• 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

vesper said:
Really? My arguments are so piss poor and yours are by all means stellar examples of justice ! Yeah right.
Click to expand...

I'll give you a shot. Tell me all your arguments against incest marriages besides "well the gays can't do it." It seems to me that you are saying YOU can't think of any arguments against incest marriages if same sex marriage is made legal. I would love for you to prove me wrong.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

AGENT J said:
translation: you can defend your factually wrong statement, we knew this already. Let us know when you can provide any facts/links that support the false claims you posted.
Click to expand...

My factually wrong statement? according to whom, you and every supporter of forcing others to comply to discrimination laws that violate others their moral conscience? What a joke!
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
1.)What you fail to recognize both instances were the result of moral judgment directly related to their moral conscience.
2.)But folks like you in states that have allowed "gay rights" to trample religious freedoms will find new ways around the laws and who knows the jerkoffs who live in those states may wake up some day and vote to change it all.
Click to expand...

1.) which are meaningless when breaking the law and infringing on the rights of others, 100% meaningless
2.) as already factually proven no rights were trampled

facts defeat your post again
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Grant said:
Really? Where does it say that? The baker draws the line at wedding cakes for Gays because he supports marriage as being between a man and a woman. This is freedom of religion. They are welcome to go elsewhere to get a cake.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that?

It's called "the law"

And baking a cake is not a religious practice and is not protected by the law


Which law are you referring to here? Once he makes a penis cake he's hooked on providing penis cakes for life??
Click to expand...
[/quote]

Is english a second language for you? If a baker provides a product, like penis cakes, then they can not refuse to produce a penis cakes based on the customers sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc

Which word is giving you a problem here?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
What you fail to recognize both instances were the result of moral judgment directly related to their moral conscience. But folks like you in states that have allowed "gay rights" to trample religious freedoms will find new ways around the laws and who knows the jerkoffs who live in those states may wake up some day and vote to change it all.
Click to expand...

If this case ever gets to the Supreme Court, and the Constitution is followed, then the baker would obviously win. The Constitution was not designed to follow the fashions of the day.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
1.)My factually wrong statement? according to whom
2.), you and every supporter of forcing others to comply to discrimination laws that violate others their moral conscience?
3.) What a joke!
Click to expand...

1.) according to laws, rights, constitution, facts, court cases, ordinances, cases precedent
2..) no not me see 1#
3.) yes you denying these facts is a joke
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
What you fail to recognize both instances were the result of moral judgment directly related to their moral conscience. But folks like you in states that have allowed "gay rights" to trample religious freedoms will find new ways around the laws and who knows the jerkoffs who live in those states may wake up some day and vote to change it all.
Click to expand...

Businesses open to the public have no right to refuse service based on their moral judgement.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Grant said:
If this case ever gets to the Supreme Court, and the Constitution is followed, then the baker would obviously win. The Constitution was not designed to follow the fashions of the day.
Click to expand...
Thank you Grant for your response in a pool of idiocy.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

sangha said:
Where does it say that?
Click to expand...
Jeez, Man I just quoted the First Amendment! Can't you se where it says the government cannot prohibit the free exercise religio0n? The baker believes, according to his Christian religion, that marriage is between a man and a woman. He is exercising his religious right to not make a wedding cake for two people of the same sex.
It's called "the law"
Click to expand...
It's called "The Constitution"!
And baking a cake is not a religious practice and is not protected by the law
Click to expand...
WHOOOOOSH!
Is english a second language for you? If a baker provides a product, like penis cakes, then they can not refuse to produce a penis cakes based on the customers sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc
Click to expand...
I'd really like to see that law about penis cakes. Why not post a link?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Grant said:
Jeez, Man I just quoted the First Amendment! Can't you se where it says the government cannot prohibit the free exercise religio0n?
Click to expand...

Baking a cake is not an exercise of religion
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Grant said:
Just in case some people forget.

In the United States, the religious civil liberties are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

The First Amendment is as follows.



This baker was clearly exercising his First Amendment rights.
Click to expand...

No duh. The problem here isn't with the right, but with the limit of that right. I can't just kill you in the name of God and then claim it was my religious right to do so. Do you know what "free exercise" means? The courts have struggled with that one for quite some time.

faqs
For the individual, the court must determine

whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and
whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.

If these two elements are established, then the government must prove

that it is acting in furtherance of a "compelling state interest," and
that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.

The Supreme Court, however, curtailed the application of the Sherbert test in the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith. In that case, the Court held that a burden on free exercise no longer had to be justified by a compelling state interest if the burden was an unintended result of laws that are generally applicable.3

After Smith, only laws (or government actions) that (1) were intended to prohibit the free exercise of religion, or (2) violated other constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, were subject to the compelling interest test. For example, a state could not pass a law stating that Native Americans are prohibited from using peyote, but it could accomplish the same result by prohibiting the use of peyote by everyone.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see if the Colorado Anti Discrimination Act will be found unconstitutional, but I doubt it will under the current interpretation.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
Thank you Grant for your response in a pool of idiocy.
Click to expand...

No thanks are necessary, Vesper, but thanks anyway!.

People should not be forced to do anything against their will and that should be clear to everyone. If it's not then the country is in real trouble.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

CriticalThought said:
No duh. The problem here isn't with the right, but with the limit of that right. I can't just kill you in the name of God and then claim it was my religious right to do so. Do you know what "free exercise" means? The courts have struggled with that one for quite some time.

faqs
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between killing someone and not selling a cake to them? Time to get real!
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

sangha said:
Businesses open to the public have no right to refuse service based on their moral judgement.
Click to expand...

not to mention moral judgments and moral conscience is absolutely meaningless when it comes to breaking the law and infringing on the rights of others, its beyond absurd to even come up with the logic that it matters.

I guess if i think rape is ok by my moral judgments and moral conscience i should be allowed to do it. LMAO
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

sangha said:
Baking a cake is not an exercise of religion
Click to expand...

Maybe in some religions it is. You seem more certain of this than me.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Grant said:
Do you understand the difference between killing someone and not selling a cake to them? Time to get real!
Click to expand...

It was an extreme example to point out that "free exercise" of religion is not unlimited. Your right to "free exercise" of religion ends when it interferes with my rights. Court precedent also allows a state to limit your "free exercise" of religion in the interest of a "compelling state interest" such as nondiscrimination as long as it isn't too burdensome.

Everyone here knows it is a 1st amendment, religious liberty issue. The actual debate is the extent to which people have "free exercise" of their religious liberty and whether the state is imposing too much of a burden on this baker by trying to push its interest of nondiscrimination. Hence why I posted the handy, dandy link. Forgive me for trying to help you out.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

AGENT J said:
not to mention moral judgments and moral conscience is absolutely meaningless when it comes to breaking the law and infringing on the rights of others, its beyond absurd to even come up with the logic that it matters.

I guess if i think rape is ok by my moral judgments and moral conscience i should be allowed to do it. LMAO
Click to expand...

WOW! After comparing it to murder here's who compares rape to a cake sale. How about treason? Torture perhaps? C'mon guys, Use your imaginations! We can draw thousands of comparisons to selling cake!
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Mason66 said:
gays are an extremely small part of the overall population.

Why would people stop shopping there because of this?
Click to expand...

Because there are some people that think that discrimination because of sexual orientation is wrong. I may not be gay, but if I knew an establishment went out of their way to discriminate against gay people, I would not patronize the place. You seem to assume that folks only care about themselves.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Businesses should be able to serve who they want to serve. You are not entitled to ampther mans business.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

CriticalThought said:
It was an extreme example to point out that "free exercise" of religion is not unlimited.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that insight.

Your right to "free exercise" of religion ends when it interferes with my rights.
Click to expand...
Is it your right to buy something that someone doesn't want labor over and sell to you?
Court precedent also allows a state to limit your "free exercise" of religion in the interest of a "compelling state interest" such as nondiscrimination as long as it isn't too burdensome.
Click to expand...
The baker feels it is too burdensome apparently, and against his religion as well. This is hardly an exclusive belief, given that the last three presidents, or more, have had the same opinion.. That's his decision to make and of course he made it at great personal and professional risk. It's a man taking a stand for his religious beliefs..
Everyone here knows it is a 1st amendment, religious liberty issue.
Click to expand...
Apparently not, judging by some posts.
The actual debate is the extent to which people have "free exercise" of their religious liberty and whether the state is imposing too much of a burden on this baker by trying to push its interest of nondiscrimination. Hence why I posted the handy, dandy link. Forgive me for trying to help you out.
Click to expand...
No perspiration.You're forgiven.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Phil_Osophy said:
Businesses should be able to serve who they want to serve. You are not entitled to ampther mans business.
Click to expand...

Or their labor.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

year2late said:
Because there are some people that think that discrimination because of sexual orientation is wrong. I may not be gay, but if I knew an establishment went out of their way to discriminate against gay people, I would not patronize the place. You seem to assume that folks only care about themselves.
Click to expand...
I'd probably do the same, but would also recognize that this person has his beliefs and they should be respected unless he is causing harm. That's obviously not the case here.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Phil_Osophy said:
Businesses should be able to serve who they want to serve. You are not entitled to ampther mans business.
Click to expand...

Curious, do you think segregation at a private business is acceptable? Think "Whites Only" etc.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Grant said:
WOW! After comparing it to murder here's who compares rape to a cake sale. How about treason? Torture perhaps? C'mon guys, Use your imaginations! We can draw thousands of comparisons to selling cake!
Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate form of argument provided it does not descend into a strawman.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Grant said:
1.)WOW! After comparing it to murder here's who compares rape to a cake sale. How about treason? Torture perhaps? C'mon guys, Use your imaginations! We can draw thousands of comparisons to selling cake!
Click to expand...

yep because the absurd failed argument was made over and over again that its ok to violate peoples rights, break the laws and infringe on rights based on moral judgments and moral conscience, so i simple applied that false statement/logic to something else proving what a complete failure it was.

im glad you see how that "defense" is completely mentally retarded and a defense like that could never hold water to the facts

but you are right we could draw thousands of comparisons based on that and they would all fail and be defeat by facts, THANKS!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom