Supreme Court Ruling

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
5,338
716
113
#2
Great decision. Very happy the court stood up for freedom of religious expression and practice.

It would be interesting for that same gay couple to go to a Muslim bakery and see what their reception would be....
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
13,495
6,158
113
#3
Great decision. Very happy the court stood up for freedom of religious expression and practice.
It seems that the Supreme Court is finally trying to do what it should have done all along -- uphold the Constitution and the existing laws, instead of engaging in Left-Liberal activism.

Let's see if they are prepared to strike down all the lower court rulings which have been opposing the legal and constitutional policies of Donald Trump.
 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
8,414
616
113
#4
Yeah. This is fundamentally why I voted for Trump.

It seems that the Supreme Court is finally trying to do what it should have done all along -- uphold the Constitution and the existing laws, instead of engaging in Left-Liberal activism.

Let's see if they are prepared to strike down all the lower court rulings which have been opposing the legal and constitutional policies of Donald Trump.
 

Stunnedbygrace

Senior Member
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
819
113
#5
It seems that the Supreme Court is finally trying to do what it should have done all along -- uphold the Constitution and the existing laws, instead of engaging in Left-Liberal activism.

Let's see if they are prepared to strike down all the lower court rulings which have been opposing the legal and constitutional policies of Donald Trump.
I think they played out all of the moves on the board and said...oh no, we can't do what we would like to do here...
Bakers would have to make wedding cakes for witches, a man and his dog he decided to marry, two satan worshippers who wanted the devil and a pitchfork on their wedding cake, the words: all praise to allah on a wedding cake for two muslims, the message: keep abortion legal on some other wedding cake, Yay NAMBLA on another one, and the list goes on and on.
 

Gman

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2017
75
35
18
#6
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
819
113
#7
Okay, I'm sorry to bring this up again. I am not a political animal and I don't follow politics very closely at all. You can laugh at me but please don't yell at me for not understanding this. Yes, I'm ignorant about the supreme court.

I thought that if the supreme court ruled on something, that was it. So why, after the first clip in my op, am I seeing this? I don't understand how the supreme court works...? I wasn't a good student in high school, sorry.

https://www.toddstarnes.com/faith/o...tian-bakers-must-participate-in-gay-weddings/

How can a lower court levy a 135,000.00 fine for something the supreme court ruled that they can't do?
 

Oncefallen

Idiot in Chief
Staff member
Jan 15, 2011
5,770
2,194
113
#8
The Supreme Court's decision in the Jack Phillips case was very narrow and pertained to that case only because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed direct animosity (instead of neutrality) to Jack Phillips religious beliefs.
 

Odelschwanck

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2015
361
86
28
#10
It sure was final when they ruled on gay marriage
 

jameen

Senior Member
Feb 5, 2018
540
150
43
33
Manila
#11
I commend this decision but I really abhor their past decision allowing the nationwide same sex marriage.

IMHO I believe same sex marriage legality in the US depends on the city or county leaders meaning it is up to them to legalize it.

it should not be enforced nationwide especially if most people in a State are conservative Christians.
 

calibob

Sinner saved by grace
May 29, 2018
8,268
5,457
113
Anaheim, Cali.
#12
I commend this decision but I really abhor their past decision allowing the nationwide same sex marriage.

IMHO I believe same sex marriage legality in the US depends on the city or county leaders meaning it is up to them to legalize it.

it should not be enforced nationwide especially if most people in a State are conservative Christians.
amen to both statements business owners should be able to choose what products they will or not make and i think it's high time democracy returned to decision making.
 

calibob

Sinner saved by grace
May 29, 2018
8,268
5,457
113
Anaheim, Cali.
#13
i might not even be so broad minded as to impose certan laws statewide. compare san fransisco to sacremento. they are opposites.
 

Embankment

Senior Member
Feb 28, 2017
693
190
43
#14
amen to both statements business owners should be able to choose what products they will or not make and i think it's high time democracy returned to decision making.
It all depends on how the courts choose to define the law.
The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin.
I don’t see how discriminating against gay people can be upheld for long.
 

calibob

Sinner saved by grace
May 29, 2018
8,268
5,457
113
Anaheim, Cali.
#15
I think civil rights goes both ways. I'll beat the drum for civil rights but there is a point where it gets ridiculous too. Now before I start, i'm not Jewish, Muslim or Mormon. If I were a Jewish or Muslim caterer and some one demanded hogs head cheese, clams, raw oysters and lobster be served at a funtion. If I were a Mormon minister or Christian minister and someone asked me to perform an inter-racial or gay wedding, it's a violation of my civil rights to make me. When I was a mechanic if someone presented me with a $40 coupon for a tune up on a Porche with 6 barrel carburation. I reserved the right to say no. Any further discussion beyond this point merely enritshens lawers and judges
 
Jun 24, 2018
32
16
8
#16
The Supreme Court's decision in the Jack Phillips case was very narrow and pertained to that case only because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed direct animosity (instead of neutrality) to Jack Phillips religious beliefs.
Yes, it wasn't much of a victory. SCOTUS really sent back the case to be re-ruled, sans the open expression of hatred of Christianity by the tyrants persecuting the baker. In a way, it was a loss, because the ruling affirmed that the states could force people to service homosexuals.

There are four people on the Supreme Court with an absolute hatred of Christians and the Constitution. But, with the current bench, there's a chance of a 5-4 victory in the future, allowing people to refuse to produce custom products of an artistic nature which violates the beliefs of the artist.

It's a messed up country we live in when explicit constitutional rights are trumped by made-up "civil rights". It's also a messed up world when Christians ignore our real enemies for made-up enemies in the middle-east.
 

calibob

Sinner saved by grace
May 29, 2018
8,268
5,457
113
Anaheim, Cali.
#17
not all judges are Christians, Remove the Skull and Bonesmen and the Freemasons from or history and see who's left!
 

OstrichSmiling

Well-known member
Jun 17, 2018
1,027
414
83
#18
Here's another interesting story, about the baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/b...eme-court-decision/vi-AAyf4gN?ocid=spartandhp

What the court addressed but overlooked is that Mr.Phillips had designed and created with his own artistry a rainbow cake. And put that on display for public purchase. We can imagine that would someone buy that cake they could then request a design from Phillips be applied.
Mr.Phillips gave that cake to the gay couple who brought the charges against him for discriminating in the first place. They'd been customers for years.
This isn't something that was brought up in the SCOTUS case.

Masterpiece Cakeshop Baker Also Refused To Put Rainbows On A Little Girl’s Birthday Cake
"He took this whole thing to a personal level."


December 2017