Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case[W:426, 1367]

[prometeus]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

You are asking for "morals" from someone else.

I was? Can you quote where? But even if I was why do you care if I said my prayers? To put it mildly it is non of your ****ing business and it is stupid to assume that only people why pray have morals. So why not try to add something relevant to the topic instead of asking stupid questions?

 

[danielpalos]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

I was? Can you quote where? But even if I was why do you care if I said my prayers? To put it mildly it is non of your ****ing business and it is stupid to assume that only people why pray have morals. So why not try to add something relevant to the topic instead of asking stupid questions?

Why ask if a person is illegal as a private citizen? Entry into the Union is a federal Obligation since 1808. States no longer have any Constitutional basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of State. That, has never been an Individual responsibility.

 

[D_NATURED]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Bull**** dude. These gay clowns went looking for trouble and got exactly what they wanted. The baker said he'd bake their cake, just didn't want to be a part of their wedding in any way. I'd say, bigoted or not, this was a reasonable response from someone with such religious beliefs. The intolerance came from the asshat gays.. I mean, come on, even if you're gay man or woman, can you not even imagine why some might find that offensive, heck you don't even have to be religious to find it offensive..

That's true, there are morons who aren't religious, just morons. I concede that some non-religious people are offended by homosexuality, I just don't understand it. Homosexuality does not impose on non-homosexuals any more than vegetarians impose on broccoli haters. The idea that there could be a valid reason to be offended by homosexuality is its own ignorance and bigotry.

One might even say that finding two men kissing or two women being "gross" is a genetic trait shared by all humans to some more or lesser degree.. The executive function of being off-put by same sex interactions might be closely related to same sex attraction to begin with.. In other words, the religion of homosexuality being genetic gives rise the same notion that the aversion to it is equally, if not more likely to be genetic..

The kind of bigotry you're talking about is an evolved cultural trait, but it's not in our genes the way our sexuality is. Children are born gay but they're not born hating gays. That is taught and it only sticks in people who are, perhaps genetically, predisposed to dumbness and paranoia. Clearly, you're not clever enough to understand that our culture was greatly influenced by religion, whether any particular practitioner of said culture is religious or not. The culture we conquered to take this land did NOT treat homosexuals as offensive.

But, whatever, you people aren't interested in tolerance, you want complete acceptance, and that's never going to happen. Me, personally, I couldn't care less. If I ran a business that gay folks might want my product, hell yeah come one come all, cash or credit?

I am not, nor will I ever be, tolerant of unreasoned hatred. That will never be acceptable. Opinions are not inborn traits. For people to choose intolerable opinions and then ask for tolerance of that is absurd.

 

[prometeus]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Why ask if a person is illegal as a private citizen? Entry into the Union is a federal Obligation since 1808. States no longer have any Constitutional basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of State. That, has never been an Individual responsibility.

Care to try that in coherent English?

 

[danielpalos]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

I was highlighting the irony of the posters who think a baker can discriminate against gay people from behind a shield of religion but a doctor cannot. Most of these people don't have a coherent opinion. They're just on the baker's side because that's what the right wing machine told them to do.

Let's use right wing devices, on right wingers.

What is the purpose of a business, to make money or propagate morals.

 

[danielpalos]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Care to try that in coherent English?

Care to ask what part you are not competent enough to understand the first time, and had to resort to fallacy, instead of a question, or a rebuttal.

 

[ludin]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

You have proven yourself to have no true grasp of the meaning of tolerance in the first place, so your repeated and intolerant opinion is utterly wasted on me. You think that certain religious people should be able to opt in to a situation whereby they volunteer to abide by certain laws that do not apply to private individuals per se, but they do apply to private entities that operate (again voluntarily) as places of public accommodation and then expect to be allowed to break those same laws for the sole purpose of discriminating against gay people. You think religious bigots are somehow special and above the law. You literally support discrimination against gay people. You have no problem with gay people being treated as lesser citizens when they can't participate in society to the same extent that you can. And that's what you call tolerance. You don't have a ****ing clue; and you certainly have no credibility on the issue, imho.

Actually i do. Unfortunately for you it is you that does not know the meaning of tolerance. In fact i quote the definition of tolerance quite a lot on this forum. why? because half of the people have no idea what it means.
Any fact is wasted on you pretty much. Actually we have a ton of opt in situations for a variety of people for various reasons. Do you equally rant about those? Actually they do apply, please see artistic licensing and 1A rulings.
No i support people being able to promote or not promote any message they want. That includes a gay baker refusing to do a religious cake if they find it offensive. That is by definition a free country.
Something you dishonestly keep leaving out even though i have posted it multiple times. By your definition i could walk into a gay baker order a cake that says God loves Hetrosexual marriages and if they don't make it sue them
for religious discrimination. is that seriously what you want? I have more credibility on this issue than you do so far.

I will say one more thing because it gives me optimism. Your exact same words (except for the recent invention of "SJW") were used to argue that black people should be segregated, that people with different colors of skin should be prohibited from marrying each other, that women should not be allowed to vote, that Catholic Irish people should be relegated to slums and refused services, etc. Not only did your mindless argument fail spectacularly in courts over and over again for many decades, but it's also become unfashionable to suggest any of those ideas in public (at least among civilized human beings). So, to summarize, you are on the losing side of history. Your opinion about gay people acquiring goods, products, and services in the public sphere is thoroughly intolerant. The CCRC did a poor job of applying the law in this case, but it was far from the final case. I can't wait for the next thread.

If you don't like your own argument being thrown back at you then come up with something else. The fact is what you are ranting about applies to multiple situations.
You are not listening which is not surprising you don't listen to what anyone says because well you said so.

If they were buying an existing cake and he refused them service then i would have no problem with him being sued and winning.
However he does have a right to not support a message just as any other person including gay bakers to support a message they find offensive.

Do you finally get it now? the thing that protect gay bakers from religious discrimination lawsuits protects him as well.
Whether you like it or not that is why we have equal protection laws.

 

[ludin]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Isn't that adorable? A friend and I went to a certain bakery this morning and said exactly that. Only we needed a house warming cake for next weekend, not a birthday cake. The staff who were present, which included the bakery owner, laughed and gladly took our order. Then we also ordered a cake for a gay pride party for the same weekend. We got 10% off the second cake.

Ah, the rewards of being a decent person.

who gives a crap what you ordered. good for you.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

That's true, there are morons who aren't religious, just morons. I concede that some non-religious people are offended by homosexuality, I just don't understand it. Homosexuality does not impose on non-homosexuals any more than vegetarians impose on broccoli haters. The idea that there could be a valid reason to be offended by homosexuality is its own ignorance and bigotry.



The kind of bigotry you're talking about is an evolved cultural trait, but it's not in our genes the way our sexuality is. Children are born gay but they're not born hating gays. That is taught and it only sticks in people who are, perhaps genetically, predisposed to dumbness and paranoia. Clearly, you're not clever enough to understand that our culture was greatly influenced by religion, whether any particular practitioner of said culture is religious or not. The culture we conquered to take this land did NOT treat homosexuals as offensive.



I am not, nor will I ever be, tolerant of unreasoned hatred. That will never be acceptable. Opinions are not inborn traits. For people to choose intolerable opinions and then ask for tolerance of that is absurd.

Yes. To all of that, yes.

I don't associate with people who hate non-straight people, non-Christian people, women, non-white people, etc. I do allow them to exist in their self-imposed captivity of bigotry and stupidity because, well, people have a right to be stupid bigots in the US. What I don't allow them to do is treat all those groups of people I listed (and more) like trash and then cry to the rest of us about how they desire tolerance.

If they would just stop breeding new generations of hatemongers we might actually start to solve the problems they created.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Let's use right wing devices, on right wingers.

What is the purpose of a business, to make money or propagate morals.

If you're trying to make a point, just make it. I'm not interested in playing games with you.

 

[prometeus]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Care to ask what part you are not competent enough to understand the first time, and had to resort to fallacy, instead of a question, or a rebuttal.

Your post was incoherent and irrelevant drivel. Clearly you had nothing to say.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Actually i do. Unfortunately for you it is you that does not know the meaning of tolerance. In fact i quote the definition of tolerance quite a lot on this forum. why? because half of the people have no idea what it means.
Any fact is wasted on you pretty much. Actually we have a ton of opt in situations for a variety of people for various reasons. Do you equally rant about those? Actually they do apply, please see artistic licensing and 1A rulings.
No i support people being able to promote or not promote any message they want. That includes a gay baker refusing to do a religious cake if they find it offensive. That is by definition a free country.
Something you dishonestly keep leaving out even though i have posted it multiple times. By your definition i could walk into a gay baker order a cake that says God loves Hetrosexual marriages and if they don't make it sue them
for religious discrimination. is that seriously what you want? I have more credibility on this issue than you do so far.



If you don't like your own argument being thrown back at you then come up with something else. The fact is what you are ranting about applies to multiple situations.
You are not listening which is not surprising you don't listen to what anyone says because well you said so.

If they were buying an existing cake and he refused them service then i would have no problem with him being sued and winning.
However he does have a right to not support a message just as any other person including gay bakers to support a message they find offensive.

Do you finally get it now? the thing that protect gay bakers from religious discrimination lawsuits protects him as well.
Whether you like it or not that is why we have equal protection laws.

You have no space to talk about credibility. None. As far as your hypothetical about a message that a gay baker doesn't want to write on a cake, where were you for the entire OR episode? This has been addressed to death. If a straight person picks a cake out of a book of cakes that the gay baker sells, the gay baker has to sell a cake in that book to the straight customer no matter what the baker thinks about the customer's sexual orientation. That's why the baker in CO messed up. He didn't object to a design or lettering. He objected to the two men's sexual orientations and their wedding, which frankly (I can't believe I have to say this) is no one's ****ing business except their own.

I remember my first law school class about civil rights, public accommodation laws, and anti-discrimination legislation. It was in a lecture hall of eighty or so 22-year-olds who knew very little about law. Every single person in that room understood this topic better than you do.

You are hopelessly wrong. I know you're incapable of getting it, so I won't even ask the question.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

who gives a crap what you ordered. good for you.

You brought it up. You said, "yes please tell someone that and i doubt they will give you the birthday cake either."

So I told you that I did exactly as you suggested and not only bought two cakes from a bakery that has better morals than the Christian bigot in Lakewood, but I also got a discount because I support civil rights for LGBTQ people.

In other words, I was showing you how you were once again . . . wait for it . . . wrong. At least you're consistent about it.

 

[danielpalos]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Your post was incoherent and irrelevant drivel. Clearly you had nothing to say.

lol. so what; you are simply clueless and Causeless or you would have a valid argument.

 

[Hicup]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

1.)so what people rights are being violated? LMAO
where else to you have that feeling tim?
theft? rape? assault? robbery? vandalism? . . if that happens to somebody they should just say so what? or is it just the gays and thier rights? LOL

So you equate not being able to get your cake to rape? I don't even know why I bother with you, perhaps it's like some sort of fetish of mine; playing with intellectual giants, such as yourself.

2.) science already does its called heterosexuality

You didn't even understand or attempt to understand what the premise is, did you? No surprise..

3/) your topically uneducated biased opinions have are meaningless to law rights and illegal discrimination and PA/AD laws

"Topically" uneducated? Look sunshine, trying to use big words in an attempt to raise your web-facing intelligence, rarely works when those that know you, know better..

4.) did you just compare sexual orientation to bigotry? :shock::doh:lamo

Nope, why, is this the impression you got?

Wow i have seen you make so monumentally illogical and topically intellectual void claims before but that might take the cake, to funny.

Wow, there's that word again. Do you have an APP where it tells you to use words that have zero relevance to sentence structure and composition? In any event, this 5 minutes has been fun, I will admit, but I bore easily of you, unless of course you're going to use even bigger words in your response to me and actually attempt to make sense of what I wrote and debate those parameters accordingly, then I might indulge you further with my time and energy, otherwise, bite me..



Tim-

 

[ludin]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

You have no space to talk about credibility. None. As far as your hypothetical about a message that a gay baker doesn't want to write on a cake, where were you for the entire OR episode? This has been addressed to death. If a straight person picks a cake out of a book of cakes that the gay baker sells, the gay baker has to sell a cake in that book to the straight customer no matter what the baker thinks about the customer's sexual orientation. That's why the baker in CO messed up. He didn't object to a design or lettering. He objected to the two men's sexual orientations and their wedding, which frankly (I can't believe I have to say this) is no one's ****ing business except their own.

Actually no they don't. They have refused service for messages that they found offensive. if you had read the justices opinion they saw no difference between the two of them. In fact it was one of the things they blasted the
CO Commission on was their lack of applying the law equally even though gay bakers approved.

no he objected to their wedding your purposely being dishonest in his objection.

I remember my first law school class about civil rights, public accommodation laws, and anti-discrimination legislation. It was in a lecture hall of eighty or so 22-year-olds who knew very little about law. Every single person in that room understood this topic better than you do.

I understand it just fine please see the SCOTUS ruling.
The state can't discriminate against someone's religious views.

You are hopelessly wrong. I know you're incapable of getting it, so I won't even ask the question.

You have been wrong this entire thread or do i need to quote the justices again?

 

[ludin]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

You brought it up. You said, "yes please tell someone that and i doubt they will give you the birthday cake either."

So I told you that I did exactly as you suggested and not only bought two cakes from a bakery that has better morals than the Christian bigot in Lakewood, but I also got a discount because I support civil rights for LGBTQ people.

In other words, I was showing you how you were once again . . . wait for it . . . wrong. At least you're consistent about it.

do you want a cookie again who cares.
no you got a discount for ordering more than 1 cake.

the owner could careless about your view.

no i said if you call them not a piece of ****.
i seriously doubt you went up and said that.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

1.)So you equate not being able to get your cake to rape?
2.) I don't even know why I bother with you, perhaps it's like some sort of fetish of mine; playing with intellectual giants, such as yourself.
3.You didn't even understand or attempt to understand what the premise is, did you? No surprise..
4.)"Topically" uneducated? Look sunshine, trying to use big words in an attempt to raise your web-facing intelligence, rarely works when those that know you, know better..
5.)Nope, why, is this the impression you got?





Wow, there's that word again. Do you have an APP where it tells you to use words that have zero relevance to sentence structure and composition? In any event, this 5 minutes has been fun, I will admit, but I bore easily of you, unless of course you're going to use even bigger words in your response to me and actually attempt to make sense of what I wrote and debate those parameters accordingly, then I might indulge you further with my time and energy, otherwise, bite me..



Tim-

1.) nope not at all but nice lie you tried, and failed, to make up
My question was VERY clear, your dodge is noticed but all ill ask AGAIN and try to answer this time, thanks!
where else to you have that feeling tim? that people should just say so what? theft? rape? assault? robbery? vandalism? . . if that happens to somebody they should just say so what? or is it just the gays and thier rights?
2.) me neither since it always ends with me exposing the lies andthe false claims in your posts
3.) i understood it fine your premise is factually wrong, but again nice dodge and run
4.) another attack against me and nothing to support your claims, do you have ANYTHING accurate, logical and factual that actually supports them?
5.) fact remains you did, its right there in black and white hence multiple people commented on it LMAO here lets look at your qoute:

The premise is: If you can't blame gays for being gay, then it's equally unfair to blame others that find that behavior offensive.
Tim-

Yep you FACTUALLY compared sexual orientation to bigotry.
6.) And another dodge and ZERO facts for your false claims.
Please let us know when you have anything of logical or topically related intellectual merit that supports your false claims thanks!

 

[prometeus]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

lol. so what;

They why the **** did you butt in?

you are simply clueless and Causeless or you would have a valid argument.

Argument for what? I asked for better documentation from another poster when you chose to interject your idiocy.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Actually no they don't. They have refused service for messages that they found offensive. if you had read the justices opinion they saw no difference between the two of them. In fact it was one of the things they blasted the
CO Commission on was their lack of applying the law equally even though gay bakers approved.

no he objected to their wedding your purposely being dishonest in his objection.



I understand it just fine please see the SCOTUS ruling.
The state can't discriminate against someone's religious views.



You have been wrong this entire thread or do i need to quote the justices again?

A cake is not a message. Go read the OR case.

I don't care how you spin it, the CO baker is not allowed to object to a gay wedding or a gay couple or a gay person. He broke the law. You know, the law that still controls his business today.

I've read every word of the ruling twice. I've read pertinent parts of it a lot more than that. Either you haven't read the ruling yourself, you're lying about its meaning and implications, or you truly just don't understand it.

You keep trying to make this an ideological argument. You keep trying to say (in barely intelligible ways) that I'm misinterpreting the ruling for my own motives. You're wrong. I tire of saying it. This wasn't the ruling I wanted. I'm simply telling you what it means to grown ups who live in the real world.

At this late stage of the game, there is no excuse to be as wrong about this topic as you are. You don't trust my objectivity and good faith attempts to honestly (and patiently as hell) explain it to you, fine. Have someone else do it because this dialogue has become ridiculous.

And just because I can't stomach letting you get away with that second to last sentence again: You bet your ass the state can discriminate against someone's religious views. It does so every single ****ing day. You are so out of your depth in this thread that I can't help you anymore.

 

[Hicup]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

1.) nope not at all but nice lie you tried, and failed, to make up
My question was VERY clear, your dodge is noticed but all ill ask AGAIN and try to answer this time, thanks!
where else to you have that feeling tim? that people should just say so what? theft? rape? assault? robbery? vandalism? . . if that happens to somebody they should just say so what? or is it just the gays and thier rights?
2.) me neither since it always ends with me exposing the lies andthe false claims in your posts
3.) i understood it fine your premise is factually wrong, but again nice dodge and run
4.) another attack against me and nothing to support your claims, do you have ANYTHING accurate, logical and factual that actually supports them?
5.) fact remains you did, its right there in black and white hence multiple people commented on it LMAO here lets look at your qoute:

Yep you FACTUALLY compared sexual orientation to bigotry.
6.) And another dodge and ZERO facts for your false claims.
Please let us know when you have anything of logical or topically related intellectual merit that supports your false claims thanks!

Is your APP not working now, Agentj? I'll answer the bold but only so I can show why you're not anywhere remotely close to my level of understanding, with respect to the English language. I did not compare sexual orientation to bigotry, what I did was contrasted sexual orientation to bigotry.. All the other stuff in your post was the usual, special kind of stupid, so I'll leave it there for all to enjoy as much as I did.


Tim-

 

[Desert Storm]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Do you guys think this thread may have run its course now??

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

1.) Is your APP not working now, Agentj?
2.) I'll answer the bold but only so I can show why you're not anywhere remotely close to my level of understanding, with respect to the English language. I did not compare sexual orientation to bigotry, what I did was contrasted sexual orientation to bigotry..
3.) All the other stuff in your post was the usual, special kind of stupid, so I'll leave it there for all to enjoy as much as I did.


Tim-

1.) works just fine
2.) its already been proven. You did factually compare them. uuuhm contrast means to compare. Tell us that "kewl" line about understanding English language again? and then the one about people enjoying enjoying it??? :lamo
Thanks for proving me right and proving the fact you compared them
3.) translation: your claims were proven wrong proven wrong AGAIN and you cant support them with anything accurate, logic or of topically intellectual merit. Thats what I thought! lmao

Please let us know when that changes and you can support your factually proven wrong claims, thanks!

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

do you want a cookie again who cares.
no you got a discount for ordering more than 1 cake.

the owner could careless about your view.

no i said if you call them not a piece of ****.
i seriously doubt you went up and said that.

No, I do not want a cookie. I have two delicious, gay-friendly cakes on the way. I just wanted to rub into your face that you said something stupid in this forum (no surprise there) that I immediately proved wrong.

If this owner could not care less about my view (that is his job, by the way), then why did the other baker care about the gay couple's view? Hmm. You made a mess out of that one.

Also, since you're having another one of your fits of incomprehension, let me spell it out for you. A friend and I walked into a bakery yesterday. I said, "We'd like to buy a cake for a gay wedding." The clerk, who was standing about six feet away from the owner and another employee, said, "Sure. Did you have anything in mind or would you like to look at some options?" Then I said, and I'm quoting myself exactly, "Actually, I just need a sheet cake for a house warming party. I just wanted to make sure you're not a piece of ****." Then all three of the bakery staff, including the owner, laughed. So we went over the house warming cake at which point my friend said, "Actually, maybe we should get something for Chris's and Justin's party, too." I said, "Good idea. We'll also order a round cake for our friends' gay pride party." The owner said, "Give them 10% off that one and tell your friends Happy Pride from us." Stop making up **** and just admit you were wrong. If you can't do that, then please, for the love of a god who loves gay people, just stop posting about things you know nothing about.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

They why the **** did you butt in?

Argument for what? I asked for better documentation from another poster when you chose to interject your idiocy.

I'm super confused about that poster's "contributions" to this entire thread.