Court hears case over gay wedding cake

Madison320 said:
That's a good point but SS and Medicare are double the military budget. And I'm guessing that most of the military budget goes to salaries not a couple rich guys.

The laws favor the poor and middle class and there's a huge transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor in this country. It's called socialism. Do you dispute that?
Click to expand...

Medicare is a gift to big Pharma and the insurance companies, it enables them to jack their prices into the stratosphere and still survive, and most of the DoD budget goes to Contractors.
 
Swordsmyth said:
Medicare is a gift to big Pharma and the insurance companies, it enables them to jack their prices into the stratosphere and still survive, and most of the DoD budget goes to Contractors.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll admit that in the process of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor (socialism), most of the wealth ends up back with the rich, although usually not the ones that rightfully owned the wealth before it was redistributed. But wealth is not distributed from the poor to rich, just from one set of rich to another. Remember that the majority of tax dollars come from the rich. But the root cause of the problem is the voting system where parasites are allowed to vote. Vote for me and I'll steal for you. That's the main problem. That's why the laws favor the poor.
 
Last edited:
Madison320 said:
Ok, I'll admit that in the process of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor (socialism), most of the wealth ends up back with the rich, although usually not the ones that rightfully owned the wealth before it was redistributed. But wealth is not distributed from the poor to rich, just from one set of rich to another. But the root cause of the problem is the voting system where parasites are allowed to vote. Vote for me and I'll steal for you. That's the main problem. That's why the laws favor the poor.
Click to expand...
They favor the poor and the Super Rich, they target the Middle Class and the ordinary Rich, because that is where the greatest wealth creation is, the poor are pawns bought with cheap bribes to do the will of the Kleptocrats.
I think you and I are now in agreement.
 
Swordsmyth said:
They favor the poor and the Super Rich, they target the Middle Class and the ordinary Rich, because that is where the greatest wealth creation is, the poor are pawns bought with cheap bribes to do the will of the Kleptocrats.
I think you and I are now in agreement.
Click to expand...

I think so.
 
20046432_1544603038939997_2865766658713498485_n.jpg
 
The Supreme Court and the Right to Not Bake a Cake

12/06/2017

Ryan McMaken

Anyone who claims there's too much democracy in the United States needs to keep in mind that American law and policy is ultimately decided by five millionaires at the Supreme Court.

This week, we're being reminded that the Supreme Court of the United States is hearing arguments in the case of a small-time baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. This, apparently, is a matter of such importance that it requires the intervention of the federal government and its court system to decide for whom a tiny small business shall be forced to bake desserts. In other words, the court's majority of five people will decide for 320 million people what is mandatory for anyone who wants to open a small business in the United States.

The fact that Americans regard this sort of thing as perfectly natural and legitimate illustrates just how thoroughly Americans have abandoned all notions of self government and any opposition to rule from distant, powerful elites.

Opponents of Donald Trump may be wringing their hands about the rise of populism, but the public's continued deference to the Supreme Court illustrates quite well that populism in the United States, far from growing out of control, is quite timid and of no threat to anyone currently in power.

In the discussion of the Court's decision to hear the case, we're reminded of two important issues:

1. The Supreme Court's ability to decide the Constitutionality of every law in the United States — from local ordinances to federal statutes — is based on a fanciful myth.

2. The American legal concept of "public accommodation" essentially abolishes property rights. The proper remedy is to restore property rights — and to steer clear of endless and pointless debates about religious freedom or freedom of speech.

...
Click to expand...

https://mises.org/power-market/supreme-court-and-right-not-bake-cake
 
Bakers need to raise their cakes in gender-incloosive environments, or the cake will not know what kind of cake it is and become disoriented.
 
Exactly, Suz. And it says the government will bring full force on people of faith over a cake.
 
What would Scalia say? Jiggery pokery, pure applesauce! Too bad they killed him, I always wondered if they killed him in order to get people to vote for the supreme court like to get conservatives to vote for Trump or Democrats to vote for Hillary. So many people held their tongues until they were told that they have to vote for republicrat so they could pick a republican/democrat for the supreme court.
 
Last edited:
The USC just ruled in favor of the Baker. 7-2 Ruling.
 
I hear that the ruling was due to the particulars of the case and had little to due with the fundamental discrimination issue.
 
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection.

The ruling was 7-2.

The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips, who cited his beliefs as a Christian, but leaves unsettled broader constitutional questions on religious liberty.

"Today's decision is remarkably narrow, and leaves for another day virtually all of the major constitutional questions that this case presented," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "It's hard to see the decision setting a precedent."

The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom was made to justify discrimination.

The case was one of the most anticipated rulings of the term and was considered by some as a follow up from the court's decision three years ago to clear the way for same-sex marriage nationwide. That opinion, also written by Kennedy, expressed respect for those with religious objections to gay marriage.

"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," he wrote Monday.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who represented Phillips, praised the ruling.

"Jack serves all customers; he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs," Waggoner said in a statement. "Creative professionals who serve all people should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment."

Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized the narrowness of the opinion.

"The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people," Melling said in a statement.

Because Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in part, the judgment of the court on the case was 7-2 but the opinion on the rationale was 6-2.

Religious tolerance

Kennedy wrote that there is room for religious tolerance, pointing specifically to how the Colorado commission treated Phillips by downplaying his religious liberty concerns.

"At the same time the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," Kennedy wrote, adding that the "neutral consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here."

"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy said, adding to say that the case was narrow.

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," the opinion states.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that "when a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding -- not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings -- and that is the service (the couple) were denied."

...
Click to expand...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/poli...do-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Trump administration refers Maine to DOJ over transgender athletes
Replies
0
Views
13
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
CaptUSA
SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Web Developer's Free Association
Replies
10
Views
898
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Anti Federalist
Gay Couple Weds at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago: ‘Beyond Our Wildest Dreams’
Replies
15
Views
1K
69360
6
Swordsmyth
Corporations With DEI Racial Quotas Could Be Prosecuted For Civil Rights Violations
Replies
1
Views
108
TheTexan
TheTexan
TheCount
Jury finds NRA and Wayne LaPierre liable in civil corruption trial
Replies
7
Views
703
A Son of Liberty
A Son of Liberty
Back
Top