# The wedding cake issue again



## Sunny (Jun 5, 2018)

So, the Supreme Court has sided with the baker.  What is your opinion about this?


----------



## StarSong (Jun 5, 2018)

This is far from the last word on the matter.  This case was decided not on the basis of free speech or gay rights, but to slap down the heavy-handed missteps by a Colorado anti-discrimination commission.  

From the NYTimes: 

"Justice Kennedy... focused on what he said were flaws in the proceedings before the (Colorado Civil Rights) Commission. Members of the panel, he wrote, had acted with “clear and  impermissible hostility” to sincerely held religious beliefs.One  commissioner in particular, Justice Kennedy wrote, had crossed the line  in saying that “freedom of religion and religion has been used to  justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be  slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.”
Justice  Kennedy wrote that “this sentiment is inappropriate for a commission  charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement  of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.”'

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 5, 2018)

It's nice to see that someone in private business that they own are not forced to cater to the desires of a group when there is such an easy remedy.

I believe a barber should be free to say "I'm not cutting hair today" without having to explain it.

It's different if he is an employee of a chain.


----------



## Lara (Jun 5, 2018)

It's not like the baker wouldn't sell any cakes to the gay couple. He said he'd sell ALL of his cakes to them, just not a wedding cake because it goes against his religion. That's his Constitutional right. 

I don't even know why it's an issue except that the Constitution is being ignored by many these days.


----------



## rgp (Jun 5, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> It's nice to see that someone in private business that they own are not forced to cater to the desires of a group when there is such an easy remedy.
> 
> I believe a barber should be free to say "I'm not cutting hair today" without having to explain it.
> 
> It's different if he is an employee of a chain.




Pretty much my view as well. A business person should have the right to choose who they wish to do business with. 

It had nothing to do with the homosexuals to me.....It had to do with forcing one person to set aside their right , their comfort [or lack of] , to accommodate the desires of another.

If I walk in just now to have a cake made & he says ....Sorry I don't make cakes for old fat guys in green shirts. Why in the world would i want to force him to do business with me & SPEND my *money* there?


----------



## hollydolly (Jun 5, 2018)

We've had the same problem here  with bakers refusing to bake a wedding cake for homosexuals due to the Baker's religious beliefs..they were sued and they lost the case...and were found guilty of discrimination.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...t-done-anything-wrong-says-boss-31233797.html


----------



## StarSong (Jun 5, 2018)

As a retired business owner who sold both wholesale and retail, the very few customers that I refused to business with were excluded as patrons because of repeated, egregiously rude behavior when dealing with me or my staff.  A customer's family, religious, marital or other status was irrelevant.  

US business owners don't have the right to refuse to do business with people based on an arbitrary classification.  Suppose for a moment that you went to a college that refuse you admission or a restaurant that refused to seat you because they deemed you to be female, or too old, too fat, too ethnic (based on the last name you gave for your reservation), too ugly, too white (or too non-white, or a mixed-race couple), or too obviously of the wrong religion because of your hijab (or cross necklace, priest's collar or nun's habit), or they prefer not to despoil their ambiance with the presence of your handicapped child?

Ask not for whom the erosion of your fellow citizen's civil rights tolls, my friends.  It tolls for thee.


----------



## terry123 (Jun 5, 2018)

I can see where its his business to serve who he chooses and I am glad for him.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 5, 2018)

HOO  RAY   for the  Supreme Court  !!!    YAY !


----------



## rgp (Jun 5, 2018)

hollydolly said:


> We've had the same problem here  with bakers refusing to bake a wedding cake for homosexuals due to the Baker's religious beliefs..they were sued and they lost the case...and were found guilty of discrimination.
> 
> https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...t-done-anything-wrong-says-boss-31233797.html




Trouble is we all discriminate . Do you socialize with those whom you do not care for? That's discrimination...and we should have every right to practice it....IMHO under any & all circumstances in the private sector. 

Not talking about the civil sector, services, hospitals , transportation, education, etc. Those are all supported by tax-payer dollars & of course must / should be made available to all.


----------



## hollydolly (Jun 5, 2018)

rgp said:


> Trouble is we all discriminate . Do you socialize with those whom you do not care for? That's discrimination...and we should have every right to practice it....IMHO under any & all circumstances in the private sector.
> 
> Not talking about the civil sector, services, hospitals , transportation, education, etc. Those are all supported by tax-payer dollars & of course must / should be made available to all.



Oh absolutely, I totally agree with you.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jun 5, 2018)

Sunny said:


> So, the Supreme Court has sided with the baker. What is your opinion about this?



Like you mentioned in another thread, vote with your feet.

Tell your family, friends, co-workers and wedding guests the story of the baker that refused to make you a wedding cake and more importantly the name of the baker that did make you a wedding cake.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 5, 2018)

Good comments, on both sides of the issue.

My first reaction on reading about the Supreme court decision was, "Why on earth would anyone want to patronize a business whose owner is insulting them?"  I (partly) feel as Aunt Bea does: just find another business establishment that does not find you "offensive,"  and let everyone know about it.

However, there is another side to this. It's a very slippery slope. Does this mean that a business proprietor has the right to turn away a handicapped person, a person of the wrong race or religion, etc.?  That could mean the complete destruction of all the civil rights that people have fought (and died) for.  Where do we draw the line?

If the baker is forced to provide a particular cake, which could be considered a work of art, what kind of cake would he provide?  Would he really work to produce a thing of beauty, that he would be proud to advertise as his
own?  

And what if, instead of two gay men, his would-be customers were members of the Nazi party, who insisted on a cake with a swastika?  Should he be required to provide it?

So, there really is no good answer to this problem.  King Solomon is needed.


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 5, 2018)

When I told my wife about this, she said, "I always thought when a person owns the business, they can decide anything concerning the business." I told her, "not so much today, if any."

This cake business was close to Denver, CO when has a rather large LGBT community, which apparently, the location of the bakery has the same. The owner told news media that he lost approx. 40% of his business due to his decision. I may be wrong, but I think I read that he has closed his bakery now. 

The LGBT community continues to push everyone to believe and accept their sexuality whereas some do and some don't. They don't care what religion a person is.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 5, 2018)

I don't  care  WHAT  gay  people  do  to/for  each other.  I just object to their  flaunting their gayness,

Such  as the  "Gay Pride"  parades  which take place.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 5, 2018)

StarSong said:


> As a retired business owner who sold both wholesale and retail, the very few customers that I refused to business with were excluded as patrons because of repeated, egregiously rude behavior when dealing with me or my staff.  A customer's family, religious, marital or other status was irrelevant.
> 
> US business owners don't have the right to refuse to do business with people based on an arbitrary classification.  Suppose for a moment that you went to a college that refuse you admission or a restaurant that refused to seat you because they deemed you to be female, or too old, too fat, too ethnic (based on the last name you gave for your reservation), too ugly, too white (or too non-white, or a mixed-race couple), or too obviously of the wrong religion because of your hijab (or cross necklace, priest's collar or nun's habit), or they prefer not to despoil their ambiance with the presence of your handicapped child?
> 
> Ask not for whom the erosion of your fellow citizen's civil rights tolls, my friends.  It tolls for thee.



What about no shoes, no shirt, no service?

Am I forced to watch a guys hairy armpits while I eat?


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 5, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Good comments, on both sides of the issue.
> 
> My first reaction on reading about the Supreme court decision was, "Why on earth would anyone want to patronize a business whose owner is insulting them?"  I (partly) feel as Aunt Bea does: just find another business establishment that does not find you "offensive,"  and let everyone know about it.
> 
> ...



In the U.S. the Supreme Court is King Solomon.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 5, 2018)

StarSong said:


> As a retired business owner who sold both wholesale and retail, the very few customers that I refused to business with were excluded as patrons because of repeated, egregiously rude behavior when dealing with me or my staff.  A customer's family, religious, marital or other status was irrelevant.
> 
> US business owners don't have the right to refuse to do business with people based on an arbitrary classification.  Suppose for a moment that you went to a college that refuse you admission or a restaurant that refused to seat you because they deemed you to be female, or too old, too fat, too ethnic (based on the last name you gave for your reservation), too ugly, too white (or too non-white, or a mixed-race couple), or too obviously of the wrong religion because of your hijab (or cross necklace, priest's collar or nun's habit), or they prefer not to despoil their ambiance with the presence of your handicapped child?
> 
> Ask not for whom the erosion of your fellow citizen's civil rights tolls, my friends.  It tolls for thee.



I agree with you, Starsong.  AND, I think those celebrating this decision should be aware that it is, as you said, a VERY narrow decision and does NOT say that businesses can refuse service to homosexuals or anybody else, as a matter of fact, it confirms that they cannot.  The decision finds that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's procedures in dealing with the case were flawed and inconsistent and that their ruling should be reversed. Period.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 5, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Good comments, on both sides of the issue.
> 
> My first reaction on reading about the Supreme court decision was, "Why on earth would anyone want to patronize a business whose owner is insulting them?"  I (partly) feel as Aunt Bea does: just find another business establishment that does not find you "offensive,"  and let everyone know about it.
> 
> ...



And what if, instead of refusing to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding, the baker had refused to provide a cake for a Jewish couple?  This is a very slippery slope indeed -- if the government sanctions unequal treatment of certain groups, where does it lead?  We all can see where it led in Germany in the 30s.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 5, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> What about no shoes, no shirt, no service?
> 
> Am I forced to watch a guys hairy armpits while I eat?



Health or business liability considerations are a different matter entirely, but since you brought them up, those rules are non-discriminatory in that they are enforced equally to all customers.  Most casual eateries permit both male and female customers to wear sleeveless apparel.


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 5, 2018)

I agree with my wife, a business owner should have the right to run his business any way he chooses. 

There are nightclubs that have a Dress Code shown on their entrance doors. If a nightclub owner deems certain people "undesirable" to enter his club, he should have that right. There are "Black Tie" events where a lady has to wear a dress and the man has to wear a suit. 

Chic-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby aren't open on Sundays and that's their choice.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 5, 2018)

ClassicRockr said:


> I agree with my wife, a business owner should have the right to run his business any way he chooses.
> 
> There are nightclubs that have a Dress Code shown on their entrance doors. If a nightclub owner deems certain people "undesirable" to enter his club, he should have that right. There are "Black Tie" events where a lady has to wear a dress and the man has to wear a suit.
> 
> Chic-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby aren't open on Sundays and that's their choice.



Not trying to start anything here, but hoping for clarification.  Are you suggesting that it should be ok for a restaurant owner to turn away African-Americans or gays from his establishment?


----------



## rgp (Jun 5, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> And what if, instead of refusing to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding, the baker had refused to provide a cake for a Jewish couple?  This is a very slippery slope indeed -- if the government sanctions unequal treatment of certain groups, where does it lead?  We all can see where it led in Germany in the 30s.




So should the baker be forced to provide the cake for the Jewish couple? Now we're back to trampling on his rights. 

This is why I say discrimination is virtually everywhere, and by their true definition ghettos [ethnic neighborhoods] aren't really a bad thing. Stay within , among those that understand you, and where one is comfortable, or venture out & mingle among others. Let them see your way & learn theirs.

SO LONG AS...no goods or services are denied to said ghetto, and /or it's inhabitants..........jmo


----------



## rgp (Jun 5, 2018)

StarSong said:


> Not trying to start anything here, but hoping for clarification.  Are you suggesting that it should be ok for a restaurant owner to turn away African-Americans or gays from his establishment?



Jumping in here ?.....If it is a totally private, out-of-pocket- run business? Yes...

Like I said earlier...if I walk in and he [restaurateur] says sorry, we don't serve old fat guys in green shirts?...Fine !...why in the world would I WANT to EAT there & spend my MONEY there ?

I'll find another place.


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 5, 2018)

StarSong said:


> Not trying to start anything here, but hoping for clarification.  Are you suggesting that it should be ok for a restaurant owner to turn away African-Americans or gays from his establishment?



Who the owner turns away should be completely up to the owner, no matter race, gender, whatever. 

If you owned a business, would you want others telling you how you can/can not run it? 

Rules and policies are set up by the owner of the business. 

Why own a business if the owner can’t run it the way they want to?


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 5, 2018)

rgp said:


> Jumping in here ?.....If it is a totally private, out-of-pocket- run business? Yes...
> 
> Like I said earlier...if I walk in and he [restaurateur] says sorry, we don't serve old fat guys in green shirts?...Fine !...why in the world would I WANT to EAT there & spend my MONEY there ?
> 
> I'll find another place.



Actually, just that simple and easy!


----------



## StarSong (Jun 5, 2018)

Not trying to start anything here, but hoping for clarification. Are you suggesting that it should be ok for a restaurant owner to turn away African-Americans or gays from his establishment?



rgp said:


> Jumping in here ?.....If it is a totally private, out-of-pocket- run business? Yes...
> 
> Like I said earlier...if I walk in and he [restaurateur] says sorry, we don't serve old fat guys in green shirts?...Fine !...why in the world would I WANT to EAT there & spend my MONEY there ?
> 
> I'll find another place.





ClassicRockr said:


> Who the owner turns away should be completely up to the owner, no matter race, gender, whatever.
> 
> If you owned a business, would you want others telling you how you can/can not run it?
> 
> ...





ClassicRockr said:


> Actually, just that simple and easy!



Oh my.  I would have thought you'd at least be embarrassed to admit it.  Wow, guys.  Shades of Archie Bunker.


----------



## Lara (Jun 5, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> What about no shoes, no shirt, no service?
> Am I forced to watch a guys hairy armpits while I eat?


----------



## Falcon (Jun 5, 2018)

:lol1:      Lara


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 5, 2018)

StarSong said:


> Not trying to start anything here, but hoping for clarification. Are you suggesting that it should be ok for a restaurant owner to turn away African-Americans or gays from his establishment?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not really. We simply don't see things the way you do. Nothing wrong with that. Not embarrassed to state how we feel. Why should we be? There are those that don't like numerous things and state that they don't.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jun 5, 2018)

Why would anyone be concerned about the gay couple's rights and not the baker's?   Does he not have any rights??   I'm happy that the SC made the correct judgement.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jun 5, 2018)

StarSong said:


> Not trying to start anything here, but hoping for clarification. Are you suggesting that it should be ok for a restaurant owner to turn away African-Americans or gays from his establishment?



Under our current federal laws, African Americans are a protected class. As far as I know, ****** orientation is not considered to be a federally protected class.

Here is a list of federally protected classes as I understand them.



Age
Race
National origin
Religious beliefs
Gender
Disability
Pregnancy
Veteran status


It gets messy trying to navigate this list.  Maybe someday a list will not be necessary, we can just say that all human beings or people are protected from discrimination.


----------



## jujube (Jun 5, 2018)

StarSong said:


> Not trying to start anything here, but hoping for clarification. Are you suggesting that it should be ok for a restaurant owner to turn away African-Americans or gays from his establishment?
> 
> +1
> 
> ...



+1, StarSong.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 5, 2018)

Lara said:


>



:laugh: You’re so cute & funny.


----------



## rgp (Jun 5, 2018)

ClassicRockr said:


> Not really. We simply don't see things the way you do. Nothing wrong with that. Not embarrassed to state how we feel. Why should we be? There are those that don't like numerous things and state that they don't.




Agree completely !


----------



## hearlady (Jun 5, 2018)

I'll bet the couple knew they would lose but accomplished gaining attention for their community's cause. We're still debating it after all.

If they actually wanted a cake they would have gone elsewhere.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 5, 2018)

Anyone who believes this SCOTUS decision gives bakers or anyone else the right to discriminate against gay people or anyone else should really read the decision to see what the court DOES say.  It only rules on the very narrow question of the Civil Rights Commission's actions at the lower level, and in no way decides the question of whether a baker can refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding.  Nobody but this particular baker gains anything under this ruling and it is unlikely that it can be used as precedent in any litigation about anything except maybe the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  It particularly does not give bakers the right not to serve gay people and it says precisely that in its text.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 5, 2018)

And you used to work at a law office didn’t you Butterfly?


----------



## StarSong (Jun 5, 2018)

hearlady said:


> I'll bet the couple knew they would lose but accomplished gaining attention for their community's cause. We're still debating it after all.
> 
> If they actually wanted a cake they would have gone elsewhere.



More than 60 years ago Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus.  She was arrested and fined for not complying with the bus driver's instructions.  One could argue that if she wanted to get to her destination she could have simply changed her seat as per the driver's demand.  Maybe she knew she'd lose her case but wanted to draw attention to something she believed to be an injustice.   

All too often it appears we're still debating that one, too.


----------



## hearlady (Jun 5, 2018)

No argument.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 5, 2018)

StarSong said:


> More than 60 years ago Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus.  She was arrested and fined for not complying with the bus driver's instructions.  One could argue that if she wanted to get to her destination she could have simply changed her seat as per the driver's demand.  Maybe she knew she'd lose her case but wanted to draw attention to something she believed to be an injustice.
> 
> All too often it appears we're still debating that one, too.


Great point. It’s the movers and shakers that change the world.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 5, 2018)

Keesha said:


> :laugh: You’re so cute & funny.



Geeze,   All I did was  show her what I cooked  for dinner.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 5, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> Anyone who believes this SCOTUS decision gives bakers or anyone else the right to discriminate against gay people or anyone else should really read the decision to see what the court DOES say.  It only rules on the very narrow question of the Civil Rights Commission's actions at the lower level, and in no way decides the question of whether a baker can refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding.  Nobody but this particular baker gains anything under this ruling and it is unlikely that it can be used as precedent in any litigation about anything except maybe the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  It particularly does not give bakers the right not to serve gay people and it says precisely that in its text.



Except the Colorado Civil Rights Commission? Isn't that the case in a nutshell?


----------



## Sunny (Jun 5, 2018)

I think what makes this case so difficult is the nature of the guy's business.  If he was, say, just a regular bakery selling bread, rolls, ordinary cakes and pies, it might make sense to declare that he has to sell his items
to everyone. He cannot say, "No, you are black so I won't sell you anything."  I'm pretty sure that's a civil rights violation.

But this guy considers himself an artist. His cakes are special creations, I imagine expressing the couple's love for each other, and each cake requires a certain amount of emotional commitment on the part of the artist
as well. He's not just baking an ordinary cake and slapping some chocolate icing on it.  And because the cakes are works of art, he is probably within his rights to pick and choose those clients whom he wishes to honor
with an artistic creation.

That's what makes this case so hard to decide.


----------



## Lara (Jun 5, 2018)

That's a good point, Sunny.

This isn't about discrimination. This is about Biblical Scripture and Constitutional rights. To the baker, it's about Obeying God's Will. To The Constitution, it's about "not interfering with a person's practice of their religion".

Personally, I have no problem with gays choosing marriage. If that's what they want to do then that's their choice and the judgment is for God to make (which he has made in scripture). I leave that up to God. 

I don't judge but I do know that God is against it according to scripture. Would I participate in the marriage by baking them a cake? No, because the Constitution says it "prohibits the government from interfering with a person's practice of their religion" and I would not feel comfortable participating in something God would not be pleased about.

Here's what *The Bible* says about who the participants should be in a marriage: https://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html

Here's what* The Constitution *says about Freedom of Religion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment


----------



## rgp (Jun 5, 2018)

StarSong said:


> More than 60 years ago Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus.  She was arrested and fined for not complying with the bus driver's instructions.  One could argue that if she wanted to get to her destination she could have simply changed her seat as per the driver's demand.  Maybe she knew she'd lose her case but wanted to draw attention to something she believed to be an injustice.
> 
> All too often it appears we're still debating that one, too.




IMO that one was entirely different. She was on a city bus...a civil service provided by tax dollars & a fare. As such she had every right to not only ride the bus, but sit where she damn well pleased [again IMO] She was bossed around, but stood her ground...I don't blame her.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 6, 2018)

Well, reading the last two responses, I realize that I don't know enough about Constitutional law or civil rights legislation to make any meaningful comment about this.  And I think this really boils down to a civil rights issue.

Lara, with all due respect for your religious beliefs, and your ability to speak for God, all that is irrelevant to this case. We are not a theocracy, and what's involved here is whether or not there was a violation of civil rights.

rgo, that's an interesting point about whether tax dollars are involved. I really don't know if that factors in as an element of civil rights legislation.  Hypothetical example:  If an emergency room doctor refuses to treat a patient because the patient is gay, or the wrong color, wrong religion, etc., is that a Constitutional violation, or just a violation of medical ethics?  What if he was not working in a public hospital but conducting a private medical practice?  Does that change the rules?

One way to consider this case is to reverse the positions of the litigants.  What if a Bible-thumping fundamentalist wanted to order a cake from a gay baker who did artistic creations, and the baker refused on religious grounds?  Who would be right in that case?


----------



## Lara (Jun 6, 2018)

Sunny said:
			
		

> What if a Bible-thumping fundamentalist wanted to order a cake from a gay baker who did artistic creations, and the baker refused on religious grounds? Who would be right in that case?


First of all, "Bible-thumping fundamentalist" is condescending name-calling, rude and not allowed in the forum. Don't worry, I won't report you...just bringing it to your attention. To answer your question, there is no religion that says a husband and wife must be same -sex. But let's just say the gay baker did have a religion like that...then the Christian would have to choose another baker that wants his business...there are plenty, no problem.



Sunny said:


> Well, reading the last two responses, I realize that I don't know enough about Constitutional law or civil rights legislation to make any meaningful comment about this.  And I think this really boils down to a civil rights issue....We are not a theocracy, and what's involved here is whether or not there was a violation of civil rights...


It has EVERYthing to do with the First Amendment of the Constitution which is about religious freedom and "the right to practice what the baker believes [to be God's will in biblical scripture] without government interference". The gay couple can choose another of the thousands of bakers around. The Christian baker has no other options but God's will. It is not a civil rights issue.


----------



## rgp (Jun 6, 2018)

"First of all, "Bible-thumping fundamentalist" is condescending name-calling, rude and not allowed in the forum. Don't worry, I won't report you...just bringing it to your attention. "

Come on....really the veiled threat of  I might tell mommy ?? 

And [opinion here] but there are indeed "Bible-thumping fundamentalist "....they cruise this neighborhood damn near every Saturday. Some are very pushy & annoying , while some are polite, but still pushing their religious agenda.

The same folks have stopped here several times....Just how many times do I have to say no before they get the picture? They are indeed "bible-thumping" And THAT is rude.


----------



## rgp (Jun 6, 2018)

"rgo, that's an interesting point about whether tax dollars are involved. I really don't know if that factors in as an element of civil rights legislation. Hypothetical example: If an emergency room doctor refuses to treat a patient because the patient is gay, or the wrong color, wrong religion, etc., is that a Constitutional violation, or just a violation of medical ethics? What if he was not working in a public hospital but conducting a private medical practice? Does that change the rules?"

I think you mean [rgp] ? Me ?

  "that's an interesting point about whether tax dollars are involved. I really don't know if that factors in as an element of civil rights legislation."

 That is my point...it really isn't a civil-rights issue. The bus was/is provided as part of infrastructure / city service . A citizen boards the bus , drops the fare in the box..takes a seat & rides to their destination. The only civil-rights issue was the fact that she was black. 

As for your hypothetical....Frankly this can, can be kicked just about as far as one wishes. In many cases humanity should enter somewhere ?...but that cannot be regulated . And it is something , some folks just do not have.


----------



## Lara (Jun 6, 2018)

rjp...you're talking about Jehovah's Witness, not fundamentalist Christians. JWs indeed have their own bible and literature and they indeed cruise neighborhoods knocking on doors to spread their religious views. It's annoying to answer the door but I don't make fun of them.

They began to carry the KJV Bible also because some of their scripture overlaps the Christian Bible. Their reason was so they could draw the Christians over to their side by making Chistians think that our beliefs are the same...but their religion is very very different from Christians and Fundamentalist Christians.


----------



## rgp (Jun 6, 2018)

Lara said:


> rjp...you're talking about Jehovah's Witness, not fundamentalist Christians. JWs indeed have their own bible and literature and they indeed cruise neighborhoods knocking on doors to spread their religious views.
> 
> They began to carry the KJV Bible also because some of the scripture overlaps the Christian Bible. Their reason was so they could draw the Christians over to their side by making Chistians think that our beliefs are the same...but their religion is very very different from Christians and Fundamentalist Christians.




LOL!! OK...one more time...it's RGP....but hey....just don't call me late for happy hour...

And NO they are Christian Fundamentalist .....they leave their printed crap in the door all the time....I have talked to them , face to face more times than I ever wanted,....I drive by the church they are from all the time.

And bottom line ....they are indeed bible-thumpers....no matter what.


----------



## rgp (Jun 6, 2018)

"_Chistians think that our beliefs are the same...but their religion is very very different from Christians and Fundamentalist Christians."

 Which is exactly why I reject all of it.....period ! It is all about belief, & I believe it is all bunk !

_


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 6, 2018)

I almost became a Mormon back in the mid 70's. Took all the lessons and decided, at the last minute, "no" and didn't go thru with it. However, for a short while I did date a Mormon girl that I met at the Institute of Religion at a local Jr. College. She truly surprised me at how much she really, really physically wanted me. The church says "no", but there are those girls that sure don't want to her that "no" from the church. 

Wonder what would have happened if this baker had been a Mormon? 

And, BTW, the young Mormon missionaries always have the Book Of Mormon with them when riding their bicycles door-to-door.


----------



## Lara (Jun 6, 2018)

The *1st Amendment of the Constitution *doesn't specify any particular religion for which it's protecting. 

It's protecting any and all religions to practice their beliefs at any time. http://https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment 

That's what this is all about and that's why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Christian baker. 

The baker has the right to practice doing what he believes is the will of God according to biblical scripture.

The gay couple have the right to walk across the street and order their cake at that bakery.

Today, much of society hasn't read the Constitution, has grown up in a highly litigious society, and just wants to rant because anger, loudness, and stepping on other people's rights, is perceived as the best way to get your way instead of simply going to another bakery where everyone can be instantly happy.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 6, 2018)

Lara said:


> The *1st Amendment of the Constitution *doesn't specify any particular religion for which it's protecting.
> 
> It's protecting any and all religions to practice their beliefs at any time. http://https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
> 
> ...



Speaking of rants....


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 6, 2018)

I invite all demoninations to talk with me but my criterion is that they have to put the books down and just talk on a level basis.

They ask me why and I tell them.  It's because you have the book and I don't so it's not a fair discussion.


----------



## fmdog44 (Jun 6, 2018)

Chick-Fil-A had an issue with gays a while back. All restaurants are closed on Sunday for religious reasons. When gays got up in arms a while back customers responded by flooding the stores with business and the gays disappeared.


----------



## Lara (Jun 6, 2018)

I'm sorry my post#55 appeared as a rant to you, Star Song. Rant as defined in the Oxford Dictionary: "speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way". 
I can assure you, I wasn't feeling "wild" nor "impassioned" when I typed that post. In fact, I feel like a nap coming on...

 I try to be factual and helpful in a controlled manner. I spend a lot of thoughtful time on each of my posts. Typing vs face-to-face is not always in our favor. Thank you for reading my post.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 6, 2018)

I'm so glad this was resolved by the Supreme Court.

Minorities can't always have it their way.

Give a little.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 6, 2018)

RGP (did I get it right this time?), my apologies for the typo. 

Lara, in response to your ever-so-sanctimonious note:



> Personally, I have no problem with gays choosing marriage. If that's  what they want to do then that's their choice and the judgment is for  God to make (which he has made in scripture). I leave that up to God.
> 
> I don't judge but I do know that God is against it according to  scripture. Would I participate in the marriage by baking them a cake?  No, because the Constitution says it "prohibits the government from  interfering with a person's practice of their religion" and I would not  feel comfortable participating in something God would not be pleased  about.
> 
> ...



Well... where to begin?  If that isn't a perfect definition of Bible-thumping, I don't know what would be.  And yes, "Bible-thumping fiundamentalists"  is pretty universally accepted, by all those (about 99% of the human race) who do not fall into that particular mindset.  You have done this before and I've always ignored it, but you are really, really pushing it. You are inviting the answers you get.  And here's a news flash: rigid sanctimony, particularly claiming to know what God wants (really?) is offensive and at the same time, a bit pathetic, especially when the discussion is not about religion at all, but about a Supreme Court decision.

It does seem to me that if a person is really convinced that their religious convictions are right, they do not have the need to keep loudly telling everybody how right they are.

To get back to your suggestion that the gay couple simple go find another bakery (which I also suggested as a common sense solution), what if _their_ religion calls upon them to bear witness against bigotry and homophobia, by not caving in?  So now we have one religion (the baker's) pitted against another religion (theirs)!


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 6, 2018)

Sunny said:


> RGP (did I get it right this time?), my apologies for the typo.
> 
> Lara, in response to your ever-so-sanctimonious note:
> 
> ...



Yeah but the baker has the trump card.  His artistic talent.  Leave that out out the picture and what do you have? No argument at all. Just a bakery shop.  Michealangelo argued with the Pope. Michealangelo won.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 6, 2018)

That's true Camper. And if he were forced to create a cake for them, you have to wonder what kind of cake it would be.  It would be very hard to create a beautiful, supportive work of art, especially for something like a wedding,
without at least somewhat sharing in the happy feelings.


----------



## Lara (Jun 6, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Lara, in response to your ever-so-sanctimonious note...Well... where to begin?  If that isn't a perfect definition of Bible-thumping, I don't know what would be.  And yes, "Bible-thumping fiundamentalists"  is pretty universally accepted, by all those (about 99% of the human race) who do not fall into that particular mindset...You are really, really pushing it. You are inviting the answers you get.  And here's a news flash: rigid sanctimony, particularly claiming to know what God wants (really?) is offensive and at the same time, a bit pathetic, especially when the discussion is not about religion at all, but about a Supreme Court decision.
> 
> It does seem to me that if a person is really convinced that their religious convictions are right, they do not have the need to keep loudly telling everybody how right they are.
> 
> To get back to your suggestion that the gay couple simple go find another bakery (which I also suggested as a common sense solution), what if _their_ religion calls upon them to bear witness against bigotry and homophobia, by not caving in?  So now we have one religion (the baker's) pitted against another religion (theirs)!


I'll just forget you posted this. It's just mean-spirited and unfounded.
`


----------



## Traveler (Jun 6, 2018)

Hooray for Justice Kennedy !

I fully support the baker's religious rights. 

It is rare these days when freedom of religion is protected. 

There is a very simple and easy way the baker could have discouraged business for gay wedding cakes. Make the wrong cake ! Misspell the writing. Wrong flavor. Soon the gay community would get the idea.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 6, 2018)

Hmmmmm. 

Sooooo.....  perhaps this thread could be tossed into the pile of ‘threads that POSSIBLY shouldn’t be done’:laugh:

https://www.seniorforums.com/showthread.php/36205-Threads-That-POSSIBLY-Shouldn-t-Be-Done


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 6, 2018)

Many things were exhorted under ancient scripture which are problematic today. Slavery, stoning women for adultery, (but not men?) it was accepted that women and children could be severely  beaten by the male head of the household, and women were expected to be submissive to their husbands regardless of his behaviour. All rights to the children belonged to him, and 

women were chattels. We are no longer living in that narrow, tribal society. I also cannot conflate a loving compassionate Creator with a smiting God who denigrates and punishes those who are not heterosexual. Science now proclaims ****** orientation is not a choice. I have seen too many clients suicide over their family’s inability to accept they were gay. These same families are heartbroken and remorseful once their children are dead. As for the baker, slippery slope.


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 6, 2018)

Keesha said:


> Hmmmmm.
> 
> Sooooo.....  perhaps this thread could be tossed into the pile of ‘threads that POSSIBLY shouldn’t be done’:laugh:
> 
> https://www.seniorforums.com/showthread.php/36205-Threads-That-POSSIBLY-Shouldn-t-Be-Done



I was sort of thinking that also.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 6, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> Many things were exhorted under ancient scripture which are problematic today. Slavery, stoning women for adultery, (but not men?) it was accepted that women and children could be severely  beaten by the male head of the household, and women were expected to be submissive to their husbands regardless of his behaviour. All rights to the children belonged to him, and
> 
> women were chattels. We are no longer living in that narrow, tribal society. I also cannot conflate a loving compassionate Creator with a smiting God who denigrates and punishes those who are not heterosexual. Science now proclaims ****** orientation is not a choice. I have seen too many clients suicide over their family’s inability to accept they were gay. These same families are heartbroken and remorseful once their children are dead. As for the baker, slippery slope.



Thats just great. But it isn't the end of the world when someone refuses to bake a cake for you. Buy a store bought plain one and decorate it yourself with your own theme whatever that is.

We get so tired of this in your face stuff. If I don't like your standards or what you do. Tough.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 6, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Thats just great. But it isn't the end of the world when someone refuses to bake a cake for you. Buy a store bought plain one and decorate it yourself with your own theme whatever that is.
> 
> We get so tired of this in your face stuff. If I don't like your standards or what you do. Tough.


“The in your face stuff,” and accompanying weariness goes both ways, of course.  I am content to believe as I do, and, unlike some, I don’t resort to being rude simply because of an opposing opinion. Have a nice day.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 6, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> “The in your face stuff,” and accompanying weariness goes both ways, of course.  I am content to believe as I do, and, unlike some, I don’t resort to being rude simply because of an opposing opinion. Have a nice day.


The in your face stuff is one way. Rudeness is in the eye of th beholder.


----------



## rgp (Jun 6, 2018)

"There is a very simple and easy way the baker could have discouraged business for gay wedding cakes. Make the wrong cake ! Misspell the writing. Wrong flavor. Soon the gay community would get the idea."

  I thought about that myself, back when this was a 'news' hot-topic.

  Just make them the worst cake in the world !

  But in reality..IMO the homosexuals didn't really go there to get a cake...they went there to stir up, exactly what they did. Homosexual or not, their not stupid. Why go there and insist on spending their money at that persons place of business? Again [opinion] to stir up a storm, just as they did.

 As for the baker?...yeah a crap cake would have sent them away but....That would not have made his beliefs known to the world either.

Had {I} been the baker?....I do not understand homosexuals , and I do not agree with their ways but. I would have made them the nicest cake & charged the max amount. Why send away business?..........jmo


----------



## Lara (Jun 6, 2018)

Keesha said:


> Hmmmmm.
> 
> Sooooo.....  perhaps this thread could be tossed into the pile of ‘threads that POSSIBLY shouldn’t be done’:laugh:
> https://www.seniorforums.com/showthread.php/36205-Threads-That---t-Be-Done



...and "thar she goes"....Kerplunk nthego:


----------



## Keesha (Jun 6, 2018)

Lara said:


> ...and "thar she goes"....Kerplunk nthego:


:lofl:


----------



## Traveler (Jun 6, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> We get so tired of this in your face stuff.




Exactly !  The never ending "in your face" P.C. agenda. They don't care that the family, or the entire nation, is destroyed; as long as they get their way.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 6, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> “The in your face stuff,” and accompanying weariness goes both ways, of course.  I am content to believe as I do, and, unlike some, I don’t resort to being rude simply because of an opposing opinion. Have a nice day.


You are NEVER rude about expressing your opinions Shalimar. You do it with style, grace and dignity.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 6, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Yeah but the baker has the trump card.  His artistic talent.  Leave that out out the picture and what do you have? No argument at all. Just a bakery shop.  Michealangelo argued with the Pope. Michealangelo won.



The bus driver had the trump card with Rosa Parks.  Until he didn't anymore.              

Societies move forward.  Neanderthals die off or evolve.  We each get to decide where we want to be on that continuum.  People who teach their children that they are better than others, or that God loves them more than others (Good grief!) will doom them to a lifetime of anger and pain.


----------



## treeguy64 (Jun 6, 2018)

Dopey!  Much ado about not much!  If someone tried to force me to do something, in my business, that I was opposed to doing, for whatever reasons I might have, I would easily find a way out of the same.  The baker could have easily told the couple that their design was too challenging for him, and then recommended another bakery.  If not that, he could have said he didn't have the flavors/fillings they wanted.  He could have done lots of other things to get out of doing the cake without making it the big deal it became.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 6, 2018)

StarSong said:


> Societies move forward.




Yes, but forward into what ? A society not worth living in any longer ?


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 6, 2018)

StarSong said:


> The bus driver had the trump card with Rosa Parks.  Until he didn't anymore.
> 
> Societies move forward.  Neanderthals die off or evolve.  We each get to decide where we want to be on that continuum.  People who teach their that they are better than others, or that God loves them more than others (Good grief!) will doom them to a lifetime of anger and pain.


Post of the week!


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 6, 2018)

Keesha said:


> You are NEVER rude about expressing your opinions Shalimar. You do it with style, grace and dignity.


Why, thank you.


----------



## Lara (Jun 6, 2018)

Shalimar said:
			
		

> _“The in your face stuff,” and accompanying weariness goes both ways, of course. I am content to believe as I do, and, unlike some, I don’t resort to being rude simply because of an opposing opinion. Have a nice day._





Keesha said:


> You are NEVER rude about expressing your opinions Shalimar. You do it with style, grace and dignity.



That's true Shalimar. Forums are for expressing our opinions without being rude. And you do that nicely.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 6, 2018)

Lara said:


> [/I][/COLOR]
> 
> That's true Shalimar. Forums are for expressing our opinions without being rude. And you do that nicely.


Thank you so much Lara. We should be able to disagree courteously.


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 6, 2018)

Keesha said:


> You are NEVER rude about expressing your opinions Shalimar. You do it with style, grace and dignity.



Yes, at times I wish I had what she has.....style, grace and dignity in some of my replies. Really.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 6, 2018)

> But in reality..IMO the homosexuals didn't really  go there to get a cake...they went there to stir up, exactly what they  did. Homosexual or not, their not stupid. Why go there and insist on  spending their money at that persons place of business? Again [opinion]  to stir up a storm, just as they did.
> 
> As for the baker?...yeah a crap cake would have sent them away  but....That would not have made his beliefs known to the world either.
> 
> Had {I} been the baker?....I do not understand homosexuals , and I do  not agree with their ways but. I would have made them the nicest cake  & charged the max amount. Why send away business?..........jmo



I completely agree, RGP.  I have never really thought this case was about a cake; who really cares about a wedding cake, to that extent?  I think the whole thing was engineered, on both sides, to make the case they  
to make. The gay men thought they had a groundbreaking case which would be a landmark for gay rights. The baker thought he was being a religious hero. Both sides were wrong, and both sides were right.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 6, 2018)

ClassicRockr said:


> Yes, at times I wish I had what she has.....style, grace and dignity in some of my replies. Really.



That's Ok, Rocker. you do just fine. You give voice to your opinion, and that's what counts. 

Sometimes it's better to be right, than sophisticated.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 6, 2018)

StarSong said:


> The bus driver had the trump card with Rosa Parks.  Until he didn't anymore.
> 
> Societies move forward.  Neanderthals die off or evolve.  We each get to decide where we want to be on that continuum.  People who teach their that they are better than others, or that God loves them more than others (Good grief!) will doom them to a lifetime of anger and pain.



This IS a great post:clap:


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 6, 2018)

StarSong said:


> The bus driver had the trump card with Rosa Parks.  Until he didn't anymore.
> 
> Societies move forward.  Neanderthals die off or evolve.  We each get to decide where we want to be on that continuum.  People who teach their that they are better than others, or that God loves them more than others (Good grief!) will doom them to a lifetime of anger and pain.



The bus driver was an employee of the transit corporation and I would hardly call that being an artist.

The cake baker had a special talent for designing wedding cakes and refused to bake one against his principles.

Colorado didn't agree but the Supreme Court did.

The cake baker suffered a lot of abuse.  So much for tolerance.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 6, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Sometimes it's better to be right, than sophisticated.



Post of the day! ( I don’t know how I missed this!! )
OMG!!! :lofl:


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 6, 2018)

Sunny said:


> I completely agree, RGP.  I have never really thought this case was about a cake; who really cares about a wedding cake, to that extent?  I think the whole thing was engineered, on both sides, to make the case they
> to make. The gay men thought they had a groundbreaking case which would be a landmark for gay rights. The baker thought he was being a religious hero. Both sides were wrong, and both sides were right.



I don't agree.  It was all one sided.  The baker offered to sell anything in the store to them.  He just wasn't going to cave in to their demands.  They took to the civil rights.  He didn't.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 6, 2018)

Keesha said:


> Post of the day! ( I don’t know how I missed this!! )
> OMG!!! :lofl:


I’ll take “being right and being sophisticated,” for a thousand, Keesha. nthego:


----------



## Keesha (Jun 6, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> I’ll take “being right and being sophisticated,” for a thousand, Keesha. nthego:


:laugh:Love you Shali :love_heart:nthego:


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 6, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Well, reading the last two responses, I realize that I don't know enough about Constitutional law or civil rights legislation to make any meaningful comment about this.  And I think this really boils down to a civil rights issue.
> 
> Lara, with all due respect for your religious beliefs, and your ability to speak for God, all that is irrelevant to this case. We are not a theocracy, and what's involved here is whether or not there was a violation of civil rights.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 6, 2018)

Keesha said:


> :laugh:Love you Shali :love_heart:nthego:


Ditto, Cherie.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 6, 2018)

Lara said:


> The *1st Amendment of the Constitution *doesn't specify any particular religion for which it's protecting.
> 
> *It's protecting any and all religions to practice their beliefs at any time.* http://https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
> 
> ...



No, Lara, it isn't.  I suggest you read the online decision of the Supreme Court.  The Court did *NOT *touch the issue of whether the baker had a right to refuse or not.  It based its VERY narrow ruling on things that took place at the Civil Rights Commission below ("technicalities" if you will) and specifically stated it was NOT ruling on the issue of the baker's refusal.

The Court did NOT rule on whether or not the Baker was in violation of Colorado's anti-discrimination law or whether or not law that law is unconstitutional.  I note that Colorado expanded its anti-discrimination laws in 2007 and 2008 to include forbidding discrimination with regard to ****** orientation.  

I also suggest you do further research on the issue of your assertion that the First Amendment allegedly protects the right of "any and all religions to practice their beliefs at any time."  Your assertion is a bit broad, to say the least.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 6, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> No, Lara, it isn't.  I suggest you read the online decision of the Supreme Court.  The Court did *NOT *touch the issue of whether the baker had a right to refuse or not.  It based its VERY narrow ruling on things that took place at the Civil Rights Commission below ("technicalities" if you will) and specifically stated it was NOT ruling on the issue of the baker's refusal.
> 
> The Court did NOT rule on whether or not the Baker was in violation of Colorado's anti-discrimination law or whether or not law that law is unconstitutional.  I note that Colorado expanded its anti-discrimination laws in 2007 and 2008 to include forbidding discrimination with regard to ****** orientation.
> 
> I also suggest you do further research on the issue of your assertion that the First Amendment allegedly protects the right of "any and all religions to practice their beliefs at any time."  Your assertion is a bit broad, to say the least.



Thank you for the clarification, Butterfly.

Shal - I agree with the others.  You have a gift for succinctly stating your opinions without being rude or offensive.  Kudos!


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 6, 2018)

StarSong said:


> Thank you for the clarification, Butterfly.
> 
> Shal - I agree with the others.  You have a gift for succinctly stating your opinions without being rude or offensive.  Kudos!


Thank you, StarSong.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 6, 2018)

Since I don’t really know much about the law, I look forward to reading Butterfly’s  posts. She did after all work in a law office and seems to really know her stuff on these types of topics. 

And Ive told Shalimar many times, that she has a gift for choosing the right words


----------



## StarSong (Jun 6, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Yes, but forward into what ? A society not worth living in any longer ?



Many find that sincerely accepting others and finding common ground creates a society immeasurably better for all.  Only by being respectful toward other people can we truly respect ourselves.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 6, 2018)

StarSong said:


> Many find that sincerely accepting others and finding common ground creates a society immeasurably better for all.  Only by being respectful toward other people can we truly respect ourselves.




Accepting others ? Hmm. You mean like being referred to as Neanderthals ?
(see starsong's post)


----------



## Sunny (Jun 6, 2018)

> Societies move forward.  Neanderthals die off or evolve.  We each get to  decide where we want to be on that continuum.  People who teach their  that they are better than others, or that God loves them more than  others (Good grief!) will doom them to a lifetime of anger and pain.



StarSong, amen!


----------



## Keesha (Jun 6, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Accepting others ? Hmm. You mean like being referred to as Neanderthals ?
> (see starsong's post)



I didn’t view it as a criticism but more  as a ‘fact’ of common sense.


----------



## JFBev (Jun 6, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> No, Lara, it isn't.  I suggest you read the online decision of the Supreme Court.  The Court did *NOT *touch the issue of whether the baker had a right to refuse or not.  It based its VERY narrow ruling on things that took place at the Civil Rights Commission below ("technicalities" if you will) and specifically stated it was NOT ruling on the issue of the baker's refusal.
> 
> The Court did NOT rule on whether or not the Baker was in violation of Colorado's anti-discrimination law or whether or not law that law is unconstitutional.  I note that Colorado expanded its anti-discrimination laws in 2007 and 2008 to include forbidding discrimination with regard to ****** orientation.
> 
> I also suggest you do further research on the issue of your assertion that the First Amendment allegedly protects the right of "any and all religions to practice their beliefs at any time."  Your assertion is a bit broad, to say the least.



Thank you for that explanation -- when I read the various press reports, it seemed to me (a non-lawyer) that the issue was about the tactics used by the Civil Rights Commission.  Hopefully, that will help determine how governmental agencies proceed with future complaints, not just coming down hard on one side or the other based on "because we can" and personal opinions.  Am I close?


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 6, 2018)

Keesha said:


> I didn’t view it as a criticism but more  as a ‘fact’ of common sense.


Agreed, a society’s ultimate survival hinges on its ability to adapt.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 6, 2018)

Keesha said:


> I didn’t view it as a criticism but more  as a ‘fact’ of common sense.



Perhaps a "fact" to the P.C.ers. An insult, if a person thinks for him/her self.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 6, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Perhaps a "fact" to the P.C.ers. An insult, if a person thinks for him/her self.


Often, insults are in the eye of the beholder. For example, I am hopeful that in your frequent posts decrying feminists, or PC ers, you could not possibly be insulting any of the female SF posters, who also think for themselves.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 6, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Accepting others ? Hmm. You mean like being referred to as Neanderthals ?
> (see starsong's post)



I presume this is the post you mean: 


StarSong said:


> The bus driver had the trump card with Rosa Parks.  Until he didn't anymore.
> 
> Societies move forward.  Neanderthals die off or evolve.  We each get to  decide where we want to be on that continuum.  People who teach their  children that they are better than others, or that God loves them more  than others (Good grief!) will doom them to a lifetime of anger and  pain.



In some ways we are all Neanderthals because we belong to our pasts, Traveler.  I'd love to have a TV with a dial channel changer.  Remotes get me crazy.  Don't get me started on the ridiculous learning curve with each new cell phone.  Or computer operating system.  Windows 10 anyone?  I have plenty of Neanderthal moments of my own.      

The question on this thread is whether we are open to learning and evolving our attitudes toward other human beings or if we're going to stay stuck in our unenlightened pasts.  Surely you recall kids from your high school years who were a couple of steps off from most of the students.  You maybe didn't quite know what it was about them that was different, but you sensed something.  As you got older you probably realized that they were gay.  

Those kids held their secrets, their very worst fears, so close inside that they didn't dare even admit them to themselves.  Many committed suicide, became drug addicts or alcoholics because the pain of being "different" was so excruciating.  The fear of not being accepted was so great that many pretended to be people that they weren't and so they married, spreading the pain to unwitting spouses.    

With so many gays having come forward and sharing their stories we now know what that was like for them.  Isn't it time we stop treating them like "others" and accept them as equal members in our family of man?


----------



## Keesha (Jun 6, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Perhaps a "fact" to the P.C.ers. An insult, if a person thinks for him/her self.



Why do you try and divide and conquer everyone into all these different categories?
The P.C. ‘ers, the leftists, the feminists, the anti Americans , the aliens .... etc., etc.,

AND Traveler darling, I AM quite capable of thinking for myself and resent the innuendo you’ve painted here. 
Not everything is as black and white as you tend to express.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 6, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> Agreed, a society’s ultimate survival hinges on its ability to adapt.


Exactly!



StarSong said:


> I presume this is the post you mean:
> 
> 
> In some ways we are all Neanderthals because we belong to our pasts, Traveler.  I'd love to have a TV with a dial channel changer.  Remotes get me crazy.  Don't get me started on the ridiculous learning curve with each new cell phone.  Or computer operating system.  Windows 10 anyone?  I have plenty of Neanderthal moments of my own.
> ...



Another  GREAT post Starsong:clap:


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 6, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> Sunny said:
> 
> 
> > Well, reading the last two responses, I realize that I don't know enough about Constitutional law or civil rights legislation to make any meaningful comment about this.  And I think this really boils down to a civil rights issue.
> ...


----------



## Traveler (Jun 6, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> Often, insults are in the eye of the beholder. For example, I am hopeful that in your frequent posts decrying feminists, or PC ers, you could not possibly be insulting any of the female SF posters, who also think for themselves.




*Baloney ! There is only one way to look at being called a Neanderthal. It is an insult. Period. 

Feminists and P.C.ers are insulted by anything that does not kowtow to their agendas.*

*I didn't start the war on men but I sure as heck have been a victim of it.

I used to be a strong supporter of feminism, but after endless years of being attacked, and insulted, just because I'm a man, I now oppose anything feminist. How's that for irony. *

*Yes, yes, I now expect to see a post about how kind and loving feminists are. haha  What a joke.*


----------



## Keesha (Jun 6, 2018)

If you spend your entire life looking to be offended, there will be enough to ‘cry victim’ for a lifetime. 
‘Woe is me’

:crying:


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 6, 2018)

Traveler said:


> *Baloney ! There is only one way to look at being called a Neanderthal. It is an insult. Period.
> 
> Feminists and P.C.ers are insulted by anything that does not kowtow to their agendas.*
> 
> ...


It is interesting trying to follow a mindset which holds such a rigid view of women that someone is oblivious to their own insulting, verbally abusive behaviour. There are many women here who have horror stories re how they were 

abused by men, some for years. Some throughout their whole childhood. Some as adults. However, they do not use those experiences, horrendous though they were, as an excuse to denigrate the majority of men. I am sorry you are a prisoner of your experiences, perhaps counseling would help. Excoriating the women of SF helps no one.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 6, 2018)

Keesha said:


> If you spend your entire life looking to be offended, there will be enough to ‘cry victim’ for a lifetime.
> ‘Woe is me’
> 
> :crying:



Right on even when someone doesn't want to bake a cake for you.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 6, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> perhaps counseling would help.
> Excoriating the women of SF helps no one.


Thank you! raying:


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 6, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> It is interesting trying to follow a mindset which holds such a rigid view of women that someone is oblivious to their own insulting, verbally abusive behaviour. There are many women here who have horror stories re how they were
> 
> abused by men, some for years. Some throughout their whole childhood. Some as adults. However, they do not use those experiences, horrendous though they were, as an excuse to denigrate the majority of men. I am sorry you are a prisoner of your experiences, perhaps counseling would help. Excoriating the women of SF helps no one.



Take it to the civil rights commission. Stick to the topic.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 6, 2018)

Traveler said:


> *Baloney ! There is only one way to look at being called a Neanderthal. It is an insult. Period.
> 
> Feminists and P.C.ers are insulted by anything that does not kowtow to their agendas.*
> 
> ...





Camper6 said:


> Take it to the civil rights commission. Stick to the topic.



And  THIS is ON topic? :shrug:


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 6, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Take it to the civil rights commission. Stick to the topic.


I suggest you moderate your tone. I do not answer to you.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 6, 2018)

Keesha said:


> If you spend your entire life looking to be offended, there will be enough to ‘cry victim’ for a lifetime.
> ‘Woe is me’



Actually that's rather funny. Feminists wrap themselves in a cloak of victimhood. You might even say they are obsessed with the notion of victimhood. 

One can not bring up feminism, without hearing endless stories of the 'atrocities' committed by men. 

Time for a new song. That one is worn out. It is the main reason why there are so many "Women Against Feminism"

http://www.facebook.com/WomenAgainstFeminism


----------



## Keesha (Jun 6, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Actually that's rather funny. Feminists wrap themselves in a cloak of victimhood. You might even say they are obsessed with the notion of victimhood.
> 
> One can not bring up feminism, without hearing endless stories of the 'atrocities' committed by men.
> 
> Time for a new song. That one is worn out. It is the main reason why there are so many "Women Against Feminism"


Traveler, when on this forum have you EVER read a post about me complaining about men? You are grabbing at straws all in an attempt to start an argument, which you are famous for, ( same argument, different thread title  ) so you  are the one who needs to start a new song. 

AND just for the record, I don’t hate you. I don’t quite understand where the anger and bitterness comes from, but I accept you as you are. Broken like the rest of us. You are just more vocal about your pain than most.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 6, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> I suggest you moderate your tone. I do not answer to you.


First Amendment. You are easily offended. Seek counselling. That's what you tell others. No one is asking you to answer to me.

My tone will never change.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 6, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> First Amendment. You are easily offended. Seek counselling. That's what you tell others. No one is asking you to answer to me.
> 
> My tone will never change.


Freedom without responsibilty is a farce. Thank you for the advice, however, after a decade of intensive therapy, what wasn’t cured must be endured. Lulz. pS. I suspect my fuse may be somewhat longer than yours. There is a distinct difference between outlining one’s personal boundaries and being easily offended. Have a good night.


----------



## Gary O' (Jun 6, 2018)

Traveler said:


> *Baloney ! There is only one way to look at being called a Neanderthal. It is an insult. Period. *



OK...NOW.... I'm offended!


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 6, 2018)

Gary O' said:


> OK...NOW.... I'm offended!


Oh my goodness!


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> Freedom without responsibilty is a farce. Thank you for the advice, however, after a decade of intensive therapy, what wasn’t cured must be endured. Lulz. pS. I suspect my fuse may be somewhat longer than yours. There is a distinct difference between outlining one’s personal boundaries and being easily offended. Have a good night.



Dont get personal if you can't handl reciprocal comments.


----------



## hollydolly (Jun 7, 2018)

Sunny said:


> I completely agree, RGP.  I have never really thought this case was about a cake; who really cares about a wedding cake, to that extent?  I think the whole thing was engineered, on both sides, to make the case they
> to make. The gay men thought they had a groundbreaking case which would be a landmark for gay rights. The baker thought he was being a religious hero. Both sides were wrong, and both sides were right.



This was precisely what was proved in the similar case here. It wasn't about the cake.. it was about whose rights took precedence over another


----------



## hollydolly (Jun 7, 2018)

Traveler said:


> * There is only one way to look at being called a Neanderthal. It is an insult. Period.
> *



Priceless.!! I'm sure in the midst of  your anger you haven't realised what a great line this is...


----------



## hearlady (Jun 7, 2018)

There's a lot of words in these threads: Bible thumpers, PCers,.......... Neanderthals. I'm sure I could pick out others. I don't choose to be offended by any of them just because they are part if a comment.


----------



## hollydolly (Jun 7, 2018)

hearlady said:


> There's a lot of words in these threads: Bible thumpers, PCers,.......... Neanderthals. I'm sure I could pick out others. I don't choose to be offended by any of them just because they are part if a comment.



Me neither.... as long as they're not addressed to me lol


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 7, 2018)

And, this highly interesting Thread goes on! LOL


----------



## Sunny (Jun 7, 2018)

Gary O, 

:rofl1:


----------



## Sunny (Jun 7, 2018)

> Thats simple. The bible thumbing fundamentalist would just turn the  other cheek. Walk out and get a cake somewhere else and that's what most  people would do. You don't want my business I'll take it down the  street instead of taking it to the civil rights commission. We are  talking about a blooming cake not a life threatening situation.



Camper, how do you know they would do that?  Probably most people would do as you said. But what if they felt that their religious rights were being trampled by a secular society, which is going to hell in a handbasket?  Would they simply "turn the other cheek?" Or would thy see this as a clearcut opportunity to get some legislation in favor of the religious fundamentalists, who have been ridiculed and victimized by this society long enough?

Although I am 180 degrees away from that point of view, I can imagine someone making a case for it.  See how easy it is to turn this kind of issue around?  Every side sees themselves as a victim. Apparently, there is at least one man who continually sees himself as some kind of victim of a vicious band of angry feminists.  Victimhood is, sometimes at least, in the eyes of the beholder.

Probably the only way to untangle this can of worms is to examine the details of civil rights legislation, to see whether discrimination against particular groups for whatever reason, is legal or not. "Right or wrong" are practically irrelevant here, when the issue is one of law.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Camper, how do you know they would do that?  Probably most people would do as you said. But what if they felt that their religious rights were being trampled by a secular society, which is going to hell in a handbasket?  Would they simply "turn the other cheek?" Or would thy see this as a clearcut opportunity to get some legislation in favor of the religious fundamentalists, who have been ridiculed and victimized by this society long enough?



Just going by past experience.  Who are the ones quick to run to the civil liberties? Who are the ones that complain because a mayor won't join their parade?



> Although I am 180 degrees away from that point of view, I can imagine someone making a case for it.  See how easy it is to turn this kind of issue around?  Every side sees themselves as a victim. Apparently, there is at least one man who continually sees himself as some kind of victim of a vicious band of angry feminists.  Victimhood is, sometimes at least, in the eyes of the beholder.



Well no. Not everyone sees themselves as a victim to go to the Supreme Court over a lousy cake.



> Probably the only way to untangle this can of worms is to examine the details of civil rights legislation, to see whether discrimination against particular groups for whatever reason, is legal or not. "Right or wrong" are practically irrelevant here, when the issue is one of law.



Being a 'victim' is in the eye of the beholder.  It gets tiresome. Honestly most people get tired of hearing this constant complaining about trivial matters.


----------



## rgp (Jun 7, 2018)

hollydolly said:


> This was precisely what was proved in the similar case here. It wasn't about the cake.. it was about whose rights took precedence over another



And when ya think about it......No ones rights should take precedence period. The homosexuals should have every right to live their lives as they please. And the baker should have every right to say he does not wish to be a participant in their nuptial celebration...........jmo


----------



## mitchezz (Jun 7, 2018)

I wonder if the baker advertised his services as a wedding cake baker. Perhaps he should add a disclaimer that he does not cater to gay couples. I doubt he would do that as he would feel the pinch in his takings on other bakery items.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

mitchezz said:


> I wonder if the baker advertised his services as a wedding cake baker. Perhaps he should add a disclaimer that he does not cater to gay couples. I doubt he would do that as he would feel the pinch in his takings on other bakery items.



He has felt the pinch.  He was willing to sacrify the pinch.  But he does cater to everyone.  He was willing to sell any item in the shop so he wasn't discriminating based on ****** preference.  He was sticking up for his own beliefs as an artist creating special wedding cakes like they are a work of art.


----------



## mitchezz (Jun 7, 2018)

Should that leeway also be afforded to caterers for the reception? After all some chefs consider themselves artists. I think if someone does not want to service gay weddings they should be open and advertise that fact. Then when it hurts them in the hip pocket we'll see if it's a matter of conviction or prejudice.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

mitchezz said:


> Should that leeway also be afforded to caterers for the reception? After all some chefs consider themselves artists. I think if someone does not want to service gay weddings they should be open and advertise that fact. Then when it hurts them in the hip pocket we'll see if it's a matter of conviction or prejudice.



Catering a wedding involves more than one employee and a facility.  There's no comparison.   

Money isn't everything.  The principle of this case proved it.


----------



## mitchezz (Jun 7, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Catering a wedding involves more than one employee and a facility.  There's no comparison.
> 
> Money isn't everything.  The principle of this case proved it.



Principle? What principle? This baker was happy to have gay couples contribute to his overall income but denied them the full service offered to other customers.


----------



## rgp (Jun 7, 2018)

mitchezz said:


> I wonder if the baker advertised his services as a wedding cake baker. Perhaps he should add a disclaimer that he does not cater to gay couples. I doubt he would do that as he would feel the pinch in his takings on other bakery items.



Or......he might be flooded with 'new' business? I believe the area he's in would play a part ?


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 7, 2018)

Wonder how long that baker has been in the location it happened? Wonder if he's had any other "run-ins" like this before, but it was never pushed like this couple did? 

If someone wanted to open up a business, but didn't want to serve certain people, be it race related and/or gender related, they should chose an area of the U.S. where they wouldn't have the problems this baker had. IOW, he should have had his bakery in an all Christian area and/or all Straight area. There are areas like this in different parts of the U.S..


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

mitchezz said:


> Principle? What principle? This baker was happy to have gay couples contribute to his overall income but denied them the full service offered to other customers.



Full services other than creating a work of art for a cause he didn't believe in.

See this is the part I don't like.  Why try to force the issue.?  If it's successful you are just going to get a piece of crap.

This is what I am against.  Forcing people to do things against their principles.  It's obscene.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

ClassicRockr said:


> Wonder how long that baker has been in the location it happened? Wonder if he's had any other "run-ins" like this before, but it was never pushed like this couple did?
> 
> If someone wanted to open up a business, but didn't want to serve certain people, be it race related and/or gender related, they should chose an area of the U.S. where they wouldn't have the problems this baker had. IOW, he should have had his bakery in an all Christian area and/or all Straight area. There are areas like this in different parts of the U.S..



In my opinion the gay couple picked that particular bakery.  He shouldn't have to leave a business he built up based on two guys over a lousy cake.

They should just back off and go somewhere else.


----------



## hollydolly (Jun 7, 2018)

rgp said:


> And when ya think about it......No ones rights should take precedence period. The homosexuals should have every right to live their lives as they please. And the baker should have every right to say he does not wish to be a participant in their nuptial celebration...........jmo



Yep no argument witch'ya


----------



## Keesha (Jun 7, 2018)

rgp said:


> And when ya think about it......No ones rights should take precedence period. The homosexuals should have every right to live their lives as they please. And the baker should have every right to say he does not wish to be a participant in their nuptial celebration...........jmo



This is about where I sit on the matter. I see both points of view as equally relevant and worthy of respect & consideration.


----------



## Knight (Jun 7, 2018)

The baker doesn't want to use his time & talent to make a cake for two people he has no obligation to sell to. The two people aren't limited to only this baker. The real problem in all this is religion is the focus. If the baker was an athiest and didn't want to make a cake for the two, would this even have been something to discuss?


----------



## C'est Moi (Jun 7, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> In my opinion the gay couple picked that particular bakery. * He shouldn't have to leave a business he built up based on two guys over a lousy cake.*
> 
> They should just back off and go somewhere else.



Indeed.   Balance of the baker's livelihood versus a stupid cake.   Seriously.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 7, 2018)

"Freedom of religion is a cherished and well-protected constitutional right in the United States, and the civil rights community is dedicated to safeguarding religious liberty for everyone.

*But religion must not translate into a license to discriminate -- nor trample people's protections under the law.* Requiring companies to abide by nondiscrimination laws does not require business owners to abandon their religious beliefs.* It merely requires them to honor the clear constitutional rights of others.
*
*Some people might dismiss the principles at stake in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case by arguing that a gay couple can simply purchase their cake elsewhere.* But Masterpiece Cakeshop is no more about cake than Piggie Park was about barbecue. The court acknowledged that "it is a general rule that (religious) objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services." *Otherwise, the door to widespread discrimination will open, undermining the legal foundation for equal rights and justice.*

*Consider the consequences had the Supreme Court given Phillips a sweeping victory. If a company can refuse to sell wedding cakes to a gay couple on the basis of religious convictions, can a restaurant also then refuse to serve food to a divorcée or an unmarried couple with a child? Can a taxi driver deny a ride to an interracial couple?
*
*Through much of our nation's history, the concept of sincerely held religious beliefs excused legalized discrimination against African-Americans -- including at restaurants and schools, and in marriage.* Those policies tore apart families, devastated futures and relegated communities, including immigrants and people of color, to second-class citizenship.

Piggie Park marked the beginning of our courts acknowledging and enforcing America's obligation of equality under the law when it comes to public accommodations.* Fifty years later, the Masterpiece Cakeshop case posed the same question, and the court affirmed the underlying principle that our nation's businesses should be open to all. *But make no mistake: Monday's decision makes clear that our fight for equal rights and dignity for all must continue."

http://www.kitv.com/story/38352235/...g-reaffirms-that-businesses-cant-discriminate


----------



## C'est Moi (Jun 7, 2018)

"...Monday's decision makes clear that our fight for equal rights and dignity for all must continue."   Unless you are the baker, then apparently your equal rights and dignity don't matter.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 7, 2018)

C'est Moi said:


> "...Monday's decision makes clear that our fight for equal rights and dignity for all must continue."   Unless you are the baker, then apparently your equal rights and dignity don't matter.



What equal rights are you referring to?


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 7, 2018)

Olivia said:


> What equal rights are you referring to?



The baker has his right to say “sorry can’t, due to my religious beliefs”, just as the gay couple have the right to say, “ok, then we’ll go somewhere else.”

Thing about is, AGAIN, the gay community is pushing their beliefs onto others as well as the baker is pushing the religious communities beliefs onto others.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 7, 2018)

ClassicRockr said:


> The baker has his right to say “sorry can’t, due to my religious beliefs”



Really? Since when?


----------



## rgp (Jun 7, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Really? Since when?




Should be since forever........Here we go again,..why should one's rights prevail over another's? I / we want to buy a cake....I don't want to bake you one........The end !


----------



## Olivia (Jun 7, 2018)

rgp said:


> Should be since forever........Here we go again,..why should one's rights prevail over another's? I / we want to buy a cake....I don't want to bake you one........The end !



Again, what "rights" are you referencing? In Colorado, there are anti-discrimination laws regarding ****** orientation.  So, the couple had the option to go seek a wedding cake somewhere else? Well, the baker had the option to just not sell wedding cakes if he was not willing to sell to everyone. How's that for equal rights? 

Also:



> [FONT=&quot]The Supreme Court ruled Monday for a Colorado baker who wouldn’t make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in a limited decision that leaves for another day the larger issue of whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gay and lesbian people.
> 
> [/FONT]https://wtop.com/supreme-court/2018/06/justices-side-with-colorado-baker-on-same-sex-wedding-cake/


----------



## Keesha (Jun 7, 2018)

Olivia said:


> "Freedom of religion is a cherished and well-protected constitutional right in the United States, and the civil rights community is dedicated to safeguarding religious liberty for everyone.
> 
> *But religion must not translate into a license to discriminate -- nor trample people's protections under the law.* Requiring companies to abide by nondiscrimination laws does not require business owners to abandon their religious beliefs.* It merely requires them to honor the clear constitutional rights of others.
> *
> ...





Olivia said:


> What equal rights are you referring to?





Olivia said:


> Really? Since when?





Olivia said:


> Again, what "rights" are you referencing? In Colorado, there are anti-discrimination laws regarding ****** orientation.  So, the couple had the option to go seek a wedding cake somewhere else? Well, the baker had the option to just not sell wedding cakes if he was not willing to sell to everyone. How's that for equal rights?
> 
> Also:


 Great debate for equal rights Olivia. 
Good presentation.


----------



## rgp (Jun 7, 2018)

"Again, what "rights" are you referencing?"

 Rights...everyone's rights wishes ? call them what you will, why should your desires override mine, in a case such as this ?

 Again this has virtually nothing to do with cake.....it was just two people [the homosexuals] wanting their way. If indeed all that they wanted was a cake ? they could have simply gone to another baker. 

They didn't want a cake...they wanted attention.....so they stirred up a firestorm.


----------



## rgp (Jun 7, 2018)

"_n Colorado, there are anti-discrimination laws regarding ****** orientation. So, the couple had the option to go seek a wedding cake somewhere else? Well, the baker had the option to just not sell wedding cakes if he was not willing to sell to everyone. How's that for equal rights? "


OK, and again the S/court decided that it did not apply here.

And you see it as equal , to ask / expect a man to completely stop making weeding cakes , as asking the homosexual couple to seek one somewhere else?

IOW...all the other couples getting married would / should loose access to his cakes....just because these guys were refused?.......yeah OK....these 'all inclusive' people only seem to care about what they want......typical._


----------



## Knight (Jun 7, 2018)

I wonder what would happen if the baker was forced to make a cake & the cake was not what the couple thought was good enough then refused to pay for it.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 7, 2018)

Umm...talking about "typical"?  I had no delusions that anyone who disagreed in the first place who suddenly agree now. So, does that mean I or anyone else should not present their own counter arguments?  I think you would at least agree that on a discussion board not only should they, but absolutely must.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 7, 2018)

Knight said:


> I wonder what would happen if the baker was forced to make a cake & the cake was not what the couple thought was good enough then refused to pay for it.



Go to small claims court, maybe?


----------



## Olivia (Jun 7, 2018)

rgp said:


> "Again, what "rights" are you referencing?"
> 
> Rights...everyone's rights wishes ? call them what you will, why should your desires override mine, in a case such as this ?
> 
> ...



Just like the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964? That stirred up something, too, didn't it?


----------



## Falcon (Jun 7, 2018)

If I  were the baker,  I would simply  close and lock the door  and say  that I have a  dental  appointment  in   15  minutes.

 Let them find  another  bakery.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 7, 2018)

mitchezz said:


> Principle? What principle? This baker was happy to have gay couples contribute to his overall income but denied them the full service offered to other customers.




The principle is one of religious freedom !  The principle is one of morality. Why is that so hard to understand ? 

The baker was willing to sell his products to anyone. A birthday cake would not have been a problem. But, being forced to participate in a homosexual wedding is another matter entirely. 

Speaking as a chef, I would be happy to feed anyone. *BUT,* no power on earth could force me to cater a party specifically for neo-Nazis.

The principle is exactly the same even though it does not involve religion. My refusal to cater to neo-Nazis, would be my moral right.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 7, 2018)

rgp said:


> "Again, what "rights" are you referencing?"
> 
> Rights...everyone's rights wishes ? call them what you will, why should your desires override mine, in a case such as this ?
> 
> ...



Also true. 

Perhaps it might depend on location. Here where we live protection of religious rights has a profound impact. 

Going a bit off topic slightly but years ago in the province I live in a teenager went to his high school with a long dagger in his belt. The teachers were alarmed, called the police and he was arrested for carrying a dangerous weapon on school property. 
He appealed later , went to court and won on the account that the dagger is part of his religious and cultural beliefs. They sued and won. This really surprised me a lot. 

Now a new law might be passed that anyone who wears a turban due to religious beliefs doesn’t have to wear a motorcycle helmet or a helmet of any kind. 

The world is changing.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 7, 2018)

Traveler said:


> The principle is one of religious freedom !  The principle is one of morality. Why is that so hard to understand ?



What specific morality are you speaking of?


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jun 7, 2018)

IMO a business should not have the same rights as an individual.

A business should be required to offer the same level of service to anyone that walks in the door.

If the individual that owns the business is not comfortable with that then he should do as was suggested above and not offer wedding cakes or other specialty items that require him to compromise his beliefs or that he may find offensive. 

If the owner of the bakery wants to make a wedding cake for a family member or close friend as a gift I have no problem with that.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Individual artists should be free to select their subjects or models to reflect their artistic talent. It's the American way.

Why should others suffer from having access to his talents.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 7, 2018)

rgp said:


> "_n Colorado, there are anti-discrimination laws regarding ****** orientation. So, the couple had the option to go seek a wedding cake somewhere else? Well, the baker had the option to just not sell wedding cakes if he was not willing to sell to everyone. How's that for equal rights? "
> 
> 
> *OK, and again the S/court decided that it did not apply here.*
> ...



No, the Court did *not* rule that "it" (nondiscimination laws) did not apply here.  It ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission screwed up in its procedures   Nothing more,nothing less.  Try reading the decision to see what it really said.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 7, 2018)

rgp said:


> _
> 
> IOW...all the other couples getting married would / should loose access to his cakes....just because these guys were refused?.......yeah OK....these 'all inclusive' people only seem to care about what they want......typical._




EXACTLY !  Some folks are endlessly spouting their so-called inclusiveness and acceptance . Yet if someone disagrees with them, out come the claws and fangs. 

For them, inclusiveness means, "as long as you agree with us". If someone disagrees with them, it's going to quickly get bloody.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 7, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Why should others suffer from having access to his talents.



That would be his choice.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

The Colorado Civvil Rights Commission screwed up because they got the interpretation wrong.


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 7, 2018)

Oh heck, there must be bakers in the Denver area that would have no problem making a wedding cake and delivery it to a gay couple wedding. Denver has a fairly large gay community, like most major, big cities do.

The couple could have easily accepted the bakers decision, but NO they had to make s big deal of it. 
People are throwing around the “discrimination” word nowadays to get what they want. 

We all know discrination has existed for years and still does. It will never stop! Even Seniors get discriminated against for their age concerning a job.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Olivia said:


> That would be his choice.



Exactly. His choice not others.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 7, 2018)

Aunt Bea said:


> IMO a business should not have the same rights as an individual.
> 
> A business should be required to offer the same level of service to anyone that walks in the door.
> 
> ...



Absolutely, Aunt Bea, and that is exactly the way the law views it.  If a  business sets itself up as offering services to the public, it must  offer the same services to ALL the public, not just selected groups.  Just like a business cannot say only white people can sit at its lunch counter or rent apartments or anything else.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 7, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Exactly. His choice not others.



Actually, Colorado law says it is NOT his choice if he is running a public business.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 7, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> Actually, Colorado law says it is NOT his choice if he is running a public business.



As several folks and I have said, it is quite easy to "mess up" an order. Ever so slightly, miss-spell wording on the cake, wrong color of frosting, wrong flavor, pick-up/delivery times wrong, wrong type of decorations, etc etc.  
When the homosexual couple complain about it they would have an impossible task to prove discrimination. The cake was, after all, made and delivered.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> Absolutely, Aunt Bea, and that is exactly the way the law views it.  If a  business sets itself up as offering services to the public, it must  offer the same services to ALL the public, not just selected groups.  Just like a business cannot say only white people can sit at its lunch counter or rent apartments or anything else.



All the public? If a Nazi sympathy group wants a cake I have to do it?

The baker has turned down others.

He said he has refused to make cakes with a Halloween theme because it involves witchcraft as well as cakes with an anti-American theme. He avoids any promotion of alcohol. Once, he said, he turned away a man who wanted to celebrate his impending divorce with half of a cake, because the idea was hurtful to the woman who was being divorced.


----------



## RadishRose (Jun 7, 2018)

Come to think of it, nobody shut down the Soup Nazi no matter what he did. (or didn't do)


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> Actually, Colorado law says it is NOT his choice if he is running a public business.



Colorado law is not the Constitution. They got the interpretation wrong in this particular case.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Traveler said:


> As several folks and I have said, it is quite easy to "mess up" an order. Ever so slightly, miss-spell wording on the cake, wrong color of frosting, wrong flavor, pick-up/delivery times wrong, wrong type of decorations, etc etc.
> When the homosexual couple complain about it they would have an impossible task to prove discrimination. The cake was, after all, made and delivered.



That wouldn't work because that would be obvious discrimination.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 7, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Colorado law is not the Constitution. They got the interpretation wrong in this particular case.



Explain, please.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 7, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> All the public? If a Nazi sympathy group wants a cake I have to do it?
> 
> The baker has turned down others.
> 
> He said he has refused to make cakes with a Halloween theme because it involves witchcraft as well as cakes with an anti-American theme. He avoids any promotion of alcohol. Once, he said, he turned away a man who wanted to celebrate his impending divorce with half of a cake, because the idea was hurtful to the woman who was being divorced.



Halloween, witchcraft, anti-American themes, alcohol, being mean to a spouse are not protected classes in Colorado.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 7, 2018)

Traveler said:


> As several folks and I have said, it is quite easy to "mess up" an order. Ever so slightly, miss-spell wording on the cake, wrong color of frosting, wrong flavor, pick-up/delivery times wrong, wrong type of decorations, etc etc.
> When the homosexual couple complain about it they would have an impossible task to prove discrimination. The cake was, after all, made and delivered.





Camper6 said:


> That wouldn't work because that would be obvious discrimination.



I'm not so sure abut that. Subtiety is key


----------



## Olivia (Jun 7, 2018)

Traveler said:


> I'm not so sure abut that. Subtiety is key



LOL! So what. He still would have had to make the cake and get it delivered to a "homosexual" wedding. And likely in his van with the bakery's name on it.  What would that accomplish?


----------



## Traveler (Jun 7, 2018)

Just curious. Where does the insanity end ?  Would the baker be forced to decorate the cake in a homosexual theme ? 

Don't think it can't happen.  The world gets weirder every day.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jun 7, 2018)

I'm wondering the same thing.

Does a tow truck operator get to refuse a tow if he sees a gay bumper sticker on a car?

Does the kid at the gas station have the right to refuse to turn on the pumps for a Catholic priest?


----------



## Marie5656 (Jun 7, 2018)

*OK, lets say it is my birthday, and my husband wants to order me a cake with rainbows all over it because I like rainbows.  Would he be refused service because of the rainbows?  If the couple did not SAY it was a wedding cake, would the guy have made it?

This is nuts.  
*


----------



## rgp (Jun 7, 2018)

Aunt Bea said:


> I'm wondering the same thing.
> 
> Does a tow truck operator get to refuse a tow if he sees a gay bumper sticker on a car?
> 
> Does the kid at the gas station have the right to refuse to turn on the pumps for a Catholic priest?




Operator / Owner?....should be able to do as {HE} pleases..Employee of the operator / owner?...maybe not........same with the gas station.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Explain, please.



The Colorado interpretation refused to recognize the religious obligation that the baker espoused and based his objections on.

He refused on religious principles and the Colorado Civil Rights group refused to accept that.

But that's the Constitution of the United States talking and that's how the Supreme Court ruled.

The way I read it the CCR refused to even consider the religious objection in the case.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jun 7, 2018)

rgp said:


> Operator / Owner?....should be able to do as {HE} pleases..Employee of the operator / owner?...maybe not........same with the gas station.



I bet that you are just as glad that you don't live in my world as I am that I don't live in yours!!!layful:


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Marie5656 said:


> *OK, lets say it is my birthday, and my husband wants to order me a cake with rainbows all over it because I like rainbows.  Would he be refused service because of the rainbows?  If the couple did not SAY it was a wedding cake, would the guy have made it?
> 
> This is nuts.
> *



That's a horse of another color.  Rainbows belong to everyone in the world viewing them. They don't belong to any one special group.  Don't get carried away.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Aunt Bea said:


> I bet that you are just as glad that you don't live in my world as I am that I don't live in yours!!!layful:



Making up theoretical assumptions is your world?


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Halloween, witchcraft, anti-American themes, alcohol, being mean to a spouse are not protected classes in Colorado.



I know that. But it shows how far an individual can go in refusing to create a work of art such as a cake to celebrate something.
If it's against his principles, it's within his rights to refuse to go along with it.

I'm with him on Halloween.  I hate Halloween.  Trick or treat is blackmail.  I mean go out and have fun all you like but don't tell me I have to enjoy it.
It started out as a religious event. 
I'm with him on anti-American themes.  No one should be forced to denigrate their country.


----------



## Marie5656 (Jun 7, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> That's a horse of another color.  Rainbows belong to everyone in the world viewing them. They don't belong to any one special group.  Don't get carried away.


*All I can say, Camper, is this...I tend to overthink things.  It's what I do.  Keeps me up nights, sometimes.*


----------



## Traveler (Jun 7, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> That's a horse of another color.  Rainbows belong to everyone in the world viewing them. They don't belong to any one special group.  Don't get carried away.



Very true. Most importantly, there are no moral issues with rainbows as there are with baking a wedding cake for homosexuals. 

Once upon a time, in the not too distant past, weddings were a sacred rite. Since the advent of legalized homosexual "marriages", the term marriage has no meaning.  Today, when someone refers to his "wife" , or a woman refers to her "husband" we have no idea which gender they are speaking of. Thanks to the Cultural Marxists it could be ANY gender.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 7, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Very true. Most importantly, there are no moral issues with rainbows as there are with baking a wedding cake for homosexuals.
> 
> Once upon a time, in the not too distant past, weddings were a sacred rite. Since the advent of legalized homosexual "marriages", the term marriage has no meaning.  Today, when someone refers to his "wife" , or a woman refers to her "husband" we have no idea which gender they are speaking of. Thanks to the Cultural Marxists it could be ANY gender.



When a guy refers to his husband, that would be a male. When a guy refers to his wife, that's a female. When women refers to her husband, that's a male. When a woman refers to her wife, that's a female. I hope that helps.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 7, 2018)

Olivia said:


> When a guy refers to his husband, that would be a male. When a guy refers to his wife, that's a female. When women refers to her husband, that's a male. When a woman refers to her wife, that's a female. I hope that helps.


So entertaining :laugh:


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 7, 2018)

Olivia said:


> When a guy refers to his husband, that would be a male. When a guy refers to his wife, that's a female. When women refers to her husband, that's a male. When a woman refers to her wife, that's a female. I hope that helps.


Thanks for the clarity.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Olivia said:


> When a guy refers to his husband, that would be a male. When a guy refers to his wife, that's a female. When women refers to her husband, that's a male. When a woman refers to her wife, that's a female. I hope that helps.



So with two guys there are two husbands? They both refer to their husband don't they.

So revise your explanation because it's not simple.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 7, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> So with two guys there are two husbands? They both refer to their husband don't they.
> 
> So revise your explanation because it's not simple.



Thats considered a ‘gay marriage.’


----------



## IKE (Jun 7, 2018)

Keesha said:


> So entertaining :laugh:




May I offer you a slice of *rainbow* *cake* while you are being entertained ?


----------



## Keesha (Jun 7, 2018)

IKE said:


> May I offer you a slice of rainbow cake while you are being entertained ?
> 
> View attachment 52932



Why thank you IKE:bowknot:


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 7, 2018)

Keesha said:


> Thats considered a ‘gay marriage.’


Absolutely. I don’t find it confusing in the least, a spouse is a spouse.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Keesha said:


> Great debate for equal rights Olivia.
> Good presentation.


What if the cake is not in my catalogue of available themes on display?


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

So. No wife and two husbands? See that's were the difference lies in the age old definition of marriage.


----------



## Marie5656 (Jun 7, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Once upon a time, in the not too distant past, weddings were a sacred rite. Since the advent of legalized homosexual "marriages", the term marriage has no meaning.  Today, when someone refers to his "wife" , or a woman refers to her "husband" we have no idea which gender they are speaking of. Thanks to the Cultural Marxists it could be ANY gender.


*Traveler, if I am mis reading your point, please tell me.  But, among my married gay and lesbian friends, the men refer to each other as "husband" and the women refer to each other as "wife".  Again, If I misunderstood your point, sorry.*


----------



## Olivia (Jun 7, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> So with two guys there are two husbands? They both refer to their husband don't they.
> 
> So revise your explanation because it's not simple.



Yes, with two guys, there are two husbands. And with two women there are two wives. Pretty simple actually.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Yes, with two guys, there are two husbands. And with two women there are two wives. Pretty simple actually.


That's impossible. Two spouses but not two husbands. A husband is owned by a wife always.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 7, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> So. No wife and two husbands? See that's were the difference lies in the age old definition of marriage.



Yes, so true.  In the case of Ellen DeGeneres, she claims she is the "husband" . Now, if her "wife" was speaking she might refer to Ellen as her "husband". In which case we wouldn't have a clue if the husband was male or female.

Welcome to the wacko 21st century.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 7, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> That's impossible. Two spouses but not two husbands. A husband is owned by a wife always.



Yes, two men married to each other refer to each other as husbands.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 7, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> So. No wife and two husbands? See that's were the difference lies in the age old definition of marriage.


Surely Camper, this isn’t news to you? This has been going on for a while now. Are you genuinely surprised or just resistant to the idea?


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Yes, two men married to each other refer to each other as husbands.



I know. But there can only be one husband in the marriage.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 7, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> I know. But there can only be one husband in the marriage.



One husband as in the term, or one husband as to who is the boss of the married couple? What should they call each other then?


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Keesha said:


> Surely Camper, this isn’t news to you? This has been going on for a while now. Are you genuinely surprised or just resistant to the idea?



Did you just wake up. I'm an old guy traditionalist.. It's fairly new for me and hasn't been going on for awhile. Resistant? No. Just uncomfortable. " Do you take this man to be your husband" Or "do you take this wallet?"  A lot of it is financial. You can get company benefits.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Olivia said:


> One husband as in the term, or one husband as to who is the boss of the married couple? What should they call each other then?



Closest I can come is spouse or partner or dad.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 7, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Did you just wake up. I'm an old guy traditionalist.. It's fairly new for me and hasn't been going on for awhile. Resistant? No. Just uncomfortable. " Do you take this man to be your husband" Or "do you take this wallet?"  A lot of it is financial. You can get company benefits.



Ok I understand. It’s ok to be an old time traditionalist. I respect that. I think it makes a lot of people uncomfortable, especially men. You’re certainly not alone.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 7, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Closest I can come is spouse or partner or dad.



I don't think you personally have to worry about that. nthego:


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

Knight said:


> I wonder what would happen if the baker was forced to make a cake & the cake was not what the couple thought was good enough then refused to pay for it.


Cash in advance for certain customers. Is that o.k. Or am I violating someone's rights.. I have to grant credit to all?


----------



## rgp (Jun 7, 2018)

Aunt Bea said:


> I bet that you are just as glad that you don't live in my world as I am that I don't live in yours!!!layful:



 I don't know what your world is...and not sure i even want to. 

 But in my world equal rights have nothing to do with forcing participation in any thing from any one.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 7, 2018)

I think that's it in a nutshell fo men as compared to women from what I read here.

The men seem to favor individuals rights as compared to equality for all.

i think women have felt left out of politics and management for years.


----------



## justfred (Jun 8, 2018)

I am not going to give my views on homosexuality but when they have the Pride Parade in Brighton ( Britain's Gay capital) Fire engines and high pressure hoses come to mind.


----------



## hollydolly (Jun 8, 2018)

justfred said:


> I am not going to give my views on homosexuality but when they have the Pride Parade in Brighton ( Britain's Gay capital) *Fire engines and high pressure hoses come to mind*.




What???? I've never seen that happen!!

..and although Brighton has a high LGBT community it only has a population of around 230,000 people ...there are more LGBT communities in London and in Manchester..with a population of 8.1 Million...and Manchester in the north  at over 1/2 million ...all 3 places are more well known for LGBT communities due to the annual LGBT Pride parades, but in fact there are many towns and cities in the UK with a high Gay community, none less than Northern Ireland.. 

I can't imagine all those people being power hosed for celebrating their sexuality in 2017 UK...this isn't the 1950's..nor is it a backward radical religious country


----------



## hearlady (Jun 8, 2018)

It's not about homosexuality.

Most states constitutions define freedom of religion as freedom for long established religious communities. I would think that means protection. Through the years some practices are no longer protected like polygamy. In this case is the baker protected from designing an artisan cake to be used in a ceremony he objects to based on his religious beliefs?

Gay rights are new to this country. Gay marriage is legal in many states. No one is telling the couple they can't marry. They are now protected.
Will their lawsuit take that protection away from the baker? Not now. 
Is the discrimination by the baker the same as discrimination based on race, gender, or others that as a whole we protect against in this country?


----------



## hearlady (Jun 8, 2018)

Well, I guess it sort of is about homosexuality....


----------



## hollydolly (Jun 8, 2018)

Well it is about homosexuality...it's about the Baker's religious beliefs against promoting the message of homosexuality... 

He's willing to bake a cake and sell to any gay couple. that's not the problem, the problem for HIM, was that he was asked to make a cake by a Gay activist couple to promote Homosexuality ( I've seen the cake and it kinda does, but annoyingly I can't find it now)...  and he wasn't prepared to compromise his religious beliefs to do that...in the same way he won't promote or bake cakes for Halloween or anything that goes against his own Christian beliefs!!

Now I'm not saying that was a right or a wrong thing for him to do...I'm just saying it is about homosexuality in this instance...if it would have been Halloween it would have been about that..etc!!

BTW do you all realise this cake was actually ordered and finally baked by another baker waaaay back in 2012??


----------



## Keesha (Jun 8, 2018)

hearlady said:


> Well, I guess it sort of is about homosexuality....





hollydolly said:


> Well it is about homosexuality...it's about the Baker's religious beliefs against promoting the message of homosexuality...
> 
> He's willing to bake a cake and sell to any gay couple. that's not the problem, the problem for HIM, was that he was asked to make a cake by a Gay activist couple to promote Homosexuality ( I've seen the cake and it kinda does, but annoyingly I can't find it now)...  and he wasn't prepared to compromise his religious beliefs to do that...in the same way he won't promote or bake cakes for Halloween or anything that goes against his own Christian beliefs!!
> 
> ...


Yes it IS about homosexuality clashing with religious beliefs.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 8, 2018)

And it's also about religious freedom when the baker refused.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 8, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Cash in advance for certain customers. Is that o.k. Or am I violating someone's rights.. I have to grant credit to all?



Yes, you would be guilty of obvious discrimination and violation of people's rights.  If you demanded cash in advance for all customers (think McDonald's) that's ok.  But if you operated a restaurant (picture a Denny's) and demanded payment upon ordering from some customers but not all, that would be discriminatory.  

The definition of discrimination: 
noun

an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
*treatment  or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a  person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that  person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.*
the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 8, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> And it's also about religious freedom when the baker refused.



Agree with totally! :yes:


----------



## rgp (Jun 8, 2018)

Keesha said:


> Yes it IS about homosexuality clashing with religious beliefs.




Too you maybe, and granted perhaps some others as well but....Too me it is about pushing aside one persons rights....to grant those of another. 

The homosexuals have a right to buy a cake....the baker has every right to say , not here....the end.


----------



## Toorbulite (Jun 8, 2018)

StarSong said:


> .....................US business owners don't have the right to refuse to do business with people based on an arbitrary classification.
> Suppose for a moment that you went to a college that refuse you admission or a restaurant that refused to seat you because they deemed you to be female, or too old, too fat, too ethnic (based on the last name you gave for your reservation), too ugly, too white (or too non-white, or a mixed-race couple), or too obviously of the wrong religion because of your hijab (or cross necklace, priest's collar or nun's habit), or they prefer not to despoil their ambiance with the presence of your handicapped child?
> 
> Ask not for whom the erosion of your fellow citizen's civil rights tolls, my friends.  It tolls for thee.


Best post I've seen for ages.
I could not agree more.

Refusing to deal with gays is no different to refusing to serve women or blacks or Jews or people with tattoos ..... whatever.
Discrimination is discrimination.
Those who say the business person should be able to pick and choose based on his or her beliefs (prejudices?) are condoning intolerance and divisiveness.


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 8, 2018)

If this baker would’ve opened his bakery in a non-gay area, which there are several in the U.S., he wouldn’t have had a problem. 

One thing to remember folks, not every town in America has diversity, different races and a gay community.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 8, 2018)

ClassicRockr said:


> If this baker would’ve opened his bakery in a non-gay area, which there are several in the U.S., he wouldn’t have had a problem.
> 
> One thing to remember folks, not every town in America has diversity, different races and a gay community.



Gays live in every human-habited nook and cranny of this planet.  They may hide who they are from people they don't deem trustworthy, but they're there.  What's more, they likely have an underground connected community.  

The rest of your statement is a pitiful truth.  Yes, not every small town or hamlet in American is racially diverse.  Bummer for them.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 8, 2018)

Keesha said:


> Yes it IS about homosexuality clashing with religious beliefs.





rgp said:


> Too you maybe, and granted perhaps some others as well but....Too me it is about pushing aside one persons rights....to grant those of another.
> 
> The homosexuals have a right to buy a cake....the baker has every right to say , not here....the end.


Thats regarded as nit picking rgp. 

‘It’s about the RIGHTS of homosexuals clashing with the RIGHTS of religious beliefs.’

Same thing! You knew what I meant


----------



## rgp (Jun 8, 2018)

Keesha said:


> Thats regarded as nit picking rgp.
> 
> ‘It’s about the RIGHTS of homosexuals clashing with the RIGHTS of religious beliefs.’
> 
> Same thing! You knew what I meant



Yes indeed I knew / know what you mean...I just disagree.

Nit picking ? No...what I stated has been my opinion on the subject since it hit the news.


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 8, 2018)

StarSong said:


> Gays live in every human-habited nook and cranny of this planet.  They may hide who they are from people they don't deem trustworthy, but they're there.  What's more, they likely have an underground connected community.
> 
> The rest of your statement is a pitiful truth.  Yes, not every small town or hamlet in American is racially diverse.  Bummer for them.



Actually, two states that don’t have any Gay bars at all.....Wyoming and North Dakota. 

There are towns with people that don’t want diversity. We are looking at one to move to. IOW, like it or not, not everyone likes or wants to live in a diverse area.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 8, 2018)

rgp said:


> Too you maybe, and granted perhaps some others as well but....Too me it is about pushing aside one persons rights....to grant those of another.
> 
> The homosexuals have a right to buy a cake....the baker has every right to say , not here....the end.





rgp said:


> Yes indeed I knew / know what you mean...I just disagree.
> 
> Nit picking ? No...what I stated has been my opinion on the subject since it hit the news.



The homosexuals have a ‘right’ to buy a cake 
The Baker has a ‘right’ to say no. 

Summing it up it is about the rights of homosexuals clashing with the rights of religious beliefs. 

Thats the same thing.


----------



## Knight (Jun 8, 2018)

Leviticus 20:13 
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 
Or not make them a cake which ever works now.

Psalm 137:9 
Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock! 
Exodus 21:15 
“Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death. 

Thankfully not to many good Christians follow everything they think God wants them to do.


----------



## rgp (Jun 8, 2018)

Keesha said:


> The homosexuals have a ‘right’ to buy a cake
> The Baker has a ‘right’ to say no.
> 
> Summing it up it is about the rights of homosexuals clashing with the rights of religious beliefs.
> ...




   NOT too me....it is about the rights of a business man-V-the rights of two customers. The rights of citizen-V-citizen..... From there it just blossomed to the mess that it has become.


----------



## CeeCee (Jun 8, 2018)

ClassicRockr said:


> Actually, two states that don’t have any Gay bars at all.....Wyoming and North Dakota.
> 
> There are towns with people that don’t want diversity. We are looking at one to move to. IOW, like it or not, not everyone likes or wants to live in a diverse area.




Maybe no gay bars...yet but they do have gay people.  You're sticking you're head in the sand if you think otherwise.

https://www.aclu-wy.org/en/news/celebrating-lgbt-community-rural-wyoming


----------



## Olivia (Jun 8, 2018)

Knight said:


> Leviticus 20:13
> If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
> Or not make them a cake which ever works now.
> 
> ...



[FONT=&quot]Numbers 15:32-36[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him._
Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.

_Or not bake him a cake. 
[/FONT]


----------



## rgp (Jun 8, 2018)

Keesha said:


> The homosexuals have a ‘right’ to buy a cake
> The Baker has a ‘right’ to say no.
> 
> Summing it up it is about the rights of homosexuals clashing with the rights of religious beliefs.
> ...




 I didn't want to put it this way but.....I have NO religious argument in this. I am atheist / agnostic . I do not care who 'pokes' who . I like girls....period !

 But....someone, anyone,... forcing their 'way' their 'belief' just boils my blood. 

 Scenario, I'm the baker....I'll bake ya what ever ya want .

 Or.....I do not wish to participate in your ceremonial nuptials , have a nice day.

 Either / or answer should be acceptable & accepted ...........jmo


----------



## Olivia (Jun 8, 2018)

Well, then, change the law to how it was in the "good old days".


----------



## rgp (Jun 8, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Well, then, change the law to how it was in the "good old days".




 Who are you responding to ?


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 8, 2018)

CeeCee said:


> Maybe no gay bars...yet but they do have gay people.  You're sticking you're head in the sand if you think otherwise.
> 
> https://www.aclu-wy.org/en/news/celebrating-lgbt-community-rural-wyoming



Did you read the entire article? Wyoming does have some gays, but not a large population of them. 
Wyoming just happens to be one state that is not recommended for gays to move to.

Gays don’t bother you, that’s up to you, but there are those that pick areas to live where the gay population is very small, if any. One guy told me, “like MJ, if you don’t look for gays, you’d never believe they lived here.”

BTW, we also know there is a gay rodeo association and some of them are very good at the event they do.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 8, 2018)

I don’t practice any religion either ( not athiest/agnostic though ) 
I’m not sure what difference this makes but whatever.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 8, 2018)

rgp said:


> Who are you responding to ?



"But....someone, anyone,... forcing their 'way' their 'belief' just boils my blood."


----------



## Keesha (Jun 8, 2018)

Olivia said:


> "But....someone, anyone,... forcing their 'way' their 'belief' just boils my blood."


That would be YOU rgp:smug1:


----------



## rgp (Jun 8, 2018)

Keesha said:


> That would be YOU rgp:smug1:




 How am I forcing anything ? I am not forcing my beliefs on you or anyone...I am only saying I choose not to participate in / support yours.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 8, 2018)

rgp said:


> How am I forcing anything ? I am not forcing my beliefs on you or anyone...I am only saying I choose not to participate in / support yours.


That wasn’t MY quote. 
It was ‘yours’ :laugh:
Olivia took a quote from you and copied it. 
I was merely the messenger. 

Soooo you know what they say?

Don’t shoot the messager

Also I don’t really have any position on this so I’m not sure what you ‘are’t supporting’:shrug:


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 8, 2018)

Oh, another thing, CeeCee, if you ever moved to Colorado or Wyoming, we’d leave. But, then again, guess we’d never have to worry about that!

We’ve done a lot of research on both Colorado and Wyoming and know the places that we’d love to live in.


----------



## rgp (Jun 8, 2018)

Post # 247 is Olivia

Post # 248 is you.........



Keesha 




*Senior Member*




































Join DateMar 2018LocationCanadaPosts1,329​

_





 Originally Posted by *Olivia* 


"But....someone, anyone,... forcing their 'way' their 'belief' just boils my blood."



_

That would be YOU rgp:smug1:​



Post # 249...is my reply too you.

I am not shooting the messenger


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 8, 2018)

Keesha said:


> That wasn’t MY quote.
> It was ‘yours’ :laugh:
> Olivia took a quote from you and copied it.
> I was merely the messenger.
> ...



Kesha, have they dragged you into the middle of this? LOL


----------



## rgp (Jun 8, 2018)

ClassicRockr said:


> Kesha, have they dragged you into the middle of this? LOL



LOL....sorry, but I don't remember "dragging" anyone, anywhere....She jumped in, on her own.

A right we all have....a decision we all make....or don't.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 8, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Well, then, change the law to how it was in the "good old days".






rgp said:


> Who are you responding to ?


you asked this of Olivia 



Olivia said:


> "But....someone, anyone,... forcing their 'way' their 'belief' just boils my blood."


Olivia answered by quoting you. 



Keesha said:


> That would be YOU rgp:smug1:


I merely answered for her. I most certainly did not say YOU ‘ were ‘ forcing your way, or your beliefs ‘ or that it just boils my blood. ‘ 

That was a direct quote from you.


----------



## CeeCee (Jun 8, 2018)

ClassicRockr said:


> Oh, another thing, CeeCee, if you ever moved to Colorado or Wyoming, we’d leave. But, then again, guess we’d never have to worry about that!
> 
> We’ve done a lot of research on both Colorado and Wyoming and know the places that we’d love to live in.




You'd leave if if I moved to Colorado?  I could easily move there, my sister lives there.  I could be there sooner than you.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 8, 2018)

rgp said:


> I didn't want to put it this way but.....I have NO religious argument in this. I am atheist / agnostic . I do not care who 'pokes' who . I like girls....period !
> 
> But....someone, anyone,... forcing their 'way' their 'belief' just boils my blood.
> 
> ...


And the quote came  from this post of yours.


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 8, 2018)

rgp said:


> LOL....sorry, but I don't remember "dragging" anyone, anywhere....She jumped in, on her own.
> 
> A right we all have....a decision we all make....or don't.



I know, but had to say something. Don’t want everyone on this forum to dislike me.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 8, 2018)

ClassicRockr said:


> Kesha, have they dragged you into the middle of this? LOL



Nah I’m just messin’ with rgp cause I’m bored. :laugh:
Ok time to do some work. 

Later peeps. Have fun:grin:


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 8, 2018)

CeeCee said:


> You'd leave if if I moved to Colorado?  I could easily move there, my sister lives there.  I could be there sooner than you.



Seriously doubt you leave your grandkids, so. Anyway, living close to them is very important to you. Don’t blame you for that feeling. 

I could just imagine what your daughter would think if you told her you were moving to there.


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 8, 2018)

Keesha said:


> Nah I’m just messin’ with rgp cause I’m bored. :laugh:
> Ok time to do some work.
> 
> Later peeps. Have fun:grin:



Yea, enough arguing with CeeCee. I have much better and more interesting things to do. LOL


----------



## CeeCee (Jun 8, 2018)

ClassicRockr said:


> Seriously doubt you leave your grandkids, so. Anyway, living close to them is very important to you. Don’t blame you for that feeling.
> 
> I could just imagine what your daughter would think if you told her you were moving to there.



Those grandkids are getting older and slowly leaving home.  The younger ones live in Illinois, I'd be closer to them in Colorado.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 8, 2018)

:blah:


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 8, 2018)

CeeCee said:


> Those grandkids are getting older and slowly leaving home.  The younger ones live in Illinois, I'd be closer to them in Colorado.



Go for it, then! I could just imagine seeing a picture of you all bundled up in a winter parka.

Oooops, said I was going to leave. Yep, gotta keep packing things for the move.


----------



## CeeCee (Jun 8, 2018)

ClassicRockr said:


> Go for it, then! I could just imagine seeing a picture of you all bundled up in a winter parka.
> 
> Oooops, said I was going to leave. Yep, gotta keep packing things for the move.



I'm outta here also but Ive spent more time bundled up for winter than you......bye bye!


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 8, 2018)

CeeCee said:


> I'm outta here also but Ive spent more time bundled up for winter than you......bye bye!



All I can say is......doubt it!


----------



## CeeCee (Jun 8, 2018)

ClassicRockr said:


> All I can say is......doubt it!




Except for Fresno, Ive lived my whole life in places with cold winters....you don't know me at all!  Go pack!!


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 8, 2018)

CeeCee said:


> Except for Fresno, Ive lived my whole life in places with cold winters....you don't know me at all!  Go pack!!



Ok, enough arguing with you! You are you and we are we. Huge differences in likes and dislikes as well as personality. 

Actually, I don’t know why we seem to try to change a Thread. Your thoughts, on some things,  are very different than ours and that’s fine.

Well, got to get back to packing things up.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 8, 2018)

Keesha said:


> Also true.
> 
> Perhaps it might depend on location. Here where we live protection of religious rights has a profound impact.
> 
> ...



That might not be the case in the U.S.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 8, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> That might not be the case in the U.S.


I agree Camper. That’s why I posted that location / Canada / our laws are much different than those of the U.S.
Ill even go as far as to say that, in general, that Canada is more liberated than many of the states in the U.S.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 8, 2018)

Keesha said:


> I agree Camper. That’s why I posted that location / Canada / our laws are much different than those of the U.S.
> Ill even go as far as to say that, in general, that Canada is more liberated than many of the states in the U.S.



But you have to remember in Canada.   Federal law applies to all the provinces.  The provinces can't exempt themselves compared to the U.S.   And the U.S. Constitution was drafted to enable the states to make their own laws as long as they are within the Constitution.

They run into problems when they travel from one state to another especially with gun laws.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 8, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> But you have to remember in Canada.   Federal law applies to all the provinces.  The provinces can't exempt themselves compared to the U.S.   And the U.S. Constitution was drafted to enable the states to make their own laws as long as they are within the Constitution.
> 
> They run into problems when they travel from one state to another especially with gun laws.


Oh yes and their laws can be vastly different from one state to another. Even the marijuana laws are different from state to state so if you were legal in one state and wanted to travel by car to another state, you can’t legally carry your medical marijuana even if you are legal and carded. 

I know it’s not your thing Camper but I don’t not squat about gun laws but know lots about the other. :laugh:


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 8, 2018)

Keesha said:


> Oh yes and their laws can be vastly different from one state to another. Even the marijuana laws are different from state to state so if you were legal in one state and wanted to travel by car to another state, you can’t legally carry your medical marijuana even if you are legal and carded.
> 
> I know it’s not your thing Camper but I don’t not squat about gun laws but know lots about the other. :laugh:



Well never in a thousand years would I have dreamt a political party would be elected on a marijuana ticket.

Thats just dumbing down the population.

Heres how it works. Before gambling was legal I never gambled. Then they legalized it and I tried it and got hooked .

The same thing will happen with legal marijuana. Not my country any more. Not even close. A nation of thieves.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 8, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Well never in a thousand years would I have dreamt a political party would be elected on a marijuana ticket.
> 
> Thats just dumbing down the population.
> 
> ...


I hope nobody minds us changing the subject somewhat but yes Trudeau definitely got elected primarily cause he promised he’d legalize it. The funniest thing was that his competition used it against him in their campaign only to discover in doing so they helped him get in. 

I’ve never gambled but I doubt the same thing will happen. They conducted a world wide poll and discovered that Canada had the most users and this was long before Trudeau was elected. 

I’m not really a drinker or partier and I certainly don’t believe marijuana is a gateway to other drugs. 
The way I view it is that people are going to use whether it’s legal or not but it is better if it’s a controlled substance than an uncontrolled one. It’s better to have safe places to purchase rather than people buying it off the street. It’s safer. It will be taxed. It will be controlled. It will bring in employment opportunities meaning more revenue. It’s bringing new methods of use that are safer. Not everyone wants to use marijuana to get high. There’s more important contributions than merely the THC yet that’s the first thing most people think of when they picture cannabis. 

A lot of research is being done on it and it’s successfully treating people with epilepsy, autism, ptsd, glaucoma, nausea from chemotherapy and a list of other ailments. 
Its not all doom & gloom Camper. 

Sorry for not talking about the cake .


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 8, 2018)

Keesha, of all the drugs used to treat CPTSD in it’s most severe form, marijuana is the most effective with the least harmful side effects, and the lowest level of dependency.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 8, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> Keesha, of all the drugs used to treat CPTSD in it’s most severe form, marijuana is the most effective with the least harmful side effects, and the lowest level of dependency.


Well thank you for clarifying that Shalimar. I know it works better than any of the hardcore pharmaceutical drugs the doctors try and push for treating this disorder. Those things really messed  me up something awful.


----------



## justfred (Jun 9, 2018)

In this country anyone wearing a turban is exempt  from wearing a crash helmet. A turban wearing Sikh has been enrolled in the Grenadier  Guards, a regiment whose uniform consists of tall bearskin headgear. This new recruit, because of his religion, is allowed to continue wearing his turban instead of a bearskin also, he is allowed to wear a beard which is not permitted in the British army.
Anyway all this is getting away from the original post which I believe was the rumpus over a cake which according to some posts, was so serious it could have started WW3.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 9, 2018)

Keesha said:


> I hope nobody minds us changing the subject somewhat but yes Trudeau definitely got elected primarily cause he promised he’d legalize it. The funniest thing was that his competition used it against him in their campaign only to discover in doing so they helped him get in.
> 
> I’ve never gambled but I doubt the same thing will happen. They conducted a world wide poll and discovered that Canada had the most users and this was long before Trudeau was elected.
> 
> ...



Medical marijuana has always been available for a long time.

It's the recreational marijuana I am talking about as if we don't have enough problems with alcohol and there is no test yet for impaired driver using pot but they are going to go ahead anyway.  There will be users now doing both.

When it comes to polls and use of alcohol and marijuana, they can't be accurate because people are not going to incriminate themselves.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 9, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Medical marijuana has always been available for a long time.
> 
> It's the recreational marijuana I am talking about as if we don't have enough problems with alcohol and there is no test yet for impaired driver using pot but they are going to go ahead anyway.  There will be users now doing both.
> 
> When it comes to polls and use of alcohol and marijuana, they can't be accurate because people are not going to incriminate themselves.


You bring up a very valid point Camper. This is going to be the biggest challenge regarding this is people using and driving. 
Ive been licensed for some time now BUT I don’t drive when my judgment is impaired. Most of my traveling is either done by walking or riding my bicycle on trails. In fact, I rarely drive my vehicle since I have no need. My husband usually does the driving. 

It is a concern but I would like to point out that we aren’t sure how many drivers out there are impaired from prescription drugs. Some people just shouldn’t drive period and do which puts us all in jeopardy.

Sorry Sunny .... cake , cake , cake


----------



## Sunny (Jun 9, 2018)

Just thought somebody should bring this back to the subject. Have a piece, everyone, it looks delicious!


----------



## StarSong (Jun 9, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Just thought somebody should bring this back to the subject. Have a piece, everyone, it looks delicious!



Drat!  I was hoping for chocolate.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 9, 2018)

I’d be delighted to have a piece Sunny.   It looks delicious.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 9, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Just thought somebody should bring this back to the subject. Have a piece, everyone, it looks delicious!


Oh, yes please!


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 9, 2018)

Chocolate for me, too!  Chocolate cake is my biggest weakness.  I can't have any in the house or I would eat the whole thing!


----------



## StarSong (Jun 10, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> Chocolate for me, too!  Chocolate cake is my biggest weakness.  I can't have any in the house or I would eat the whole thing!



In the house?  GF, I can barely get it from the checkstand to the car!


----------



## Sunny (Jun 10, 2018)

Oh, all right.  Boy, you guys are picky!


----------



## StarSong (Jun 10, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Oh, all right.  Boy, you guys are picky!



Now THAT'S a good looking cake.  Large slice for me, Sunny, if you please!


----------



## Keesha (Jun 10, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Oh, all right.  Boy, you guys are picky!


Oh now you ladies are talkin’ 
yummmmm!!!!!:drool:


----------



## Keesha (Jun 10, 2018)

My chocolate radar went off:laugh:


----------



## rgp (Jun 10, 2018)

I'll have a piece of Spice cake please !


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 10, 2018)

Would someone PLEASE make wife and I a great big Star Wars cake...…...chocolate, of course.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 10, 2018)

Sorry, ClassicRockr, as a staunch pacifist, I cannot make a Star Wars cake. Go find another bakery.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 10, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Sorry, ClassicRockr, as a staunch pacifist, I cannot make a Star Wars cake. Go find another bakery.


:lofl:


----------



## billt (Jun 10, 2018)

It's his business. Because of that he has the right to refuse service to whomever he chooses. If the customer is offended by that, he can take his business elsewhere. As he should. What I can't understand, is if this guy didn't want to serve gays, why would gays want to enrich his business by forcing him to do business with them?


----------



## StarSong (Jun 10, 2018)

billt said:


> It's his business. Because of that he has the right to refuse service to whomever he chooses. If the customer is offended by that, he can take his business elsewhere. As he should. What I can't understand, is if this guy didn't want to serve gays, why would gays want to enrich his business by forcing him to do business with them?



After 20 pages of comments we've beaten this dead horse beyond the point where it will yield any glue.  Sorry Bill, but you're a little late to the party.  We're onto the less serious act of choosing flavors and divvying up the cake portions.  Call it make-up sex, SF style.


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 10, 2018)

StarSong said:


> After 20 pages of comments we've beaten this dead horse beyond the point where it will yield any glue.  Sorry Bill, but you're a little late to the party.  We're onto the less serious act of choosing flavors and divvying up the cake portions.  Call it make-up sex, SF style.



What a reply!!


----------



## hearlady (Jun 10, 2018)

Thank goodness we are actually talking cake now. And Mmmmmmm chocolate, my favorite!


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 10, 2018)

So how we have a theme cake as to what the originals demanded?

Give me an example of a gay cake compared to a straight cake?

They are not happy with the straight cakes you are demonstrating.

They want something to celebrate their wedding.  Husband and Husband.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 10, 2018)

You guys are making a big joke out of this but seriously.  It's not funny at all.


----------



## CeeCee (Jun 10, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> So how we have a theme cake as to what the originals demanded?
> 
> Give me an example of a gay cake compared to a straight cake?
> 
> ...




Isn't the topper on the cake the important part anyway.  Until that it's just a cake.  Couldn't you just buy a male/male topper and put it on yourself?

Thats what I would have done...Michael's has them.  Well, maybe not same sex ones but I'm sure those can be ordered online.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 10, 2018)

That’s it! I have a three layer spice cake in the oven, made a double batch of brown sugar fudge frosting, guys, it is all your fault!


----------



## rgp (Jun 10, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> That’s it! I have a three layer spice cake in the oven, made a double batch of brown sugar fudge frosting, guys, it is all your fault!




Ooh wow ! Mail me a piece ! I'll share my milk !


----------



## StarSong (Jun 10, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> That’s it! I have a three layer spice cake in the oven, made a double batch of brown sugar fudge frosting, guys, it is all your fault!



I'm on my way to Vancouver now...


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 10, 2018)

StarSong said:


> I'm on my way to Vancouver now...


Loll. I live on Vancouver Island, best catch a flight to Victoria, closest city to where I live. It has the best brunch in Canada. My treat. Do you like houseboats?


----------



## StarSong (Jun 10, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> Loll. I live on Vancouver Island, best catch a flight to Victoria, closest city to where I live. It has the best brunch in Canada. My treat. Do you like houseboats?



Never been on a houseboat but the prospect of sharing a three layer spice cake with a double batch of brown sugar fudge frosting is a mighty powerful argument in its favor.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 10, 2018)

There should be a law against hijacking a thread. Close it down.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 10, 2018)

Shalimar, yum!  I can smell the delicious aroma all the way over here!

Camper, OK, I'll make you happy and put in a serious answer.  Of course they could have put a "gay" topper on the cake; I imagine the manufacturers of those items have jumped right on it and have toppers with two men or two women. This case was never really about the gay couple having, or not having, a wedding cake. It was used as a civil rights issue.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 10, 2018)

StarSong said:


> Never been on a houseboat but the prospect of sharing a three layer spice cake with a double batch of brown sugar fudge frosting is a mighty powerful argument in its favor.


Loll.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 10, 2018)

rgp said:


> Ooh wow ! Mail me a piece ! I'll share my milk !


Consider it done! It goes well with homemade ice cream.


----------



## jujube (Jun 10, 2018)

Speaking of wedding cakes...….the groom went to pick up the wedding cake yesterday morning and the bakery didn't have it.  They couldn't find the order.  He showed them HIS copy of the order and they said...."oh, yes, <sigh> Rosie...…<nodding to each other>...Rosie did it again....."  Of course, at that point he was wondering how he was going to explain this to the bride when they said, come back in 20 minutes and we'll have your cake for you.  Three people went to work on it and 15 minutes later, there was a lovely cake exactly like they had ordered.  Luckily it was a small 2-tiered wedding cake and very simple and elegant.....not a lot of frou-frou's.

Disaster avoided.  

Now if we just could have diverted the thunderstorm that sent everyone running for cover at the end of the reception.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 10, 2018)

jujube said:


> Speaking of wedding cakes...….the groom went to pick up the wedding cake yesterday morning and the bakery didn't have it.  They couldn't find the order.  He showed them HIS copy of the order and they said...."oh, yes, <sigh> Rosie...…<nodding to each other>...Rosie did it again....."  Of course, at that point he was wondering how he was going to explain this to the bride when they said, come back in 20 minutes and we'll have your cake for you.  Three people went to work on it and 15 minutes later, there was a lovely cake exactly like they had ordered.  Luckily it was a small 2-tiered wedding cake and very simple and elegant.....not a lot of frou-frou's.
> 
> Disaster avoided.
> 
> Now if we just could have diverted the thunderstorm that sent everyone running for cover at the end of the reception.



When going to high school I lived in a small town and worked at the local bakery.  Wedding cakes that were ordered a week or two before the date needed?  Let's just say that back in the late Sixties it was a pretty clear sign that six months later that same family would be back to order a baby shower cake.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 10, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> The Colorado Civvil Rights Commission screwed up because they got the interpretation wrong.



Nope, they screwed up procedurally.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 10, 2018)

billt said:


> It's his business. Because of that he has the right to refuse service to whomever he chooses. If the customer is offended by that, he can take his business elsewhere. As he should. What I can't understand, is if this guy didn't want to serve gays, why would gays want to enrich his business by forcing him to do business with them?



No, if he is a business offering services to the public, he DOES NOT have the right to refuse service to whomever he chooses.  Thus sayeth the laws of the state of Colorado.


----------



## rgp (Jun 10, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> No, if he is a business offering services to the public, he DOES NOT have the right to refuse service to whomever he chooses.  Thus sayeth the laws of the state of Colorado.




The USSC saw it differently...I hope it stays that way.


----------



## billt (Jun 10, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> No, if he is a business offering services to the public, he DOES NOT have the right to refuse service to whomever he chooses.  Thus sayeth the laws of the state of Colorado.



Colorado is a state that has been taken over by liberal nut cases. It's why the Supreme Court ruled in this guy's favor. Remember: No Shoes. No Shirt. No Service? Plenty of shoeless, bare chested, barefoot guys never ate because of that one. Ever hear of them suing? Gays are at a point in society where they believe they can push their point of view, not to mention their lifestyle on anyone and everyone. It didn't work so well for them this time.


----------



## billt (Jun 10, 2018)

Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, _unless _the business is discriminating against a _protected class_.
At the national level, _protected classes _include:


Race or color
National origin or citizenship status
Religion or creed
Sex
Age
Disability, pregnancy, or genetic information
Veteran status

Gay's are not mentioned.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 10, 2018)

billt said:


> Colorado is a state that has been taken over by liberal nut cases. It's why the Supreme Court ruled in this guy's favor. Remember: No Shoes. No Shirt. No Service? Plenty of shoeless, bare chested, barefoot guys never ate because of that one. Ever hear of them suing? Gays are at a point in society where they believe they can push their point of view, not to mention their lifestyle on anyone and everyone. It didn't work so well for them this time.


 
I  was not aware that a liberal mindset could be  indicative of mental instability, yikes, Canucks are doomed! Loll. Seriously, Canada has championed the rights of LGBTQI for quite some time, our society is none the worse for it. We certainly do not believe we have been pushed into anything.


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jun 10, 2018)

Some of this sort of sounds like what an employer would say to a new employee, “during your 90-day Probation Period, we can fire you for any reason at any time.”


----------



## Keesha (Jun 10, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> I  was not aware that a liberal mindset could be  indicative of mental instability, yikes, Canucks are doomed! Loll. Seriously, Canada has championed the rights of LGBTQI for quite some time, our society is none the worse for it. We certainly do not believe we have been pushed into anything.



We’re doomed Shalimar. It seems we are all just a bunch of pushovers


----------



## IKE (Jun 10, 2018)




----------



## Shalimar (Jun 10, 2018)

Keesha said:


> We’re doomed Shalimar. It seems we are all just a bunch of pushovers


In that case, let us eat cake!


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 10, 2018)

IKE said:


> View attachment 53025
> 
> View attachment 53026


Thanks Ike.


----------



## IKE (Jun 10, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> In that case, let us eat cake!


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 10, 2018)

IKE said:


> View attachment 53027


Yaaaaaaayyyyyy!


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 10, 2018)

Thanks for ruining the thread folks.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 10, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> Yaaaaaaayyyyyy!









Thanks, IKE!

:heart::heart::heart:


----------



## IKE (Jun 10, 2018)

Not that anyone gives a rats ass on how I feel on the subject of LGBT's but as I've said before from a sexuality standpoint I'm straight / I like females but I harbor no ill feelings against LGBT's.....to each their own.

My mouth is watering, will somebody hurry up and cut me a piece of that cake ?


----------



## StarSong (Jun 10, 2018)

IKE said:


> Not that anyone gives a rats ass on how I feel on the subject of LGBT's but as I've said before from a sexuality standpoint I'm straight / I like females but I harbor no ill feelings against LGBT's.....to each their own.
> 
> My mouth is watering, will somebody hurry up and cut me a piece of that cake ?



Ditto on all the above, with the exception that I'm a straight female.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 10, 2018)

StarSong said:


> Ditto on all the above, with the exception that I'm a straight female.


Moi, aussi.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 10, 2018)

Mmmmmmmmmmm. Rainbow cake. 
Yes please! :grin:


----------



## StarSong (Jun 10, 2018)

Keesha said:


> Mmmmmmmmmmm. Rainbow cake.
> Yes please! :grin:



No offense meant, but maybe you should pass, Keesha.  From the looks of your smile it might be time to skip the sweets...


----------



## Keesha (Jun 10, 2018)

StarSong said:


> No offense meant, but maybe you should pass, Keesha.  From the looks of your smile it might be time to skip the sweets...


Whattttt? Ok just a minute. 
Just needed to brush them. :smug1:


----------



## KingsX (Jun 10, 2018)

Falcon said:


> I don't  care  WHAT  gay  people  do  to/for  each other.  I just object to their  flaunting their gayness,
> 
> *Such  as the  "Gay Pride"  parades  which take place.*




There will be another  "pride" parade in Jerusalem in August.

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Pride-Week-While-Tel-Aviv-Celebrates-Jerusalem-Fights-559393

Ironically, it was that sort of "pride" that doomed Jerusalem and the temple in the OT.

.


----------



## rgp (Jun 10, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> In that case, let us eat cake!




Speakin'a cake...What does Red Velvet cake taste like?
Yes I know that's an impossible question.....<grin>

I just saw something about it....never heard of it. But there is a bakery near buy, where you can get individual pieces of whatever and a coffee. So I might go see if they have it ?


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 10, 2018)

rgp said:


> Speakin'a cake...What does Red Velvet cake taste like?
> Yes I know that's an impossible question.....<grin>
> 
> I just saw something about it....never heard of it. But there is a bakery near buy, where you can get individual pieces of whatever and a coffee. So I might go see if they have it ?


I have never eaten Red Velvet cake.  That bakery sounds wonderful. Speaking of cake, my spice cake turned out beautifully. I have had two pieces so far, both with home made ice cream.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 10, 2018)

billt said:


> Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, _unless _the business is discriminating against a _protected class_.
> At the national level, _protected classes _include:
> 
> 
> ...




The Colorado anti-discrimination law (CO Rev Stat § 24-34-601 (2016), however, DOES include ****** orientation (gays), and this is the law under which the case falls:

"(2) (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person,  directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an  individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex,  ******* orientation*, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the  full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,  advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or,  directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or  mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or  advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the  goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations  of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or  denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a  place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable,  or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, ******  orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry."


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 10, 2018)

rgp said:


> The USSC saw it differently...I hope it stays that way.



SCOTUS did NOT rule on the issue of whether the baker had the right to refuse service (and said so in its decision).  Its decision was based on errors made at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission below.  Read the decision; it is quite clear on this point.


----------



## rgp (Jun 10, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> I have never eaten Red Velvet cake.  That bakery sounds wonderful. Speaking of cake, my spice cake turned out beautifully. I have had two pieces so far, both with home made ice cream.




<grin>...I'm waiting by the mailbox...cold glass of milk in hand !


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 10, 2018)

rgp said:


> <grin>...I'm waiting by the mailbox...cold glass of milk in hand !


Lulz.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 11, 2018)

rgp said:


> Speakin'a cake...What does Red Velvet cake taste like?
> Yes I know that's an impossible question.....<grin>
> 
> I just saw something about it....never heard of it. But there is a bakery near buy, where you can get individual pieces of whatever and a coffee. So I might go see if they have it ?


Red velvet cake tastes similar to chocolate but not as dark or rich.


----------



## billt (Jun 11, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> The Colorado anti-discrimination law (CO Rev Stat § 24-34-601 (2016), however, DOES include ****** orientation (gays), and this is the law under which the case *FAILS*



Fixed it for you. The Supreme Court ruling supersedes state court rulings. Just as Federal law trumps state law. All the time...... Every time. After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of this baker, it no longer matters what Colorado says or does. He, you, or anyone else cannot be prosecuted for refusing to bake a cake for a gay. You may not like that, or agree with it. But it changes nothing in regards to it's legality.


----------



## billt (Jun 11, 2018)

This is much the same with the Assault Weapons Ban. The Federal law regarding it was allowed to sunset back on Sept. 13, 2004. Because it would have been political suicide for either side to try and reinstate it. Several liberal anti gun states decided to keep it on the books at a state level anyway. It really doesn't matter in the least, *because no one has ever been prosecuted and put in prison for owning an "assault weapon" in the states that have kept the ban on the books.* The reason is because they know it would not hold up in court. It is nothing but a symbolic gesture with no legal teeth what so ever. Just like Colorado trying to continue to force bakery's to cater to gays after this ruling in favor of the baker by the highest court in the land. It's nothing but bold talk that will amount to zero action..... Because legally it can't.


----------



## hollydolly (Jun 11, 2018)

Keesha said:


> Red velvet cake tastes similar to chocolate but not as dark or rich.




Even as a choklit addict, I have to say Red Velvet cake is delicious. Very light sponge  and not overly rich...


----------



## billt (Jun 11, 2018)

An even better example you have of all of this Federal vs. State law misinterpretation, are all of these state, "Medical Marijuana Laws". That set up these supposed, "licensed stores" to sell it on some bogus "prescription". First off, it is illegal for any doctor to even write a prescription for a drug that is illegal at the Federal level. The "doctors" doing this are nothing but quacks playing a dangerous game. 

The legal fact is every one of these, "Medical Marijuana" laws is not worth the paper it's printed on. Why? Because Marijuana is *ILLEGAL* on the Federal level. And has been for decades. Just because the Federal government isn't acting on this doesn't mean they have the legal right to do it. They don't. Some states are selling it outright to anyone who walks in the door. They're making an even bigger mistake.

President Trump could order the DEA and FBI into California, Oregon, Washington, and every other state in the union that have these illegal laws in place today. And he could close down every "Medical Marijuana" shop, and arrest every owner on Federal drug charges. He has the legal right to do it as we speak. All that is stopping him, along with the rest of the Presidents before him, is the politics involved. *A state has the legal right to enhance Federal law, and in the process make it stronger and more effective. But they cannot legally ignore it and do the opposite. *It is the reason we have the courts in this country set up the way we do. The Supreme Court has the final say. 

It is much the same with states like California ignoring Federal immigration laws, and are doing whatever they please with all of this, "Sanctuary City" nonsense. They are all doing so *ILLEGALLY.* A lot of pro immigration people are being lured into a false sense of security because of this. They think because they are presently getting away with it, that makes it legal. It does not.

We are a severely divided nation. On drugs, gays, illegal immigration, and guns. This will only get worse. And it will, and in fact is, getting more dangerous because the division is so strong the people who oppose the written laws as they are in place today, are simply ignoring them and doing as they please. *That is called anarchy.* And it will end in bloodshed. History has proven this time and time again. This time will be no different.

The gay who wanted this cake could have simply walked out and found another bakery who would have been glad to make it for him. But instead he chose to make a big legal stink out of it and basically lost. He wanted to *FORCE* this baker to make it for him. There in lies the problem that is beginning to fester in this country. It is no longer good enough to be able to be who you want to be. But now these same people want to *FORCE* others to comply with what they want, along with how they feel. And many times remove freedoms in the process.

For example, they don't like guns. But they themselves choosing not to own them isn't good enough. So they want to regulate or remove your right to own them, because they think they know better as to what's good for you. That is always the liberal mindset when it comes to government. We've had gays forever. But now they want to *FORCE* their acceptance on the masses. And be able to have you arrested if you don't comply with their wants and belief's. 

Illegal invaders ignore our immigration laws, and run, jump, or swim over here. All because they think they have some God given right to do so. They are forcing themselves into this country against our immigration laws. That's not, "immigration". It's an *INVASION. *Anyone who thinks this will be resolved peacefully is kidding themselves. Everything else is just a bunch of smoke filled coffee house crap.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 11, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> I have never eaten Red Velvet cake.  That bakery sounds wonderful. Speaking of cake, my spice cake turned out beautifully. I have had two pieces so far, both with home made ice cream.



I've had a forkful of RV cake a couple of times but avoid it because that deep red color comes from TWO TABLESPOONS of red dye that goes into a standard 9" layer cake.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 11, 2018)

StarSong said:


> I've had a forkful of RV cake a couple of times but avoid it because that deep red color comes from TWO TABLESPOONS of red dye that goes into a standard 9" layer cake.


Yikes, I don’t blame you.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 11, 2018)

Well, at least no _real _red velvet goes into it!


----------



## StarSong (Jun 11, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Well, at least no _real _red velvet goes into it!



I miss the days when women could buy velvet dresses in colors other than black.  

Speaking of velvet, Bobby Vinton's lip sync may be off, but I enjoyed watching this just now and wanted to pass it along.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeLBkoW1-Ow


----------



## RadishRose (Jun 11, 2018)

Who was it that was looking for a Star Wars cake?


----------



## StarSong (Jun 11, 2018)

RadishRose said:


> Who was it that was looking for a Star Wars cake?
> 
> View attachment 53037



I think it was Rockr.


----------



## RadishRose (Jun 11, 2018)

StarSong said:


> I think it was Rockr.



Oh, right. Hope he likes it. Thanks, Star.


----------



## KingsX (Jun 11, 2018)

billt said:


> We are a severely divided nation. On drugs, gays, illegal immigration, and guns. This will only get worse. And it will, and in fact is, getting more dangerous because the division is so strong the people who oppose the written laws as they are in place today, are simply ignoring them and doing as they please. That is called anarchy. And it will end in bloodshed. History has proven this time and time again. This time will be no different.




This is an interesting concept.  In the US, the vast majority are law-abiding. That was tested when Eisenhower and Kennedy sent armed federal troops to Southern states for FORCE racial integration at the point of bayonets.  But in the face of another civil war, armed Southerners [backed by their local and state leaders] stood down. It was the closest the USA had ever come to another civil war.  What might spark such a resistance today?  What kind of resistance might it be?  If some in the law-abiding majority decide that a law has become too draconian,  would they decide to ignore that specific law or would their resistance expand to other draconian laws that have been forced to tolerate over the decades?  Or, would all laws be ignored like the guerrilla fighter "Bushwackers" did during the civil war?

.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 11, 2018)

billt said:


> We are a severely divided nation. On drugs, gays, illegal immigration, and guns. This will only get worse. And it will, and in fact is, getting more dangerous because the division is so strong the people who oppose the written laws as they are in place today, are simply ignoring them and doing as they please. *That is called anarchy.* And it will end in bloodshed. History has proven this time and time again. This time will be no different.



Civil war, huh? Seems to me I've heard that here lately. Gee, I wonder who that could have been?


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 11, 2018)

billt said:


> Fixed it for you. The Supreme Court ruling supersedes state court rulings. Just as Federal law trumps state law. All the time...... Every time. After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of this baker, it no longer matters what Colorado says or does. He, you, or anyone else cannot be prosecuted for refusing to bake a cake for a gay. You may not like that, or agree with it. But it changes nothing in regards to it's legality.



I beg to differ.  SCOTUS was quite clear that it was NOT ruling on the merits of the question of whether or not this particular baker's decision was constitutional.  And it matters a lot what Colorado says or does, because their law clearly says their citizens cannot discriminate against people for their ****** orientation.  The above cited Colorado statute was actually clarified in 2016 (after the incident in the cake baker's case) to expressly forbid discrimination against gay people.  It remains the law in Colorado unless and until it is ruled unconstitutional.  

The present SCOTUS case only deals with that one baker in those particular circumstances, wherein the civil rights commission did not act appropriately.  The present case has NO effect on future cases unless the Colorado Civil Rights Commission behaves similarly.

Colorado,  BTW, does have the right to add ****** orientation as a protected class in its state, as it did, as long as they maintain the basic federal law, which does not mention gays at all, but it does not in any way exclude them from being protected.


----------



## Toorbulite (Jun 11, 2018)

Historical fact. All 'great' nations wax and wane.
To this far-off outsider-looking-in, it seems fairly clear that the Grand Ole USA is very much on the wane. 
Given the passions aroused by said  _drugs, gays, illegal immigration, and guns"   
_along with many other things,
 I suspect that the U.S. will fragment into a whole bunch of smaller nation-states.
Very probably bickering with each other.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 11, 2018)

Toorbulite said:


> Historical fact. All 'great' nations wax and wane.
> To this far-off outsider-looking-in, it seems fairly clear that the Grand Ole USA is very much on the wane.
> Given the passions aroused by said  _drugs, gays, illegal immigration, and guns - along with many other things, I suspect that  the U.S. *will* fragment into a whole bunch of smaller nation-states.
> Very probably bickering with each other._



Sounds more like a wish to me. We shall see this November.


----------



## Toorbulite (Jun 11, 2018)

No Olivia - I'm thinking much further down the track.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 11, 2018)

billt said:


> An even better example you have of all of this Federal vs. State law misinterpretation, are all of these state, "Medical Marijuana Laws". That set up these supposed, "licensed stores" to sell it on some bogus "prescription". First off, it is illegal for any doctor to even write a prescription for a drug that is illegal at the Federal level. The "doctors" doing this are nothing but quacks playing a dangerous game.
> 
> The legal fact is every one of these, "Medical Marijuana" laws is not worth the paper it's printed on. Why? Because Marijuana is *ILLEGAL* on the Federal level. And has been for decades. Just because the Federal government isn't acting on this doesn't mean they have the legal right to do it. They don't. Some states are selling it outright to anyone who walks in the door. They're making an even bigger mistake.
> 
> ...



There is a huge difference between the marijuana issue and the cake baker issue.  In the case of marijuana, there is a federal law which declares marijuana illegal.  state laws which attempt to make marijuana illegal countermand federal law, which is unconstitutional.  In the discrimination against gay people issue, Colorado does not countermand federal law, but simply adds another protected class, which it has the right to do.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 11, 2018)

Toorbulite said:


> No Olivia - I'm thinking much further down the track.



Oh, I know you are.  But always remember, the squeaky wheel gets the oil--or should I say the publicity.


----------



## Toorbulite (Jun 11, 2018)

Sorry Olivia, I don't "get"that.
Perhaps because it's 4.12am here and I haven't been to bed yet


----------



## Olivia (Jun 11, 2018)

Toorbulite said:


> Sorry Olivia, I don't "get"that.
> Perhaps because it's 4.12am here and I haven't been to bed yet



That could well be. So you have the night shift?


----------



## billt (Jun 11, 2018)

KingsX said:


> This is an interesting concept. * In the US, the vast majority are law-abiding. That was tested when Eisenhower and Kennedy sent armed federal troops to Southern states for FORCE racial integration at the point of bayonets.*  But in the face of another civil war, armed Southerners [backed by their local and state leaders] stood down. It was the closest the USA had ever come to another civil war.  What might spark such a resistance today?  What kind of resistance might it be?  If some in the law-abiding majority decide that a law has become too draconian,  would they decide to ignore that specific law or would their resistance expand to other draconian laws that have been forced to tolerate over the decades?  Or, would all laws be ignored like the guerrilla fighter "Bushwackers" did during the civil war?



I would agree with you....Back in the days of Kennedy and Eisenhower. But we are a long way from that point in time. And even farther away from that kind of civility and personal respect. Back then we respected, and more importantly accepted the results of our Presidential election process. Regardless of which candidate won. Today there is so much hate from liberals they cannot contain themselves. They haven't stopped spewing their hatred for Trump ever since he announced his candidacy. Look at that foul mouthed POS De Niro. His total hatred for Trump is so bad, he couldn't even control himself from using the F word on a national television broadcast last night. These people have gone, and have remained off the rails for almost 2 years now.

They thought Trump was a joke and had no chance. So why not pick on him? They thought Clinton was going to tap dance right into the oval office. Every talking head in the news media made a complete idiot out of themselves, by constantly shooting their mouths off how he had no chance to win. Megan Kelly destroyed her career over it. You never had a national news media act like that 40 years ago. Credibility in journalism in this country has managed to self destruct faster than a Muslim in a suicide vest. Nickelodeon now has higher ratings than CNN.  

Now that Trump has not only won, but his approval ratings, along with his accomplishments keep rising, they can't stand it. And they're all getting even worse because of it. Every night these late night clowns pick on Trump. His kids. His wife. Non stop. Sure, Johnny Carson made jokes about the Presidents. All of them. Republican or Democrat. But he knew when to quit. He knew when it wasn't funny any longer. And he NEVER attacked the First Family. And above all his jokes were respectful. This current batch of late night nit wits are nothing but a bunch of hate brandishing demagogues.  

This didn't happen before. Not even during the Nixon Watergate years. Look at ANTIFA. They're nothing but a bunch of anti American, violent thugs. This whole "Occupy Wall Street" movement is comprised of nothing but spoiled kids living in their mothers basement. Who think they're entitled to everything. Free education. Housing, A job. Health care. Name it. No question about it, we're closer to civil war now, than at any time I can remember in my 65 years of living. If someone would have told me this country would be in this kind of shape when I retired, back when I graduated high school in 1970, I would have laughed at you. Yet here we are. And it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Proof of that is it's already getting better.... And they're all getting worse. Just wait until they get pasted yet again in November.


----------



## billt (Jun 11, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> There is a huge difference between the marijuana issue and the cake baker issue.  In the case of marijuana, there is a federal law which declares marijuana illegal.  state laws which attempt to make marijuana illegal countermand federal law, which is unconstitutional.  In the discrimination against gay people issue, Colorado does not countermand federal law, but simply adds another protected class, which it has the right to do.



It won't matter because after this Supreme Court decision, they will never "convict" another baker who does the same thing.


----------



## billt (Jun 11, 2018)

Toorbulite said:


> I suspect that the U.S. will fragment into a whole bunch of smaller nation-states.



I think that is a very real possibility. California already wants to split apart. People who hate each other do not want to coexist together.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 11, 2018)

billt said:


> It won't matter because after this Supreme Court decision, they will never "convict" another baker who does the same thing.



There are other similar court cases in the queue, so I believe your assessment is a bit premature. And maybe you have a blind spot somewhere because you're not reading or not wanting to read what you don't want to.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 11, 2018)

billt said:


> I think that is a very real possibility. California already wants to split apart. People who hate each other do not want to coexist together.



Okay, I've "heard" that. Any references beyond hearing that? And who exactly wants to do that? And I've also heard it's because California is too large for one central state government, etc, etc. So, it would be really clarifying to get more info, if you have it.


----------



## KingsX (Jun 11, 2018)

billt said:


> I think that is a very real possibility. California already wants to split apart. People who hate each other do not want to coexist together.




First the dissolution of the USSR, next the USA ??   The EU is also in turmoil with several  EU states in political rebellion.

Makes the famous photo op of US/USSR troops shaking hands over defeated Germany's Elbe river quite ironic.

https://todayinhistoryblog.wordpress.com/tag/elbe-day/

.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 11, 2018)

KingsX said:


> First the dissolution of the USSR, next the USA ??   The EU is also in turmoil with several  EU states in political rebellion.
> 
> Makes the famous photo op of US/USSR troops shaking hands over defeated Germany's Elbe river quite ironic.
> 
> ...



Sweet dreams are made of this.


----------



## KingsX (Jun 11, 2018)

.

Here's an on topic historical reference:

_* Let them eat cake*_

.


----------



## billt (Jun 11, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Okay, I've "heard" that. Any references beyond hearing that? And who exactly wants to do that? And I've also heard it's because California is too large for one central state government, etc, etc. So, it would be really clarifying to get more info, if you have it.



California has existed as a single state since 1850. It can't much longer. Southern and Western Illinois have been wanting to divorce themselves from the Chicago socialist liberals for decades. They're sick and tired of having money diverted from their cities and towns into that liberal Democratic money pit that only gets worse and more expensive, as it constantly hemorrhages money. There is talk of Michigan wanting to do the same with the Detroit Metro area. People are getting sick and tired of funding these Democratic stink hole cities that do nothing but consume money, and produce nothing in return but crime and waste.

It's only going to be a matter of time before the money supply runs out. Look at L.A. Jobs are drying up. The cost of living is skyrocketing. Illegals are pouring into the state. Crime is off the chart. People are not going to continue to finance this much longer. When I lived in the Chicago area, people used to always say, "Yeah, the weather is lousy. The homes are expensive. The property taxes are high.... *But you can ALWAYS find a good paying job!"*.... Well not any longer.

There already is a mass exodus out of California. As people leave all in search of better, more affordable living in red states like Arizona and Texas. It won't be long before these liberal strongholds start collapsing on themselves financially. And the Federal government isn't going to be able to bail them all out. These used to be the places to be. Now they're the places to be FROM.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/26/800...lee-new-york-california-because-of-taxes.html

http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/20...n-droves-including-some-high-desert-residents


----------



## Olivia (Jun 11, 2018)

Shaking in my boots. 800,000 people leaving California and New York out of California's population of 39.78 million is a scary prospect. What will they do, what will they do. The sky is falling!


----------



## billt (Jun 11, 2018)

*"In years to come, millions of people, thousands of businesses and tens of billions of dollars of net income will flee high-tax blue states for low-tax red states," they said."*


----------



## Olivia (Jun 11, 2018)

billt said:


> *"In years to come, millions of people, thousands of businesses and tens of billions of dollars of net income will flee high-tax blue states for low-tax red states," they said."*



Please do get back to us when that happens.


----------

