Justice Wrestles With Colorado Wedding Cake Case at Supreme Court

I was listening to the Ron Paul Liberty Report while at work today and one of his guests was talking about this case and he said something to the affect of “in a free society, we’re supposed to be able to discriminate. What if some nazis went to a Jewish bakery and wanted the Jewish baker to bake a cake with a swastika on it” and I got to thinking about that. If that actually did happen you’d see SJW’s crying and whining about that and saying that the Jewish baker shouldn’t have to bake the nazis a cake with a swastika design on it because it’s racist or some shit. The left just loves to use laws when it’s in THEIR favor and they reject the law when it’s not in their favor or vice versa. I don’t think very many people in this country knows what “rule of law” really means. Imagine playing a poker game but one person gets to make the rules up as they go and the rules are always in their favor, it’s just not fair. You can’t make up a law and then expect to not have to follow that law. That’s basically what’s going on here.

I hope the baker wins this case.

Comments

  • edited December 6
    The audio has not been posted yet but should be in a couple of days. the written transcripts are already released here https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf

    The audio of the oral arguments can be found herehttps://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2017 when the get released'

    I have read some of the transcripts and it appears that the Justices are making a joke out of the COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION defense.

    Personally I think this whole case is a joke. If I own a business, am I to be compelled to sell to anyone or do I have the right to rufuse? That is the basic question here nothing else.
  • edited December 6
    Exactly. Ron Paul basically said the same thing saying that this is a property rights issue.

    One of the arguments I see the left making is “well this baker provides a service to the public so he should have to provide service to everyone regardless of his personal convictions”. It seems to me that they’re comparing a bakery business to a public utility like water or electricity as if they’re the same thing when it’s not. The thing is that the “public” doesn’t own his business nor pay taxes to it. The “public” didn’t put in the hard work to make that business successful, the baker did that so HE should decide who he wants to serve and who he doesn’t want to serve.
  • Exactly. Ron Paul basically said the same thing saying that this is a property rights issue.

    One of the arguments I see the left making is “well this baker provides a service to the public so he should have to provide service to everyone regardless of his personal convictions”. It seems to me that they’re comparing a bakery business to a public utility like water or electricity as if they’re the same thing when it’s not. The thing is that the “public” doesn’t own his business nor pay taxes to it. The “public” didn’t put in the hard work to make thAat business successful, the baker did that so HE should decide who he wants to serve and who he doesn’t want to serve.

    are we missing something?
    WHY IN THE FUCK DOES SOME DUMBASS WANNA GIVE MONEY TO SOMEONE WHO DONT LIKE HIM??
    I don't do business with most of the niggers in my hood, cuz of the simple fact I know they're black asses don't like me, and as far as I'm concerned, niggers are the curse of human race, so I would rather not spend my hard earned money with them
  • If someone wanted swastikas, they would argue that 1st Amend free political speech ISN'T permitted, but that Pornography and Smut ARE!!!

    This was the heart of the issue. He was willing to sell them any generic item that he'd sell to anyone else. They could add rainbow flags, 2 husbands kissing (or whatever sodomy act they wished) it's just that HE wouldn't CUSTOM MAKE a Sodomy Cake.

    There are plenty of "Erotic Bakeries" that SPECIALIZE in this. Any depraved organ or act that they wish. But this person DIDN'T want to use his "Artistic Tallent" to engage in a CREATIVE ACT for ANY sin. Divorce, 2nd Marriage, or any other ACT that he objected to. He's not discriminating against PEOPLE, but against ACTS. (Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner. -Jesus)

    I think that the Defendant screwed up claiming that Jewelry Designers wouldn't be covered by this Ruling. So he would compel a Jeweler to fabricate humans committing a deviant (even if enjoyable) sexual act? What about child porn or bestiality? Are Bakers required to produce these cake designs?

    This is the PERFECT case Study for 1st Amend Rights. Should we COMPEL action that is Morally reprehensible? Can I have a Muslim Halal Deli make me a Sodomy bacon-wrapped pork-loin and shrimp platter? Maybe decorated w a "Christ reigns supreme, Allah isn't God" and "Mohammad rapes goats" decorations?
Sign In or Register to comment.