Utopia Talk - Politics - The Baker Won

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sun Jul 06 02:27:23 UTC 2025

Utopia Talk / Politics / The Baker Won

Hot Rod
rank Mon Jun 04 16:58:12 2018

Remember the baker that refused to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage couple?

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the bakery.

yankeessuck123
rank Mon Jun 04 17:07:33 2018
"Gay rights groups had feared a ruling against the couple could set a precedent for treating gay marriages differently to heterosexual unions, but the Supreme Court's verdict instead focuses specifically on Mr Phillips' case.

The decision does not state that florists, photographers, or other services can now refuse to work with gay couples."

worth noting

Hot Rod
rank Mon Jun 04 17:11:09 2018

Yeah, the SC did not go that far.

John Adams
rank Mon Jun 04 17:17:43 2018
Correct decision based upon the circumstances.

McKobb
rank Mon Jun 04 17:18:50 2018
So you can't force Kosher Kakes to make Swastikakes? What is this world coming too!

McKobb
rank Mon Jun 04 17:26:35 2018
"(CNN) The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection.

The ruling was 7-2."

Dead CNN, what do narrowly mean?

CrownRoyal
rank Mon Jun 04 17:46:20 2018
The ruling was narrow, meaning they did not address all the hot issues, 1st amendment, civil rights, etc. Extremely narrow, in fact, they just ruled about this single incident. The vote was not narrow, I suppose a better headline can be written. But the narrow word refers to the scope

McKobb
rank Mon Jun 04 18:19:42 2018
"(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs.

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation."

Better

murder
rank Mon Jun 04 20:28:29 2018

Good. Medical care on the other hand ...

Aeros
rank Mon Jun 04 22:49:58 2018
Every "civil rights commission" in this country is controlled by the worst types of far left activists. This ruling may not be as narrow as they like. The Supreme Court basically said they have to take religious belief into account. This is going to be really hard for the "current year" crowd to do. Especially since these civil rights commissions are notoriously lacking in things like due process.

It's another example of the Federal Courts smacking down these kangaroo courts that have cropped up to try and police people's feelings.

kargen
rank Mon Jun 04 23:15:00 2018
This will be back in the courts probably sometime this month. Some other same sex couple is going to go ask this baker to make them a cake for their wedding and when he refuses they will go to court.

I still have to ask why the hell would you force someone to bake you a cake when you know it goes against their beliefs to do so?

murder
rank Mon Jun 04 23:22:50 2018
Why would you want to give them your business?

Forwyn
rank Tue Jun 05 00:02:52 2018
It was never about giving them business; it was about shopping for outrage.

He never denied them service. He denied them full cake service - custom creation, delivery, and service. He also provided them with info for alternative venues in which to seek those services.

And it wasn't just about them being gay. He was also known to refuse custom service for events such as Halloween.

Sucks that this guy had to spend six years in court battling whiny faggots just looking for a new goalpost of judicial activism.

Aeros
rank Tue Jun 05 00:26:29 2018
Exactly. And the Supreme Court is notoriously unsympathetic to manufactured cases. The "victims" actively sought out being victimized. There was no interest in justice here, just a naked effort to push the boundaries of US common law. This was the correct decision, to smack them down on procedural grounds. It's also put all these "civil rights commissions" that have been cropping up on notice.

The Federal Courts are not going to be amused if their lunacy keeps forcing them to intervene and overturn their bullshit.

show deleted posts

Hot Rod rank	Mon Jun 04 16:58:12 2018 Remember the baker that refused to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage couple? The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the bakery.
yankeessuck123 rank	Mon Jun 04 17:07:33 2018 "Gay rights groups had feared a ruling against the couple could set a precedent for treating gay marriages differently to heterosexual unions, but the Supreme Court's verdict instead focuses specifically on Mr Phillips' case. The decision does not state that florists, photographers, or other services can now refuse to work with gay couples." worth noting
Hot Rod rank	Mon Jun 04 17:11:09 2018 Yeah, the SC did not go that far.
John Adams rank	Mon Jun 04 17:17:43 2018 Correct decision based upon the circumstances.
McKobb rank	Mon Jun 04 17:18:50 2018 So you can't force Kosher Kakes to make Swastikakes? What is this world coming too!
McKobb rank	Mon Jun 04 17:26:35 2018 "(CNN) The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection. The ruling was 7-2." Dead CNN, what do narrowly mean?
CrownRoyal rank	Mon Jun 04 17:46:20 2018 The ruling was narrow, meaning they did not address all the hot issues, 1st amendment, civil rights, etc. Extremely narrow, in fact, they just ruled about this single incident. The vote was not narrow, I suppose a better headline can be written. But the narrow word refers to the scope
McKobb rank	Mon Jun 04 18:19:42 2018 "(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs. The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation." Better
murder rank	Mon Jun 04 20:28:29 2018 Good. Medical care on the other hand ...
Aeros rank	Mon Jun 04 22:49:58 2018 Every "civil rights commission" in this country is controlled by the worst types of far left activists. This ruling may not be as narrow as they like. The Supreme Court basically said they have to take religious belief into account. This is going to be really hard for the "current year" crowd to do. Especially since these civil rights commissions are notoriously lacking in things like due process. It's another example of the Federal Courts smacking down these kangaroo courts that have cropped up to try and police people's feelings.
kargen rank	Mon Jun 04 23:15:00 2018 This will be back in the courts probably sometime this month. Some other same sex couple is going to go ask this baker to make them a cake for their wedding and when he refuses they will go to court. I still have to ask why the hell would you force someone to bake you a cake when you know it goes against their beliefs to do so?
murder rank	Mon Jun 04 23:22:50 2018 Why would you want to give them your business?
Forwyn rank	Tue Jun 05 00:02:52 2018 It was never about giving them business; it was about shopping for outrage. He never denied them service. He denied them full cake service - custom creation, delivery, and service. He also provided them with info for alternative venues in which to seek those services. And it wasn't just about them being gay. He was also known to refuse custom service for events such as Halloween. Sucks that this guy had to spend six years in court battling whiny faggots just looking for a new goalpost of judicial activism.
Aeros rank	Tue Jun 05 00:26:29 2018 Exactly. And the Supreme Court is notoriously unsympathetic to manufactured cases. The "victims" actively sought out being victimized. There was no interest in justice here, just a naked effort to push the boundaries of US common law. This was the correct decision, to smack them down on procedural grounds. It's also put all these "civil rights commissions" that have been cropping up on notice. The Federal Courts are not going to be amused if their lunacy keeps forcing them to intervene and overturn their bullshit.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: