Page 137 of 173 FirstFirst ... 3787127135136137138139147 ... LastLast
Results 1,361 to 1,370 of 1723

Thread: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647]

  1. #1361
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    DING DING DING DING correct


    the owner wasnt even fined he was just given a cease and desist order to stop breaking the law and conducting illegal discrimination.
    Yup, government force to make them prepare cake against their will. I hope the cake is worth it.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #1362
    Educator Uncensored2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    06-02-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    655

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) so instead of posting any facts to support your failed claims you go off topic, become uncivl and post failed insult. oh well
    let me know when you want to stay on topic and have and facts that support you
    2.) and yet the rulign still factually proves you wrong
    3.) thank you for posting that, theres NOTHING in there that says the judge forced him to make a cake, in fact the judge did not do that, he only stated that the owner making cakes for a gay wedding would not hurt his business. You should read it again. Thank you for proving yourself wrong
    4.) yes you posted a lie as you just proved, thanks

    facts defeat your post again
    It's like talking to a two year old

    Come back if you decide to engage honestly.

  3. #1363
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It was discrimination over cake. Nothing more, nothing less. No false claim since this was indeed about cake. You can keep saying 2+2=fish, but it doesn't make it so.
    ooooooooh so now it IS discrimination but its over cake, nice back pedal but no one will buy it because your post was already proved wrong.
    Like you have been told muiltiple times buy many posters the cake is meaningless and its not about cake its about discrimination.

    i agree, what i say doesnt make it so but the court case and rulling make your post 100% factually wrong as proven.

    this fact will never change.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #1364
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Yup, government force to make them prepare cake against their will. I hope the cake is worth it.
    nope government protecting the rights of others that the criminal owner violated
    much worth it! justice and rights win and are protected!
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #1365
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncensored2008 View Post
    It's like talking to a two year old

    Come back if you decide to engage honestly.
    another failed insult, nothing on topic and more incivility, oh well

    let us know when you are ready to stay on topic and have any facts to support the false claims in your posts, we will be here waiting.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #1366
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    ooooooooh so now it IS discrimination but its over cake, nice back pedal but no one will buy it because your post was already proved wrong.
    Like you have been told muiltiple times buy many posters the cake is meaningless and its not about cake its about discrimination.

    i agree, what i say doesnt make it so but the court case and rulling make your post 100% factually wrong as proven.

    this fact will never change.
    I never said it wasn't discrimination. What backpeddling are you talking about? Please keep your arguments honest. It's that this isn't a form of discrimination that infringes upon rights. You ain't got right to cake.

    I know what the court said, this site isn't SupportTheCourts.com, it's debatepolitics.com That means we're not all going to agree with current law or progression or politics and that we will debate those things. Your little pedantic ramblings and appeal to authority (logical fallacy, BTW) mean nothing. End of story, you ain't got a right to cake.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #1367
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    nope government protecting the rights of others that the criminal owner violated
    much worth it! justice and rights win and are protected!
    What rights? Someone's rights to another person's cake and labor? That doesn't exist...well OK it seems that it does given this case. But it's not proper use of government force.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #1368
    Sage
    blackjack50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,386

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    It doesn't "Codemn" our rights at all. There is no "natural" or Constitutional right to engage in discrimination. Period.
    Do you understand the idea of precedent? The idea that it is ok for the government to say who and why a person can refuse service does NOT set a good legal precedent. It is a legal foothold that can be exploited later. This isn't just about "natural rights to engage in discrimination." It is also about government involvement in private affairs. If this company is not publicly traded...it SHOULD be the right of the person running it to refuse service. Even if that makes the person a bigoted moron because the money he is receiving is the exact same color and creed as any other money he puts in his cash register.

    See. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I am a bigot. I think that there is a MUCH better way to approach this issue. I think a boycott would have been MUCH more effective and would have set a better example than bogging down the court system with a case that basically says, "We don't care why you don't wish to serve us...you have no choice." Screw that. If I don't want serve you...it should be my choice not too. It shouldn't be up to the government. It is a PRIVATE business which means it is run by ONE person. It is THAT person's property, and it should be subject to the same laws as private property in terms of who IS or IS NOT allowed to be on it.

    precedent legal definition of precedent. precedent synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
    The Crowd is not the sum of its parts.

  9. #1369
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    1.)I never said it wasn't discrimination. What backpeddling are you talking about?
    2.)Please keep your arguments honest.
    3.)It's that this isn't a form of discrimination that infringes upon rights. You ain't got right to cake.
    4.)
    I know what the court said, this site isn't SupportTheCourts.com, it's debatepolitics.com That means we're not all going to agree with current law or progression or politics and that we will debate those things.
    5.) Your little pedantic ramblings mean nothing. End of story, you ain't got a right to cake.
    1.) you posted it was about cake muiltiple posters told you its about discrimination, your post was factually wrong. its about discrimination and the cake doesnt matter.
    2.) i did and the thread proves this and that your post was and is factually wrong
    3.) correct and this strawman and factually wrong statement fails every time you post it, nobody ever said they had a right to cake. Hence your stawman fails.
    4.) this is not an opinion, its not subjective. the case was based on discrimination and the ruling was based on discriminating, not cake, there fore your statement is and was factually wrong

    no amount of double talk, reframing, or backpedaling will change this fact it was about discrimination and the cakae is meaningless proven by facts.
    5.) that they mean is you are factually wrong as FACTS prove and you have nothign but "nuhuh"
    6.) correct good thing nobody made that claim, thanks for proving your starwman wrong again

    sorry this fact bothers you but its a fact non the less and yo have ZERO facts to show otherwsie
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #1370
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,488

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncensored2008 View Post
    Not the point. The straw man Disneydude was erecting was based on the idea the Baker agreed to serve homosexuals buy opening a business. It's an absurd claim on it's face. but even IF we were to accept it, the ex post facto provision would render the argument null.
    Don't quote me, argue my point, then shift to what someone else said. This business owner renewed his license which means he entered into a contract, with the State, in which he acknowledged and agreed to abide by the laws which govern business including Colorado Revised Statute Title 24 Article 34 which clearly states it is unlawful for a place of public accommodation to discriminate in the offering of goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation. There's nothing Ex Post Facto about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncensored2008 View Post
    You must have a unique 14th amendment.
    No, I just understand how it is applied.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncensored2008 View Post
    And that trumps the 13th Amendment? Damn...Bunk.
    You are welcome to explain how willfully entering into a contract with the State constitutes slavery.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •