Supreme Court Decides in Favor of Colorado Baker in Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case (Page 5): Ok, dumb ass, you said that, I did not. Don't try and twist what I said, you are the one making...

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

thom w wrote:

And Rosa should have known her place and gone to the back of the bus. The back goes everywhere the front goes, so what's the problem. And, those people at the lunch counter at Woolworth were way out of line.

Ok, dumb ass, you said that, I did not. Don't try and twist what I said, you are the one making all of the liberal comparisons that are not comparisons at all. Give it up.

One Rude Dawg Loc: Athol, ID

Bazbo wrote:

What you believe is contrary to the law. Believe what you want.

Gee, thanks, I appreciate you letting me have my own opinion.

R2F

JohnSwanda wrote:

Now you need to look up a definition, of "prefer". That doesn't imply that I think any other definition is wrong. That's just what it means to me. I'm all for freedom of religion, as long as it includes freedom from religion as well if you prefer that.

Agree with the freedom from. Very good point. I will agree with what prefer means as you explain it. All in all I just don't get it. Why wouldn't you want to use a baker that doesn't take issue with your lifestyle instead? Why give the guy that you don't like the business? I couldn't care less what your "sexuality" is. I wouldn't like to do it for them but I would simply do it for the work and because I believe that its not my job to judge them. People are people. I don't dislike gay people, I dislike the lifestyle for personal and religious reasons. But my religious beliefs also tell me to treat people as I want to be treated. Now, I fail quite often. Its a goal though.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

R2F wrote:

Agree with the freedom from. Very good point. I wi... (show quote)

I imagine they didn't think they should have to shop around to find someone who approves of their marriage when it is illegal to discriminate against gay people in their state. But the ruling didn't address that, just that the state was unfair to the baker in the legal process.

phcaan Loc: Willow Springs, MO

JohnSwanda wrote:

I imagine they didn't think they should have to shop around to find someone who approves of their marriage when it is illegal to discriminate against gay people in their state. But the ruling didn't address that, just that the state was unfair to the baker in the legal process.

I imagine they just wanted to raise a stink.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

phcaan wrote:

I imagine they just wanted to raise a stink.

Rosa Parks was looking for trouble. The black patrons at Woolworth were looking for trouble. We are a better country because of both of them. For that matter Mahatma Gandhi, MLK, the founding fathers, were all looking for trouble. Thank God for each of them.

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

Bazbo wrote:

Do you not think the tikki torch crowd in Cjarrlot... (show quote)

Two men get married to each other in Massachusetts.
They travel 2000 miles to Colorado.
Colorado does not, at that time , recognize their marriage.
They ask a baker to make them a custom cake.
He declines and offers to sell them a standard cake.
They leave and sue.

He accommodated them by offering a regular cake.
A custom cake is "art" and thus covered by the First amendment.

The gay men are looking to foist their views on everyone. I don't accept that just the same as you don't accept the baker's views. But are we going to go to war over it? Fuck off and shop somewhere else.

hasslichhog

Dennis

"
7-2 is not a narrow ruling in my opinion. "

This is the crux of the decision. Muddled minds, though, seem not to have grasped this.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

thom w wrote:

Rosa Parks was looking for trouble. The black patrons at Woolworth were looking for trouble. We are a better country because of both of them. For that matter Mahatma Gandhi, MLK, the founding fathers, were all looking for trouble. Thank God for each of them.

You make up shit off topic and then present it. Moron

phcaan Loc: Willow Springs, MO

Elaine2025 wrote:

You make up shit off topic and then present it. Moron

EyeSawYou

JohnSwanda wrote:

It's against some people's religion to remarry after divorcing. But you never hear bakers that believe that refuse to make divorced people wedding cakes.

Are you illiterate or something to that effect? This is NOT about discriminating against anyone, this is about creating custom cakes. The baker did not reject to serving the customer, just rejecting the type of cake decorations.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

EyeSawYou wrote:

Are you illiterate or something to that effect? This is NOT about discriminating against anyone, this is about creating custom cakes. The baker did not reject to serving the customer, just rejecting the type of cake decorations.

It is still one of his standard business services he provides to the public which he refused to provide to a class of people protected from discrimination in his state. Whether is was a creative expression covered by the first amendment as the baker claims was not addressed by the court decision (the reason the decision was called "narrow") and probably will have to be decided in the future.

EyeSawYou

JohnSwanda wrote:

It is still one of his standard business services he provides to the public which he refused to provide to a class of people protected from discrimination in his state. Whether is was a creative expression covered by the first amendment as the baker claims was not addressed by the court decision (the reason the decision was called "narrow") and probably will have to be decided in the future.

Well I was correct about my short assement about you, you are illiterate.

"Are you illiterate or something to that effect? This is NOT about discriminating against anyone, this is about creating custom cakes.
The baker did not reject to serving the customer, just rejecting the type of cake decorations." The baker was more than happy to serve him any other cake that he wanted, just not that type.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

EyeSawYou wrote:

Well I was correct about my short assement about you, you are illiterate.

"Are you illiterate or something to that effect? This is NOT about discriminating against anyone, this is about creating custom cakes.
The baker did not reject to serving the customer, just rejecting the type of cake decorations." The baker was more than happy to serve him any other cake that he wanted, just not that type.

We just have a disagreement in analyzing this case, but I don't feel the need to be insulting to you. I understand your viewpoint, I just disagree with it. You don't seem to be able to understand my viewpoint, but I'm not going to call you insulting names.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

JohnSwanda wrote:

It is still one of his standard business services he provides to the public which he refused to provide to a class of people protected from discrimination in his state. Whether is was a creative expression covered by the first amendment as the baker claims was not addressed by the court decision (the reason the decision was called "narrow") and probably will have to be decided in the future.

John, you need to read the decision before commenting on what are NOT THE FACTS OF THE CASE. The baker was not given a fair and unbiased hearing according to the law. Thus if was overturned do to the law not being followed. It has nothing to do with being gay. The legal decision makers were clearly biased, and the baker was discriminated against. Stop trying to make it about being gay.