I'm very torn on this desicion. For one, I'm extremely upset that the baker won the case, just because he based it on "religious beliefs", which I'm pretty sure was just because he didn't like gay people, putting it as "religious beliefs" to look like he had a valid case to decline them. But on another case, the judges did have a point on the desicion they set. It was very tough to decide either way, either side with the gay couple because they were barred service for their sexuality, and anger religious people. Or side with the baker, and anger LGBT people for putting religion over sexuality. While I disagree with the decision today, it was either anger one or the other, and it was extremely hard to decide between the two cases.
1
comments
I can agree with that. The baker made a really good case, but I still have to lean towards the LBGT community on this. I just don't believe you can use religion in that sense.
HOWEVER, it complicates the situation because he did not refuse to serve them, just to bake a cake for them. That's not the same thing.
I disagree with his viewpoint, and his interpretation of the bible is terrible (once again, in my opinion). I do not believe in a god figure currently, but more in science, but that's besides the point.
I think that the way the baker acted was homophobic, and he used religion as a shielding, HOWEVER, given the facts and personal biases and anger aside, it wasn't the "wrong" decision.
The LGBT community has no right to enforce THEIR beliefs onto other people and or force him to make the cake. At the end of the day he has the freedom to express himself however he wants.
Legally, he was in the right. Morally? He was in the wrong.
I believe that the supreme justice's ruling was, as SkarmMines points out, a big step behind- but based on the letter of the law the Supreme Court acted properly.
It's not the Supreme Court's opinion that requires changing, it's the law. Circumstances matter.
tl;dr The Supreme Court ruled fairly given the laws and evidence at hand, however that what he did was morally questionable and disgusting, archaic behaviour. Hate the guy, but I can't say he was against the law. I HATE IT BUT I ACCEPT IT.
AHHHHHH EMOTION
HOWEVER, it complicates the situation because he did not refuse to serve them, just to bake a cake for them. That's not the same thing.
I disagree with his viewpoint, and his interpretation of the bible is terrible (once again, in my opinion). I do not believe in a god figure currently, but more in science, but that's besides the point.
I think that the way the baker acted was homophobic, and he used religion as a shielding, HOWEVER, given the facts and personal biases and anger aside, it wasn't the "wrong" decision.
The LGBT community has no right to enforce THEIR beliefs onto other people and or force him to make the cake. At the end of the day he has the freedom to express himself however he wants.
Legally, he was in the right. Morally? He was in the wrong.
I believe that the supreme justice's ruling was, as SkarmMines points out, a big step behind- but based on the letter of the law the Supreme Court acted properly.
It's not the Supreme Court's opinion that requires changing, it's the law. Circumstances matter.
tl;dr The Supreme Court ruled fairly given the laws and evidence at hand, however that what he did was morally questionable and disgusting, archaic behaviour. Hate the guy, but I can't say he was against the law. I HATE IT BUT I ACCEPT IT.
AHHHHHH EMOTION
Jun 4, 18 · +1 · Like · Report
Jun 4, 18 · +1 · Like · Report