Supreme Court Rules in Bakers Favor

Help Support CattleToday:

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
14,984
Reaction score
28
Location
Texas
The wedding itself was not even being conducted in Colorado but out of state. It seems to me the bakery was targeted.
 

Bestoutwest

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
2,914
Reaction score
25
Location
Idaho
Several interesting points from this article.
1) I like the wording of the ruling, speaks to moderation and unification of society instead of clear decisive "you're on my team vs. you're against me."
"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," Kennedy wrote.
2) Why would anyone turn down good money for work? Does he turn away adulterous lovers getting married? Does he make sure all those that he's making cakes for are virgins? If the bride has had an abortion?
3) Why not just give them the excuse "I'm too busy" and save yourself the headache of all this litigation?
4) What will this mean for the future?
 

True Grit Farms

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
9,453
Reaction score
4
Location
Middle Georgia
The Supreme Court dropped the ball and tried to appease everyone. If a business owner doesn't want to serve someone that should be their right as long as it's a private business on private property. This case is a private property rights case and should of been pushed as such. Maybe the right is waiting for the POTUS to appoint another justice to the SC. Do unto others as they will do unto you, if given the opportunity.
 

greybeard

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
20,744
Reaction score
1,761
Location
Cleveland Tx
True Grit Farms":140z8nnp said:
The Supreme Court dropped the ball and tried to appease everyone. If a business owner doesn't want to serve someone that should be their right as long as it's a private business on private property. This case is a private property rights case and should of been pushed as such.
Uh....No.
Not on general principles anyway..or just on a whim.
But, religious principles merit a different and special consideration in American society due in part, to the 1st amendment. SCOTUS realized that had they sided with the customer, they would have violated the second part of this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
 

Son of Butch

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
7,494
Reaction score
1,268
Location
Frost Bite Falls, Minnesota
greybeard":cti5cdi8 said:
True Grit Farms":cti5cdi8 said:
The Supreme Court dropped the ball and tried to appease everyone. If a business owner doesn't want to serve someone that should be their right as long as it's a private business on private property. This case is a private property rights case and should of been pushed as such.
Uh....No.
Not on general principles anyway..or just on a whim.
But, religious principles merit a different and special consideration in American society due in part, to the 1st amendment. SCOTUS realized that had they sided with the customer, they would have violated the second part of this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
It was Civil Rights vs Freedom of Religion case.
7-2 = Two judges still got it wrong, but a step in the right direction.
 

Son of Butch

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
7,494
Reaction score
1,268
Location
Frost Bite Falls, Minnesota
backhoeboogie":2e38q32l said:
The wedding itself was not even being conducted in Colorado but out of state.
It seems to me the bakery was targeted.
The sad part to me is legal fees and 6 years of litigation when he was in the right all along.
6 years of headaches and wasting money in defense of common sense, that one baker had to suffer for future benefit
to Nation because civil rights attorneys wanted to make a name for themselves.

He offered to bake them a cake or whatever baked goods they wanted, but that he did not do celebration decoration
on items offensive to his religious beliefs such as Halloween cakes and Gay marriage wedding cakes.
Easier to drum up emotional and financial support for lgbt rights than for Warlocks and Witches, so they pursued that route.
 

sstterry

CT Supporter
CT Supporter
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
4,758
Reaction score
1,609
Location
Bulls Gap, TN
True Grit Farms":3w4ym9gr said:
If a business owner doesn't want to serve someone that should be their right as long as it's a private business on private property.

So Blacks or any other race can be excluded from businesses or restaurants? What if I just make them sit in the back or use a separate water fountain? Maybe I just don't want to serve any Jews?

I am not trying to pick a fight, because I agree with the ruling. But it is not as simple an answer as we would like.
 

True Grit Farms

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
9,453
Reaction score
4
Location
Middle Georgia
sstterry":1xu5v4qx said:
True Grit Farms":1xu5v4qx said:
If a business owner doesn't want to serve someone that should be their right as long as it's a private business on private property.

So Blacks or any other race can be excluded from businesses or restaurants? What if I just make them sit in the back or use a separate water fountain? Maybe I just don't want to serve any Jews?

I am not trying to pick a fight, because I agree with the ruling. But it is not as simple an answer as we would like.

Yes that's exactly the way I feel. If you don't take that stance how long will it be before anyone can come on your property and do as they please? Government is already telling some businesses who they can and can't hire.
 

greybeard

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
20,744
Reaction score
1,761
Location
Cleveland Tx
Agree with sstterry.
We BTDT, and I don't want to see us go back to it.
Slippery slope anyway.


We all require a little respect.....
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
14,984
Reaction score
28
Location
Texas
Son of Butch":xtqjz73w said:
backhoeboogie":xtqjz73w said:
The wedding itself was not even being conducted in Colorado but out of state.
It seems to me the bakery was targeted.
The sad part to me is legal fees and 6 years of litigation when he was in the right all along.
6 years of headaches and wasting money in defense of common sense, that one baker had to suffer for future benefit
to Nation because civil rights attorneys wanted to make a name for themselves.

He offered to bake them a cake or whatever baked goods they wanted, but that he did not do celebration decoration
on items offensive to his religious beliefs such as Halloween cakes and Gay marriage wedding cakes.
Easier to drum up emotional and financial support for lgbt rights than for Warlocks and Witches, so they pursued that route.

He had previously refused to make Halloween cakes. He had refused to make divorce cakes. His beliefs and actions set him up as a target, (in my opinion). The "wedding" was not even conducted in that state. This means you get a huge wedding cake and transport it ? Give me a break here !! Charlie Craig and David Mullins wanted to make a statement and their community and the media jumped on that bandwagon. The media is not going to tell you the whole story here - that you can count on.
 

sim.-ang.king

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
5,695
Reaction score
490
Location
Southern IL
Bestoutwest":fn6v8drg said:
Several interesting points from this article.
1) I like the wording of the ruling, speaks to moderation and unification of society instead of clear decisive "you're on my team vs. you're against me."
"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," Kennedy wrote.
2) Why would anyone turn down good money for work? Does he turn away adulterous lovers getting married? Does he make sure all those that he's making cakes for are virgins? If the bride has had an abortion?
3) Why not just give them the excuse "I'm too busy" and save yourself the headache of all this litigation?
4) What will this mean for the future?
He would sell them a pre-made wedding cake, or any other cake. He just didn't want to make a cake glorifying their gay wedding. He even tried to find another bakery to do it for them, when they refused the pre-made cakes.

This was another case of Guilty until proven Innocent.
 

hurleyjd

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
5,236
Reaction score
154
Location
Yantis, Texas
"narrow refers to the ruling only covering a very narrow area of the law.
The ruling was about the baker not getting fair treatment from the state agency when they filed a complain against him, the SC never said that he could discriminate"

Above is a post from someone explaining why the decision was narrow.
 

greybeard

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
20,744
Reaction score
1,761
Location
Cleveland Tx
hurleyjd":75y6f5oo said:
"narrow refers to the ruling only covering a very narrow area of the law.
The ruling was about the baker not getting fair treatment from the state agency when they filed a complain against him, the SC never said that he could discriminate"

Above is a post from someone explaining why the decision was narrow.
But, I do believe some of the media referred to the ruling as a "narrow margin" which means how closely the justices lined up, not how narrow or how broadly the scope of the ruling was.
 

Bestoutwest

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
2,914
Reaction score
25
Location
Idaho
greybeard":2eyp1iar said:
hurleyjd":2eyp1iar said:
"narrow refers to the ruling only covering a very narrow area of the law.
The ruling was about the baker not getting fair treatment from the state agency when they filed a complain against him, the SC never said that he could discriminate"

Above is a post from someone explaining why the decision was narrow.
But, I do believe some of the media referred to the ruling as a "narrow margin" which means how closely the justices lined up, not how narrow or how broadly the scope of the ruling was.

I saw that too and I thought "How stupid can these people be?" 7-2 is a winning percentage of .777, sounds pretty convincing to me.
 

Jogeephus

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
24,228
Reaction score
1
Location
South Georgia
All this could be avoided if people would follow the constitution and the Good Book. Had the gov't followed the constitution and kept their noses out of religious things such as marriage this wouldn't be an issue. Had the parties involved followed the Good Book and the Golden Rule the baker could have explained his reservations and beliefs and the couple could have easily shown empathy and found another baker. Its really simple if you think about it and its the same reason I will go outside to pass gas rather than doing it in a crowded room even though - to me - my farts don't stink but I'm not going to force this belief on you. But here again, had the gov't followed the constitution this never would have happened which just proves if it wan't for the gov't we wouldn't need them.
 

Latest posts

Top