Colorado Supreme Court Rules You Can't Cite Religion For Not Baking A Cake (Buddha, marriages)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why should I even waste my time with someone who resorts to cheap insults and attacks? All garbage from you.
Jeff, please read all the responses since you posted this..... If you actually made an attempt to be honest, and admit when you were wrong, you would be treated much differently. All you have done since I destroyed your link that you thought proved your point, was deflect and dodge. How about you man up and admit you are wrong?
This is a non issue. What these leftists groups do is go around to a hundred different shops, then make a big deal about the one shop that won't bake the cake. I agree, citing religion is bull****. If I don't want to make you a cake because I don't like gay people, then I don't have to.
Except that is not the case in either of the bakery cases. In one the couple chose the bakery based on previous purchases, in the other the couple were referred by their wedding planner, in neither did they visit a hundred bakeries until one turned them down.
I think your knowledge should expand. The alleged bakers believe they should not bake cake for LGBTQ weddings. The Supremes have spoken. Now these alleged bakers must do business with everyone, or give up baking wedding cakes for everyone.
Wrong. SC affirmed their right not to bake the cake for the gay couple.
Wrong. SC affirmed their right not to bake the cake for the gay couple.
An incredibly wrong-headed opinion, in my own opinion. And one that should be, and will be, challenged. The discriminated-against couple said it best and I paraphrase: No one should have to endure the shame and embarrassment of hearing the words, "We don't serve your kind here."
An incredibly wrong-headed opinion, in my own opinion. And one that should be, and will be, challenged. The discriminated-against couple said it best and I paraphrase: No one should have to endure the shame and embarrassment of hearing the words, "We don't serve your kind here."
and yet so many businesses have that sign right on premises, we see it all the time,
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"
An incredibly wrong-headed opinion, in my own opinion. And one that should be, and will be, challenged. The discriminated-against couple said it best and I paraphrase: No one should have to endure the shame and embarrassment of hearing the words, "We don't serve your kind here."
The decision is very limited. But that decision can't be challenged...unless I'm not clear on what you mean by challenged.
Despite the narrowness of the decision, it was 7-2...that's pretty strong.
This SCOTUS decision was about government denigrating religious freedom of an individual, and that "art" is a form of speech. Actually, the gay stuff is incidental to this ruling, could have concerned any "protected group".
As I understand it, the decision was based on prejudicial statements by the governing board for complaintsunder the law, and not on the merits of arguments concerning religious freedom. Looks like we will have to wait further to see how custom work may be affected. SCOTUS dodged the issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
