Supreme Court rules in favor of cake baker who refused to bake cake for gay couple

[The Big Dunn]

The problem has always been liberal policies. This goes all the way back to LBJ (the most liberal President) and the 1964 Civil Rights Act that he signed into law. A part of that Bill violates private property rights in that government can make a private property owner serve everyone. A private property owner should be able to decide who they want to serve. Period. Only the public sector should not discriminate, while the private sector should be able to choose who they want to associate with.

If those businesses do not use public services paid for by ALL taxpayers then you make a fair point. But these businesses use services paid for by ALL of the community.

[Xoo]

So they said it was their religious right because their religion outlaws ****sexuality?

Couldn't this pave the way for Mormon fundamentalists to be able to marry and fck teenage girls because of religious freedom?

Sure, just as soon as it is legal for muslims to kill gay people.

[Preston18air]

business has the right to refuse services. If they don't want to serve you, so be it. There are hundred of bakers in a state.

This ruling signified the purest form of democracy where people are allowed to uphold their decision without the fear of being lead into court because of a tyrannical justice system.

Yea, I remember when black people were told to leave restaurants in the 50s. Good times. Hopefully this allows us to return to the great times of bigotry!

[The Big Dunn]

Correct ruling but ****ty reason. Crazy thought. How about we just let a business interact with whom they choose just like individuals can and let the chips fall where they will. I've seen no reasonable argument justifying forcing people to serve another person, for any reason. Why is a business suppose to be held to a different standard than the individual? Unless you guys also support forcing an individual to interact with people they don't want to, your logic is severely flawed.

The argument that they benefit from taxes is just silly. We are all suppose to benefit from the taxes we pay. Its kind of the whole point of paying them.

I'm curious why you say the tax argument is "silly". These businesses are provided public services. These services are funded by tax money.

Why should the owner be allowed to selectively serve only certain members of the community?

I could even see if the owners were not serving criminals, but regular tax paying people?

Just doesn't seem right that someone can pay tax in a community but then have to go somewhere else to get goods.

[bigjavi973]

Exactly.

What type of idiot would eat food they forced another person to make for them??

They targeted this guy.

It was another bullshiet attention seeking political move.

These dudes were going everywhere trying to find a place that wouldn't make their **** wedding cake tbh.

This was years ago back when same sex marriage wasnt legal yet. IIRC

yup and also... funny thing is the commission had ruled against gays vs bakeries at least 3 times while this one was pending.... so they were showing biases etc according to the supreme court

[Eddy Current]

Sure, just as soon as it is legal for muslims to kill gay people.

So where do you draw the line on claiming religious freedom?

What if all bakeries, restaurants, and grocery stores refused to sell to gay people for the same reason as this cake baker? They'd starve to death.

[1bad65]

U hate policing
But u love enforcing

Dude ur such a confused individual

Superfans are known for having glaring double standards in order to maintain team loyalty.

[Xoo]

Bad decision that sets a worse precedent.

You'd think by now we'd have an understanding that you can't turn down people simply for who they are, so I'm worried less about the cakes which I don't care much about and more about what ''rights'' businesses will be offered in the future.

But discriminate all you want against conservatives right?

[siablo14]

The problem has always been liberal policies. This goes all the way back to LBJ (the most liberal President) and the 1964 Civil Rights Act that he signed into law. A part of that Bill violates private property rights in that government can make a private property owner serve everyone. A private property owner should be able to decide who they want to serve. Period. Only the public sector should not discriminate, while the private sector should be able to choose who they want to associate with.

Racism and inequality are why the government had to step in there.

[The Big Dunn]

But discriminate all you want against conservatives right?

Interesting-when its conservatives you call it discrimination. When its liberals you call it religious freedom.