And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments [W:744]

[holbritter]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

1.) facts and definitions nice try but another FAIL.
2.) WRONG again. did you miss the part where i said key COMPONENT and "part of the factor" or is that word and that fragment to tough for you understand LMAO
what about the examples of women and blacks? miss that too? oooops your claim gets destroyed and fails again!

he veiws gays not worthy of wedding cakes proven by logic facts and examples, thats factual discrimination based on sexual orientation

3.) nice try but your point has destroyed many times by multiple posters, facts, laws, definitions and court cases

I also notice you TOTAL dodged my question and request, why is that? VERY TELLING.

Ill ask them again further exposing the failed lies you are trying (and completely failing) to sell

A.)are you honestly claiming if i was against female bosses that i could say its not women i have an issue with?
you know cause I just find supervisor positions sacred and dont feel women should have them. My religion does say its god, man than woman.
YES or NO

B.) if you disagree with the fact its discrimination bring ONE fact to the table that makes this NOT discrimination against gays . . ONE, thanks!

opcorn2:

I already did. And your example proved it. Spin it however you want, but you gave the proof yourself. If you choose not to accept what you wrote, that's on you.

I agree with what you said - he is against gay marriage. Again proves my point that it's the act of same sex marriage he is against, not gays themselves. If so he wouldn't serve them anything at anytime for an reason.

And I'm not answering nonsense questions just because you demand it. Take a hike.

 

[ludin]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Hopefully the SCOTUS proves America to be a truly free country where businesses can refuse to serve if they want to (they will suffer public backlash if the public deems the decision to be unecessary or stupid). The government shouldn't get involved in stuff like this. The gay couple should just go to a different baker where the cake can be baked without violating anyone's religion.

I don't think that business owners should be forced to hold events that they would object to for protected reasons.
It is the same reason that a black chef doesn't have to serve the Kkk.

I think it is personally acceptable to refuse to do an event. Events are not protected classes.
A wedding is not a protected class no matter who is involved.

He even offered them other items. This goes for any business.
What is goi to hurt the states case as they have not filed any suits against bakers apthat have rejected
Religious belief cakes.

He also doesn't make cakes for aphalloween or other events such as those.

 

[ludin]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

What I will find interesting is what happens to all the court rulings that used the cake case as precedent if the court rules in favor of the cake shop. As far as the ruling goes I am curious about the justifications that the court uses for whatever ruling they reach. I don't really have a horse in this race.

I have a feeling that the court is going to punt. Hey will remand this back to the lower court with instructions to take the bakers religious views as protected.

This is going to be a hard case for them to walk away from.
If I was them I would avoid it and go this route. People are protected and you must serve them.

Events such as weddings etc are not protected. If someone wants you to host their wedding you are under no obligation to do so.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

1.)I already did. And your example proved it.
2.) Spin it however you want, but you gave the proof yourself.
3.) If you choose not to accept what you wrote, that's on you.
4.)I agree with what you said - he is against gay marriage. Again proves my point that it's the act of same sex marriage he is against, not gays themselves. If so he wouldn't serve them anything at anytime for an reason.
5.) And I'm not answering nonsense questions just because you demand it. Take a hike.

1.) dont it doesnt unless a person wants to lie and deny facts LMAO
2.) hey look another lie you just posted, par for the course for your posts
3.) translation: you mean you cant understand the facts and thats your issue! this is so much fun. PLEASE PLEASE dont stop saying the lies and or ignorance you just posted because it exposes how severly uneducated you are about this specific topic and shows the dishonesty in your posts
4.) he is against GAYS getting marriage which proves he is a bigot and discriminates just like if i was against women being supervisors or blacks being president. its discrimination against women and black. Basic FACTS andcommon sense.

5.) BOOM! thats what i thought!
you wont answer because it destroys your proven wrong claims. Its so easy proving your lies and false claims wrong. Your post fails again!!!

Ill ask them again further exposing your failed claims

A.)are you honestly claiming if i was against female bosses that i could say its not women i have an issue with?
you know cause I just find supervisor positions sacred and dont feel women should have them. My religion does say its god, man than woman.
YES or NO

B.) if you disagree with the fact its discrimination bring ONE fact to the table that makes this NOT discrimination against gays . . ONE, thanks!

opcorn2:

 

[ludin]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

I already did. And your example proved it. Spin it however you want, but you gave the proof yourself. If you choose not to accept what you wrote, that's on you.

I agree with what you said - he is against gay marriage. Again proves my point that it's the act of same sex marriage he is against, not gays themselves. If so he wouldn't serve them anything at anytime for an reason.

And I'm not answering nonsense questions just because you demand it. Take a hike.

That is just his mo.

I would say he is under no obligation to serve a wedding.
A wedding is an event. Therefore it is not protected.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Over 60o posts and NOBODY can explain and FACTUALLY prove the minority claims that have been made.I wonder why?

As a christian myself what rights of mine are factually violated by illegal discrimination laws and public accommodation laws?

As a christian myself how do illegal discrimination laws and public accommodation laws factually FORCE me to bake a cake, take a picture or do any service?

 

[D_NATURED]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

I just think it's hilarious that both me and D_ cited Jewish stereotypes (bagels and "deli") when all you said was "Jewish shop".

Well, they're in to many businesses but I chose the one I could think of that is the equivalent of a cake shop. I remember many delis being run by Jews. They never required me to prove I was Jewish before making my sandwich.

Could you imagine how unsanitary that test might be?

 

[AGENT J]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Well, they're in to many businesses but I chose the one I could think of that is the equivalent of a cake shop. I remember many delis being run by Jews. They never required me to prove I was Jewish before making my sandwich.

Could you imagine how unsanitary that test might be?

 

[holbritter]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

That is just his mo.

I would say he is under no obligation to serve a wedding.
A wedding is an event. Therefore it is not protected.

It's annoying. And I agree, I don't believe he has an obligation.

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

That is ironic isn't it.

No. It's actually rather idiotic that human beings are stupid enough to try to claim something like that.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

The problem in seeing today's controversy through a historical prism is that it usually results in distorting the past to fit the present. There is nothing wrong with noting that pervasive discrimination and prejudice existed in the Jim Crow era, especially in the South, but the underpinning of segregationist and repressive institutions were built on Jim Crow laws.

Numerous historical treatments explain how, in the South, such laws stopped the kind of progress made in the North.

Jim Crow Laws | American Experience | Official Site | PBS



Before the 1960s, the prevailing goal of the civil rights movement was the removal of government constructed segregation in schools, transport, etc. and restoration of voting rights for the disenfranchised black population. Because I don't believe in government mandated segregationist behavior for private sector, nor in government mandated segregation for the public sector it follows I am not proposing a return to the era of the Jim Crow (which ended in the 1960s).

I am proposing that we restore liberty, free of government compulsion in association. Jews, Blacks, and many others made historic progress in the North WITHOUT the laws you treasured, unlike the South under Jim Crow laws. Without those public accommodation laws, there is no reason to suppose that it would have "torn the country apart" to let economic and social evolution continue.

What you are proposing is - like Ayn Rand's libertarian utopia and Marx's communist paradise - a fantasy. It sounds really nice in theory, but when it comes to actual practice, it doesn't work at all.

Again, if businesses are allowed to discriminate as you propose, then when those being discriminated against demand service, the police would have to ENFORCE the "right" of that business to discriminate. In other words, instead of that "liberty free of government compulsion in association", you'd quite literally have "government-enforced segregation"...because it would be the government enforcing that business' "right" to discriminate. Like I said, it's Jim Crow all over again.

 

[maxparrish]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

What you are proposing is - like Ayn Rand's libertarian utopia and Marx's communist paradise - a fantasy. It sounds really nice in theory, but when it comes to actual practice, it doesn't work at all.

Sure it works, if society undergoes a massive values paradigm shift. Such shifts are occasionally gradual (as in the evolution of liberty concepts under British common law), and on other accusations brought about by the massive failure to attain the promised land (e.g. communism).

In this case, liberty concepts (unlike communism) has "worked" (evolved) for hundreds of years but it achieved its first republican government expression in the American revolution. And those same concepts forced the civil war, a sudden paradigm shift that further advanced those concepts.

Finally, those traditional liberty concepts continually expanded socio-economic opportunity for blacks into the sixties, lagging where those governments (in the south) used the STATE to prevent people from making their own choices.

Again, if businesses are allowed to discriminate as you propose, then when those being discriminated against demand service, the police would have to ENFORCE the "right" of that business to discriminate. In other words, instead of that "liberty free of government compulsion in association", you'd quite literally have "government-enforced segregation"...because it would be the government enforcing that business' "right" to discriminate. Like I said, it's Jim Crow all over again.

Apparently you didn't fully understand Lincoln's comment. Government does not need to enforce the right of association between two or more individuals, only government can prevent two or more from associating by a repressive law. Government DOES need to protect its citizenry from a threat of violence, theft, or fraud, by a party who does not respect the equal right of two or more people to join or decline association.

If the mafia or gay couple or pro-life group demand an involuntary association through fraud or violence, governments role is stop them from doing so - NOT make the unwilling party sign a deal with Vito Genovese or Bobby and Bruce.

 

[Napoleon]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Sure it works, if society undergoes a massive values paradigm shift. Such shifts are occasionally gradual (as in the evolution of liberty concepts under British common law), and on other accusations brought about by the massive failure to attain the promised land (e.g. communism).

In this case, liberty concepts (unlike communism) has "worked" (evolved) for hundreds of years but it achieved its first republican government expression in the American revolution. And those same concepts forced the civil war, a sudden paradigm shift that further advanced those concepts.

Finally, those traditional liberty concepts continually expanded socio-economic opportunity for blacks into the sixties, lagging where those governments (in the south) used the STATE to prevent people from making their own choices.



Apparently you didn't fully understand Lincoln's comment. Government does not need to enforce the right of association between two or more individuals, only government can prevent two or more from associating by a repressive law. Government DOES need to protect its citizenry from a threat of violence, theft, or fraud, by a party who does not respect the equal right of two or more people to join or decline association.

If the mafia or gay couple or pro-life group demand an involuntary association through fraud or violence, governments role is stop them from doing so - NOT make the unwilling party sign a deal with Vito Genovese or Bobby and Bruce.

We’re talking about a transaction not an association. We’re also talking about a certain kind of business the owner of which effectively enters into a contract with the State which requires obedience with public accomodation law in order to operate. If people want to discriminate then they can open a membership-only business rather than demanding exemptions.

 

[wolfsgirl]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

As per his religion he is against two men or women getting married. Why is that so hard to understand? I'm not saying I agree, because I am not religious. But I respect that not everyone feels the same way.

It isn't hard to understand, and it isn't hard to understand the solution. If your religion says that you can not sell wedding cakes without discriminating, don't offer any wedding cakes for sale.

 

[wolfsgirl]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

That is just his mo.

I would say he is under no obligation to serve a wedding.
A wedding is an event. Therefore it is not protected.

HE is not serving a wedding. The wedding is not buying a cake, the PEOPLE are.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

We’re talking about a transaction not an association. We’re also talking about a certain kind of business the owner of which effectively enters into a contract with the State which requires obedience with public accomodation law in order to operate. If people want to discriminate then they can open a membership-only business rather than demanding exemptions.

DING DING DING DING

common sense and FACTS at its finest . . .

thats what makes this so funny. this moron baker CHOOSE to have this business and AGREED to the rules/laws that regulate it then he CHOOSE to break the law and be a criminal. NOW he is crying about HIS CHOICES. .. .guess laws, other peoples rights, contracts and personal responsibility matter very little to this guy just his bigotry is all that matters to him. He wants special treatment.

 

[maxparrish]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

We’re talking about a transaction not an association. We’re also talking about a certain kind of business the owner of which effectively enters into a contract with the State which requires obedience with public accomodation law in order to operate. If people want to discriminate then they can open a membership-only business rather than demanding exemptions.

And I am talking about an association of any purpose, be it an exchange of recipes or an exchange of the fruits of one's labor or property (a transaction). There is no more a "contract with the state" to remove a right of association in a cake sale, or in the purchase of a joint or male escort.

The question is not whether one should honor an inherently immoral law (public accommodation) but whether or not their should be such a law in a society that claims to be free. I agree, they shouldn't need to ask for an exemption to a law that should never exist; no more than a person should need to as for an exemption for free speech in a society that prohibits it.

 

[Grim17]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

DING DING DING DING

common sense and FACTS at its finest . . .

thats what makes this so funny. this moron baker CHOOSE to have this business and AGREED to the rules/laws that regulate it then he CHOOSE to break the law and be a criminal. NOW he is crying about HIS CHOICES. .. .guess laws, other peoples rights, contracts and personal responsibility matter very little to this guy just his bigotry is all that matters to him. He wants special treatment.

Any thoughts?


.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Any thoughts?


.

Cant watch the video until later so youd have to tell me whats in it but it really doesn't matter what is in it.

its this simple

Law is the law.
bigotry is bigotry
rules are rules

IF laws/rules were broken or a persons rights were violated in the video to bad so sad face the penalty of law.

as a christian myself i dont get special treatment based on my feelings neither do Muslims, Jewish people or people with no religion etc. We all play by the same rules.

If somebody doesnt like those rules there very simply solutions out there do not CHOOSE to open a public accommodation business and AGREE to the rules that govern it and then CHOOSE to break them. :shrug:

they do NOT get to break the law and or violate the rights of others. If equal rights bother people thats their issue.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Sure it works, if society undergoes a massive values paradigm shift. Such shifts are occasionally gradual (as in the evolution of liberty concepts under British common law), and on other accusations brought about by the massive failure to attain the promised land (e.g. communism).

In this case, liberty concepts (unlike communism) has "worked" (evolved) for hundreds of years but it achieved its first republican government expression in the American revolution. And those same concepts forced the civil war, a sudden paradigm shift that further advanced those concepts.

Finally, those traditional liberty concepts continually expanded socio-economic opportunity for blacks into the sixties, lagging where those governments (in the south) used the STATE to prevent people from making their own choices.



Apparently you didn't fully understand Lincoln's comment. Government does not need to enforce the right of association between two or more individuals, only government can prevent two or more from associating by a repressive law. Government DOES need to protect its citizenry from a threat of violence, theft, or fraud, by a party who does not respect the equal right of two or more people to join or decline association.

If the mafia or gay couple or pro-life group demand an involuntary association through fraud or violence, governments role is stop them from doing so - NOT make the unwilling party sign a deal with Vito Genovese or Bobby and Bruce.

Guy, you're just wanting an excuse to legally discriminate, and to cover it with a fig leaf of alleged respectability. I'm one of the only ones on here who've actually seen this at work, and I don't want to see it again - it's good for no one. Your claims and arguments are built on nothing more than ignorance...for you haven't seen firsthand what happens to a society when such is allowed. I have.

I'll have nothing more to do with you. You can have the last word. I won't reply.

 

[Grim17]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Cant watch the video until later so youd have to tell me whats in it but it really doesn't matter what is in it.

No problem.... I can wait.

Watch it later on and then give me your thoughts.

.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

No problem.... I can wait.

Watch it later on and then give me your thoughts.

.

since i deal with facts, laws and rights my thoughts are not going to change.

Anything in the video will be judged the same way. if somebody broke the law in the video, tough they pay the price.
if somebody in the video thinks illegal discrimination is ok, they are free to think that way but they are a moron. Since im not a bigot and i respect the rights of my fellow americans I wont be abandoning logic, facts, laws or rights. I promise you theres nothing in the video to change that.

well you might be waiting a long time . . im working right now then im going straight to my sisters in DC could be there till sunday but i might be back before then but sunday im going to the steeler game so theres that too. It be easier to just tell me whats in the video that you think matters.

 

[Grim17]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

since i deal with facts, laws and rights my thoughts are not going to change.

Anything in the video will be judged the same way. if somebody broke the law in the video, tough they pay the price.
if somebody in the video thinks illegal discrimination is ok, they are free to think that way but they are a moron. Since im not a bigot and i respect the rights of my fellow americans I wont be abandoning logic, facts, laws or rights.

well you might be waiting a long time . . im working right now then im going straight to my sisters in DC could be there till sunday but i might be back before then but sunday im going to the steeler game so theres that too. It be easier to just tell me whats in the video that you think matters.

Hey, I'm in no hurry... If you don't get around to it by Monday, I'll send you a reminder.


.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Hey, I'm in no hurry... If you don't get around to it by Monday, I'll send you a reminder.


.

please do, cant wait to tell you I told you so and say the exact same thing i already said to you. LOL
Laws, rights and facts > snowflake feelings

 

[Grim17]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

please do, cant wait to tell you I told you so and say the exact same thing i already said to you. LOL
Laws, rights and facts > snowflake feelings

Here's another one for you... No need to respond to this one. It's Dave Rubin from the Young Turks giving his opinion as a liberal, gay man who recently married his boyfriend.



.