ACLU sues baker for discrimination

What Fard would have said fifty years ago:

"So sad, they refused to serve me because I'm black! I am going to sue!!!! Talk about whiny babies."

Brandon wrote: What Fard would have said fifty years ago:

"So sad, they refused to serve me because I'm black! I am going to sue!!!! Talk about whiny babies."

Exactly my point, people equating this to actual Civil Rights legislation are morons. 99% of bakeries are going to bake that same sex wedding cake. And now it is 100%. Feel vindicated or are they just whiny little bitches?

In the 1960's, African-Americans were prohibited from most hotels, chain lunch counters, good restaurants, even water fountains and community swimming pools. See this happening to homosexuals right now? I don't.

It isn't a great triumph for homosexuals, it is simple bullying a Christian small business. Make him pay for having a minority opinion.

Fard, you don't know jack. At the time the masterpiece bakery scum refused to bake the cake, it was ALREADY ILLEGAL for a public business to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Brandon wrote: Fard, you don't know jack. At the time the masterpiece bakery scum refused to bake the cake, it was ALREADY ILLEGAL for a public business to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Good talking with you, Mr. Maturity. Be happy, the bullies won! You will comply! Squash the little guy like a bug!

So while you were cheering here, we had a story last week that was much worse. A Lowes customer requested that a white person deliver his purchase so Lowes fired their African-American driver. So while you were concerned with cakes and crumpets, real world corporate discrimination was going on. There are rules against this too, but it still happened.

FredHayek wrote: Good talking with you, Mr. Maturity. Be happy, the bullies won! You will comply! Squash the little guy like a bug!

It's called FOLLOWING THE LAW, Fard. Rightwingscum breaks the law, rightwingscum loses.

FredHayek wrote: So while you were cheering here, we had a story last week that was much worse. A Lowes customer requested that a white person deliver his purchase so Lowes fired their African-American driver. So while you were concerned with cakes and crumpets, real world corporate discrimination was going on. There are rules against this too, but it still happened.

Link, Fard.

Breaking the law? Right now you are breaking the federal law against smoking dope and posting just like you normally do.

Federal Law has no power in this state.
How many people who smoke that has been in the news since mary jane was voted in are in jail now?
None.

All persons who have been jailed for this particular plant need to be released

Supreme Court rules on narrow grounds for baker who refused to create same-sex couple's wedding cake
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
Published 10:23 a.m. ET June 4, 2018

WASHINGTON – A divided Supreme Court on Monday absolved a Colorado baker of discrimination for refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple, ruling that the state exhibited "religious hostility" against him.

The 7-2 verdict criticized the state's treatment of Jack Phillips' religious objections to gay marriage in 2012, several years before the practice was legalized nationwide.

As a result, the long-awaited decision did not resolve whether other opponents of same-sex marriage, including bakers, florists, photographers and videographers, can refuse commercial wedding services to gay couples. Phillips' victory, the court said, was limited to the facts of the Colorado case.

Kennedy acknowledged that business owners generally cannot deny equal access to goods and services under a neutral public accommodations law.

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts," Kennedy said. "These disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."

Read more here: www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/201...emptions/1052989001/

"the court said, was limited to the facts of the Colorado case."

As it should be. It is the role of the legislature to enact laws.