The main lesson everyone is meant to learn here and in any similar situation is that the Gay Agenda tops your Religious Faith. They can't just move on to the next Baker, this one must be punished. The first Judge to hear this complaint should have had the common decency to tell these offended citizens to drop it and find a different baker!

Mortdooley wrote on Dec 12^th, 2017 at 9:43pm:


No, it just needs to be handled differently without either side getting butt hurt. What could the poofs have done if the shop said "No we have no Adam and Steve dolls and we have none on order, we can make the cake but you'll have to find your own decorations."

Mortdooley wrote on Dec 12^th, 2017 at 10:33pm:


He didn't ask what they wanted....He said he would not supply them a custom cake but they can buy anything off the shelf....The court must decide why he refused to provide the service he advertised to these particular men....His reason for refusing service is the whole case!!!

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 12^th, 2017 at 10:49pm:


How the f@#k would I know....The laws are different everywhere in the world and every religion is different....Perhaps you should ring your local church and ask if they will marry you and your boyfriend if you are concerned???

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 12^th, 2017 at 11:04pm:


I am no do-gooder and I am not an advocate for gay people....Sorry to offend you!!!

Mr Hammer wrote....
Quote:


I never did....You must have me confused with someone else!!!

The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments the case of a Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to make a “gay” wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex couple’s marriage. According to Phillips, same-sex marriage violates his religious belief that God only sanctions marriages between a man and a woman. He argues that requiring him to bake the cake violates his First Amendment right to religious freedom.

The strongest legal precedent is Reynolds v. United States (1879). In this case the Supreme Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy. The Court ruled that freedom of religion prevented the government from regulating religious belief, but permitted government to regulate actions such as marriage. The Reynolds decision means that Jack Phillips is free to believe what he wants to believe, but not free to do whatever he wants to do or to claim a religious exemption from equal rights laws.

In the 1960s, Piggie Park was a chain of restaurants in South Carolina that refused to serve African Americans. The owner of the restaurants argued that the federal Civil Rights Act violated religious beliefs that compelled him to “oppose any integration of the races whatever.” Federal courts dismissed his argument and in 1968, in Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, the Supreme Court ruled that Piggie Park had to pay Newman’s attorney fees.

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court decided that Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to someone who was fired from a job for illegally smoking peyote during a religious ceremony. Once again, the Court ruled religious freedom did not excuse people from obeying the law.