I'm really glad to see this. Maybe those bakery owners will finally get some justice.


The Supreme Court Monday agreed to hear a landmark religious liberty case concerning the rights of merchants who object to participating in same-sex weddings given their moral and theological convictions.

The case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, has been pending before the high court for months. Most legal observers believed the justices would not grant the case given this unusually long interval.

The controversy arose after the proprietor of a Colorado bakery, Jack Phillips, declined to produce a wedding cake for an LGBT couple. Phillips’ lawyers say he is a “Christian who strives to honor God in all aspects of his life, including his art.”

“As a Christian, Phillips believes that God ordained marriage as the sacred union between one man and one woman, a union that exemplifies the relationship of Christ and His Church,” Phillips’ petition to the Court reads. “And Phillips’ religious conviction compels him to create cakes celebrating only marriages that are consistent with his understanding of God’s design.”

The justices must now decide whether the state’s public accommodations law requires Phillips “to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.”


http://dailycaller.com/2017/06...igious-liberty-case/

I am looking forward to this too.

I visit the bakery occasionally, delicious.

Best cakes around. We're in his shop 3-4x yr along with a lot of friends. Wish he wasn't targeted. I'll be watching closely.

Are you saying there might not be cake?

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Are you saying there might not be cake?

Not for LBGT marriages.

I think you'll be OK, though.

I can't understand why anyone would force them into making a cake they will eat knowing the baker dislikes you?

Why not simply patronize someone that either doesn't care or agrees with your life?

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:
I can't understand why anyone would force them into making a cake they will eat knowing the baker dislikes you?

Why not simply patronize someone that either doesn't care or agrees with your life?

Because it is about compelling acceptance.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:
I can't understand why anyone would force them into making a cake they will eat knowing the baker dislikes you?

Why not simply patronize someone that either doesn't care or agrees with your life?

Because it is about compelling acceptance.

Of course it is. I'm sure there are plenty of bakers that don't care and probably more than a few that would gladly cater to gay couples, but that's no fun. You need to kick the hornet's nest if you are a good progressive.

The Leftists are going to have nowhere to go emotionally after they lose this one. They're already pegged at 100% pissed off, so, where can they go from there when they lose this one? Gonna be very gratifying to watch.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
The Leftists are going to have nowhere to go emotionally after they lose this one. They're already pegged at 100% pissed off, so, where can they go from there when they lose this one? Gonna be very gratifying to watch.

Agreed. Where does the left go when they lose this case.

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
The Leftists are going to have nowhere to go emotionally after they lose this one. They're already pegged at 100% pissed off, so, where can they go from there when they lose this one? Gonna be very gratifying to watch.

Agreed. Where does the left go when they lose this case.

More disappointment. Much of the Left's loss comes from lying and believing those lies. And lies by their nature are not real. Leftism is based on lies. The mistake is believing them like a drug dealer hooked on his own product. What they do with the disappointment will vary depending on the individual, but eventually those who live by lies will be run over by reality.

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
The Leftists are going to have nowhere to go emotionally after they lose this one. They're already pegged at 100% pissed off, so, where can they go from there when they lose this one? Gonna be very gratifying to watch.

Agreed. Where does the left go when they lose this case.

They'll be taking their feelz into the STREETS, man, you know, to resist the fascist tyranny of cake bakers.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Are you saying there might not be cake?

I think they will gladly sell cakes all day long to gays, or anyone else. What they won't do is allow themselves to be forced to participate in a gay wedding or anything else they find to be against their beliefs. I also think Supreme Court will rightly uphold the establishment clause here, protecting the church from the state, and illustrate what sanity is supposed to look like.



.
.

I'm glad they took the case.

We need an official decision about whether it is ever appropriate to use governmental force to compel someone to act against their religious beliefs, and if so, in what context.

Can a state compel someone to take off their burka/yarmulka for a driver's license photo? Can they force a Jewish butcher to sell pork? If a company is owned by Quakers (or some other bona-fide religion with strict pacifist beliefs as part of their doctrine) could the government force them to accept military business?

This is a slightly finer gradation than that. Here's a business that does certain things/makes certain products/provides certain services. Can they discriminate?

Well, if it was a standard product - box of cornflakes - in a standard retailer -WalMart- then it would seem discriminatory not to sell the box of cornflakes to anyone with money. If this was 'gay pride member being told they couldn't get a box of cornflakes at Walmart' I'd say let the gay folks buy their cornflakes. That aspect maps pretty well into letting black folks into the stores during the civil rights days.

But this is different. A photographer has to go to the service personally to take pictures and wedding cakes need to be designed and personalized commemorating the union. To compel this would force the service provider to actively engage with ideas against their religion and act to support them. This is far different than non-discrimination. The Wal-Mart checker doesn't know and shouldn't care what the shopper does or believes - that rainbow button might be a show of support, or a fake, or a parody. But a photographer sort of runs the wedding, and a baker can't pretend 'Congratulations Bill and George' is just another run-of-the mill event.

Don't get me wrong. If Bill or George comes into the bake shop and wants to buy a cake off the shelf....they should be able to do that. I don't think being a cashier and accepting money from people one disagrees with is against any legitimate religious tenets. If, however, Bill and George want to have the government force the baker to do something specifically for them which violates the baker's tenets ... that's where the line needs to be drawn.

Looking forward to the arguments, and hopefully for a sanity-infused decision with a decent majority - hoping for 6-3 or better.

Think of what it would mean if you could be compelled by govt to act against your religious beliefs. Think of how far that could go.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
Don't get me wrong. If Bill or George comes into the bake shop and wants to buy a cake off the shelf....they should be able to do that.

You mostly had me up to here.

IMO, individual business owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose, for any reason they choose. You and I don't have to like it, but they should have that right. You can always go elsewhere to get whatever they make or sell.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
Don't get me wrong. If Bill or George comes into the bake shop and wants to buy a cake off the shelf....they should be able to do that.

You mostly had me up to here.

IMO, individual business owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose, for any reason they choose. You and I don't have to like it, but they should have that right. You can always go elsewhere to get whatever they make or sell.

What if everyone choses to refuse service, say at restaurants?

Good, glad to hear that.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Think of what it would mean if you could be compelled by govt to act against your religious beliefs. Think of how far that could go.

Maybe related, when the CA Prop 8 was active, one of the LGBT leaders here acknowledged they already had the same legal rights as married couples in CA, their purpose here was to silence, by force of law, those who might publicly express moral disagreement.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:...What if everyone choses to refuse service, say at restaurants?

Is there a constitutional right to be served at a restaurant??