Supreme Court Ruling, 7 to 2 decision for the Colorado Baker.

""Jack serves all customers; he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs," Waggoner said in a statement. "Creative professionals who serve all people should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment."

She further added that the case "will affect a number of cases for years to come in free exercise jurisprudence. That's how the court's decisions work."

Not about that. Are you really that dense? The Ruling was about his treatment in the Colorado courts. It has nothing to do with the first amendment at all.
 
It just seems to me if the bakerys would not a guy couple an appropriately decorated cake because of sin, why do they sell the cakes to the obese?
 
I know this may be a tad long for some of you, seeing as how it's around 9 minutes; but you still might want to watch it to the end.


Look at some of the cakes he creates.
The man is an artist and hates no one.
 
It has nothing to do with the first amendment at all.

"Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside." (page 3).
 
It just seems to me if the bakerys would not a guy couple an appropriately decorated cake because of sin, why do they sell the cakes to the obese?

I wasn't aware that enabling the obese is regarded as sin in the Bible.

Good thing for Christiecrite that it's not. :D
 
The justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution's free speech guarantee.

they ruled in the one case, it didn't change case law


Kennedy also stressed the importance of gay rights while noting that litigation on similar issues is likely to continue in lower courts.

"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.

I think forcing them to take on a customer based on the sexual preference of the customer was just slightly more fucked up than not taking a customer because of the customer's sexual preference.
Assholes all around
 
Funny the things conservatives defend now days. Gluttony is a sin, because it deprives the poor of food. Oh wait, conservatives don't care about them either.
I wasn't aware that enabling the obese is regarded as sin in the Bible.

Good thing for Christiecrite that it's not. :D
 
Funny the things conservatives defend now days. Gluttony is a sin, because it deprives the poor of food. Oh wait, conservatives don't care about them either.

You haven't won many debates, have you?

Nobody has claimed that obese people or the poor have been discriminated against by Christian bakers, have they?
 
I work in home improvements so I have worked for gay couples many times. Some of them can be tough to please. We had to try to remove stain from some freshly stained floors in the color the gay couple chose and then later said was too dark. Thankfully they were satisfied when we buffed around with laquer thinner and took off enough to turn a rag brown. Didn't change the color one bit but they thought it did. LOL
That was one experience with a gay couple to add to the 30 nasty hetero couples who were even harder to please.
 
Why do they refuse to sell cakes to same sex couples?

As should have been patently obvious to you by now, such commerce constitutes an unconscionable infringement upon the sincere and deeply held religious beliefs of Mr. Phillips.
 
Maybe his religious beliefs do not see that as a sin.

I refuse to fall into their little "gotcha" games; just because they want to lump all Christians into the same beliefs and yet they will spend hours telling you that all Muslims aren't the same, even if you have never said they are.
 
Back
Top