SCOTUS rules in favor of baker who did not serve gay couple

Post Reply New Topic

SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Baker Who Wouldn’t Make Cake for Gay Couple

Well, isn't that just special!

I wonder how long that baker will stay in business with all of the pickets, boycotts, and bad publicity directed at him (her?).

Honestly, it's been so long since I first read about this that it's "fallen of my radar".

So does that mean if I own a business and state it is against my religion to serve Christians than I should have the right to do that? And if challenged In court I can just cite that my religious beliefs where not being taken seriously enough.

"We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone"

I see this sign in a lot of mom-and-pop stores and restaurants near where I live.

It is a right that every merchant everywhere has.

The caveat is that if a merchant exercises this right, then that merchant should be prepared for a backlash from anyone who sympathizes with the person who was not served by the merchant.

While merchants have the right to refuse service, potential customers have a similar right to refuse to buy anything from that merchant.

What goes around comes around.

^ That doesn't apply to protected classes of people.

For example, you can refuse to serve a person because he's being rude; however, you could not refuse to serve a person because he is black. "Race" is a protected category, while "behavior" is not.

As it so happens, being gay is only a protected category in a few states.

GOOD!!

I realize it's a limited verdict, or whatever----and I wish it was better-defined----but I wish more people would stand-up for their rights. Too many times people think others' rights should be taken-away, so they can have their own rights----such hypocrisy, IMO. Can't anyone have a / settle for "medium" (meaning, in this instance "find a happy medium)?

If one goes to a business and they won't serve them, or whatever, cuz they're ugly (LOL), go find a business that WILL serve your ugly butt!! I know that sounds like a silly emotional response on my part, but I'm sick and tired of people WHINING----oh, boo hoo, he hurt my feelings----then, the people get their way; someone enables their continued whining!!

The recent incident with Starbuck's callin' the cops on a couple of black men that wanted to use the bathroom without buying something, is a prime example, IMO, of a business buckling and thus enabling the whining to continue. Starbucks, of all people (a major corporation) could afford the very, VERY slight reduction in profits (IMO) that it MIGHT cost them. I was terribly sadden by their decision to make such a big deal out of closing down their stores and announcing that they were gonna have a "sensitivity class" for their employees, or whatever it was. Like I said, I feel they could have afforded what I feel would have amounted to a very minute loss. Sure, a-million-and-one people would've jumped on the "How dare they" bandwagon, just so they could whine, TOO----but, come Monday morning, they'd be stoppin'-by for their cup of Joe. Just ask Chick-fil-A if it hurt their business when they said something about gay people; the answer would be "nada".

I think "protected class" is a bunch of horse-hockey, as well, BTW. As I've said before, I miss the days when people could pick-on whomever they wanted (the Archie Bunker days), and the person getting picked-on would just have to grow a spine!!

I hope this bakery has more business than they know what to do with----that their profit margin skyrockets----and, God bless 'em!! Am I against gay people? Certainly not----and I've said this many times, on here! I AM, however, FOR people's rights, and FOR government keepin' their noses OUT of those rights!!

The baker will always win or you risk eating spit.