Posted on 12/05/2017 2:21:07 AM PST by markomalley
You’re confusing a sinful act with the color of someone’s skin.
The central problem, that of rights, is the Scotus’ own making.
It has unconstitutionally elevated abortion, and voting to what they call ‘fundamental rights’. Instead of plaintiffs having to make their case against laws that touch on abortion and voting, scotus turned the tables such that the lawmakers must prove their laws do not impinge on fundamental rights.
Oh, and the rights of the Bill of Rights, like the right to life itself, are not fundamental.
We will soon find out from philosopher-gods if fag rights are fundamental.
“I agree... The whole pageantry of the thing is one of force and idolizing it. If it’s to be permitted to carry on, please I hope our government will not require the unwilling to be caught up in it.”
What’s next? The government forcing healthy people to buy health insurance?
Oh.. wait.
Nevermind.
“You’re confusing a sinful act with the color of someone’s skin.”
And this is where the argument is going to center around. Being black, latino, a woman isn’t a choice. You are born that way. Being gay is a lifestyle choice. No one forced you to be gay, therefore as a gay you should not force anyone else to do your bidding.
A choice is a choice is a choice. You are gay by choice. I refuse to bake you a ceremonial cake because of my religious faith, which is my choice.
SCOTUS cannot and should not determine whose choice is more important. However because I own the business and it is my right to serve whoever I want, adding in my faith, this is a slam dunk against Colorado.
Oh, I also have 5 votes on SCOTUS that says it is.
I wonder if they refused to sell a cake to them or refused to put a specific message on the cake.....
.....if the SC rules for the homosexual army of forceniks, this will not be the end. Homo’s never give up. They will surely have another “case” before the court seeking to FORCE someone else to do something else.
Effectively, the court, if it rules for the homo’s, will be saying to the American Small Business community “you do what they say or you close up your shop!” There is no half way point on this one.
actually i think you should be able to refuse to any, if you’re the business owner.
corruption of children is a tactic in furtherance of the objective, agree
Raise your hand if you’re thankful that Gorsuch was just appointed and not Hillary’s gal with this case being heard.
Yep. They used that rationale in the marriage redefinition decision(s). "Gay is the new black" has become their false mantra.
The owner of the bakery said he has no problems selling the homosexual couple cakes, cookies, pies, whatever. He drew the line about baking a “homosexual wedding cake.” He also said he has refused to make Halloween cakes due to his religious beliefs.
Summary of oral argument: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/12/argument-analysis-conservative-majority-leaning-toward-ruling-colorado-baker/#more-264747
Ping!
Ruling for the baker will basically throw out every anti-discrimination law in the country. Will the Supreme Court be willing to do that even if it is the right course?
I just don't understand that. The baker was perfectly willing to sell them .. and anyone else .. a cake: a plain cake with frosting. It was only the value-added addition of his creative decorating that was refused.
It would have been discrimination to have not sold the basic cake to someone. That idea is easy enough to hold across all of the boundaries. If you're in the business to sell cakes, or tires, or flowers, or napkins and paper products, then, given the way the law is written, you should not discriminate to whom you sell those basic items. However, if you are going to use your creativity to make it something more .. decorating a cake, arranging the flowers, creating a design for napkins or other paper products .. then you should be able to refuse to create something against your beliefs.
Heck, I've had zazzle and cafepress refuse to create bumperstickers and coffee mugs for me, even when I provide the template or pattern, because it violates their self-created rules (and not just because of a copyright violation). I don't see a difference.
You can't subtract sexual orientation from the mix any more than you can subtract the bakers religious beliefs. Right now the Colorado anti-discrimination laws are black and white. You really can't inject any gray into the law and have it stand up. On the other hand the First Amendment right to freedom of religion is pretty black and white as well. How does the court say "freedom of religion except..."?
Heck, I've had zazzle and cafepress refuse to create bumperstickers and coffee mugs for me, even when I provide the template or pattern, because it violates their self-created rules (and not just because of a copyright violation). I don't see a difference.
What reason did they give? And do they do basically identical work for other people?
How is it discrimination if Phillip is willing to make them a real wedding cake?
How can.
Walmart and other venders be allowed to refuse to make confederate flag cakes and this poor man not have the right to choose what products he makes and sells as well ?
How can, a photographer refuse to shoot pornography? If a cake maker and photographer are not free to shoot other religious and cultural obsenitities?
This is fundamental to our freedom of speech, buiness, and creativity. Should he federal Cort not uphold this most basic of rights there can be no choice for freemen than to seek independence from their tyranny.
For if the state has the right to dictate what we must make and express then we have no real freedom at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.