"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that 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," Kennedy added.
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that 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," Kennedy added.
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that 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," Kennedy added.
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
I'm glad the gay marriage is legal and logically it makes sense to me from a legal contract perspective. That said, declare victory and go home- i.e., leave the baker alone. Plenty of bakers out there to take your money. And no there's no moral equivalence with Jim Crow era lunch counters here.
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that 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," Kennedy added.
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
I laugh my ass off when Mohamed tells guys to throw gays off buildings. Its just like a wedding cake only violent and bloody
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that 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," Kennedy added.
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
I laugh my ass off when Mohamed tells guys to throw gays off buildings. Its just like a wedding cake only violent and bloody
But the left loves mooselimbs. That's the funny part.
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that 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," Kennedy added.
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.
SCOTUS came nowhere close to even considering the business and discrimination issues. Their entire ruling was about the animosity the local commission showed against the baker dude.
I'm glad the gay marriage is legal and logically it makes sense to me from a legal contract perspective. That said, declare victory and go home- i.e., leave the baker alone. Plenty of bakers out there to take your money. And no there's no moral equivalence with Jim Crow era lunch counters here.
The problem with sexuality as the basis for a legally protected class is anyone can claim to be homosexual at a time and place of their choosing. Anne Heche was once openly & famously lesbian and partnered with Ellen. Now, she's married to a man. Did she lose legal protections between Ellen-time and cock-time?
I'm glad the gay marriage is legal and logically it makes sense to me from a legal contract perspective. That said, declare victory and go home- i.e., leave the baker alone. Plenty of bakers out there to take your money. And no there's no moral equivalence with Jim Crow era lunch counters here.
The problem with sexuality as the basis for a legally protected class is anyone can claim to be homosexual at a time and place of their choosing. Anne Heche was once openly & famously lesbian and partnered with Ellen. Now, she's married to a man. Did she lose legal protections between Ellen-time and cock-time?
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that 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," Kennedy added.
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes! This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
I'm glad the gay marriage is legal and logically it makes sense to me from a legal contract perspective. That said, declare victory and go home- i.e., leave the baker alone. Plenty of bakers out there to take your money. And no there's no moral equivalence with Jim Crow era lunch counters here.
The problem with sexuality as the basis for a legally protected class is anyone can claim to be homosexual at a time and place of their choosing. Anne Heche was once openly & famously lesbian and partnered with Ellen. Now, she's married to a man. Did she lose legal protections between Ellen-time and cock-time?
Did she sign a marriage certificate will Ellen?
Wasn't talking about marriage per se, so I probably shouldn't have quoted you're poast. I was talking more broadly (lololllolo), like employment non-discrimination laws, etc.
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that 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," Kennedy added.
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes! This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that 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," Kennedy added.
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
I laugh my ass off when Mohamed tells guys to throw gays off buildings. Its just like a wedding cake only violent and bloody
Because I don't think all Muslims want to kill us, means I support all their beliefs. Such fucktarded logic Race. You are smarter than that.
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that 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," Kennedy added.
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
I laugh my ass off when Mohamed tells guys to throw gays off buildings. Its just like a wedding cake only violent and bloody
Because I don't think all Muslims want to kill us, means I support all their beliefs. Such fucktarded logic Race. You are smarter than that.
So you think all Christians want to kill you? Is that why you only mention rhem?
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that 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," Kennedy added.
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
I laugh my ass off when Mohamed tells guys to throw gays off buildings. Its just like a wedding cake only violent and bloody
Because I don't think all Muslims want to kill us, means I support all their beliefs. Such fucktarded logic Race. You are smarter than that.
So you think all Christians want to kill you? Is that why you only mention rhem?
topdawgnc
Member Posts: 7,838
Comments
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that 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," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.