• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

AGENT J said:
nope government protecting the rights of others that the criminal owner violated
much worth it! justice and rights win and are protected!
Click to expand...
Criminal owner??? If you were half the advocate of rights you claim to be, you would be defending the rights of the individual store owner to act according to his own will and his own standards. Instead you defend the power of the state to impose its will upon free men.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Ikari said:
1.)What rights? Someone's rights to another person's cake and labor? That doesn't exist...
2.)well OK it seems that it does given this case. But it's not proper use of government force.
Click to expand...

1.) correct good thing nobody made that argument but please feel free to invent more strawman
2.) nope not what the case is based on
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Fletch said:
Criminal owner??? If you were half the advocate of rights you claim to be, you would be defending the rights of the individual store owner to act according to his own will and his own standards. Instead you defend the power of the state to impose its will upon free men.
Click to expand...

Many people will default to government force when they can't get their way.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

AGENT J said:
1.) correct good thing nobody made that argument but please feel free to invent more strawman
2.) nope not what the case is based on
Click to expand...

The case was based on a gay couple being refused a cake. No matter what you say, you cannot change that fact.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

upsideguy said:
Whether you chose to like it or not, there is very strong religious grounds for finding gay marriage morally wrong. ... and we ain't talking some fringe wackadoo religious sect, we are talking the Bible, the Law according to God according to Christians and Jews (supposedly 85% of America thinks they are either Christian or Jewish).
Click to expand...

No one is asking the baker to perform a gay wedding
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Ikari said:
It's about discrimination over cake. Someone had cake, someone else wanted to buy it, the first person said no, the second person took it to court. Nothing you say will change the fact.
Click to expand...

When Rosa Parks was arrested for not taking a seat in the back of the bus....was it about a bus ride?

When blacks had to use separate water fountains....was it about a drink of water?

When employment signs at a cigar store said, "No Jews and no Irish need apply"... was it about selling tobacco?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Ikari said:
It is about cake. The discrimination is secondary in this case since it involves no rights. But I never once said it wasn't discrimination. Please try to make more honest arguments in the future.
Click to expand...

100% factually false cake is secondary and meaningless, this fact will never change want MORE FACTUAL PROOF besides the the court case being based on DISCRIMINATION even though that all that is needed.

replace the cake with flowers, case still exist, why? because of illegal discrimination
replaces the discrimination with not discriminating, case goes away, why? no illegal discrimination

honesty and facts destroy and prove your post 100% wrong again.
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Lursa said:
When Rosa Parks was arrested for not taking a seat in the back of the bus....was it about a bus ride?

When blacks had to use separate water fountains....was it about a drink of water?

When employment signs at a cigar store said, "No Jews and no Irish need apply"... was it about selling tobacco?
Click to expand...

Of course, the difference between Rosa Parks and the religious zealots is that they complain about being martyrs after deliberately putting themselves in these situations as if they're surprised that civil disobedience has legal consequences.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Fletch said:
1.)Criminal owner???
2.)If you were half the advocate of rights you claim to be, you would be defending the rights of the individual store owner to act according to his own will and his own standards.
3.) Instead you defend the power of the state to impose its will upon free men.
Click to expand...

1.) yes, he committed a crime and broke the law by definition of the word crime and criminal thats what he is
2.) i am defending the rights of the individual, because those are tho only ones that were infringed on, the store owners are factually intact.

he has not right to act to his standards if it breaks the law and infringes on the rights of others

3.) factually false i defend a criminal facing the consequences and the government protecting the law and rights of the individuals that had them infringed on.
Same rights i have, same rights the owner has and same rights the couple has but only one of us chose to break the law and infringe on anothers rights and that was the owner.

he'll know better next time
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Ikari said:
It is about cake. The discrimination is secondary in this case since it involves no rights. But I never once said it wasn't discrimination. Please try to make more honest arguments in the future.
Click to expand...

It involves the same rights as if the complainants had been black or Jewish. Sexual orientation is a protected class in CO.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Ikari said:
The case was based on a gay couple being refused a cake. No matter what you say, you cannot change that fact.
Click to expand...

100% factually false proven by facts already.

case was filed based on what? DISCRIMINATION
case went to a judge based on what? DISCRIMINATION
case was ruled on and the judged based his rulling on what? DISCRIMINATION
not cake

can a case be brought to court based on cake? factually no
is cake in general illegal? factually no
does cake break the law and infringe on rights? factually no
your post is destroyed again by facts, remind me what you have to support your failed post again? thats right nothing

facts, the court case and the ruling all prove your post wrong
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Lursa said:
When Rosa Parks was arrested for not taking a seat in the back of the bus....was it about a bus ride?

When blacks had to use separate water fountains....was it about a drink of water?

When employment signs at a cigar store said, "No Jews and no Irish need apply"... was it about selling tobacco?
Click to expand...

facts like this will be ignored
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Ikari said:
The case was based on a gay couple being refused a cake. No matter what you say, you cannot change that fact.
Click to expand...

Rosa Park's arrest was about a woman who would not move to her specific part of a bus. Sounds pretty innocuous to me. And yet it was one form of fighting for one's civil rights.

The precedent is seen throughout American history, civil disobedience, legal pressure (like law suits), petitioning legislators...all seemingly minor on their own, but bring awareness which contribute to tipping the scales.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

AGENT J said:
facts like this will be ignored
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's why I have my signature...the one in green.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

AGENT J said:
no crying just like pointing out that your post was 100% factually wrong, remind me who attacked the facts? that was you so . . . . .

please continue to post lies though

when you have anything on topic and any facts to support your proven wrong statement let us know
Click to expand...

when you can do anything but show tears, please do so

Colorado judges do not speak for the whole country
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

The difference between a liberal and a libertarian is that a libertarian sees the government as an arbiter of last resort, instead of the chief one.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Grant said:
You are at the nub of the problem.

It is my feeling that the Supreme Court, if it ever gets that far, would find in favor of the baker.

Despite the foolish analogies we've seen here this baker was not refusing the two Gay men service. They could buy any goods in the store they wanted. He just did not want to make a wedding cake for Gays because it was against his religion. He clearly has the First Amendment on his side. A wedding cake for Gays is a special order and there is no reason why he should have to make any special order for anyone if he doesn't want to.
Click to expand...

Yes there have been some very foolish/short sighted views presented. There is always the way of the courts to challenge these cases being brought by several gay couples all over the country on small business owners that cite religious convictions as not allowing them to offer services for a gay wedding. There have been florists, photographers, bakers all being hauled into court. But there is also another way to provide people protection of moral conscience and that is through the legislative branch of the Federal government. Today I found something that made me smile. The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act (H.R. 3133) was introduced just a few weeks ago by Representative Raul Labrador (R–ID) and over 60 other original co-sponsors from both political parties. The bill could be an important step for conscience protection. And the fact that it has bi-partisan support makes it more likely it will pass. :) Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

AGENT J said:
100% factually false proven by facts already.

case was filed based on what? DISCRIMINATION
case went to a judge based on what? DISCRIMINATION
case was ruled on and the judged based his rulling on what? DISCRIMINATION
not cake

can a case be brought to court based on cake? factually no
is cake in general illegal? factually no
does cake break the law and infringe on rights? factually no
your post is destroyed again by facts, remind me what you have to support your failed post again? thats right nothing

facts, the court case and the ruling all prove your post wrong
Click to expand...

It was filed on discrimination, I never said anything counter. Please try to refrain from pedantic arguments which add nothing and are nothing more than strawman. My point is that cake is not a right and if you are discriminated against for a cake it's not the same as discrimination that actually involves rights. Cake is not a right.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Lursa said:
Yes, but that's why I have my signature...the one in green.
Click to expand...

lol very true but some of the judges ignore facts too
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Lursa said:
Rosa Park's arrest was about a woman who would not move to her specific part of a bus. Sounds pretty innocuous to me. And yet it was one form of fighting for one's civil rights.

The precedent is seen throughout American history, civil disobedience, legal pressure (like law suits), petitioning legislators...all seemingly minor on their own, but bring awareness which contribute to tipping the scales.
Click to expand...

Public transportation and private business are 2 different things. Please avoid strawman arguments.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Gipper said:
The difference between a liberal and a libertarian is that a libertarian sees the government as an arbiter of last resort, instead of the chief one.
Click to expand...

The real difference between a liberal and a libertarian is that a liberal is aware that the government is required to fill a void which exists because of the realities of human nature and that there wouldn't be slack for the government to pick up if people could be relied upon to make the just and charitable choices on their own.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Napoleon said:
The real difference between a liberal and a libertarian is that a liberal is aware that the government is required to fill a void which exists because of the realities of human nature and that there wouldn't be slack for the government to pick up if people could be relied upon to make the just and charitable choices on their own.
Click to expand...

Libertarians are not anarchists.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Rocketman said:
when you can do anything but show tears, please do so

Colorado judges do not speak for the whole country
Click to expand...

more off topic ranting and failed insults :shrug": nothing has changed the point that your statement was factually wrong
let me know when you have anything that changes this fact
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Napoleon said:
The real difference between a liberal and a libertarian is that a liberal is aware that the government is required to fill a void which exists because of the realities of human nature and that there wouldn't be slack for the government to pick up if people could be relied upon to make the just and charitable choices on their own.
Click to expand...

So we should allow them to be the moral police for one-third of a billion Americans? Yeah, and the right wing wants a police state...

It's bad enough that we tell the world what to do and think. Hell if I want them to do it to their own.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

vesper said:
Yes there have been some very foolish/nearsighted views presented. There is always the way of the courts to challenge these cases being brought by several gay couples all over the country on small business owners that cite religious convictions as not allowing them to offer services for a gay wedding. There have been florists, photographers, bakers all being hauled into court. But there is also another way to provide people protection of moral conscience and that is through the legislative branch of the Federal government. Today I found something that made me smile. The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act (H.R. 3133) was introduced just a few weeks ago by Representative Raul Labrador (R–ID) and over 60 other original co-sponsors from both political parties. The bill could be an important step for conscience protection. And the fact that it has bi-partisan support makes it more likely it will pass. :) Cheers!
Click to expand...

What is near-sighted (I would say short-sighted) is that neither of you seems to realize that blacks, for example, had to fight the same way, do the same things, to achieve their civil rights. As did women.

And people considered what they did as annoying and valueless and selfish as you do. However....*history* will be the judge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom