U.S. judge rules it would be ‘tyranny’ to force Christian to bake cake for lesbian ‘marriage’

ludin said:

the original point still stands. no one has lived under christian tyranny.
nor can the person that said it prove it.

Click to expand...

So that is your justification for a bad counterargument?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

ludin said:

he never said property rights. he said it was a violation of free speech.

Click to expand...

Bad puncuation on his part. Claxx was trying to make property rights his position not the judge's

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

AGENT J said:

Factually wrong based on rights, laws and the constitutions LMAO that doesnt even make one bit of sense. Please dont post such nonsense.

Laws, rights > then feelings

Click to expand...

Typical response for you. People put out how they feel things should be and you counter with how they are. Duh! We know what the law is. That doesn't mean that it is right as to what should be the important part.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

AGENT J said:

100% factually correct based on laws for the country, state, county and municipality. they do vary on different issues. This court decision will not survive and will eventually fail because its nonsensical and history shows that rulings like it dont last because along with not having any logical standing it has no real legal standing There is no force nor does it actually violate free speech. Its laughable to think it does as many other cases have already addressed this issues.

Its simply a desperate attempt by similar minder people to discriminate against gays. the same things were tried against religion and race ad women. . over time they all failed and were eventually mocked for the nonsense they are just like this will be.

Click to expand...

The bold is 100% factually incorrect. I guarantee you that I can discriminate against a citizen of any give city based upon the hair color. Is that a good reason? Personally I don't think so, but it is still legal for me to do so. This is why the claim of businesses not being able to do something for no good reason is a bad one, and easily proven wrong.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

maquiscat said:

Typical response for you. People put out how they feel things should be and you counter with how they are. Duh! We know what the law is. That doesn't mean that it is right as to what should be the important part.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

sorry i like facts
If you don't like rights and the constitutions you are free to say so but i do and i would NEVER want to live in an unfree country where individual feelings (especially those of bigots and nutters) trump rights of my fellow country men

maquiscat said:

The bold is 100% factually incorrect. I guarantee you that I can discriminate against a citizen of any give city based upon the hair color. Is that a good reason? Personally I don't think so, but it is still legal for me to do so. This is why the claim of businesses not being able to do something for no good reason is a bad one, and easily proven wrong.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

context is your friend

the discussion is about illegal discrimination hence the reference and referring to municipalities, courts etc and then me pointing out it varies. So no what "i" actually said is not easily proven wrong :shrug:

if the poster i quoted is saying no discrimination is ok then that would be his mistake but based on content i didn't see it that way at all. he is free to correct me if i am wrong about my assumption though.

CLAX1911 said:

Again this no good reason crap you don't get to decide what is it good reason. And yes a company gets to decide who they serve. No the final say is the Supreme Court.

Just because an official makes a rule doesn't mean it's constitutional.

Click to expand...

And again you're saying 'constitution'. Does the constitution rule every aspect of American life? I was told the constitution existed only to define the limits of the power of the Federal government. Isn't that right? "Congress shall make no laws...etc.etc." Now you're telling me that the constitution gives courts the right to apply those same limits to every government. Is that how it is? City governments are governed by the constitution as well as the Federal government?
I wonder how that affects things like noise bylaws and dog licenses and property taxes.

Grand Mal said:

And again you're saying 'constitution'. Does the constitution rule every aspect of American life?

Click to expand...

it is the supreme law so yes.

I was told the constitution existed only to define the limits of the power of the Federal government. Isn't that right?

Click to expand...

no that is not write the Constitution is the supreme law it is our ruler as it were. Within the Constitution there is something called The Bill of Rights which guarantees rights to every citizen states don't just get to disobey at there will neither do municipalities because people are American citizens first. The Constitution limit all forms of government

"Congress shall make no laws...etc.etc." Now you're telling me that the constitution gives courts the right to apply those same limits to every government. Is that how it is?

Click to expand...

that is exactly how it is.

City governments are governed by the constitution as well as the Federal government?

Click to expand...

yes all governments within the US city state local it doesn't matter they all must obey the Constitution.

I wonder how that affects things like noise bylaws and dog licenses and property taxes.

Click to expand...

bylaws are laws written to control the membership of a private organization so it doesn't really affect that because you can disassociate with a private organization at any point. So bylaws are utterly useless. It's to how it effects dog licenses, I don't know why you would even mention that I don't know what it has to do with anything but never thought about it and property taxes any taxes can only be collected if you are able to vote for your representation.

camlok said:

You're giving the ****ing bible as a foundation/source for religions to interfere in what is a legal/social issue. Religions contain the very idiots who caused all these problems in the first place.

Click to expand...

It's just about bullying Christians. They don't seem to go to Muslim bakeries.

They would be carrying their heads out in a sack.

chuckiechan said:

It's just about bullying Christians. They don't seem to go to Muslim bakeries.

They would be carrying their heads out in a sack.

Click to expand...

A wee bit of hyperbole there. Did you know that just one guy on the US death squads in the US Indonesian genocide beheaded over a thousand people with piano wire?

Stop whining about it here and contact your local prosecutor/newspaper/... . Everybody has to follow the same laws in the US except for all the war criminal/terrorist presidents and their henchmen/henchwomen.

chuckiechan said:

It's just about bullying Christians. They don't seem to go to Muslim bakeries.

They would be carrying their heads out in a sack.

Click to expand...

problem with dishonesty like you just posted the vast majority for "Christians" arent breaking laws so it has nothing to do with Christianity or religion. its about criminals.

chuckiechan said:

It's just about bullying Christians. They don't seem to go to Muslim bakeries.

They would be carrying their heads out in a sack.

Click to expand...

that is a rather odd double standard. Christians are Adolf Hitler for turning down a gay couple's wedding cake but we never hear a peep about Islamic bakeries.

It must be that "intersectionality."

WCH said:

BAKERSFIELD, California, February 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – It would be a violation of free speech for a Christian baker to be forced to make a same-sex "wedding" cake, a California judge ruled on Monday.

Cathy Miller owns Tastries Bakery, where 40 percent of her business is wedding cakes, many of which she personally designs. Last August two lesbians asked her to design a special cake to celebrate their “marriage,” and Miller politely redirected them to an accommodating competitor.

Nevertheless, as is the well-established LGBT pattern, the lesbians sued Miller anyway. They filed a complaint with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, accusing Miller of violating California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which criminalizes denying service based on sexual orientation. Oral arguments were heard Friday.

Judge Lampe said that to force a Christian to create a cake that celebrates something against their religion is "violence."

snip...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-stuff-of-tyranny-christian-baker-scores-major-victory

Click to expand...

Well, don't go into business in America then. Seems simple enough; isn't that you on the right always tell people that don't like things? "go elsewhere?"

chuckiechan said:

It's just about bullying Christians. They don't seem to go to Muslim bakeries.

They would be carrying their heads out in a sack.

Click to expand...

Neat switch to blaming the victims. Which part of Christianity involves cake?

roguenuke said:

The couple did not even get a chance to discuss what kind of cake they wanted to order from the baker. As soon as he realized the cake would be for 2 guys, he refused and told them it was because he didn't bake cakes for gay weddings.

Click to expand...

The question becomes should any customer be able to impose themselves on any business? Or is this right reserved for liberal voter groups?

For example, can a KKK member force a black baker to bake a cake to celebrate KKK day? This is just as insensitive as forcing a religious person to violate their own belief system. How about a pro-abortion baker being asked to bake a cake in memory of dead fetus day? People on the right has more proactive empathy and common sense and would not push this way. The left has no conscience and is always picking a fight with otherwise good people. Maybe what needs to happen is for members of the right to give the left a dose of their own medicine.

Grand Mal said:

Well, whatever. The fact is, in most places you don't get to arbitrarily decide not to sell to someone for no good reason. Who decides what a 'good reason' is? Probably a chief clerk or someone, initially, but the final say is probably a Mayor's office.
Which court? If I, as Mayor of Bullpasture, Montana, and my city council say that to do business in Bullpasture means you can't discriminate against Bullpasture citizens you disagree with, who's gonna say different?

Click to expand...

the SCOTUS and any other court in the US.

maquiscat said:

So that is your justification for a bad counterargument?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

no it is an argument against what is commonly referred to as a cherry picking fallacy.
the fact is he made a statment that he has yet to support with anything other than his own opinion.

he is almost using circular logic as an argument which means his main argument was invalid from the get go.

chuckiechan said:

It's just about bullying Christians. They don't seem to go to Muslim bakeries.

They would be carrying their heads out in a sack.

Click to expand...

Have to start somewhere. Why not insist Christians bear True Witness instead of false witness, at every opportunity?

wellwisher said:

The question becomes should any customer be able to impose themselves on any business? Or is this right reserved for liberal voter groups?

For example, can a KKK member force a black baker to bake a cake to celebrate KKK day? This is just as insensitive as forcing a religious person to violate their own belief system. How about a pro-abortion baker being asked to bake a cake in memory of dead fetus day? People on the right has more proactive empathy and common sense and would not push this way. The left has no conscience and is always picking a fight with otherwise good people. Maybe what needs to happen is for members of the right to give the left a dose of their own medicine.

Click to expand...

Bull****. A cake is a cake. If you sell cakes and someone buys a cake, what they want it for, or what they do with it afterward is NUNYA.

If you sell an axe to a maniac and he kills a dozen people with it, are you guilty of supporting their murder? Is it on your conscience that he did what he did with your axe?

wellwisher said:

The question becomes should any customer be able to impose themselves on any business? Or is this right reserved for liberal voter groups?

For example, can a KKK member force a black baker to bake a cake to celebrate KKK day? This is just as insensitive as forcing a religious person to violate their own belief system. How about a pro-abortion baker being asked to bake a cake in memory of dead fetus day? People on the right has more proactive empathy and common sense and would not push this way. The left has no conscience and is always picking a fight with otherwise good people. Maybe what needs to happen is for members of the right to give the left a dose of their own medicine.

Click to expand...

Another post that shows some people have ZERO understanding of the law and rights.

FACTS:
1.) nobody is FORCED
2.) denying the sell of of a "lynching cake" or something of similar nature =/= to illegal discrimination on race, gender, religion etc. They arent even CLOSE to similar in any rational.

All bakers are currently free to deny service to anybody for any reason as long as it is not illegal discrimination. Its a very simple and basic concept that those who are honest, topically educated and objective understand very easily.

In the future try to educated yourself on this specific topic so you can avoid this mistake and also try to water down the left vs right thing because this topic has nothing to do with left vs right. its simply a RIGHTS issue and millions of people on both sides support rights and anti-discrimination laws since they protect ALL OF US.

Manc Skipper said:

If you sell an axe to a maniac and he kills a dozen people with it, are you guilty of supporting their murder? Is it on your conscience that he did what he did with your axe?

Click to expand...

If he tells you that is what he is using it for, and you still sell it to him, not only should it be on your conscience, you might be legally liable as well, since you knew and still sold it to him.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

ludin said:

Yet this isn't the same message.

.

Click to expand...

Great.. show me evidence that THIS wedding cake design materially differed from any previous wedding cake that would be made.

I bet you can't.. and that's because their was no artistic difference. The only difference was WHO it was being made for.

but lets see what you come up with.

For marriages that they support. yes they were. They were asked to support a marriage that they do not believe in.

Click to expand...

Ahhh.. so now its not about artistic expression.. its about "supporting a marriage"..

Tell me.. do you have evidence that these bakers spent time researching each wedding that they made cakes for to determine whether they would support that particular marriage or not? I doubt that.

Making a cake for someone as a business is a business transaction.. that's it.. its not "supporting a marriage".

Nope it was for an event that they do not support

Click to expand...

Exactly.. you just killed your argument that it was about artistic expression. it had nothing to do with the artistic elements of the wedding cake.

It had to do with WHO they were making the cake for. And that's discrimination.

Not really with the statements that you just made

Click to expand...

.

Absolutely objective.

Not really. If an painter doesn't have to paint a message they do not support then a baker has the same right.

Click to expand...

The baker was not painting a message. they were baking the same cake that they would for tons of other people.

If a painter paints " I love unicorns" for a white person.

And refuses to paint " I love unicorns" for a black person.. the message isn;t the issue... its the PERSON.. and that's not artistic expression.

Face the objective facts.