• 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 Cake shop, told you it was just the beginning of legal discimination![W:168]

ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... does that apply to a print shop (or web site) that would refuse to help promote 'white pride' folks? How about a bar that will book only 'country' or 'hip-hop' bands? It is my understanding that the cake shop no longer makes 'wedding' cakes at all - is that 'compromise' OK with you?
Click to expand...

Anything a business makes for someone they must make for another. If a business doesn't make white pride tshirts, or cakes, they don't have to. If a business doesn't provide country music, they don't have to. If they make wedding cakes, they have to do that as per what else they provide. If they don't make dick cakes, they don't have to provide dick cakes. But if they do, they must for everyone.
 
Last edited:
independentusa said:
First it was gay people and now trans gender. The SCOTUS said discriminating for religious purposes was just fine and now it has gone from gays to transgenders, although i wonder where in his bible it says transgenders are against God's law. But it will not end here, next will come Jews or Muslims, then blacks, Mexican or Asians. It will never end because you can find a reason for your religion to discriminate for just about any reason you want. Yo yell its about freedom, but I have never seem my religion as a good reason to hate anyone God made the way they are. It is like saying God made mistakes and that is what people are saying when they discriminate.
Click to expand...

This is an attack on a United States citizen because of his religion. That's the only discrimination taking place.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) yes i see those insane claims...why should they matter. those same claims came about with minorities and women too...whats the alternative...give into him and keep allowing people to be treated as lessers allow crimes against them and in some case allow them to have thier rights violated?

for me thats a huge no, for me i have no sympathy for bigots and those that want to treat people as lessers. where else do we do that and why would that be reasonable? rape? theft? assault? etc etc
Click to expand...

I have no sympathy either -- I guess I just want to be a part of the solution by boycotting those people out of business. Of course, we can still do that -- with anti-discrimination laws.

2.) it will against some thats for sure but those some are NEVER changing...and for others they may change..but i dont care if they change only that peoples rights are protected. i dont care about the feelings of nutters.
Click to expand...

In my personal life, I've seen some people change. Or perhaps they always had more tolerant feelings but just needed a boost to show them. Before same-sex marriages was legalized, I worked on a Letter-to-the-Editor campaign and placed letters in over 50 newspapers. Because you have to give your name and location, I got quite a few phone calls. A few were rude bastards but many said they appreciated my letters and that they "never saw it that way before." I liked the feeling of being helpful.

3.) i agree but again thats in a vacuum, we do NOT stand together in the majority of cases. we see it every day. hell we got people recording women getting beat and people drowning on thier phones instead of helping. is that common place . . no but common enough where i would never trust everyday society to protect my rights.... when has that ever worked for issues like these? never

i WISH it did... i truly do, that would be AWESOME!!! but we prove everyday it doesnt and i cant standing by and watching the victim numbers keep climbing and climbing while hoping hearts change is not a reality based option i could ever support without feeling guilt and feeling like im part of the problem.
Click to expand...


I know you're right -- I just like the idea of a grassroots movement that overwhelms them. And, no, we cannot stand by and watch the victim numbers climb. That's not an option. Perhaps a combination of the two? These people need to understand that America is against them. Not just the law -- but the rest of the thinking citizens.

I'm going to have to concede to your position -- it's well thought out and, frankly, it covers the bases that mine might not. I still want to work, on a social level, however, to shut these people down.
 
Anarchon said:
I said for refusing to comply. Paying a fine is complying. The government will continually escalate any situation until the person complies. If the person continues to refuse to comply, they will be maimed, caged, and/or killed, just as I stated.
Click to expand...

Sorry -- that just doesn't happen. Or rather, it happens only in your mind.

A guy in my community decided that he had a legal "right" not to pay income taxes. For years. He ran a local service business and he refused to pay the IRS. They got multiple judgements against him. He just ignored them.

Almost 15 years after they kept trying to collect, they finally acted. They seized his home, his business and his bank account. By that time, he owed over a million dollars in back taxes. They sold off his assets and what little money was left over they returned to him. He was out of business because he had no more equipment. No maiming. No torture. No killing. Not even any jail time. And the entire community (people who pay their taxes) shed no tears for the guy.

I find the way you think to be fascinating. It's like a pit bull with a bone. No matter how anyone else shows you to be wrong -- you just won't let go. You're set in your ways and your jaws are clenched around that bone.

This discussion, however, has made me realize how very important it is for me to do my part in the fight against bigotry, and so I just made a sizeable donation to the Transgender Law Center.

Go and make a donation yourself -- turn over a new leaf today. You'll feel better.
 
AGENT J said:
what rights did he give away LMAO
list his factual rights and prove they were taken away
Click to expand...

What is the prohibition in The Constitution not to bake cakes or the right in The Constitution to bake cakes? I'd say the 9th amendment does this trick.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Sorry -- that just doesn't happen. Or rather, it happens only in your mind.

A guy in my community decided that he had a legal "right" not to pay income taxes. For years. He ran a local service business and he refused to pay the IRS. They got multiple judgements against him. He just ignored them.

Almost 15 years after they kept trying to collect, they finally acted. They seized his home, his business and his bank account. By that time, he owed over a million dollars in back taxes. They sold off his assets and what little money was left over they returned to him. He was out of business because he had no more equipment. No maiming. No torture. No killing. Not even any jail time. And the entire community (people who pay their taxes) shed no tears for the guy.

I find the way you think to be fascinating. It's like a pit bull with a bone. No matter how anyone else shows you to be wrong -- you just won't let go. You're set in your ways and your jaws are clenched around that bone.

This discussion, however, has made me realize how very important it is for me to do my part in the fight against bigotry, and so I just made a sizeable donation to the Transgender Law Center.

Go and make a donation yourself -- turn over a new leaf today. You'll feel better.
Click to expand...

Hi Howard (borrowing from Polgara).:2wave:

On a side note, and I'm sure you'll disagree with this after I examined many of your posts on the subject, this Colorado anti-discrimination law that we're referencing in this thread is not so much an anti-discrimination law as a law to, for example, demand lifestyles, genders (or non-genders) be equally recognized. There seems to be a lot of preaching on this subject even in this thread.

For example, the state of Colo. is demanding all people of Colorado think the same on these subjects irregardless of contrary beliefs. BTW, this runs contrary to the first amendment. It will be the Colo. anti-discrimination law's downfall. Many refuse to realize this because they are so vested in an 'abolitionist' view about their favorite lifestyle, gender, etc., 'in chains' by being unequal to others.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Anything a business makes for someone they must make for another. If a business doesn't make white pride tshirts, or cakes, they don't have to. If a business doesn't provide country music, they don't have to. If they make wedding cakes, they have to do that as per what else they provide. If they don't make dick cakes, they don't have to provide dick cakes. But if they do, they must for everyone.
Click to expand...

You mean a business like, for example, the Ford Motor Company must make houseboats?

Why can't a baker advertise for and just make cakes for traditional weddings or just make cakes for non-traditional weddings?
My answer: Because people like you who are so vested in having non-traditional weddings be on equal footing with traditional weddings. One can't specialize. One mustn't exclude (your favorite cause).
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
You mean a business like, for example, the Ford Motor Company must make houseboats?
Why can't a baker advertise for and just make cakes for traditional weddings or just make cakes for non-traditional weddings?
My answer: Because people like you who are so vested in having non-traditional weddings be on equal footing with traditional weddings
Click to expand...

Whatever Ford makes, cars, trucks, houseboats, or twizzle-sticks for cocktails, they have to sell them to anyone who wants one. Likewise bakers. They make cakes, then anybody with the cash who wants one can buy one. It's very simple really.
What's a traditional marriage? One where the couple are virgins, arranged by their parents, and have never been divorced?
 
Manc Skipper said:
Whatever Ford makes, cars, trucks, houseboats, or twizzle-sticks for cocktails, they have to sell them to anyone who wants one. Likewise bakers. They make cakes, then anybody with the cash who wants one can buy one. It's very simple really.
What's a traditional marriage? One where the couple are virgins, arranged by their parents, and have never been divorced?
Click to expand...

Ever heard of a business specializing? Like, let's say, the New York Yankees, the Boston Red Sox? These are examples of businesses not selling to everyone that you gladly endorse.
The Yankees cater to the Yankee fan (and not the Red Sox fan) and the Red Sox cater to the Red Sox fan (and not the Yankee fan).

Traditional wedding is a male groom and a female bride.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
Ill ask the same question i ask in all these threads that nobody that can ever answer.



As a religious person myself (im christian but that doesnt matter because our rights are all the same) what factual religious rights of mine are infringed on by public accommodation laws and anti discrimination laws? please list them and factually prove it, thanks!
Click to expand...

Your religious rights are irrelevant.

What’s germane to the dialogue are the religious rights of Phillips. Phillips alleges the public accommodation law violates his free exercise of religion rights by compelling conduct he otherwise would not engage in because of his sincere religious beliefs.

What “your” religious rights are or would be is irrelevant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
cabse5 said:
Ever heard of a business specializing? Like, let's say, the New York Yankees, the Boston Red Sox? These are examples of businesses not selling to everyone that you gladly endorse.
The Yankees cater to the Yankee fan (and not the Red Sox fan) and the Red Sox cater to the Red Sox fan (and not the Yankee fan).

Traditional wedding is a male groom and a female bride.
Click to expand...

What nonsense is this? If a non Yankee fan wants to buy their merchandise they sell it to him. They don't even ask.

Traditional weddings were arranged, often for political reasons, between elites when the bride and groom were children.
 
cabse5 said:
Ever heard of a business specializing? Like, let's say, the New York Yankees, the Boston Red Sox? These are examples of businesses not selling to everyone that you gladly endorse.
The Yankees cater to the Yankee fan (and not the Red Sox fan) and the Red Sox cater to the Red Sox fan (and not the Yankee fan).
Click to expand...
There's a difference between "marketing to a specific market," and "refusing to serve."

It's one thing for the Yankees to encourage Yankees fans to buy tickets, such as making ads showing a bunch of Yankees fans having a good time at the stadium. It would be a very different thing if Yankee Stadium refused to sell tickets to someone who lives in Boston, or ejects anyone who is wearing Red Sox clothing.

I have to admit, I don't know if it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of fandom. Even if it is somehow legal, though, it's definitely discrimination, and is not acceptable.


Traditional wedding is a male groom and a female bride.
Click to expand...
Just so you know, that concept of "traditional" is very narrow, and is really only about... 100 years old, perhaps? 200 tops.

Polygamous marriages, for example, were normal in many societies. Arranged marriages were "traditional" in the West for centuries, and are still "traditional" in many parts of the world. The modern "love marriage" is a fairly new invention, and in some circles was (and still is) seen as a threat to *cough* "traditional" marriage.

Plus, there are no Constitutional protections for "traditions."
 
HowardBThiname said:
1.)I have no sympathy either -- I guess I just want to be a part of the solution by boycotting those people out of business. Of course, we can still do that -- with anti-discrimination laws.

2.)In my personal life, I've seen some people change. Or perhaps they always had more tolerant feelings but just needed a boost to show them. Before same-sex marriages was legalized, I worked on a Letter-to-the-Editor campaign and placed letters in over 50 newspapers. Because you have to give your name and location, I got quite a few phone calls. A few were rude bastards but many said they appreciated my letters and that they "never saw it that way before." I liked the feeling of being helpful.




3.)I know you're right -- I just like the idea of a grassroots movement that overwhelms them. And, no, we cannot stand by and watch the victim numbers climb. That's not an option. Perhaps a combination of the two? These people need to understand that America is against them. Not just the law -- but the rest of the thinking citizens.

I'm going to have to concede to your position -- it's well thought out and, frankly, it covers the bases that mine might not. I still want to work, on a social level, however, to shut these people down.
Click to expand...

1.) but the reality history prove boycotting is not a solution it only works in very limited fashion. like i said I WISH that wasnt the case but it is.
2.) yes SOME will while and at the same times we will be empowering the people who break the law and letting victims add up
3.) oh absofreakinlutely!!! lol i have no issues with a combo approach and like you i think its important, its actually one of my favorite personal things to do in real life, be a mediator of sorts. I can just never dial back on the legal and rights issues thats all. They have to be priority while grass roots is secondary. Myself being mixed race and my circle of friends and family having the spectrum of many groups I LOVE discussing stuff. Typically like you said fence riders can easily be shown facts and reality simply by giving them an example to think about if THEY were in the shoes of that other person. ANd thank you by the way.
 
cabse5 said:
What is the prohibition in The Constitution not to bake cakes or the right in The Constitution to bake cakes? I'd say the 9th amendment does this trick.
Click to expand...

ill ask you AGAIN list the factual rights and prove they were taken away LMAO
 
NotreDame said:
Your religious rights are irrelevant.

What’s germane to the dialogue are the religious rights of Phillips. Phillips alleges the public accommodation law violates his free exercise of religion rights by compelling conduct he otherwise would not engage in because of his sincere religious beliefs.

What “your” religious rights are or would be is irrelevant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

in the US we all have the same religious rights LMAO
 
Anybody else wanna try?

Ill ask the same question i ask in all these threads that nobody that can ever answer. ill bold the parts for people who are confused

As a religious person myself (im christian but that doesnt matter because our rights are all the same) what factual religious rights of mine(or of this baker if you are still confused) are infringed on by public accommodation laws and anti discrimination laws? please list them and factually prove it, thanks!
 
cabse5 said:
You mean a business like, for example, the Ford Motor Company must make houseboats?
Click to expand...

If the company makes house boats, they must make house boats for anyone. I don't get why you can't grasp this.
 
AGENT J said:
in the US we all have the same religious rights LMAO
Click to expand...

Ya think? Well, we are all glad you are here to tell us what we already know, professor, but your point is misplaced Sherlock.

You clearly do not believe your own religious rights are infringed upon on the basis of these fact. That’s fine, you are entitled to such a belief. However, that is irrelevant.

What’s relevant is the religious rights of Mr. Phillips, and his belief their are violated. The issue is whether Phillips’ belief his own religious rights were violated, not whether yours are violated.

You may not believe “your” religious rights are violated at all under these facts, but that doesn’t change or alter the fact Phillips does believe his religious rights are violated and its his rights which are the topic of discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Colorado Cake shop, told you it was just the beginning of legal discimination!

AGENT J said:
Anybody else wanna try?

Ill ask the same question i ask in all these threads that nobody that can ever answer. ill bold the parts for people who are confused

As a religious person myself (im christian but that doesnt matter because our rights are all the same) what factual religious rights of mine(or of this baker if you are still confused) are infringed on by public accommodation laws and anti discrimination laws? please list them and factually prove it, thanks!
Click to expand...

Lol. I love the “still confused” line. If anyone is confused, it’s you, as “factual religious rights of mine” is not the issue and not under discussion, for very good reasons.

Religious rights are of course related to religion and religious beliefs. A person who lacks that isn’t going to view this from the perspective of what religious rights of “mine” are violated as they aren’t going to think in terms of their religious rights since they lack any religion and religious beliefs to think are being trampled by a law. This is germane to your claim of “mine,” as nobody here knows what in the hell your religious beliefs are, whether you have any, and well, nobody gives a damn to know.

What is relevant is Phillips has based his conduct on a religious belief he has and the law is compelling him to act contrary to what he says his religious belief dictates how he should act.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
Ya think? Well, we are all glad you are here to tell us what we already know, professor, but your point is misplaced Sherlock.

You clearly do not believe your own religious rights are infringed upon on the basis of these fact. That’s fine, you are entitled to such a belief. However, that is irrelevant.

What’s relevant is the religious rights of Mr. Phillips, and his belief their are violated. The issue is whether Phillips’ belief his own religious rights were violated, not whether yours are violated.

You may not believe “your” religious rights are violated at all under these facts, but that doesn’t change or alter the fact Phillips does believe his religious rights are violated and its his rights which are the topic of discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

fact remains we all have the same religious rights, keep trying to sell your failed strawmen it will continue to fail and lose to facts LMAO
cant wait for your next post of double talk and things nobody said that dont change the facts :)
 
NotreDame said:
Lol. I love the “still confused” line. If anyone is confused, it’s you, as “factual religious rights of mine” is not the issue and not under discussion, for very good reasons.

Religious rights are of course related to religion and religious beliefs. A person who lacks that isn’t going to view this from the perspective of what religious rights of “mine” are violated as they aren’t going to think in terms of their religious rights since they lack any religion and religious beliefs to think are being trampled by a law. This is germane to your claim of “mine,” as nobody here knows what in the hell your religious beliefs are, whether you have any, and well, nobody gives a damn to know.

What is relevant is Phillips has based his conduct on a religious belief he has and the law is compelling him to act contrary to what he says his religious belief dictates how he should act.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

hey look another post and ZERO list of factual rights violated by PA/DA laws, just failed excuses and deflections LMAO VERY telling.
Ill ask you again

As a religious person myself (im christian but that doesnt matter because our rights are all the same) what factual religious rights of mine(or of this baker if you are still confused) are infringed on by public accommodation laws and anti discrimination laws? please list them and factually prove it, thanks!

anybody wanna bet no factual list is provided again?
 
AGENT J said:
fact remains we all have the same religious rights, keep trying to sell your failed strawmen it will continue to fail and lose to facts LMAO
cant wait for your next post of double talk and things nobody said that dont change the facts :)
Click to expand...

No strawman, just your, once again, misguided requests for someone to explain how "your" religious rights are violated. Nobody cares to know or wants to discuss whether you have religious beliefs, what they are, so as to make a determination how they may be violated by this law.
 
NotreDame said:
No strawman, just your, once again, misguided requests for someone to explain how "your" religious rights are violated. Nobody cares to know or wants to discuss whether you have religious beliefs, what they are, so as to make a determination how they may be violated by this law.
Click to expand...

and another filed strawman LMAO why do you post so many lies? its almost like you think honest educated and objective people will fall for it:lol:
fact remains we all have the same religious rights
 
NotreDame said:
What is relevant is Phillips has based his conduct on a religious belief he has and the law is compelling him to act contrary to what he says his religious belief dictates how he should act.
Click to expand...
What is also relevant is that religious rights are not a legal justification for discrimination.

Religious justification for discrimination and racism is not a new idea. In fact it goes back to the days of slavery, when both slavers and abolitionists invoked Christian theology and texts to support their views. This continued straight through to the Jim Crow era. For example, segregationists routinely invoked religious justifications for discriminating against blacks, refusing services, barring interracial marriage and so forth. A radio speech made by Bob Jones Sr in 1960 typifies the genre:
"Is Segregation Scriptural?" by Bob Jones Sr, 1960 | A Time To Laugh

Bob Jones University was infamous for barring students from interracial dating for years, even though it resulted in the IRS revoking their status as a tax-exempt entity. (That was tested, and upheld, by the SCOTUS in 1982). That rule was only dropped in 2000.


And a ruling just a few months ago on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the idea that employers cannot discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of religion.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...-workplace-discrimination-court-rules-n854971

Even with federal branches being more friendly to religious freedom, it's unlikely that those arguments will go very far. In particular, I expect that if the Colorado board did its job properly this time, Masterpiece is going to have a tough time claiming that religion justifies discrimination this time around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom