SCOTUS Sides With Baker in LGBT Wedding Cake Case

[The New California Republic]

Nonsense. That doesn't magically override the prohibition on refusing service to people on the basis of race. If you think that it does, then you are sorely mistaken...

No, not race. But it allows a Christian Baker to refuse to make a Cake for a Same-Sex Couple. Which is what I thought this thread was about.

You claimed that the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act gives businesses the right to refuse ANYONE service. You are clearly wrong...

[Thermodolia]

The law where you live isn’t the law everywhere and shouldn’t be. Also the free market didn’t give us the internet, that was the US DOD. Computers and phones are also not because of the free market fairy.

The free market isn’t the end all be all. It’s kinda stupid to say that without the free market nothing would exist, because it obviously doesn’t work that way.

Also before you try I’m not a communist.

No, the Free Market doesn't and DIdn't give us everything but a majority of the Luxuries we have access today is thanks to a Free and Private Market. Look at the Internet system for instance. Instead of getting a slow, clunky and overprice access that you would get from the Government You now have fast, Reliable and Fair Priced Access at your fingertips. Thanks to free markets You don't have to be a billionaire to buy a computer because in a Competitive Free market people have made Computer, Smaller, Cheaper and more accessible because of they can make more money that way. I as an Inventor can make a product that changes that quality of lives for others and makes money from it because of how our Economy is.

Two or one private internet service providers does not a competitive free market make.

[Russoslava]

No, not race. But it allows a Christian Baker to refuse to make a Cake for a Same-Sex Couple. Which is what I thought this thread was about.

You asserted that no private actor could be compelled to serve ANYONE. You've provided evidence that Maine (along with other states) have created carve outs for religious justifications. So you've totally undermined your own position by showing that what you advocate for is the exception rather than the rule.

This thread is about that topic, but there is so far no decision on whether the First Amendment's Free Exercise or Free Speech clauses allow for the Baker to refuse to sell. The law failed in application here due to its lack of neutral application.

In my Personal OpinionIn a Free Market Economy and According to the First Amendment a Baker should not be forced to sell to anyone as long as said Baker doesn't take the Money from the consumer in question. Again, If one baker won't bake you a cake find another damn baker. I don't see why that concept is so hard to see. There is room for compromise this way.

[Russoslava]

No, not race. But it allows a Christian Baker to refuse to make a Cake for a Same-Sex Couple. Which is what I thought this thread was about.

You claimed that the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act gives businesses the right to refuse ANYONE service. You are clearly wrong...

I think any Private busniess should be allowed to deny anyone service for ANY reason because the government or anyone should not force anyone to do something that they don't want to. I don't want a Christian Baker being forced to bake a Cake for a Same-Sex Couple if the Baker doesn't want to bake the cake and I would want a Same-Sex Baker not be forced to bake for a Christian Couple if the Baker doesn't want to. That is what Freedom will is.

[Thermodolia]

All the more reasons to oppose capitalism then.

Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best system. Under Capitalism, Pure Capitalism, Not Crony Capitalism If you want to make money, you have to work for it.

Unfettered pure capitalism is absolutely shit. It doesn’t help anyone but the super wealthy and it definitely doesn’t help the workers.

But that’s a topic for another thread

[West Leas Oros]

All the more reasons to oppose capitalism then.

Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best system. Under Capitalism, Pure Capitalism, Not Crony Capitalism If you want to make money, you have to work for it.

Otherwise, “fuck you, go die on the street you commie.” Sounds like a great ideology.

[Russoslava]

Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best system. Under Capitalism, Pure Capitalism, Not Crony Capitalism If you want to make money, you have to work for it.

Unfettered pure capitalism is absolutely shit. It doesn’t help anyone but the super wealthy and it definitely doesn’t help the workers.

But that’s a topic for another thread

How about we agree to Disagree than.

[Russoslava]

Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best system. Under Capitalism, Pure Capitalism, Not Crony Capitalism If you want to make money, you have to work for it.

Otherwise, “fuck you, go die on the street you commie.” Sounds like a great ideology.

I didn't say that. Don't twist my words around to fit your agenda.

[Thermodolia]

You claimed that the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act gives businesses the right to refuse ANYONE service. You are clearly wrong...

I think any Private busniess should be allowed to deny anyone service for ANY reason because the government or anyone should not force anyone to do something that they don't want to. I don't want a Christian Baker being forced to bake a Cake for a Same-Sex Couple if the Baker doesn't want to bake the cake and I would want a Same-Sex Baker not be forced to bake for a Christian Couple if the Baker doesn't want to. That is what Freedom will is.

And i think that religion should be a private only matter and shouldn’t but into the public sphere at all. I’m not saying that religion should be banned or anything like that, I’m religious myself. But religion is a private matter and not something that should be involved in Business, public, and government matters

[The New California Republic]

You asserted that no private actor could be compelled to serve ANYONE. You've provided evidence that Maine (along with other states) have created carve outs for religious justifications. So you've totally undermined your own position by showing that what you advocate for is the exception rather than the rule.

This thread is about that topic, but there is so far no decision on whether the First Amendment's Free Exercise or Free Speech clauses allow for the Baker to refuse to sell. The law failed in application here due to its lack of neutral application.

In my Personal OpinionIn a Free Market Economy and According to the First Amendment a Baker should not be forced to sell to anyone as long as said Baker doesn't take the Money from the consumer in question. Again, If one baker won't bake you a cake find another damn baker. I don't see why that concept is so hard to see. There is room for compromise this way.

Your opinion =/= legal fact. The reason that you thought the two are equivalent is because you conveniently ignored Acts of Congress regarding this matter.

I would want a Same-Sex Baker not be forced to bake for a Christian Couple if the Baker doesn't want to.

...

...What the hell is a "same-sex Baker"???

[Thermodolia]

In my Personal OpinionIn a Free Market Economy and According to the First Amendment a Baker should not be forced to sell to anyone as long as said Baker doesn't take the Money from the consumer in question. Again, If one baker won't bake you a cake find another damn baker. I don't see why that concept is so hard to see. There is room for compromise this way.

Your opinion =/= legal fact. The reason that you thought the two are equivalent is because you conveniently ignored Acts of Congress regarding this matter.

I would want a Same-Sex Baker not be forced to bake for a Christian Couple if the Baker doesn't want to.

...

...What the hell is a "same-sex Baker"???

I guess they only get the same sex? Fuck if I know

[Right wing humour squad]

In my Personal OpinionIn a Free Market Economy and According to the First Amendment a Baker should not be forced to sell to anyone as long as said Baker doesn't take the Money from the consumer in question. Again, If one baker won't bake you a cake find another damn baker. I don't see why that concept is so hard to see. There is room for compromise this way.

Your opinion =/= legal fact. The reason that you thought the two are equivalent is because you conveniently ignored Acts of Congress regarding this matter.

I would want a Same-Sex Baker not be forced to bake for a Christian Couple if the Baker doesn't want to.

...

...What the hell is a "same-sex Baker"???

A baker who has been married for twenty years?

[Russoslava]

I think any Private busniess should be allowed to deny anyone service for ANY reason because the government or anyone should not force anyone to do something that they don't want to. I don't want a Christian Baker being forced to bake a Cake for a Same-Sex Couple if the Baker doesn't want to bake the cake and I would want a Same-Sex Baker not be forced to bake for a Christian Couple if the Baker doesn't want to. That is what Freedom will is.

And i think that religion should be a private only matter and shouldn’t but into the public sphere at all. I’m not saying that religion should be banned or anything like that, I’m religious myself. But religion is a private matter and not something that should be involved in Business, public, and government matters

PRIVATE BUSINESS IS PRIVATE. Again, I think no one should be forced to go against their beliefs because the Government or other people said so. Again I say "if one Damn baker won't bake you a damn cake, find another damn baker". A Private Business is a thing for a reason. It was paid by someone own money so it should be their call who they serve and who they don't. No matter what. If it's a Gay Baker denying a Straight couple or a Straight Baker denying a gay couple. I don't care your Race, Religion, Nationality, Political Beliefs, Gender or anything else, if someone refuses to serve you in a PRIVATE BUSINESS than that's their right.

[Russoslava]

In my Personal OpinionIn a Free Market Economy and According to the First Amendment a Baker should not be forced to sell to anyone as long as said Baker doesn't take the Money from the consumer in question. Again, If one baker won't bake you a cake find another damn baker. I don't see why that concept is so hard to see. There is room for compromise this way.

Your opinion =/= legal fact. The reason that you thought the two are equivalent is because you conveniently ignored Acts of Congress regarding this matter.

I would want a Same-Sex Baker not be forced to bake for a Christian Couple if the Baker doesn't want to.

...

...What the hell is a "same-sex Baker"???

I meant Homosexual. But you get my point.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

I think any Private busniess should be allowed to deny anyone service for ANY reason because the government or anyone should not force anyone to do something that they don't want to. I don't want a Christian Baker being forced to bake a Cake for a Same-Sex Couple if the Baker doesn't want to bake the cake and I would want a Same-Sex Baker not be forced to bake for a Christian Couple if the Baker doesn't want to. That is what Freedom will is.

And i think that religion should be a private only matter and shouldn’t but into the public sphere at all. I’m not saying that religion should be banned or anything like that, I’m religious myself. But religion is a private matter and not something that should be involved in Business, public, and government matters

But the United States has a secular government. They can’t not and should not prohibit people from expressing their religious views in public. People and business are allowed to express their personal and religious beliefs, just like people and business can express pro-LGBT views. I do believe there is a difference between having religious based laws and people and business expressing their religious views.

[The New California Republic]

And i think that religion should be a private only matter and shouldn’t but into the public sphere at all. I’m not saying that religion should be banned or anything like that, I’m religious myself. But religion is a private matter and not something that should be involved in Business, public, and government matters

PRIVATE BUSINESS IS PRIVATE. Again, I think no one should be forced to go against their beliefs because the Government or other people said so. Again I say "if one Damn baker won't bake you a damn cake, find another damn baker". A Private Business is a thing for a reason. It was paid by someone own money so it should be their call who they serve and who they don't. No matter what. If it's a Gay Baker denying a Straight couple or a Straight Baker denying a gay couple. I don't care your Race, Religion, Nationality, Political Beliefs, Gender or anything else, if someone refuses to serve you in a PRIVATE BUSINESS than that's their right.

SHOUTING the words PRIVATE BUSINESS doesn't magically make refusing service to black people acceptable you know. Shouting isn't a valid replacement for sound and reasonable arguments, it never has been.

...What the hell is a "same-sex Baker"???

I meant Homosexual. But you get my point.

No. I really didn't...

[Vassenor]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Congress didn't pass it. The Maine State Legislature did.

I guess that also means that state governments have the right to take away your guns and your free speech then.

[Russoslava]

PRIVATE BUSINESS IS PRIVATE. Again, I think no one should be forced to go against their beliefs because the Government or other people said so. Again I say "if one Damn baker won't bake you a damn cake, find another damn baker". A Private Business is a thing for a reason. It was paid by someone own money so it should be their call who they serve and who they don't. No matter what. If it's a Gay Baker denying a Straight couple or a Straight Baker denying a gay couple. I don't care your Race, Religion, Nationality, Political Beliefs, Gender or anything else, if someone refuses to serve you in a PRIVATE BUSINESS than that's their right.

SHOUTING the words PRIVATE BUSINESS doesn't magically make refusing service to black people acceptable you know. Shouting isn't a valid replacement for sound and reasonable arguments, it never has been.

I meant Homosexual. But you get my point.

No. I really didn't...

My Argument is that a Private Business, owned by an Individual has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If that owner denies a black man because he is black that makes him a Racist and everyone will know about and He'll likely go out of Business for it should he of done it, No. Should have that right, yes he should. You as the Consumer have a right not to shop in said Business. However, this isn't 1850 so I think these Scenarios you're making isn't really a concern in 2018.

[Russoslava]

Congress didn't pass it. The Maine State Legislature did.

I guess that also means that state governments have the right to take away your guns and your free speech then.

It doesn't because under the constitution no government, federal, State or Local can infringe on those rights. The PRESERVATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT protect Businesses, People and Church from Lawsuits based on their Religious beliefs which are covered under the 1st Amendment.

[West Leas Oros]

In my Personal OpinionIn a Free Market Economy and According to the First Amendment a Baker should not be forced to sell to anyone as long as said Baker doesn't take the Money from the consumer in question. Again, If one baker won't bake you a cake find another damn baker. I don't see why that concept is so hard to see. There is room for compromise this way.

Your opinion =/= legal fact. The reason that you thought the two are equivalent is because you conveniently ignored Acts of Congress regarding this matter.

I would want a Same-Sex Baker not be forced to bake for a Christian Couple if the Baker doesn't want to.

...

...What the hell is a "same-sex Baker"???

Bakersexual. People only attracted to bakers.

[The New California Republic]

My Argument is that a Private Business, owned by an Individual has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If that owner denies a black man because he is black that makes him a Racist and everyone will know about and He'll likely go out of Business for it should he of done it, No. Should have that right, yes he should. You as the Consumer have a right not to shop in said Business. However, this isn't 1850 so I think these Scenarios you're making isn't really a concern in 2018.

And yet you think that businesses refusing service to black people is somehow acceptable, and you have previously ignored the fact that various anti-discrimination laws exist. Who, out of the two of us, is more likely pretending it is 1850? It completely undermines your argument in regards to what you think businesses should and shouldn't be able to do...

[Right wing humour squad]

My Argument is that a Private Business, owned by an Individual has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If that owner denies a black man because he is black that makes him a Racist and everyone will know about and He'll likely go out of Business for it should he of done it, No. Should have that right, yes he should. You as the Consumer have a right not to shop in said Business. However, this isn't 1850 so I think these Scenarios you're making isn't really a concern in 2018.

And yet you think that businesses refusing service to black people is somehow acceptable, and you have previously ignored the fact that various anti-discrimination laws exist. Who, out of the two of us, is more likely pretending it is 1850? It completely undermines your argument in regards to what you think businesses should and shouldn't be able to do...

Well no he’s ahead thinking like it’s 2050 where anti discrimination laws have been repealed. And freedom of contract is maintained.

[The New California Republic]

I guess that also means that state governments have the right to take away your guns and your free speech then.

It doesn't because under the constitution no government, federal, State or Local can infringe on those rights. The PRESERVATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT protect Businesses, People and Church from Lawsuits based on their Religious beliefs which are covered under the 1st Amendment.

Again, that Act does not give businesses carte blanche to refuse service to whoever they like, as you seem to think, nor does it overrule relevant Acts of Congress...

[Vassenor]

I guess that also means that state governments have the right to take away your guns and your free speech then.

It doesn't because under the constitution no government, federal, State or Local can infringe on those rights. The PRESERVATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT protect Businesses, People and Church from Lawsuits based on their Religious beliefs which are covered under the 1st Amendment.

But by your own admission the first amendment does not bind state governments.

[Russoslava]

I'm going to leave it off here because I'm getting really tired of this. A PRIVATE Business should have the right to deny anyone Services for any reason and should not be forced to serve them if they don't want too as long as they don't take Payment from said services. However, does it make alright if someone denies a Black man because of his race? No, but that Person still have a right to refuse. Just because something is allowed doesn't make it alright. Anyone my point is Ultimately is that the Government or other people should not force other people to go against their beliefs. If the government can force a Christian Baker to bake a cake for a Gay couple than they can force anyone to go against their beliefs. I'll leave of with this. "IF ONE DAMN BAKER WONT BAKE YOU A FUCKING CAKE THAN FIND ANOTHER FUCKING BAKER". I'm done with this conversation now.