Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 18, 2018, 10:21:00 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple  (Read 2604 times)
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41099


Glorified Tire Flipper


WWW
« on: December 29, 2017, 11:52:49 AM »

Doesn’t get much more f**ked up that this

https://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/12/1041525-court-rules-bakery-owners-refused-make-cake-gay-couple-must-pay-135000-emotional-damages/
Report to moderator   Logged
jjfit
Getbig II
**
Posts: 120



« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2017, 02:22:03 PM »

i thought it was accepted that if an owner of their own company did not feel comfortable serving someone they had the right to say so and act upon it. this gay couple could have went anywhere else instead of being so stubborn but with the culture today they knew they would have a backing. if a homosexual couple owned a bakery and refused to make a straight cake no one would care. why? because that is what we see as normal nowadays. really messed up and disgusting if you ask me. where is our freedom? all these people stepping down from positions of power as well, just as soon as allegations of rape come up. the only backbone left is the spirit of President Trump and the proud Americans who stand tall behind him. all the others can go live in democratic disguised communist china, or go over to democratic socialist countries in europe. America is for the free, not the equal except equality in our bill of rights.
Report to moderator   Logged
Purge_WTF
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6397

Constitution Party forever.


« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2017, 06:57:42 AM »

 So can I sue a halal deli for not making me a BLT?

 There aren't enough adjectives in all of the world languages combined to describe how sick I am of the Left.
Report to moderator   Logged

P
QuietYou
Getbig III
***
Posts: 634

#TeamChickenAlfredo


« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2017, 02:03:05 PM »


Free country my ass. And i don't mean free country my ass as in no gay or lesbian freedoms and SJW. I mean free county my ass as in you can't freely get away from these fuckers and ignore them if you don't want to be around them and don't agree with their point of views. Simply get out of the shop i don't want to serve you two homos.

What's the problem? If it was a liberal cookie palace they'd refuse service to police and straight white males who have their shit together. But they wouldn't have to pay a fine would they? Not that they could afford it anyway.

This place should tell them to fuck off and make a huge deal out of being asked to pay and call it a breach of free speech. Maybe there will be enough outreach to the top and Trump will get involved and give them a pass like they did to Lavar Ball's son when he was caught STEALING in China. Funny how a Republican hard working business can get fined 135k but a teenage thug can steal designer and then bash the president and be praised and let free.
Report to moderator   Logged
Moontrane
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1461


How Can She Slap?!


« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2017, 04:02:21 PM »

And in Colorado:

"Ironically, Colorado bakers who are gay are allowed to refuse service to Christians. In April 2015, the Civil Rights Division of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies ruled Azucar Bakery in Denver did not violate the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act when owner Marjorie Silva refused to bake a cake decorated with Bible verses about sin and homosexuality."

http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/end-of-the-legal-road-colorado-baker-who-refused-service-to-same-sex-wedding-loses-again/50642.htm

 Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18910


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2018, 07:12:58 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
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11772


loco like a fox


« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2018, 07:59:38 AM »

I know, I know, "Lincoln Shot", but this deserves its own thread.

Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple





WASHINGTON (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.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

Two of the court's four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-baker-over-gay-142233685.html



WTF?  Since when is 7-2 a "narrow" decision?  Liberal MSM math?
Report to moderator   Logged
James
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Posts: 4662



« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2018, 08:00:52 AM »

I know, I know, "Lincoln Shot", but this deserves its own thread.

Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple

WASHINGTON (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.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

Two of the court's four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-baker-over-gay-142233685.html



WTF?  Since when is 7-2 a "narrow" decision?

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
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11772


loco like a fox


« Reply #8 on: June 04, 2018, 08:04:29 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:







Report to moderator   Logged
mazrim
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3586



« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2018, 12:30:03 PM »

Listened to Shapiro's podcast today on this and (if correct) its a win but not an overwhelming one after hearing why the decision was made. More so based off of how the baker was treated/time period and not free enterprise/religious rights, etc. Believe Thomas and Gorsuch wrote their thoughts on it and both where not in line with how the conclusion was reached even though it was the correct conclusion so this may not be a complete victory.
Report to moderator   Logged
Yamcha
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 12549


Fundie


« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2018, 12:39:39 PM »

I know, I know, "Lincoln Shot", but this deserves its own thread.

Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple





WASHINGTON (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.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

Two of the court's four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-baker-over-gay-142233685.html



WTF?  Since when is 7-2 a "narrow" decision?  Liberal MSM math?


* 1528144256626m.jpg (61.6 KB, 1024x768 - viewed 103 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged

a
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 33780


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2018, 02:57:57 PM »

I know, I know, "Lincoln Shot", but this deserves its own thread.

Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple





WASHINGTON (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.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

Two of the court's four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-baker-over-gay-142233685.html



WTF?  Since when is 7-2 a "narrow" decision?  Liberal MSM math?

Nope

Just more confirmation you're a moron

Try reading your own post again.  Pay special attention to the sections you actually highlighted

See if you can figure it out
Report to moderator   Logged
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41099


Glorified Tire Flipper


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2018, 03:22:03 PM »

Nope

Just more confirmation you're a moron

Try reading your own post again.  Pay special attention to the sections you actually highlighted

See if you can figure it out

So the headline is wrong. Will they bake you that cake after all?
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 33780


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2018, 03:25:43 PM »

So the headline is wrong. Will they bake you that cake after all?

Why am I not surprised you have no idea what I'm referring to

loco asked a stupid question which is answered for him in the very sections that he bolded

go flip a tire dumbass
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18910


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2018, 04:22:49 PM »

Why am I not surprised you have no idea what I'm referring to

loco asked a stupid question which is answered for him in the very sections that he bolded

go flip a tire dumbass

There are plenty of other bakeries for you and your husband
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9687



« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2018, 06:29:18 PM »

I know, I know, "Lincoln Shot", but this deserves its own thread.

Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple





WASHINGTON (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.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

Two of the court's four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-baker-over-gay-142233685.html



WTF?  Since when is 7-2 a "narrow" decision? Liberal MSM math?

 Wink If it said narrow decision, then the number of judges on each side would matter. If it said narrow grounds, the number of judges would be unimportant, the decision to vote one way of the other would be closely weighted. Since it says grounds and not decision, it's not a contradiction nor is it MSM math.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 53995

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


« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2018, 06:46:50 PM »

Wink If it said narrow decision, then the number of judges on each side would matter. If it said narrow grounds, the number of judges would be unimportant, the decision to vote one way of the other would be closely weighted. Since it says grounds and not decision, it's not a contradiction nor is it MSM math.

You mean like all those news stories calling it a "narrow decision"?

In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html

NPR had the same headline, but changed it from "decision" to "ruling." 

Still, they should have worded it differently because the media did make it sound like it some kind of 5-4 decision. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9687



« Reply #17 on: June 04, 2018, 06:50:08 PM »

You mean like all those news stories calling it a "narrow decision"?

In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html

NPR had the same headline, but changed it from "decision" to "ruling." 

Still, they should have worded it differently because the media did make it sound like it some kind of 5-4 decision. 

I was just reading the one posted. I agree, it could be confusing.
Report to moderator   Logged
IroNat
Getbig III
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 630



« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2018, 12:35:04 PM »

If the baker doesn't like you he'll put his booger in your cake...or worse things.

Yuck!
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9687



« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2018, 03:03:01 PM »

Looking forward to the first time a bakery refuses to make a cake for a christian who has been married 2 or 3 times on the same grounds
Report to moderator   Logged
chaos
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 45682


Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan


« Reply #20 on: June 06, 2018, 03:49:05 PM »

Looking forward to the first time a bakery refuses to make a cake for a christian who has been married 2 or 3 times on the same grounds
Unfortunately You're going to be waiting a while since Christians don't view divorce with the same disgust as they view faggotry.
Report to moderator   Logged

Liar!!!!Filt!!!!
Agnostic007
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9687



« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2018, 03:50:35 PM »

Unfortunately You're going to be waiting a while since Christians don't view divorce with the same disgust as they view faggotry.

Seems Jesus did... maybe Christians should read their book
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 53995

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


« Reply #22 on: June 06, 2018, 03:52:29 PM »

Looking forward to the first time a bakery refuses to make a cake for a christian who has been married 2 or 3 times on the same grounds

Nonsensical hypothetical.  Unless the Christian who has been divorced 2 or 3 times asks the baker to put something on the cake celebrating something that violates the baker's conscience.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 53995

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


« Reply #23 on: June 06, 2018, 03:53:19 PM »

Seems Jesus did... maybe Christians should read their book

No he didn't.  He responded to someone asking him a stupid question about divorce.  And when did Jesus ever talk about homosexuality? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9687



« Reply #24 on: June 06, 2018, 03:55:23 PM »

Nonsensical hypothetical.  Unless the Christian who has been divorced 2 or 3 times asks the baker to put something on the cake celebrating something that violates the baker's conscience.

Here is the irony.. Jesus spoke about people who divorced and remarried. He said that if you divorced and remarried. You are committing adultery and the person you marry is committing adultery and adulterers will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Why would a baker be more appalled by something in the old testament that Jesus never speaks of, but ignores an obvious affront to Jesus and God from the New Testament? Jesus' only exception to this was adultery. You could divorce for adultery.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   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!