Homophobic bakers win big at Supreme Court

[RobDownSouth]

Supreme Court just ruled 7-2 that homophobic bakers need not be "forced" to bake cakes for nasssty little faggots.

#MAGA

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/64764613/we-hates-them.jpg

 

[Sean]

Haven't read the full opinion yet but it appears Kennedy went out of his way to make the decision as narrow as possible.

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

Rob has been to Supreme Court?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Supreme Court just ruled 7-2 that homophobic bakers need not be "forced" to bake cakes for nasssty little faggots.

#MAGA

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/64764613/we-hates-them.jpg

Awwwwww so sorry for you and your ilk.....the idea of freedom winning must have you all filling your pants.


https://assets3.thrillist.com/v1/image/1167029/size/tmg-article_default_mobile.jpg

 

[richard_daily]

Awwwwww so sorry for you and your ilk.....the idea of freedom winning must have you all filling your pants.


https://assets3.thrillist.com/v1/image/1167029/size/tmg-article_default_mobile.jpg

Discrimination is the opposite of "freedom".

Let's say that someone doesn't want to sell something to you because your race. Their beliefs are "sincerely held".

Sounds ok to you?

Maybe they don't want to offer you a job, or they want to take away your VA benefits due to it.

This is about as anti-freedom as you can get.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Haven't read the full opinion yet but it appears Kennedy went out of his way to make the decision as narrow as possible.

You are correct, sir. Vetty and AJ will not be pleased.
https://i.imgur.com/DuicO3s.jpg

 

[Hypoxia]

Are there limits on which laws religious beliefs are exempt from? If your faith requires you to strangle mongoloids, can you whip out the garrote now?

 

[Paul_Chance]

I think the court, in the 7-2 decision, got this one right.

The baker in question was willing to sell the gay couple cake, had they simply selected from one of the standard models he had available for sale.

The couple wanted him to create a special cake, with a message supporting gay marriage.

The appeal was based on the narrow criteria of "artistic expression" that comes with the making of a custom cake by a "baker as artist". As an artist, the act of creation is well within the First Amendment. A person cannot be compelled to express themselves (or their art) in a specific way, when that way conflicts with their deeply held belief, whatever that may be.

Had it been a purely commercial transaction, the sale of a good or service (buying a standard cake) and he had refused, then the decision would have gone the other way, based on existing case law.

I am a firm supporter of gay marriage, have been for years, but oppose compelled expression on First Amendment grounds. If you oppose a behavior, you are well within your rights to express that opposition, either through action or inaction. If you support gay marriage you can express that. If you oppose gay marriage you can express that.

 

[bestone4ever]

Trump supporter has no idea what American freedom means.

 

[beew]

Supreme Court just ruled 7-2 that homophobic bakers need not be "forced" to bake cakes for nasssty little faggots.

#MAGA

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/64764613/we-hates-them.jpg

You're painting them with the same broad brush, Rob.

It's indeed likely that quite a few of them are driven by homophobia +/- religious beliefs (which claim that marriage should be just between man and woman).

But it's just as likely that other religious folks have no issue with gay couples, outside that particular situation.

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

You're painting them with the same broad brush, Rob.

It's indeed likely that quite a few of them are driven by homophobia +/- religious beliefs (which claim that marriage should be just between man and woman).

But it's just as likely that other religious folks have no issue with gay couples, outside that particular situation.

But Rob keeping an eye on SCOTUS? Lets go back to that.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Discrimination is the opposite of "freedom".

Only when the government does it.

Let's say that someone doesn't want to sell something to you because your race. Their beliefs are "sincerely held".

Sounds ok to you?

No problem, I don't want to give bigots my money anyhow.

Maybe they don't want to offer you a job,

Don't want to work for a bigot either.

or they want to take away your VA benefits due to it.

That's government and thus different.

This is about as anti-freedom as you can get.

No...forcing people to not be dicks under force of law is about as anti-freedom as you can get.

Letting people be assholes IS freedom....government suppression/prosecution of assholes is anti-freedom.

This is no different than "free speech".

Suffering the wrath of others for saying dumb shit isn't oppressing free speech....it's the beauty of it.

Roseann, Kaepernick, Kanye West and the Dixi Chicks are all prime examples....masterpieces of freedom of speech in action.

 

[Wrong Element]

I think the court, in the 7-2 decision, got this one right.

The baker in question was willing to sell the gay couple cake, had they simply selected from one of the standard models he had available for sale.

The couple wanted him to create a special cake, with a message supporting gay marriage.

I believe you're incorrect about this. According to the majority opinion, they simply told the baker they wanted a cake for their wedding, and his response was no because he disapproved of same-sex marriage. Unless one regards any same-sex wedding as political on its face, there wasn't any political message requested. He did say he would sell to them for other purposes, such as a birthday cake.

Haven't read the full opinion yet but it appears Kennedy went out of his way to make the decision as narrow as possible.

He did, but the three Neanderthals filed separate opinions suggesting their eagerness to go further.

If Kennedy wants to retire after 31 years it's his right, but I hope he appreciates that his legacy, the series of opinions regarding gay rights, might be dead before he personally is if Trump gets to name his successor.

 

[beew]

But Rob keeping an eye on SCOTUS? Lets go back to that.

Those are archaic/ outdated attitudes, and I bet that in 20 years from now gay marriages will be seen as normal.

Those attitudes will disappear once the Bible gets updated to the changing values of the 21st century.
Just like when the Bible's teachings about women were brought in line with a changing society.

Not all those folks are homophobic. Some of them just don't want to cross their Pastor or go against the Bible.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Discrimination is the opposite of "freedom".

Let's say that someone doesn't want to sell something to you because your race. Their beliefs are "sincerely held".

Sounds ok to you?

Maybe they don't want to offer you a job, or they want to take away your VA benefits due to it.

This is about as anti-freedom as you can get.

"inate traits" (race, eye color, national origin, sex, etc) are protected by law against discrimination.
"Conduct" (criminal activity, running around nekkid, voting for Trump, etc) is not protected.

At issue is whether "sexual orientation" is "innate" or "conduct".

A substantial number of people truly believe sexual orientation is somehow a "choice", and therefore falls under the "conduct" umbrella. I typically ask these folks when exactly did they "choose" their orientation. They reply they've "always" been hetero, and they never ever had no homo thoughts, so to me that strikes me as "innate".

Since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, the legal trend has been to recognize sexual orientation as "innate".

As today's court decision showed, we're not quite there yet.

 

[BotanyBoy]

At issue is whether "sexual orientation" is "innate" or "conduct".

No it's not....that was the issue with regard to marriage, a government institution.

At issue is whether a gay persons desire to have a gay wedding cake at their wedding trumps an individual bakers right to freedom of religion.

And SCOTUS says no...by a decent majority too.

Since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, the legal trend has been to recognize sexual orientation as "innate".

And it still is.

As today's court decision showed, we're not quite there yet.

"there" being totally shitting on everyones Constitutional rights to protect the feelings of (D)'s favorite pet demographics in the name of "progress".

Thankfully, and hopefully they never will.

 

[bbvi]

what does this have to do with Trump?

who has been for same sex marriage for LONGER then NIGGER HO and CuntCLinton have been

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Ginsburg draws the simple distinction the majority insistently neglects: The bakers in these other cases would have refused to make the cakes no matter who asked for them; Phillips refused to make Craig and Mullins’ cake because of who they are.


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...-Court-just-set-gay-rights-back-by-a-lifetime

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

Those are archaic/ outdated attitudes, and I bet that in 20 years from now gay marriages will be seen as normal.

Those attitudes will disappear once the Bible gets updated to the changing values of the 21st century.
Just like when the Bible's teachings about women were brought in line with a changing society.

Not all those folks are homophobic. Some of them just don't want to cross their Pastor or go against the Bible.

I can honestly say I'm glad I changed my ways. It's been a long road getting from there to here.

 

[Que]

Always bizarre to see BobsDownSouth fronting as a spokesmodel for the GLBT community.

 

[bbvi]

Ginsburg draws the simple distinction the majority insistently neglects: The bakers in these other cases would have refused to make the cakes no matter who asked for them; Phillips refused to make Craig and Mullins’ cake because of who they are.


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...-Court-just-set-gay-rights-back-by-a-lifetime

why would anyone else have not baked a cake?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Hooray for Regressives! We'll teach them damb homos whut's right under thuh Good Lord yet!

https://media.giphy.com/media/14abHf7vah20RG/giphy.gif

Next up, those uppity darkies!!!

 

[richard_daily]

"inate traits" (race, eye color, national origin, sex, etc) are protected by law against discrimination.
"Conduct" (criminal activity, running around nekkid, voting for Trump, etc) is not protected.

At issue is whether "sexual orientation" is "innate" or "conduct".

A substantial number of people truly believe sexual orientation is somehow a "choice", and therefore falls under the "conduct" umbrella. I typically ask these folks when exactly did they "choose" their orientation. They reply they've "always" been hetero, and they never ever had no homo thoughts, so to me that strikes me as "innate".

Since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, the legal trend has been to recognize sexual orientation as "innate".

As today's court decision showed, we're not quite there yet.

Sexual orientation is innate. That's settled science. It's not a "choice".

 

[Wrong Element]

Ginsburg draws the simple distinction the majority insistently neglects: The bakers in these other cases would have refused to make the cakes no matter who asked for them; Phillips refused to make Craig and Mullins’ cake because of who they are.


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...-Court-just-set-gay-rights-back-by-a-lifetime

I think that's a bit over the top, but the concern is that there seems to be 3 votes on the Court for the general principle that any business owner may legally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and the current president would like to make that 4.

 

[Oblimo]

The no-compelled-commercial-artistic-expression principal is rock-solid US jurisprudence. I can see why they chickened out and ruled based on that principal rather than touching the constitutionality of religious freedom laws.