"Restrooms are for customers only"

[UtahPete]

Hi RinconRyder, Re: that of the CO baker who refused to create a cake for a gay wedding. I have not read the actual SCOTUS ruling. I only read about it. As I understand it, they did not rule on his creating & selling a cake for a gay wedding. They ruled that, because of religious reasons, he did not have to decorate it as the gay couple wanted. Jerry Baumchen PS) I know, I know; those pesky facts.

From what I've read, this was a decision based on the very narrow set of facts and circumstances of this particular case and has no broad application. The majority ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to give adequate weight to the plaintiffs (Baker's) right to exercise his religious beliefs while running his business. In other words, the Commission had ruled to protect the gay couple's civil rights but had not properly considered the baker's rights to freedom of religious expression.

It was basically a ruling against the Commission's specific action, not a ruling generally applicable to the right of business owners to discriminate against certain customers on the basis of religious beliefs.

FWIW, I think this was a reasonable decision. Congratulations to the baker for winning his case.

[vided]

Well, I guess I should at least thank you for not attempting another assault on the English language.

http://www.purplecar.net/2013/09/grammar-bullies/

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

Bring back pay toilets

[UtahPete]

Bring back pay toilets

Unisex.

[Holly]

You are correct. The point I was trying to make was that this SCOTUS ruling applied solely to this one business only and was not intended to create a market-wide standard.

A certain group will spin it, but IMO this case sets a precedence and will be used by attorneys throughout the nation.

[UtahPete]

WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This case sets a precedence and will be used by attorneys throughout the nation.

What would that wide-ranging precedent be, exactly?

[teninospyder]

I think he was trying to come up with the possessive form of the singular noun.

See how confusing communication can become when folks don't know or respect English grammar, spelling and punctuation?

[UtahPete]

... I am in favor of Civil rights, however a very large Cabal in this country who used to insist on Civil rights.... are know only in favor of Civil rights for vote with the Cabal .. Mike

Okay, who is this very large Cabal you're referring to? Aren't they fellow Americans?

What is the secret plot you're accusing them of?

Aren't you denigrating them by accusing them of;

• BEING a Cabal in the first place (Merriam-Webster Definition of cabal. 1 : the contrived schemes of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government); also : a group engaged in such schemes. 2 : club, group.
• partisanship and self-serving rhetoric when you say 'they' "are know only in favor of Civil rights for vote with the Cabal"? (sic)

[Holly]

What would that wide-ranging precedent be, exactly?

Hopefully starting a movement...….

IMO, Refusing service should be at the business owners discretion for

any reason.

I wouldn't like it if it was only about race or being gay ect……., but it should be their choice.
Like those people at Starbucks that wanted to get rich by winning the ghetto lottery . If you don't spend money, get the he*l out of my store. That should have been the end of it.…..….

This gay cake crap was just another example of entitled people trying to win the ghetto lottery.

The baker should have just kept his mouth shut and say that he didn't have time to bake the cake. They would have went somewhere else. As soon as this couple found out the real intent of not baking it, they had to ruin his business through the media and lawsuit.

[Docster]

I think this breaks down to "their house, their rules". Entitlement proponents will want to treat the bathrooms and property as public, demand or expect special services or treatment whether appropriate or not and complain loudly or use the race/discrimination card when they don't get what they feel entitled to.

Their house, their rules. Unless illegal, if one doesn't agree with those rules they should go elsewhere.

[UtahPete]

Hopefully starting a movement...…. IMO, Refusing service should be at the business owners discretion for any reason. I wouldn't like it if it was only about race or being gay ect……., but it should be their choice. Like those people at Starbucks that wanted to get rich by winning the ghetto lottery . If you don't spend money, get the he*l out of my store. That should have been the end of it.…..…. This gay cake crap was just another example of entitled people trying to win the ghetto lottery. The baker should have just kept his mouth shut and say that he didn't have time to bake the cake. They would have went somewhere else. As soon as this couple found out the real intent of not baking it, they had to ruin his business through the media and lawsuit.

Okay, more right wing opinion. But, that doesn't answer the question; WHAT legal precedent does this case set, which will be 'followed by lawyers all over the country'?

Your statement. Now, support it instead of deflecting.

[loisk]

Hmm
The legal precedent could be that any service can be refused at any time if it upsets any service-provider's religious sensibilities. Slippery slope stuff indeed. Note that the service-provider can be of ANY religion, not just the most common ones. Wonder if those lauding this decision would be OK with that!?
This all occurred five years' ago ... the world has changed since then...

[Holly]

Okay, more right wing opinion. But, that doesn't answer the question; WHAT legal precedent does this case set, which will be 'followed by lawyers all over the country'?

Your statement. Now, support it instead of deflecting.

Religious beliefs are now going to carry the same weight in legal court arguments as the blue cries of outrage over everything
that is currently running amuck in this nation. IMO, It's now an even playing field and not a left wing free for all.

[UtahPete]

Religious beliefs are now going to carry the same weight in legal court arguments as the blue cries of outrage over everything
that is currently running amuck in this nation. IMO, It's now an even playing field and not a left wing free for all.

I don't agree with your premise or conclusion (or your editorializing), but thanks for explaining your statement.

[Holly]

I don't agree with your premise or conclusion (or your editorializing), but thanks for explaining your statement.

Remember what I said about us disagreeing in another thread ??????? More clicks = more hits !!!!!!!

[loisk]

Remember what I said about us disagreeing in another thread ??????? More clicks = more hits !!!!!!!

Ah now I see where you're coming from.
Pardon me for thinking an actual issue was being discussed with actual rational reasons and viewpoints ... Oops... Guess I don't watch any of your favourite tv stations, so failed to model my conduct on them.

[johnsimion]

Hopefully starting a movement...….

IMO, Refusing service should be at the business owners discretion for

any reason.

I wouldn't like it if it was only about race or being gay ect……., but it should be their choice.
Like those people at Starbucks that wanted to get rich by winning the ghetto lottery . If you don't spend money, get the he*l out of my store. That should have been the end of it.…..….

This gay cake crap was just another example of entitled people trying to win the ghetto lottery.

The baker should have just kept his mouth shut and say that he didn't have time to bake the cake. They would have went somewhere else. As soon as this couple found out the real intent of not baking it, they had to ruin his business through the media and lawsuit.

The smartest thing you said was that the baker should have kept his mouth shut and said he didn't have time to bake the cake. That was good. The rest is BS. Business owners should not have unlimited rights to refuse service for whatever reason. We've had that before in this country. Whether you intend it or not, you're advocating for allowing "whites-only" businesses in this country. We've had that and thankfully it's been relegated to the dustbin of history -- where it belongs!

As for the case itself, you call this the ghetto lottery, I call it the "fake religion" excuse. This is a case of using religion to cover up the fact that the owner simply doesn't like gay people. There's nothing in the Bible that forbids selling a wedding cake to gays or anybody else. The prohibitions in the Bible are on sodomy, not on selling to sodomites. But whatever, we'll assume that the religion was real. Quoting the Court's actual syllabus, the Court ruled for the baker only because it found that the baker's "religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the [Colorado] Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same." The Court was concerned because the "Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs" and because the State had concluded "concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages."

See https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-111_j4el.pdf
This is the actual U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Thankfully, the Court's own verbiage makes clear how little precedent this case will have. All the States have to do is treat everybody equally. Colorado didn't do that, so they lost. Next time they'll be more evenhanded and fair, and rightly so. But there's another reason this case doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The facts of this case specify that the couple was gay, but gay people don't usually wear a label that says, "gay." You may think somebody is gay and be wrong about it. I know a gay guy who is totally hetero in appearance and actions. I also know some straight guys who act gay. I want to see what happens when two males come into the bakery together and the baker refuses to serve them because he mistakenly thinks they're a gay couple -- and they're not. Now THAT will be the ghetto lottery and I eagerly await that day.

[RinconRyder]

Suppose this case had been a Jewish baker who was asked to decorate a cake with a Swastika on it. Virtually everyone in the country would agree with his right to refuse to decorate a cake in that manner, right?

That is exactly the issue here. The baker did not refuse to make a cake but he did refuse to decorate it in the manner the buyers wanted. As justification, he believes in the Biblical version that marriage is between a man and a woman and having two men on the cake goes against his religious beliefs.

The baker is an idiot but he is also entitled to believe what he does and live his life accordingly. The customers could have simply found a gay baker who would not have objected to their request.

[vided]

Why is the baker an idiot?

[canamjhb]

From what I understand, and that may be wrong based upon watching biased reports, the baker did not refuse to bake a cake for them. He agreed to bake them a cake. Just not a Wedding cake because of his beliefs. I support his rights to not have him and his business associated with gay weddings. I also support the rights of gays to have cakes baked for them..... The baker didn't refuse their business because they were gay. He just refused to be involved in their wedding. I see no problem with that.

[RinconRyder]

Why is the baker an idiot?

Figure it out.

[vided]

Figure it out.

You said he's an idiot. i don't want to assume

[RinconRyder]

You said he's an idiot. i don't want to assume

Then don't. Your choice.

[vided]

Then don't. Your choice.

Why are you not willing to back up your accusation that the baker is an "idiot".
Just explain why you think he's an idiot.
thank you in advance

[kep-up]

Well now, "Here We Go Again"...………………………..