Cake Maker told to pay 130K to gay coupe for not making a cake for them.

[The Conservative]

Electing the Rock would be like electing Black Schwarzenegger, he's a classic Reagan Democrat, who could pull an Obama to win.

Socially liberal, corporate friendly, diversity certified, celebrity candidate, and not ideological at all.

A Wall Street wet dream, the spice would flow.

That's a bad thing?

Bad thing for Fife & Co. I don't care either way, I'm not a SoCon.

If it was left up to me, I would side with public accommodation, it's not speech, it's a cake, moving on.

If you're a church and you bake that cake, then you're exempt from Title II, but if you're a retailer, bake the dang cake already.

Every private company has the right to give service to people, they also have the right to deny service to people. If you are telling me they are unable to do so, then we have an issue. Especially since the bakery wasn't a publicly owned entity.

[Smitty-48]

That's a bad thing?

Bad thing for Fife & Co. I don't care either way, I'm not a SoCon.

If it was left up to me, I would side with public accommodation, it's not speech, it's a cake, moving on.

If you're a church and you bake that cake, then you're exempt from Title II, but if you're a retailer, bake the dang cake already.

Every private company has the right to give service to people, they also have the right to deny service to people. If you are telling me they are unable to do so, then we have an issue. Especially since the bakery wasn't a publicly owned entity.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act prohibits denying service at the "lunch counter" on the basis of your "beliefs", only religious institutions are exempt, if you're a retailer, you're not exempt.

Your issue is not with me, you're gonna get shot down by your judiciary, I didn't write the Civil Rights Act, and neither did they, but I seriously doubt that they will rule it to be unconstitutional.

[Speaker to Animals]

without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.


Doesn't seem to mention degeneracy and sodomy as a protected class..

[Smitty-48]

Yeah, and if you take it to the SCOTUS, they will rule that gays are protected as well, every court is ruling that way, and I don't see why the SCOTUS would buck the trend.

I suspect that Kennedy is going to vote with the liberals, he always votes with Civil Rights and the Gays, I don't see why he would change now.

Gorsuch will say that a cake is not a cake, but rather art, and therefore speech, but I suspect the liberals will say a cake is just a cake, and Kennedy will side with them.

[Speaker to Animals]

Then it will become more apparent that the federal government is a fucking farce. Laws don't mean anything. Separation of powers don't mean anything. It's just bureaucratic lawlessness.

[Smitty-48]

I side with Gorsuch on this, in the case of a ceremonial cake specifically, that is art, it's not food for eating, it's artistic expression made of cake, you don't just buy one off the rack, you have one custom to made to make a statement, and it is therefore protected speech, but I don't think Kennedy will go for it.

Kennedy is not ideological, he rules "on the balance", and on the balance, I suspect he will say let the gays have their cake and eat it too.

[The Conservative]

Yeah, and if you take it to the SCOTUS, they will rule that gays are protected as well, every court is ruling that way, and I don't see why the SCOTUS would buck the trend.

I suspect that Kennedy is going to vote with the liberals, he always votes with Civil Rights and the Gays, I don't see why he would change now.

Gorsuch will say that a cake is not a cake, but rather art, and therefore speech, but I suspect the liberals will say a cake is just a cake, and Kennedy will side with them.

Homosexual is not a gender, nor a sex. NeIther is it a race nor color.

[Smitty-48]

Yeah, and if you take it to the SCOTUS, they will rule that gays are protected as well, every court is ruling that way, and I don't see why the SCOTUS would buck the trend.

I suspect that Kennedy is going to vote with the liberals, he always votes with Civil Rights and the Gays, I don't see why he would change now.

Gorsuch will say that a cake is not a cake, but rather art, and therefore speech, but I suspect the liberals will say a cake is just a cake, and Kennedy will side with them.

Homosexual is not a gender, nor a sex. NeIther is it a race nor color.

The courts are ruling the exclusion of homosexuality as a civil rights protected class to be unconstitutional, one after the other, I don't see why the SCOTUS wouldn't do the same.

You're not going to win on this, it's a done deal, the gays are going to get their civil rights, it's a waste of time and energy to bother railing against it.

Conservatives taking a position against gay rights, are just going to blow themselves up and hand control to the liberals, it's self defeating.

This ain't a hill worth dying on, market forces will crush you, the argument is over, you lost, time to move on already.

It's a trap, the liberals want social conservatives to charge into this kill zone, plays right into their hands. The gay activists are picking this hill to fight on, to bait you into charging the red cape.

[The Conservative]

Yeah, and if you take it to the SCOTUS, they will rule that gays are protected as well, every court is ruling that way, and I don't see why the SCOTUS would buck the trend.

I suspect that Kennedy is going to vote with the liberals, he always votes with Civil Rights and the Gays, I don't see why he would change now.

Gorsuch will say that a cake is not a cake, but rather art, and therefore speech, but I suspect the liberals will say a cake is just a cake, and Kennedy will side with them.

Homosexual is not a gender, nor a sex. NeIther is it a race nor color.

The courts are ruling the exclusion of homosexuality as a civil rights protected class to be unconstitutional, one after the other, I don't see why the SCOTUS wouldn't do the same.

You're not going to win on this, it's a done deal, the gays are going to get their civil rights, it's a waste of time and energy to bother railing against it.

Conservatives taking a position against gay rights, are just going to blow themselves up and hand control to the liberals, it's self defeating.

This ain't a hill worth dying on, market forces will crush you, the argument is over, you lost, time to move on already.

It's a trap, the liberals want social conservatives to charge into this kill zone, plays right into their hands. The gay activists are picking this hill to fight on, to bait you into charging the red cape.

Southern courts also used to say blacks were sub-human. So the courts ruled that way it must be right. Right?

Seriously, how many times have lower courts been overturned because of improperly creating laws on the bench?

This is such a case; there is no laws on the books to give homosexuals the same protective rights as those with disabilities, or other protected reasons.

If homosexuality is protected under chapter 766 type laws then they are accepting that homosexuality is a disability that can be corrected or lessened.

Homosexuality is not a gender, race or color, and it's not a religion (although people think it is at times) So under all those stipulations the SCOTUS has to rule in favor of the cake maker.

[Speaker to Animals]

You absolutely have the right not to participate in a sacrilege.

The only people who will lose here in the long run are the democrats since, if this is where the Civil Rights Act is headed, then it's obviously another flawed and deeply unconstitutional law that needs to be repealed.