JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, but this whole concept of identity is a slightly — suppose he says: Look, I have nothing against — against gay people. He says but I just don’t think they should have a marriage because that’s contrary to my beliefs. It’s not -
MR. COLE: Yeah.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: It’s not their identity; it’s what they’re doing.
MR. COLE: Yeah.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: I think it’s — your identity thing is just too facile.
Justice Kennedy is making a practical distinction between the concept of discriminating against someone for being gay, and not approving of someone's actions.
This actually is fairly consistent with this particular baker, who has both sold generic cakes to gays, and created cakes for gays for things like birthdays. The baker's issue is not serving gay people, but rather being forced to make a cake for a ceremony that is against his religious beliefs.
This is the same argument I have made multiple times here on this blog.
A couple of analogies:
- A baker should not be allowed to turn away a customer who wants to buy a generic cake, because the guy has a swastika tattoo on his forehead. However, the baker should be allowed to refuse to decorate one of his cakes with a swastika, if he found that concept offensive.
- A party hall should have the ability to turn away an awards banquet for adult films, or refuse to host an S&M party if they do not want to associate themselves with those types of events... even as those events are legal, and the party halls has hosted similar events for people that did not offend them.
I would support the freedom for these businesses to choose to refuse service if that service is deems inappropriate for them. The same would and (based on the first amendment) should hold true for someone refusing service because the event or action runs counter to their religious beliefs.
Kennedy also took offense to the local Judge who ordered the baker to to through sensitivity training, claiming it was "compelled speech" that was designed to teach the concept that "state law supersedes religious beliefs".
Overall, Kennedy seemed to also suggest that the argument being made by Colorado might be more based on a hostility towards religion, than based on protection of gays. We'll see how it all turns out. Kennedy has ridden the line on these cases fairly consistently... but has generally plopped down on the side of gay rights. But many legal analysts believe that it might be different this time.
58 comments:
I've come to believe, that they can't force a business man to produce something that he does not want to provide, no matter what it is. On the federal level, the SCOTUS in my vies is in favor of the business man
On the state level, if there is an ant-discrimination law, I still have a problem forcing the business man to produce the cake. Nor should he be sued.. On this I'm pretty much a libertarian.
Yet, the left has force every adult to buy health care.
HB, so shallow and devoid of thought.
Roger, if 'they' come into my business during normal hours, I have no right to deny them service. Yet entering into a seperate contract, the preparation of their cake, is distinct and different, I should be able to say no regardless of reason
LOL at you again, CH., the specious argument presented at the Scotus is as amusing as yours.....Like I have said many times before....they need to put a sign in the front window, no shoes, no shirts, no gays and let them suffer the consequences of their bigotry !!!!!
for a gay wedding because it offends his Christian beliefs. Layered throughout the oral argument: Is food speech? Or is it, well, food?
Kristen Waggoner, arguing for Masterpiece Cakeshop of Colorado, made the creative argument that the Christian confectioner “intended to speak through that cake” and that when the cake maker bakes, “he is creating a painting on that canvas that expresses messages” — and is therefore covered by the First Amendment.
ump administration Solicitor General Noel Francisco, also arguing for the cake maker, said that the first question was whether “the cake rises to the level of speech.” He gave no indication that his pun was intended.
To the casual consumer of cakes, it’s obvious that cake does not rise to the level of protected speech. Cake is dessert. Or possibly breakfast, if in muffin form. But for a Supreme Court that has determined that corporations are people, it is not settled law that cake is food.
This raises the possibility of other goods and services being denied to gay people by those who cite their free-speech and free-expression-of-religion rights — just as Jim Crow merchants did when refusing to serve African Americans a half-century ago.
“The person who does floral arranging,” asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “Would that person also be speaking at the wedding?”
If this is the best argument they can muster and win, we are in more trouble than I thought
Good morning oPie, sorry about their death of your wife.
hey d0pie,
you offered up a millbank opinion, really?
LOL.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-not-get-into-the-butcher-or-the-candlestick-maker/2017/12/05/0632b3cc-da01-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.10edd2d442bd
when you're going for dishonesty, always go full millbank.
Opie...
You are 100% correct. Let the business owner (not the state Government) make his choices on the matter of baking cakes for same sex weddings.
If there are business consequences for that, then there are business consequences. I suspect that some will refuse to use that baker, while others will go out of their way to do so.
This particular baker has seen a large increase in his business since he was singled out, punished, and ordered by the judge to go through sensitivity training.
CH., the specious argument presented at the Scotus is as amusing as yours
Of course, Opie! what does Supreme Court Justice Kennedy know about the constituational nature of gay rights, anyways.
Obviously you are much better informed, have better cognitive skills, and are simply more qualified to judge a legal argument than Kennedy.
"a gay wedding because it offends his Christian beliefs."
just have them go to a Muslim bakery instead.
next "problem"
This particular baker has seen a large increase in his business since he was singled out, punished, and ordered by the judge to go through sensitivity training.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the free market system tends to settle these issues better than a court of law ever could.
just have them go to a Muslim bakery instead.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
especially if they're jewish.
liberals find christians easy to fuck with.
moose-limbs? not so much.
Alky, then Dow ,is up 2,600 point since your first prediction of them coming Trump Crash.
So it's ok for them to *be gay* as a matter of "identity", but not ok for them to expect to be treated similarly to those who do not share that "identity"?
The "identity" is fine and dandy as long as "what they're doing" is aligned with the "normal identity" and not their "identity".
Justice Kennedy's distinction doesn't stand up to logic very well.
"The baker's issue is not serving gay people, but rather being forced to make a cake for a ceremony that is against his religious beliefs."
The baker is overly concerned with what other people do. What they do with his cake has nothing legitimately to do with his religious beliefs. Baker needs to get over himself - he's selling a cake, not a wedding.
The baker is overly concerned with what other people do. What they do with his cake has nothing legitimately to do with his religious beliefs. Baker needs to get over himself - he's selling a cake, not a wedding.
WP...
That seems a lot more like your personal opinion, rather than an actual legal argument.
Do you share the same opinion of the gay couple who seems overly concerned with what the baker does and does not want to do? Do you make the same argument that they should just get over themselves - and go to a baker who wants to bake the cake?
Ultimately - your argument is the same as most of the anti-baker arguments. A complete refusal to acknowledge that they are not just "buying a cake" over the counter -- but they are asking him to specifically decorate a cake for their particular wedding.
Would you make the same argument if you asked a Jewish baker to bake a bunch of cakes, decorate them with swastikas, for a neo-Nazi Holocaust celebration...
would you argue that that the jewish baker shouldn't be concerned with what they do with those cakes?
Or would you acknowledge that it would be degrading for the Jewish Baker to bake a bunch of cakes with swastikas, or at least acknowledge that the Jewish Baker might see it that way?
what does Supreme Court Justice Kennedy know about the constitutional nature of gay rights, anyways.
And what does a loser statistician from Minnesota know about anything???? When he casts the deciding vote, yea or nay, get back to me,,,,,The article I posted is vastly superior in logic and rationale than you are capable of and brings up the question of where does it stop? Some thing you constantly fail to recognize...Lile I said. Put up a sign no gays served here and let them suffer from their own stupidity and bias.....Idiot....and WP kicked your scrawny white ass again, CH....
you offered up a millbank opinion, really?
And he is not entitled to an opinion and you are, Rat hole.....the moose limb bigot? At least he makes a pretty good living opining....what do you get for your opinion other than an audience of sycophants here....LOL at you again. but am impressed you had the gumption to find the source...
The baker is overly concerned with what other people do.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
not at all. the baker is simply being devoutly true to his faith. to the baker, baking the cake for the event means he's endorsing the event, and even a tacit endorsement violates his commitment to his religion and his God.
his actions are borne out of faith and his devotion to it. not hatred as so many would lie to have us believe.
A complete refusal to acknowledge that they are not just "buying a cake" over the counter -- but they are asking him to specifically decorate a cake for their particular wedding.
True, they aren't just "buying a cake", they are just "buying a decorated cake". If you truly want a legal argument, then there is is. Legally speaking, all they're doing is buying a decorated cake.
Baker literally wants to impose his religious belief on customers if they want to do business with him. He may have the "legal" right to impose restrictions - that's a "legal argument" - but if I'd said something like "the Baker is a self-righteous pompous hypocrite of the kind that Jesus says "I never knew you", THAT would be a "personal opinion".
Either way, I stand by "Baker needs to get over himself", because that's 99% of the problem.
The Jewish baker decorating with swastikas? As long as it leaves in a plane box, cash payment, it shouldn't bother him. It's icing on a cake, having nothing to do with him.
who devised the societal pecking order that placed sexual orientation above religion?
religion is, at the very least, addressed in our first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
when did homosexuality trump it?
,The article I posted is vastly superior in logic and rationale than you are capable of and brings up the question of where does it stop? Some thing you constantly fail to recognize..
The article you posted is based on a false premise...
The premise used is that the baker is refusing to serve gays, refusing to allow gays to purchase his baked goods, and even refusing to bake a special order for a birthday or other event.
That's not the case. So the entire article is a non-starter logic wise.
Find one that accepts the premise that this is "only" about making a special order wedding cake for a same sex wedding, and I will read it.
Otherwise, the person is either purposely straw manning the entire case, or not informed enough to render an opinion. Either way, it makes his opinion moot.
Furthermore, I am not so much making an argument, as I am simply endorsing the argument being made by Justice Kennedy. Ultimately Kennedy will be the swing vote, and I am sure he will weigh what appear to be very conflicting arguments that he makes for and against both sides.
but if you want to ask where does it stop... that's a valid question, but the wrong subject. The Gay couple is not being punished. Is not being sued. They are not being sent to sensitivy training where (as Kennedy put it) they are learning that State Law supersedes their religious beliefs.
Do you recall what the First Amendment has to say about the state creating laws that tell religion that they are wrong and need to change?
fwiw, the baker won't do halloween cakes either. so his "bias" is not specific to gays, but it is consistent with his religious beliefs.
The Gay couple is not being punished. Is not being sued. They are not being sent to sensitivy training where (as Kennedy put it) they are learning that State Law supersedes their religious beliefs.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
often it's the gay couple doing the bullying. they troll along seeking out people of faith they can fuck with. it happened up here at a popular wedding venue. the owners openly celebrate their christian faith and a couple of lesbians decided to fuck with them. cost the venue owners $13,000.00.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/15/new-york-court-rules-farm-owners-broke-law-when-refused-to-host-lesbian-wedding.html
here was the kicker:
"The couple, who now live in New Jersey, both testified that they had their hearts set on the farm wedding, that getting rejected by a business because of who they are was hurtful and it took them several months to find another rustic venue."
the truth is you can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting a "rustic venue" to have your wedding.
True, they aren't just "buying a cake", they are just "buying a decorated cake".
Ha! No... they are not just buying a pre decorated cake. But, again... a nice attempt to murky the waters with semantic trickery.
Even their own attorney acknowledged that the baker would not stop them from purchasing a generic cake over the counter. The baker (according to everyone) offered that they could purchase any bakery item (including cake) that was already in the store or he would specifically decorate them a cake for any other event.
What he would not do, was agree to decorate a customized wedding cake for their specific ceremony...
You do understand the difference between a retail item for sale...
and a special order item....
or are you pretending that there is not a difference?
I heard an examination of this issue on public radio, and it was pointed out there that Justice Kennedy asked questions that showed he has discomfort toward both sides of the argumentations.
In other words, he tries to be sensitive to both sides of this vexing question.
_________________
One Kennedy-like concern:
There used to be a time in this country when people sincerely believed that their religious beliefs gave them the right, as restaurant owners, to refuse service to blacks because "God approves of segregation and does not want blacks and whites to mingle."
Do we want to open that door again?
Or rather, close that door again?
The Jewish baker decorating with swastikas? As long as it leaves in a plane box, cash payment, it shouldn't bother him. It's icing on a cake, having nothing to do with him.
I guess I am not so arrogant as to believe I know how people should and should not think, or what they should and should not be offended by. I am guessing you instinctively understand that the Jewish person would likely not take kindly to the request.
What I do know... is that in America, it has always been well within a proprietor's legal rights to refuse to provide specific services that they do not want to provide. We've never allowed the Government to step in and demand what services they must provide to whom.
What's next? The local government demanding that the Rabbi perform the 12:00 Catholic service because performing religious services is his business and it would be discrimination against Catholics if he refused?
There used to be a time in this country when people sincerely believed that their religious beliefs gave them the right, as restaurant owners, to refuse service to blacks because "God approves of segregation and does not want blacks and whites to mingle."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
and the pederast lies like it's his job. that racism and bigotry had no basis in religion. it had a basis in hatred.
a true pastor would know this.
a fake pastor would not.
James...
Kennedy has an obligation and he knows it.
He was the deciding vote in the gay marriage ruling.
Much of the argument against gay marriage was that it would eventually lead to the Government forcing others to change their lives, their practices, and give up some of their freedoms in order to accommodate. it was the "slippery slope". Much of the argument in favor, was that this simply about gay people wanting to get married. Live and let live. The ruling didn't have to make others to give anything up. The ruling was designed to provide both. Allow same sex marriage without forcing it others that did not want to take part.
And here we are...
So does Kennedy stick to what he implicitly (and explicitly) promised... or does he push us down the slippery slope a little further?
JAMES SAID:
There used to be a time in this country when people sincerely believed that their religious beliefs gave them the right, as restaurant owners, to refuse service to blacks because "God approves of segregation and does not want blacks and whites to mingle."
________________________________________
RAT SAYS:
and the pederast lies like it's his job. that racism and bigotry had no basis in religion. it had a basis in hatred.
a true pastor would know this.
a fake pastor would not.
_________________________________
JAMES SAYS:
Rat, I can show you pamphlets put out by some who claimed to be Christians and argued from scripture that blacks were intended by God to be subjected to slave status. I even served a church once where one of the previous leaders had in earlier years argued that blacks were like animals who do not have souls.
Their racism, they believed, was firmly founded on Christian beliefs which they even backed up with scriptural arguments from both the Old and New Testaments. Racial segregation, they erringly believed, was divinely ordained.
As a pastor who once served in North Carolina, I know that.
Sorry if it is difficult for you to acknowledge, but even KKK-ers claimed to be defending "Christian" values.
As a true pastor who, by the way, is not a pederast, I know that too.
It used to be argued, Ch, that if segregationist laws were overturned as unconstitutional, that would lead us down the slippery slope where even interracial marriages would be declared (gasp!) legal.
pederast, it's impossible for a fraud like you to address this topic honestly and intelligently.
and the only values the KKK defended were DEMOCRAT values.
James -
By your own logic...
Muslims are a religion of hatred, violence, murder, and terror...
The sycophant CH opined
The article you posted is based on a false premise...
BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!! In your mentally confused state maybe. The reality is Kennedy is the swing vote and it is highly probable he will follow his lead like his marriage decision...I will say again, let them eat their own cake and put up a sign for the whole world to see gays are not welcome in their store....Simple. as to your premise of "The premise used is that the baker is refusing to serve gays, refusing to allow gays to purchase his baked goods, and even refusing to bake a special order for a birthday or other event.
That's not the case.
You speak about the legal argument of the case and here is what the baker provided........Laughable at best, pathetic to say the least stretch...
Kristen Waggoner, arguing for Masterpiece Cakeshop of Colorado, made the creative argument that the Christian confectioner “intended to speak through that cake” and that when the cake maker bakes, “he is creating a painting on that canvas that expresses messages” — and is therefore covered by the First Amendment.
Is complete and utter BS as evidenced in their lawyer arguing it is impeding his right to express his artistic freedom... Complete crap CH, and is exactly what I expect from such a disturbed person as yourself!!!! Kennedy will see right through it....LOLOO
It used to be argued, Ch, that if segregationist laws were overturned as unconstitutional, that would lead us down the slippery slope where even interracial marriages would be declared (gasp!) legal.
You do realize...
that the political losers in every one of these situations...
are the people making demands that the government force others to live by "their" beliefs and punish behavior that doesn't fit "their" beliefs.
It's why gay marriage was inherently popular... and opposition to it was seen as oppressive.
but forcing the baker to bake the case is inherently unpopular... and support of such force is seen as oppressive.
Ultimately Americans still want to be a land where people are not forced to conform with other people's beliefs. Something about the home of the free?
It was stunning to many people that the Supreme Court even took up the case of Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, who refused, on religious grounds ― claiming a violation of First Amendment rights ― to make a cake for a gay couple, Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, who came in to buy a wedding cake. Other similar cases in states with laws barring discrimination against LGBT people in public accommodations had been rejected for review by the high court after lower courts ruled against the businesses.
Sad gorsuch is on the bench....another religious zealot who is about as righteous as Roy Moore....Where does it stop????
On Tuesday, the court will consider whether Colorado may deny Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the right to sell custom wedding cakes because he cannot in conscience create them for same-sex weddings. Mr. Phillips, who has run his bakery since 1993, sells off-the-shelf items to anyone, no questions asked. But he cannot deploy his artistic skills to create cakes celebrating themes that violate his religious and moral convictions. Thus he does not design cakes for divorce parties, lewd bachelor parties, Halloween parties or same-sex weddings.
Colorado’s order that he create same-sex wedding cakes (or quit making any cakes at all) would force him to create expressive products carrying a message he rejects. That’s unconstitutional.
Some fear a slippery slope, arguing that anything can be expressive. What if someone refused to rent out folding chairs for the reception? Or what about restaurant owners who exclude blacks because they think God wills segregation? If we exempt Mr. Phillips, won’t we have to exempt these people from anti-discrimination law?
CH posted....
that the political losers in every one of these situations..
So, by your comment it seems you feel interracial marriages was a losing proposition....Gee, you sound as low as Rat Hole and his bigotry.....I thought you had class, obviously I was sadly mistaken...
CH:
Ultimately Americans still want to be a land where people are not forced to conform with other people's beliefs. Something about the home of the free?
_______________
James:
Sorry, but we the people have decided that if you own a restaurant open to the public, you can be "forced" to conform to the belief that blacks should not be subjected to the indignity of being refused service at your place of business.
Same with a motel or a hotel or a movie theater.
I can remember a time in my home town in NC when blacks were not admitted into three of the four local movie theaters, and in the fourth they could only sit in the balcony. Hard to believe those practices existed, but they did.
In those days blacks could not enter any but "black" restaurants or grills.
Slippery slopes can go in both directions.
Phillips believes that same-sex marriages are sinful, that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. "I don't believe that Jesus would have made a cake if he had been a baker," he said on ABC's The View. "I'm not judging these two gay men," he continued, "I'm just trying to preserve my right as an artist to decide which artistic endeavors I'm going to do and which ones I'm not."
Yep, the basis of the case is bigotry....WWJD was asked by the baker....My guess Jesus would have baked the cake....
It follow your logic James, you would be forced to have give an invocation at a neo-Nazi, KKK rally because to refuse is to discriminate against members of a protected sub-culture.
CH SAID:
James -
By your own logic...
Muslims are a religion of hatred, violence, murder, and terror...
_______________
JAMES SAYS:
Howso?
By my logic,
SOME who consider themselves to be Christians espouse a religion of hatred, violence, murder, and terror...
while SOME who consider themselves to be Muslims espouse a religion of hatred, violence, murder, and terror...
Others who consider themselves to be Christians do not agree with the former,
while others who consider themselves to be Muslims do not agree with the latter.
It is your own "logic" that is flawed, Ch.
Free speech would always protect me from having to SAY anything I did not believe.
If invited to give an invocation at a KKK rally, I would do it. I do not think they would like the invocation I would give however. ;-)
James...
Have you forgotten that the Democratic Party is at hundred year lows in political power? Why do you suppose that is?
Why is it that none of the liberal social accomplishments (gay marriage, abortion laws, etc) have been legislative ones or been passed by referendum?
Look... it's not that I don't agree that abortion should be legal (I do) or that gays should be allowed to get married (I have been to gay weddings personally). But there is a difference between me supporting people's rights to live their lives... and supporting consequences to those people who don't agree with my opinions.
I would do it. I do not think they would like the invocation I would give however
You would have give the invocation they want or you would be sued for malicious discrimination.
neo-Nazi, KKK rally because to refuse is to discriminate against members of a protected sub-culture.
Nazi's are not a protected group......they have the right to free speech, but are not an equivalent to the gay community....Seems trump protects nazi's and by supporting trump, you do also...Sad....
forgotten that the Democratic Party is at hundred year lows in political power?
And WTF does that have to do with anything, CH!!!!.....Trump is also at historic lows for a first term POTUS and you fellate him..I sure would like to see a link for that allegation....LOL
and supporting consequences to those people who don't agree with my opinions.
__________________
So are you saying the movie theater owners and restaurant owners and motel owners and hotel owners should NOT have had had to endure the "consequences" of their having to serve all the public?
4:08 You have bats in your bell fry.
The arming of America continues under the leadership of R's.....going to be a very interesting off year election in spite of the R gerrymandering the past few years.....
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans rammed a bill through the House on Wednesday that would make it easier for gun owners to legally carry concealed weapons across state lines, the first significant action on guns in Congress since mass shootings in Nevada and Texas killed more than 80 people.
The House approved the bill, 231-198, largely along party lines. The measure would allow gun owners with a state-issued concealed-carry permit to carry a handgun in any state that allows concealed weapons. It now goes to the Senate.
Republicans said the reciprocity measure, a top priority of the National Rifle Association, would allow gun owners to travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state laws or civil suits.
Opponents, mostly Democrats, said the bill could endanger public safety by overriding state laws that place strict limits on guns.
Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-Conn., called the bill an attempt to undermine states' rights, "hamstring law enforcement and allow dangerous criminals to walk around with hidden guns anywhere and at any time. It's unspeakable that this is Congress' response to the worst gun tragedies in American history."
And menstral, malicious discrimination....BWAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
Bell Fry? Not at all, it's the consequences of your logic.
Nazi's are not a protected group......they have the right to free speech, but are not an equivalent to the gay community...
Actually, they are.
Anyone here think donnie will call Vlademer to thank him for sending oil to north korea or will he just deny this is happening.....But, CH will fellate his fearless leader with vigor....
The price of fuel in North Korea has plummeted over the past month thanks to Russian oil imports, according to reports that suggest Russia is ignoring international efforts to isolate the rogue North Korean regime.
Journalists with the website Asia Press International, which is based in Osaka, Japan, and publishes in English, Japanese and Korean, reportedly said that fuel prices began to fall in November. The reports claimed that the price of diesel had fallen by 60 percent since early November, and the price of gasoline fell by around 25 percent.
Actually, they are.
You are full of shit as usual!!!
I guess I am not so arrogant as to believe I know how people should and should not think, or what they should and should not be offended by.
Neither am I. I AM arrogant enough as to believe that I shouldn't have to care what he thinks, not when it's just a matter of his religious sensitivity over what someone's going to do with his decorated cake.
As for the difference between a retail item and a special order item, my opinion as someone who has owned retail businesses, managed retail, and worked in retail in my darker days, is that there is no fundamental difference other than the obvious extra work, tracking and customer interface. What exactly did you have in mind with that?
James said...
Ch TRUTH SAID:
...it's not that I don't agree that abortion should be legal (I do) or that gays should be allowed to get married (I have been to gay weddings personally). But there is a difference between me supporting people's rights to live their lives... and supporting consequences to those people who don't agree with my opinions.
__________________
So, Ch Truth, are you saying the movie theater owners and restaurant owners and motel owners and hotel owners should NOT have had to support the "consequences" of their having to serve the public at large?
I AM arrogant enough as to believe that I shouldn't have to care what he thinks
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
and if you're gay, you're arrogant enough to MAKE HIM CARE what you think.
a good old "heads i win, tails you lose" scenario.
Further info on whether Kennedy embraces CH natural bias.....
In the run-up to Tuesday's oral argument, Randy Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown University, suggested that this other dimension of the case would "get the most attention."
But after the argument, Barnett tweeted that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy — who is generally expected to be the deciding vote in the case — “did not seem receptive to compelled speech theory. Instead, he said the state ‘has been neither tolerant nor respectful of baker’s religious faith.’ ”
The justices didn't ignore the question of whether Phillips is engaged in protected speech when he bakes a wedding cake. Indeed, they spent considerable time trying to pinpoint which occupations associated with weddings are "expressive" enough to enjoy free-speech protections.
and if you're gay, you're arrogant enough to MAKE HIM CARE what you think.
_________________________________________________________________________
I believe that I shouldn't have to care what the gay couple think about the Baker either. The Baker shouldn't have to care what they think about him and his religion.
Just buy the cake or don't buy it, you can have your "wedding" with any cake, or without one. Sell them the damn cake if you're selling cakes, unless you're discriminating against gays. No one has to care what the other one thinks, NO ONE has the right to force the other to think "their way". Buying or selling cakes has zip to do with religion nor with gay marriage - UNLESS one or the other is trying to force people to think "the right way".
As far as I'm concerned the Baker is a bigger "snowflake" than the gay couple, but it's all around a level of pettiness beneath the dignity of an ambulance chaser let alone a higher court.
Just buy the cake or don't buy it, you can have your "wedding" with any cake, or without one.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ah, but the rainbow mafia won't settle for that remedy. they must seek out those whose religion has meaning and significance, and they must troll them and beat them into submission. that's how this is supposed to work.
and it's not just gays who use the tactic. a reporter scoured the state of indiana until she found a pizzeria owned by christians willing to state that their faith wouldn't allow them to cater a gay wedding. only one problem - the attempt at public scorn and ridicule backfired, and the pizzeria real a whirlwind of benefits.
When the owners of Memories Pizza—a small-town pizzeria in Indiana—were posed a hypothetical question about whether they would cater a gay wedding last year, the “intolerance” of their simple response that they would not resulted in a threat to burn down their shop.
They did not answer threats with threats, but continued to calmly explain that they would happily serve gay customers; they just didn’t want to be a part of the wedding. Of course, none of this mattered to those not interested in seeking the facts.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/16/how-the-indiana-pizza-shop-responded-after-being-tricked-into-catering-a-gay-wedding/
The Indiana pizza parlor that sparked outrage after its owners said they would not cater gay weddings because of their religious beliefs has raised more than $840,000 from supporters.
http://time.com/3771465/indiana-no-gay-wedding-pizza-parlor-raises-money/
gays don't go looking for a wedding cake or a wedding venue.
they go looking for someone to fuck with.
As far as I'm concerned the Baker is a bigger "snowflake" than the gay couple
The Baker got death threats.
Post a Comment