Supreme Court's cake case pits gay rights versus Christian faith

[743 roadmasterParticipant]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker/supreme-courts-cake-case-pits-gay-rights-versus-christian-faith-idUSKBN1DV3TI

When conservative Christian baker Jack Phillips in 2012 politely but firmly told Colorado gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig he would not make them a cake to celebrate their wedding, it triggered a chain of events that will climax on Tuesday in highly anticipated U.S. Supreme Court arguments.

——–The title is wrong it should read religions faith. Today’s media hates Christian’s so not to shocked. The case is going to be interesting to watch. Could have implications even here.

mgtow is its own worst enemy- https://www.campusreform.org/

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22584]

I believe a private business, whom receives no funding through taxes money, should have the right to refuse service.

Also, I believe that a private business should go out of business for poorly treating their customers.

[2icebittenParticipant 147]

The right to religous freedom is so important it is listed as the first constitutional amendment of the United States. This amendment gives people the right to discriminate against others for a sexual bias because it goes against their beliefs and right to practice their religion, uninfringed. The 14th amendment states that substantive due process is the guarantee that the fundamental rights of citizens will not be encroached on by government. Which in my opinion is exactly what is happening. As a business owner, does that mean I have the right to refuse to sell a particular product to people based upon my belief in God? Or does it mean because of someone elses sexual orientation, they can bully anyone into doing whatever they want because they are… fill in the blank, gay, lesbian, transexual, etc… I understand why laws to protect people from discrimination are in place but this “takes the cake”. This guy is or will be bankrupt from court costs and collateral damages. He will likely loose this battle, his business and be made to pay heavy fines, as a warning to others not to f~~~ with the gay rights movement in this country. The constitutional rights in the U.S. have been cucked and subjugated to the point where they have little or no value or meaning any longer.

My mission in life is not merely to survive, but to thrive; and to do so with some passion, some compassion, some humor, and some style. - Maya Angelou

[StealthParticipant 5392]

Can a business refuse you service because you are openly gay, or single and unmarried? What about black, Irish, or Muslim? What about service if you’re not wearing shoes or shirts? What about if you look at a woman wrong. What if you pick your nose in public, or are a publicized felon?

Things to think about.

To what extent is it possible or right to force someone to do something like BAKE A GODDAMNED CAKE by GOVERNMENT SANCTION against their will? And What if they skimp on frosting?

"Once you’ve taken care of the basics, there’s very little in this world for which your life is worth deferring." -David Hansson. "It’s not when women are mean or nasty that anything is out of the ordinary. It’s when they are NICE to you that you have to be on high alert..." -Jackinov.

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

As long as it is not a critical life services, Medical Doctor, etc. I agree with Faust.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[CarnageParticipant 22113]

Is his shop.

Is his cake, he can do whatever the f~~~ he wants with it.

To those following me, be careful, I just farted. Men those beans are killers.

[CarnageParticipant 22113]

Jan Sobieski wrote:

As long as it is not a critical life services, Medical Doctor, etc. I agree with Faust.

I wold disagree, I wold not treat my ex wife. If she was bleeding in front of I wold not touch her. She can die there I woldnt move a finger.

Actually if police came, I wold refuse to treat her. That person tried to kill me, I ain’t gonna help her.

If she has a right to live becouse she is human, Soo do I. There is this contradiction, one of us is not human, if forced to that limit I wold go FULL CARNAGE.

To those following me, be careful, I just farted. Men those beans are killers.

[743 roadmasterParticipant]

Stealth wrote:

Can a business refuse you service because you are openly gay, or single and unmarried? What about black, Irish, or Muslim? What about service if you’re not wearing shoes or shirts? What about if you look at a woman wrong. What if you pick your nose in public, or are a publicized felon?

Things to think about.

To what extent is it possible or right to force someone to do something like BAKE A GODDAMNED CAKE by GOVERNMENT SANCTION against their will? And What if they skimp on frosting?

If I had a small business personally I would like to have the right to refuse business to some people,…depending on the business.

Depending on how this case comes down a web site like this could end up finished for ever because as a rule it is men only,….and it is easy to pick out the women fairly quick. Once women are able to rule the day here how many of us are going to return?

mgtow is its own worst enemy- https://www.campusreform.org/

[Cú ChulainnParticipant 3910]

‘Supreme Court’

The f~~~~~s will be judged in the Ultimate Court.

[GnosticParticipant 2491]

If you cannot refuse business to anyone because of their sexual orientation, all women only bar, spa, gym etc can be sued.

There is no magic in MGTOW, just recognition of the truth and logical decision how to avoid dangers. The red pill is but the truth, it is no magical potion. Do not think in this modern world men have no longer have natural enemies, men are prey to women and government.

[FrankOneParticipant 1442]

I don’t view it as ‘gay rights’ or ‘religious freedom’.

I instead view it as the rights of private property and free association. A private business or club should have the freedom to exclude or not serve anyone they please for any reason they please. There are lots of legitimate business reasons to exclude people from private spaces, troublemakers hanging out in malls, people proselytizing, or driving away other customers, etc.

IF businesses choose to discriminate against minorities, it will just hurt their bottom lines, e.g. not serving certain races, ethnicities, etc. the system we have just creates frivolous lawsuits.

[Anonymous 14]

Stealth wrote:

And What if they skimp on frosting?

Even worse, what if they use some extra frosting of their own?

I say let anyone do whatever they want, including Gay bakeries refusing to serve Christian customers. Good luck getting a cake made for you in California if you are Christian…Y’all gonna be some cakeless motherf~~~ers, may have to switch to hamburgers with candles on them for your birthdays in CA.

[anonymousyamParticipant 4605]

FrankOne wrote:

I instead view it as the rights of private property and free association. A private business or club should have the freedom to exclude or not serve anyone they please for any reason they please. There are lots of legitimate business reasons to exclude people from private spaces, troublemakers hanging out in malls, people proselytizing, or driving away other customers, etc.

This however this would be the free markets decision to allow to live or die.

I personally would not knowing buy something by a company or a business pushing discrimination of homosexuals thereby their company would lose my business and support. If they lose enough support for their bulls~~~ they will be forced out of business thereby how the free market works.

You do not need the government to sanction an action but to let the free market decide if it sticks or not.

Just an east coast asshole who likes to curse, If you get offended by words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, bitch or any racial slurs then you just scroll down.

[Cú ChulainnParticipant 3910]

In the Northern Irish case mentioned, the f~~~~~s were activists who targeted the bakers knowing they were devout Christians. They walked in an demanded they make a cake that included a slogan that said “support gay marriage” along with a picture of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street, and the logo of the Queerspace organisation. The press were standing by. The owner said “no” and immediately there’s a flash mob of pillow biters noisily protesting outside. Normal customers get scared away. Democracy and free speech right there.

It was targeted harassment of a family business. The family got threatened and ridiculed and the f~~~~~s got their publicity and “muh oppression” points.

Good hard working Christians were being targeted because of their religious beliefs. The gays have yet to ask a Muslim baker to bake a f~~ cake, guessing Christians won’t chop them up right there in the shop. Only one religion is on trial and being mocked mercilessly, f~~~~~s aren’t that brave, but we knew that anyway. Plus the left’s insane alliance of gay rights and islamophilia?? They love the head choppers only because they are both implacable enemies of western society, which was built on Christian ideals and laws.

Once again – this is where rampant secularism logically ends up – the insane asylum. The case is ongoing here, the family lost the first appeal and their case is going to the UK supreme court. But expect a victory for “decency and human rights” and a good, clean, business with six outlets and numerous employees, going bankrupt.

Our beautiful, inclusive, tolerant, technological marvel of a society. All are equal, except Christians.

I’m down in Belfast once a week, guess where I go to buy my coffee and rolls?

[AttonParticipant]

Gnostic wrote:

If you cannot refuse business to anyone because of their sexual orientation, all women only bar, spa, gym etc can be sued.

That sounds like a pretty good precedent.

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[FrankOneParticipant 1442]

anonymousyam wrote:

FrankOne wrote:

I instead view it as the rights of private property and free association. A private business or club should have the freedom to exclude or not serve anyone they please for any reason they please. There are lots of legitimate business reasons to exclude people from private spaces, troublemakers hanging out in malls, people proselytizing, or driving away other customers, etc.

This however this would be the free markets decision to allow to live or die.

I personally would not knowing buy something by a company or a business pushing discrimination of homosexuals thereby their company would lose my business and support. If they lose enough support for their bulls~~~ they will be forced out of business thereby how the free market works.

You do not need the government to sanction an action but to let the free market decide if it sticks or not.

Exactly. In this case, the owner has lost 40% of his business per http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/masterpiece-cakeshop-owner-says-hes-lost-40-of-business-welcomes-scotus-hearing?page=2 Though the story doesn’t make clear if this is because he’s refusing to do ANY custom designs or because of boycotts. I suspect the former, rather than the latter.

Cu Chulainn writes: They love the head choppers only because they are both implacable enemies of western society, which was built on Christian ideals and laws.

Really? Or are Christian laws the Law of the Divine Right of Kings and persecution of Jews and any other denomination than Roman Catholicism? That is what ‘Christian ideals and laws’ comprised several hundred years ago. A corrupt partnership of 1% of the population (clergy) and another 1% (the Noblemen or ‘blue bloods) who ruled everyone else. It isn’t that way today, but ‘Christian’ law, like secular law, is ever-changing.

Western society was built primarily on the ideas of the Enlightenment. Its laws came from many sources — English common Law, Roman Law, etc. Christian ideals played a role. But ‘built on Christian laws?’ No. The idea of social mobility and equality under the law — this is Enlightenment thinking — not the thinking of the centuries that preceded it.

However, I still AGREE with you that they should not be forced to sell to homosexuals. For the same reason a Christian Church should not have to admit Satanists or Wiccans into its ranks; the principle of free association, which unfortunately is NOT enshrined in our laws in the US. Well, it IS enshrined into our law for Churches, but NOT for businesses, to be more precise.

Also, Cu, in the US, like in Northern Ireland, laws are not uniformly enforced — I also agree with you there. The Commission did NOT find fault with Azucar bakery refusing to bake a cake with an ANTI-GAY message, for instance. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denvers-azucar-bakery-wins-right-to-refuse-to-make-anti-gay-cake And THAT hypocrisy, is disturbing.

What I’m getting at is, I don’t want ANY civil rights commission; if it is dominated by Christians, it will discriminate against non-Christians; if it is dominated by non-Christians, it’s likely to discriminate against Christians. Substitute any other faction for ‘Christian’ in such statements.

Best answer is to let the markets prevail. I go to a Jewish bakery routinely. I’m not Jewish but they bake fresh bread EVERY day, it tastes great. Nobody should force them to sell sausage, non-Kosher meats, or anything else. Just let them run their business as they see fit.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

My first thought is, why the hell would the gay couple who are marrying end up wanting to be served by someone who doesn’t like what they do? Why not find someone who is more favorable of your views, and supportive? The government could require him to make the cake, but who says he then would do a good enough job? He could end up baking a crappy cake for them, because they required it, and then have them pay for it. He could of wrote that homosexuality is a sin, and put that in the cake. But, they likely wanted to score political points.

There had been issues of this in the past, regarding race, etc… and the feeling of the needs for the courts to act to create more equality. But there should be a place where it does stop. Progressive side never sees this here.

This cycle will never end. Like eHarmony is another example. The founder built his business by targeting churches with his matchmaking techniques. He launched a dating side for straight people, called eHarmony. eHarmony was sued for excluding gays:
http://mashable.com/2010/01/28/eharmony-lawsuit/#VS_StmlUtSqW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EHarmony#History

They settled. eHarmony originally built a separate website for gays. Have you ever heard of it? You probably didn’t, because eHarmony just has it up and doesn’t promote it. Oh way, I see that article. Not only were they required to build the site, they had to merge it.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[Author]

Posts