SCOTUS Overturns Case Against Gay-Biased Baker

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding over religious reasons. In a landmark 7-2 ruling (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor against), the Court found that the decision by Jack Philips of Masterpiece Cakeshop to refuse the same-sex couple’s request is protected under the first amendment.

In 2012 gay fiancés David Mullins and Charlie Craig asked Philips to create a custom cake for their wedding. Philips, who does not make cakes for Halloween, adult parties, anti-American messages or themes which he has religious objections to, refused.


Good, I’m glad.
I personally do not give a rat’s ass about who marries who, it ain’t none of my business and it doesn’t affect my life one bit. That’s just me.
My biggest objection to this whole deal, like many of you, is that if the baker refused, why didn’t they just go to another shop? Why force their lifestyle on somebody who quietly objected to it? As soon as they filed suit, it affected that baker’s life and that’s just flat out wrong.

This entry was posted in News, WiscoDave. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to SCOTUS Overturns Case Against Gay-Biased Baker

  1. philinpueblo says:

    I agree with you, Kenny. None of my business who marries who. The progressives, however, want us to care. The want not our tolerance but our approval – our celebration,even. They will not be happy until every head is bowed and every knee is bent in submission. That’s why I celebrate this decision. If nothing else, it sets them back a bit.

  2. JF says:

    Why did they do it? Because they are big fucking assholes, that’s why.

  3. Padawan says:

    From what I’ve read this couple went to several bakeries until they found one who wouldn’t bake the cake for them then filed suit against the owner.

    • Frank says:

      That was my take on it as well.
      They weren’t looking for a cake, they were looking for a fight.

      • rick says:

        When Jack Phillips turned them away, the first phone call was less than twenty minutes later. That is from his own words. He was notified of the suit within the first day. This was definitely a planned attack.

  4. This gay couple should fully compensate the cake maker for legal fees, time and loss of business.

  5. RebPirate says:

    What bothers me is that they (the offended) always seem to go for the ONE baker, photographer, planner, etc. that has religious objections. On more than one occasion, it has been revealed that they (the offended) traveled miles, sometimes entire counties out of their way to find and punish that ONE business. Like you, I don’t care who marries who. I’m just surprised that there doesn’t seem to be one single “gay” baker, photographer, planner, etc. within walking distance of the place they call home. Or at least one within the same area code.
    Good on the SCotUS! And congratulations to the bakery that MAYBE can get back to business.

  6. Dirk The Impailer says:

    Of course, this baker’s life was already ruined and his livelihood destroyed. This “victory” doesn’t bring back any of that!!!

    So the Gaystapo is still laughing as they plan on the next normal person (especially those evil old Christians) that they will destroy using our legal system. As long as there are so many LIE-beral activist judges out there, they will continue to pull this garbage no matter what the Supreme Court says!!!!!

    • Alex Lund says:

      They can do this because of one simple reason:

      Evil prevails because good men do nothing.

      I once read a story about a city in the USA where a guy did something that angered the capo of the Mob. After a few well-dressed men with shades visited the guy (just talking) the problem was gone.
      Those guys must have outstanding rhetorical skills, dont you think?

    • arc says:

      IIRC, a gofundme, or similar donation raised quite a sum for them to build a new business.

      The gays should still have to pony up every dime for the legal fees and pay to rebuild the business. If they can’t pay, then they can pay with jail time.

    • lineman says:

      Until the right realizes we are at war with the Commies this shit will keep on happening…

    • odgreen says:

      Yeah, that’s true, but just like in “The Wrath of The Awakened Saxon” one of these days the real men (I’m not refering to the PC milktoast christianity here) of the true church are going to say enough. And, paraphrasing the old saying, “When (special snowflakes) riot, cities burn. When (Christian men with righteous anger) riot, continents burn.

  7. MMinLamesa says:

    Stephen Chrowder(sp?) went into several moslim run bakeries(filming), dressed as a homo and tried to order gay themed cakes. They told him to get the fuck out.

    No blowback. Hmmm, funny how they take moslims pretty seriously.

  8. ChuckN says:

    I’ve read through the decision and notice that the ruling doesn’t actually address the idea of a religious exemption. Instead SCOTUS focuses on how the state of Colorado openly and blatantly discriminated against the baker in order to render judgment.

    What’s really surprised me is that though Ginsberg and Sotomayer ruled against the baker (big shock there) Kagan ruled with the majority.

    • Gator says:

      What bothers me about this whole case is that it was made to be about religion. This should be about property rights, not religious objections. As a business owner, your rights should be the same as a homeowner. Don’t want someone in your home (or place of business), you should be able to tell them to get the fuck out. You should be allowed to do so for any reason of your choosing, and you shouldn’t have to attempt to prove its over a ‘sincerely held religious belief’ either. “I don’t like your fucking face, so get the fuck out” should be all you need to say as a business owner. All of that ‘public accomodation’ bullshit needs to find itself in the trash can of history.

      For the record, I don’t give a shit who marries or has sex with who, as long as its between two consenting adults. I, personally, wouldn’t give a shit about making a gay wedding cake if I was a baker, either. Turning away money doesn’t seem like a good way to run a business, but it should be up to the business owner, or property owner, to make that decision.

      • ChuckN says:

        You may turn away money but if you know that trouble awaits it’s a loss well spent. If I get burned once it’s a fluke, twice I’m cautious but a 3rd time will get a person or even a demographic banned. For instance I refuse to work for anybody from certain cities/town (example: Boston),
        I also refuse to hire anyone from certain schools; say Harvard. Have I lost money, sure but given past experience and seeing what happens to others who’ve taken a job I refuse; I’ve still come out ahead.

  9. Jimmy the Saint says:

    “My biggest objection to this whole deal, like many of you, is that if the baker refused, why didn’t they just go to another shop? Why force their lifestyle on somebody who quietly objected to it? As soon as they filed suit, it affected that baker’s life and that’s just flat out wrong.”

    The proper response is “Now you’ve made it my/our business. You’re going to regret being that stupid.”

  10. Professor Hale says:

    It was never about the cake. It was about Christianity.

  11. xtron says:

    40 years ago the gay movement was all about “stay the hell out of my bed room, it’s none of your business. just leave us alone.”
    today it’s “you WILL accept, condone, and support my choice whether you like it or not, or we WILL take you to court and ruin your life.”
    funny how that worked.
    and they want us to “trust” them on gun control.

  12. Unclezip says:

    Go ahead. Eat it.

  13. Rickvid in Seattle says:

    There was in my part of town a bakery called The Erotic Bakery. Gone now. Mostly gay stuff, all tasteless, not speaking of flavor as I never tried their wares.

    I wonder, if the vermin from Westboro Baptist (they are not) Church (no, an inbreeding group) showed up and demanded that the bakery not only make pastries for a God Hates Fags-themed wedding, but further demanded that the bakers themselves cater and serve the event, would the same folks in such high dudgeon over this ruling be similarly outraged at The Erotic Bakery? Not on your life!

    And the bakers would not even have a protected right to site, just personal distaste, which is not protected. But, then, the left do not have principles, just reaction.

  14. twmaster says:

    Well I’m just glad to see SCOTUS slap down these professionally offended twits.

    I was not aware these fools went baker shopping to find one to destroy. Sickening.

  15. RTinWeimar says:

    And the LSM (Reuters) is reporting a “Narrow Win for the Baker”. Yea…7-2 is a narrow win alright.

    • warhorse says:

      it was narrow as in they said the discrimination law did not take into account religious objections. so it only applies to this one single instance. someone could get sued again tomorrow for exactly the same thing, and it would be legal. all they have to do is say they looked at, and dismissed, someone’s religious objections because of someone else’s interpretations of the bible.

  16. fjord says:

    “In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

    ― Theodore Dalrymple

If your comment 'disappears', don't trip - it went to my trash folder and I will restore it when I moderate.