Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 18, 2018, 12:08:40 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Anti-LGBT Baker FORCED to bake cakes for Homosexual Weddings?  (Read 42100 times)
Irongrip400
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15625


Pan Germanism, Pax Britannica


« Reply #500 on: January 08, 2018, 06:55:06 PM »

LOL - why would you think I'm mad

I'll keep posting the same comments as long as morons like you keep trying to conflate being paid to bake a cake (something those idiot bakers do every day) with having a gun put to your head. 

I can't imagine the pain those bakers must be going through.  They'll never have another birthday or christmas with that cake. They'll never get to see that cake grow up and have cakes of it's own.  They'll probably never really recover from the loss and the pain of being Paid to Bake a Cake.     

I wonder what's next

If fundies own a restaurant and a gay couple comes in to celebrate an anniversary will they insist they can't serve them.
How about if you own a hotel and a gay couple shows up to rent a room.  What if you own rental property a gay couple wants to live there.   If we still have a Constitution in this country these people will lose. 

Why can't they as business owners, refuse to do it without the government stepping in? If you don't like it, just carry your business elsewhere and if enough people agree, the problem just fixes itself.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 34291


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #501 on: January 08, 2018, 07:07:04 PM »

Why can't they as business owners, refuse to do it without the government stepping in? If you don't like it, just carry your business elsewhere and if enough people agree, the problem just fixes itself.

Same reason you can't refuse to rent an apartment to someone based on their race, sexual orientation, disability etc..

Report to moderator   Logged
chaos
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 46614


Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan


« Reply #502 on: January 08, 2018, 08:12:33 PM »

Just another case of the government normalizing deviant behavior and forcing people accept it. Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged

Liar!!!!Filt!!!!
Yamcha
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 12803


Fundie


« Reply #503 on: January 09, 2018, 02:41:04 AM »

Same reason you can't refuse to rent an apartment to someone based on their race, sexual orientation, disability etc..



could you do that if it were "for sale by owner"?
Report to moderator   Logged

a
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21514


Be honest...


« Reply #504 on: January 09, 2018, 04:44:34 PM »

Why can't they as business owners, refuse to do it without the government stepping in? If you don't like it, just carry your business elsewhere and if enough people agree, the problem just fixes itself.

I am inclined to agree with you. Why support a business that discriminates against you. Like you wrote, the simple answer is to take your money where customer service is for everyone.
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21514


Be honest...


« Reply #505 on: January 09, 2018, 04:49:56 PM »

Same reason you can't refuse to rent an apartment to someone based on their race, sexual orientation, disability etc..



There is a huge housing shortage in the Portland metro area. What is available is so expensive that and average wage earner cannot afford the rent even if they did find a place. Not renting an apartment to certain people is a far cry from baking those people a cake. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21514


Be honest...


« Reply #506 on: January 09, 2018, 04:50:58 PM »

Just another case of the government normalizing deviant behavior and forcing people accept it. Roll Eyes

What you say is quite a leap.
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21514


Be honest...


« Reply #507 on: January 09, 2018, 04:54:33 PM »

could you do that if it were "for sale by owner"?
Nope. I live where there are bidding wars on houses for sale. Owners can pretty much set the rules as to who prevails without making it appear it is illegal discrimination.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54438

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #508 on: February 06, 2018, 05:41:04 PM »

Judge Rules Bakeshop Owner Doesn’t Have To Bake Wedding Cake For Gay Couple
GRACE CARR
Reporter
02/06/2018

A California judge ruled Monday the state couldn’t force a cake shop owner to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, ruling that doing so would constitute a violation of free speech.

Superior Court Judge David Lampe denied the State of California’s request for a preliminary injunction that sought to force bakeshop owner Cathy Miller to design a wedding cake for a gay couple.

“For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment,” Lampe ruled, according to a press release sent to The Daily Caller News Foundation. The injunction also posited that if Miller refused to design the cake, the state would force her to close her Tastries Bakery shop altogether.

“We are pleased that the judge recognized that the First Amendment protects Cathy’s freedom of speech,” chief counsel and Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF) president, Charles LiMandri, said after the ruling, the press release reports. LiMandri argued in Friday’s court hearing that Miller doesn’t discriminate against same-sex couples, but refuses to use her artistic talents to express a message that conflicts with her religious beliefs about marriage.

The ruling comes after two women asked Miller to design their wedding cake and filed a complaint with the state, alleging that Miller discriminated against them on the basis of sexual orientation. They also posted about the event on social media. Following their complaint, the state launched an investigation and sought a court order to force Miller to bake their wedding cake.

“This is a significant victory for faith and freedom because the judge indicated in his ruling that the State cannot succeed in this case as a matter of law,” LiMandri said. “No doubt the California officials will continue their persecution of Cathy, but it is clear that she has the Constitution on her side.”

The cake baking incident comes after the Supreme Court announced in June that it would hear a similar case that occurred in 2012, when a baker in Denver refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Lower courts had previously ruled that Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop had violated the state’s accommodation laws by refusing to serve a customer based on sexual orientation, according to The Washington Post.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/06/cake-shop-owner-wedding-cake-gay-couple/
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 34291


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #509 on: February 06, 2018, 05:58:17 PM »

There is a huge housing shortage in the Portland metro area. What is available is so expensive that and average wage earner cannot afford the rent even if they did find a place. Not renting an apartment to certain people is a far cry from baking those people a cake. 

totally missing the point

It's got NOTHING to do with supply and demand

Not sure how you could miss that point
Report to moderator   Logged
Skeletor
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9312


Silence you furry fool!


« Reply #510 on: February 07, 2018, 01:38:21 PM »

Judge Rules Bakeshop Owner Doesn’t Have To Bake Wedding Cake For Gay Couple
GRACE CARR
Reporter
02/06/2018

A California judge ruled Monday the state couldn’t force a cake shop owner to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, ruling that doing so would constitute a violation of free speech.

Superior Court Judge David Lampe denied the State of California’s request for a preliminary injunction that sought to force bakeshop owner Cathy Miller to design a wedding cake for a gay couple.

“For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment,” Lampe ruled, according to a press release sent to The Daily Caller News Foundation. The injunction also posited that if Miller refused to design the cake, the state would force her to close her Tastries Bakery shop altogether.

“We are pleased that the judge recognized that the First Amendment protects Cathy’s freedom of speech,” chief counsel and Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF) president, Charles LiMandri, said after the ruling, the press release reports. LiMandri argued in Friday’s court hearing that Miller doesn’t discriminate against same-sex couples, but refuses to use her artistic talents to express a message that conflicts with her religious beliefs about marriage.

The ruling comes after two women asked Miller to design their wedding cake and filed a complaint with the state, alleging that Miller discriminated against them on the basis of sexual orientation. They also posted about the event on social media. Following their complaint, the state launched an investigation and sought a court order to force Miller to bake their wedding cake.

“This is a significant victory for faith and freedom because the judge indicated in his ruling that the State cannot succeed in this case as a matter of law,” LiMandri said. “No doubt the California officials will continue their persecution of Cathy, but it is clear that she has the Constitution on her side.”

The cake baking incident comes after the Supreme Court announced in June that it would hear a similar case that occurred in 2012, when a baker in Denver refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Lower courts had previously ruled that Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop had violated the state’s accommodation laws by refusing to serve a customer based on sexual orientation, according to The Washington Post.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/06/cake-shop-owner-wedding-cake-gay-couple/

Interesting decision and from California as well.
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21514


Be honest...


« Reply #511 on: February 07, 2018, 02:03:48 PM »

totally missing the point

It's got NOTHING to do with supply and demand

Not sure how you could miss that point


I guess what I replied could have missed the point. I meant only to example that if a business doesn't choose to bake someone a cake they can go elsewhere where their business is welcomed. If a landlord doesn't choose to rent apartment to someone, they cannot always go somewhere else. In both examples it is discrimination.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19321


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #512 on: June 04, 2018, 07:14:18 AM »

Supreme Court Reverses Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Scotusblog ^ | 6/4/2018 | Scotusblog
Posted on 6/4/2018, 10:17:18 AM by CFW

"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State's obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions."

link to decision

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
Report to moderator   Logged
James
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Posts: 4682



« Reply #513 on: June 04, 2018, 07:42:35 AM »

Supreme Court Reverses Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Scotusblog ^ | 6/4/2018 | Scotusblog
Posted on 6/4/2018, 10:17:18 AM by CFW

"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State's obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions."

link to decision

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf


The main reason I voted for Trump was his pick vs Hillary's pick to replace to Scalia

And this is why I never understood the never-trumpers...




MAGA !!!!!












Even Beck has come around:

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19321


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #514 on: June 04, 2018, 07:49:49 AM »


The main reason I voted for Trump was his pick vs Hillary's pick to replace to Scalia

And this is why I never understood the never-trumpers...




MAGA !!!!!












Even Beck has come around:




7-2 and libs in my feed are melting down 
Report to moderator   Logged
James
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Posts: 4682



« Reply #515 on: June 04, 2018, 08:15:39 AM »


7-2 and libs in my feed are melting down 

but 240 told us all that  trump was no different than Hillary  Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54438

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #516 on: June 04, 2018, 07:02:59 PM »

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/10/anti-lgbt-baker-tells-fox-news-that-jesus-wants-me-to-deny-cakes-to-gay-couples/


Anti-LGBT baker tells Fox News that Jesus ‘wants me’ to deny cakes to gay couples

By David Edwards
Tuesday, December 10, 2013 9:23 EST
Fox News host Elisabeth Hasselbeck


A Colorado baker on Tuesday told Fox & Friends host Elisabeth Hasselbeck that he would be willing to go to jail after a judge ordered him to serve gay couples, saying that opposing same sex marriage is “who I am.”

Last week, administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer ruled that Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips must “cease and desist from discriminating” against LGBT couples because he refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple last year.

On Tuesday, Hasselbeck welcomed the baker in a Fox & Friends “Death of Free Enterprise” segment, including friendly screen titles like “Bake Shop Shakedown” and “So Much For Freedom.”

“Does becoming a business owner mean you have to check your convictions at the door?” Hasselbeck asked. “Why is it important for you to have a business and not have to abandon personal religious beliefs just to make a buck?”

“I believe that’s what God’s designed for me to do,” Phillips explained.

Attorney Nicolle Martin, who is representing Phillips, added that “if the government can force you to violate your beliefs under the threat of a jail sentence, there’s really no freedom they can’t take away, Elisabeth.”

For his part, Phillips pledged that he would go to jail before selling a wedding cake to gay or lesbian couple.

“You know, if that’s what it takes,” he said. “It’s not like I have chosen this team or that team. This is who I am, it’s what I believe.”

“Do you feel as though you are forfeiting your own rights and being forced, in other words, to participate in their wedding by making a cake for them?” Hasselbeck wondered.


“They would be taking away my rights to do what I do as a business owner, as an American citizen,” Phillips insisted. “And as a follower of Jesus Christ, I don’t believe that’s what he wants me to do. And so my priorities would be towards my faith rather than towards my safety or security.”

“We wish you well,” Hasselbeck said in conclusion.


=========================================================

Personally, I think it's sad that anyone is anti-LGBT, but it is their right to dislike it... Why a gay couple would even WANT to give their business to a baker that doesn't like them is beyond me.

The fact that a judge can FORCE you to do something you don't want to do with YOUR OWN BUSINESS is absolutely disgusting.

It's as bad as telling people who you can and can't marry in the first place.




Almost five years later and Tu turned out to be right, for now. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19321


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #517 on: August 15, 2018, 08:57:45 AM »

COLORADO IS GOING AFTER JACK PHILLIPS OF MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP AGAIN
The DC ^ | 8-15-2018 | Kevin Daley
Posted on 8/15/2018, 12:34:05 PM by servo1969

- Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop fame is suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

- The Commission commenced new proceedings against Phillips on behalf of a transgender complainant just weeks after he prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court.

- Phillips' attorneys say the Commission is engaged in a concerted campaign to destroy him, which is unlawful.

Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court after declining to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple, filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Phillips and his attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) say the Commission has revived its campaign against him following June's high court decision, singling Masterpiece Cakeshop out for disparate treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs.

"The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs," said Kristen Waggoner, an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney who represents Phillips. "Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him -- something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do."

On the same day the high court agreed to review the Masterpiece case, an attorney named Autumn Scardina called Phillips' shop and asked him to create a cake celebrating a sex transition. The caller asked that the cake include a blue exterior and a pink interior, a reflection of Scardina's transgender identity. Phillips declined to create the cake, given his religious conviction that sex is immutable, while offering to sell the caller other pre-made baked goods.

In the months that followed, the bakery received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, sexually explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. One solicitation submitted by email asked the cake shop to create a three-tiered white cake depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo. Phillips believes Scardina made all these requests.

Scardina filed a complaint with the civil rights commission, alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The matter was held in abeyance while the Supreme Court adjudicated the Masterpiece case.

Three weeks after Phillips won at the high court, the commission issued a probable cause determination, finding there was sufficient evidence to support Scardina's claim of discrimination. In a somewhat strange development, the probable cause finding reads that Phillips violated state law, even though the proceedings are still in a preliminary stage.

In turn, the ADF filed a lawsuit against the Commission on Phillips' behalf, accusing the panel of violating his constitutional free exercise, free speech, due process, and equal protection rights.

"Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in his favor," Phillips' lawsuit reads. "This lawsuit is necessary to stop Colorado's continuing persecution of Phillips."

The suit requests an injunction barring further prosecutions of Phillips for violations of Colorado's anti-discrimination law, a declaration that the Commission violated his constitutional rights, and damages from the director of the commission. The complaint names the director, Aubrey Elenis, in her professional and personal capacity, meaning she is personally liable for any financial judgment the court might award.

Phillips is seeking damages from Elenis for lost work time, lost profits, emotional distress, and reputational harm. He is also requesting an additional $100,000 punitive judgment against her.

The complaint also challenges the criteria by which commissioners are selected to serve on the civil rights panel. According to the filing, the seven-member Commission must always include four "members of groups of people who have been or who might be discriminated against because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, marital status, religion, or age." Two seats must be filled by representatives of the business community, while another two seats are reserved for government entities.

ADF argues these criteria are not neutral, and embed hostility to Phillips' religious beliefs into "the very structure that Colorado uses to enforce its public-accommodation law."

Finally, the suit challenges a provision of Colorado law that prohibits Phillips from conveying his religious objections to prospective customers. A state statute makes it illegal for companies to indicate that protected persons will not be served at their place of business.

ADF lawyers say these restrictions prevent Phillips from communicating his refusal to create custom goods conveying messages. They also alleged a particular clause of the law is unconstitutionally vague. The clause at issue forbids advertisements indicating "that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of ... sexual orientation."

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. A legal rule called Younger abstention generally forbids federal courts from handling civil rights claims while they are being heard in state courts. Phillips' lawyers plan to argue that Colorado is acting in bad faith, warranting the case's removal to federal court.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54438

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #518 on: August 16, 2018, 11:27:35 AM »

COLORADO IS GOING AFTER JACK PHILLIPS OF MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP AGAIN
The DC ^ | 8-15-2018 | Kevin Daley
Posted on 8/15/2018, 12:34:05 PM by servo1969

- Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop fame is suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

- The Commission commenced new proceedings against Phillips on behalf of a transgender complainant just weeks after he prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court.

- Phillips' attorneys say the Commission is engaged in a concerted campaign to destroy him, which is unlawful.

Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court after declining to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple, filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Phillips and his attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) say the Commission has revived its campaign against him following June's high court decision, singling Masterpiece Cakeshop out for disparate treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs.

"The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs," said Kristen Waggoner, an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney who represents Phillips. "Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him -- something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do."

On the same day the high court agreed to review the Masterpiece case, an attorney named Autumn Scardina called Phillips' shop and asked him to create a cake celebrating a sex transition. The caller asked that the cake include a blue exterior and a pink interior, a reflection of Scardina's transgender identity. Phillips declined to create the cake, given his religious conviction that sex is immutable, while offering to sell the caller other pre-made baked goods.

In the months that followed, the bakery received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, sexually explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. One solicitation submitted by email asked the cake shop to create a three-tiered white cake depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo. Phillips believes Scardina made all these requests.

Scardina filed a complaint with the civil rights commission, alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The matter was held in abeyance while the Supreme Court adjudicated the Masterpiece case.

Three weeks after Phillips won at the high court, the commission issued a probable cause determination, finding there was sufficient evidence to support Scardina's claim of discrimination. In a somewhat strange development, the probable cause finding reads that Phillips violated state law, even though the proceedings are still in a preliminary stage.

In turn, the ADF filed a lawsuit against the Commission on Phillips' behalf, accusing the panel of violating his constitutional free exercise, free speech, due process, and equal protection rights.

"Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in his favor," Phillips' lawsuit reads. "This lawsuit is necessary to stop Colorado's continuing persecution of Phillips."

The suit requests an injunction barring further prosecutions of Phillips for violations of Colorado's anti-discrimination law, a declaration that the Commission violated his constitutional rights, and damages from the director of the commission. The complaint names the director, Aubrey Elenis, in her professional and personal capacity, meaning she is personally liable for any financial judgment the court might award.

Phillips is seeking damages from Elenis for lost work time, lost profits, emotional distress, and reputational harm. He is also requesting an additional $100,000 punitive judgment against her.

The complaint also challenges the criteria by which commissioners are selected to serve on the civil rights panel. According to the filing, the seven-member Commission must always include four "members of groups of people who have been or who might be discriminated against because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, marital status, religion, or age." Two seats must be filled by representatives of the business community, while another two seats are reserved for government entities.

ADF argues these criteria are not neutral, and embed hostility to Phillips' religious beliefs into "the very structure that Colorado uses to enforce its public-accommodation law."

Finally, the suit challenges a provision of Colorado law that prohibits Phillips from conveying his religious objections to prospective customers. A state statute makes it illegal for companies to indicate that protected persons will not be served at their place of business.

ADF lawyers say these restrictions prevent Phillips from communicating his refusal to create custom goods conveying messages. They also alleged a particular clause of the law is unconstitutionally vague. The clause at issue forbids advertisements indicating "that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of ... sexual orientation."

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. A legal rule called Younger abstention generally forbids federal courts from handling civil rights claims while they are being heard in state courts. Phillips' lawyers plan to argue that Colorado is acting in bad faith, warranting the case's removal to federal court.

This is wrong on so many levels.  Just leave the guy alone already.  These people are zealots.  Some of these activists don't care about equality.  It's about indoctrination. 
Report to moderator   Logged
SOMEPARTS
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 4123



« Reply #519 on: August 17, 2018, 02:00:27 PM »

He'll win again. Home run case for some lucky bloodsucking lawyer.
Report to moderator   Logged
chaos
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 46614


Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan


« Reply #520 on: August 17, 2018, 04:46:38 PM »

  It's about indoctrination. 
This. The sooner people realize this, the sooner we can move to eliminate the threat to normal people.
Report to moderator   Logged

Liar!!!!Filt!!!!
Skeletor
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9312


Silence you furry fool!


« Reply #521 on: October 11, 2018, 03:09:16 PM »

A similar case from the UK but an interesting (and 5-0 unanimous) decision nonetheless.

Top U.K. court rules for bakers in same-sex marriage "gay cake" case

Britain's Supreme Court says a bakery owned by a Christian family didn't discriminate against a gay customer when it refused to make a cake supporting same-sex marriage. Ashers Baking Co. in Northern Ireland refused in 2014 to make a cake iced with the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie bearing the slogan "Support Gay Marriage." The owners argued they couldn't put messages on their products at odds with their Christian beliefs.

Judge Brenda Hale said Wednesday that their objection was to the message on the cake, not to the personal characteristics of the customer. She said in her ruling in what has been dubbed the "gay cake" case that while it is "deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity" to deny service because of sexual orientation, "that is not what happened in this case."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gay-cake-was-humiliating-but-not-discrimination-rules-britain-supreme-court/
Report to moderator   Logged
illuminati
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 6549


The Strongest Shall Survive.


« Reply #522 on: October 11, 2018, 03:16:44 PM »

A similar case from the UK but an interesting (and 5-0 unanimous) decision nonetheless.

Top U.K. court rules for bakers in same-sex marriage "gay cake" case

Britain's Supreme Court says a bakery owned by a Christian family didn't discriminate against a gay customer when it refused to make a cake supporting same-sex marriage. Ashers Baking Co. in Northern Ireland refused in 2014 to make a cake iced with the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie bearing the slogan "Support Gay Marriage." The owners argued they couldn't put messages on their products at odds with their Christian beliefs.

Judge Brenda Hale said Wednesday that their objection was to the message on the cake, not to the personal characteristics of the customer. She said in her ruling in what has been dubbed the "gay cake" case that while it is "deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity" to deny service because of sexual orientation, "that is not what happened in this case."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gay-cake-was-humiliating-but-not-discrimination-rules-britain-supreme-court/

Judge Should of told the queers to just go find some queer bakers
And stop trying to harangue Decent Folk Who Don’t want to deal
With Perverts like them.

Simple - End of.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!