgeek11]

Exactly. That's why black people still can't get seated at a restaurant in the South.

BS alert. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Paratus]

So you mean to tell me that supreme judges missed this fact? Think this though. The baker would not serve Bob if Bob wanted a male gay cake, and the baker would not serve Betty is she wanted a female gay cake. This is not sex discrimination. It's sexual orientation discrimination. There is a difference between sex and sexual orientation that is not arbitrary.

I have thought about it. The fact that the baker would in other circumstances be ‘equally’ discriminatory doesn’t change the unequal treatment I outlined above. So I do not find your position compelling.

I’ve spelled out my position and provided the logic behind it.

I don’t think SCOTUS missed anything. Quite the contrary. I think the 7-2 decision shows they deliberately chose to avoid making a broad ruling either against or for the baker. This was basically a political statement by the court that they wanted to leave this mess to the states and lower courts for the time being.

 

[ImpulsE69]

American Christianity would be the right term. Christianity was not meant to be a faith for rich, comfortable people with mega churches and all that. Its decline therefore started when it was made state religion by Constantine. It was meant for the week and oppressed. That is why it is thriving in Latin America. Blessed are the meek.....

Yea, because only in America does religion and Christianity get abused.

 

[MrSquished]

I have thought about it. The fact that the baker would in other circumstances be ‘equally’ discriminatory doesn’t change the unequal treatment I outlined above. So I do not find your position compelling.

I’ve spelled out my position and provided the logic behind it.

I don’t think SCOTUS missed anything. Quite the contrary. I think the 7-2 decision shows they deliberately chose to avoid making a broad ruling either against or for the baker. This was basically a political statement by the court that they wanted to leave this mess to the states and lower courts for the time being.

This. And I've been dying inside to know that if someone put a gun to their heads and said make the bigger decision, what it would have been.

 

[umbrella39]

The ruling doesn't mean what you think it means...

Don't confuse a 3rd world America hating fucktard with our laws...

 

[UglyCasanova]

Exactly. That's why black people still can't get seated at a restaurant in the South.

Do you honestly believe this?

 

[Paratus]

BS alert. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Do you honestly believe this?

Are you guys really struggling with what he meant?