Why 9h why would you even want to give your $$ to nasty fools?

@AnneWimsey They did it as a test case. They intentionally went to this baker knowing he wouldn't do it, so that they could take him to court. This guy with the anti LGBT cake, I'd have just asked him to leave. If he refused he'd get a trespass charge from the cops. If he put his hands on me, we could go. I don't care. I'd throw him out bodily somehow or exercise 2nd Amendment.

Refusing to make a Cake for a GAY wedding is Discrimination. It's no different from a Cake shop in the south refusing to make a cake for an interracial couple. It's all discrimination. Religion is used to excuse this bigoted behaviour under the guise of religious freedom. There should be no exemptions for religious beliefs. Discrimination is wrong no matter where it comes from or what it uses to try to justify it.

@dermot235 That's your opinion. They could've went to any bakery. They choose his bakery intentionally so as to set up a legal challenge. They got one and they lost. If I were an atheist baker I could refuse to make a Christian nativity cake. It's the same thing. It goes against my belief system..

@barjoe If you were an Atheist Baker you COULD NOT refuse to make a Christian Cake. That would be discrimination. That's what discrimination is. And the Civil rights activists went in to restaurants in the south to confront segregation. They did that intentionally, does that make them wrong to have done that

@dermot235 SCOTUS 7-2 says you're wrong. It's called a precedent. But you'll still argue. I find that to not be smart.

@barjoe SCOTUS is wrong. Scotus is a court not an oracle that speaks the truth

Would you tell a Black person in the Sixties that they can go to another restaurant that will not segregate them as a solution to segregation?

@dermot235 Not the same thing. If they were happy to serve black people from their menu and a black person asked them to make something different and they said no. THAT is not discrimination.

@barjoe It's the same discrimination

@dermot235 It's like a restaurant not allowing substitutions on the menu. Whether the customers, gay, black, Irish or whatever. It's a business decision, it's not discrimination.

@barjoe IT's NOT. The Cake can be the same but the Cake shop is refusing to give it to a Gay couple. That's discrimination

@dermot235 They're not refusing to sell them a cake, they're refusing to make a custom cake that they don't want to. If someone asked a bakery to make a religious icon cake, knowing the owner was an atheist, that would be underhanded of them. That atheist bakery should have a right to refuse to bake that cake. If I told them, you're a Christian, Jew, Muslim. I'm an Atheist. Get the fuck out. That would be discrimination.

@barjoe They MAKE custom Cakes. It's a product they advertise to sell. If you want to discriminate then you should not open a business. It's that simple. You can't open up a business that only serves Whites or only serves certain people. Religion is not an excuse to discriminate. It is but it should not be. If you started a religion that said people in Wheelchairs are Demons, would it be ok to refuse them a product you sell because they are in a wheelchair.

That atheist bakery should NOT have a right to refuse to bake a cake for a religious person.
That's discrimination.

@dermot235 Well that atheist has that right here in the US as per SCOTUS. That being said I support freedom of and from religion. I support LGBT rights. Based on your logic, that woman should've been forced to decorate that Anti-Gay cake. She should not. I would've drop kicked his ass out the door.

@barjoe Hate Speech is not something that should be allowed. It should be illegal to put Hate speech on a cake regardless of what it says. Putting John and Mark love each other or putting Mary and Anne love each other on a cake is not Hate Speech. I know Freedom of speech allows Hate speech in the US. I just think it's wrong. I don't care what SCOTUS says. I disagree with SCOTUS. And I find SCOTUS decisions that allow discrimination bases on religious beliefs abhorrent.

We should also remember that SCOTUS interprets the law, it does not make the law. That's the job of congress. And if the constitution is wrong it should be changed. That's why there have been amendments to the constitution. SCOTUS work with the constitution they are given. They did not create the constitution and have no right to change it. And there has been SCOTUS justices that agree with me on this. Just not a majority.