Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple

[Machismo]

TIL every small village and hamlet across the US has access to a local Wal-Mart.

Well, where isn't there a viable alternative?

[Maybach]

There's no rational debate to be had when someone believes your entire existence is an abomination because a book said so, sorry.

I think there is a great opportunity for rational debate about religion and religious believes and their impact on society

I have yet to see a rational argument as to how the human rights of homosexuals trumps that of the human rights of religious people

Mutual respect might be the order of the day rather than bile and rhetoric from the peanut gallery

[cparle87]

I'd dare that business to refuse someone purely based on race and see them buried in lawsuits.

But we're not talking about race. Sexual orientation isn't a protected class.

[Tyrianth]

This wasn't against the law anyways, just find another place to get your cake made and move on with your life.

Clearly it was against the law, otherwise it would've been turned down at lower courts instead of making it all the way to the supreme court.

[Deleted]

I think there is a great opportunity for rational debate about religion and religious believes and their impact on society

I have yet to see a rational argument as to how the human rights of homosexuals trumps that of the human rights of religious people

Mutual respect might be the order of the day rather than bile and rhetoric from the peanut gallery

It is not a human right to discriminate...

It is actually the opposite, and it funnily enough protects religion but not sexuality. So religious people actually have a one up in this one, not sure why they feel they can't share said group with sexuality.

[Arganis]

Well, where isn't there a viable alternative?

The point is people who are filled with hate shouldn't be enabled. Especially not on the basis of something as subjective as "religious sensibilities", which half the time simply translates to conservative bullies who wants everyone to think, look and act like them.

[Dug]

I think there is a great opportunity for rational debate about religion and religious believes and their impact on society

I have yet to see a rational argument as to how the human rights of homosexuals trumps that of the human rights of religious people

Mutual respect might be the order of the day rather than bile and rhetoric from the peanut gallery

The rights of homosexuals would not trump the rights of religious people if they were protected from being denied service for their sexual orientation. If they want to deny them service because they're causing a ruckus, are rude ass holes and or threatening them then that's within their right just as it is anyone else.

Anyways boils down to this. Sexual orientation has the backing of science, religion is made up fairy tales.

[Tyrianth]

Well, where isn't there a viable alternative?

Any black people in this little town better hope that Casey isn't racist.

[Machismo]

The point is people who are filled with hate shouldn't be enabled. Especially not on the basis of something as subjective as "religious sensibilities", which half the time simply translates to conservative bullies who wants everyone to think, look and act like them.

Everyone is filled with hate. The real problem comes when people try to legislate their hatred and bigotry. Those "bullies" did so with the threat of government force behind them, which is exactly what you want to do. How are you any different than those who wanted to ban gay marriage?

[Sormine]

I am arguing that religious beliefs should carry the same weight as any other belief or lifestyle or orientation and deserves the same respect

Then we might get some sort of rational debate rather than one side deciding that the other sides human rights are less worthy

People seem to forget that those with deeply held religious beliefs feel that their immortal soul is in jeopardy if they do not follow the word of god as written

You need to see both sides of the argument rather than feel outraged on behalf of one

I think I've seen both sides of this argument. Religious beliefs shouldn't take precedent over the circumstances of ones birth

But we're not talking about race. Sexual orientation isn't a protected class.

United states courts would disagree with you.

[solinari6]

But we're not talking about race. Sexual orientation isn't a protected class.

It is in the state this happened, I believe. That's the whole point that the supreme court has to decide, if states can add sexual orientation to the protected class list, and give it all the strength of the protections for race, religion and gender.

[pathora44]

I am arguing that religious beliefs should carry the same weight as any other belief or lifestyle or orientation and deserves the same respect

Then we might get some sort of rational debate rather than one side deciding that the other sides human rights are less worthy

People seem to forget that those with deeply held religious beliefs feel that their immortal soul is in jeopardy if they do not follow the word of god as written

You need to see both sides of the argument rather than feel outraged on behalf of one

Except this guy is a hypocrite because in the bible it says all sins are equal in the eyes of God. If you refuse to make a cake for a homosexual wedding then he should refuse to make a cake for people who had sex before marriage, for divorcees, for people who swear, who have lied, who have stolen, etc... All of these are sins of equal measure to God. So the argument that he is risking his immortal soul by baking a cake is bullshit because he would just as much be risking his immortal soul baking a cake for any sinner. This is a bigot who hates gay people trying to hide behind his religion to excuse his bigotry. You don't think people didn't twist and contort Christianity into why white people are superior to black people? Jesus wouldn't kick out sinners he would walk with them and try to change them. Where was the contract selling his soul to the devil if he made a cake? Where was the required gay orgy he would have to be involved with if he made the cake? Where was the bible he was to burn and swear upon his soul to disavow God if he made a cake? The guy is a bigot who uses his religion as a shield to hide his bigotry and Jesus would be ashamed of him.

[Maybach]

It is not a human right to discriminate...

It is a human right to practice your religious beliefs

As long as there refusal of service in this case was not done in an abusive manner its entirely lawful

I suspect that the ruling in this case came down on the side of freedom of religion because there was no attempt to be abusive but simply a desire to stick to their religious beliefs

Much as you are I might disagree with them, both sides have an equal right in this instance

[Arganis]

Everyone is filled with hate. The real problem comes when people try to legislate their hatred and bigotry. Those "bullies" did so with the threat of government force behind them, which is exactly what you want to do. How are you any different than those who wanted to ban gay marriage?

I'm not sure you realize but you're actually agreeing with me. People shouldn't be able to legislate their hatred and bigotry AKA we shouldn't make laws that will allow people who fall into that category to say stuff like you: "you look like a faggot to me, so get out of my shop... cause religion."

[Machismo]

Any black people in this little town better hope that Casey isn't racist.

And there are numerous alternatives within 20 miles.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure you realize but you're actually agreeing with me. People shouldn't be able to legislate their hatred and bigotry AKA we shouldn't make laws that will allow people who fall into that category to say stuff like you: "you look like a faggot to me, so get out of my shop... cause religion." with the full backing of the law.

No, I absolutely do not agree with you. I'm not trying to legislate anything. Legalization does not require government intervention. It's a lack of government.

[Tyrianth]

And there are numerous alternatives within 20 miles.

Better hope the gas stations would be willing to serve them gas. Otherwise that's a long walk for groceries!

Not to talk about the countless other small towns across the US who may not have the luxury of being close to a neighbouring town!

[Draco-Onis]

I suspect that the ruling in this case came down on the side of freedom of religion because there was no attempt to be abusive but simply a desire to stick to their religious beliefs

No, the ruling came because the justice department gave up nothing else they lost in lower courts.

[Arganis]

And there are numerous alternatives within 20 miles.

- - - Updated - - -



No, I absolutely do not agree with you. I'm not trying to legislate anything. Legalization does not require government intervention. It's a lack of government.

But this is legislation or are you too ideologically obtuse to see that? If I make a law saying "If you think this person is a faggot, then you can kick them out, no problem." how is that not legislating in favor of discrimination?

The only way government does nothing, like in your conservative utopia is if government is simply absent. You can't pick and chose.

[Machismo]

Better hope the gas stations would be willing to serve them gas. Otherwise that's a long walk for groceries!

Not to talk about the countless other small towns across the US who may not have the luxury of being close to a neighbouring town!

Then open up a business there, and serve everyone.

[Tyrianth]

Then open up a business there, and serve everyone.

Sure, just let me pull a business on the of my ass.