DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court rejects atheists' attempt to scrub 'In God We Trust' off US currency

You seem to be trying to compare a privately owned business to a publicly funded school. hmmmm.... From my understanding it was a small town who only had one baker but I'm not sure about that.

Religious customs were being conducted at a school funded by taxpayers. If you can't understand why people may feel this is improper I can't help you.

Remember the Moonies with their mass weddings?

This feels eerily similar to me.

Nope, not at all what I was doing.


Lakewood, CO, with a population of 150,000 people and being a suburb that is less than 8 miles from downtown Denver.... I'm pretty sure there were other bakeries available.


Public schools open to churches all the time, entire religious services are performed in the auditorium or the gym.. every week. Feeling that something is improper and running to some liberal activist group because you know they will make a big deal about it are two different things... I think a lot of things are improper, I don't whine and complain about most of them, especially the ones that have zero impact on my life.

Mmmmm....fictional Santa ... and Easter Bunny would not exist without the belief of Jesus.

I'm not sure that's an excuse for someone to be refused service. The old, "just shut up and take it" approach isn't the way a lot of people take things. If so there would be no civil rights, women would have never gotten the right to vote and slavery would still be a thing.



I love the way you label it "liberal activist group" when they try to stand up for the separation of church and state. Like there's no such thing as a "conservative activist group" that exists.

Our nation has become stronger, rights for many groups of people have been instituted and restored thanks to these groups you would label as liberal. Or did you mean that as a good thing?

It's a cake.


I said what I said.. anything beyond that which you choose to read into what I said or omitted, that's on you. I'm not going to disclaim every freakin' thing I say.


Some of what they try to do I agree with, some I don't... I also agree with a person being allowed to live according to their religious convictions, especially when it doesn't impact the other person in the slightest... I understand that some folks believe that people of faith should only do that on their own time and leave it at home when they go to work... when, if they knew the first thing about people of faith, would know it doesn't work that way.

Well, he DID chastise me for not commenting on some articles he posted, that I didn't read apparently.

Well obviously the subject matter wasn't something you felt was important enough to read. However, from your above statement it seems you don't have a problem commenting on topics you don't bother reading.

Supreme Court tosses ruling against Oregon bakers who refused cake for gay couple

The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a ruling against two Oregon bakers who refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

The couple, Melissa and Aaron Klein, cited religious beliefs as their reason for not providing services for a gay wedding. This touched off the latest in a series of such cases making headlines in recent years. During the court's last term, justices ruled in favor of a Colorado baker in a similar situation, stating that a state body demonstrated improper hostility toward the baker's religion in finding that he violated a state anti-discrimination law.

On Monday, the Supreme Court sent the Klein case back down to a lower court "for further consideration in light of" their Colorado decision.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme...-for-gay-couple

Legalized discrimination.

Murica!

Bro...

Supreme Court sends same-sex wedding cake case back down to lower court

The Supreme Court on Monday said that it was sending another case over a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple down to a lower court for reconsideration.

The justices, in an unsigned order, said that the Court of Appeals for Oregon should reconsider the case after the Supreme Court's narrow ruling last year in favor of a Colorado baker who similarly refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple.

Monday's order means that the justices avoid having to rule on a divisive case that pits claims of religious liberty against allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Supreme Court's order tosses out a 2017 Oregon Court of Appeals opinion that ruled against the baker, Sweetcakes by Melissa, and upheld a $135,000 fine against the business.

The justices last year had narrowly held in favor of the baker in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, finding in a 7-2 ruling that a Colorado state commission had violated the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution when it penalized the baker for breaking the state’s public accommodations law.

However, the court is also likely to soon face another decision on whether to hear a similar case: The justices last year had sent back a case on whether a Washington state florist had discriminated against a same-sex couple down to a lower court to determine whether the courts had treated the case fairly.

The Washington Supreme Court earlier this month upheld the ruling against the florist, Arlene's Flowers. But the florist, represented by the conservative Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom, has promised to present the case once again to the Supreme Court.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...k-down-to-lower

Fox News hooples gobble that click bait! Nothing about throwing it out! "Throw it out" is like dismissing the case... that didn't happen, not even close.

Dude, that is what my post says too.

Really? You can't see the difference? lmao

Yea, they threw it out, refused to hear it, sent it back to the lower court to rethink it because of previous decisions make by the Supremes over cake.

Not that hard.

Polished turds still don't shine.

Stick to the subject and leave Bernie out of this!

yada yada yada

You seem to be the one with the comprehension issues today. Seems other know how to use the english language at a much higher level. Your PeeWee Herman-esque response/comeback/cutdown/bash (whatever that gibberish is) is just more proof of that fact.

Defcon 5. You mean like that?

I know, you prefer religious discrimination to any other kind.. a lot of people do.

You must be one of those ‘THERES A WAR ON CHRISTMAS’ kinda dudes.

Don’t worry, trump said he fixed that for us.

Not really.. but I'm a white Christian male.. so I know I should just shut up, I'm not allowed to complain about anything.

Now you're getting it!

not really.

Sorry but I got the memo and used it as toilet paper.

jc…..

idk, but this seems awfully petty to me....The financial instrument that you use to buy and sell goods and services, and grants you unparalleled convenience at the marketplace, this instrument has a phrase on it that makes you uncomfortable....or that you don't agree with......well....if its that big a deal, then go cashless and just use plastic.....

Getting all litigious, trying to remove a few words.....I mean, how can it possibly be so discontenting to seek the almighty dollar with the words on it, that you make it your added duty to try and scrub them off at a systemic level....

Either you have way, way, way too much time on your hands.....or you are one of the pettiest people on planet earth to get your knickers all bunched up over a phrase that you don't even put any stock into anyway.....

What a bunch of maroons....another example of how stupid people can be....

You always have my ears

You either are open to the "public" and serve the "public" or you don't. There's a difference in believing what you believe and discriminating against others based on your beliefs.

Maybe they should make their business a private entity and only serve approved members. Because discriminating against gay people and using religion as an excuse to do so is weak. However, watching some people making excuses for it is expected.

They've made those same excuses to exclude serving people of different races, mixed marriages, and everyone else who is different than themselves. This is just an extension of that. So far they're getting away with it. But they got away with those other things before too.

It is a private business... and it does want to serve folks as long as what they are asking for doesn't violate their religious convictions... so that is literally what they are trying to do.


Says you.. other people have different and stronger religious beliefs than you do. And this transgender person probably drove by a number of bakeries to get to this one just to prove their point...

See, I wouldn't go into a Muslim or Jewish bakery and ask for a "Praise Jesus" cake.. because I'm not a d*ck, like these people.

So now it's a conspiracy theory? What about Sandy Hook?

How did they know these people were Christian? Is it on their sign?

You see, people fight discrimination where they find it.

When segregation was still alive and well in the south, the answer wasn't to move north. It was to right a wrong where you find it.

Just think, this same bakery has probably baked cakes for convicted rapists and murderers too. They just didn't bother to ask them what sins they had committed. The answer? "Yeah, but they didn't know!"

No, it's not a theory, unless you believe that a transgender person just coincidentally walked into this bakery without knowledge that they had already been sued twice for refusing to bake a cake for a celebration that was against their religious beliefs...... and Sandy Hook has nothing to do with it.


Oh, I don't know... maybe as members of the LGBTQ community, I make the assumption that they don't live under a rock.


And some people go out of their way to find it....


This isn't a wrong, it's a cake.. that they could get anywhere, many other places that would love to sell them a cake... and they chose the one guy, most famous in all the land, for NOT wanting to make that cake... yea, it's a conspiracy theory... what are the odds?


Maybe, but they didn't bake cakes celebrating their rapes and murders... Every person who has walked through their door is, in one way or another, a sinner..... and they will bake each and every one of them a cake.. unless they know it's to celebrate that sin... I'm sure if the transgender person came in looking for a cake for their kids kindergarten graduation party, they would make it without question....

So it's not a sin to bake a cake. It's not a sin to put names on a cake. It's only a sin if the couple is gay? That's a pretty far fetched, far reaching rationalization to discriminate.

And yes, discrimination based on sexual orientation is a wrong.

You see, there are republican states that are making laws against abortion they know go against the SCOTUS ruling of Roe vs Wade. They know these laws are currently illegal. They do this and nobody from the right say a word about breaking the law. So it's fine for Conservatives to go out and do controversial things even in making laws they know will end up in court. But if a gay person goes out and looks for a method to bring it to court over something a Christian sees as controversial, suddenly it's an issue to you?

Then they uphold discriminating against gay people and treating them differently. So it seems whether something is legal, whether it discriminates against others makes no difference.

As log as they use the excuse of religious freedom the rest of the nation should just let them treat others as they wish and ignore the laws.

Correct


Correct


According to this guy's religious beliefs, correct


No, it's really not. You have tried to stretch it and twist it and try to make it seem totally illogical and stupid.. but to a person of faith (and I won't judge where this guy is in his faith) but I can understand why it makes perfect sense to him...


I'm sorry you view somebody trying to adhere to their religious convictions as "using it as an excuse". Some people actually have religious convictions that don't waffle, conform, or accept everything society has deemed acceptable and they want to opt out from participating in those things... and to the extent that it is practical and safe, they should be allowed to. And for the record, religious liberty is also a part of "the law" that you keep citing...

It's odd that people have always used religion as a reason to discriminate. They did the exact same thing with race. Even to uphold slavery. People stood behind their Bible to excuse that too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made...m=.14fe4c6b7e11

http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/publicrigh...s-not-old-news/

https://thinkprogress.org/when-religious...a-67bc973c4042/

But according to the logic you seem to be using, racial discrimination must have been fine as well. Because you know, religion and all.

Now let's get back to another point we seemed to disagree on. You claim this bakery was targeted. And for all I know, you may be right. My point was you fight discrimination where you find it.

Maybe since Rosa Parks knew she wasn't allowed to sit in the front of the bus, she shouldn't have. I mean she knew the rules. But she chose to confront discrimination where she found it.

The "Greensboro Four", according to your logic, should never have been sitting at that Woolworth lunch counter. I mean they knew they didn't serve black people when they went in there. They knew they could have eaten somewhere else with no problem.

So Rosa Parks targeted the transit authority and the "Greensboro Four" targeted Woolworth. And it happened over and over again in the south. I mean why in the hell did they try to drink at the "Whites only" drinking fountains!? The nerve of those people.

And people used the bible as a weapon to discriminate against them too.

People have misused the Bible for centuries, I'm not going to say they haven't.. but just because people have misused the Bible to defend bad behavior, doesn't mean every time somebody stands on their convictions, that they are wrong.


The woman in question was an LGBTQ activist ATTORNEY.. you can stop waffling on whether she knew what was going to happen when she walked in there or not.


Do you think that fits with my logic, because you have said it numerous times? Is that how you believe that I think? Because this conversation, nor any conversation with you, will continue until you answer that question.

I don't believe you think this way. My point is quite valid however. Religion has been used as an excuse to treat people who live, believe and even look different than themselves. It's been used as a tool. Most of those who wore white robes not so long ago, and even now are self proclaimed Christians.

This is an example of people searching out where discrimination exists and fighting against it where they find it. Your example was that this person could have gone to a different bakery where they would have been served instead of looking for a fight by going somewhere that they would not be served. I gave you examples of other groups doing the exact same thing.

I don't really believe you see the comparison though. I'm not sure you understand how it would feel or how wrong it is to treat people differently because you choose to have a reason to do so.

In both of these cases, the Bible was the grounds for such treatment. One of the problems is that some people still feel this way about race. Interracial marriage was still illegal in southern states until a 1967 court ruling.

Religion is a wonderful thing for those who find the use for it. I've seen it do a lot of people a lot of good. But the law has shown time and time again you can not use your religion as a weapon to discriminate against others. And this will end no differently.

It won't be so long in the future until our nation will look back on this and see it in the same light as segregation and discrimination against women.

While I understand some of what you are saying, you and a few others on here were always slippery slope types when it came to gay marriage. Well, guess what? You have that same issue here. Where do you draw the line on businesses that serve the public? Which religions get to decide who is served and who isn’t? There are some pretty off the wall folks out there who will take a stance and call it a religious belief. As long as you are okay with everyone being able to to refuse service to anyone that they religiously find icky, then fine.

Would you be fine going into a muslim restaurant, and demanding they serve you bacon? And if they don't, you sue them?

On a side note, my son is getting married in October. Pretty sure he's smart enough to not get a cake from a bakery that won't make it for them.

Not an attack arch, just asking: Don't you find it sad that in 2019 he has to be 'smart enough' to avoid the hatred and bigotry? I do and I see nothing Christian or otherwise justifiable about it.

Really, because in your opinion your hate and bigotry about Freddie Kitchens was posted for all to see.

Your credibility when it comes to hate and bigotry is nil.

I asked a question regarding where people draw the line. Pretty sure that restaurant wouldn’t serve bacon at all, don’t you think? Don’t act like I’m the person demanding anything. I’m not interested in your silly, snarky questions.