Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
Member |
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/ | ||
|
Member |
I am looking forward to this too. I visit the bakery occasionally, delicious. | |||
|
Member |
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. War Eagle! | |||
|
Ammoholic |
Are you saying there might not be cake? Jesse Sic Semper Tyrannis | |||
|
אַרְיֵה |
Not for LBGT marriages. I think you'll be OK, though. הרחפת שלי מלאה בצלופחים | |||
|
When you fall, I will be there to catch you -With love, the floor |
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? | |||
|
delicately calloused |
Because it is about compelling acceptance. You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier | |||
|
Member |
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. | |||
|
Peace through superior firepower |
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. ____________________________________________________ "I am your retribution." - Donald Trump, speech at CPAC, March 4, 2023 | |||
|
Member |
Agreed. Where does the left go when they lose this case. | |||
|
delicately calloused |
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. You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier | |||
|
Step by step walk the thousand mile road |
They'll be taking their feelz into the STREETS, man, you know, to resist the fascist tyranny of cake bakers. Nice is overrated "It's every freedom-loving individual's duty to lie to the government." Airsoftguy, June 29, 2018 | |||
|
Member |
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. . . | |||
|
Don't Panic |
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. | |||
|
delicately calloused |
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. You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier | |||
|
Staring back from the abyss |
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. ________________________________________________________ "Great danger lies in the notion that we can reason with evil." Doug Patton. | |||
|
I believe in the principle of Due Process |
What if everyone choses to refuse service, say at restaurants? Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
Member |
Good, glad to hear that. Place your clothes and weapons where you can find them in the dark. “If in winning a race, you lose the respect of your fellow competitors, then you have won nothing” - Paul Elvstrom "The Great Dane" 1928 - 2016 | |||
|
No double standards |
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. "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it....While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it" - Judge Learned Hand, May 1944 | |||
|
No double standards |
Is there a constitutional right to be served at a restaurant?? "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it....While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it" - Judge Learned Hand, May 1944 | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |