supreme court ruling against the gay couple and the wedding cake baker is a very
dangerous and unfair decision.
A divided Supreme Court on Monday absolved a Colorado baker of discrimination
for refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple, ruling that the state exhibited "religious hostility" against him.
The Supreme Court said that part of the baker's religion is that he discriminates against gay
people. To respect his religion, the Court decided that he didn't have to make a wedding
cake for the gay couple. This is not how the freedom of religion is supposed to work.
The problem with the Supreme Court's logic is that they are essentially saying it's OK to
discriminate against anyone based on your religious beliefs. So if your religion doesn't like
African Americans, they don't have to make them wedding cakes. It's the same logic that
people used in the 1960s to justify not serving African Americans at restuarants.
If someone doesn't like Jews because they consider them evil, they don't have to make wedding
cakes for Jewish people. The Supreme Court - all controlled by the illuminati - are trying to make
it legal to discriminate against people.
The correct ruling should have been that the baker was illegally discriminating against the gay couple.
How is the gay couple infringing on the baker's religion? They aren't asking him to deny his beliefs,
they just asking him to make them a cake. Really it shoudln't have been a big deal, but the illuminati
is trying to take away gay rights in America.
The Ruling itself was a mess of contradictions and confusions. Justice Kennedy wrote the decision - the same
Judge who wrote the decision allowing gay marriage.
Kennedy reasoned that Phillips, in refusing to create a same-sex wedding cake, had good reason to believe he was within his rights.
State law at the time allowed merchants some latitude to decline specific messages, such as those demeaning gay people and gay marriages.
This doesn't make any sense. The State law banning demeaning speech about gays is not the same thing
as the Court saying it's ok for the baker to refuse the gay couple's business. If someone asks for a wedding cake with
naked people on it, that's a legitimate reason for the Baker to say no. But they can't just decide they don't like
the color of someone's skin or that they're homosexual. That kind of discrimination should not be protected