No, you're having a hard time understanding that the Constitution trumps ALL law. No, filthy leftists will try to negate the Constitution with unconstitutional laws. No, public laws must abide by the Constitution.
my god you are so wrong about this.. Is anyone forcing the customer to buy a cake from this one baker? The customer has a choice, and also has the choice to voice their displeasure at a baker who won't bake their cake because they are gay. The baker has the right to reply to this criticism. And his business will fail, or succeed, based on this...If i am offended by this, I can choose to not go to this baker. Leftists conflate their compassion with totalitarianism. Maybe that's why their thoughts are so deranged... This is freedom...love it or hate it.
First of all.. and you clearly don't get this... 1. "abhorrent" (which is subjective and changes) non criminal behavior is exactly what the first amendment is here to protect. Had it not... you would not even be here to try and force gay marriage ideas on the baker. Gays would still be in deep in the closet because some people would be using govt force to keep those ideas hiddent away. This is what I keep telling you. If you thought about this is why the first amendment must be respected and you must not use govt to force people to do things against their will. If we did not protect abhorrent speech and behavior... then gays would not have had free speech rights... Gays would be treated like they are in Muslim countries. please tell me you are smart enough to understand that.... I realize sub 120 IQ drones don't get this. nor do paid foreign trolls but... surely you can understand this... freedom of speech helps those whose ideas need to be protected. you are one perverting ideas. 2. yes I am sure some attempted to justify slavery because a type of slavery was mentioned in the bible. But... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism "Although many Enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery, it was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement. [1] Throughout Europe and the United States, Christians, usually from 'un-institutional' Christian faith movements, not directly connected with traditional state churches, or "non-conformist" believers within established churches, were to be found at the forefront of the abolitionist movements.[1][2]" 3. Its absurd to argue that freedom means the govt telling you, you have to bake a cake. now this is subtle but its very important. its one type of force to tell you to refrain from doing things. You can kill for religion, you can't do female gential mutaliation... etc. But, it quite another to force someone to do something. Even the supreme court struggled with this... they had to turn the mandate into a tax... to avoid slavery and fascism. (although I still consider income taxes an unconstitutional act of forced servitude) In a truely free society no one should force someone to act against their will. yet somehow you are OK with it, if it benefits you pet ideas. But you would not be OK with the govt forcing an atheist to write God is great on a cake would you? Would you force a new to write allahu akbar? a muslim to write mohhamed was a child molester. You can not be OK with that kind of facism. Would you be OK if the Govt forced immigrant bakers to write Trump is the best? 4 .Why in the world would you force someone to write Trump is great or to celebrate a gay wedding on a cake when you could pay others to do it? How is that a good and just society. If a baker does not want to put a naked women on cake... you can go somewhere else. Why would a gay person demand to force the issue? You are being fascist in thought an deed. What is next are you going for tell people who they have to marry? If you open your mouth and say you won't marry a christian is the govt going to force you to marry a christian or a gay etc?
You guys are too much. Everything is legal until it is not. People were smoking synthetic marijuana and eating peoples faces until the stuff was outlawed (by fascists according to Jem). Discrimination was legal until it was not. Sorry, guys, but you took one up the bo-bo as our tree friend likes to say. This case did not overturn the lower court’s ruling that the baker acted discriminatorily. Therefore it was held the baker acted illegally when he denied his service to people because they were gay. Guess what you’re all gay now.
you have the holding 100 percent ass backwards.... the US Supreme court stated in a 7-2 decision the colorado govt commission was intolerant of the bakers religious rights. “The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.” the exact opposite of your view of intolerance and this issue. --- how can you be more wrong than claiming intolerance by the wrong group. it was not the baker who was found to be intolerant... it was the Colorado govt. And by the way to me that was the most bullshitty way Kennedy could have ruled for the majority. Clearly there were at least 4 judges for the right to be free of govt fascism... kennedy must have negotiated saying he can bring in 2 votes if he got to write up the more limited ruling and kick the real ruling down the road. for when he was retired. Had he made a real decision it would have probably been 5-4 and this issue could have rested and we could have be secure from further govt intolerance.
I have no problem with the court admonishing the committees harsh tone, as I stated in a previous post. However, the ruling still stands.
that was the holding...not just an admonishment. what the hell case were you pretending to read. this is the ruling that stands... here is the holding... "For these reasons, the Commissions treatment of Phillip's case violated the States duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or a religious viewpoint. here is the precedent which supports the holding... The government, consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgement upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices...Church of Lukumi BabaluAye, Inc. vs Hialeah 508 US 520." the court then went on to write... In view of these factors, the record here demonstrates that the Commissions consideration of Phillips case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs.
You are off your rocker. The court did not rule the baker had the right to discriminate but maintained the lower court’s ruling that businesses cannot deny equal access to goods and services. As I mentioned before go read Newman v piggy park 1968. Religion is not a qualified standard to deny equal access.