35 Comments on “Supreme Court rules for baker in same-sex wedding cake case”

  1. What there attorney said you know they just wanted to ruin his life, usually I don't like to combine religion into politics but I definitely think God was looking out for him to protect his rights.

  2. It would be tyranny for the state to force any artist to produce art against their religious beliefs. This is self evident. Only a hateful bully would use state power to force an artist to create something against their will. I am pro gay marriage and totally gay friendly. I can’t imagine any of my gay friends forcing an artist into involuntarily servitude with police power. My friends would much rather go elsewhere. Rather too much like slavery.

  3. thank god the SC defended freedom against the leftist totalitarian lgbt…whatever ideology. this fagg…ts can get another cake easily but the brave baker would violate his religious believes by supporting this "marriage".

  4. Ethically, an individual's intimate sacred convictions of how they view their own spiritual responsibility in light of their infinite vocation before its divine source, outweighs a secondary person's vapid whim to have their temporal carnal appetite honored and indulged at the expense of the first virtuous pursuant's moral dignity.

    Lawfully, creating specifically personalized detailed decorated baked good as a celebratorial centerpiece is a labor intensive art form. An artist can accept any commision on a conciliatory basis, or decline if the content and purpose of its propogation propose a direct idiological conflict which would heinously compromise the integrity of the artist's personal expressionistic aims.

    Logically, it's flabergasting how some will pretend they believe in freedom when it's conveniently exclusive to their own benefit, yet want to forcefully sanction institutional coercion upon another individual's rightful prerogative to attend to the sovereignty of their own private occupation when it does not wish to complement a disharmonious enterprise or ingratiate a contradictory excercise.

    Practically, no sentiently volitioned practitioner is inheirantly owed the unanimous exaltation from all other autonomously agented consciences, except that they be allowed the benign opportunity to live peaceably – in unobstruction toward other's ability to do the same – in accordance with the profound awareness of their own existance.

    Fairly, within civil communal compromise, everyone should be permited to considerately assemble and demonstrate their wills and their won'ts as long as it does not oppress an opposition's equal consideration to exact themselves in kind.

    Emotionally, how anyone feels within their own thoughtful discerning and intellectual discriminating is exclusively obligated to each one's unique internal compartmentalized concern and conquest. It is not and cannot be incumbent upon outside entities to mold their empathies simpatico with any others. Mindful tolerance is a far different objective than blind acceptance. Pathos is too singular of an experience to be adequate for broad based appeals on behalf of a consensus logos or ethos, except to acknowledge that it has idiosyncratic merit on the discrete character for its occupier. 

    Objectively, while psychology is a quantifiable study with applicable scientific context, attitudal axioms are a varied spectrum of wholly subjective senses – therefore soley inappropriate for objective political standardizations. One may take exhilaration or exception toward whatever they deem fit, but such a thought or feeling is not necessarily fit as actional implementation in behavioral deed for the greater general good. Indoctrinated faith is also a subjective esoteria, albeit often within the formalized arbitration of an objectively organized church – which nonetheless is why religion in-and-of-itself also cannot be imposed as a valid platform for public proceedure or policy. Though through moderate mores, the private prominance of personal principal and even psychosis can be protected as long as it does not oppress or impede as an ideal in actualization.

    Basically, people need to learn to just hold their nose and tuck in their toes. Stop stepping in other's domain and then complaining about the smell. In other words, let's all mind our own damn business!

    Anyone is free to refute this, save for the fact that it's irrefutable.

  5. One can argue this is just a cake… but what if it were health care? Slippery slope. Sorry, I can't treat you because you are LGBTQ or you are too religious, etc. Could you imagine… if someone too religious was refused a cake (or health care)? I don't think their supporters would be saying, "religious freedom". Exactly.

  6. You liberals gotta stop getting so butthurt. This is a first world problem, there are people starving and dying of disease and you are fucking complaining about a CAKE.

  7. I’m a lifelong Democrat and even though I hate conservatives who consider themselves Christians because they are racist which goes against the Bible, I’m with the baker. As long as he isn’t racist or homophobic, he has the right to refuse service. He doesn’t seem like he hates the LGBT community, merely he just doesn’t want to go violate his own religion.

    The gay couple could’ve just gone to a different bakery, there’s tons of them here in the United States.

  8. bakers should've lost their business. they did it because it was discrimination, not because it's their right to deny service. so what now, imagine if hotels can deny you service because you're black. "my religious says black people are sin". or a bus driver can deny you a seat because you're a muslim. NO! these 2 people should've been thrown in jail, it's blatant discrimination, their god does not even exist.

  9. I’m on team baker. It’s his store, a private store. He has a right to freedom of beliefs and religion. Go to another store. They have a right to their wedding but he has a right to his religious beliefs. Since it’s his store, why should his beliefs yield to make way for their benefits?

  10. I wonder how much money it cost that baker in legal fee's just because a couple of HOMOsexuals got their panties in a bunch. He'll probably loose his cake shop over this crap. So glad he won though.

  11. That is bullshit. I love god and i don't agree with same sex marriage. But to say if i own a bakery i would bake there cake. To say that it is against your belief bullshit it don't say in the bible you can't help out a gay person i had a gay best friend he passed away but i never ever said i can't be your friend cause it is against my belief. He knew how i felt about it but i was never ever ashamed of him and he respected that and he was a caring and wonderful person

  12. notice how they try to make it like the baker is violating the gay couple's rights,,,
    the baker has a RIGHT to choose how to exercise his skills and who to engage with, that's under the 1st Amendment, freedom of expression
    the gay couple does NOT have a right to someone else's skills and services, last time I checked, the constitution doesn't say ANYTHING about a RIGHT to goods and services from another person

  13. Yay!!! so happy for this Christian ✝ stand firm in Gods word. Ur were kind enough to offer to make the cake just not willing to do the gay pride colors.. Funny how the news doesnt give the whole story.. No one should be forced to go against the Bible.. PERIOD!!!!!

  14. This is discrimination! Idk why so many people support the Baker he is denying service to a gay couple it's discrimination it's like denying service to someone because they are black

  15. Fake news all the way, I support CNN and the talking heads lying to me 247
    California, uh uh, I mean colorado, yeah exacally because in Commiefornia baker would be charged with murder

  16. You have no right to force your views on anyone. Make a Nazi cake, pro deathpenalty cake, gay cake, straight pride cake, Maga cake, Clinton cake, so a white supremist can say to a mexican make my cake or pay me…fuck no.

  17. This has nothing to do with labor. It has everything to do with someone's freedom of speech. You're not entitled to someone else's speech. CNN is never telling the full story! Change the circumstances. What if a white supremacist wanted a Holocaust survivor to write on a cake something positive about Hitler? Standards don't become twice as good when you have double standards people.

  18. we could be doing so many more productive things for this nation and the people instead we are arguing over a bloody cake….. seriously just go to another bakery….. %110 sure its that easy but they just have to be fussy and make a scene. Lame and shame of those two guys…. the baker has his rights and his beliefs are protected its that simple. He is not a bigot.. -__-

Comments are closed.