Colorado Supreme Court Rules You Can't Cite Religion For Not Baking A Cake (Christianity, gays)
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.
Wedding cake is wedding cake. LGBTQ commitment ceremonies have been a part of our culture for decades, with cake.
Gay couples do not need your over the top advertising. They simply wish to have a delicious cake made for their wedding like any other couple.
LOL, exactly.
I think that post was probably facetious?
I'm sure no couple is going to go "Oh thank GOODNESS, there's someone who likes to bake gay cakes, let's go there to order our wedding cake!" Rather, they're going to Yelp bakers or ask their friends who bakes a great cake and go there or if I had a wedding planner, I'd ask for his/her recommendation...or I'm assuming...because that's pretty much how any couple would do it.
The SCOTUS is pretty unreliable as far as fairness and consistency.
Using the very same Constitution as their enabling basis for laws...their rulings have been all over the place.
They are usually unable to resist personal preferences...and you can predict with great accuracy how each Justice will probably decide.
The law depends on the personal bias of the makeup of the crew of Justices at the time...way more than comportment with a pure intent of the Constitution. That is why people worry so much about what liberal or conservative Justice is appointed.
So, it is pretty much a scam...because that should never be an issue.
Most States in the U.S. currently allow for Religious Liberty exercise.
My argument was that any blanket claim about Buyers rights and a businesses legal obligations to them is not true, and is in no way a story that has ended...and I believe I did prove that.
Nope. Your personal views and opinions on right or wrong in this area, or how you think they should be thinking count for nothing...to use your own Brute Force argument...to what the situation actually is. The law, derived essentially from the constitution, and applied on behalf of the US government whether the individual State administration likes it or not, had been tested on two occasions and found to prevail. o you are wearing your fingers out to no purpose, pal.
And it is furthermore my opinion that 'In God we trust' stickers be removed from Police cars and the police chief removed from office if he will not do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Like I said...it depends on the makeup of the court.
They are supposed to stick by the Constitution...but they twist that too, to suit their personal bias.
If the SCOTUS (references to H. Potter house elfs are very appropriate IMO) was made up of 9 Scalias you would get much different rulings than if it was made up of 9 Kagans...and it shouldn't be that way. They all use the same Constitutional basis...it should never be THAT different when working from the same thing. That PROVES bias...and thus proves a poor system.
I have stated that I favor a democratic system. You can never please everyone...so, the best you can ever do is satisfy the most possible. You put all you can to a referendum...let the PEOPLE decide how they want their society to be, and please the most possible.
Such as in cases like what is noted in the OP...you have ONE PERSON, or a few people, making decisions for everyone. Change the group or the one judge, and you can get the opposite ruling on the exact same case. That's a messed up system...very messed up.
Bottom line...the story on this issue is far from at an end.
Based upon my noted flaws in the system, the next election will carry a lot of weight as to how it goes in the near future.
Of course...IMO, the more free people are to make their own way, the better. At the very least...let the people decide, and please the most you can.
Oh yes. Aside from what you consider to be 'twisting of the constitution' (differently from how you twist it) you accuse the courts (if they do something that doesn't met with your approval) of being stuffed with the wrong kind of people. And Clearly you are hoping for the next election to bring a swathe of the Right kind of people to stuff the administration with and they will do whatever they like and twist or ignore the constitution (just as Reagan and Bush did to push through Religious laws - as you pointed out) to suit the "Christian nation".
We shall see, but even if Trump gets in, you might not find that it is as easy as you evidently hope for them to make the constitution and law jump through hoops.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-08-2016 at 04:31 AM..
Nope. Your personal views and opinions on right or wrong in this area, or how you think they should be thinking count for nothing...to use your own Brute Force argument...to what the situation actually is. The law, derived essentially from the constitution, and applied on behalf of the US government whether the individual State administration likes it or not, had been tested on two occasions and found to prevail. o you are wearing your fingers out to no purpose, pal.
And it is furthermore my opinion that 'In God we trust' stickers be removed from Police cars and the police chief removed from office if he will not do so.
Oh yes. Aside from what you consider to be 'twisting of the constitution' (differently from how you twist it) you accuse the courts (if they do something that doesn't met with your approval) of being stuffed with the wrong kind of people. And Clearly you are hoping for the next election to bring a swathe of the Right kind of people to stuff the administration with and they will do whatever they like and twist or ignore the constitution (just as Reagan and Bush did to push through Religious laws - as you pointed out) to suit the "Christian nation".
We shall see, but even if Trump gets in, you might not find that it is as easy as you evidently hope for them to make the constitution and law jump through hoops.
I twist nothing...they do.
The 1st Amendment says that they, "Shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise..." of religion.
If they are proscribed by the Constitution from making such laws...then what are they doing making them?
It appears they have "competing Amendment provisions"...and they pick with ever one they want to cite so as to rule in favor of their personal agenda. THAT is the "twisting".
The Government should be completely free of any speck of Religion whatsoever...and should stay completely out of even so much as a consideration of anything concerning it.
My personal belief and preference is COMPLETE SEPARATION of the Government and Religion. It's them that has the problem with actually doing that.
baking a cake is meaningless. Go to another baker.
The NRA uses this tactic also, over attack a position so that we can negotiate a middle ground. I don't like it in this case, This is why I am not a member of the NRA or running down to NC.
The main point is all people get "fair" treatment. "fair" does not mean "equal" in all cases. The middle of the road-err understand this simple notion. The far left/right ... not so much.
baking a cake is meaningless. Go to another baker.
The NRA uses this tactic also, over attack a position so that we can negotiate a middle ground. I don't like it in this case, This is why I am not a member of the NRA or running down to NC.
The main point is all people get "fair" treatment. "fair" does not mean "equal" in all cases. The middle of the road-err understand this simple notion. The far left/right ... not so much.
So the compromise solution is to allow discrimination? Would that also apply to jobs, housing, and any other form of goods and services or is it just for cakes? Sounds like your middle ground is for one side to get their way.
I twist nothing...they do.
The 1st Amendment says that they, "Shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise..." of religion.
If they are proscribed by the Constitution from making such laws...then what are they doing making them?
It appears they have "competing Amendment provisions"...and they pick with ever one they want to cite so as to rule in favor of their personal agenda. THAT is the "twisting".
The Government should be completely free of any speck of Religion whatsoever...and should stay completely out of even so much as a consideration of anything concerning it.
My personal belief and preference is COMPLETE SEPARATION of the Government and Religion. It's them that has the problem with actually doing that.
Ruling under the law to keep religion out of the government area is not the same as making a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Depending how you read it. Your twist is to say that they should sit on their hands when state official bring religion int the government areas. How they read it is evidently not how they do - as we have seen with a couple of recent rulings keeping religion out of the marriage -licensing area and the subject of the OP.
So the compromise solution is to allow discrimination? Would that also apply to jobs, housing, and any other form of goods and services or is it just for cakes? Sounds like your middle ground is for one side to get their way.
Exactly. Middle ground/compromise is not always the best option.
To answer the people just above me, marriage is not a matter for the state. If I go to a Unitarian church, I should expect them to allow a gay marriage. If I go to a fundie church, I would expect never to see one. The state has nothing to do with that.
To answer the people just above me, marriage is not a matter for the state. If I go to a Unitarian church, I should expect them to allow a gay marriage. If I go to a fundie church, I would expect never to see one. The state has nothing to do with that.
Ruling under the law to keep religion out of the government area is not the same as making a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Depending how you read it. Your twist is to say that they should sit on their hands when state official bring religion int the government areas. How they read it is evidently not how they do - as we have seen with a couple of recent rulings keeping religion out of the marriage -licensing area and the subject of the OP.
Easy solution: Federal, State, or Local Government...ZERO Religion, not even a mention of it or anything to do with it, for any reason. Do it...and you immediately lose your position, and can never hold a government position in the Country again.
I don’t twist anything...I demand "Equal Protection" as per rules put forth in that Document.
Either it is a crime for everybody to pick & choose who to do business with based on bias, and if it can be proved you did you get busted...or it is not a crime for anybody to do it.
All "fair & equal".
.
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.
