The Supreme Court seems to be leaning in favor of the baker in the “gay wedding cake” case: And this article is from Salon… Analysis of the oral arguments suggests that the swing v**e...

mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

And this article is from Salon…

Analysis of the oral arguments suggests that the swing v**e is leaning towards a baker at the center of the case

Matthew Rozsa ~ 12.06.2017
As the Supreme Court continues to hear oral arguments over whether a Colorado baker has the right to discriminate against a gay couple who sought to buy a wedding cake, expert analysts are seeing signs that the bench may rule in favor of the h********c business owner.

As Amy Howe explained on SCOTUSBlog — a website dev**ed to reporting events that reach the Supreme Court — the four liberal judges seemed inclined to side with the same-sex couple, while the four conservative judges seemed inclined to side with the baker. This left Justice Anthony Kennedy, long accustomed to being a swing v**e, who made it clear as the oral arguments proceeded that he was inclined to view compelling the bakery to create a same-sex wedding cake as an infringement of their religious freedom:

If we thought that at least this member of the commission had based his decision on hostility to religion, Kennedy asked [Colorado Solicitor General Frederick] Yarger, could the judgment against Masterpiece stand?

Kennedy returned to this idea again a few minutes later, telling Yarger that “tolerance is essential in a free society.” But Colorado, Kennedy posited, hasn’t been very tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs in this case. And, following up on Gorsuch’s suggestion that the training required of Phillips would amount to compelled speech, Kennedy commented (more than a little derisively) that Phillips would “have to teach that state law supersedes our religious beliefs.”

The origins of the case can be traced back to 2012, when David Mullins and Charlie Craig tried to purchase a wedding cake from a bakery owned by Jack Phillips called Masterpiece Cakeshop, according to The New York Times. Although they were planning on being married in Massachusetts, the couple hoped to hold a reception in Colorado and filed a complaint with Colorado's civil rights commission after saying they had been humiliated by Phillips' refusal to serve them.

Phillips' lawyer, Kristen K. Waggoner, admitted that she would not agree that a private business should be allowed to refuse to serve an interracial couple. This view was shared by President Donald Trump's Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, who said "Race is particularly unique."

Even Kennedy acknowledged that this risked relegating same-sex couples to second class citizenship by establishing a precedent in which any number of professionals could refuse to serve gay couples by citing their religious beliefs.

"The problem for you is that so many of these examples — and a photographer can be included — do involve speech. It means that there’s basically an ability to boycott gay marriages," Kennedy said.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

mwdegutis wrote:

And this article is from Salon…

Analysis of the oral arguments suggests that the swing v**e is leaning towards a baker at the center of the case

Matthew Rozsa ~ 12.06.2017
As the Supreme Court continues to hear oral arguments over whether a Colorado baker has the right to discriminate against a gay couple who sought to buy a wedding cake, expert analysts are seeing signs that the bench may rule in favor of the h********c business owner.

As Amy Howe explained on SCOTUSBlog — a website dev**ed to reporting events that reach the Supreme Court — the four liberal judges seemed inclined to side with the same-sex couple, while the four conservative judges seemed inclined to side with the baker. This left Justice Anthony Kennedy, long accustomed to being a swing v**e, who made it clear as the oral arguments proceeded that he was inclined to view compelling the bakery to create a same-sex wedding cake as an infringement of their religious freedom:

If we thought that at least this member of the commission had based his decision on hostility to religion, Kennedy asked [Colorado Solicitor General Frederick] Yarger, could the judgment against Masterpiece stand?

Kennedy returned to this idea again a few minutes later, telling Yarger that “tolerance is essential in a free society.” But Colorado, Kennedy posited, hasn’t been very tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs in this case. And, following up on Gorsuch’s suggestion that the training required of Phillips would amount to compelled speech, Kennedy commented (more than a little derisively) that Phillips would “have to teach that state law supersedes our religious beliefs.”

The origins of the case can be traced back to 2012, when David Mullins and Charlie Craig tried to purchase a wedding cake from a bakery owned by Jack Phillips called Masterpiece Cakeshop, according to The New York Times. Although they were planning on being married in Massachusetts, the couple hoped to hold a reception in Colorado and filed a complaint with Colorado's civil rights commission after saying they had been humiliated by Phillips' refusal to serve them.

Phillips' lawyer, Kristen K. Waggoner, admitted that she would not agree that a private business should be allowed to refuse to serve an interracial couple. This view was shared by President Donald Trump's Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, who said "Race is particularly unique."

Even Kennedy acknowledged that this risked relegating same-sex couples to second class citizenship by establishing a precedent in which any number of professionals could refuse to serve gay couples by citing their religious beliefs.

"The problem for you is that so many of these examples — and a photographer can be included — do involve speech. It means that there’s basically an ability to boycott gay marriages," Kennedy said.

And this article is from Salon… br br Analysis of... (show quote)

In my opinion if you own a business you have the right to refuse to anyone you want...Its just the way it is...

Lonewolf

agree this should be a no-brainer make a cake don't make a cake your choice

proud republican wrote:

In my opinion if you own a business you have the right to refuse to anyone you want...Its just the way it is...

E

I remember about six months to a years ago, about two men who went to many Muslim bakeries and asked for a homosexual wedding cake. All refused. It seems to me that this is more about an anti Christian bias by homosexuals then an anti homosexual bias by bakers.

A point to consider: Would you want to actually trust eating a cake made from someone who initially said they wouldn't make a cake for you. I've seen enough stories about waiters and waitresses spitting on food before serving it. Homosexuals, Cops, other races, obnoxious people.

Would you trust your pictures to a photographer who refused to take your pics. Think out of focus. Flowers, old and wilting to soon. Wedding chapels, closed for an emergency on that day.

I once needed a penis cake for a special event. No explanation needed at this time. I was sensitive enough to realize that the sweet little old lady at the local baker might not want to do that. So I went and explained what I needed and of course she said she wouldn't do it. But I asked if she knew of a place that might. She gave me an address and that sweet old lady said she would do that, but not anything more graphic. Hey, no problem. Point is, you don't need to get your panties up your a$$ over something so simple. Ask for a reference and move on. Don't be an a$$.

I've been refused entry in bars because I had on sandals, while the ladies in the bar had on a lot less. I've been turned down in a bar because I had on a sleeveless T-shirt, while the ladies right next to me were in skimpy halter tops with their boobs practically h*****g out. I've been turned down in bars for wearing a beard. There are other places and I moved on. Permanently. They need my business more then I need their business.

If this bakery was the only one in town and there wasn't another one for over a hundred miles away, they might have a case. Hey, please make us a double layer white cake and let us borrow your equipment to decorate it our selves. Reasonable accommodation.

I heard this on the radio yesterday. Would you expect a black baker to make a cake for the KKK. Think a hood shaped white cake with a noose right next to it. How about a Muslim baker to bake a cake with wording saying that Mohammad was a p*******e. Or even for a Christian Baptism or a Jewish Bar Mitsvah.

The Supreme Court ought to slap the $hit out of these lower courts and prosecutors and rule for the bakers, photographers, florists, and ministers, unanimously with a strongly worded opinion that would stop all of that nonsense forevermore.

Cheers

Betta

The baker didn't refuse service. Gays can spend their money anywhere they want. The baker was refusing to participate in the celebration of same sex marriage which he has every right to do. I wouldn't be caught dead at a same sex wedding simply because I have no desire to attend one. So, sue me. Same thing if a dear friend needed emotional support for her a******n and needs me to go with her. NOPE, ain't going with her to slaughter her baby. I refuse to participate in that.

mwdegutis wrote:

And this article is from Salon…

Analysis of the oral arguments suggests that the swing v**e is leaning towards a baker at the center of the case

Matthew Rozsa ~ 12.06.2017
As the Supreme Court continues to hear oral arguments over whether a Colorado baker has the right to discriminate against a gay couple who sought to buy a wedding cake, expert analysts are seeing signs that the bench may rule in favor of the h********c business owner.

As Amy Howe explained on SCOTUSBlog — a website dev**ed to reporting events that reach the Supreme Court — the four liberal judges seemed inclined to side with the same-sex couple, while the four conservative judges seemed inclined to side with the baker. This left Justice Anthony Kennedy, long accustomed to being a swing v**e, who made it clear as the oral arguments proceeded that he was inclined to view compelling the bakery to create a same-sex wedding cake as an infringement of their religious freedom:

If we thought that at least this member of the commission had based his decision on hostility to religion, Kennedy asked [Colorado Solicitor General Frederick] Yarger, could the judgment against Masterpiece stand?

Kennedy returned to this idea again a few minutes later, telling Yarger that “tolerance is essential in a free society.” But Colorado, Kennedy posited, hasn’t been very tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs in this case. And, following up on Gorsuch’s suggestion that the training required of Phillips would amount to compelled speech, Kennedy commented (more than a little derisively) that Phillips would “have to teach that state law supersedes our religious beliefs.”

The origins of the case can be traced back to 2012, when David Mullins and Charlie Craig tried to purchase a wedding cake from a bakery owned by Jack Phillips called Masterpiece Cakeshop, according to The New York Times. Although they were planning on being married in Massachusetts, the couple hoped to hold a reception in Colorado and filed a complaint with Colorado's civil rights commission after saying they had been humiliated by Phillips' refusal to serve them.

Phillips' lawyer, Kristen K. Waggoner, admitted that she would not agree that a private business should be allowed to refuse to serve an interracial couple. This view was shared by President Donald Trump's Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, who said "Race is particularly unique."

Even Kennedy acknowledged that this risked relegating same-sex couples to second class citizenship by establishing a precedent in which any number of professionals could refuse to serve gay couples by citing their religious beliefs.

"The problem for you is that so many of these examples — and a photographer can be included — do involve speech. It means that there’s basically an ability to boycott gay marriages," Kennedy said.

And this article is from Salon… br br Analysis of... (show quote)

Betta

Excellent points!

E wrote:

I remember about six months to a years ago, about two men who went to many Muslim bakeries and asked for a homosexual wedding cake. All refused. It seems to me that this is more about an anti Christian bias by homosexuals then an anti homosexual bias by bakers.

A point to consider: Would you want to actually trust eating a cake made from someone who initially said they wouldn't make a cake for you. I've seen enough stories about waiters and waitresses spitting on food before serving it. Homosexuals, Cops, other races, obnoxious people.

Would you trust your pictures to a photographer who refused to take your pics. Think out of focus. Flowers, old and wilting to soon. Wedding chapels, closed for an emergency on that day.

I once needed a penis cake for a special event. No explanation needed at this time. I was sensitive enough to realize that the sweet little old lady at the local baker might not want to do that. So I went and explained what I needed and of course she said she wouldn't do it. But I asked if she knew of a place that might. She gave me an address and that sweet old lady said she would do that, but not anything more graphic. Hey, no problem. Point is, you don't need to get your panties up your a$$ over something so simple. Ask for a reference and move on. Don't be an a$$.

I've been refused entry in bars because I had on sandals, while the ladies in the bar had on a lot less. I've been turned down in a bar because I had on a sleeveless T-shirt, while the ladies right next to me were in skimpy halter tops with their boobs practically h*****g out. I've been turned down in bars for wearing a beard. There are other places and I moved on. Permanently. They need my business more then I need their business.

If this bakery was the only one in town and there wasn't another one for over a hundred miles away, they might have a case. Hey, please make us a double layer white cake and let us borrow your equipment to decorate it our selves. Reasonable accommodation.

I heard this on the radio yesterday. Would you expect a black baker to make a cake for the KKK. Think a hood shaped white cake with a noose right next to it. How about a Muslim baker to bake a cake with wording saying that Mohammad was a p*******e. Or even for a Christian Baptism or a Jewish Bar Mitsvah.

The Supreme Court ought to slap the $hit out of these lower courts and prosecutors and rule for the bakers, photographers, florists, and ministers, unanimously with a strongly worded opinion that would stop all of that nonsense forevermore.

Cheers

I remember about six months to a years ago, about ... (show quote)

Radiance3

mwdegutis wrote:

And this article is from Salon…

Analysis of the oral arguments suggests that the swing v**e is leaning towards a baker at the center of the case

Matthew Rozsa ~ 12.06.2017
As the Supreme Court continues to hear oral arguments over whether a Colorado baker has the right to discriminate against a gay couple who sought to buy a wedding cake, expert analysts are seeing signs that the bench may rule in favor of the h********c business owner.

As Amy Howe explained on SCOTUSBlog — a website dev**ed to reporting events that reach the Supreme Court — the four liberal judges seemed inclined to side with the same-sex couple, while the four conservative judges seemed inclined to side with the baker. This left Justice Anthony Kennedy, long accustomed to being a swing v**e, who made it clear as the oral arguments proceeded that he was inclined to view compelling the bakery to create a same-sex wedding cake as an infringement of their religious freedom:

If we thought that at least this member of the commission had based his decision on hostility to religion, Kennedy asked [Colorado Solicitor General Frederick] Yarger, could the judgment against Masterpiece stand?

Kennedy returned to this idea again a few minutes later, telling Yarger that “tolerance is essential in a free society.” But Colorado, Kennedy posited, hasn’t been very tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs in this case. And, following up on Gorsuch’s suggestion that the training required of Phillips would amount to compelled speech, Kennedy commented (more than a little derisively) that Phillips would “have to teach that state law supersedes our religious beliefs.”

The origins of the case can be traced back to 2012, when David Mullins and Charlie Craig tried to purchase a wedding cake from a bakery owned by Jack Phillips called Masterpiece Cakeshop, according to The New York Times. Although they were planning on being married in Massachusetts, the couple hoped to hold a reception in Colorado and filed a complaint with Colorado's civil rights commission after saying they had been humiliated by Phillips' refusal to serve them.

Phillips' lawyer, Kristen K. Waggoner, admitted that she would not agree that a private business should be allowed to refuse to serve an interracial couple. This view was shared by President Donald Trump's Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, who said "Race is particularly unique."

Even Kennedy acknowledged that this risked relegating same-sex couples to second class citizenship by establishing a precedent in which any number of professionals could refuse to serve gay couples by citing their religious beliefs.

"The problem for you is that so many of these examples — and a photographer can be included — do involve speech. It means that there’s basically an ability to boycott gay marriages," Kennedy said.

And this article is from Salon… br br Analysis of... (show quote)

================
The gays target the Christian bakers so that they could sue them and receive lucrative sums of money. These gays are swindlers. They could go to bakers who are not Christians, so many of them, or those willing to bake cake for their gay lifestyle. Why target and force the Christians to violate their oath in God by baking them cake for their immoral lifestyle as written in the Bible? No other purpose but to sue hundreds of thousands of dollars, so they could extort and live their gay hood happily ever after. Gays are an a*********n to God. And the court must respect the first amendment rights of Christians.

boatbob2

E,please let us know WHY,you needed a penis cake............... I thought only obozo would need/want one like that !!!!!!

bggamers Loc: georgia

Radiance3 wrote:

================ br The gays target the Christia... (show quote)

They target them because it fits their agenda to cause decent about christian beliefs .They want the christian life style demonized so their life style isnt so evil in the eyes of the public and more acceptable.

PeterS

mwdegutis wrote:

And this article is from Salon… br br Analysis of... (show quote)

So Kennedy see's tolerance as necessary in a free society and that means he's going to side with a baker who has no tolerance for the rights of others?

Great logic. I can see why you think you've won...

bahmer

PeterS wrote:

So Kennedy see's tolerance as necessary in a free society and that means he's going to side with a baker who has no tolerance for the rights of others?

Great logic. I can see why you think you've won...

If they go against the baker and force all bakeries to bake cakes for same sex weddings then they better be prepared to go after all of the Muslim bakeries as well because they refuse to bake cakes for same sex weddings as well. Then they can go after after businesses in the Muslim community that are against same sex weddings as well.

E

boatbob2 wrote:

E,please let us know WHY,you needed a penis cake............... I thought only obozo would need/want one like that !!!!!!

https://notesofnomads.com/kanamara-penis-festival-japan/

Something similar, put on by the ladies.

donald41 Loc: puyallup Wa

The man could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he just made and delivered a cup cake with a Cherie on top.

Liberty Tree

proud republican wrote:

In my opinion if you own a business you have the right to refuse to anyone you want...Its just the way it is...

Lawyers refuse certain cases, contractors turn down certain projects, counselors turn down certain patients, etc. It happens in every business.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

Liberty Tree wrote:

Lawyers refuse certain cases, contractors turn down certain projects, counselors turn down certain patients, etc. It happens in every business.

Thats my point,Liberty!!! Im sure there are lot more Cake shops around. They are free to go to any of them,why do they have to stick it to this one??? I think its all politically motivated!!