2.) nobody honest believes this including the judge, it was in fact the homosexuals and what violates his religious beliefs? not weddings
3.) him being an idiot isnt a defense and not doing Halloween isnt illegal discrimination
also if true what about the cake for dog weddings? though i dont know if its true
but the bottom line is all in the question in #1
what opinion was he relying on to come to the decision that their marriage isnt religious?
it was sexual orientation discrimination as the judge determined and thats what the precedence was on. We cant just make things up, so i will ask a third time
1.) what does an obscene cake have to do with illegal discrimination and or violation of equal rights?
2.) also what does swastikas have to do with illegal discrimination and or violation of equal rights?
there is no legal precedence between the things mentioned above and illegal discrimination and or equal rights.
Facts, laws, rights, court cases and court precedence all prove you wrong, remind us what do you have supporting you?
facts destroy your post AGAIN
again when you are ready to be civil and support your failed posts with facts we will be here
Get there firstest with the mostest. Trust, but verify. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
I think religion is the wrong argument here (and why I wasnt the one to bring it up). I would no more force the baker to sell to a gay couple than I would force a gay bar owner to serve obnoxious rednecks that were verbally denigrating gays. But if you (you in this case being DD et al) ARE going to bring it up in the argument...well...you kinda have to live with ALL the rhetoric...not just the pieces you like to pick and choose that make you feel all better about yourself. And when we talk about a Christlike life...true enough...he would not expect individuals to pronounce "judgement" (God has already done that if you are inclined to believe in the Bible) but he also did not say "go forth, and hey...just ignore that whole sin thing...do whatever you want."
As far as the obscene cakes...what I was getting at is that rulings like this set a precedent for other things to be considered "discrimination". As far as "equal rights", well, if I can legally be discriminated against because I'm not a member of a "protected class" then that isn't very "equal", is it?