BREAKING: Supreme Court rules baker does not have to make wedding cake for same-sex couple. More to

[WV-FAN]

Interesting fact: Ayatollah Khomeini said this was OK as long as you only stick the tip of it in.

that's what herdbuckeye's wife told him prior to marriage and he promised just the tip. he got excited and buried it ball deep. in turn, she got excited and screamed for him to bury it. he told her nope, a promise is a promise, you gotta wait for marriage. she been @disappoint ever since.

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

I am going to laugh when Muslims start telling you White Christian Devils to GTFO of their gas station.

If you read the opinion you would see that the distinction is made between not serving an individual who is gay and not catering an event that violates conscience.

It has been noted throughout this story that the Cake Maker has made cakes for gays for a long time he just chooses not to cater for a gay wedding.

But everyone just wants to react to headlines and get their shots in at the other side.

 

[Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM]

Kind of weird to return to the office after a two hour meeting, only to find Bucky talking about my crank. Very queer, but I reckon that's better than his usual fascination with Raleigh's two young kids.

 

[19MU88]

I'm still wondering how anyone could supposedly figure out someone's religion when buying gas??

yes, he's not as clever as he wants to be.

 

[HerdBuckeye]

that's what herdbuckeye's wife told him prior to marriage and he promised just the tip. he got excited and buried it ball deep. in turn, she got excited and screamed for him to bury it. he told her nope, a promise is a promise, you gotta wait for marriage. she been @disappoint ever since.

Great story dude.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

If you read the opinion you would see that the distinction is made between not serving an individual who is gay and not catering an event that violates conscience.

If you read the entire thread you would see I made the distinction that this opinion is so narrow it doesn't apply to any other situation except a certain state board acting like assholes when the case was before them. I am also busting herdman's balls, and our busting each others' balls is an important part of this forum.

Anyway, as to your point: First, your summary is not accurate, as the baker offered to provide a cake for the event if it was any other cake or product but a "wedding cake". I assume this means leaving off two grooms on top or "Happy Wedding Adam and Steve" or some other identifying factor. He would still have been "catering" the event (also a dumb distinction, as the couple were marrying in MA and having a later celebration in their hometown, with this argument any life celebration of the couple could be construed as just horribly sinful so screw them and their cake they wanted). It is also laughable the baker argued squirting some frosting words is an expression of art and thus "an expressive statement", he must think he is Duff Goldman. To the splitting of hairs, it is illogical BS used by the court to both placate religious fanatics and punt the entire issue (something SCOTUS has been good at lately). Yay, court...

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

yes, he's not as clever as he wants to be.

Oh look, Ace and Gary are stroking each other again...like everyday...get a room, you two.

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

Just because you may disagree with someone doesn't make their ethical decision making dumb, it just makes it different from yours.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Just because you may disagree with someone doesn't make their ethical decision making dumb, it just makes it different from yours.

It's not his "ethical decision making" I find illogical (I find it scripturally incorrrect, and just being a dick), it's the legal hair splitting of the argument I find dumb and illogical, and frankly over-complicated. He can't write "Happy Wedding" on their cake, but he can draw Papa f'n Smurf on it while knowing where it is going and that's OK, and the Court is actually listening to this horseshit distinction and including it in the opinion??? That's ludicrous. There should be two very easy, distinct issues here: are Colorado's business anti-discrimination laws Constitutional under freedom of religion/religious expression, and is what is good for the goose good for the gander? The Court punted on both, period. You know why? Because the obvious answer to #1 pisses off half the country, and the obvious answer to #2 if you wrongly answer #1 opens the door to all kinds of ugly shit. Punting has been more acceptable for the Court for a while now. If you are going to punt, just decline the case.

 

[HerdBuckeye]

Kind of weird to return to the office after a two hour meeting, only to find Bucky talking about my crank. Very queer, but I reckon that's better than his usual fascination with Raleigh's two young kids.

You mean two hours away fvcking was the goat.