Why the Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling is bad for Christians

[@samdoo1433]

Oh so I am still subscribed to this channel

[@davidhatcher7016]

Sam Doo Nihilus

[@decepticonxhunter4850]

The ruling wasn't bad for Christians. It was bad for ppl who enjoy being led by their emotions and refuse to fact check on account of a person of faith being involved. The baker has a list of other kinds of cakes he wouldn't make, plus he also mentioned that they were regular customers before that incident. The pair being gay wasn't the issue for him as opposed to the cake they wanted him to make.

[@missk1697]

Being led by emotions, such as faith and religious beliefs.

[@iAzaria]

yay! we missed you! how have you been?

[@OMG_BeCkY]

Religion. Ruins. Everything.

[@huzuni5108]

OMG BeCkY Preach it.... wait...

[@unicornep1818]

Religion may be shit but it does help produce some great music, paintings and architecture. The world is a better place for the existence of York Minster, the last supper, Verdi's Requiem and even Xmas Carols. Pip pip (the middle pip would just like to say that no amount of pretty things, out weighs the deaths, pain and hatred religion inspires)

[@zidneya]

OMG BeCkY Not everything. Just society, human condition, state of mind, economy and science.

[@cubeography3723]

Zidneya no. Pick up a history book- that wasn't written by Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins- and learn something.

[@malvane8061]

It's actually better (so far) at providing civic engagement for close knit communities. But I'm assuming you prefer an intellectually lazy aphorism to actually looking at scholarly work found in journals.

[@alexusflagg8806]

false. he didn’t say that he wasn’t gonna make the gay couple a cake. he only said he wouldn’t make them a WEDDING cake. those are the FACTS of the case. I respect your opinion but don’t bend the truth to make your opinion sensible.

[@satanlovesyou4603]

HES ALIVEEEEE 💜💜💜💜💜💜

[@cubeography3723]

Satan Hates You I know! He still has time to repent.

[@commanderwaddles3483]

I haven't watched him in like 3 years just because I went from never clicking on his stuff due to just listening to music & podcasts to forgetting about him completely. Saw an article recently about this that had a screencap of his face on it so I came to KZbin & now I'm here! 😄

[@HereisWisdom57]

Satan loves you is a very ignorant statement tbh. That devil that looks like bull man is the one that loves who? You just chose to be Biased and hateful towards God Almighty and He will not Have Mercy after you die so this is your Only Chance while alive and death can come anytime. So its easy Just Repent and Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior and Master and Pray that God Reveal Himself to You in Jesus Christ name. Let me Help you if you want.

[@satanlovesyou4603]

Gord Daniel You can help me all you want bby ;) I love you too, you hot christian man 💜 burn in hell with me

[@satanlovesyou4603]

Cubeography Satan loves EVERYONE. Satan is kind and loving. He welcomes everyone with open arms regardless of sexuality race religion history etc while god (even though he prob doesn't exist) is selective and picky. Satan loves you

[@jeanetteyork2582]

I disagree with the ruling. The proprietor said he wouldn't sell because of his religious beliefs. Well, the bible says to kill homosexuals. Why didn't he just kill them in accordance with his religion? Answer: because he's a cherry picker, who only interprets his religion the way he wants to. I say go ahead and indulge your religion, but do it all the way. If killing homosexuals violates civil and criminal laws, then so does violating their other civil rights. In other words, the only reliable guide to civil order is civil (secular) law. Beliefs are not and should not be law....but at least the Christians who claim the right to discriminate based on their beliefs should also try to use murder, to "solve" the "homosexual problem"... and see how far they get. The religionists are so inconsistent! If we are to have any consistency in treating one another, our methods can't be based on religion in any way. Thank you for your perspective on this important subject, Hemant. 👍👍

[@gbart842]

Jeanette York, Christians say they are not under the jurisdiction of the Old Testament law, which is actually what Paul says constantly in the New Testament, that we're "not under the Law." No one is commanded to kill homosexuals.

[@LibraOwl]

It's today's Christians' personal disgust at the idea of homosexual activity - not religious righteousness - that causes them to say that the Bible condemns homosexuality. And, their personal disgust causes them to conveniently ignore the fact that Jesus never condemns homosexuality in any way. If following the Bible is that important to evangelical Christians, perhaps they should try condemning divorce with that same fervour, as the New Testament teaches. *chuckle* Of course, that'll never happen - because divorce is widely accepted in today's society, many Christians actually do get divorced, and divorce isn't something that Christians find as personally repugnant.

[@gbart842]

LibraOwl Ummm, how do you interpret Romans 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Does that speak about homosexuality? I am a Christian (*I'm dodging the rotten fruit right now... :)* ... and I do condemn divorce as strongly as you would expect. If a Christian pursues divorce and gets a divorce, he is not following Jesus.

[@bambino9235]

Greg Bartlett you have to understand the context. The bible doesn't condemn homosexuality because homosexuality in itself is wrong- it condemns homosexuality because in the times when the bible was written women were considered to be infinitely inferior to men and therefore it is disrespectful for a man to sleep with another man as he is treating the other man as one would expect him to treat a woman. It is disrespectful for women to sleep together because it implies that one of the pair is equal to a man. That's why women are "unclean" for longer if they give birth to a girl rather than a boy, why women slaves were sold for less than men, and why women can't speak in church. Romans 1:27 says the men left "the natural use of the woman" in their lust for each other i.e. women are essentially sex toys. A person that believes that homosexuality is wrong based on verses from either the new or old testament is a person that believes that women exist for men to have sex with. So yeah, it's talking about homosexuality, but no moral person would abide by such a notion

[@richwfd2002]

That's bullshit considering that Jesus supposedly said that he came, not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it and that not a "jot or tittle" of the law will be changed until heaven and earth pass away. You guys are such cherry pickers.

[@tobiscout9176]

I love your videos you are one of the people that lead me to athiesm

[@josiahcruz9678]

Wow that's weird. Ben Shapiro (and few other people including Atheists) said that the cake owner was going to bake them a cake but still not put the figurines because that was against his Christian beliefs. I'm a Christian, and need to know what was actually said. It seems like some people are trying to make the baker's sound bad.

[@___SourR34___]

That's what I heard, too. However, I believe that that can still be considered discrimination, even if it is a minor thing.

[@alanguages]

The gay couple were regular customers. The Liberal media in their narrative made it look like the bakery did not want to make them any cake because of their sexual orientation. Which was not the case. Go to a Muslim bakery and ask them if they are willing to make cakes and put on gay expressions on the cake. Take a guess, what the answer will be.

[@kenhoyer8601]

If it's your store you shouldn't have to service anyone . You don't have to allow everyone into your house. How is this any different? @@___SourR34___

[@edtheangler4930]

Hes back!

[@ミコムみこむ]

OH MY GOD! IT'S TIME MY BOI'S! HE'S BACK!

[@baseddepartment6178]

Dude, its a private business, he should be able to deny to service to anyone, be it a gay baker refusing to serve a christian couple, or a christian baker refusing to serve a gay couple

[@markhackett2302]

Nope, it's a business to serve the public and he has no right to refuse service TO that public unless the law gives that right specifically. And it doesn't. This was part of the agreement you sign when you start a business.

[@aaronvenia6193]

Mark Hackett , the purpose of business is not to serve the public. Nor is it to employ people. It is one man, one owner, making money. No matter how large and great, no matter how many benefit from employment or trade, in the end its one man. If I refuse to hire or trade with you, then you will leave my land, or I will defend myself by whatever means I deem necessary.

[@177SCmaro]

@@markhackett2302 A business is just people who engage in trade professionally. They are under no rational or moral obligation to "serve" anyone anymore then if you agree to mow your neighbor's lawn for twenty bucks are you under some sort of obligation to mow your entire neighborhood. And rights do not come from the people in government. That's an incredibly dangerous idea!

[@markhackett2302]

@@177SCmaro Nope. They get tax and zoning breaks that ordinary citizens don't get. THEY get to offset expenses for just getting to work against taxes. Try claiming your car off tax and see how the IRS likes you. So, they took a position that gained benefits BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY WOULD SERVE THE PUBLIC. You know what whelching on a deal when you come across having to pay for the benefits you accrued earlier is called, right?

[@177SCmaro]

@@markhackett2302 You understand that's all made up bullshit, right? The only person I have an agreement with is the person I choose to sell to. And that places no cost on society, nor does it constitute a contract with anyone. It also does not place on either my customers or I any rational or moral obligation to obey you or the sociopaths you call "government". Try again you authoritarian sycophant.

[@godbearxd]

There should only be 5 reason that you can refuse services to someone; they are a gang member, they are a member of a terrorist organization, they are loud and unruly, they are under dressed, and of course insufficient funds. That's it!

[@superdoobo]

That's dumb.

[@kenhoyer8601]

How about, just don't let anyone you don't want into your store. That is your right to turn down sale.

[@godbearxd]

@@kenhoyer8601 because that's just segregation with extra steps...

[@fernandocuriel124]

LEGALLY & CONSTITUTIONALLY there’s no such thing as HATE SPEECH. HATE SPEECH IS SUBJECTIVE. By using the words HATE SPEECH is obvious that this guy is very politically correct, militant secularist, and far left, and a snowflake. Even no moderate & libertarian.

[@missk1697]

Cry about it

[@fernandocuriel124]

@@missk1697 Cry about what?

[@Pyrolonn]

Hemant your premise is wrong so your entire argument collapses. The case IS about creative services, such as a custom wedding cake. The government can't force artists to be inspired by things they find abhorrent. If it was just a gay couple entering a bakery and buying a pre-made cake it would be different. And of course they might lose customers and reputation because they refused to make such a cake. (I would certainly avoid them.)

[@fernandocuriel124]

Pyrolonn AGREE!

[@ojasapratim5319]

No ! The baker declined them to sell them a normal non-custom cake too, he over all dismissed them from being costumers!

[@missk1697]

Of course the gov can do that.

[@bluecollardisruptor9584]

Please mention the Muslim bakery which also refused to bake a cake for a gay couple, but seems to be getting a pass by both you and Steve Shives. Consistency will help you in being taken seriously.

[@Yorker1998]

Which bakery was that?

[@DManCAWMaster]

Adam Mackenzie What about mentioning the gay bake shop owner who refused to serve Christians

[@SonsOfLorgar]

DManCAWMaster christians is not a protected group.

[@DManCAWMaster]

SonsOfLorgar So what your saying is that is bad to discriminate against Christians but not gays?

[@bluecollardisruptor9584]

DManCAWMaster No. Nice straw man. I'm saying that leaving Islam out of the conversation is like exempting them from the same standards you expect Christianity to maintain. This is extraordinarily dangerous as Islam seems to have zero problems killing gays in public in other parts of the world.

[@jamie91995]

No that didn’t happen, he said he would not sell them a WEDDING cake, he said he’ll make a cake, cookies, anything else, but not a wedding cake because that supports gay marriage

[@markhackett2302]

He made wedding cakes. he refused them because they were gay. So it did happen, idiot.

[@jamie91995]

Mark Hackett no I meant it didn’t happen the way they said it did

[@177SCmaro]

@@markhackett2302 That's a moot point anyways. Bakers have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any or no reason just as customers have the right to refuse to buy for any or no reason. Freedom of association.

[@markhackett2302]

@@177SCmaro Nope, they do not have that right. And that was in law BEFORE THOSE BAKERS TOOK THE JOB.

[@177SCmaro]

@@markhackett2302 Because you are the aggressor the burden of proof is on you to explain/prove why I must sell to you. In other words, why do you think I'm like a slave because I'm not allowed to tell you "no"? Justify your aggression. Go.

[@boblarry4974]

if a guy has a cake shop,let him do whatever the fuck he wants with it.

[@jordyadvitam7605]

It's been a long time. I thought you stopped uploading videos. But I see (with pleasure) that you are still here to bring to us the refreshing sound of common sense. Welcome back

[@shawnsimmons1308]

"The law must be clear that anti-discrimination laws exist to protect people, not beliefs." - Terry Sanderson

[@kenhoyer8601]

How is letting or not letting people into your store protect them?

[@mattressmccabe1686]

Oh you're back!

[@xxXthekevXxx]

I haven’t seen your videos in like 2 years and I’m glad KZbin recommended me this one :) good to see you again

[@theresnomor]

I love your videos. Hope to see more new content :)

[@watcherfox9698]

I seen a video which shows the Commissioners quote and how the judge described it as being hostile towards the baker's religious faith. And the judge totally failed with their interpretation of the quote. It did not call religious faith "despicable" nor did it call it "rhetoric". What the Commissioner was referring to was clearly not religious faith itself, but the using of it as a tool to harm others. That's the part that is despicable. And I completely agree. People can have whatever religious believes they want and I don't care so long as they aren't using it to harm others.

[@bobh5087]

What a pleasure to have your always spot-on videos again! You always have 1) a clear mental grasp of the various facets of an issue and, 2) a forceful, cogent way with words. I can't help but wonder about the "thumbs down" respondents -- but, whoever they are, they can be summarily dismissed.

[@nickgarr5513]

Hey The Atheist Voice i was wondering if you could make a video again on "WHETHER ATHEIST BELIEVE IN GHOST" , i know you already made a video on it but can you give a better explanation???? Cause am starting to lose my faith on ATHEIST because what if i am WRONG????

[@robinisomaa]

To the people arguing that private businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason because capitalism will not reward bigotry, I invite you to think back to the 50s and beyond. Blacks were essentially cut off from a lot of services, like hotels, not because of legal segregation, but through private businesses deciding they didn't like color. And sure, nowadays, if you live in a big city, there will probably be other alternatives, but the situation may be quite different in rural areas. What if your internet service provider or local gas station decided to institute a "no queers/atheists/blacks/arabs/metal fans/etc" policy? How are you going to find another gas station when you're already out of gas? Or if the only pharmacy in town decided not to sell birth control to unmarried people? Look, I'm not saying that businesses shouldn't be allowed to reject customers for reasonable reasons (like if you're too drunk to hold a fork, a restaurant doesn't have to serve you). Not selling cake to someone because you think buttsex is gross is not reasonable. This is all about the principle. I fucking hate wedding cake.

[@Unclenate1000]

state-sactioned segregation definitely didn't help that situation, which doesn't really exist anymore so this is just a hypothetical at this point. State sanctioned trespassing is just as immoral as segregation

[@civiliancalleddusk9539]

The baker actually offered to sell them other cakes. The gay couple wanted a specific cake which is what the baker didn't want to do.

[@jaromor8808]

In South Africa blacks were predominant in some of the fields of work where it was prohibited to employ them. I invite you to stop spreading bullshit.

[@PCBEaR65]

civilian called dusk , appreciate the additional detail. Where did you find that? I'd like an opportunity to get fully informed.

[@civiliancalleddusk9539]

PCBEaR65 www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gay-wedding-cake-baker-supreme-court-ruling-christianity-rights-colorado-latest-a8382826.html

[@adlervomnorden7571]

hello Mehta, i'm a christian and was watching some few videos from your channel and since then you actually make me even more christian. I noticed some mistakes and misconceptions you make in your videos that you should be aware with. 1. You hate mostly dogmatist/extremist people, not true religious one. You are always saying how close minded are those people who thinks that there is only one unquestionable truth; But you confuse them with other type of religious people, the type who accepts scientific acknowledged and have faith in God at the same time. You can be both religious and scientific at the same time, our brains aren't limited to just only one thing, which you have being ignorant to understand that. Those dogmatic people are the REAL problem, they are worse than ignorant man and even people with the same belief doesn't agree with them. In the christian case, they even disrespect the own laws are written in the Bible. God and Jesus says that you have no right to judge someone, and you should not say "OMG WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HELL" remember this: God doesn't give us brain to be our doesn't think outside the box and stay our whole life stuck with the same ideals. 2. You're confounding christianity with other religions. One common mistake you have being committing along the time was automatically thinking about religion as christianity. There is many other religions too, like Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, christianity etc. So don't mix then because you will be wrong. 3. The primitive through that only atheistic people are more logical while religious people are silly (again, it is not religion by it self, it is DOGMATISM). This is one is very common with ignorant atheists. Do you know that little theory which you believe about the creation of the universe? the Big bang. yeah, the one who defends that the universe was created by the explosion of a primordial atom. That theory was first theorized by Georges Lemaître, which was a catholic priest. "Hurr durr, but what he was (priest) and believe (christianity) has nothing to do with what he have done." really? so here we get at number 4 problem: 4. contradictions. If you think that what people believe (since it is not dogmatic) doesn't prevents they from scientific acknowledged, then why would you argument against about people's faith? why would you worry about making those video refuting christianity? to make you feel better about you making people give up his/her faith as a justification of a mental "upgrade"? Why don't you have a channel named "The Acknowledge Voice" that teach about science and how to logical thinking without talking shit about YOUR point of view about christianity or any religion. One thing that you can't deny me (not because i think i'm right, but it is the facts) is that most of great human minds were christian. Georges Lemaître, Isaac Newton, Max Planck, Galileo Galilei and many other which made enormous progress in science and firstly induced what you think and the technology you're using right now. 5. Classic atheist vs primitive atheist. Classic atheist: "i don't belive in the existence of any god." Primitive atheist: "GOD DOESN'T EXIST, YOU DUMP!" "YOU HAVE BEING FOOLED YOU ENTIRE LIFE" "* 5 REASONS WHY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE BRAINLESS *" "I DON'T BELIEVE IN SOME FAIRLY TAIL WRITTEN ABOUT 2 THOUSAND YEARS AGO, SCIENCE IS MY RELIGION" "I DON'T IN SOME OLD GUY WITH WHITE CLOTHINGS THAT LIVE IN THE CLOUDS" Blablabla and another misconception cliché shit about religion. 6. Blaming the world's problems to belief. That sound stupid even with non religious people. But seriously, stop. That is some primitive atheistic argument which is pretty easy to break down. Anything can become deadly if used to bad purposes. Many people has done WORSE things in name of "science" Think about how many lifes lab experiments has killed. Humans murder other human with the same justification, it is all for something, but you know (according with your arguments) who care?! in this case it is all "For science"!!! people make weapons to kill other people; makes nuclear weapons to cause fear and stay in power, use gas bombs to eliminate who doesn't agree with them; factories decimate environments, pollute rivers and skies; the government slave the population, blame other governments for their own mistakes, declare war them, and is people suffer in the end. An easy example to understand this is to take the Taxi Drivers. Their have a job which consists in taking people from one place to another. But then comes up an app that promotes modern taxi drivers called "ubers". People start looking at them and using it as a "cheap and updated". Then the taxi drivers begin to lose utility, they didn't liked it and started a group to murder any Uber driver they see with a terrorist attack. Now say to me, they represents the Taxi drives? Are a Taxi driver supposed to do those terrorist attacks? What a Taxi do? That specific Taxi group represents all what the Taxi drivers is supposed to do? well, if you have a working mind you would say no. That is what is happening in this case. Does this baker represents all christians? does all christians are against gay people? those little questions literally broke all your arguments in this video. And if you're really what you call yourself "rational thinker" you would apologize now, i can undestand you. So, this is just some errors that I noticed in your videos. Sorry about any grammatical mistakes in this comment, english isn't my native language. And sorry if I repeated too much words like "people", "religion" or "atheist".

[@Nullfactory]

So many lies here. If you read the actual judgement it states he did not want to bake them a special cake, he was willing to sell them other items in his store but not make a specific cake for them, that's why the case was ruled how it was. Its a 3 page ruling, I know you read it, and you're blatantly lying. You give atheists a bad name with your complete dishonesty in this matter. I would suggest your readers actual read the judgement for themselves if they want to know the truth. So yes, the baker would have sold them items from his store, but he did not want to cater specifically to their wedding. You have a right in this country to decide who you want to be contracted too. This is akin to walking into a Muslim bakery and asking them for a cake depicting Muhammad, which they would have the right to refuse.

[@___SourR34___]

That can still be considered discrimination. The fact that Jack Phillips is willing to cater to a straight wedding but not a gay wedding is discrimination, thus, worth a lawsuit.

[@johnwadsworth5946]

I wholeheartedly disagree with your analysis as to why this was a "bad case" for evangelical Christians. Admittedly, the baker won on narrow grounds, but he won. The Supreme Court overturned the decision that would have forced him to comply with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's orders. Had he lost, he would have had no occasion to ask for more money to continue fighting "liberal persecution." The case would have been final, and that would have been it. Nor is it true that the ruling was so narrow that it can't be applied in other cases. The Supreme Court said due respect for the free exercise of religion, guaranteed by the First Amendment, requires state hearing officers to remain neutral, and not hostile, toward parties based on their religious beliefs. That is a general principle of law that can be used in any subsequent case in which a party draws into question the impartiality of a hearing officer toward religion. Application of this principle of law depends on the factual basis developed on the record, and not the principle itself. The principle is a win for evangelical Christians. Furthermore, other evangelical Christians can still point to this case as evidence of "liberal persecution" in their fundraising efforts, based on the comments of some of the hearing officers. This isn't the only case in which complaints have been filed against Christian bakers by same-sex couples. Also, the hearing officers in this case went further than merely asserting that religion has been used to harm people in the past - as you suggest. One hearing officer compared the baker's reasoning to the justifications offered for the holocaust. I think that most people would view unfavorable comparisons to Nazi genocide as a little over the top. Also, your efforts at parsing the facts don't work. There was evidence in the record that this cake baker did not create wedding cakes that anyone could walk in and buy off the shelf - as you implied. He would sit down with the couple to discuss "their preferences, their personalities, and the details of their wedding to ensure that each cake reflects the couple who ordered it." He would then design a cake from scratch, "sketching the design out on paper, choosing the color scheme, creating the frosting and decorations, baking and sculpting the cake, decorating it, and delivering it to the wedding." The baker, himself, believed in the symbolism associated with wedding cakes, viewing them as communicating that “'a wedding has occurred, a marriage has begun, and the couple should be celebrated.'” If accepted as true, these facts could well support a claim that the baker was being forced to endorse same-sex marriage against his religious convictions; also a form of compelled speech. But the Court couldn't really reach either the free expression or free exercise claims, based on the record, because the bias of the hearing officers presumably skewed their fact-finding role. Had these facts been undisputed, they might have actually reached the merits. There are two down sides to this case for everyone. First, the Court did not decide the merits of the First Amendment claims. Kicking the can down the road, as the Court did, will only make the litigation over this issue an ongoing problem. If the next case doesn't come before the Court until after Justice Kennedy retires or dies, it might not bode well for same-sex couples. Second, those who wish to wed will have a blander set of choices in selecting a cakes. To defend themselves in future cases, bakers who wish to avoid symbolic support for same-sex marriages will either stop selling wedding cakes altogether, or only sell generic cakes and leave the decoration to the customers themselves.

[@w.scottparkeriii8508]

Excellent Hemant. Thank you!

[@ericchavez9213]

The baker maintained he would 'serve everybody that comes in my shop,' but that he wouldn't 'create cakes for every message.' So you were WRONG to say he wouldn’t sell them any cake.

[@sirmeowthelibrarycat]

😀 Welcome back! The behaviour of the US Supreme Court justices is why I am completely opposed to any political appointment or election of the judiciary. They are there to oversee the application of the law according to the Constitution of the United States. The flimsy justification of the decision due to the Colorado Commission member’s statement being prejudiced against religion is farcical. Partisanship must have no place in such an institution. In this case, the baker was acting in a business capacity, not a religious one. As such, he had no valid reason to refuse the original request for a cake. If his religious beliefs were that meaningful to him, then he should have named his business on religious lines as a Christian bakery attached to a church. I suggest that anyone in the location of the bakery seriously consider doing business elsewhere. Kind regards from 🇬🇧🐈

[@Nick23at63]

Sorry Hemant, I usually agree with you, but I think you are wrong on this. A gay couple was refused service, period. That's discrimination, and the SC would not say the baker was wrong for doing that. Think that was a one-time situation? Well, the SC just ruled that a florist who would not sell flowers to another gay couple was not in the wrong, either. The SC has thus shown that they have no desire to prevent discrimination towards gays, and a precedent has been set. It will only get worse, not better.

[@pinecone421]

I missed you to :,)

[@davidhatcher7016]

Pine Cone Why?

[@JohnathanGross]

SCOTUS did not side with the baker. They explicitly refused to rule on the legality of the case. Their ruling was extremely narrow and dealt with one specific aspect of the appeals. They ruled that the courts did not properly give the baker's religious beliefs enough weight in their decisions and were thus biased against him. There is no question that what Masterpiece Cakeshop did is illegal under Colorado law. SCOTUS did not rule that the Colorado law is unconstitutional. This was purely a ruling on procedure.

[@biglee3816]

Guys, he was outside of space and time, and today he can back to deliver a special message to us.

[@jane-marie3289]

4 months later and this is what you gave your subscribers? Really? This was a topic 3 weeks ago by many other youtubers and was a stupid topic then, and still is. Too easy to attack, thought you were more intelligent than this ridiculous nonsense. Just go to another baker, period. Where I live a proprietor has every right to turn down anyone, no matter what the reason. Their place, their rules. Unsubscribed.

[@k-rynngurl]

Make more videos, I've missed you!

[@steveburke1519]

I wonder what would happen if, hypothetically, a gay-owned bakery refused to sell a cake to a straight couple, or if an atheist-owned bakery refused to sell a cake to a religious couple?

[@owlbme]

I've missed you too :)

[@fwsauerteig]

Discrimination is not a vice, but a faculty. Think discriminating tastes. I and anyone should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, FULL STOP.

[@Diviance]

No, you should not be allowed to refuse service to someone for things they have no control over. That would be dangerous, especially in a country currently under the control of an oppressive, fascist, racist government like the US. Would you like it if you walked into McDonald's and the person behind the counter told you to get out because your face is ugly? No, you wouldn't. You would rightfully get pretty pissed off.

[@Jmgjgdjd5]

how does the baker know the cake is for a gay couple?

[@WhileAKyle85]

Jmgjgdjd5 That’s the problem here.

[@daltonrazgaitis3318]

He smelt those geys

[@Yorker1998]

Maybe because they were seemingly a couple asking for a cake for their wedding...

[@Jmgjgdjd5]

maybe only one person should go ask for the cake

[@LadyCathryn]

The TRUTH IS one of the men had been a regular customer for years and Phillips politely refused to make a wedding cake. The gay couple reacted by not being mature enough to take their business elsewhere but threw a temper tantrum and resorted to legal bullying

[@MattSaysHello]

Welcome back!

[@kenhoyer8601]

Can't agree with you on this one. No one should be forced to make a cake for anyone or even allow them into their store for that matter. It's THEIR store.

[@surajshaw9703]

No one is entitled to anyone's product of labour and the baker has the right to refuse service to anyone he wants... Is he a bad person for not serving the couple just because they was gay, yes he is. But that's the reason free market and free speech exists, that couple could have gone to any other bakery and had their cake made and tell other people about homophobic baker shop, which would automatically damaged his and his shop's reputation and business, therefore justice served. There was no need for the government to get involved and it would have been a great lesson for any other business who discriminates against a certain specific group of people.

[@FetesBrot]

Ok if no one is entitled to anyones product of labour you basicly say that we shouldnt pay taxes. Or that couple would have to leave the area or even state because suddenly all nutjob christian bussiness owners decide to not serve gays.

[@surajshaw9703]

TheHiro Taxation is theft... And if all the nutjob Christian Bakers decide not to serve gays, then there are other non-christian baker shops that gays can go to and most of the people are not going to go to a homophobic cake shop too. They will suffer a heavy loss which will in turn either force them to serve gay couples or close down, which will give rise to other cake shops who will not be homophobic.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

Suraj Shaw bullshit. Tax is no more theft than a membership fee in a sports club. And the rest of your argumentation is a bullshit strawman.

[@surajshaw9703]

SonsOfLorgar The difference between a club membership fees and tax is that you choose to become a member and pay fees but with tax, you don't have that choice. And who am I strawmaning over here and which part of my argument do you think is strawman... You have to be a little more specific.

[@markhackett2302]

"No one is entitled to anyone's product of labour " So every worker is entitled to take at force even from their employer all the result of their labour, yes?

[@alainjoseph3994]

Hey @The Atheist Voice. I hereby challenge you to a full on debate with Frank Turek. Ill even fund you if u need to get there 🤣🤣😂🤩

[@nativeatheist6422]

You look cross-eyed in the thumbnail just sayin'

[@mikekeenanphd]

Your facts do not match my understanding of the case . He refuses to create wedding cakes for same sex couples. You are twisting that by saying he refused to sell them any cake at all. They would be in their rights to post that information and tell all their friends, but does it really need a lawsuit? Let the market decide.

[@Alex-qv4yg]

I, as an atheist, is in support of the Supreme Court Ruling. I don't agree with him at all, but if he doesn't want to serve them, he shouldn't. If I was denied a cake due to my race, or sexuality, even though im both majority; I would just go to a different store.

[@angelainamarie9656]

I love how privileged children who have never had to live with their big words talk when it's not them getting shouted out of the restaurant they used to love because some hateful man decided to enjoy verbally punching me that day. I love how you can just breeze past that like it's a fart. I wondered when I repeatedly couldn't seem to get through the gatlopp of getting my name changed, was this because I was dealing with the Kim Davises of the world? I don't know. I paid taxes in that state but nonetheless, my money was no good. I don't think you listened very carefully to the argument that was presented, nor does your pre-qualification of being an atheist mean you get a pass from me. What is being asked in these discrimination cases is "please don't treat us like second-class citizens." What lies behind that desire to mis-treat us is not some fucking religious piety. It's BIGOTRY which leads in the dirty, unlit corners of the world YOU don't ever have to examine, to ABUSE and MURDER. Letting it flourish in the open is definitely having an impact on those of us who walk daily with actual threats of violence against us. But, go ahead with your little nose way up in the air, dancing on a cloud of your own fucking bullshit, and yea, it's just fine. Institutionalized bigotry and kowtowing to religious stupidity is just fine by you.

[@IllustriousCrocoduck]

You can have laws that punish discrimination without forcing him to provide a service. They probably DID get a cake somewhere else but obviously that isn't the point, so why bring it up? We already resteict religious rights that are incompatible with our laws... If this type of thing is allowed AGAIN, it opens up the floodgates for segregation and violence. The same biblical doctrine that is the basis for anti-gay sentiment also states they should be put to death- is that allowed by religious freedom? Discrimination is all well and good when it doesn't touch you. More love and understanding is how to solve this.

[@superfly2535]

Iron Atheist So what was even the point of the Civil Rights movement?

[@_BenJaminCroft_]

SuperFly25, Because there were actually *laws* that condoned discrimination. That's what the civil rights march was all about. You can change laws, but you can't change people's minds. A leopard never changes it's spots. If there were no laws condoning discrimination and those businesses segregated of their own choice, then they have every right to do it. Now does that make them any less of an asshole? No. Does that make them bigots? Yes. *However,* they are bigoted assholes who have every right to do it. Just like you.

[@IllustriousCrocoduck]

BenJamin Croft see I disagree. It is difficult to change people's minds, butcan be done, and is being done currently with this and racism and more. That's the entire point of marches, and videos like this, and all of it. It is a slow and difficult process, because everyone has different thoughts on things and aren't convinced by the method that worked on someone else. The long term effect of anti-discrimination laws is that they dictate what is "right and wrong" to future generations. Now certainly, what your parents and others teach you may be much more powerful in teaching morals, yet we still see change. The point is with laws AND through activism that we really accomplish things.

[@ritarita9750]

Hate the bad but never hate the person. God hate the bad, but he do not hate people, He rather they obey him and live, but he allow us to choose life or choose death. Life is a gift, We do not earn it. Free will God has endowed man with. We can refuse or obey to choose life and draw close to God and become his children in obedience to his words. Others refuse. Death is what they chose not life.

[@HereisWisdom57]

Am a Christian but I think they could have just baked it and but you don't know the details of the cake though. But its just a cake anyways. But the thing is God doesn't endorse such marriages anyways so we should tell them the truth but let God be the judge.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

Gord Daniel no, you should be jailed for harassment for condemning and shaming their use of their legal and human rights.

[@dogless10]

There are so many gods. Why did you choose the Christian one?

[@HereisWisdom57]

Honestly that's a good question. But I will tell you my answer may not be the perfect answer but I'll try to answer. And here it is and remember its not perfect: 1) I believe in Jesus Christ because He is Historically Proven to be who the Bible claims He is. 2) I believe the Bible because it is scientifically accurate 100% and Historically Accurate 100%. 3) I believe Evil exist in this world and have seen dark spirits myself and Have seen what happens when you call the name of Jesus in the Presence of Demons or Dark Energies (they are destroyed or they run). 4) I know how evil I was before I was Born again and how different and renewed I am now. 5) The Only way to Rightfully know the Use of Anything or Anyone is to know the Manufacturers Purpose of them. Again not Perfect but atleast provable.

[@HereisWisdom57]

to be honest; God wont punish you for selling cake to a gay couple (especially after giving them your honest opinion on their Marriage). But if say you want a cake that portrays the message of gays then Judge Neil Gorsuch is right when he says it Hypocrisy. Like if a cake should be built that speaks against or LGBTQI they will claim hate speech and bigotry... so why will the opposite be done?

[@zeuss92ne]

Gord Daniel LMAO does your shirt really say "straight out of church"?

[@jackpuff2419]

It’s the right of privately owned businesses to refuse service to someone.

[@guacamolegeneral1060]

A busines owner has the right to refuse to serve someone, no matter what the reason is. I do not endorse his opinion but i respect his right to do so.

[@Unclenate1000]

it's really nice to see others grasp this rather simple concept when many don't seem to.

[@alan62036]

So if a grocery store refuses to sell to you, too bad right? No essentials for you? :/

[@DManCAWMaster]

Alan2022 There are plenty of Christian bakeries that would've served them and if not there are secular ones.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

Wrong.

[@alan62036]

What if you live in a small town and it's the only one close by?

[@leonmoffatt5532]

He has the right

[@untitled6087]

If a privately owned business discriminates against the immutable characteristics of a group, their bad reputation will hit their sales. People will take their business elsewhere. If for some reason it becomes a huge problem and a specific class cannot find a specific service in a specific area, then that will either create a new niche for a new business, ideally with government backing if required. But the idea of forced contracts seems waaaaaay too authoritarian to me. I'm a liberal atheist, but I support that bakers right to be free of government sanctioned labour... It's the difference between the baker feeling like shit and having no choice to get out of it and the customer feeling like shit but with the choice to take their patronage elsewhere.

[@FetesBrot]

So because some people refuse to accept gay people the enterty of the country should be forced to back a bussiness that has to open somewhere and cant work on profit because its to niche or because it has to import from someone else. what if the gas stations in the area refuse to fill up the trucks of those company because it delivers gay people. What if your provider cuts you of. Does the state pay for your new gas station so you can survive? Do they invest in the infrastructure to get cable to your house? What if the pharmacy wont sell you pain meds and you crash on the way to the third hospital because the first 2 are privatly owned and refuse to tread you because you are not christian. The freedom to choose your costumers should be narrowed down via law to protect the society as a whole.

[@untitled6087]

I agree, horribly thought through comment. I tried typing out a response, nothing works out. I'm de-converted from that side, but there's still the nagging feeling of "well how would _I_ like it if I was forced to bake a cake for someone that makes me feel uncomfortable?" That was the root of my opposition, now I'm just completely unsure of what solution should be.

[@AntiCitizenX]

There is a history in this country of businesses denying services to groups they don't like, thus imposing nasty social and economic burdens on them. Thus, the "protected class" was created to deny that capability from business owners. You are not allowed to deny service to someone on the pure basis that they are black. PERIOD. Colorado law also includes sexual orientation in that list of protected classes. It is therefore unlawful to deny service on that basis alone.

[@DManCAWMaster]

AntiCitizenX And that is unethical. A private business has freedom of association. To deny freedom of association is to support slavery

[@Yorker1998]

What a bunch of crybabies. Fuck off somewhere else if you don't like it and leave the man alone. His loss.

[@waltercoleman624]

The Baker offered to sell them anything other than a same-sex marriage cake. Fact check

[@246-trinitromethylbenzene8]

Ever heard of Freedom of Association? The baker has a right to choose with whom he does bussiness,and yes,he also has a right to choose not sell them a normal cake. The only thing hes doing is loosing costumer and getting bad press,but all that happens without the Government punishing a Peacefull baker. I am a Atheist,and a Libertarian,altough i think that the believe of the Christians is not Logical or Moral,i wont force a Christian baker to sell a Cake to the couple,because doing otherwise would be immoral too.

[@FetesBrot]

Ok so if they all decide to not do bussiness with gay people anymore or any non christian. Wehave basicly created a christian state in a state because everyone else would have to leave if they are not big enough as a group to force their way in.

[@porterburkett819]

You have the right to refuse to service to anyone for any reason. Discrimination should be perfectly legal. To say that you can be forced to provide a good or service against your will is to advocate slavery.

[@karlthorson776]

I love your videos and you are such an inspiration to young atheists such as myself. Keep up the good work and sound logic.

[@weefishy9129]

An inspiration?! You must not have any role models in the family to look up to if you take 'inspiration' from a third world migrant on KZbin. Where is your family?

[@karlthorson776]

I am sorry for upsetting you. Is there anything that I could say or do to make you feel better?

[@weefishy9129]

You're truly clueless. I hope you grow out of it.

[@karlthorson776]

Can you explain to me what I am clueless about?

[@karlthorson776]

Actually, I am deeply sorry for making your day worse and I wish you a very good summer. I hope we can end the conversation at this, and I respect that your opinion may differ from mine. If you are interested in questioning some other atheists, I would recommend calling into the show "the atheist experience" at 4:00 on sundays so that you can have a constructive conversation with other atheists. Have a great summer! 😋

[@krazer9515]

My favorite part of this case. That baker's hard felt religious beliefs didn't keep him from making special wedding cakes...for dogs. Dog weddings.

[@helenalahovets128]

We've missed you too

[@simonalcala8058]

So lets say they gay couple won, will the cake baker Be forced to make a cake for gay people? If he doesnt want to serve people that go against his religion, as an atheist, i can agree. HE is the one that is missing out on Money. YOU CAN EASILY go to another baker that is willing to make your damn cake, its not that hard people. Let the man hurt his bussiness

[@jordyadvitam7605]

BeWaRe Atheist 😂😂😂

[@imi9989]

He is back!!!

[@Seethi_C]

0:30 - 1:00 do you have a source for this? I read that he offered a generic cake to them, but wouldn’t make it explicitly gay.

[@MarioAlzaga]

Welcome back.

[@Philybeef]

Christian Bakers are also going to lose a lot of potential customers when their bigotry becomes public concern. Not only do they immediately lose all gay customers, they also lose all customers like many others and myself who think the bigotry is wrong. I do support a businesses right to refuse customers for whatever reason, just the same as a customer can say no to a business for any reason, as long as the business is ready to deal with the consequences of bigotry. As much as I don't like "Hate Speech" as much as the next person, I don't want to see it being policed, it's just a part of the double edged sword of free speech.

[@jl9062]

ThePhilybeef Yes Yes Yes, finally someone with fucking common sense. How the hell can people not think this way?

[@cahayabintang4706]

I miss you too!

[@chefman1966]

Hurray! Glad to see you've resurfaced on KZbin. Great to have you back.

[@STALIN_B]

I believe a private business should have the right to pick and choose who they would like to service... On the other hand society should criticize and down play the business for hate

[@Unclenate1000]

exactly, but instead Hemant thinks its better to resort to state-sactioned trespassing.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

Unclenate1000 bullshit. To take down a tresspasser (the baker) can't in it's self be trespassing. Or do you think it's state sanctioned tresspassing to take a thief to court? A squatter? A rapist?

[@STALIN_B]

SonsOfLorgar I'm confused on what you mean by trespassing in this context?

[@fernandocuriel124]

Angry Black Man YES I AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENT. There’s also a difference between a private & a public business.

[@markhackett2302]

Mark Hackett2 weeks agoMark Hackett1 hour agoIf it is privately owned but is open to the public and uses government largesse and avoidance of laws, especially taxes, then they are public, not private.

[@publicenemy8232]

Lol this guy reminds me of Anthony fantano for some reason

[@glennjacob1186]

Those customers have been there multiple times, once they wanted a wedding cake then they were refused service. Im not religious but I believe anyone can run a business however they want.

[@markhackett2302]

"but I believe anyone can run a business however they want." Well you're wrong.

[@remidenshooter566]

I myself am an atheist and this is a dishonest portrayal of the baker. He is a sweet man who believes full heartedly in his beliefs. He doesn't even make cakes for Halloween because he sees it as wrong. Put simply he should not be required to make a cake he does not want to. Cake making is not a government run service and thus he has the right to deny service to anyone he wants. He's not hurting anyone but himself by denying business to certain people.

[@fernandocuriel124]

Roach DogeJr FINALLY SOMEONE WHO KNOWS THE WHOLE CASE.

[@cubeography3723]

"Congress shall make no establishment of Religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise of thereof." He had the right to refuse service.

[@stonferen584]

Cubeography By that logic he also had the right to stone them to death.

[@cubeography3723]

Ston Feren but you do understand that if serving them violated his religious beliefs, he wouldn't have to do it, right?

[@stonferen584]

Cubeography You shouldn't be allowed to discriminate agenst someone just becouse your silly little book says so. Just like you should't be allowed to stone people becouse it says so in a book.

[@cubeography3723]

Ston Feren "Congress... shall not prohibit the exercise of (religion)." Whenever anything religious or having to do with God comes up in government, Atheists scream "Violation of First Amendment!" I think that they may have forgotten that the same amendment they use to want to rid religion from society also happens to protect religion. Also, he wasn't discriminating, he was refusing to endorse something that he thought was wrong. And if the book you're calling silly happens to be the Bible, that is the Word of God. Not to silly, right? Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation but Deliver Us from Evil amen.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

Cubeography bullshit.

[@iamchillydogg]

Anti-discrimination laws are immoral. No one should be forced to act against their will. You shouldn't lose your individual right to liberty because you own a business.

[@sorelsuareztube]

I think he should have chosen a different bakery and not go full drama on this matter.

[@markhackett2302]

I think he should have chosen a different job, one that doesn't interact with the public, if he doesn't want to serve the public, rather than go full drama over this matter.

[@aaronvenia6193]

Mark Hackett , so Mark, if you were king, how would you enforce that? Send soldiers after private citizens who don't think and act the way you want them to?

[@markhackett2302]

"if you were king, how would you enforce that?" Given that your only idea was the bootheel of authoritarianism, it's clear what YOU would do.

[@markhackett2302]

I would arrest the baker for fraud. He took advantage of government aid and welched on the deal. He owes taxpayers the cash he stole. You know, UPHOLD THE GODDAMNED LAW.

[@timtarelli7847]

It has been a long time, Hemant. Keep the faith, or lack thereof. You rock!

[@macecrawford2860]

welcome back. hope you will not wait so long next time. I thought Christians are suppose to be there for all people. I am so glad I ain't a Christian. if there really was a god wouldn't he love everyone rather straight or gay. huh. that's another reason why I am not a Christian.

[@civiliancalleddusk9539]

The couple asked specifically for a gay cake. The guy would have sold them cake if it was neutral. Also regarding your comment about God, you cannot say that it is natural to sleep with someone of the same gender. God created man and woman for a purpose.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

civilian called dusk god didn't create jack shit, because no imaginary entity ever has. So take your bigoted ignorant delusions and shove them where the sun doesn't shine.

[@civiliancalleddusk9539]

SonsOfLorgar you can say it is bigoted and ignorant but even your theory of evolution talks about survival of the fittest. For the human race to survive and 'evolve', they had to reproduce. This means that by your theory, being homosexual is not normal (I assume you believe in the theory of evolution here)

[@kindacalled777]

There was a bakery case in Northern Ireland but it was a different story. In that occasion, the bakery refused to bake a cake saying 'support gay marriage' (P.S. the whole thing was staged because the bakers is widely known to be Christian). They did not refuse the order based on the customer's orientation. Nonetheless, they lost in court. This case is quite difficult, because generally a business is at discretion to refuse whatever orders they wish. Nonetheless, if you advertise your business that you 'will bake any cake'... well, you can't then go complaining, can you?P.S. Business has been booming for them ever since. Hmmm...

[@RobertoRodriguez-fj3yp]

Hey buddy. I'm an atheist too. I don't believe in Jesus or Muhammad or any religion. But he has the right not to bake a cake if he doesn't want to. As a capitalist who believes in the free market, this was a victory for freedom and liberty

[@HTYM]

Roberto Rodriguez A victory for the freedom to discriminate? It's not like Jerry Sandusky and a 12 year-old boy wanted to buy the cake, it was two people who wanted to celebrate a momentous occasion. Would you think/say the same if it was two people of Latino descent that wanted to buy the cake?

[@RobertoRodriguez-fj3yp]

He KZbin Me if a private own business refuse to serve me, then I will have to take my business somewhere else. Or even better, start my own business and Serve everybody. Freedom is freedom. I support it both ways.

[@sumitrapandit1879]

Roberto Rodriguez Then should they not be allowed to serve based on race as well?

[@RobertoRodriguez-fj3yp]

S Pandit yes. I'm sorry. I don't like it neither. But its not aggression, and there isn't a right being taking away when someone refuse to Serve you in a private own business.

[@Yorker1998]

They can discriminate based on anything they want to, including race. Whether they should or not is a different topic but the fact remains that they have that right regardless. You can't force society into being equal.

[@doctorthemoworm]

I looked at the thumbnail for this video and thought for a second that Hemant had gone cross-eyed :D

[@top_mindset]

Who cares go to a different bakery

[@justplay5991]

This sichuation shuold not be big dele.

[@janewright315]

SnowShot98 The issue is not this one baker. The issue is that, regardless of the "narrow scope", most morons do not know what that means and don't care to find out. All sorts of cockroaches have now used this a nod to crawl out from under their disgusting rocks and be open bigots, homophobes, and racists. Just a couple examples are the freak in TN who immediately put up a "no gays allowed" sign and the ND legislator who crawled out and said we should be able to discriminate against people of colour.

[@ferus5583]

-CLM17- wow racist

[@sadboipotato3382]

Victor Gillanes I understand completely where you are coming from. However, at the same time, it sets a dangerous precedent for discrimination against minorities. First it will be gays, then it will be blacks, then others. It won't end with just one. It should not be legal to discriminate against people for completely arbitrary characteristics.

[@YouTuber-mf9wc]

I agree 100%

[@MindfullyMindy]

Making them the cake is saying it's okay.

[@proximacentauri8262]

It's not about discrimination against gays it's about PRIVATELY OWNED companies RIGHT to refuse service to anyone they want for whatever reason.

[@doommslayer6411]

TimeLordofGaming the problem is the precedent that would set. Thats why the court made sure to specify.

[@CampingforCool41]

Bullshit. So you think that companies should also be able to refuse service to black people?

[@camohawk6703]

yes because it is a privately owned business

[@sadboipotato3382]

By that same token, "privately owned businesses" can and will be driven to bankruptcy. If you are going to serve the public, serve ALL of the public, or be driven out of the free market.

[@richard.featherstone]

If you offer a service to the public you can't pick and choose which members of the public can use it

[@thetruesoml2118]

They didn't rule in favor of the bakers or against the couple, they ruled against Colorado. It's subtle but key for this case as you explained. They said the government cannot discrimination against religion (which everyone should agree with). The opinions said they would have ruled in favor of the couple. The fight isn't over and this case will only make it easier and more solid when it comes to the next discrimination case.

[@geuwglesuxballz6074]

You said that "it should not be legal", but you made no case. I'm glad that the bakers won.

[@FetesBrot]

Mhh maybe because discrimination sucks? It takes away you rights as a human and lowers you status in society if enough people do it. But even ignoring that he stated that the baker would have lost if the court before wouldnt have "oversteped" his rights.

[@geuwglesuxballz6074]

Hiro, you did not seem to respond as if it was to my comment. I agree that discrimination sucks (well, the negative kind discussed here). This is obviously not a good reason, so I have no idea why you stated this. Also, you went on to explain obvious reasons why discrimination sucks. Why are you wasting our time? Finally you wrote this: "But even ignoring that he stated that the baker would have lost if the court before wouldnt have "oversteped" his rights." Was your intent to create a mystery by writing a "response" that does not address my comment in any way, shape, or form, so thjat we could wonder why you took the time to write it?

[@markhackett2302]

Mark Hackett2 weeks agoMark Hackett8 hours agoHe has no right to refuse service and the law says he committed a crime. The case was supporting criminal activities. that was his case. Did you just not care you were talking BS?

[@kca_randy]

Great to see you back on YT. Finally someone that shares my opinion,I completely agree.

[@sajfen]

You both are idiots. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fWrVh52GbpWJrZY

[@rudybellengere9038]

Companies have the right to refuse service to anyone. The gay couple could have just gone to a different store. The reason this rule exists is because if it didn't the KKK could approach you and tell you to endorse them on your channel in return for money and you wouldn't be able to refuse them.

[@Curas1]

Your lying. He did offer to sell them any cake in the store, he just wouldn't bake or design a specialty cake for them. Besides why should gays or anyone have the right of service on demand anyway ? Yes instutionalized segregation is bad but that should apply mostly to race, somewhat to gender and not really gay rights at all. Gay is a choice not a right and should be treated as such.

[@sumitrapandit1879]

Curas1 Being gay is not a choice

[@cubeography3723]

S Pandit prove it.

[@MarcusCollins69]

Cubeography your sexuality is programmed in your DNA before your even born

[@Unclenate1000]

i was on your side until that last comment

[@joelsalvador9194]

Marcus Collins no it's not who ever told u that there lying to you 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@jayriese9571]

@Hemant! There you are! MORE VIDS PLEASE! Good to see you well.

[@jloren5662]

Go to a Kebab shop in England and you will likely be asked to leave (or just not served) if you aren't one of the click or female not wearing burka. There have even been shops that served "special meat" to parents of victims. Its not like the customers are asking for pork or going to an indian restaurant and asking for beef. How is any of that ok?

[@jaromor8808]

Whoever uses the term "hate speech" instantly loses all credibility.

[@donkeyparadise9276]

Yep

[@mrexcelsior1414]

We the People issue business licenses. People should start discriminating against christians

[@aaronvenia6193]

Darius S Collins , you don't need a license to start a business. Example, would you like to buy some apples?

[@delphi-moochymaker62]

I don't buy pastries from those who believe in magic and mysticism.

[@Craxin01]

No business can operate in the US (city or state) without first obtaining a license. That license is a contract with the government. It means you have to follow business laws of that city or state, including the anti-discrimination clauses. Violation of those laws is essentially breach of contract and incurs penalties, including fines and up to loss of that business license. This supreme court decision spat in the face of that.

[@alainjoseph3994]

O MY gosh this man would literally get destroyed if in a debate with Frank Turek. Hes so inconsistent 😂🤣

[@_BenJaminCroft_]

What the cake guy *didn’t* say was that he wouldn’t *sell* them a cake. He's happy to sell a cake to anyone, whatever his or her sexual identity. People should be free to make their own moral choices. That doesn't mean he has to agree with them. And this wasn’t just a business decision. More than anything else, it was a reflection of his commitment to his faith. His religious convictions on this are grounded in the biblical teaching that God designed marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Obviously, not everyone shares those convictions. I don’t expect them to. Each of us makes our own choices; each of us decides how closely we will hold to, defend and live out those choices. The two men who came into this guy's shop that day were living out their beliefs. All he did was attempt to live out his. He respected their right to choose and hoped that they would respect his. They did not. But the Constitution does. The First Amendment defends his right to create custom cake art that is consistent with his faith, while declining requests that ask him to celebrate events or messages that conflict with his faith. As a cake artist, he can live out his faith in his day-to-day life, and make that faith the basis for his creative decisions. Accordingly, the government may not enact content-based laws commanding a speaker to engage in protected expression: An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write.

[@AurorasAura4417]

I believe a person's rights, religious or otherwise, end when another person's rights are impeded upon

[@kevinatchison1973]

Why do you say that choosing to deny service to people should be illegal when you also say that choosing to deny life to unborn babies should be legal?