SC sides with baker

[743 roadmasterParticipant]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-to-baker-over-gay-couple-dispute/ar-AAydEGF?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Supreme Court hands narrow win to baker over gay couple dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a narrow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s handling of the claims brought against Jack Phillips, saying it had showed a hostility to religion. In doing so, the commission violated his religious rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

————-Don’t you just love the wording “narrow win” in a 7-2 decision.

Hope now some of the stupid going around will at least slow down.

mgtow is its own worst enemy- https://www.campusreform.org/

[MarketWatcherParticipant]

Good! I hope they sue for defamation.

[Anonymous 42]

What was that cloud of dizzying nonsense just before the election? Gay marriage, bathroom invasions, the ball of s~~~!

Was that the high watermark?

Can we finally look back at the whole sexual revolution’s slimy garbage riddled flood stains and human drudgery?

I for one don’t think so, once a nation crosses a line in the moral sand it will always return to eating it’s own vomit.

I’ll just play it safe over here on the MGTOW side of the equation, where things aren’t subject to change!

[Ranger OneParticipant 16836]

743 roadmaster wrote:

Supreme Court hands narrow win to baker over gay couple dispute

————-Don’t you just love the wording “narrow win” in a 7-2 decision.

Hope now some of the stupid going around will at least slow down.

I thought the same thing for a second, but then I realized they were probably referring to the narrow scope of the decision, not the ratio of the decision. (there will be more related cases in the future to refine it)

All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22522]

743 roadmaster wrote:

Supreme Court hands narrow win to baker over gay couple dispute

7 to 2 is a “narrow win” when the SJW lose a decision.

What Bias? Media Calls Supreme Court 7-2 Decision in Favor of Christian Baker a “Narrow Win”

This is a good win. This shows that private property owners still have some rights in this SJW dystopia.

Though, it helps having president whom knows how handle such spoiled brats as the SJWs.

[Can’t Stump TrumpParticipant]

Suck it, f~~~~~s.

Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.

[Anonymous 7]

Can’t Stump Trump wrote:

Suck it, f~~~~~s.

Thx for the legit LOL!

[ResidentEvil7Participant 9548]

Finally, a loss for a minority group.

https://themanszone.webs.com/

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

I find this troubling. Yes they should NOT have to make the cake. The free market will take care of it.

But does this allow a female doctor to refuse me care because she thinks men should die?

Can a liberal dentist refuse to treat me because I’m a conservative?

Can a bank refuse to loan money to black people?

Just asking. Where does personal choice end?

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[Billy&The CloneasaurusParticipant]

Jan Sobieski wrote:

I find this troubling. Yes they should NOT have to make the cake. The free market will take care of it.

But does this allow a female doctor to refuse me care because she thinks men should die?

Can a liberal dentist refuse to treat me because I’m a conservative?

Can a bank refuse to loan money to black people?

Just asking. Where does personal choice end?

These are good questions Jan.

My personal opinion is that rights are only trampled on when the state does it. If I own a store, it’s private property, the same as my house. I can refuse service to whomever I like, for any reason.

Now…this could be a huge problem if taken to the extreme. This troubles me as well. I can definitely imagine a society which 100% denies me any services due to who I am, or my beliefs. In reality, we have a healthy cross-section of all beliefs and people. In the end, money talks. If these people want a cake, they can take their business elsewhere. I’m sure another bakery will take their money…their money is as green as my money is.

I think this bakery should have taken their money and made the cake. I will not say they should be compelled to do so however.

The answer, is no.

[RomulusParticipant 4667]

I draw the line at artistic endeavors.

It’s one thing to say I have to allow you to buy something I have placed on the sales rack in my store that is rather generic and anyone can come in and pick one up off the shelves. I make cakes and they are in the display window and open to anyone off the street coming in and buying one.

It’s another matter when the artist is compelled by the state to produce a specific work. Especially if that work contains political, social or artistic meanings that I as an artist would not support.

If I can make a baker apply his artistic talents, not to a generic product, but to something that requires him to artistically engage….then you have asked someone to further a social or religious philosophy that person doesn’t agree with. That is compelled political speech.

If I can do that, I can also then make a Jewish author write a testimonial touting the wonderful philosophy of the American Nazi party (which is a legal party).

Or maybe you write speeches for politicians. You are a hard core democrat. You sell you speech writing talents…so can I compel you to write speeches supporting political philosophies you don’t agree with?

I draw the line at artistic endeavors.

How can a woman be expected to be happy with a man who insists on treating her as if she were a perfectly normal human being.

[Can’t Stump TrumpParticipant]

Jan Sobieski wrote:

But does this allow a female doctor to refuse me care because she thinks men should die?

Can a liberal dentist refuse to treat me because I’m a conservative?

Can a bank refuse to loan money to black people?

Does the female doctor OWE you care? Does the liberal dentist OWE you treatment? Does the bank OWE you money? Unless they work for the government, which is funded by your tax dollars, then no, they don’t owe you squat. You cannot compel them to sell their services to you if they don’t want to. The government owes you services because it already accepted your payment for them. Private businesses do not.

Funny thing is, the free market works extremely well. If you want a wedding cake, medical care, dental care, or a loan, you can find someone who will take your dollars for it.

Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

743 roadmaster wrote:

Don’t you just love the wording “narrow win” in a 7-2 decision.

Two Judges fail to understand freedom of choice and should be removed from the bench. This was case was so cut and dried it should never have gone up that high. Narrow lol

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

President Donald Trump’s administration intervened in the case in support of Phillips.

Blame Trump even though he had nothing to do with it.

President Supreme Court JusticesCircuit Judges
Bill Clinton2 66
George W.George 2 62
Barack Obama2 55
Donald Trump1 21

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[Anonymous 1]

Two guys should go to a radical leftist baker and say:

“We’re lgbtqiapk…we’d like a cake for our upcoming party…we’d like personalized icing.”

“Sure! What would you like it to say?”

“Hillary was a Crooked C”
[or]
“Trump is #1”
[or]
“I’m the NRA”
[etc.]

[VirgilParticipant 970]

The difference is he was using religion to refuse service as his religion doesn’t believe in it.

A female doctor can’t refuse service to a male, based on him being male as that is discrimination.

It’s an interesting line but it based on the same principle as equal opportunity law for hiring. In that any trait you cannot change (sex, age, etc.) plus religion are protected.

Anyway a doctor could refuse service, but they would be breaking their Hippocratic oath or probably entering the world of malpractice. Potentially ending their medical career.

Hope that someday I may lead others the path I have learned. As Virgil led Dante through Hell.

[Author]

Posts