Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/co...cid=spartandhp
Jack came under attack in 2012 when he declined to make a cake for Craig and Mullins. There were plenty of bakeries that would have provided the cake – but for whatever reason – they targeted Masterpiece Cakeshop.
According to the court do ents, Jack offered to make them any other baked goods – including cakes. But that wasn’t good enough for the gay couple. They demanded that he make a wedding cake.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/...l?intcmp=hpbt4
^^^
$135K fine for mental distress. Nazi judges.
Trying to pass ty wedding cakes as art.
LOL, the times we live in.
Baker: I will make a wedding cake. You can put two same-sex figurines at the top of it, cool?
Gay couple: Sounds good to us. How much?
Too bad people can't ing compromise.
I mean, he offered to make them donuts or cupcakes, but they expected a CAKE? At their WEDDING?
Such en lement.
Oh what goes on behind the doors of a bakery. People all buffed up, doused with white powder, using icing with no descretion...
Oh and Fabbs expects FOX to give us the straight dope on baked goods. He should know better, the master of all things made with flour, sugar and fried in oil. Then deliver those Goods during the dead of winter in a perfectly dehumidified car laden with socks and cat litter. I am visualizing here...
Last edited by pgardn; 12-29-2017 at 11:56 AM.
You don't fully understand the impact doughnuts have on Fabbs. He puts up you tubes of fat people eating the newest creation from the corner shop. Warning: These videos contain lip-smacking, salivating, napkin frenzies, food on the windshield, crumbs landing between folds of people fat, lips covered with layers of grease... then I imagine the purging is on a related video.
Straight couples would never be that specific and particular about wedding details.
Christian Taliban, assisted by Repugs, weaponizing the free speech part of the the 1st Amendment ( a cake for LGBTQ is compelled speech that violates my deeply held, Bible-humping religious hate) while trying to destroy the separation part.
The inference here is thus thatPhillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutralityrequired by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could havebeen weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a wayconsistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictlyobserved. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in someof the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement,and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same.
"The case presented “difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles.
The first is the authority of a State and its governmental en ies to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services,” Kennedy wrote.
“The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment.” "
... iow, the First Amendment has been, will be weaponized to justify, deliver hate and discrimination, aka, Christian Sharia's moral, ethics imposed on non-Christians
http://kdvr.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-sides-with-lakewood-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-04-2018 at 09:56 AM.
Bull , SCOTUS punted on the merits.
Kennedy leaves open that state law might supersede, but says that in this case the state didn't weigh things fairly.
None of them have the balls to invoke the civil rights act
Gay Taliban, assisted by liberal cuck Dems, weaponizing the free speech part of the 1st Amendment.
I would not want to eat a cake that someone did not want to make me because they could put x-wax in it or something else. I would find another baker.
yes it is so hard to find another baker
consi ion both way
lol thinking comes down to "balls"
they specifically discussed Colorado's state-enacted version of the CRA which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in a place of business engaged in any sales to the public. its on in page 1 of the opinion
the CRA of 1964 probably wouldn't apply unless they showed the cakeshop was engaged in interstate commerce. but there's no need to go that route when colorado has its own version, which was discussed
yeah
While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products andservices on the same terms and conditions as are offered to othermembers of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that isneutral toward religion.
"is neutral toward religion"
... but so-called (politicized) "religion" can impinge upon, can be not "neutral" towards non-religionists.
iow, it appears that "religionists" are a protected group, while non-religionists aren't.
1st Amendment has been weaponized by religionists into a weapon of discrimination and hate, in the same way the oligarchy has weaponized, perverted the 1st Amendment as a weapon of political corruption ("money is protected speech" and "corporations are people")
Overblown case leads to overblown decision by SCOTUS leading to overblown debate on the Internet for the next week.
in any case, the baker and Christian Sharia win.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
