Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Supreme Court Decision Favor Baker Over Gay Couple

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Supreme Court Decision Favor Baker Over Gay Couple

    I heard that the Supreme Court decision favors baker over gay couple for refusing to give them service for baking a cake for their wedding. This is a horrible decision for the Supreme Court in their part.

    #2
    Re: Supreme Court Decision Favor Baker Over Gay Couple

    This might come back to some religious beliefs about mixed race marriages being bad,and it used to be slavery was considered gods will also.
    And I wonder why religion is allowed to be an excuse for being an AssHat?
    MAGIC is MAGIC,black OR white or even blood RED

    all i ever wanted was a normal life and love.
    NO TERF EVER WE belong Too.
    don't stop the tears.let them flood your soul.




    sigpic

    my new page here,let me know what you think.


    nothing but the shadow of what was

    witchvox
    http://www.witchvox.com/vu/vxposts.html

    Comment


      #3
      Re: Supreme Court Decision Favor Baker Over Gay Couple

      Originally posted by anunitu View Post
      This might come back to some religious beliefs about mixed race marriages being bad,and it used to be slavery was considered gods will also.
      And I wonder why religion is allowed to be an excuse for being an AssHat?
      I heard about that slavery was acceptable in religion back in the olden times but never mixed race.

      Comment


        #4
        Re: Supreme Court Decision Favor Baker Over Gay Couple

        See here.

        This is not the first time that religion has been invoked to justify marriage discrimination. Similar resorts to religion fueled legal opposition to interracial marriage – in some cases until quite recently

        - - - Updated - - -

        also here.

        - - - Updated - - -

        First, is the book Race Mixing: Black-White Marriage in Postwar America by Renee Romano. She mentions that those concerned with racial purity often framed their opposition in terms of Christian beliefs. However, not all whites shared the view that intermarriage violated Christian beliefs. Romano goes on to say that opposition to intermarriage was motivated less by religious beliefs and more by a fear about the consequences of seeing blacks as social equals. In the balance of her book, Christianity is mentioned sporadically and generally as a description of some who supported interracial marriage. Romano does not provide an argument that religion is the main motivator of anti-miscegenation.

        - - - Updated - - -

        from the first site.

        In the 19th and early-20th centuries, state courts in Indiana, Georgia and Pennsylvania cited religious reasons for preventing different people of different races from marrying each other. In the 1960s, the trial judge in Loving v. Virginia – the case in which the Supreme Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage – wrote, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
        MAGIC is MAGIC,black OR white or even blood RED

        all i ever wanted was a normal life and love.
        NO TERF EVER WE belong Too.
        don't stop the tears.let them flood your soul.




        sigpic

        my new page here,let me know what you think.


        nothing but the shadow of what was

        witchvox
        http://www.witchvox.com/vu/vxposts.html

        Comment


          #5
          Re: Supreme Court Decision Favor Baker Over Gay Couple

          Originally posted by anunitu View Post
          See here.

          This is not the first time that religion has been invoked to justify marriage discrimination. Similar resorts to religion fueled legal opposition to interracial marriage – in some cases until quite recently

          - - - Updated - - -

          also here.

          - - - Updated - - -

          First, is the book Race Mixing: Black-White Marriage in Postwar America by Renee Romano. She mentions that those concerned with racial purity often framed their opposition in terms of Christian beliefs. However, not all whites shared the view that intermarriage violated Christian beliefs. Romano goes on to say that opposition to intermarriage was motivated less by religious beliefs and more by a fear about the consequences of seeing blacks as social equals. In the balance of her book, Christianity is mentioned sporadically and generally as a description of some who supported interracial marriage. Romano does not provide an argument that religion is the main motivator of anti-miscegenation.

          - - - Updated - - -

          from the first site.

          In the 19th and early-20th centuries, state courts in Indiana, Georgia and Pennsylvania cited religious reasons for preventing different people of different races from marrying each other. In the 1960s, the trial judge in Loving v. Virginia – the case in which the Supreme Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage – wrote, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
          Wow. Now I learned something for all of this information. Thanks anunitu.

          Comment


            #6
            Re: Supreme Court Decision Favor Baker Over Gay Couple

            knowledge is POWER!
            MAGIC is MAGIC,black OR white or even blood RED

            all i ever wanted was a normal life and love.
            NO TERF EVER WE belong Too.
            don't stop the tears.let them flood your soul.




            sigpic

            my new page here,let me know what you think.


            nothing but the shadow of what was

            witchvox
            http://www.witchvox.com/vu/vxposts.html

            Comment


              #7
              Re: Supreme Court Decision Favor Baker Over Gay Couple

              our country has a long history of this issue,and is striving to make real the equal for all rule of law.
              MAGIC is MAGIC,black OR white or even blood RED

              all i ever wanted was a normal life and love.
              NO TERF EVER WE belong Too.
              don't stop the tears.let them flood your soul.




              sigpic

              my new page here,let me know what you think.


              nothing but the shadow of what was

              witchvox
              http://www.witchvox.com/vu/vxposts.html

              Comment


                #8
                Re: Supreme Court Decision Favor Baker Over Gay Couple

                Ehh, to be clear, the Court didn't actually decide any major precedent here. They used the fact that the panel which had decided against the bakeshop was more than a little foolish in its phrasing to punt all the hard questions as far away as they possibly could.



                This is not a case of the Supreme Court saying, "Oppress your neighbor in the name of religion." It's a case of the court deciding that
                A. Colorado's state government handled the original issue stupidly
                B. The Supreme Court is terrified of trying to set a broad precedent here
                C. The Supreme Court is willing to exploit the **** out of A so that it doesn't have to confront the reality that eventually they will have to face B.

                Taking this ruling as a sign of anything other than the Supreme Court lacking sufficient intestinal fortitude to handle the issue is a bad idea. Unfortunately for them, barring a massive change in opinion among a lot of people, they won't be able to punt this issue forever. Unfortunately for everyone else, the current make-up of the court is not precisely my preference to have deciding the issue when they finally do need to set a precedent.
                life itself was a lightsaber in his hands; even in the face of treachery and death and hopes gone cold, he burned like a candle in the darkness. Like a star shining in the black eternity of space.

                Yoda: Dark Rendezvous

                "But those men who know anything at all about the Light also know that there is a fierceness to its power, like the bare sword of the law, or the white burning of the sun." Suddenly his voice sounded to Will very strong, and very Welsh. "At the very heart, that is. Other things, like humanity, and mercy, and charity, that most good men hold more precious than all else, they do not come first for the Light. Oh, sometimes they are there; often, indeed. But in the very long run the concern of you people is with the absolute good, ahead of all else..."

                John Rowlands, The Grey King by Susan Cooper

                "You come from the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve", said Aslan. "And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth; be content."

                Aslan, Prince Caspian by CS Lewis


                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: Supreme Court Decision Favor Baker Over Gay Couple

                  Originally posted by MaskedOne View Post
                  Ehh, to be clear, the Court didn't actually decide any major precedent here. They used the fact that the panel which had decided against the bakeshop was more than a little foolish in its phrasing to punt all the hard questions as far away as they possibly could.



                  This is not a case of the Supreme Court saying, "Oppress your neighbor in the name of religion." It's a case of the court deciding that
                  A. Colorado's state government handled the original issue stupidly
                  B. The Supreme Court is terrified of trying to set a broad precedent here
                  C. The Supreme Court is willing to exploit the **** out of A so that it doesn't have to confront the reality that eventually they will have to face B.

                  Taking this ruling as a sign of anything other than the Supreme Court lacking sufficient intestinal fortitude to handle the issue is a bad idea. Unfortunately for them, barring a massive change in opinion among a lot of people, they won't be able to punt this issue forever. Unfortunately for everyone else, the current make-up of the court is not precisely my preference to have deciding the issue when they finally do need to set a precedent.
                  Religion has always been a legal issue.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X