SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[oxmixmudd]

You are only allowed to watch Fox!

I try very hard to read/watch a large number of outlets from several points of view. That said, Mr. Trump represents such a egregious violation of anything even remotely resembling morality (not to mention his ridiculous silence on the attempts by Russian government to influence our electoral process), I have a very difficult time with both Fox and the GOP's refusal to call him out.

Jim

[seer]

I try very hard to read/watch a large number of outlets from several points of view. That said, Mr. Trump represents such a egregious violation of anything even remotely resembling morality (not to mention his ridiculous silence on the attempts by Russian government to influence our electoral process), I have a very difficult time with both Fox and the GOP's refusal to call him out.

Jim

Jim, I have some special Kool-Aid I can send you... Free of charge!

[rogue06]

I try very hard to read/watch a large number of outlets from several points of view.

Same here. I make a point of watching CNN, HLN and MSNBC as well as reading the Washington Post and New York Times as often as possible in order to avoid getting my info from an echo chamber.

I had a boss who was shocked when he saw me reading a copy of the NYT asking why I read that "garbage." I pointed out that it is important to understand how "the other side" actually thinks rather than relying on what your own side claims they think.

That said, Mr. Trump represents such a egregious violation of anything even remotely resembling morality (not to mention his ridiculous silence on the attempts by Russian government to influence our electoral process), I have a very difficult time with both Fox and the GOP's refusal to call him out.

Jim

Watch Shepard Smith if you want to see someone on Fox regularly call out Trump for many of his antics.

[firstfloor]

"Jack serves all customers; he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs."

But that is not what Jack was asked to do. The messages were not his messages and the celebration was not his celebration.

[oxmixmudd]

I really don't see how they could have ignored his religion since that was the whole reason he didn't want to create the cake in the first place.

Exactly. This case pits two basic constitutional principles directly against each other. The result has to choose one over the other. And I believe their reasoning lays out a fairly reasonable standard for how to chose which of the two takes precedence.

Jim

[rogue06]

"Jack serves all customers; he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs."

But that is not what Jack was asked to do. The messages were not his messages and the celebration was not his celebration.

But he was being compelled to express those views in his work.

[firstfloor]

[oxmixmudd]

But that is not what Jack was asked to do. The messages were not his messages and the celebration was not his celebration.

Doesn't matter. In fact, that is not far from the sort of moral indifference that allows racial persecution or things like the holocaust to happen. Why not paint pictures for Hitler? It's not my message, nor is it my house they are hanging in. "Can't you see that lynching over there?", "Not my problem".

A moral person CAN'T create what he believes to be wrong. Not if he has a backbone. If a person really believes something is wrong, they can have no part of it.


Jim

[Cow Poke]

But that is not what Jack was asked to do. The messages were not his messages and the celebration was not his celebration.

SCOTUS has SPOKUS.

[firstfloor]

But he was being compelled to express those views in his work.

[DesertBerean]

But that is not what Jack was asked to do. The messages were not his messages and the celebration was not his celebration.

Tell me how the explicit custom order of a product that contradicted his sincerely held beliefs is not an explicit invitation to join the celebration.

[Cow Poke]

Doesn't appear to matter...

Yes, the Opinion says that the Colorado Appeals court acted improperly when it distinguished those cases from this one only "because of the offensive nature of the requested message."

[Cow Poke]

My baby sister would slap you with her mixer! Her cakes are most DEFINITELY art!

(please tell me you're just trolling, and not really this stupid)

[One Bad Pig]

Decorating a cake is not art, now?

[firstfloor]

SCOTUS has SPOKUS.

Just commenting on the commentary. A bit like Trump.