U.S. Supreme Court Rules for Cake Maker

[untermensche]

I don't need to read anything.

Yep.

I know the facts of the case.

I do not need the high priests to tell me how to think about it.

I have a mind.

Some do not and need to read a subjective biased opinion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Read the opinion. You’re wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An Opinion is just a series of lame excuses to do what you want to do in the fist place. It is never a thing that approaches objectivity. That is why it is called an opinion. We form our conclusions first then with cleverness create an opinion to take us there.

I don't need to read anything.

You do need to read to see where the court went with this. Did they say flour, eggs, and sugar are protected speech (only two justices)? Did they say the Colorado board was biased (majority)? Did they say religious beliefs trump civil rights (hard to tell, but presumably two)?

 

[untermensche]

Read the opinion. You’re wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An Opinion is just a series of lame excuses to do what you want to do in the fist place. It is never a thing that approaches objectivity. That is why it is called an opinion. We form our conclusions first then with cleverness create an opinion to take us there.

I don't need to read anything.

You do need to read to see where the court went with this. Did they say flour, eggs, and sugar are protected speech (only two justices)? Did they say the Colorado board was biased (majority)? Did they say religious beliefs trump civil rights (hard to tell, but presumably two)?

I know what happened.

Some baker said his religious practice is all about discrimination of his services.

It can't be about speech. The cake is not the speech of the baker. The baker is the maker of a cake. Not a speech maker.

And some Taliban on the Supreme Court agreed with him.

Speech can be more than words.

Burning the flag can be speech. But it is the speech of the person burning the flag. Not the speech of the flag maker.

The baker is a disinterested third party in public service.

There may be limits of decency but the line was drawn way too far on the side of pure discrimination based on delusion here.

It shows the US to be a primitive nation.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Unter, consider this. If Jimmy and I actually agree on something, isn't it even theoretically possible you are wrong then?

The court didn't rule in favor of discrimination. It is a very technical ruling saying the CCRC engaged in viewpoint discrimination. It would take an entirely different case to determine if a baker can deny service qua a baker denying service.

 

[untermensche]

Unter, consider this. If Jimmy and I actually agree on something, isn't it even theoretically possible you are wrong then?

The court didn't rule in favor of discrimination. It is a very technical ruling saying the CCRC engaged in viewpoint discrimination. It would take an entirely different case to determine if a baker can deny service qua a baker denying service.

Yes.

You have some totally fabricated after the fact twisted excuse to allow pure discrimination based on religious delusion.

And you bow to it as if it was written by some god.

These opinions are nothing but twisted rationales. They are the result of first thinking where you want to go (allow religious discrimination because you share the delusion) then coming up with some twisted path to take you there.

It is art, not science.

It is rhetoric, or hiding behind a thin technicality, not reason.

But it is all we have. As subjective and completely full of warts as it is.

There are some good parts.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You do need to read to see where the court went with this. Did they say flour, eggs, and sugar are protected speech (only two justices)? Did they say the Colorado board was biased (majority)? Did they say religious beliefs trump civil rights (hard to tell, but presumably two)?

I know what happened.

Some baker said his religious practice is all about discrimination of his services.

It can't be about speech. The cake is not the speech of the baker. The baker is the maker of a cake. Not a speech maker.

And some Taliban on the Supreme Court agreed with him.

Speech can be more than words.

Burning the flag can be speech. But it is the speech of the person burning the flag. Not the speech of the flag maker.

The baker is a disinterested third party in public service.

There may be limits of decency but the line was drawn way too far on the side of pure discrimination based on delusion here.

It shows the US to be a primitive nation.

Do you think there was another baker in the Denver region who would have made a cake for them?

 

[untermensche]

You do need to read to see where the court went with this. Did they say flour, eggs, and sugar are protected speech (only two justices)? Did they say the Colorado board was biased (majority)? Did they say religious beliefs trump civil rights (hard to tell, but presumably two)?

I know what happened.

Some baker said his religious practice is all about discrimination of his services.

It can't be about speech. The cake is not the speech of the baker. The baker is the maker of a cake. Not a speech maker.

And some Taliban on the Supreme Court agreed with him.

Speech can be more than words.

Burning the flag can be speech. But it is the speech of the person burning the flag. Not the speech of the flag maker.

The baker is a disinterested third party in public service.

There may be limits of decency but the line was drawn way too far on the side of pure discrimination based on delusion here.

It shows the US to be a primitive nation.

Do you think there was another baker in the Denver region who would have made a cake for them?

I am talking about a universal principle.

Something that should apply to all people in business.

None should be allowed to discriminate based only on some delusion about what is religious practice.

Many Christians will tell you it is not a part of the practice of Christianity to discriminate in this manner.

It is only a fanatical fringe (a large fringe in the US) that thinks discrimination of this kind is part of their religious practice.

This decision caters to the most religiously fanatical.

It is good only in that it shows the true nature of the people on the Court that supported it.

Religious fanatics at their core.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Unter, consider this. If Jimmy and I actually agree on something, isn't it even theoretically possible you are wrong then?

The court didn't rule in favor of discrimination. It is a very technical ruling saying the CCRC engaged in viewpoint discrimination. It would take an entirely different case to determine if a baker can deny service qua a baker denying service.

You have some totally fabricated after the fact twisted excuse to allow pure discrimination based on religious delusion.

No, I reported on what was the majority opinion of the court.

And you bow to it as if it was written by some god.

Actually you're the one who holds the government in divine regard.

These opinions are nothing but twisted rationales. They are the result of first thinking where you want to go (allow religious discrimination because you share the delusion) then coming up with some twisted path to take you there.

The minority opinions on this case did have opinions based on religion.

It is art, not science.

No, it's law.

It is rhetoric, or hiding behind a thin technicality, not reason.

No, it's jurisprudence.

But it is all we have. As subjective and completely full of warts as it is.

In a sense all social constructs are subjective. Beyond that, this case doesn't qualify.

There are some good parts.

Like how the court actually ruled against viewpoint discrimination by government bodies.

 

[James Madison]

Read the opinion. You’re wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An Opinion is just a series of lame excuses to do what you want to do in the fist place. It is never a thing that approaches objectivity. That is why it is called an opinion. We form our conclusions first then with cleverness create an opinion to take us there.

I don't need to read anything.

I can think.

And it is absolute delusion to claim that Christian practice includes discrimination against gay marriage.

That is a temporary religious delusion that is prevalent.

So prevalent it dominates the Court.

They have been picked by those with religious delusions, like Reagan and GH Bush and GW Bush and Trump, because of their religious delusions.

Lol...ok...this notion you can deride the opinion as not approaching “objectivity” without reading the opinion to ascertain whether the opinion is lacking objectivity, is comical nonsense.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You do need to read to see where the court went with this. Did they say flour, eggs, and sugar are protected speech (only two justices)? Did they say the Colorado board was biased (majority)? Did they say religious beliefs trump civil rights (hard to tell, but presumably two)?

I know what happened.

Some baker said his religious practice is all about discrimination of his services.

It can't be about speech. The cake is not the speech of the baker. The baker is the maker of a cake. Not a speech maker.

And some Taliban on the Supreme Court agreed with him.

Speech can be more than words.

Burning the flag can be speech. But it is the speech of the person burning the flag. Not the speech of the flag maker.

The baker is a disinterested third party in public service.

There may be limits of decency but the line was drawn way too far on the side of pure discrimination based on delusion here.

It shows the US to be a primitive nation.

Do you think there was another baker in the Denver region who would have made a cake for them?

That is a crap excuse because regions can become unserviceable if they want to do so. People shouldn't have to go elsewhere for a product that is for sale at a particular place.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You do need to read to see where the court went with this. Did they say flour, eggs, and sugar are protected speech (only two justices)? Did they say the Colorado board was biased (majority)? Did they say religious beliefs trump civil rights (hard to tell, but presumably two)?

I know what happened.

Some baker said his religious practice is all about discrimination of his services.

It can't be about speech. The cake is not the speech of the baker. The baker is the maker of a cake. Not a speech maker.

And some Taliban on the Supreme Court agreed with him.

Only two agreed that a cake is speech, though Breyer seemed to be headed there during the arguments as well.

 

[untermensche]

Lol...ok...this notion you can deride the opinion as not approaching “objectivity” without reading the opinion to ascertain whether the opinion is lacking objectivity, is comical nonsense.

ALL opinions are subjective.

The entirety of what is called the law is subjective opinion.

All you need is an opinion shared by enough of some random group of people and it is then the law.

The 10 commandments were allegedly objective law.

Since then it is all subjective opinion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Read the opinion. You’re wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An Opinion is just a series of lame excuses to do what you want to do in the fist place. It is never a thing that approaches objectivity. That is why it is called an opinion. We form our conclusions first then with cleverness create an opinion to take us there.

I don't need to read anything.

I can think.

And it is absolute delusion to claim that Christian practice includes discrimination against gay marriage.

That is a temporary religious delusion that is prevalent.

So prevalent it dominates the Court.

They have been picked by those with religious delusions, like Reagan and GH Bush and GW Bush and Trump, because of their religious delusions.

Lol...ok...this notion you can deride the opinion as not approaching “objectivity” without reading the opinion to ascertain whether the opinion is lacking objectivity, is comical nonsense.

Much like the false equivalence used by the majority of the bench.

 

[James Madison]

Do you think there was another baker in the Denver region who would have made a cake for them?

I am talking about a universal principle.

Something that should apply to all people in business.

None should be allowed to discriminate based only on some delusion about what is religious practice.

Many Christians will tell you it is not a part of the practice of Christianity to discriminate in this manner.

It is only a fanatical fringe (a large fringe in the US) that thinks discrimination of this kind is part of their religious practice.

This decision caters to the most religiously fanatical.

It is good only in that it shows the true nature of the people on the Court that supported it.

Religious fanatics at their core.

This decision didn’t “cater to the most religiously fanatical.” Rather, the decision said the public accommodation law was not applied in a neutral manner but in a discriminatory fashion on the basis the religious belief is “offensive” and hostility towards the religious belief.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Lol...ok...this notion you can deride the opinion as not approaching “objectivity” without reading the opinion to ascertain whether the opinion is lacking objectivity, is comical nonsense.

Much like the false equivalence used by the majority of the bench.

I have no idea what you are referencing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Lol...ok...this notion you can deride the opinion as not approaching “objectivity” without reading the opinion to ascertain whether the opinion is lacking objectivity, is comical nonsense.

ALL opinions are subjective.

The entirety of what is called the law is subjective opinion.

All you need is an opinion shared by enough of some random group of people and it is then the law.

The 10 commandments were allegedly objective law.

Since then it is all subjective opinion.

Good. Which means your BS diatribe is also subjective, but not only is your opinion subjective, it’s conspicuously devoid of any lucid and logical thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[coloradoatheist]

Do you think there was another baker in the Denver region who would have made a cake for them?

That is a crap excuse because regions can become unserviceable if they want to do so. People shouldn't have to go elsewhere for a product that is for sale at a particular place.

Yeah because in all my years of shopping I've never had to go to different stores to look for what I want.

 

[dismal]

Do you think there was another baker in the Denver region who would have made a cake for them?

That is a crap excuse because regions can become unserviceable if they want to do so. People shouldn't have to go elsewhere for a product that is for sale at a particular place.

Again, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had no problem with bakers sending people elsewhere if they didn't like the cake's message. They upheld multiple bakers decisions to send people elsewhere rather than bake a bible verse cake.

The problem is they were making such decisions based on the content of the message. This is "viewpoint discrimination".

 

[starwater]

The first office I rented was right across the street from this cake shop. I used to get pastries from time to time there until all of this started and I stopped going there. It's a very small shop in a strip mall. I don't go to Hobby Lobby or chick-fil-a either. I don't donate to the salvation army.

 

[Juma]

I agree with the ruling. If I had a bakery business I want the right to refuse custom service to a neo Nazi event. They can walk in and buy anything off the shelf.

If I were a sculptor and a neo Nazi wanted me to create a statue of Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels I would decline.

It is a wider issue of the right to not be compelled by govt and the right of free association. A restaurant owner may be racist, but can not refuse to serve blacks. He can not be compelled to cater a black wedding. A black restaurant owner can not refuse service to people wearing Nazi clothes, but can not be compiled to cater a racists event.

It cuts both ways.

So you think that being gay (or being black) is similar to have a specific opinion???