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

[AGENT J]

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

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.



.

LMAO why does it matter if he is liberal gay and married? oh thats right it doesn't because once again

facts, laws, rights > than snowflake feelings and opinions

why dont you just say you are for or against equal rights, public accommodation laws and illegal discrimination at laws lol

 

[Grim17]

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

Here's another video that... well... you'll just have to watch it.




.

 

[AGENT J]

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

Here's another video that... well... you'll just have to watch it.




.

LMAO Again no video is gonna make me abandon respecting the law and the rights of my fellow americans.
just like the videos about bush planing 9/11 and Obama being not america will never make me abandon reality, neither is true.

for all three of you videos: (which i do promise i will watch, they just dontmatter one bit to facts and the real world)

if ANYBODY is breaking the law and or violating the rights of others, to bad, so sad you face the penalty of law.

if ANYBODY doesn't like freedoms, rights, illegal discrimination and public accommodation laws they are free to have those feelings but they dont matter to me.

nobody gets special treatment as a Christian myself i have to play by the same rules as everybody else .
is there something of your own thought based on facts that you would like to share? lol please do ill be leaving work soon

 

[joG]

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

Potato pahtato. :shrug: Either way, the act is why he refused service. Not the identity. This is shown in the fact that the baker sold his goods to gay people all the time with nary a peep of refusal. Until it came time to bake a wedding cake. Which is about an act.

No doubt. But making the protection of religious practice contingent on such a point is a bad precedent. As bad, in fact, as making human rights contingent on personhood.

 

[joG]

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

I don't know. The law is discriminate against the identity, the person, not the act. And he is against the 'act' of getting married.

It is less the difference between identity and act I worry about. It is allowing Congress to make a law restricting religious practice in the first place and for a reason of political correctness the precedent is crazy. By accepting the ploy of an 'act not a persuasion' we are allowing the protection under The Constitution to be weakened.

 

[ludin]

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.

Events are not protected in any way.
He has 0 obligations to do anyone's wedding.

 

[ludin]

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

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

Sure he is doing a wedding. That is what the cake is for a wedding.
He is under no obligation to support an event that he does not agree with.
Here are other events that people ask for cakes and he does not make them either.

If you think that he does then black caters better be ready to support kkk meetings.
A gay baker had better make any religious cake that walks through their door no matter
If they support it or not.

 

[wolfsgirl]

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

Sure he is doing a wedding. That is what the cake is for a wedding.
He is under no obligation to support an event that he does not agree with.
Here are other events that people ask for cakes and he does not make them either.

If you think that he does then black caters better be ready to support kkk meetings.
A gay baker had better make any religious cake that walks through their door no matter
If they support it or not.

The cake is for the people who purchase the cake. Once said purchase happens they could take the cake and toss it in the street to feed the bird, and it is still the same act of a commercial transaction.

1 KKK not a protected class.
2 If the gay baker makes big cross cakes then he can not refuse to make that cake for Joe because Joe is a christian. That is a violation of anti-discrimination law. If the gay baker does not make big cross cakes then he does not have to do so for anyone.

 

[ludin]

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

The cake is for the people who purchase the cake. Once said purchase happens they could take the cake and toss it in the street to feed the bird, and it is still the same act of a commercial transaction.

1 KKK not a protected class.
2 If the gay baker makes big cross cakes then he can not refuse to make that cake for Joe because Joe is a christian. That is a violation of anti-discrimination law. If the gay baker does not make big cross cakes then he does not have to do so for anyone.

They are white people being refused service. That is against the law. Unless you agree that people are able to not provide services to events.
Actually it doesn't matter what is on the cake remember they make cakes.

I see your bias is clear. You are free to discriminate as along as you agree with then discrimination.

So evidently you agree with me that owners have the right to pick and choose what events they can do.

 

[maxparrish]

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

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.

Your bitter assumptions about my nefarious motives, and your hand wave of grandstanding moral posturing based on claims of your special moral insight is noted - as is the fact that they are not a dispute over principle, but hand-waving dodges for your lack of a principled argument.

Given you have nothing to offer on the level of intelligent (or intelligible) disagreement, I'll leave you with a few parting comments:

First, did it occur to you that IF you saw horrible segregation in 1984, that it confirms that public accommodation law is ineffective and, therefore, pointless?

Second, did it occur to you that this is not 1964 or 1984, and that the evolution of social morals are a light year from where they were - and therefore makes public accommodation law pointless?

It's time to return to freedom, and cease being obsessed with the completed past. Its time to cease being terrorized by the prospect of freedom.

 

[maxparrish]

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

Andrew Sullivan, an iconoclastic and well known member of the left (and long-time gay activist and marriage rights advocate since the early 1990s) has written a very insightful and compassionate commentary on these issues. Unlike the doctrinaire cold blooded cadre's of the authoritarian left, he cuts into the motives and dynamics of the "bend the knee" movement.

https://www.steynonline.com/8309/a-guide-to-pants-dropping-for-the-new-man

A few nuggets:

If someone had asked me back in the day, if, in 2017, we’d be having a discussion about whether a fundamentalist baker should be forced by the law to create a wedding cake for a gay couple, I’d have been gobsmacked, as the Brits say. Smacked in the gob because only a decade ago such a question would have seemed so remotely hypothetical as to be absurd. And yet, here we are. ... The staggering victories of the marriage-equality movement (now, Australia!) have led us here — far sooner than most of us pioneers ever contemplated. And the speed and finality of this social change has — understandably — frightened, disturbed, and alienated many on the other side. They are still smarting from the sting of defeat, defensibly regrouping and obsessing over their victimhood.

...And so, if there are alternative solutions, like finding another baker, why force the point? Why take up arms to coerce someone when you can easily let him be — and still celebrate your wedding? That is particularly the case when much of the argument for marriage equality was that it would not force anyone outside that marriage to approve or disapprove of it. One reason we won that debate is because many straight people simply said to themselves, “How does someone else’s marriage affect me?” and decided on those grounds to support or acquiesce to such a deep social change. It seems grotesquely disingenuous now for the marriage-equality movement to bait and switch on that core “live and let live” argument. And it seems deeply insensitive and intolerant to force the clear losers in a culture war into not just defeat but personal humiliation.

Sullivan is quite right - its all about personal humiliation of the scattering of losers in the culture war. You see it in content, and hear it in tone - "OBEY...BEND THE KNEE...YOU ARE GUILTY...I WON"

Ahhhh yesss, the ugly little core of the gay entitlement crusaders.

 

[LaylaWindu]

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

Even though the OP is obviously biased I'll just post in this thread what I post in the other thread with a normal OP.

"IMO The Supreme Court will uphold the lower court ruling. Why would they rule differently? There no justification to rule against colrado. Didn't two cases already rule against the illegal discrimination? For some time now we have been moving towards protecting sexual orentation under the term sex (which in my opinion it definitely should be). As a christian I see the religious claim and that angle for what it is, complete BS. Religion is not a factor here just like its not a factor when discriminating against other things. Religion isn't an acceptable argument to discriminate against me as a woman or blacks why on earth would anybody claim it's ok for this? I would never support a public accommodation business discriminating based on race, religion, sex etc. On a personal level it goes against everything civil and decent in me. As for the law I fully support illegal discrimination and public accommodation laws as they protect us all in a civil society and try to help keep such vile practices at bay. I think they are everything a civil society should be about when it comes to public accommodation commerce such as storefronts etc. If a person can't behave with a certain about of civility like controlling their bigotry then public accommodation business probably isn't for them. They can go into private, online (anonymous) and or membership business etc. It's actually kind of perplexing to me. If I knew I was so bigoted to some degree why would I go into a business that is regulated by laws that is going to conflict with that. It's really stupid.

 

[wolfsgirl]

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

They are white people being refused service. That is against the law. Unless you agree that people are able to not provide services to events.
Actually it doesn't matter what is on the cake remember they make cakes.

I see your bias is clear. You are free to discriminate as along as you agree with then discrimination.

So evidently you agree with me that owners have the right to pick and choose what events they can do.

They are not being refused because they are white, they are being refused because they are KKK members. If the Caterer said We don't cater events for white people then you would have a case.
IF a gay couple walks in and are being disruptive and spitting on the floor, and cussing, then refusal of service in based on them being A holes, not on them being gay. That is within the law.
If a black person comes in without a shirt and shoes, they can be refused service based on not meeting dress code, but not because they are black.
If a Christian goes to a bakery and asks for rye bread, and the store doesn't sell rye bread, they can be refused rye bread because it is not offered but not because they are Christian.

 

[Fraggle Rock]

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

I think that if these sloped headed morons want to refuse people based on gender, race, religion, etc etc....then they have to post it in there windows very large for all to see. This way respectable people can take their business elsewhere.

 

[AGENT J]

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

Any thoughts?


.

Ok I watched all your videos and just like i thought NOTHING changed LMAO

I still will be respecting the rights of all my fellow Americans and NOBODY should be breaking the law regardless of their religion or lack there off nor do they get special treatment based on their snowflake feelings (Laws, rights and facts > snowflake feelings)

Has proven already the case in the OP is still 100% factually discrimination (the legality is in question but not the discrimination)

So after your video things remain the same
Law is the law.
bigotry is bigotry
rules are rules
rights are rights
freedom is freedom


Is there something specific you have to ask or is there somethign specific in the video that you think justifies law breaking and discrimination? Please share

 

[ludin]

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

They are not being refused because they are white, they are being refused because they are KKK members.

They are not being refused because they are gay. He doesn't believe in gay weddings. They were free to buy anything in the shop he even offered them. He also doesn't bake cakes for other events as well.
Kkk means they are white. He has to serve them. You seem to want to apply different standards as long as you agree with it.

If the Caterer said We don't cater events for white people then you would have a case.
IF a gay couple walks in and are being disruptive and spitting on the floor, and cussing, then refusal of service in based on them being A holes, not on them being gay. That is within the law.
If a black person comes in without a shirt and shoes, they can be refused service based on not meeting dress code, but not because they are black.
If a Christian goes to a bakery and asks for rye bread, and the store doesn't sell rye bread, they can be refused rye bread because it is not offered but not because they are Christian.

Kkk is white people. By refusing they are refusing a protected class.
The point is a wedding is no different than the kkk in reality. Both are events not people
They both involve people but they are still events.

That is why a black caterer can refuse to do it.

 

[ludin]

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

I think that if these sloped headed morons want to refuse people based on gender, race, religion, etc etc....then they have to post it in there windows very large for all to see. This way respectable people can take their business elsewhere.

So black businesses should be forced to post signs that say we do not serve kkk members that goes for a ton of other businesses.

Your no true Scotsman theory falls flat.
Should a business be forced to serve every event that walks in the door.

Be careful your answer it can have outside consequences.

 

[lefty louie]

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

I just picture me, walking into a Muslim bakery and saying, "Mr.Baker, I want you to bake a cake for my gay father who happens to be a farmer, we want a full farm decoration on top including a pig, or a cake for more delicatessen owning uncle, with salami, bacon, ham draped all over it. LMAO, I can see that happening.

 

[AGENT J]

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

I just picture me, walking into a Muslim bakery and saying, "Mr.Baker, I want you to bake a cake for my gay father who happens to be a farmer, we want a full farm decoration on top including a pig, or a cake for more delicatessen owning uncle, with salami, bacon, ham draped all over it. LMAO, I can see that happening.

"IF" they break the law then they face the consequences.
What does your scenario have to do with the case in the OP?

 

[AGENT J]

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

They are not being refused because they are gay. He doesn't believe in gay weddings. They were free to buy anything in the shop he even offered them. He also doesn't bake cakes for other events as well.
Kkk means they are white. He has to serve them. You seem to want to apply different standards as long as you agree with it.



Kkk is white people. By refusing they are refusing a protected class.
The point is a wedding is no different than the kkk in reality. Both are events not people
They both involve people but they are still events.

That is why a black caterer can refuse to do it.

no matter how many times yo post that retarded lie it will never be true LMAO

How much factually wrong asinine points can be made in one post :lamo


KKK is factually not a protected class
KKK is NOT an event
a wedding cake is NOT an event
KKK =/= wedding
That is NOT why somebody can refuse to do something for the KKK

Please keep posting nonsense like this its awesome!
opcorn2:

 

[gdgyva]

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

Even though the OP is obviously biased I'll just post in this thread what I post in the other thread with a normal OP.

"IMO The Supreme Court will uphold the lower court ruling. Why would they rule differently? There no justification to rule against colrado. Didn't two cases already rule against the illegal discrimination? For some time now we have been moving towards protecting sexual orentation under the term sex (which in my opinion it definitely should be). As a christian I see the religious claim and that angle for what it is, complete BS. Religion is not a factor here just like its not a factor when discriminating against other things. Religion isn't an acceptable argument to discriminate against me as a woman or blacks why on earth would anybody claim it's ok for this? I would never support a public accommodation business discriminating based on race, religion, sex etc. On a personal level it goes against everything civil and decent in me. As for the law I fully support illegal discrimination and public accommodation laws as they protect us all in a civil society and try to help keep such vile practices at bay. I think they are everything a civil society should be about when it comes to public accommodation commerce such as storefronts etc. If a person can't behave with a certain about of civility like controlling their bigotry then public accommodation business probably isn't for them. They can go into private, online (anonymous) and or membership business etc. It's actually kind of perplexing to me. If I knew I was so bigoted to some degree why would I go into a business that is regulated by laws that is going to conflict with that. It's really stupid.

You say they shouldn’t have gone into business knowing this....you do realize some people have been in business for decades right? They were in business long before the gays were fighting for their rights....maybe not these particular bakers, but the ruling always affects everyone

I know...”they need to change with the times” right?

It would be nice for some of you guys to just for a moment put yourselves in the shoes of the business people we are talking about....I realize you may not hold their beliefs, or even respect them, but at least try to understand where they are coming from

For every case like this, you are causing the public to go backwards on support for your cause

 

[Athanasius68]

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

no matter how many times yo post that retarded lie it will never be true LMAO

How much factually wrong asinine points can be made in one post :lamo


KKK is factually not a protected class
KKK is NOT an event
a wedding cake is NOT an event
KKK =/= wedding
That is NOT why somebody can refuse to do something for the KKK

Please keep posting nonsense like this its awesome!
opcorn2:

Yawn....

A black baker should be able to refuse to bake a cake for the KKK because or she dissagrees with that which the KKK represents...

Any baker should be similarly be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding should one dissagree with gay marriage

 

[lefty louie]

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

"IF" they break the law then they face the consequences.
What does your scenario have to do with the case in the OP?

Hey Muslim baker man, I want a cake with a cartoon of that Mohamed guy on it, yeah I won't get kicked out, and rightfully so!

If you don't see the connection I can't help you.

 

[AGENT J]

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

1.) You say they shouldn’t have gone into business knowing this....you do realize some people have been in business for decades right? They were in business long before the gays were fighting for their rights....maybe not these particular bakers, but the ruling always affects everyone
2.)I know...”they need to change with the times” right?
3.) It would be nice for some of you guys to just for a moment put yourselves in the shoes of the business people we are talking about....I realize you may not hold their beliefs, or even respect them, but at least try to understand where they are coming from
4.)For every case like this, you are causing the public to go backwards on support for your cause

1.) Correct it affects us ALL it protects ALL of us and nobody gets special treatment like this bigot wants.Also your claim is very weak for the simply fact that nothing really as changed.
2.) What change? were they breaking laws before and illegally discriminating? and yes they have to change just like everybody else when a business is required to change with health regulations or codes or other laws. If some cake ingredient becomes illegal then YES the baker has to stop using it. Or are you suggesting its only the gay thing that is soooooo terrible of a change and sooooo hard to adjust to. lol
3.) I cant speak for her or anybody else but I understand where they are coming from its a place of bigotry. They dont want to change, they want to be able to practice illegal discrimination instead f play by the rules like everybody else. that is not justification to break the law and or violate the rights of others. What do you think people are not understanding? What should people understand that you think would make them accept people breaking the law, treating people as lessers and practicing illegal discrimination? Why do you think people arent putting themselves in their shoes. Im christian and its exactly how im looking at it. If i was that baker i would never expect to get special treatment based on my religion and be allowed to discrimination against sexual orientation.

The baker is CLEARLY the one with the problem, its hilarious to see it any other way. Im a christian myself and these people dishonestly using religion in this way is repulsive in my opinion.

Does this baker makes sure all the wedding cakes they make go to their same religion and not other religions?
Does this baker makes sure all the wedding cakes they make go to first weddings?
Does this baker makes sure all the wedding cakes they make do NOT go to non religious marriages?
Why not? those are all the same sin basically, marriages that are not supported by the bakers God.

why do these very few snowflakes only have a problem with the gays? why do the vast majority of bakers have no issue here?

why do some feel religion is ok to discriminate against gays but not women? blacks?

4.) I disagree Ive seen more "neutral" or "care less" people come forward in support of equal rights more than ever (hence why overall it is winning), I havent seen one single person go backwards on this issue and be against equal rights. Of course im not saying that it hasnt happened, anything is possible but the only people i typically hear complain ALWAYS had a probably with equal rights, public accommodation laws and or they were already a bigot. (no those are not all the same i said and/or)

So since these were just general statements and not about you what do you think?
Do you find it acceptable do discrimination against women or blacks based on religion?
Do you also think that when rules and laws change about health regulations, kitchen codes, food ingredients that

 

[lefty louie]

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

How about eating establishments refusing to sever CC holders? Me having a gun is a right, they don't get to refuse me because I exercise a right, do they? If they can exclude me I don't bake them a cake. How would it fly if I only served gun holders?