Jack Phillips' Masterpiece Cakeshop Sees 3 Times More Customers Since Supreme Court Victory
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Jack Phillips told The Christian Post on Thursday that his bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, has seen three times more customers since his Supreme Court victory.
"We have had so many people coming by to support us as the case has gone on, and there has been an outpouring of love and support since the decision came down. The state's targeting of my beliefs cost me 40 percent of my business and forced me from 10 employees down to four. But we're so happy to be busy doing what we do best at our shop," the Christian baker told CP in an email.
"We're also eager to start designing custom wedding cakes again," Phillips added.
"A cake is a canvas, and I'm really looking forward to creating beautiful art that celebrates such a special day."
Close to 400 supporters lined up at Masterpiece Cakeshop to celebrate his Supreme Court victory earlier this month, according to Alliance Defending Freedom, whose lawyers defended him. Cookies were offered to the LGBT activists who came out to protest.
As for the response from the community, he said that even though one can never get used to death threats, for the most part people have been supportive and understanding of his position.
"Since we won, we've seen far more support than negativity. Even people who don't believe what I do about marriage, including many who identify as LGBT, have been so encouraging. Tolerance is a two-way street. If we want freedom for ourselves, we have to extend it to those with whom we disagree. Most people get that," Phillips told CP.
"While we've seen much support, it hasn't all been positive. Throughout the case, I received a lot of harassment, profanity-laced phone calls, and even some death threats. The threats got so bad at one point that my wife was afraid to set foot inside our own shop," he continued.
"Even after we won the case, a group of people showed up at my shop to protest. I offered them cookies and told them to stop by anytime."
The baker explained: "Certainly, you never get used to hostility, misrepresentation, or death threats. We've had to deal with our share of hatred directed at us. But most people in our community and our customers know that we serve everyone — we just don't celebrate every event or express every message."
ADF published a YouTube video published last week that shows long lines of people, customers and supporters congratulating Phillips at his shop in Colorado, ordering and enjoying food items, and speaking out for free speech.
"A lot of people are coming out to show their support and encourage us. People have been praying across the country and around the world, it is just phenomenal," Phillips says in the video. "Our God is so good."
Speaking of all the support he has been receiving, the baker added: "On a day like this, I am feeling overwhelmed."
Many of the people in the video are seen and heard chanting slogans such as "Jack is back" and "Love free speech!"
Still, a dozen or so protesters showed up with LGBT flags, to whom Phillips offered free cookies on a tray.
"The protesters politely (and some not-so-politely) declined the cookies," ADF reported.
The Supreme Court decision from June 4 overturned an earlier move by a lower court in Colorado that found Phillips guilty of violating anti-discrimination laws by refusing to bake a custom cake to celebrate the wedding of Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012 when same-sex marriage was illegal in Colorado.
As Phillips has explained, he serves everyone in his cakeshop, including gay customers, but cannot create pro same-sex marriage messages, as it goes against his religious beliefs that marriage is solely a union between one man and one woman.
The Supreme Court found that Colorado had violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment when it penalized Phillips, by displaying hostility toward his beliefs.
ADF attorney Kristen Waggoner, who defended Phillips in the case, said at the time that "government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society."
"The court was right to condemn that," she said. "Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a society like ours. This decision makes clear that the government must respect Jack's beliefs about marriage."
In an interview a day later on the "Today" show, Phillips said: "I don't discriminate against anybody."
"It's just that I don't create cakes for every occasion that people ask me to create ... a wedding is just an inherently religious event and the cake is definitely a specific message that goes with that," he added.
You can watch what happened at Masterpiece Cakeshop in the video below:
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
70 visitors
What is confusing to me is that the activists will support people of the Muslim faith when they stand up for and demand tolerance of their religious rights, but demonize Christians who stand up for theirs.
Being the classic movie buff that I am, it makes me think of Tiberius Caesar in the movie Ben Hur, when he said to the victorious Roman consul who was with Ben Hur, about Ben Hur: "There is a strange inconsistency in this man, who tries to kill my governor, yet saves the life of my consul."
Who is saying or even hinting that Muslims who operate a public business can pick and choose who they serve because of their religious beliefs?
Go into a bakeshop in Dearborn, Michigan, or any Muslim enclave or community in the US, and you will likely be turned down for a same sex wedding cake. Life is hard, even harder if one refuses to think logically and accept reality.
Did you ever try taking a case of beer you just bought into a Muslim taxi/uber, or try bringing a seeing-eye dog onto a bus driven by a Muslim driver, or into a Halal butcher shop?
Crowder's lies have been debunked. Those bakeries do not make wedding cakes for anyone, because a wedding cake is a western idea that Muslims do not do.
I don't drink beer and I don't have a seeing-eye dog.
Actually that myth was debunked long ago. Crowder even admits that the Muslim-owned bakeries which made custom cakes were happy to make him one for his hypothetical "gay wedding". Funny though how wingnuts keep recycling the same moronic crap every time this topic comes up, particularly since Michigan has no relevant public accommodations laws.
Examples where religious beliefs rule:
I have had 2 Muslim Drs. They were very good. I would go back to them if they were on my current insurance plan.
I wish that I understood OSM's reply, but as it stands it is logically incoherent to me.
Muslims do not sell wedding cakes to anyone because they are not typically part of their culture. You cannot walk into a kosher deli and order a ham sandwich because they are not obligated to sell you something that isn't on the menu. They would be required to sell you something if they sold that same product to someone else.
The baker in Colorado has the choice to stop making weddings cakes for everyone, to make his business a private business where he has the right to determine who can be a customer, or to sell the same cakes to anyone who walks in the door. A bakery can decide to offer any baked good they choose, but public accommodation protections mandate that they must offer that same baked good for sale to everyone who walks in the door equally instead of choosing who they will sell it to.
Actually what you folks have demonstrated is that the ONLY cases in the US of businesses illegally denying service based on the sexual orientation of the customer are businesses owned by radical Christian extremists.......and in fact in every case to date the owner is a Southern Baptist (just like all the key historic cases involving a refusal to serve black folks or a refusal to serve mixed-race couples).
The funny part is that you folks keep recycling the Crowder hoax video even though it's been debunked and Crowder actually admits that none of the bakeries which made custom cakes denied him service.......but all he shows in the video are 3 bakeries which don't even sell the product he wants to buy.
How is that a double standard, when he has the right to choose what products that he serves, as long as he serves them equally? If you put a wedding cake for a heterosexual wedding and a wedding cake for a gay wedding beside each other how would they differ visually or in construction?
Do you think that racists have the right to refuse equal service to black and interracial customers, because the arguments that you are using are the exact same that they used in the 1950-60s to support whites-only businesses?
Bullshit. If the Uber driver refuses to transport a rider with unopened containers or a service dog, and is reported by the rider, the driver could have their account suspended. It's in the Uber ToS.
You appear to be a very angry person.
I have read Neitschze, Kant, Schopenhauer and Heidegger, but your reply was logically incoherent, even after reading it multiple times. Instead of being belligerent, you could have simply re-phrased it instead.
You are correct.
Lol you intimate that you comprehend what those people philosophize but you didn't understand OSM's comment?
Hilarious!
Depends 100% on what rights you are wanting. It shouldn't be confusing at all. I will state my position as clearly as possible, if the religious rights you want violate the law or a person's rights then go fuck yourself with a spear. If the rights you are wanting don't do that then whatever.
Honestly, I would not desire or eat any of a cake or any other substance "packaged"by someone who wishes me ill, or who does not like me. Furthermore, I would not want it said in conversation to guests - they are ingesting a substance prepared by someone who disapproves of how I live.
I can understand why the case was bought up, and I will go read the opinion of the high court. I would not want the product and I do not give others something I do not want for myself, nevertheless.
The good news is that none of the plaintiffs in these cases ended up getting their cakes from the bigoted baker but instead they got it from a far more ethical and talented baker. Simultaneously the public accommodations law was affirmed by SCOTUS, and the public now knows which bakers are dumb bigots without the need for those bigoted bakers to post a sign stating which minorities they hate and are unwilling to serve.
The best part is that if any of these bigoted bakers pulls the same stunt again the state will most assuredly prosecute them and win.
Sounds like the next logical step is for the state to rescind the bigoted baker's license to do business.
Hi Shrekk! I am going to read the SCOTUS opinion in the coming days. (I always learn something from great court minds.) I do not wish this businessman-baker ill-will or poor business. Indeed, I want to wish him success. I simply want what is best for everybody involved.
I know some people will never 'close the loop' on respecting some classification of people - even when they want to - because there are attitudes-frames of reference-worldviews swirling all around us.
It can be sufficient for me, if we just manage to live with diversity in the same place. As Mr. Rodney King deftly put it: "Can't we all just get along?"
You simply can't permit businesses to break public accommodations laws so if the bigoted baker does this again he'll be fined or his license top do business might be revoked. This isn't that much different than if he refused to comply with state or local health codes.
But the dumb bigot has several choices if he wants to deny service to same-sex couples - he can move to a red state since none of them have adequate public accommodations laws, or he can run his bakery as a private members-only club and call it something like "Hate Cakes for Jesus". That's the compromise our society has decided on, that businesses which sell to the public must play by one set of rules, but private clubs are free to be as bigoted as they like.
Skrekk, I take utter exception to your strategic use of the word, "bigot," throughout. The impact of your comments could be so much more powerful if I did not have to swallow so hard to get the word, "bigot" down. It is a gross distraction. That said, I do not want it to be a topic of discussion between us, per se.
I just now read the two prominent SCOTUS opinions: Justices Kennedy (assenting) and Ginsberg (dissenting). TAKEAWAY. I can see both Justices points of view. In each case the Justices take into account what is relevant to the arguments. There is one, or two, okay - several - striking circumstances to note, nevertheless:
should notcan not simply be left out of the addition in this case - as affirmed by the assenting Justices. The "Commissioners" twice, implying with deliberativeness, did not give Mr. Phillips' dilemma a full chance to be expressed. In other words, Mr. Phillip's raison de etre for advancing his case further was he had a religious question-problem for the Commissioners to investigate and the Commissioners repeatedly side-stepped the question in favor of state law.Therefore, the Commissioners have failed in the fulfillment of their duties Mr. Phillips. This takes precedent from a legal procedure viewpoint over any other occasion. I am compelled to agree with the assenting Justices. This case demonstrates why it is important for courts to perform law methodically with every appropriate deliberation.
Sure, but note what that concurrence means......it's in support of the enforcement of public accommodations laws in these very cases.
While I more fully agree with the "dissent" of Ginsburg and Sotomayor in that it's the more correct opinion (ie that there was no overt bias and SCOTUS should not have found in favor of the offender even if there were bias by the commission), the general outcome is the same since the court majority as well as Ginsburg and Sotomayor support the applicability of CO's law here. The only one who really dissents from that core aspect is Thomas......he seems to think that superstition is an excuse to violate the law. Not even Gorsuch thinks that.
I am going to draw your attention away to something else:
Justices Sotamayor and Ginsberg are in manifest error to call for a conclusion, when a 'fatal' step in the process has been neglected to be followed. Moving beyond the "freedom" questions to support states' rights, does not fix or end the legal question or concern:
— Does Mr. Phillips have a right to share his creative free-speech with its accompanying "sensitivities" - which he is yet to manifest on a canvas of some kin - with persons of his own choosing. Or words to this effect.
Colorado State Law, as far as I know, has not sufficiently dealt with this question. . . .
As I noted in another comment the Colorado Court of Appeals heard the case de novo and exhibited no bias, and that's the ruling for which SCOTUS heard the appeal. They were NOT hearing an appeal of the finding of the civil rights commission per se. So if anything Kennedy and the court majority erred here by remanding based on a procedural "error" which was actually irrelevant to the outcome of the case and not part of the proceedings being appealed. Ginsberg and Sotomayor are right, although that's the only part where they actually dissent from the majority.
.
The civil rights commission, ALJ and Court of Appeals all directly dealt with that issue. See the bottom of pg 31 to pg 42 in the COA ruling. And as the COA noted the bigoted baker is free to post a sign stating that "the provision of its services does not constitute an endorsement or approval of conduct protected by CADA."
Skrekk, this points to how issues, facts, actions, and conclusions should converge into one another in order to produce - harmony . It also demonstrates and examples that judges are not operating in a closed in setting of sterile books, rulings, and court precedents, such that they can not take issue with the proper and dutiful execution of court standards. Something was found to be out of order and the high court did not duck its capacity to take corrective action. I applaud the High Court. So what if it 'halts' the process - shoe on other foot - all of us should 'cheer' the presence of court prudence!
Pages 2 and 3 of Masterpiece Cakeshop.
The freedoms asserted here are both the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise of protected speech. This is an instructive example , however, o f the proposition that the application of constitutional freedoms in new contexts can deepen our understanding of their meaning . One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker’s refusal to provide service. If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage—for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning—that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all. In defining whether a baker’s creation can be protected, these details might make a difference.
The same difficulties arise in determining whether a baker has a valid free exercise claim. A baker’s refusal to attend the wedding to ensure that the cake is cut the right way, or a refusal to put certain religious words or decorations on the cake, or even a refusal to sell a cake that has been baked for the public generally but includes certain religious words or symbols on it are just three examples of possibilities that seem all but endless. Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, t he Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality . The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions.
The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws . Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here . When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality t hat the Constitution requires. Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause ; and its order must be set aside.
(Emphasis Calbab.)
In fairness to your concern, I will read the bottom of the listed pages. In the interest of time I did not take time with the notes (this time around) because I am busy with many projects. SCOTUS footnotes are important, nevertheless! I will not gloss over them. (Smile.) Before I reply back-let me ask you:
Is it your assertion religion has no basis that our courts should rule on, comment on, or words to this effect? Please elaborate.
I'm saying that Kennedy was correct when he noted that: “[I]t is a general rule that [religious and philosophical] objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”
And that's consistently been the court's view for at least the last 140 years, ever since 1878 when SCOTUS said: "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
So while a bigoted business owner can cite his racist or homophobic superstitions as an excuse for violating the law, those excuses simply have no legal weight particularly since the state has a compelling interest here. In general a secular government cannot allow superstition to trump a generally applicable law.
Shrekk, I'm sorry, but the time has come and I have no choice but to boycott your inflammatory rhetoric. If you persist in routine derogatory name-calling, I will ignore all such comments of yours. If I can be civil when writing to you, you damn well can be civil writing back to me. I'm going to hold myself to a higher standard. )-:
In closely related news the dumb bigots who used to operate "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" were denied their appeal by the Oregon supreme court, so they now have to cough up the $135,000 they were fined for willfully breaking state law and then retaliating against the plaintiffs in a most insidious manner.
I read in your link that the Kleins (the former business owners) may have their lawyers pursue this at the Supreme Court level. Keeping interest open. . . .
That's the only option the dumb bigots have but they have no viable case whatsoever.
Note that SCOTUS has never allowed superstition or "artistic expression" to be used as an excuse to violate any public accommodations law, and they ruled against those claims when they affirmed the ruling in Newman v Piggie Park.
When it comes to selling cakes, the left-wingers on this site argue that the commercial laws overrule the religious beliefs. Why is it that religious beliefs take precedence over commercial or other laws only when Muslims sue over Hijab cases, such as the settled lawsuits with the NYPD, or the Abercrombie & Fitch case?
I suggest you learn about the difference between employment law and public accommodations law. Or at least learn about the Newman v Piggie Park BBQ ruling, where a racist Southern Baptist made the exact same claims as the homophobic Southern Baptist in the Masterpiece case.
Can you please post the A&F case in question so I can read it? Thank you.
The lady had the right to wear a hijab for a DMV photo, or to be searched by a female officer because of her religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court said that she had religious rights at work.
Yes, the same results for the Muslim truck drivers in this case:
It really is quite confusing that religious rights take precedence in some cases in a place of business, but in other cases in a place of business they don't. Seems like the business owners always lose.
Your article link throws an error. (Smile.)
Speaking blind on your story, in general, our laws take account of past cases which have come before judges, various legislation, rules and regulations, and a broad spectrum of 'area' factors. You probably know this already and I am truly off my mark with this comment. Still, I want to make this point.
Many people are sensitive to Muslims in this country, because of the politics, the insular nature of Muslim people and culture in the U.S., and honestly, other groups like Christians feature themselves prominently in American culture, politics, legal system, and setting up businesses. Christians 'run' to the front where the camera lens are set up! Christians, my people, are not afraid of being seen or heard!
Actually it's pretty simple - an employer only needs to make reasonable accommodation to an employee's superstitious practices and dress to the extent that it doesn't substantively interfere with the business. That's a "de minimis" standard.
In contrast a business (which is open to the public) cannot deny service based on any protected trait of the customer.....including things like race, superstition, sex, and in some states gender identity and sexual orientation. What's really going on here is that dumb bigots like these bakers want the right to violate these laws but they'd scream very loudly if they were denied service because they're Southern Baptists or Jewish. In other words they want special rights and privileged status.
A corporation is not the same as the business owner because of the act of incorporation. A business is a legal construct and as such has no constitutional rights of its own. The business owner has the same legal rights as everyone else but he cannot use that business to run roughshod over the rights of others.
The part of that article which you apparently didn't read is this:
So the company itself admits it effed up. And note that this case is about employment law, a completely different issue from public accommodation cases like the Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis who lost their case even though they made the exact same claim about a religious refusal to transport alcohol.
That actually doesn't matter from the standpoint of public accommodations law, all that matters is that your business sells the products or services to the general public. There are other situations where the distinction between an owner and the business are a factor but this isn't one of them.
It doesn't matter as long as it is incorporated in some form. He has the right to operate unincorporated but I doubt that his lawyer or accountant would support that decision.
Why do you continue to look for a legal loophole that you can employ to discriminate against a customer? What is it about LGBTQ people that bother you so much that you want to treat them unequally? Would you also seek to treat black and interracial couples unequally if the law permitted you to do so? Would you do the same to people of a non-Christian religion if that were also legal? If you claim to be a Christian, then where in the teachings of Jesus does he say to act in this manner toward others?
Why do conservatives believe that LGBT couples/people are asking or demanding your acceptance of anything? This baker was not invited to the weddding and was not asked for his endorsement. He is a businessman who makes cakes for money and this couple tried to buy a cake that he would profit from. I'd think that he would be flattered that someone who he hates was willing to pay him money for his work product.
You and I have discussed that a bit before but I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter in these public accommodation cases, ie there's no exception given in these state laws to DBAs or sole proprietorships. All that matters is that they sell to the general public. It would be nice if Dulay were around to clarify the issue but I think she'd agree.
Other areas of law like employment law usually do distinguish based on the size of the business or whether it's incorporated, but not this area.
Before states passed their own public accommodation laws there were distinctions based on interstate commerce in determining whether the 1964 CRA applied, but that's not at issue here.
Personally I think it's good business to serve everyone that comes through the door unless it is something especially outrageous. The thing that makes me hesitate and consider the bakers point of view is that the left has pushed so far and so uncompromising on these issues. The next step is ban and attack anybody who even believes in any sort of traditional ideas about sex and gender.
I know, right? Next thing you know they'll require that the bigoted baker serve mixed-race couples.
No, the next thing they'll want is forty year old men with penises claiming to be women showering with underage girls.... Oh wait, they already want that.
I'm not sure how that bizarre comment relates to the topic of a business refusing service for unlawful reasons, but it sounds like you have some odd sexual fantasies.
1.) Trans people have been using the bathroom of their identified gender for years without a problem. If you are going to build separate restooms, I'd suggest they be for priests, ministers and Republican politicans.
2.) Most trans women are heterosexual in their identified gender, so they would not be attracted to little girls.
3.) The trans women who are gay are lesbians and are not attracted to people under 18.
4. ) Do I need to explain what larges doses oif feminizing estrogen does to someone's sex drive or can you extrapolate that conclusion?
5.) You do not understand the difference between crossdressers and transgendered people, so it is your own ignorance that is the problem.
Masterpiece Cakeshop Sees 3 Times More Customers Since Supreme Court Victory
LMAO: After seeing the quality of the "master bakers" Masterpiece cakes last time on here I guess some people would rather patronize a crappy barker than have a great cake...
LOL ... Their choice.
They didn't really didn't want a cake...just build up a case where they could sue him, and lost. Just wonder if more dumb gay bigots would try that again.
How was the couple to know that the baker was a dumb bigot who would deny them service? He didn't have a sign posted which said "No same-sex couples allowed."
FYI all the bigoted baker won was a temporary reprieve from the fine, and he can still be retried for that offense. The larger win was for LGBT folks......in fact this ruling has already been cited as precedent to uphold the new public accommodations law in Phoenix.
The baker had a limited victory but a victory nonetheless. It’s great to see him celebrate with people who support his right to express his religious beliefs, even if they don’t necessarily hold those beliefs themselves.
You didnt read the SCOTUS decision very clearly because the court didn't say that the Colorado state ban on LGBT discrimination was unconstitutional. The Court only said that they should be nicer to him in the future and not call him a bigot, but they didn't say that he could refuse to equally serve people because of his religious beliefs. The decision is his favor was at best a legal technicality. The SCOTUS kicked the can down the road on a wider decision of country-wide LGBT public accomidation rights.
They're going to lose most of those cases too, since we'll have more conservative justices on the High Court.
Sorry Greg but the Masterpiece ruling has already been cited as precedent to uphold the new public accommodations law which protects sexual orientation in Phoenix. It was a huge loss for dumb bigots everywhere and SCOTUS plainly said: "....it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public."
I know exactly what the court said which is why I described the victory as “limited.” Nowhere did I say that the court reached the constitutional issue.
Actually they did when they cited the Piggie Park precedent. There is no unresolved constitutional issue in these cases.
Sorry Shrekk but the Supremes didn’t rule on the constitutional question and there’s no clear indication which way the majority would go. I think four judges would go your way. Three may go against you. That leaves two swing votes. If Ginsberg kicks the bucket 🤞, Trump would appoint another conservative justice. So Greg may be right. But then you were the person who said the case law was so obviously against the baker that, basically, his appeal was a waste of time. If you read where three of judges are on the issue, you’re clearly wrong.
Sorry but you obviously haven't read or understood the ruling. As the court majority said: "....it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public."
SCOTUS notes that any relief for the baker in this particular case would have to be extremely narrowly tailored so as not to undermine public accommodations laws in general, something which a constitutional claim would have done. So the court majority is rejecting that upfront.
The court also cited the Piggie Park precedent which addressed both of the bogus constitutional claims which the bigoted baker tried to use. In fact the Piggie Park ruling says that those claims are "frivolous" (the same issues were addressed in the McClung, Atlanta Motel and Pickrick Restaurant rulings). As the Piggie Park court said: "Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishments upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs."
.
The ruling was 7-2 with the concurrences, but it was really 8-1 regarding whether public accommodation laws apply to these cases. Also note that since 1883 SCOTUS has never struck down a public accommodations law of any kind.
The baker case was not decided on a constitutional issue and the court itself states that the issue remains unresolved.
What's unresolved? As the court said the fact that public accommodation laws can protect sexual orientation in these circumstances is "unexceptional".
Of course the court isn't going to rule out some future case which might present different claims but they did show why none of the bigoted baker's claims would be successful. In truth this case is no different from how a racist baker would have been treated if he had denied service to a mixed-race couple and then tried to use his traditional Southern Baptist beliefs and "artistic expression" as excuses to violate the law.
You might want to learn why the Arizona Court of Appeals just cited the Masterpiece ruling as precedent when it unanimously upheld their new public accommodations law against claims which were identical to those the bigoted baker made. In fact the same anti-LGBT hate group which nominally "won" in Masterpiece lost big time a few days later in the Arizona ruling. As SCOTUS noted (and the AZ court quoted):
.
So as I said you've neither read nor understood the court ruling.
That is unexceptional but, if you read more carefully, it should be obvious that the case wasn’t decided on the main constitutional issue. The case was decided on other grounds.
If that, to you, means the constitutional issue was reached (decided), then you are simply wrong.
You’re not on the court so what you think about what they’ll decide at some point in the future is irrelevant. The court did not decide the constitutional question in this case. Period.
The issue was whether the state of Colorado abrogated his constitutional right to freedom of religion not simply whether public accommodations laws apply. Just because a State’s public accommodations laws apply doesn’t mean that he has no constitutional right to freedom of religion. I think this nuance is something that has escaped you from the very beginning and still does. This is a complicated issue and the court said so. Constitutional rights can collide and when they do, the court must strike the balance. They saved that exercise for another day.
No offense but I’m not going to debate this further. If you want to believe that the constitutional issue was decided or that it’s clear as a bell for a future case or even that you can pull up a chair as the 10th justice, then knock yourself out.
It seems other courts have already gotten the message which SCOTUS clearly sent: "Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law."
.
LOL. Not very. As SCOTUS has repeatedly said: "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
I think the same about you. As I said, think whatever you like.
The majority decsion says that you are wrong. The SCOTUS didn't overrule the Colorado anti-discrimination law that forces him to serve all people equally, so if he tries this same stunt again he will be fined by the state for doing so. The state just cannot call him a religious bigot when they do it.
What part of the Masterpiece cake shop SCOTUS decision doesn't Shrekk or even I understand? This was a very narrow ruling that kicked the larger issue down the road. The SCOTUS most definately did not give business owners the rights to use their religious beliefs as a weapon to discriminate.
You can not defeat bias by supporting bias, Greg!
I have said over and over that the court did not reach the main constitutional issue and decided the case on other grounds i.e. “kicked the larger issue down the road.”
I never said they did. They didn’t reach the issue so they didn’t decide anything at all with regard to his religious rights one way or the other. Why? Because that’s what happens when you It down the fucking road.
The court decided that the Colorado Commission can’t set themselves up as a bunch of ignorant jackasses who pass on the legitimacy of his beliefs. They did NOT decide that Colorado’s anti-discrimination law trumps his constitutional first amendment rights. That’s the issue that was kicked down the road.
You can’t protect our constitutional rights by destroying them, calbab. Once you destroy them for one, they are destroyed for all.
The majoirty decision included very strong wording in the final paragraph that LGBT discrimination based on religious belief in a public business would not and could not be tolerated. The court also did not strike down the Colorado state legislation that prohibited religious discrimination on a statewide area as being a violation of religious rights. This issue will be back on the SCOTUS docket within 34 years for the larger ruling.
Instead of focusing on the larger picture the court only narrowly ruled on the actions by the Colorado committee and said that they should not have called Jack Phillips a religious bigot. Everything else was left standing. He can and likely will be fined if he pulls this same religious stunt again.
Hi 1ofMany! This is what Greg Jones wrote in 9.2.1. And I quote: "They're going to lose most of those cases too, since we'll have more conservative justices on the High Court."
1ofMany, What does what Greg Jones wrote have to do with the Constitution?
Actually, what matters is the Court's judgment today :
When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality t hat the Constitution requires.
Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these,
the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause ; and its order must be set aside .
Page 3.
NOTE : It is my opinion that if we liberals want justice for ourselves, then we should demand justice for all others.
That's fine if the court wants to remand due to what they perceive to be bias. But it was a rather silly remand since those issues weren't even part of the COA ruling which was "de novo" and it was that ruling which was before SCOTUS, not the ruling from the civil rights commission.
And as Ginsberg noted it steals justice away from the parties who were actually harmed by the law breaker. Of course SCOTUS can do what it likes but in my view this was a meaningless pander to superstitious wingnuts, and while it had no substantive legal impact other than to affirm the applicability of public accommodations laws to these cases, it muddied the waters in the minds of the public - particularly those who watch Faux News. I'm not sure that the bigoted baker even understands that what he did is still illegal and that he can be retried on the exact same charge.
I doubt there's even one person celebrating who doesn't share those bigoted views against gays.
Why would a non-bigot support a bigoted baker getting off the hook when he broke the law, even if he only got off the hook temporarily? Even more so, why would a non-bigot go to that bakery and celebrate the bigoted scofflaw? Wouldn't that be like MLK celebrating Lester Maddox's refusal to serve black folks?
Except that's not what we're talking about, is it? This was about an illegal denial of service in a public accommodation, not about the legal right to marry. The bigot is still free to hold views against same-sex or mixed-race marriage.
Indeed the dumb bigot is free to hold his bigoted views but he's just not free to act on them in violation of public policy. In that regard he's no different from his fellow Southern Baptists Maurice Bessinger and Lester Maddox, both of whom refused to serve black folks.
Normal people can accept that the right to free speech and freedom of religion is precisely the right to say and do things with which other people don’t agree. In fact, that’s the whole point of free speech.
Homosexuality and race have nothing to do with each other since one is a behavior and the other is not. So it’s more like people celebrating someone’s right to burn a flag in protest even though they wouldn’t burn it themselves and even though others find it offensive.
You’re free to stand across the street to hiss, boo, and hurl curses at him if it makes you feel better.
That might be your peculiar view of sexual orientation or of race but it's definitely not the one held by SCOTUS, nor is it even relevant to the issue here.
My point was that public accommodation laws don't make such moronic, false and trivial distinctions between the classes they protect. In fact they don't distinguish between protected classes at all. If a class is protected by a law then it's protected, so race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, superstition, etc are all treated IDENTICALLY under Colorado's law. So the law would treat a racist baker in the exact same way that it treats a homophobic baker.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are just as innate to the person as their race or skin color. Having sex is not the same as being born heterosexual or homosexual, despite your obvious attempt to obfuscate.
Nobody has ever been born religious. That belief is taught by the family or the society.
What religious belief or constitutional right have secular progressives ever taken from you? That question is obviously rhetorical because it would be legally impossible for us to take anything from you because of both the First Amendment's freedom of speech and free exercise religious protections.
The fact that the number of secular progressives is so small that is cannot be reliably measured do to the fact that it is very close to the error percentage of a poll. How can a group who is possibly 5% take any constitutional rights away from the majority religion who number between 40% for Christian evangelicals to 70% for all combined Christians in the US? What secular progressives are now on the SCOTUS or have ever been a SCOTUS justice?
And as SCOTUS noted:
So SCOTUS sees this the same as any other civil rights issue involving a denial of service, and throughout the Masterpiece ruling they repeatedly make similar statements which affirm the intent and applicability of these laws even when superstition is used as an excuse to break those laws, and they do that by an 8-1 margin. sweeping generalizations [ph]
Some people are born with a propensity for religious belief but there has never been a single person who was born Christian, Jew, Muslim or Buddhist. We are all born agnostic.
To use the tired psychological idea, Christianity is most certainly nurture and not nature.
Homosexuality is a sexual behavior not an innate characteristic like race. Race cannot be changed. However, people have engaged in and ceased to engage in all types of sexual behaviors (including homosexuality) since the world began. In that sense, homosexuality has more in common with a foot fetish than it does with race.
And nobody has ever proven anyone is born homosexual either nor has anybody seen a homosexual baby. They learn that behavior later. And don’t bother to quote me a bunch of psycho bable by psychologists. Psychology is not a science and most of what they say is opinion that can’t be proven.
You are very wrong because the brains of people who are heterosexual are physcially different from the brains of people who are homosexual. Our sexual orientation is no more of a choice than our height or hair color, despite what you may wish to believe.
We are born hetersexual or homosexual.
Sorry but you got that pretty much entirely backwards. Heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality and asexuality are all sexual orientations not "sexual behaviors". You're gay or straight or whatever regardless of whether you ever have sex. And it's very much an innate characteristic
Ask Homer Plessy whether "race" is an innate characteristic given that he variously identified from white to octaroon to negro. Or maybe you should learn what passing means. The reality is that "race" is merely a social construct not an innate trait of any kind.
Norman, I am one of the so-called, "Liberal Left" and I am a person of faith. I know and further know of "legions" of people of faith who are not conservatives. Please regard us when you write in generalities. The "Left" is foolish to spite people of faith, as well. However, I believe episste means faith and specifically organized religion is supplied and taught, respectively, by and through a "messenger" on this side of existence:
Romans 10:14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
The idea that homosexuality is an innate characteristic rather than a behavior is an urban myth. It’s a deviant sexual behavior. The only normal sexual behavior is heterosexuality. Why? Because the biological purpose of sex is procreation. Two same sex people cannot procreate nor can people procreate by banging chickens or blow up dolls, or animals.
Race is not genetic but the distinctions between races are immutable characteristics that separate one race from the other and that has been obvious to all with eyes. Anyway, the next time you give a description of someone to the police in this century, you be sure and say he was an octaroon. lol
I’d like to see you or anybody else examine a brain and, without knowing anything about that person, determine by the observation of his brain alone that the person is heterosexual or homosexual. This is total nonsense.
1ofMany, what is your basis for making these statements about homosexuality? I do not get emanating from your words spirituality, a discussion of world religions, or homosexual tendency. Why are you willing to make grand assertions about subject matter that does not 'penetrate' you - no pun intended? Curious.
Sounds like you struggle with the meaning of words given that sexual orientation isn't a "behavior" in any sense.
However, note that SCOTUS doesn't distinguish between status and conduct in this area. I suggest you read "Christian Legal Society v Martinez" to learn why your argument is completely irrelevant even if it were accurate.
.
You must be one of those folks who only has sex when you procreate. That's quite abnormal.
.
So how was Homer Plessy able to identify and effectively pass as white? And why is Obama perceived in this culture as black rather than white? Sounds like that "black blood" must be much stronger than the inferior and fragile white kind.
You've proclaimed the equivalent of that over and over, prove it.
See, that's where you loose it. Homosexuality is a sexual ORIENTATION. One need NOT ever ACT on that OREINTATION to STILL be a homosexual. One need not 'behave' in any way, one could actually live and die a homosexual virgin.
False. Homosexual behavior is quite normal for homosexuals.
Oh so are you under the delusion that humans only have sex to procreate? Hell, that ain't even biblical buddy. As for biology, humans have ALWAYS taken advantage of the fact that female humans are not controlled by 'estrous' cycles. Most mammals are only 'open' to 'procreation' during those cycles, humans aren't.
Anyone who has ever gone thorough invitro fertilization can tell you how short the 'open window' is for human female procreation. I'm pretty fucking sure that the men of the world would be pretty peeved if the women of the world were only 'receptive' during that short 'procreation' window.
Interesting that you think that is a cogent talking point. SO WHAT? Procreation has absolutely NOTHING to do with marriage or even, for the most part , with having sex.
Oh and BTFW, banging chickens, blow up dolls [all female images] or animals of any kind is a straight guy thing. Just sayin'.
The point, either way, is an opinion. You can have a contrary opinion but it’s still just an opinion.
Semantics combined with psycho-babble. Orientation is meaningless. I’ll use pedophiles as an example of another behavior. Someone can be attracted to children. If they act on it, then it’s a behavior. If they don’t act on it, then nobody cares.
Pedophilia may be normal to pedophiles but it’s still abnormal sexual behavior because it’s deviant.
All completely irrelevant. I said the purpose of sex is procreation and that is unequivocally true. Procreation is only possible through heterosexual acts. There is no other way.
Which does not refute in any way whatsoever that the purpose of sex is procreation, that only heterosexuals can procreate, and that other sexual behavior is deviant.
Again procreation is the biological purpose of sex. Heterosexual behavior leads to procreation so it is, inherently, normal. All other sexual behavior is deviant because it serves no biological purpose whatsoever.
Two dudes banging each other is just another deviant behavior. Just sayin.
You think differently so we can agree to disagree.
It only becomes relevant when somebody acts on it and when they do, then it’s a behavior within the meaning of the English language.
The SCOTUS interprets the law but doesn’t tell me what to think.
And you cannot rebut what is unequivocally true. Whatever you do with your sexual organs the biological purpose doesn’t change.
The exception doesn’t eviscerate rule. In the overwhelming number of cases nobody on earth above the age of 6 has any difficulty distinguishing one race from the other.
All I said is that homosexuality is a deviant sexual behavior and I expained why. I don’t see how I can be any clearer.
Your beliefs are a Grand Canyon leap from scientific fact.
BTW, Are you equally opposed to non-vaginal reproductive sex among heterosexual couples?
Your opinion is not a fact. It doesn’t become a fact no matter how many people share your opinion.
I have medical facts on my side. Your opinions are based on emotions and religious belief. Why are so so concerned about the private lives of other people? Psycholoy hints that the most virulent homophobes are also closeted homosexuals, so should be make the same assumption about you, or is there another reason why you seek to inject yourself into the sex lives of others? Does it bother you when you see an openly gay couple on TV or on the internet?
I do not have time tonight and I will be offline most of tomorrow. So, . . . see ya later!!
In other words since the same-sex couple wasn't engaging in sex in the bakery then the bigoted baker should have baked the cake, right? How did the dumb bigot know the couple ever had sex together or ever intended to? Perhaps they're like you and only have sex to procreate. And why did the dumb bigot think that the sex lives of his customers was his business? Are all Southern Baptists such nosy busybodies?
.
OK, but you're asserting (without any supporting evidence) that sexual orientation isn't immutable and thus shouldn't be protected by our laws. Why then should religion be protected? Shouldn't all Southern Baptists be denied service by ethical businesses?
.
OK, you've obviously got some sort of psychological problem when it comes to gays. So have lots of superstitious extremists on this and other issues like mixed-race marriage. But their psychological problems shouldn't result in the civil rights of minorities being violated........what should happen is that either the bigot needs to grow up or he needs to give up his business license. If he does the latter he can still run his bakery as a private members-only club, he just can't pretend that he runs a business open to the general public.
.
That's an interesting claim. Confederate states like Louisiana had (or still have) the "one drop rule" to determine if a person isn't white. So how does a 6 year old tell that a white supremacist like Craig Cobb is actually a black dude rather than just another melanin-deficient neo-Nazi?
I don't want any kids so I wonder if 1ofmany thinks that I should be also prohibited from having sex, if he believes that sex is only for procreation? I wonder if he thinks that he is a small government conservative who supports individual freedom.
No cake for you!
Good, 'cause I don't like cake.
Of course you don't; but you DO like carrot and celery sticks, right? A British singer named Adam Ant wrote a song about you once!
Working in a bakery destroyed my sweet tooth. 90% of frosting is made with shortening instead of the proper (French, Italian, or Swiss)buttercream.
I love the occasional carrot cake, cannoli or rugelach.
Celery is useful for mirepoix.
If you think that I am miss goody two shoes you don't know me very well.
You are overflowing with goodness.
You have no idea.
I'm one of those rare very INTJ females.
If they were keeping it all in their fat heads and not acting on it, then they wouldn’t be getting married, right?
Because they told him that they intended to ape a normal marriage and that’s what married people do.
You can do whatever you want with your sexual organs but their biological purpose is for procreation.
They made it his business by demanding that he create art to celebrate a biblical abomination.
The free exercise of religion is protected by the first amendment. I didn’t write it and you can’t rewrite it.
The problem is that the baker’s first amendment right is clashing with the homosexual’s right to public accommodation. You think the answer is that his right gives way to theirs. I told you before that it’s not that simple and the court decision proves me right. The issue remains to be decided.
It’s irrelevant. A rule is not eviscerated by the exception. Any six year old can, in the overwhelming number of cases, tell the difference between races. I’m sure you can too.
You have nothing but an opinion based on your emotional belief.
I’m not. If they keep their lives private, then it doesn’t involve me. However, when they make an issue out of their private lives and demand that the society in which I live recognize an abnormal behavior as normal, then I have something to say.
Since your entire opinion is based on conjecture, then you can assume anything you like. As for psychology, the stupidity of hinting that one is what they oppose becomes obvious when you apply it to any other behavior. So by your reasoning only a pedophile opposes normalizing pedophilia. Only someone interested in incest would ban it. Only someone who desires an animal would say that having sex with one is abnormal. And I haven’t injected myself into anybody’s sex life. They made an issue of their sex life and demanded that it be accepted as normal.
I can easily go through life without watching deviant behavior. Can’t you?
Sounds like you've equated marriage with sex which is rather peculiar. Marriage is about property rights and kinship rights. But under your abnormal definition of sexual orientation these two men were obviously asexual since they weren't having sex in the bakery.
.
You mean by asking for the same product or service which he happily sold to other customers? Yeah, I can see why the dumb bigot would be upset by that. Good thing the customers weren't black or the baker would have had a stroke while he was fantasizing about their sex life!
.
Ummmm......so what? The 1st Amendment only applies to the government and doesn't necessarily affect private businesses, so there's no reason for public accommodation laws to protect superstition. Sounds like you're just demanding special rights because you're superstitious.
.
True, but the courts have repeatedly ruled that the business owner's 1st Amendment rights are attenuated here and that free exercise is not infringed in any way, and that the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting this kind of irrational discrimination. In fact these 1st Amendment claims have consistently been rejected since 1964 when racist Southern Baptists made the exact same claims.
.
It's actually the right of the state to prohibit such bigoted conduct and the court ruling proves that you're 100% wrong. I suggest you read it and try to understand it.
.
The rule in the confederate states was "one drop". That means there were a great many people who nominally looked "white" and passed as "white" but were legally "black". What that shows is that race is merely a social construct and that racial categories are arbitrary and vary from one society to the next and from one era to another. That also disproves your silly claim that "race" is immutable. In Homer Plessy's case it was as mutable as the various superstitions about a sky fairy, and even as mutable as the clothes he wore from one day to the next. In sharp contrast, neurological traits related to brain structure tend to be immutable, like sexual orientation and gender identity.
That is the very same argument that conservatives used to oppose interracial marriage.
Keep your religious beliefs private so others don't have to live by your mythology. Homosexuality is proven to exist, unlike your god.
The two have nothing to do with each other. Unlike homosexuality, race is not a behavior. So my argument is more like one used to oppose other unions based on other abnormal behaviors like marrying your mother or somebody else’s foot.
Sorry, but I was mostly out of it on Wednesday. Can't tell if I am mostly 'numb' today or spoiling for a 'fight'! Anyway, what does homosexuality or any other form of sexuality outside of sperm and egg, have anything to 'say' about deviancy? Deviancy has to do with social norms? Those can change with acceptance. Pick this up, if you wish.
Sorry, this is talking out of your 'saber.' Most of your "abnormal" sexual relationship "statuses" are social constructs. Ones which you are strident to hold other people too, apparently. I have been silent when it comes to arguing along the lines that I think I am about to—but with all the political headwinds that minority groups of all stripes are about to face down, it is time to speak out forcefully!
Just a damn minute! You ARE making it an issue. In fact, this is your usual 'spot' in these discussions - to feign being compelled to put-down, bash, homosexuals. As if you have no choice! Well, not this time. No homosexuals should recede into the background ever again, simply to get you off your highly questionable, biblical or whatever type you call it, pedestal. We are not going to be treated as outcast any longer.
awesome!
Homosexuality is not a behavior. The physical act of sex is a behavior. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality is a persons innate sexual orientation. When and why did you choose to be heterosexual, if you believe that your sexuality is a conscious choice?
Your beliefs on this idea just are as illogical as your religious beliefs. Education would benefit your greatly. Discrimination in a public business is not and never has been a religious right.
As long as it’s just in your head, then nobody cares. When you engage in it, then it’s a behavior. Again, the biological purpose of sex is reproduction and it’s still the case whether you use sex for reproduction or not. Any other sexual act is deviant. So heterosexuality is normal by definition and anything else is a conscious deviation.
Good to see you come out of your shell, calbab. I think you now see just what the real threat to your own liberty is.
Sounds like you have a desperate need to feel superior to gays. How pathetic is that?
SCOTUS disagrees with you since they cited the bans on mixed-race marriage as a direct precedent when they struck down the down the bans on same-sex marriage. No surprise that both bans originated in Christian sharia laws which were antithetical both to liberty and to our secular government.
.
50 years ago the racists made the same moronic arguments against mixed-race marriage. Seems like you folks love to keep recycling the same moronic and irrelevant nonsense which lost in court last time. You're not very creative.
.
Neither one is a behavior. Sounds like you struggle with the English language. Are you ESL?
E.A No need for response!
Sweeping Generalization!
:""""" Sits Back to watch the FIRE FIGHT ::::::"
I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean since some women are gay. Can you run google translate again?
You misunderstand me, Skrekk! I envision the world and our nation as a beautiful, multi-faceted diamond of interlaced people - some others see the world as a cratered, hodge-podged marble of oppressed and oppressors.
It is one function. In humans, the majority of sex is for pleasure, not reproduction. Turns out, other species also have non-reproductive sex. Homosexuality is common, also.
Women are also freer to act on their bisexual feelings than men are. Many men also have bisexual feelings but because of more conservative social norms they seldom act on them or only do in private or by watching gay/bi male porn.
Do you also believe that recreational and anal sex among heterosexual couples is deviant?
It is a fact that +/-5% of people are naturally homosexual. The number of people who are inherently bisexual can be as high as 30%. You are obviously very ignorant of the broad range of human sexuality. You can try to deny it but it doesn't change the facts.
You can buy a used copy of a proven textbook for $8.50 on Amazon.
Do you think that people can procreate through anal sex? If not, then you already have my answer to your question. And making a mess and calling that a liberal doesn’t count.
It seems that the concept of recreational sex, that is having sex that is purely for enjoyment instead of procreation, eludes you. There are many couples who choose not to have children so apparently in your mind they shouldn't get married and they should not be having sex. Should all sex for women stop at menopause?
I assume that you would criminalize pre-martial sex.
Where do you get off deciding how others spent their intimate moments? Are you now married or were you ever married?
You seem to be constantly conflating two different things and then confusing yourself. I was addressing what was normal not what’s pleasurable. Having sex with a dog might me pleasurable to somebody but it’s not normal just because they like it. I’ll tell you again. The biological purpose of sex is procreation. The purpose remains procreation. Heterosexuality is the only means if procreation and that is so no matter what you enjoy.
I can’t imagine how you arrived at that assumption.
I haven’t ever made any comment on how people should spend their intimate moments and, in fact, have said repeatedly that I don’t care what people do in their bedroom. What I care about is when they make their bedroom behavior public and then demand that the society in which I live accept it as normal. Although I say the same thing repeatedly, you seem to hear something else.
When the argument in opposition, both biblical and biological, is the same, they sure as hell DO have something to do with each other.
Is it? Could it be that a "by-product" of having sex is off-spring? What about the connectedness of sex? The attraction? The union of intermingling fluids, minds, and even spirit with another person which in and of itself can never produce off-spring?
Life and people are more complex than a simple explanation. Time to explore!
Okay. Let's explore the first part of this sentence and get a CLARIFICATION on the ending of it, please: 1. Define what you mean by "making a mess." 2. The last part of your sentence is unintentionally 'garbled.'
Your entire argument is a strawman.
You tout biology, insist that non procreative sex is deviant behavior and then insist that since homosexual sex isn't procreative, it's deviant. It's total bullshit and I'll tell you why.
Now I don't know about you but I have NEVER met a guy, straight or gay that hasn't had and/or WANTED to have a blowjob. I hope that we can both agree that a blowjob is unequivocally non procreative.
In fact, I encourage every guy here to chime in if they NEVER had a blowjob and/or NEVER want one.
So by YOUR standard and in your tidy little world, just about EVERY guy on the planet is a 'deviant' and everyone that gave a blowjob is too.
But here's the rub, blowjobs are non procreative yet NOT deviate because they are 'usual and accepted standards' for sexual behavior.
Now here is a fun fact for you, many homosexuals DO NOT practice anal sex.
In FACT, statistically, since about 25% of heterosexuals have had anal sex [10%regularly], MORE heterosexuals practice it than do homosexual men. Since at LEAST 25% of population practice anal sex, that puts it well within the realm of 'usual and accepted sexual behavior' too.
Now YOU can believe whatever the hell you want but PLEASE stop pretending that it's in any way based on logic or science.
Killer point of the week!
Coming from you, high praise. Thanks.
99% of heterosexual sex is non-procreative and the Earth is overpopulated so we don't need any more humans, so your constant insistence that any sex that does not attempt to create offspring is deviant. Do you plan to ban birth control so us heterosexuals are forced to have procreative sex to please you?
You must have a very high opinion of yourself if you think that others care what you accept or are asking for your acceptance? Do you plan to go up to LGBT couples in public and inform them of your lack of acceptance of their sex life or their existence? They don't care what you think and your opinions of them don't make them second-class citizens in any way. Post Civil War conservatives made the same arguments about black people and then about interracial couples not being accepted, but they also didn't care what you liked. Businesses learned that they couldnt cite their religious beliefs as a reason to refuse to serve them either.
Get over yourself.
As do YOU, here is an example:
See there? YOU just conflated it. While A biological purpose for sex is indeed procreation, it isn't the ONLY purpose. In fact, I'm pretty freaking sure that the guys around here would agree that they have a 'biological' need for sex that has NOTHING to do with procreation and EVERTYTHING to do with 'release'.
Here you go, even Focus on the Family touts my posit:
So there you go, even the thumpiest of the thumpers hold to a 'biological' purpose for sex OUTSIDE of procreation.
Again, procreation doesn't have a fucking thing to do with sexual orientation. Lesbians get pregnant and Gay men impregnate women. The lesbians are STILL lesbians and the gay guys are STILL gay. It's a VERY simple concept for anyone that has a logical mind.
The enjoyment and stress relief of non-procreational sex is not limited to those people with XY chromosomes.
The fact that many heterosexuals cannot procreate doesn't mean that they are deviant because of that medical situation.
That's an unusually moronic comment and one which reveals that you tend to project your peculiar sexual fantasies on other people. None of the same-sex couples who were denied service by the bigoted baker were involved in any way with "public bedroom behavior", they were simply ordering a cake for a wedding reception or some other party, just like any other couple would do. It's your deviant psychological problems which cause you to interpret that as "public bedroom behavior", a label it's very unlikely you apply when opposite-sex couples engage in the exact same cake-ordering behavior.
FYI, no one gives a crap what you or other people involved in silly and primitive Bronze-age superstitions consider "normal". And I seriously doubt that any disfavored minority seeks "acceptance" from your kind.
It's also quite clear that you've confused cake ordering & parties with sex. Is there other non-sexual behavior you confuse with sex like signing a mortgage? Or is it once again only when a same-sex couple signs a mortgage that you fantasize about sex? That says far more about you than it does about them........in fact it only says something about you.
You're BUSTED. Here is evidence of conservative hypocrisy. 1ofmany you are caught categorizing and stigmatizing an entire section of the American citizenry.
Conservatives cry: "Identity politics are not necessary, no one needs to feel marginalized. . .join inclusive society and the Party of Lincoln. . . " Blah, blah, and blah.
You pretend homosexuals (and other minorities) are included in a Republican frame of reference as mainstream citizens who do not need a special category or identity. Then, conservatives hop on a keyboard and bang out deliberate and persistent EXCLUSIONS and CATEGORIES.
Good heavens, Trump is on record stating he is about to make the biggest EXCLUSIONARY appointment that he swears should outlast his lifetime: A strident, conservative Associate Supreme Court Justice who will shut out, squeeze out, and lock out any liberal that dares approach the Supreme Court for relief for generations to come.
1ofmany - Y'all are busted!
Ok, I’ve had enough of this nonsense. I spoke my mind and I stand by what I said. Think whatever you like and we can just agree to disagree.
E.A Good on YOU!! Well done.
But it still amazes me that NONE of those that Attacked with Verbose, have had their comments deleted ,, such Hate, for someone else opinnions
The issue I have is that he expresses his 'opinion' as if it were fact. It isn't.
Now that he's lost his 'clobber' word, 'deviant', he hasn't a crutch to lean on. Much like you and your ad nauseam HUV rants.
E.A I do not know of ANYONE that would express their " Opinion " if they did NOT think of it as FACT do you?
E.A That, in any " Balanced Site " would be " Personal Attack " but then we know better don't we?
E.A I challenge ANYONE to do a DATA on Comments on Various subjects and those I do on HIV, and The DATA would show that I spend less time talking about HIV, then MOST here Complaining about Fellow Members!!!
Consider President Donald J. Trump, he of the spoken word: "Truthful hyperbole."
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)Just landed - a long trip, but everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. Meeting with Kim Jong Un was an interesting and very positive experience. North Korea has great potential for the future!
June 13, 2018Here and now E. A., would you like to kindly explain the " truthiness " of this presidential outburst from earlier in the month? On what basis was Trump expressing truth above?
E.A An easy way to do that is look at MY Seeded articles before the Crap change on the SITE that I now refuse to Seed, how many where on Science FACTS, Human Needs, Weather and Storms, and how many on HIV?
Every emotional argument that you have made has collapsed so now you want to run away instead of admitting that you are wrong.
Yes, members do it here every day. My opinion is that Robert Plant is the best Rock singer ever. I don't present it as fact.
Since it is a critique of your COMMENTS it is well within the CoC. It is your choice whether you internalize that critique.
Why deflect to other members?
BTW, you seem to have an issue with conflating replies to COMMENTS and replies talking about members. If may behoove you to contact Perrie and ask her to review the CoC and explain the definition of 'personal attack' to you.
homosexuality is a sexual orientation like heterosexuality, not just a behavior. you need to do some research to find out why sexual behavior isn't exclusive to, nor dependent upon, nor necessarily an indication of sexual orientation and what the differences are between the two. the only way you can "argue" your point is to reduce a sexual orientation to a simple behavior when it's not the case. i will just assume you have lack of knowledge on the topic and are not being intentionally dishonest. heterosexuality isn't the "norm", it's just more common, there is a difference - figure it out.
Happy SCOTUS PDF : (Good Read!)
How many of those cakes are sold discounted 20-30% the next day as day old the next day or so, which would not be fiscally possible with a smaller bakery? Why should LGBT couples be forced to buy a premade stock cake when heterosexual couples can order a custom cake?
Is there such a thing as a Christian-only business?
Please dlete this bubblegum.
Please delete this bubblegum.
See how big a bubble you can make first though!
I'm not coordinated enough to blow bubbles.
Lol! Do you NEVER tire of self-flagellation?
I'm just being honest.
Sorry.
men like when women lie
It's so biggggggggggggg.
that's one of my favorites
n "Bubbles" has a different story....
,
trump on the otherhand, only lies when he's in bed
sittin up
about
lying down
on the upside
down
n
especially, lying, about lying
Wow. Look at how many Liberals that are upset they can't force people to do something that is against their beliefs... Go figure.
Sounds like you didn't understand the ruling at all. The law in Colorado still prohibits what the bigoted baker did and he can be retried on the same charge for the law he broke in 2012. And as the court majority noted:
.
So really you seem to be whining that SCOTUS says businesses can and should be forced to do something that is "against their beliefs", and they say that those superstitions aren't a valid excuse to violate the law.
You’re cherry picking words. The court decided that the Colorado Commission’s review did not rise even to the minimum level of fundamental fairness because they blew the baker off by essentially doing what you just did by essentially saying that his “superstitious” beliefs aren’t worth considering. He won because the Colorado Commission’s decision was too biased to let stand. So it’s your precisely your view of the issue that the court found abhorrent. The real issue of where to draw the line between his rights and the homosexuals’ rights has yet to be decided.
Actually our secular courts can't give any substantive consideration to arguments based on superstition, as I noted when SCOTUS said "it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services". The only thing they're required to do is not show disrespect or animus against those silly and primitive superstitions.
Note that the general rule of which Kennedy speaks was formulated 140 years ago when the court said this: "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
His religious superstitions have never been seen as a right to discriminate in a public business. Jack Phillips has the same religious rights as he always had and that everyone else enjoys.
How do possibly you make that monumental leap of illogical belief from the current conversation about religious discrimination?
The idea that the baker’s beliefs were primitive superstitions unworthy of consideration is exactly the attitude held by at least two members of the Colorado Commission and it led to the court ruling in favor of the baker.
Fortunately I'm not a judge so I can be honest and call those bigoted and primitive superstitions what they really are.
A real judge will just note that superstition can't be used as an excuse to violate the law and then he'll rule against the bigoted dimwit. In fact he'll now cite the Masterpiece ruling when he does that just like an Arizona appeals court did recently.
Speaking about biblical matters. In Genesis:
Maybe some day a few will get a clue.
Never happen for some.
They’ll be the ones Borking whoever Trump nominates tomorrow.
It matters not who it is. They’ll hate on him/her .... big time!
Clarence Thomas got through, quit crying !
Cool. Another seed to be locked.
Locked? Knock, knock ... this seed is still open!
Why are people so afraid of HA’s articles?
Bored with them is more like it.
Exactly, most of them consist of bombastic, hyperbolic ranting. Boring.
As well as promoting hatred on both sides, much to his delight. In spite of his overt proffering of his religious piety, he is one of the biggest promoters of hatred here on NT with the kind of seeds that he posts here, as well as his denigration of those who dare to differ with his own opinions, beliefs or seeds.