Originally posted by snowdragon
And the ruling is in favor of the baker 7-2.
Originally posted by Surtur
Loving it.Winning.
Originally posted by snowdragon
It should never have happened, to begin with, the council that brought the case was very hostile towards the baker and his religion.
Originally posted by Surtur
Bingo. We just spent thousands of dollars to determine if the government can force a dude to bake a cake.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because they punted on the merits, and ruled on procedural grounds. They did not attempt resolve the issue at all.
Let's just hope that when some Muslim starts denying service based on religious grounds, these same people have the same POV. LoL, who are we kidding, they'll blow their rape-whistles; it'll be hilarious.
Originally posted by Robtard
Let's just hope that when some Muslim starts denying service based on religious grounds, these same people have the same POV. LoL, who are we kidding, they'll blow their rape-whistles; it'll be hilarious.
1. I'm really not a fan of antidiscrimination laws in general. I don't believe discrimination is a violation of rights and I've made this pretty clear in my other posts on this thread.
2. Even if I did support them, freedom of expression would trump antidiscrimination for me every single time. I have spoken out in favor of freedom of expression for people whose views I find morally reprehensible such as the alt-right, I sure as hell wouldn't deny the extension of that to a Muslim.
3. As a Classical Liberal I believe in the universality of individual rights including the right to one's own property and expression, regardless of the individual's identity, views, or moral character.
Originally posted by Robtard
Let's just hope that when some Muslim starts denying service based on religious grounds, these same people have the same POV. LoL, who are we kidding, they'll blow their rape-whistles; it'll be hilarious.
There is one video that shows Muslims denying service for gay wedding cakes and no one sued.
Originally posted by |King Joker|
The actual issue that was being debated on this thread wasn’t resolved by the Supreme Court, so I’m not sure why some of you are orgasming.
You could be right. I thought the ruling was that an artist cannot be forced to make art that goes against the artists beliefs. Was the ruling about something else?
Originally posted by dadudemon
You could be right. I thought the ruling was that an artist cannot be forced to make art that goes against the artists beliefs. Was the ruling about something else?
No. The ruling doesn't mean another business could do this and necessarily get away with it. It was more about the hostility towards the mans religion that was shown. At least that is how it comes off.
In other words: the left actually faced consequences for their anti christian bigotry. I love that lol.