independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Tue 12th Dec 2017 4:22am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Supreme Court Seems Divided In Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 4 1234>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 12/05/17 9:41am

Musicslave

Supreme Court Seems Divided In Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case

-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-asked-if-wedding-cake-bakers-case-protects-religious-freedom-or-illegal-discrimination/2017/12/05/c73e6efa-d969-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_baker-1045am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4a6acc2aedf0

-

-

Supreme Court seems divided in case of baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple

-

The Supreme Court seemed closely divided Tuesday over whether the First Amendment protects a Colorado baker from creating a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy likely to cast the deciding vote.

-

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 12/05/17 12:23pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

The case in question is not about refusing to make a cake for a person just because they are gay, but they did not want to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. But even that distinction is troubling. I say make the cake...nothing special just a wedding cake... but they should make the cake.

But I would say that is where it should end. Just a cake. No same gender cake toppers. No cake cutting service and maybe not even a delivery.

Same goes for most other GOODS. Fowers? Do the arrangements... catering? cook the food, But no delivery, setup, or serving.

Sercives that ought to be allowed to refuse: planners, DJs, photographers, officiants, (Private or ones that do it outside an official duty--so a JP would have to do them all or do none at all), churches (including any chapels that do ones of a religious nature) should be allowed to not take that contract.

And I would say the same if it was like a 40-year-old and a 15-year-old. Or a case of a polygamist (even if it was legal).

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 12/05/17 12:40pm

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

After taking someone to Supreme Court because they will not sell you a cake. Do you trust the cake?

You better Watch Out! I'm a WAR MACHINE!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 12/05/17 3:43pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

All people are equal. How hard is that shit?

DJ is da man
"2freaky is very down." 2Elijah.
"2freaky convinced me to join Antifa: OnlyNDA
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 12/05/17 4:13pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

All people are equal. How hard is that shit?

right and? we should have equal right to NOT go to some given ceremonies...

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 12/05/17 4:55pm

benni

The only problem that I have with this is the Constitution's 1st Amendment. The first amendment, of course, says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. For some Christian sects, homosexuality is still seen as "an abomination". When a law is passed that forces these Christian sects to "have to" perform same sex marriages, this puts that pastor/preacher in a position of being complicit in what his/her relgion considers to be a sin (or an abomination). This then restricts that pastor's/preacher's right to freely exercise his religion in the way that his religion states he should exercise it. So, in giving one group rights, we restrict or take away the rights of another group. I think that in this situation, if it is religious reasons, the priest/pastor/preacher should continue to have the right to say "no" in performing same-sex marriages, but should have a list of preachers/pastors that will perform same-sex marriages to give to the couple. In this way, the preacher's rights are not infringed upon and neither are the same-sex couple's rights infringed upon.

And in this situation, such as with the wedding cake, when it is something that could infringe upon either person's rights, then a compromise as above should be reached, so that neither has their right's infringed. Yes, homosexuals want the same rights to marry as every one else, but what do you do when that right infringes upon another person's right to practice their religion in the way they have been taught to practice it, that they believe they must practice it? Do we take away the rights of some people to give rights to other people?

It reminds me of the clerk that was ordered by the court to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples and she refused to do so because it went against her religion. Again, in this situation, there should have been a clerk on stand-by that can issue those certificates because it does not infringe upon that clerk's right to practice his/her religion as laid out to them by their church.

We're on a slippery slope with this one, and people don't see it. How do we decide whose rights are more important? One group believes a certain way and practices their religion in a certain way and believes that if they follow this law, they are then complicit and have sinned in the eyes of their religion. The other group just wants the right to get married to the person they love, regardless of their sexual identity.

If we start infringing on one group's rights, to give another group rights, where will it end?

Clinical social work is a healthcare profession based on theories & methods of prevention & treatment in providing mental-health/healthcare services, with special focus on behavioral & bio-psychosocial problems & disorders. Have U hugged an LMSW 2day?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 12/05/17 5:22pm

PennyPurple

avatar

benni said:

The only problem that I have with this is the Constitution's 1st Amendment. The first amendment, of course, says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. For some Christian sects, homosexuality is still seen as "an abomination". When a law is passed that forces these Christian sects to "have to" perform same sex marriages, this puts that pastor/preacher in a position of being complicit in what his/her relgion considers to be a sin (or an abomination). This then restricts that pastor's/preacher's right to freely exercise his religion in the way that his religion states he should exercise it. So, in giving one group rights, we restrict or take away the rights of another group. I think that in this situation, if it is religious reasons, the priest/pastor/preacher should continue to have the right to say "no" in performing same-sex marriages, but should have a list of preachers/pastors that will perform same-sex marriages to give to the couple. In this way, the preacher's rights are not infringed upon and neither are the same-sex couple's rights infringed upon.

And in this situation, such as with the wedding cake, when it is something that could infringe upon either person's rights, then a compromise as above should be reached, so that neither has their right's infringed. Yes, homosexuals want the same rights to marry as every one else, but what do you do when that right infringes upon another person's right to practice their religion in the way they have been taught to practice it, that they believe they must practice it? Do we take away the rights of some people to give rights to other people?

It reminds me of the clerk that was ordered by the court to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples and she refused to do so because it went against her religion. Again, in this situation, there should have been a clerk on stand-by that can issue those certificates because it does not infringe upon that clerk's right to practice his/her religion as laid out to them by their church.

We're on a slippery slope with this one, and people don't see it. How do we decide whose rights are more important? One group believes a certain way and practices their religion in a certain way and believes that if they follow this law, they are then complicit and have sinned in the eyes of their religion. The other group just wants the right to get married to the person they love, regardless of their sexual identity.

If we start infringing on one group's rights, to give another group rights, where will it end?

I think if you own a business or the like, you should not be able to discriminate. It is discrimination. Now..that's not to say that the bakery can't say, we are totally over scheduled that day, we will not be able to fulfill that order.


As far as the clerk that refused to issue marriage licenses...she should've lost her job. Her job consists of issuing marriage licenses. That was also discrimination. You shouldn't have to hire back-ups because one person refuses to do their job. Fire them and fill that position.



I do not believe that they should be able to refuse to do their jobs based on their religion. Religion is practiced at home and in the church, NOT in the work place. That's like a RN who refuses to do blood transfusions. If your religion prevents you from doing your job, then you shouldn't have taken it in the first place.

Edited to add: all of the above is just my opinion.

[Edited 12/5/17 17:23pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 12/05/17 6:43pm

benni

PennyPurple said:

benni said:

The only problem that I have with this is the Constitution's 1st Amendment. The first amendment, of course, says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. For some Christian sects, homosexuality is still seen as "an abomination". When a law is passed that forces these Christian sects to "have to" perform same sex marriages, this puts that pastor/preacher in a position of being complicit in what his/her relgion considers to be a sin (or an abomination). This then restricts that pastor's/preacher's right to freely exercise his religion in the way that his religion states he should exercise it. So, in giving one group rights, we restrict or take away the rights of another group. I think that in this situation, if it is religious reasons, the priest/pastor/preacher should continue to have the right to say "no" in performing same-sex marriages, but should have a list of preachers/pastors that will perform same-sex marriages to give to the couple. In this way, the preacher's rights are not infringed upon and neither are the same-sex couple's rights infringed upon.

And in this situation, such as with the wedding cake, when it is something that could infringe upon either person's rights, then a compromise as above should be reached, so that neither has their right's infringed. Yes, homosexuals want the same rights to marry as every one else, but what do you do when that right infringes upon another person's right to practice their religion in the way they have been taught to practice it, that they believe they must practice it? Do we take away the rights of some people to give rights to other people?

It reminds me of the clerk that was ordered by the court to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples and she refused to do so because it went against her religion. Again, in this situation, there should have been a clerk on stand-by that can issue those certificates because it does not infringe upon that clerk's right to practice his/her religion as laid out to them by their church.

We're on a slippery slope with this one, and people don't see it. How do we decide whose rights are more important? One group believes a certain way and practices their religion in a certain way and believes that if they follow this law, they are then complicit and have sinned in the eyes of their religion. The other group just wants the right to get married to the person they love, regardless of their sexual identity.

If we start infringing on one group's rights, to give another group rights, where will it end?

I think if you own a business or the like, you should not be able to discriminate. It is discrimination. Now..that's not to say that the bakery can't say, we are totally over scheduled that day, we will not be able to fulfill that order.


As far as the clerk that refused to issue marriage licenses...she should've lost her job. Her job consists of issuing marriage licenses. That was also discrimination. You shouldn't have to hire back-ups because one person refuses to do their job. Fire them and fill that position.



I do not believe that they should be able to refuse to do their jobs based on their religion. Religion is practiced at home and in the church, NOT in the work place. That's like a RN who refuses to do blood transfusions. If your religion prevents you from doing your job, then you shouldn't have taken it in the first place.

Edited to add: all of the above is just my opinion.

[Edited 12/5/17 17:23pm]


Then we should not receive days off for holidays, like Christmas, Easter, etc. Holidays (or Holy Days) are given to employees to allow them to practice their religion during regular working hours. Many businesses will put up Christmas trees, exchange Christmas gifts, etc., and Christmas is traditionally a Christian Holy day. (We won't get into the whole debate about pagan winter solstice, etc., as the origin. It was adopted by Christians to celebrate Christ's birth since they do not know the exact date of his birth and has been recognized as a Christian celebration.) All of this would need to stop.

And just because someone takes a job, that job does not supercede their religion. Those that are religious will tell you that it is "a way of life", not just something that is observed on Sundays, but observed every day of their life. (Though we can argue that point too for many Christians.) And this is where the issue comes in. For many, religion doesn't end at the door when they come to work. Their religious beliefs, their religious practices, come through that work door with them. Why should they have to stop practicing their religion just because they are working a job?

Isn't it discrimination to say that a religious person cannot be religious while they are at work? Isn't it discrimination to say that a religious person can't adher to their religious beliefs while they are at work? Many businesses say that they have the right to refuse service to anyone. So, why do they not have the right to refuse service to someone that they feel would violate their religion if they were to serve that person?

Clinical social work is a healthcare profession based on theories & methods of prevention & treatment in providing mental-health/healthcare services, with special focus on behavioral & bio-psychosocial problems & disorders. Have U hugged an LMSW 2day?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 12/05/17 7:28pm

PennyPurple

avatar

benni said:

PennyPurple said:

I think if you own a business or the like, you should not be able to discriminate. It is discrimination. Now..that's not to say that the bakery can't say, we are totally over scheduled that day, we will not be able to fulfill that order.


As far as the clerk that refused to issue marriage licenses...she should've lost her job. Her job consists of issuing marriage licenses. That was also discrimination. You shouldn't have to hire back-ups because one person refuses to do their job. Fire them and fill that position.



I do not believe that they should be able to refuse to do their jobs based on their religion. Religion is practiced at home and in the church, NOT in the work place. That's like a RN who refuses to do blood transfusions. If your religion prevents you from doing your job, then you shouldn't have taken it in the first place.

Edited to add: all of the above is just my opinion.

[Edited 12/5/17 17:23pm]


Then we should not receive days off for holidays, like Christmas, Easter, etc. Holidays (or Holy Days) are given to employees to allow them to practice their religion during regular working hours. Many businesses will put up Christmas trees, exchange Christmas gifts, etc., and Christmas is traditionally a Christian Holy day. (We won't get into the whole debate about pagan winter solstice, etc., as the origin. It was adopted by Christians to celebrate Christ's birth since they do not know the exact date of his birth and has been recognized as a Christian celebration.) All of this would need to stop.

And just because someone takes a job, that job does not supercede their religion. Those that are religious will tell you that it is "a way of life", not just something that is observed on Sundays, but observed every day of their life. (Though we can argue that point too for many Christians.) And this is where the issue comes in. For many, religion doesn't end at the door when they come to work. Their religious beliefs, their religious practices, come through that work door with them. Why should they have to stop practicing their religion just because they are working a job?

Isn't it discrimination to say that a religious person cannot be religious while they are at work? Isn't it discrimination to say that a religious person can't adher to their religious beliefs while they are at work? Many businesses say that they have the right to refuse service to anyone. So, why do they not have the right to refuse service to someone that they feel would violate their religion if they were to serve that person?

Sorry Benni, I feel that if they can't do what the job description entails, then they shouldn't be in that job.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 12/05/17 7:35pm

benni

PennyPurple said:

benni said:


Then we should not receive days off for holidays, like Christmas, Easter, etc. Holidays (or Holy Days) are given to employees to allow them to practice their religion during regular working hours. Many businesses will put up Christmas trees, exchange Christmas gifts, etc., and Christmas is traditionally a Christian Holy day. (We won't get into the whole debate about pagan winter solstice, etc., as the origin. It was adopted by Christians to celebrate Christ's birth since they do not know the exact date of his birth and has been recognized as a Christian celebration.) All of this would need to stop.

And just because someone takes a job, that job does not supercede their religion. Those that are religious will tell you that it is "a way of life", not just something that is observed on Sundays, but observed every day of their life. (Though we can argue that point too for many Christians.) And this is where the issue comes in. For many, religion doesn't end at the door when they come to work. Their religious beliefs, their religious practices, come through that work door with them. Why should they have to stop practicing their religion just because they are working a job?

Isn't it discrimination to say that a religious person cannot be religious while they are at work? Isn't it discrimination to say that a religious person can't adher to their religious beliefs while they are at work? Many businesses say that they have the right to refuse service to anyone. So, why do they not have the right to refuse service to someone that they feel would violate their religion if they were to serve that person?

Sorry Benni, I feel that if they can't do what the job description entails, then they shouldn't be in that job.


I understand Penny, and I respect that. As I said, it's a sticky situation, imho. I believe that one's rights don't stop at the work place door. And I really don't like situations that seem like one groups rights are being taken away to give rights to another group. I just feel that has to be a compromise there so that both sides still have the rights they both are guaranteed by the Constitution and law.

Clinical social work is a healthcare profession based on theories & methods of prevention & treatment in providing mental-health/healthcare services, with special focus on behavioral & bio-psychosocial problems & disorders. Have U hugged an LMSW 2day?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 12/05/17 7:46pm

PennyPurple

avatar

benni said:

PennyPurple said:

Sorry Benni, I feel that if they can't do what the job description entails, then they shouldn't be in that job.


I understand Penny, and I respect that. As I said, it's a sticky situation, imho. I believe that one's rights don't stop at the work place door. And I really don't like situations that seem like one groups rights are being taken away to give rights to another group. I just feel that has to be a compromise there so that both sides still have the rights they both are guaranteed by the Constitution and law.

I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for the Court's opinion.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 12/05/17 7:56pm

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

2freaky4church1 said:

All people are equal. How hard is that shit?

right and? we should have equal right to NOT go to some given ceremonies...

Tougher call than one might think, I really wish they would have made the cake for the gay couple but also I can think of tons of instances where I would favor artistic rights and people just saying no to something from personal beliefs.

You better Watch Out! I'm a WAR MACHINE!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 12/05/17 8:10pm

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

PennyPurple said:

benni said:


I understand Penny, and I respect that. As I said, it's a sticky situation, imho. I believe that one's rights don't stop at the work place door. And I really don't like situations that seem like one groups rights are being taken away to give rights to another group. I just feel that has to be a compromise there so that both sides still have the rights they both are guaranteed by the Constitution and law.

I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for the Court's opinion.

The ruling one way or another will backfire on the courts and create a huge fiasco. I believe this case is the new "wade vs roe" and will strike up feuds across the land.

You better Watch Out! I'm a WAR MACHINE!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 12/05/17 8:15pm

benni

It seems like Justice Kennedy is really torn about the vote. He is seeing both sides of the issue and goes back and forth on whose rights need to be upheld. He said that, "What will see next in store windows? Signs that say we only serve heterosexual couples?" But then said, "It feels like the state hasn't been respectful of Jack Phillips religious rights and beliefs."

As I said, it's a slippery slope and I feel bad for Justice Kennedy right now, because he is truly considering both sides of the argument, and the rights of both are weighing heavily on him. Whichever way he votes, I'm sure he's going to feel that he is somehow violating the other sides rights.

Clinical social work is a healthcare profession based on theories & methods of prevention & treatment in providing mental-health/healthcare services, with special focus on behavioral & bio-psychosocial problems & disorders. Have U hugged an LMSW 2day?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 12/05/17 9:00pm

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

I agree 100% Benni. This is a shit storm waiting to happen.
You better Watch Out! I'm a WAR MACHINE!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 12/05/17 10:29pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

This whole thing was ridiculous. They had to call around to find a baker that refused so they could make a case of it. It was not like they would be deprived if this particular baker didn't make their cake.

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 12/06/17 4:32am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

benni said:

It seems like Justice Kennedy is really torn about the vote. He is seeing both sides of the issue and goes back and forth on whose rights need to be upheld. He said that, "What will see next in store windows? Signs that say we only serve heterosexual couples?" But then said, "It feels like the state hasn't been respectful of Jack Phillips religious rights and beliefs."

As I said, it's a slippery slope and I feel bad for Justice Kennedy right now, because he is truly considering both sides of the argument, and the rights of both are weighing heavily on him. Whichever way he votes, I'm sure he's going to feel that he is somehow violating the other sides rights.

they should ALL be like that. it is not a slippery slope it is waling the peak of a rooftop! We can slide either way.


I almost want them to rule on a good (which I think they should provide if they provide it at all) and services.



It is my thinking that a simple good should be provided, however, they are not required to provide any customization or accessories that acknowledge the specifics. If not then we should expect people to use this to troll cake shops with all kinds of cakes that those people will NOT want to make.

For services: I think they should be able to pick and choose.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 12/06/17 4:48am

PennyPurple

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

This whole thing was ridiculous. They had to call around to find a baker that refused so they could make a case of it. It was not like they would be deprived if this particular baker didn't make their cake.

Did they call around to get a baker who refused???


Actually I think it could've been avoided if the baker said they had other events and were already booked.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 12/06/17 4:53am

poppys

Cakeman's religion is probably against divorce too. So let him put a note with every cake saying he will reimburse them for the cake if they get a divorce. Just to keep his spiritual world intact.

If your last December came, what would u do?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 12/06/17 5:06am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

benni said:

It seems like Justice Kennedy is really torn about the vote. He is seeing both sides of the issue and goes back and forth on whose rights need to be upheld. He said that, "What will see next in store windows? Signs that say we only serve heterosexual couples?" But then said, "It feels like the state hasn't been respectful of Jack Phillips religious rights and beliefs."

As I said, it's a slippery slope and I feel bad for Justice Kennedy right now, because he is truly considering both sides of the argument, and the rights of both are weighing heavily on him. Whichever way he votes, I'm sure he's going to feel that he is somehow violating the other sides rights.

they should ALL be like that. it is not a slippery slope it is waling the peak of a rooftop! We can slide either way.


I almost want them to rule on a good (which I think they should provide if they provide it at all) and services.



It is my thinking that a simple good should be provided, however, they are not required to provide any customization or accessories that acknowledge the specifics. If not then we should expect people to use this to troll cake shops with all kinds of cakes that those people will NOT want to make.

For services: I think they should be able to pick and choose.

I can see a way around that where someone provides very specific goods. Like I would make my goods the "Make America Great Again" and "National Flag" cakes. I think in the gay cake scenario they were not proving a cake because of what will be done with the cake, it will be used at a gay wedding which is beyond me. They didn't object to placing a penis on the cake? I think. If anyone wanted to buy a MAGA cake from me for a gay wedding that would be great.

You better Watch Out! I'm a WAR MACHINE!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 12/06/17 5:12am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

Consider that an olive branch.

You better Watch Out! I'm a WAR MACHINE!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 12/06/17 6:02am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

PennyPurple said:

djThunderfunk said:

This whole thing was ridiculous. They had to call around to find a baker that refused so they could make a case of it. It was not like they would be deprived if this particular baker didn't make their cake.

Did they call around to get a baker who refused???


Actually I think it could've been avoided if the baker said they had other events and were already booked.

I do not see having gone looking for a refusal as all that relevant.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 12/06/17 6:05am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

poppys said:

Cakeman's religion is probably against divorce too. So let him put a note with every cake saying he will reimburse them for the cake if they get a divorce. Just to keep his spiritual world intact.

absurd...

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 12/06/17 6:07am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

poppys said:

Cakeman's religion is probably against divorce too. So let him put a note with every cake saying he will reimburse them for the cake if they get a divorce. Just to keep his spiritual world intact.

But if he believes in divorce they get charged twice? lol

You better Watch Out! I'm a WAR MACHINE!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 12/06/17 6:11am

poppys

OnlyNDaUsa said:

poppys said:

Cakeman's religion is probably against divorce too. So let him put a note with every cake saying he will reimburse them for the cake if they get a divorce. Just to keep his spiritual world intact.

absurd...

Not making a cake for a gay wedding is what's absurd.

If your last December came, what would u do?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 12/06/17 6:12am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

So they go full on crazy and say that the baker has to make the cake AND decorate in such a manner as to indicate a same-sex wedding...both in the cake itself and accessories, then any cake shop that makes custom cakes would have to make any cake of any design that recognises any otherwise legal if distasteful design. And that would get real messy real quick.


In other words: be careful what you ask for.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 12/06/17 6:15am

PennyPurple

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

So they go full on crazy and say that the baker has to make the cake AND decorate in such a manner as to indicate a same-sex wedding...both in the cake itself and accessories, then any cake shop that makes custom cakes would have to make any cake of any design that recognises any otherwise legal if distasteful design. And that would get real messy real quick.


In other words: be careful what you ask for.

The baker will make any other cake with any design, why should this one be different?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 12/06/17 6:19am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

PennyPurple said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

So they go full on crazy and say that the baker has to make the cake AND decorate in such a manner as to indicate a same-sex wedding...both in the cake itself and accessories, then any cake shop that makes custom cakes would have to make any cake of any design that recognises any otherwise legal if distasteful design. And that would get real messy real quick.


In other words: be careful what you ask for.

The baker will make any other cake with any design, why should this one be different?

will she? will she make a KKK cake? or a Pro-gun cake? would a liberal cake shop make a MAGA cake or "I HEART TRUMP" cake... would a cake maker make a wedding cake for a 14-year-old bride and a 50-year-old groom? would the cake maker make a Hitler Cake?

nothing in that list is necessarily illegal... and I could go deeper into things that are legal to draw but not do... so would those cakes be required if ordered?

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 12/06/17 6:27am

djThunderfunk

avatar

If it's ok to force a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding then it should be ok to force a Muslim baker to do the same. No?

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 12/06/17 6:28am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

If it's ok to force a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding then it should be ok to force a Muslim baker to do the same. No?

yup or a bacon flavored cake!


edit: To be clear I do not want that to happen. I want a baker to be able to refuse to make cakes they find objectionable.

[Edited 12/6/17 6:30am]

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 4 1234>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Supreme Court Seems Divided In Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case