And now it's official

[vraiblonde]

Supreme Court tosses ruling against bakers who refused cake for gay couple

The Supreme Court threw out a ruling against Oregon bakers who refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

www.foxnews.com

The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a ruling against two Oregon bakers who refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

Just go to a different damn bakery, how freaking hard is that??

The central disputes in the case -- which pits LGBT rights against religious freedom considerations -- have yet to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

The Supremes need to jump on this and put it to rest. I am completely over these activist groups wanting to make a big stink about every little thing and these activist "judges" denying Christians their religious freedom. It's unconstitutional and any judge who forces someone to go against their religious beliefs needs to be removed from the bench.

 

[GURPS]

Awesome ....

 

[GWguy]

I would have been very disappointed with any other decision.

 

[officeguy]

Not really. At this point, the lower court can just reaffirm their initial wrong ruling. The supreme Court has yet to rule on the actual cake issue, everything so far has been procedural.

 

[Merlin99]

Supreme Court tosses ruling against bakers who refused cake for gay couple

The Supreme Court threw out a ruling against Oregon bakers who refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

www.foxnews.com

The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a ruling against two Oregon bakers who refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

Just go to a different damn bakery, how freaking hard is that??

The central disputes in the case -- which pits LGBT rights against religious freedom considerations -- have yet to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

The Supremes need to jump on this and put it to rest. I am completely over these activist groups wanting to make a big stink about every little thing and these activist "judges" denying Christians their religious freedom. It's unconstitutional and any judge who forces someone to go against their religious beliefs needs to be removed from the bench.

It only works until someone decides that they can use the same excuse to discriminate against against a protected class. At that point the Supremes have to make a choice to add a new protected class, tell the LGBT community they are on their own, or decide that people as a whole are allowed to associate or discriminate as they want and let the chips fall as they may.

 

[vraiblonde]

Not really. At this point, the lower court can just reaffirm their initial wrong ruling.

They can, but it's kind of like my grandfather giving me that look when I was a kid and saying, "Now, Sam, if you had to do that over again, what would you do different?" That was my opportunity to come up with the correct response, as opposed to what I did the first time, and if I still didn't get it right there was going to be trouble.

The Supremes kicking it back is them giving that judge the look.

 

[officeguy]

They can, but it's kind of like my grandfather giving me that look when I was a kid and saying, "Now, Sam, if you had to do that over again, what would you do different?" That was my opportunity to come up with the correct response, as opposed to what I did the first time, and if I still didn't get it right there was going to be trouble.

The Supremes kicking it back is them giving that judge the look.

The courts in neighboring washington state were not all that impressed by grandpas 'look' and just reaffirmed their ruling.

Until the supreme court rules on the underlying argument, these predatory lawsuits and overzealous state 'human rights' regulators can just continue to re-file and ruin businesses that don't want to yield to the secular humanist bulldozer.