Respectfully, I decline to make your cake

[THCDDM4]

Didn't those folks go out of business over this? Any reparations from the gay community forthcoming?

They're still in business. We get stuff from them all the time.

I do believe he was forced to stop making wedding cakes altogether since he chose not to make gay wedding cakes. It was all or nothing so he chose nothing to stay true to his faith.

This is a great decision! Nice to see some good SCOTUS decisions.

[flenna]

How on earth is 7-2 a "close decision"? Is the left so diluted by their fantasies that they can't acknowledge a sound defeat? Im sure its not the end but constitutional sanity carried the day this time.


Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

If it would have went the other way the MSM would have called it a landslide decision. The Ministry of Truth is alive and well.

[MistWolf]

How on earth is 7-2 a "close decision"? Is the left so diluted by their fantasies that they can't acknowledge a sound defeat? Im sure its not the end but constitutional sanity carried the day this time.

They are not claiming the vote was narrow. They're claiming the scope of the ruling is narrow. They're claiming the ruling only applies to a very narrow set of circumstances.

[Hmac]

They are not claiming the vote was narrow. They're claiming the scope of the ruling is narrow. They're claiming the ruling only applies to a very narrow set of circumstances.

Yes. They didn't even come close to addressing the constitutional issues surrounding the various aspects of freedom of religion. All they said was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission displayed religious intolerance in their decision-making process (comparing the baker to a Nazi went pretty far over the top, in SCOTUS' view). The decision was so narrowly stated that, at best, it will have very limited usefulness as any kind of precedent for such cases in the future. This is a victory for that particular religious baker. It's not a victory for all religious bakers.

[Averageman]

It's actually then kind of chicken shi+.
So does it cover someone who refuses to conduct a religious wedding ceremony? I would guess yes, but it then wouldn't seem to be so clear as to include wedding ceremonies in it' strictest sense. Am I right?
I dunno, I would like to think people would have the good graces to let others alone to live their lives according to their beliefs and that the SCOTUS should be the final arbitrator of such things, but..

[TexHill]

Wondering if I can go to a Gay Pride baker in San Francisco and get a "Congratulations Grand Dragon" KKK cake.

Or a Leviticus 18:22 cake.

[Hmac]

It's actually then kind of chicken shi+.
So does it cover someone who refuses to conduct a religious wedding ceremony? I would guess yes, but it then wouldn't seem to be so clear as to include wedding ceremonies in it' strictest sense. Am I right?
I dunno, I would like to think people would have the good graces to let others alone to live their lives according to their beliefs and that the SCOTUS should be the final arbitrator of such things, but..

It would only cover someone who refuses to conduct a religious wedding ceremony if the governmental body that decided to sanction that person for that refusal made that decision on the basis of blatant disregard for religious freedom. Note the fine line that separates affirmation of religious freedom under the Constitution from applying an anti-religious bias to the decision-making process. SCOTUS only went as far as the latter. It would help the case of that person if that governmental body compared him/her to a Nazi on the basis of his/her decision to refuse to conduct the ceremony.

[Averageman]

So if your religion believes that men can only be wedded to women and women to men, it's good to go it would seem?
Or are we in fact only waiting for another same sex couple to challenge that?
Without clear and decisive rulings these things only further muddy the waters.

[Waylander]

Expect this case and cases like it to get kicked back to lower courts since this was such a narrow ruling only on the basis of the state board's extreme overstep. They weren't very tolerant, in other words.

They've only lit the fire of the LGBTQXYZ movement so expect more of this BS. I was reminded at work by my company of employment that this is their month of pride/tolerance even though June ironically marks the anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall riots.

SMFH.

[26 Inf]

So if your religion believes that men can only be wedded to women and women to men, it's good to go it would seem?
Or are we in fact only waiting for another same sex couple to challenge that?
Without clear and decisive rulings these things only further muddy the waters.

This is the thing I don't understand - Biff and Bob are truly smitten with each other, they want to spend their life together - why would they want to force an unwilling Pastor to marry them on what is supposed to be the best day ever?

Get one of your buddies to officiate at the 'wedding' after you've had a Justice of the Peace marry you in a civil ceremony.

If you don't go to Church, why get married in a Church to begin with?