Court hears case over gay wedding cake

[aGameOfThrones]

DENVER (AP) -- A Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony should not be forced to violate his religious beliefs, his attorney told a judge deciding whether the cake-maker should be made to accommodate gay couples. But an attorney representing a gay couple countered Wednesday that the baker's faith doesn't give him a right to discriminate.

At issue in the complaint from David Mullins and Charlie Craig against Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver is whether religious freedom can protect a business from discrimination allegations from gay couples.

Mullins and Craig wanted to buy a cake last year, but when one of the shop owners, Jack Phillips, found out the cake was to celebrate a gay wedding, he turned the couple of away and cited his religious faith.

"(His) faith, whatever it may have to say about marriage for same-sex couples or the expressive power of a wedding cake, does not give the respondents a license to discriminate," Amanda Goad, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, told an administrative judge in Colorado's Civil Rights Commission.

Phillips' attorney, Nicolle Martin, said her client shouldn't be forced to ignore his Christian faith while running the business he's had for nearly 40 years. She said Phillips feels "privileged to design and create the cakes that celebrate the joyous events of people's lives."

"He believes this is a vocation chosen for him by God, and as a man of God, Jack Phillips lives by certain biblical principles," Martin said.

She said Phillips faces fines if the court rules against him and he continues to refuse to make wedding cakes for gay couples.

Judge Robert N. Spencer said he would issue a ruling later this week.

The ACLU in Colorado filed the discrimination complaint on behalf of Mullins, 29, and Craig, 33, who were married in Massachusetts and planned to celebrate their wedding in Colorado.

A similar case is pending in Washington state, where a florist is accused of refusing service for a same-sex wedding. In New Mexico, the state Supreme Court ruled in August that an Albuquerque business was wrong to decline to photograph a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony.

Colorado has a constitutional ban against gay marriage, but allows civil unions. The civil union law, which passed earlier this year, does not provide religious protections for businesses — a provision Republicans wanted. Democrats argued that such a provision would give businesses cover to discriminate in violation of state law.

"Here, the discrimination was based on who the customers were, and that's what Colorado clearly prohibits," Goad said.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/court-hears-discrimination-case-over-120808014.html

[Christian Liberty]

American Civil Liberties Union

More respect for them lost.

[James Madison]

There's only one wedding cake designer in Denver?

Just go to someone else.

[Christian Liberty]

Its not about the wedding cake though, Madison. Its about slavery. I wouldn't be surprised if the government paid them "under the table" to do this.

[Brett85]

More respect for them lost.

I've never had any respect for them. They're just an arm of the Democratic Party, not a civil liberties organization.

[EBounding]

There's only one wedding cake designer in Denver?

Just go to someone else.

That's the rational response. Why would you want to give money to someone who is a discriminatory bigot?

But that's not the goal of gay marriage activists. The goal is to use the State's monopoly on force to punish people who don't agree with their lifestyle. Some day though they're also going to be on the receiving end of that force too.

[James Madison]

Its not about the wedding cake though, Madison. Its about slavery. I wouldn't be surprised if the government paid them "under the table" to do this.

Oh, I know. Just pointing out the absurdity of the LGBTXYZ movement. I used to not care about who was gay, but anymore I find the movement more and more insufferable.

This is the equivalent of atheists trying to remove 'God' from the Pledge of Allegiance.

[phill4paul]

This is the equivalent of atheists trying to remove 'God' from the Pledge of Allegiance.

As opposed to the christians that added it? :rolleyes:

[James Madison]

As opposed to the christians that added it? :rolleyes:

Having 'God' in the Pledge is stupid. Actually the whole Pledge is stupid.

Don't miss the point here -- learn to pick your battles.

[phill4paul]

Having 'God' in the Pledge is stupid. Actually the whole Pledge is stupid.

Don't miss the point here -- learn to pick your battles.

You're the one that brought it up.

[Schifference]

Wedding cake costs are as follows:
$129 Heterosexual wedding
$1290 Gay wedding

[angelatc]

Oh, I know. Just pointing out the absurdity of the LGBTXYZ movement. I used to not care about who was gay, but anymore I find the movement more and more insufferable.

This is the equivalent of atheists trying to remove 'God' from the Pledge of Allegiance.


Exactly.

[James Madison]

You're the one that brought it up.

Yeah, because it comes off as vindictive and spiteful. Like how the government only 'shutdown' services that people enjoyed.

[phill4paul]

Yeah, because it comes off as vindictive and spiteful. Like how the government only 'shutdown' services that people enjoyed.

Vindictive and spiteful. Like "marriage is only between one man and one woman" laws which shuts down governmental services that only some people enjoy? As opposed to ending the government in marriage. Or ending the Pledge in government institutions altogether.
As I said, you were the one that brought it up. I think we both agree that government should stay out of private business and that it should be left up to the property/business owner to serve who they choose.

[Suzanimal]

Supreme Court to hear case of baker's refusal to make wedding cake for gay couple

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear the case of a suburban Denver baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple on faith-based grounds, in the latest religious freedom case to be considered before the nation's highest court.

Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, had refused to sell a customized cake for a gay couple's union, claiming a religious exemption to the state's anti-discrimination law.

State courts had ruled against the businessman.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-to-hear-case-bakers-refusal-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple.html

[CaptUSA]

Is it expecting too much for them to finally assert that a business can refuse service to anyone for any reason? That it takes two parties to exchange something? That one part doesn't automatically give up their rights because they're exchanging their product or service for FRN's?

Yeah - probably too much to ask.

[goldenequity]

Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop
https://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Screen-Shot-2017-06-26-at-12.23.37-PM.png

Any more questions? :D

[Swordsmyth]

More respect for them lost.

As a Christian you never should have had any, they have been anti-Christ since their founding by communists.

[Dr.No.]

One way to see it is that Colorado already has laws that force public accomodations to serve people regardless of that persons's status. I'm not sure why the Colorado baker thinks he is above the law. Plus, equal protection and all that.

[shakey1]

Is it expecting too much for them to finally assert that a business can refuse service to anyone for any reason? That it takes two parties to exchange something? That one part doesn't automatically give up their rights because they're exchanging their product or service for FRN's?

Yeah - probably too much to ask.

^^^THIS^^^

[AZJoe]

http://i0.wp.com/moralmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/HomosexualActivistsLBGTBakeMyCake11130140_10200526 944171526_294534521920097925_n.jpg

[Suzanimal]

The Case that Should Not Even Go to the Supreme Court
Laurence M. Vance

The Supreme Court has said that it will consider in its next term whether a baker unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake. This is a case that should have been laughed out of court. In a free society, businesses can discriminate against customers the same way that customers can discriminate against businesses. See my articles on discrimination here (http://www.vancepublications.com/articles%20by%20lmv%20discrimination.htm).

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/case-not-even-go-supreme-court/

[Swordsmyth]

I am very afraid of this case because Kennedy and Roberts are still on the court.

[Dangergirl]

This issue always reminds me of one particular time at lunch in NY. I was out buying lunch for my shop which is something pretty common, you make a list and everyone jumps in, and it was always a welcomed escape from work. There was a deli, either Middle-Eastern or Turkish (I was too young and naive to know the difference) that sold the best hot dogs in town. Everyday there was a line out the door for these dogs alone, although they sold all sorts of cuisine native to their culture. One day a well dressed woman came in with her own workplace lunch list which ended with a "ham and American cheese" sandwich. The expression on the clerk's face began to sour and you could tell he took offense to the request but he held it in and corrected her cultural faux pas, "We don't serve ham here." She questioned this in a puzzled tone "what?" and he repeated that they don't serve ham here. She didn't make a fuss nor did she protest, she just flushed with embarrassment and left to go to the deli across the street that did sell ham.

We used to go to Taco Bell during midnight munchies and ask for ketchup as a joke because it was completely absurd. If you want ketchup go somewhere that has it, pretty simple. I'm not sure why people can't understand how respecting another's right to individuality preserves everyone's lifestyle. Can you imagine calling a Chinese restaurant racist because they refuse to serve you tacos or holding a Catholic wedding at a gay nightclub? The outrage and the uproar would be timeless but what would be the argument if a Christian baker is forced to bake a cake that some idiot couple can easily get elsewhere?

You have the freedom to participate in every cultural experience there is and it's wonderful to have the option and variety for those experiences. What a shame it would be to force all cultures to conform into a collective because a one-sided issue that's too shallow to see the dangerous precedent of imposing your beliefs onto someone else.

[dannno]

One way to see it is that Colorado already has laws that force public accomodations to serve people regardless of that persons's status. I'm not sure why the Colorado baker thinks he is above the law. Plus, equal protection and all that.

Hmmm, I wonder if Anne Frank thought she was above the law because she was hiding in an attic :confused:

[phill4paul]

One way to see it is that Colorado already has laws that force public accomodations to serve people regardless of that persons's status. I'm not sure why the Colorado baker thinks he is above the law. Plus, equal protection and all that.

Some animals are more equal.

[Dr.No.]

Hmmm, I wonder if Anne Frank thought she was above the law because she was hiding in an attic :confused:

You are equating the Nuremberg laws with anti-discrimination laws?

[Dr.No.]

This issue always reminds me of one particular time at lunch in NY. I was out buying lunch for my shop which is something pretty common, you make a list and everyone jumps in, and it was always a welcomed escape from work. There was a deli, either Middle-Eastern or Turkish (I was too young and naive to know the difference) that sold the best hot dogs in town. Everyday there was a line out the door for these dogs alone, although they sold all sorts of cuisine native to their culture. One day a well dressed woman came in with her own workplace lunch list which ended with a "ham and American cheese" sandwich. The expression on the clerk's face began to sour and you could tell he took offense to the request but he held it in and corrected her cultural faux pas, "We don't serve ham here." She questioned this in a puzzled tone "what?" and he repeated that they don't serve ham here. She didn't make a fuss nor did she protest, she just flushed with embarrassment and left to go to the deli across the street that did sell ham.

We used to go to Taco Bell during midnight munchies and ask for ketchup as a joke because it was completely absurd. If you want ketchup go somewhere that has it, pretty simple. I'm not sure why people can't understand how respecting another's right to individuality preserves everyone's lifestyle. Can you imagine calling a Chinese restaurant racist because they refuse to serve you tacos or holding a Catholic wedding at a gay nightclub? The outrage and the uproar would be timeless but what would be the argument if a Christian baker is forced to bake a cake that some idiot couple can easily get elsewhere?

You have the freedom to participate in every cultural experience there is and it's wonderful to have the option and variety for those experiences. What a shame it would be to force all cultures to conform into a collective because a one-sided issue that's too shallow to see the dangerous precedent of imposing your beliefs onto someone else.

I suppose the idea is that a business isn't being forced to do something it doesn't do, but being forced to do something it does. IE, a Chinese restaurant doesn't serve tacos. But they can serve egg rolls to everyone.

You can just as easily say that if you don't want to respect the norms and laws of the place your business is set up, feel free to set up your business elsewhere.

In any case, I think this is a distraction. Over time, any company that discriminates on the basis of sexuality is going to go down the tubes, not by government decree, but by simple social norms. Lets focus on reducing taxes and regulations that actually have major impacts on us that silly issues like this.

[dannno]

You are equating the Nuremberg laws with anti-discrimination laws?

Yes, they are both wrong, anti-discrimination laws amount to slavery and it is not a bad thing to choose not to follow bad laws. It may result in a negative outcome, so I don't necessarily recommend breaking bad laws, but it certainly is not immoral to break unjust laws.

What if this guy is right, and he is following God's commandments by not baking a gay wedding cake? You are trying to deny him entrance into heaven? That seems a lot worse to me than even the Nuremberg laws which are terrestrial laws with terrestrial outcomes.

Of course, I don't think he is right about that, but he has every right to believe what he does and he has every right to bake cakes for whoever he wants.

[dannno]

I suppose the idea is that a business isn't being forced to do something it doesn't do, but being forced to do something it does. IE, a Chinese restaurant doesn't serve tacos. But they can serve egg rolls to everyone.

You can just as easily say that if you don't want to respect the norms and laws of the place your business is set up, feel free to set up your business elsewhere.

In any case, I think this is a distraction. Over time, any company that discriminates on the basis of sexuality is going to go down the tubes, not by government decree, but by simple social norms. Lets focus on reducing taxes and regulations that actually have major impacts on us that silly issues like this.

Here's an example of the slippery slope anti-discrimination laws are creating.

I am helping a friend rent out a room on craigslist. In the ad, I want to put that it is for single occupants only. Craigslist says I can't do that, because it is discriminating against families. There is no way in hell my friend is going to rent this single room out to an entire fucking family. So instead of filtering people out by telling them up front that the room is for a single occupant, you have to get a bunch of emails from families or couples who want to rent out a single room.

Besides the minor annoyance, even after leaving the language out you could actually be sued for not renting to someone who emails you if they believe you are discriminating based on their status as a family.

Additionally, if there are 2 girls living in an apartment and they want to rent a room out to another girl, they can't put that in their craigslist ad because that is sexual discrimination. Even if they say there are two girls living there, the post can get flagged and taken down, I've seen it before. Craigslist recommends describing the premises, not the people who live there or the type of people they desire to live there.

Can't you see how this is seriously getting to the point of insanity?

[otherone]

You can just as easily say that if you don't want to respect the norms and laws of the place your business is set up, feel free to set up your business elsewhere.


YEAH.
Like SOMALIA.
Ya frikkin' anarchists.

"Mu-uh roooaaads uber alles...uber alles mu-uh-uh roads."

[BSWPaulsen]

SCOTUS needs to get this decision right. The sheer arrogance of those that would command the baker to make a cake against his will deserves a bullet.

[Dr.No.]

Yes, they are both wrong, anti-discrimination laws amount to slavery and it is not a bad thing to choose not to follow bad laws. It may result in a negative outcome, so I don't necessarily recommend breaking bad laws, but it certainly is not immoral to break unjust laws.

Slavery? No one is forcing the guy to be a baker. All we are saying that if he wants to be a baker, there are certain rules he has to follow.


What if this guy is right, and he is following God's commandments by not baking a gay wedding cake? You are trying to deny him entrance into heaven? That seems a lot worse to me than even the Nuremberg laws which are terrestrial laws with terrestrial outcomes.

Of course, I don't think he is right about that, but he has every right to believe what he does and he has every right to bake cakes for whoever he wants.

This is why I mentioned that this is a distraction. Taxes and regulations have real consequences. They really stifle businesses, growth, etc. But preventing people from being racist or bigoted doesn't do the same; if anything, removing those kinds of barriers enhances productivity. Like you mentioned, his concerns about "God's commandments" are utter bogus. I mean, you could easily flip this. What if a guy believes that God's commandment is that he has to force people to live a Christian way of life? What if he uses government to do so? If you try and stop him, you are denying him entrance to heaven! Wouldn't that be a terrible thing?


Here's an example of the slippery slope anti-discrimination laws are creating.

I am helping a friend rent out a room on craigslist. In the ad, I want to put that it is for single occupants only. Craigslist says I can't do that, because it is discriminating against families. There is no way in hell my friend is going to rent this single room out to an entire $#@!ing family. So instead of filtering people out by telling them up front that the room is for a single occupant, you have to get a bunch of emails from families or couples who want to rent out a single room.

Sure, there are poor applications of the principle, but that shouldn't mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Some traffic laws are not good, but that doesn't mean all of them are bad!

Plus, your buddy is basically complaining that he has to screen his emails. Cry me a river. Now, I would still say that when it comes to renting out your own private property, you should be able to rent it to whoever you want, at whatever price, only because of the personal nature of renting out living space. There is no hard rule...I'd also say that craigslist should allow you to post your listing as you want it. I think that it gets trickier with larger housing developers that claim EO or to be non-discriminatory...then I'd want more transparency.


Additionally, if there are 2 girls living in an apartment and they want to rent a room out to another girl, they can't put that in their craigslist ad because that is sexual discrimination. Even if they say there are two girls living there, the post can get flagged and taken down, I've seen it before. Craigslist recommends describing the premises, not the people who live there or the type of people they desire to live there.

Can't you see how this is seriously getting to the point of insanity?

I singled this out because I'm not sure this is against CL policy. I've definitely put gender restrictions on my postings.

SJWism etc. is getting insane (it is just the balance swinging one way after having swung in the other way for a long time; arc of history is long and all that), but that doesn't mean you toss out all of it.

I mean, there is a point to be made on why some people are planting their flag on this issue. From the colonial era to the 1960s, states had individual laws dictating how businesses could behave. No discrimination based on religion. No discrimination based on land-holding status. No discrimination based on beard length (yes, really). Criminilization of interracial marriage. Criminilization of homosexual acts. Criminilazation of serving a woman.

Yet, where were people protesting these unjust laws? Where were people talking about private property rights, freedom, liberty, etc? Then you have the Civil Rights act, and all of a sudden, these people come out of the woodwork. Now you try to have equal protection for gays, and the same people are out in force. Those who did not lift a finger to help with civil rights or gay marriage, are claiming to be principled!

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Title: Video puts Muslim bakeries, florists in gay-rights spotlight


By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Sunday, April 5, 2015

Muslim bakers and florists have flown under the media radar during the recent uproar over Christian-owned businesses and gay rights, but a hidden-camera video may have changed that.

The video showing Muslim bakers in Michigan reluctant to bake a cake for a gay wedding went viral last weekend, snaring more than 2.2 million views in three days and igniting debate over whether Christian business owners are being singled out for lawsuits, complaints and media focus.

***

In the video, Mr. Crowder asks for a wedding cake with the message, “Ben and Steven forever.” Some employees refer him elsewhere. One baker shakes his head and says, “No, no, I don’t want it,” apparently referring to the cake-baking job.

“Many of the Muslim bakeries were kind enough and willing to serve us, but many of them were not,” Mr. Crowder said.

More at link...http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/..

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Where was the fake news, mainstream media when Moslem bakeries refused such cakes?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Stop being a wussy. If someone does not want my business, then I don't beg them for it. I go to their competition. I give the rejecting merchant a F*ck you! to boot. I don't cry or force them through government.

These cake losers crying to government need to man up. They need the swift kick in the ass they never got. There is no such thing as "gay rights." You don't have a "right" to your cake. Guess that logic is useless for today's progressive.

[Danke]

Where was the fake news, mainstream media when Moslem bakeries refused such cakes?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4


Another podcasts the Nigerian hates, shame he doesn't have a donation page.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/KKK-asking-black-baker-for-wedding-cake.jpg



http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Ku-Klux-Klan-Forces-Black-Baker-To-Make-Racist-KKK-Cake-So-Does-Memories-Pizza-Lose-Religious-Freedom.jpg

[Danke]

Slavery? No one is forcing the guy to be a baker. All we are saying that if he wants to be a baker, there are certain rules he has to follow.



This is why I mentioned that this is a distraction. Taxes and regulations have real consequences. They really stifle businesses, growth, etc. But preventing people from being racist or bigoted doesn't do the same; if anything, removing those kinds of barriers enhances productivity. Like you mentioned, his concerns about "God's commandments" are utter bogus. I mean, you could easily flip this. What if a guy believes that God's commandment is that he has to force people to live a Christian way of life? What if he uses government to do so? If you try and stop him, you are denying him entrance to heaven! Wouldn't that be a terrible thing?



Sure, there are poor applications of the principle, but that shouldn't mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Some traffic laws are not good, but that doesn't mean all of them are bad!

Plus, your buddy is basically complaining that he has to screen his emails. Cry me a river. Now, I would still say that when it comes to renting out your own private property, you should be able to rent it to whoever you want, at whatever price, only because of the personal nature of renting out living space. There is no hard rule...I'd also say that craigslist should allow you to post your listing as you want it. I think that it gets trickier with larger housing developers that claim EO or to be non-discriminatory...then I'd want more transparency.



I singled this out because I'm not sure this is against CL policy. I've definitely put gender restrictions on my postings.

SJWism etc. is getting insane (it is just the balance swinging one way after having swung in the other way for a long time; arc of history is long and all that), but that doesn't mean you toss out all of it.

I mean, there is a point to be made on why some people are planting their flag on this issue. From the colonial era to the 1960s, states had individual laws dictating how businesses could behave. No discrimination based on religion. No discrimination based on land-holding status. No discrimination based on beard length (yes, really). Criminilization of interracial marriage. Criminilization of homosexual acts. Criminilazation of serving a woman.

Yet, where were people protesting these unjust laws? Where were people talking about private property rights, freedom, liberty, etc? Then you have the Civil Rights act, and all of a sudden, these people come out of the woodwork. Now you try to have equal protection for gays, and the same people are out in force. Those who did not lift a finger to help with civil rights or gay marriage, are claiming to be principled!


How do you feel about bestiality or necrophilia? Can I make a business bake me a cake with that expressed on it too?

[Chester Copperpot]

One way to see it is that Colorado already has laws that force public accomodations to serve people regardless of that persons's status. I'm not sure why the Colorado baker thinks he is above the law. Plus, equal protection and all that.

Its a PRIVATE bakery... ITs not public...

[William Tell]

Slavery? No one is forcing the guy to be a baker. All we are saying that if he wants to be a baker, there are certain rules he has to follow. Commie.

[Chester Copperpot]

Slavery? No one is forcing the guy to be a baker. All we are saying that if he wants to be a baker, there are certain rules he has to follow.



This is why I mentioned that this is a distraction. Taxes and regulations have real consequences. They really stifle businesses, growth, etc. But preventing people from being racist or bigoted doesn't do the same; if anything, removing those kinds of barriers enhances productivity. Like you mentioned, his concerns about "God's commandments" are utter bogus. I mean, you could easily flip this. What if a guy believes that God's commandment is that he has to force people to live a Christian way of life? What if he uses government to do so? If you try and stop him, you are denying him entrance to heaven! Wouldn't that be a terrible thing?



Sure, there are poor applications of the principle, but that shouldn't mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Some traffic laws are not good, but that doesn't mean all of them are bad!

Plus, your buddy is basically complaining that he has to screen his emails. Cry me a river. Now, I would still say that when it comes to renting out your own private property, you should be able to rent it to whoever you want, at whatever price, only because of the personal nature of renting out living space. There is no hard rule...I'd also say that craigslist should allow you to post your listing as you want it. I think that it gets trickier with larger housing developers that claim EO or to be non-discriminatory...then I'd want more transparency.



I singled this out because I'm not sure this is against CL policy. I've definitely put gender restrictions on my postings.

SJWism etc. is getting insane (it is just the balance swinging one way after having swung in the other way for a long time; arc of history is long and all that), but that doesn't mean you toss out all of it.

I mean, there is a point to be made on why some people are planting their flag on this issue. From the colonial era to the 1960s, states had individual laws dictating how businesses could behave. No discrimination based on religion. No discrimination based on land-holding status. No discrimination based on beard length (yes, really). Criminilization of interracial marriage. Criminilization of homosexual acts. Criminilazation of serving a woman.

Yet, where were people protesting these unjust laws? Where were people talking about private property rights, freedom, liberty, etc? Then you have the Civil Rights act, and all of a sudden, these people come out of the woodwork. Now you try to have equal protection for gays, and the same people are out in force. Those who did not lift a finger to help with civil rights or gay marriage, are claiming to be principled!

just as long as its not crazy vegans who want a cake.. all the vegans should be rounded up and wiped out.

[angelatc]

One way to see it is that Colorado already has laws that force public accomodations to serve people regardless of that persons's status. I'm not sure why the Colorado baker thinks he is above the law. Plus, equal protection and all that.

Separation of church and state. Freedom of association. And all that.

[angelatc]

Slavery? No one is forcing the guy to be a baker. All we are saying that if he wants to be a baker, there are certain rules he has to follow.

!

"We" is always the anti-freedom position.

[Origanalist]

Slavery? No one is forcing the guy to be a baker. All we are saying that if he wants to be a baker, there are certain rules he has to follow.

!

Who is "we"? All that statement brings from me is a hearty fuck you. Count me out of your group.

[CaptUSA]

If the Court allows that a seller MUST sell to someone, then they can easily make the argument that a buyer MUST buy from someone.

FRN's are simply a medium of exchange - you are trading the fruits of your labor for the fruits of someone else's labor. There is no difference between the buyer and seller. In this case, the baker is choosing not use his cake to buy FRN's from this person. The reason or justification for his decision doesn't matter. It's stupid to even question it.

If the Court screws this up, then it won't be long until they force YOU to buy goods from certain people. You want a coat? Better hope the government doesn't find out why you chose one store over another! And certain special interests will most definitely use this to their advantage.

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-when-buying-and-selling-are-controlled-by-legislation-the-first-things-to-be-bought-and-sold-are-p-j-o-rourke-138067.jpg

[phill4paul]

If the Court allows that a seller MUST sell to someone, then they can easily make the argument that a buyer MUST buy from someone.

FRN's are simply a medium of exchange - you are trading the fruits of your labor for the fruits of someone else's labor. There is no difference between the buyer and seller. In this case, the baker is choosing not use his cake to buy FRN's from this person. The reason or justification for his decision doesn't matter. It's stupid to even question it.

If the Court screws this up, then it won't be long until they force YOU to buy goods from certain people. You want a coat? Better hope the government doesn't find out why you chose one store over another! And certain special interests will most definitely use this to their advantage.

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-when-buying-and-selling-are-controlled-by-legislation-the-first-things-to-be-bought-and-sold-are-p-j-o-rourke-138067.jpg

Does health insurance mandates strike a bell?

[asurfaholic]

As a new business owner I've already been through people who want to hire me but I didn't want to work for them.

I think the mistake the baker made was letting his reasons be known why he was refusing service.

He could have simply just said no and left it at that. No reason to insult the people by explaining it to them why not. You aren't legally required to answer questions from people and if they persisted and made a scene, you could have them removed from your shop.

Let the snowflakes down easy so hopefully they don't break.

[Madison320]

Is it expecting too much for them to finally assert that a business can refuse service to anyone for any reason? That it takes two parties to exchange something? That one part doesn't automatically give up their rights because they're exchanging their product or service for FRN's?

Yeah - probably too much to ask.

Yeah, that's what bothers me about the whole "religious freedom" argument made by the right. Why limit freedom to just "religious" freedom? Why can't we have freedom in general?

[Madison320]

Where was the fake news, mainstream media when Moslem bakeries refused such cakes?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

I disagree with that video. I don't see the difference between refusing to bake a gay cake and refusing to sell a cake to a black guy. Either way the owner is being forced to enter into a contract by the state.

[CaptUSA]

Does health insurance mandates strike a bell?

Similar, yes. Although, in that case they didn't force you to buy insurance from a certain carrier. (Just one on an approved list.)

Imagine if a solicitor came to you and asked you to buy something - and you turned him down. You better have a good reason and the ability to prove it.

[Madison320]

If the Court allows that a seller MUST sell to someone, then they can easily make the argument that a buyer MUST buy from someone.


Except they won't because most voters don't own a business. Democracy is all about sticking it to the rich in return for votes.

[CaptUSA]

Except they won't because most voters don't own a business. Democracy is all about sticking it to the rich in return for votes.

The point of that post is that EVERYONE is both a buyer and seller at the same time. Every time you make an exchange, you give something and get something. Doesn't matter which side of the transaction you're on. You're both getting something and giving something.

It's not a stretch to suggest that if you can force someone to sell to someone against their will, you can also force someone to buy. Use the example of a door-to-door vacuum salesman. If you decide not to buy from him, perhaps because he's gay - first, you're an idiot - but second, he could say you discriminated against him and win. Because the precedent would have been set.

As to "democracy is about sticking it to the rich", I'm not sure I'm seeing what you're seeing. If anything, our democracy is about making it look like you're sticking it to the rich while giving them lots of favors and protections, thereby making them even richer.

[Madison320]

The point of that post is that EVERYONE is both a buyer and seller at the same time. Every time you make an exchange, you give something and get something. Doesn't matter which side of the transaction you're on. You're both getting something and giving something.

It's not a stretch to suggest that if you can force someone to sell to someone against their will, you can also force someone to buy. Use the example of a door-to-door vacuum salesman. If you decide not to buy from him, perhaps because he's gay - first, you're an idiot - but second, he could say you discriminated against him and win. Because the precedent would have been set.

As to "democracy is about sticking it to the rich", I'm not sure I'm seeing what you're seeing. If anything, our democracy is about making it look like you're sticking it to the rich while giving them lots of favors and protections, thereby making them even richer.

Do you have any example where the rich have special laws in their favor? When I say rich I'm talking about people getting rich in the private sector. I can think of a few really bad laws that discriminate terribly against the rich. Progressive taxation. Anti trust laws. Anti discrimination laws. Don't many of the civil rights laws target businesses with more than 50 employees?

One thing that bothers me about your post is that you are saying anti discrimination laws are bad because they could potentially be used against "buyers", in other words "us". But that implies it's ok now because it's only be used against the evil rich.

[Swordsmyth]

Do you have any example where the rich have special laws in their favor?
Bill in Congress Would Limit Crony Capitalism in Sports (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512133-Bill-in-Congress-Would-Limit-Crony-Capitalism-in-Sports)

[randbot16]

Yet another distraction piece from the MSM sausage factory, and it looks like so many on this forum are just eating it up... :/

[Madison320]

Bill in Congress Would Limit Crony Capitalism in Sports (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512133-Bill-in-Congress-Would-Limit-Crony-Capitalism-in-Sports)

That's true but I'll bet the corporation that owns the stadium still pays more net in taxes than millions of poor people. On top of that I'm pretty sure individual welfare (SS, Medicare, etc) dwarfs corporate welfare(farm subsidies, stadiums, etc). Probably hundreds of times more spent on individual welfare.

It's not the Illuminati or the Rothchilds, or the Freemasons that control things, it's the average voter who wants free stuff.

[Swordsmyth]

That's true but I'll bet the corporation that owns the stadium still pays more net in taxes than millions of poor people. On top of that I'm pretty sure individual welfare (SS, Medicare, etc) dwarfs corporate welfare(farm subsidies, stadiums, etc). Probably hundreds of times more spent on individual welfare.

It's not the Illuminati or the Rothchilds, or the Freemasons that control things, it's the average voter who wants free stuff.

LOL What percentage of the budget is the DoD? Most of which is waste, fraud and abuse. Not to mention the rest of the budget.

[euphemia]

Slavery? No one is forcing the guy to be a baker. All we are saying that if he wants to be a baker, there are certain rules he has to follow.

The federal government can never, ever come after a private citizen and force him to agree with an idealogy in order to do business--especially when deeply held religious beliefs are involved.

Gary Johnson tried this path. Didn't work.

[Madison320]

LOL What percentage of the budget is the DoD? Most of which is waste, fraud and abuse. Not to mention the rest of the budget.

That's a good point but SS and Medicare are double the military budget. And I'm guessing that most of the military budget goes to salaries not a couple rich guys.

The laws favor the poor and middle class and there's a huge transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor in this country. It's called socialism. Do you dispute that?

[Swordsmyth]

That's a good point but SS and Medicare are double the military budget. And I'm guessing that most of the military budget goes to salaries not a couple rich guys.

The laws favor the poor and middle class and there's a huge transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor in this country. It's called socialism. Do you dispute that?

Medicare is a gift to big Pharma and the insurance companies, it enables them to jack their prices into the stratosphere and still survive, and most of the DoD budget goes to Contractors.

[Madison320]

Medicare is a gift to big Pharma and the insurance companies, it enables them to jack their prices into the stratosphere and still survive, and most of the DoD budget goes to Contractors.

Ok, I'll admit that in the process of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor (socialism), most of the wealth ends up back with the rich, although usually not the ones that rightfully owned the wealth before it was redistributed. But wealth is not distributed from the poor to rich, just from one set of rich to another. Remember that the majority of tax dollars come from the rich. But the root cause of the problem is the voting system where parasites are allowed to vote. Vote for me and I'll steal for you. That's the main problem. That's why the laws favor the poor.

[Swordsmyth]

Ok, I'll admit that in the process of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor (socialism), most of the wealth ends up back with the rich, although usually not the ones that rightfully owned the wealth before it was redistributed. But wealth is not distributed from the poor to rich, just from one set of rich to another. But the root cause of the problem is the voting system where parasites are allowed to vote. Vote for me and I'll steal for you. That's the main problem. That's why the laws favor the poor.
They favor the poor and the Super Rich, they target the Middle Class and the ordinary Rich, because that is where the greatest wealth creation is, the poor are pawns bought with cheap bribes to do the will of the Kleptocrats.
I think you and I are now in agreement.

[Madison320]

They favor the poor and the Super Rich, they target the Middle Class and the ordinary Rich, because that is where the greatest wealth creation is, the poor are pawns bought with cheap bribes to do the will of the Kleptocrats.
I think you and I are now in agreement.

I think so.

[AZJoe]

https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20046432_1544603038939997_2865766658713498485_n.jp g?oh=30dd3a8d2317441ca5fb542ef326013b&oe=59F211F6

[Swordsmyth]

https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20046432_1544603038939997_2865766658713498485_n.jp g?oh=30dd3a8d2317441ca5fb542ef326013b&oe=59F211F6
Perfect.

[Suzanimal]

The Supreme Court and the Right to Not Bake a Cake

12/06/2017

Ryan McMaken

Anyone who claims there's too much democracy in the United States needs to keep in mind that American law and policy is ultimately decided by five millionaires at the Supreme Court.

This week, we're being reminded that the Supreme Court of the United States is hearing arguments in the case of a small-time baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. This, apparently, is a matter of such importance that it requires the intervention of the federal government and its court system to decide for whom a tiny small business shall be forced to bake desserts. In other words, the court's majority of five people will decide for 320 million people what is mandatory for anyone who wants to open a small business in the United States.

The fact that Americans regard this sort of thing as perfectly natural and legitimate illustrates just how thoroughly Americans have abandoned all notions of self government and any opposition to rule from distant, powerful elites.

Opponents of Donald Trump may be wringing their hands about the rise of populism, but the public's continued deference to the Supreme Court illustrates quite well that populism in the United States, far from growing out of control, is quite timid and of no threat to anyone currently in power.

In the discussion of the Court's decision to hear the case, we're reminded of two important issues:

1. The Supreme Court's ability to decide the Constitutionality of every law in the United States — from local ordinances to federal statutes — is based on a fanciful myth.

2. The American legal concept of "public accommodation" essentially abolishes property rights. The proper remedy is to restore property rights — and to steer clear of endless and pointless debates about religious freedom or freedom of speech.

...

https://mises.org/power-market/supreme-court-and-right-not-bake-cake

[Raginfridus]

Bakers need to raise their cakes in gender-incloosive environments, or the cake will not know what kind of cake it is and become disoriented.

[euphemia]

Exactly, Suz. And it says the government will bring full force on people of faith over a cake.

[Brian4Liberty]

https://mises.org/power-market/supreme-court-and-right-not-bake-cake

The obvious reaction if the court decides to force someone to work for someone else will be to go to a gay bakery, have them bake a cake depicting breasts with hands on them, with the caption, "I luv boobies" written on it. Then demand that they attend the bachelor party to set up the cake while strippers are dancing. Seems reasonable.

[nikcers]

What would Scalia say? Jiggery pokery, pure applesauce! Too bad they killed him, I always wondered if they killed him in order to get people to vote for the supreme court like to get conservatives to vote for Trump or Democrats to vote for Hillary. So many people held their tongues until they were told that they have to vote for republicrat so they could pick a republican/democrat for the supreme court.

[AuH20]

The USC just ruled in favor of the Baker. 7-2 Ruling.

[Anti Federalist]

The USC just ruled in favor of the Baker. 7-2 Ruling.

This is pretty big news actually.

[EBounding]

I hear that the ruling was due to the particulars of the case and had little to due with the fundamental discrimination issue.

[timosman]

The USC just ruled in favor of the Baker. 7-2 Ruling.

Thanks, Obama.:cool:

[Suzanimal]

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection.

The ruling was 7-2.

The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips, who cited his beliefs as a Christian, but leaves unsettled broader constitutional questions on religious liberty.

"Today's decision is remarkably narrow, and leaves for another day virtually all of the major constitutional questions that this case presented," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "It's hard to see the decision setting a precedent."

The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom was made to justify discrimination.

The case was one of the most anticipated rulings of the term and was considered by some as a follow up from the court's decision three years ago to clear the way for same-sex marriage nationwide. That opinion, also written by Kennedy, expressed respect for those with religious objections to gay marriage.

"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," he wrote Monday.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who represented Phillips, praised the ruling.

"Jack serves all customers; he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs," Waggoner said in a statement. "Creative professionals who serve all people should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment."

Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized the narrowness of the opinion.

"The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people," Melling said in a statement.

Because Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in part, the judgment of the court on the case was 7-2 but the opinion on the rationale was 6-2.

Religious tolerance

Kennedy wrote that there is room for religious tolerance, pointing specifically to how the Colorado commission treated Phillips by downplaying his religious liberty concerns.

"At the same time the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," Kennedy wrote, adding that the "neutral consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here."

"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy said, adding to say that the case was narrow.

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," the opinion states.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that "when a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding -- not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings -- and that is the service (the couple) were denied."

...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html

[timosman]

I hear that the ruling was due to the particulars of the case and had little to due with the fundamental discrimination issue.

The baker was a transgender?

[jkr]

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION!

...M'ERICA?...M'AYBE...

[timosman]

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION!

...M'ERICA?...M'AYBE...

...M'ERICA?...You will be forced to associate whether you like it or not. You don't want us to call you racist, do you?:cool:

[Cdn_for_liberty]

What happened to the Judge?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLo86Pkk_us

[timosman]

What happened to the Judge?

He's afraid the same arguments will be used to discriminate against Italians. :cool:

[jkr]

...M'ERICA?...You will be forced to associate whether you like it or not. You don't want us to call you racist, do you?:cool:
maybe I dooo...tell me more...

[Madison320]

I hear that the ruling was due to the particulars of the case and had little to due with the fundamental discrimination issue.

That would be my guess. I can't imagine the SC ruling in favor of individual rights and against discrimination laws in general.

[angelatc]

This is pretty big news actually.

I have not been on the internet up to this point. Liberal heads must be exploding.

And it was 5-2? Wow.

[Zippyjuan]

Court ruling was narrow- focusing on how the bakers were treated by the justice system- not on how the customer was treated.

[angelatc]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html

It appears that most of the lefties came over because the Colorado Commission behaved like a bunch of power-trippin' dickheads.


At one hearing, Kennedy stressed, commissioners repeatedly “endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.” And at a later meeting, Kennedy pointed out, one commissioner “even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.” “This sentiment,” Kennedy admonished, “is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.” Moreover, Kennedy added, the commission’s treatment of Phillips’ religious objections was at odds with its rulings in the cases of bakers who refused to create cakes “with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage.”

Here, Kennedy wrote, Phillips “was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided.” Because he did not have such a proceeding, the court concluded, the commission’s order – which, among other things, required Phillips to sell same-sex couples wedding cakes or anything else that he would sell to opposite-sex couples and mandated remedial training and compliance reports – “must be set aside.”

The court's gonna do what the court's gonna do. I'm primarily interested in Gorsuch, because I have no idea what he's gonna do. I keep waiting for him to yank the football away, but this doesn't seem to be the case where he does that



In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch pushed back against both the Ginsburg and the Kagan opinions. In his view, the different bakers’ cases – refusing to make cakes for a same-sex marriage and refusing to make cakes disparaging same-sex marriage – were, from a legal perspective, similar, and the commission was wrong to treat them differently just because it regarded Phillips’ beliefs as “offensive.” Using strong language, Gorsuch emphasized that, in the United States, “the place of secular officials isn’t to sit in judgment of religious beliefs, but only to protect their free exercise. Just as it is the ‘proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence’ that we protect speech that we hate, it must be the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs that we find offensive.”

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately, in an opinion joined by Gorsuch, to address an issue that the court did not decide: whether an order mandating that Phillips bake cakes for same-sex weddings violates his right to free speech. In Thomas’ view, Phillips’ creation of custom wedding cakes is exactly the kind of “expressive” conduct protected by the First Amendment. Requiring Phillips to make such cakes for same-sex marriage, even when it will convey a message that “he believes his faith forbids,” violates his First Amendment rights.

via: http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rules-narrowly-for-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/

[angelatc]

Court ruling was narrow- focusing on how the bakers were treated by the justice system- not on how the customer was treated.

Fuck the customer. It's the job of the business to make them happy, not the federal government.

And as noted above, the government didn't have any problem with people who made cakes disparaging same sex weddings. So like I said, fuck the customer. And I only said that because I'll get in trouble for saying what I want to say.

[Swordsmyth]

The USC just ruled in favor of the Baker. 7-2 Ruling.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. kkHH-tNka2Xh5r7y-ktUfAHaEK%26pid%3D15.1&f=1 https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. BykHJgR3CcI2jAVEUUSOPgHaF7%26pid%3D15.1&f=1

[Swordsmyth]

What happened to the Judge?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLo86Pkk_us

Q U E E R S stick together.

Judge Swamp exposed himself as deepstate over Russiagate, I won't be surprised if he goes full statist now.

[dannno]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that "when a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding -- not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings -- and that is the service (the couple) were denied."

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/73335136.jpg

[dannno]

Q U E E R S stick together.

Judge Swamp exposed himself as deepstate over Russiagate, I won't be surprised if he goes full statist now.

He'll do what he needs to so that he appears neutral enough to get approved by congress for his Supreme Court nomination.

[Swordsmyth]

He'll do what he needs to so that he appears neutral enough to get approved by congress for his Supreme Court nomination.

He has gone far beyond that, I will be severely disappointed if DJTvsg nominates him for anything, he would turn into another Republican nominated justice that flips to voting psychotic liberal.

[H_H]

What happened to the Judge?
"I think it's a dangerous ruling"
Dangerous isn't always a bad thing.

[lilymc]

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. kkHH-tNka2Xh5r7y-ktUfAHaEK%26pid%3D15.1&f=1 https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. BykHJgR3CcI2jAVEUUSOPgHaF7%26pid%3D15.1&f=1


Yep, finally some good news.

[dannno]

He has gone far beyond that, I will be severely disappointed if DJTvsg nominates him for anything, he would turn into another Republican nominated justice that flips to voting psychotic liberal.

That is completely ridiculous. I know you haven't been here long, but the Judge has been a staple around here for over a decade and I think it's only been in the last year that I have seen anything that I wasn't on board with.. and I know why he is doing it. If he was "The Judge" on these recent issues then he wouldn't get approved after his nomination. Now he gets to appear neutral. It all started happening after his talks with Trump. It makes perfect sense. He knows he is on deck, so he is playing his swamp cards.

Trump isn't the only one who got a 4D chess set for Christmas a couple years ago.

[timosman]

That is completely ridiculous. I know you haven't been here long, but the Judge has been a staple around here for over a decade and I think it's only been in the last year that I have seen anything that I wasn't on board with.. and I know why he is doing it. If he was "The Judge" on these recent issues then he wouldn't get approved after his nomination. Now he gets to appear neutral. It all started happening after his talks with Trump. It makes perfect sense. He knows he is on deck, so he is playing his swamp cards.

Trump isn't the only one who got a 4D chess set for Christmas a couple years ago.

Where can you buy it?

[Swordsmyth]

That is completely ridiculous. I know you haven't been here long, but the Judge has been a staple around here for over a decade and I think it's only been in the last year that I have seen anything that I wasn't on board with.. and I know why he is doing it. If he was "The Judge" on these recent issues then he wouldn't get approved after his nomination. Now he gets to appear neutral. It all started happening after his talks with Trump. It makes perfect sense. He knows he is on deck, so he is playing his swamp cards.

Trump isn't the only one who got a 4D chess set for Christmas a couple years ago.
He is going too far, he was either a deep sleeper or he sold out.

[timosman]

He is going too far, he was either a deep sleeper or he sold out.

Deep sleeper. He got a good deal for himself and the kids.

[Gumba of Liberty]

Adding the Judge to the bench would make Gorsuch look like RBG

[Swordsmyth]

Adding the Judge to the bench would make Gorsuch look like RBG

Or make RBG look like Gorsuch.

[Suzanimal]

I'm with Bob Murphy on the cake issue.

1003674136227524608

[shakey1]

https://www.mydoorsign.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Right-Refuse-Services-Sign-S-7385.gif

[H_H]

I'm with Bob Murphy on the cake issue.

1003674136227524608 Too try-hard to be neutral. Uggh. Such a problem. Some libertarians try so, so hard to be equally opposed to both left and right. That way I guess they can feel more aloof from it all. Superior.

Guys, pick a side. Leave the platonic world of isoceles triangles. Stick your neck out. Get your hands dirty.

If one cares about actually getting a free society, one should obviously take Roseanne's side against the Lying, Stinking Media. Strongly. In fact, having your country's entire media become subsumed into a united propaganda operation, owned and controlled by a tiny group of evil men, all of one small ethnic group, using advanced cognitive manipulation tricks with no qualms nor limits, is such a distressing and disastrous situation that it is imperative to bend every effort to opposing the Propo-masters and bringing down this enslavement-promotion system. Else liberty cannot long survive. Obviously. I shouldn't even have to be writing this stuff, it's so obvious.

Enslavement Promotion Matrix = Bad. You don't defend anything they do. You don't talk about how they've got free speech or other rights. You don't, in fact, paint them as decent fellow humans in any way. They sure don't paint you and me as humans. Think about that. In this communication war to destroy their system or to destroy liberty, if they're smart, and we're stupid, they win. Come on! They already have every advantage:

they control 1 trillion dollars worth of assets,
we have basically zip;
they own and control every television station, newspaper, movie studio, university, and other opinion-making nexus in the country, as well as Google and Facebook,
we have, umm.... umm.... Liberty Magazine?

Ya don't fight fire with kazoos and pom-poms.

Statement in favor of the Heroic Baker Hero ought to be a lot stronger, too. This guy stood up for God and Family, Faith and Country, he took on the Globohomo hegemon without fear, never flinching. And like for instance Ron Paul, he is a good, upstanding man of fine character, who took the time to raise good children, who has quietly led exemplary life.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wzxIPRUEOw

http://masterpiececakes.com/




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQrf67EItY0



He is someone we can look up to and hold up as an example of how to live. He is doing his part to save civilization.

[Ender]

He is going too far, he was either a deep sleeper or he sold out.

NO.

The Judge is saying that the premise of the ruling is not correct and is in fact against real liberty.

Ron Paul said the same thing:




Government Should Leave Bakers Alone
By Ron Paul
Ron Paul Institute
December 12, 2017

Instead of considering whether Colorado has violated the bakery’s rights of property and contract, the Supreme Court is considering whether Colorado’s actions violate the bakery’s religious liberty. The argument for a religious liberty violation is based on the fact that the bakery owner’s refusal to bake the cake was rooted in his religious objection to same-sex marriage. Looking just at this argument means that a victory for the bakery would implicitly accept the legitimacy of laws dictating to whom private businesses must provide services, as long as an exemption is made for those with religious objections. This reduces property and contract rights to special privileges held by business owners with “sincere religious convictions.” It also allows judges, bureaucrats, and politicians to determine who is really acting on sincere religious convictions.

Just as business owners have the right to decide who to do business with, individuals have the right to form any arrangement they wish as long as they do not engage in force or fraud. This includes entering into what many consider unconventional or even immoral marriage contracts. What no individual has the right to do is use government to force others to accept his definition of marriage.

Even if the bakery wins in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, its victory will only protect those businesses acting on a “sincere religious conviction.” Those who oppose forcing bakers to bake cakes and who support private business owners’ right to decide who to accept as customers should work to restore respect for everyone’s rights.

[H_H]

The Judge is saying that the premise of the ruling is not correct and is in fact against real liberty.

Maybe he is saying that. If so, it is somewhere, quietly, to himself. He is certainly not saying that in public. But he may be saying it somewhere. I'm not saying you're wrong.

[timosman]

The Judge is saying that the premise of the ruling is not correct and is in fact against real liberty.

What about the original ruling?

[Swordsmyth]

NO.

The Judge is saying that the premise of the ruling is not correct and is in fact against real liberty.

Ron Paul said the same thing:

What universe are you living in?
Judge Swamp said it was a dangerous ruling because it might lead to business owners getting to decide who they wanted to do business with.

Before the election when he thought Hitlery would win he said she would be master and commander of the DOJ and could pardon herself, now DJTvsg is in office he has gone full Russiagate and claims Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey.

He was either a deep sleeper agent all along or he sold out.

[Ender]

What universe are you living in?
Judge Swamp said it was a dangerous ruling because it might lead to business owners getting to decide who they wanted to do business with.


What universe are YOU living in?

The Judge said it was a dangerous ruling because it might lead to business owners getting to decide who they wanted to do business with BASED ON RELIGIOUS BELIEFS and not freedom of action.

The 1st Amendment says that Congress shall make NO LAW concerning religion- this ruling opens a flood gate of danger as the court is now meddling in an area that it has absolutely no jurisdiction. Soon they will be deciding what constitutes a religion and what does not.


Before the election when he thought Hitlery would win he said she would be master and commander of the DOJ and could pardon herself, now DJTvsg is in office he has gone full Russiagate and claims Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey.

He was either a deep sleeper agent all along or he sold out.

My only issue with the Judge was when he supported Trump and believed him. He is now much clearer on that issue.

[Swordsmyth]

What universe are YOU living in?

The Judge said it was a dangerous ruling because it might lead to business owners getting to decide who they wanted to do business with BASED ON RELIGIOUS BELIEFS and not freedom of action.

The 1st Amendment says that Congress shall make NO LAW concerning religion- this ruling opens a flood gate of danger as the court is now meddling in an area that it has absolutely no jurisdiction. Soon they will be deciding what constitutes a religion and what does not.
Italians are a religion?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLo86Pkk_us

Why is having freedom of religion worse than not having it?


My only issue with the Judge was when he supported Trump and believed him. He is now much clearer on that issue.

Thank you for clarifying that you are fine with Judge Swamp supporting Hitlery.

[Ender]

Italians are a religion?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLo86Pkk_us

Why is having freedom of religion worse than not having it?



Thank you for clarifying that you are fine with Judge Swamp supporting Hitlery.

Thank you for clarifying that you don't know a thing about freedom.

Again from Ron Paul:


Instead of considering whether Colorado has violated the bakery’s rights of property and contract, the Supreme Court is considering whether Colorado’s actions violate the bakery’s religious liberty. The argument for a religious liberty violation is based on the fact that the bakery owner’s refusal to bake the cake was rooted in his religious objection to same-sex marriage. Looking just at this argument means that a victory for the bakery would implicitly accept the legitimacy of laws dictating to whom private businesses must provide services, as long as an exemption is made for those with religious objections. This reduces property and contract rights to special privileges held by business owners with “sincere religious convictions.” It also allows judges, bureaucrats, and politicians to determine who is really acting on sincere religious convictions.

^^^THIS^^^ is very dangerous.

[timosman]

Has anyone seen Ender and Zippy together? :cool:

[Swordsmyth]

Thank you for clarifying that you don't know a thing about freedom.

Again from Ron Paul:



^^^THIS^^^ is very dangerous.

You apparently know nothing about freedom, if I can't act on my religion at all I am less free than if I can whether the government decides to not recognize some religions or not, this is not perfect but it is a step in the right direction, if they had ruled the other way they would have said that nobody is ever allowed to act on their religion ever.

[H_H]

What universe are you living in?

What universe are YOU living in?

Thank you for clarifying that you don't know a thing about freedom.

You apparently know nothing about freedom,

https://www.dailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/migration/2017/201704/NEWS_170429320_AR_0_PKNKGIJVSHMP.jpg?w=535

"Ahem. Umm, I'd like to ask..."


http://www.everydaykiss.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rodney-King.jpg


In conclusion: Nope!

[Ender]

You apparently know nothing about freedom, if I can't act on my religion at all I am less free than if I can whether the government decides to not recognize some religions or not, this is not perfect but it is a step in the right direction, if they had ruled the other way they would have said that nobody is ever allowed to act on their religion ever.

Here is Ron Paul on this- maybe you should listen to him.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=51&v=kDcISDXYnkY

[Swordsmyth]

Here is Ron Paul on this- maybe you should listen to him.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=51&v=kDcISDXYnkY

Ron is saying the ruling didn't go far enough and he is right, Judge Swamp is saying it went too far.

[Ender]

Ron is saying the ruling didn't go far enough and he is right, Judge Swamp is saying it went too far.

Maybe you should actually watch it.

[Swordsmyth]

Maybe you should actually watch it.

Maybe you should actually watch Judge Swamp.



Again from Ron Paul:

Instead of considering whether Colorado has violated the bakery’s rights of property and contract, the Supreme Court is considering whether Colorado’s actions violate the bakery’s religious liberty. The argument for a religious liberty violation is based on the fact that the bakery owner’s refusal to bake the cake was rooted in his religious objection to same-sex marriage. Looking just at this argument means that a victory for the bakery would implicitly accept the legitimacy of laws dictating to whom private businesses must provide services, as long as an exemption is made for those with religious objections. This reduces property and contract rights to special privileges held by business owners with “sincere religious convictions.” It also allows judges, bureaucrats, and politicians to determine who is really acting on sincere religious convictions.



Ron is saying the ruling didn't go far enough.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLo86Pkk_us

Judge Swamp says it went too far, people might actually use it to decline service to people they don't want to serve, OH HORRORS! that's DANGEROUS!

[Anti Globalist]

Good thing Hillary didn't win. Otherwise the result would of been different.

[timosman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JYbwpSij8E

[H_H]

Whee! I wanna Ride that Slide!

https://d.justpo.st/media/images/2014/01/e63b85328c5de6dc6a0e4f78c6649267.jpg

I think we all do here, though some may be more reserved about it.