Baker must make gay cakes

[Mac1958]

.

I see some here are still pretending this is about public accommodations.

This is about a homosexual couple who could have chosen to work with someone who wanted to work with them, but instead chose to punish this guy for not conforming to their worldview.

Public accommodation laws never had to enter into it.

.

On the other side of the coin the Baker could have chosen not to offer wedding cakes and then there would have been no need for him to discriminate against homosexuals.

If he didn't offer wedding cakes to the public for sale, Public Accommodations laws never had to enter into it.


>>>>

More avoidance of my point.

They can get a cake in many other places. This just gave them an opportunity to punish.

.

 

[Pop23]

Then why did the judge bring up the whole dog thing in the first place? If its a matter of law, and the law doesn't recognize any exceptions barring the ones listed, why go there?

How many times are you ging to ask the same question Marty to get the same answer?


He mentioned the willingness to make a wedding cake for dogs to show the capricious application of the individuals beliefs. If weddings are for one man and one woman and he refused homosexuals because they don't fit the definition, it's hypocritical to then make one for a pair of dogs.



>>>>

Dogs are not issued marriage licenses. Therefor parody.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then why did the judge bring up the whole dog thing in the first place? If its a matter of law, and the law doesn't recognize any exceptions barring the ones listed, why go there?

How many times are you ging to ask the same question Marty to get the same answer?


He mentioned the willingness to make a wedding cake for dogs to show the capricious application of the individuals beliefs. If weddings are for one man and one woman and he refused homosexuals because they don't fit the definition, it's hypocritical to then make one for a pair of dogs.



>>>>

Dogs are not issued marriage licenses. Therefor parody.

Gay's couldn't get marriage licenses at the time in Colorado either.



>>>>

 

[Pop23]

How many times are you ging to ask the same question Marty to get the same answer?


He mentioned the willingness to make a wedding cake for dogs to show the capricious application of the individuals beliefs. If weddings are for one man and one woman and he refused homosexuals because they don't fit the definition, it's hypocritical to then make one for a pair of dogs.



>>>>

Dogs are not issued marriage licenses. Therefor parody.

Gay's couldn't get marriage licenses at the time in Colorado either.



>>>>

Gays could in any church that allowed such, and in several states. Nowhere is a dog allowed to enter into a contract.

Parody is free speech.

Oh, brother

 

[LockeJaw]

Faggot enablers are stupid, Pops...what else can you say?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Dogs are not issued marriage licenses. Therefor parody.

Gay's couldn't get marriage licenses at the time in Colorado either.



>>>>

Gays could in any church that allowed such, and in several states. Nowhere is a dog allowed to enter into a contract.

Parody is free speech.

Oh, brother

You don't have to have a "legal contract" to be able to purchase goods and services.

Sweetcakes by Melissa (Baker, Oregon) - no Same-sex Civil Marriage in Oregon at the time, found in violation of the States Public Accommodation law.

Elane Photography (Photographer, New Mexico) - no Same-sex Civil Marriage in New Mexico at the time, found in violation of the States Public Accommodation law.

Masterpiece Cakeshop (Baker, Colorado) - no Same-sex Civil Marriage in Colorado at the time, found in violation of the States Public Accommodation law.​

It has nothing to do with whether the couple had a "contract" at the time, it was based on the goods and services offered by the place of Public Accommodation and their refusal to provide full and equal services.




>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Gay's couldn't get marriage licenses at the time in Colorado either.



>>>>

Gays could in any church that allowed such, and in several states. Nowhere is a dog allowed to enter into a contract.

Parody is free speech.

Oh, brother

You don't have to have a "legal contract" to be able to purchase goods and services.

Sweetcakes by Melissa (Baker, Oregon) - no Same-sex Civil Marriage in Oregon at the time, found in violation of the States Public Accommodation law.

Elane Photography (Photographer, New Mexico) - no Same-sex Civil Marriage in New Mexico at the time, found in violation of the States Public Accommodation law.

Masterpiece Cakeshop (Baker, Colorado) - no Same-sex Civil Marriage in Colorado at the time, found in violation of the States Public Accommodation law.​

It has nothing to do with whether the couple had a "contract" at the time, it was based on the goods and services offered by the place of Public Accommodation and their refusal to provide full and equal services.




>>>>

I was addressing the judges use of the dog example.

As I said previously, the solution is easy. Just advise the couple that all proceeds from the sale of the cake would go to an anti same sex marriage group.

Problem either solves itself, or the happy couple can have the cake knowing they are participating in funding against their cause. Mozilla anyone?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Then why did the judge bring up the whole dog thing in the first place? If its a matter of law, and the law doesn't recognize any exceptions barring the ones listed, why go there?

How many times are you ging to ask the same question Marty to get the same answer?


He mentioned the willingness to make a wedding cake for dogs to show the capricious application of the individuals beliefs. If weddings are for one man and one woman and he refused homosexuals because they don't fit the definition, it's hypocritical to then make one for a pair of dogs.



>>>>

lol, you cannot honestly see the difference?

Marrying dogs is a morally neutral act since dogs don't really marry at all and their is nothing sinful about their relationship.

But same sex sexual relations are immoral and evil and they were morally objectionable to the baker.

That is the key difference and the dog analogy merely illustrates the idiocy of the libtards that think it legit.

 

[hazlnut]

But same sex sexual relations are immoral and evil and they were morally objectionable to the baker.

Segregationists made that same argument 50 years ago.

And they used the bible to back it up.

 

[Seawytch]

It certainly is a SINGULAR "faith", yes.

It is hilarious that you libs are supporting and using as an example a judges opinion that compared queer weddings with the marriage of dogs.

The Court noted the claims of Phillips' faith are open to question, at best.

Exactly. You can't use religion as a means to discriminate, especially when it is based solely on animus and not a belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gays could in any church that allowed such, and in several states. Nowhere is a dog allowed to enter into a contract.

Parody is free speech.

Oh, brother

You don't have to have a "legal contract" to be able to purchase goods and services.

Sweetcakes by Melissa (Baker, Oregon) - no Same-sex Civil Marriage in Oregon at the time, found in violation of the States Public Accommodation law.

Elane Photography (Photographer, New Mexico) - no Same-sex Civil Marriage in New Mexico at the time, found in violation of the States Public Accommodation law.

Masterpiece Cakeshop (Baker, Colorado) - no Same-sex Civil Marriage in Colorado at the time, found in violation of the States Public Accommodation law.​

It has nothing to do with whether the couple had a "contract" at the time, it was based on the goods and services offered by the place of Public Accommodation and their refusal to provide full and equal services.




>>>>

I was addressing the judges use of the dog example.

As I said previously, the solution is easy. Just advise the couple that all proceeds from the sale of the cake would go to an anti same sex marriage group.

Problem either solves itself, or the happy couple can have the cake knowing they are participating in funding against their cause. Mozilla anyone?

Personally I don't think business owners should have to go through such gyrations.

Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses should be repealed. If an business owner wants to discriminate against Blacks or Asians, Irish or Russians, Men or Women, Straight or Gays, Young or Old, Veteran or Civilian, married or divorced - it ought to be up to the business owner.



>>>>

 

[JimBowie1958]

But same sex sexual relations are immoral and evil and they were morally objectionable to the baker.

Segregationists made that same argument 50 years ago.

And they used the bible to back it up.

Fringe elements use the Bible to support their behavior all the time, for example the Anglican church has a very long history of exactly that.

That does not mean it is a viable and defensible claims within the main stream of Christendom.

 

[Pop23]

It is hilarious that you libs are supporting and using as an example a judges opinion that compared queer weddings with the marriage of dogs.

The Court noted the claims of Phillips' faith are open to question, at best.

Exactly. You can't use religion as a means to discriminate, especially when it is based solely on animus and not a belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Dogs can't enter into a contract.

They do make really cool posters of dogs playing Poker, but it ain't real, it's comedy, and comedy is protected free speech.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is hilarious that you libs are supporting and using as an example a judges opinion that compared queer weddings with the marriage of dogs.

The Court noted the claims of Phillips' faith are open to question, at best.

Exactly. You can't use religion as a means to discriminate, especially when it is based solely on animus and not a belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Yes, you can use religion to discriminate between moral and immoral people and it is advisable.

Catholics do not let Baptists in their parish membership, and vice versa, you stupid idjit.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Court noted the claims of Phillips' faith are open to question, at best.

Exactly. You can't use religion as a means to discriminate, especially when it is based solely on animus and not a belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Dogs can't enter into a contract.

They do make really cool posters of dogs playing Poker, but it ain't real, it's comedy, and comedy is protected free speech.

Gays can't enter into a Civil Marriage Contract in Colorado either.



>>>>

 

[Pop23]

You don't have to have a "legal contract" to be able to purchase goods and services.

Sweetcakes by Melissa (Baker, Oregon) - no Same-sex Civil Marriage in Oregon at the time, found in violation of the States Public Accommodation law.

Elane Photography (Photographer, New Mexico) - no Same-sex Civil Marriage in New Mexico at the time, found in violation of the States Public Accommodation law.

Masterpiece Cakeshop (Baker, Colorado) - no Same-sex Civil Marriage in Colorado at the time, found in violation of the States Public Accommodation law.​

It has nothing to do with whether the couple had a "contract" at the time, it was based on the goods and services offered by the place of Public Accommodation and their refusal to provide full and equal services.




>>>>

I was addressing the judges use of the dog example.

As I said previously, the solution is easy. Just advise the couple that all proceeds from the sale of the cake would go to an anti same sex marriage group.

Problem either solves itself, or the happy couple can have the cake knowing they are participating in funding against their cause. Mozilla anyone?

Personally I don't think business owners should have to go through such gyrations.

Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses should be repealed. If an business owner wants to discriminate against Blacks or Asians, Irish or Russians, Men or Women, Straight or Gays, Young or Old, Veteran or Civilian, married or divorced - it ought to be up to the business owner.



>>>>

You have to admit that you would love to hear the discussion after the baker made the offer!

It would be priceless

 

[Seawytch]

But same sex sexual relations are immoral and evil and they were morally objectionable to the baker.

Segregationists made that same argument 50 years ago.



And they used the bible to back it up.

Fringe elements use the Bible to support their behavior all the time, for example the Anglican church has a very long history of exactly that.



That does not mean it is a viable and defensible claims within the main stream of Christendom.

Except it wasn't a "fringe element"...most of the segregationists and those opposed to interracial marriage used their religion to justify their bigotry...just like today.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You don't have to have a "legal contract" to be able to purchase goods and services.

Sweetcakes by Melissa (Baker, Oregon) - no Same-sex Civil Marriage in Oregon at the time, found in violation of the States Public Accommodation law.

Elane Photography (Photographer, New Mexico) - no Same-sex Civil Marriage in New Mexico at the time, found in violation of the States Public Accommodation law.

Masterpiece Cakeshop (Baker, Colorado) - no Same-sex Civil Marriage in Colorado at the time, found in violation of the States Public Accommodation law.​

It has nothing to do with whether the couple had a "contract" at the time, it was based on the goods and services offered by the place of Public Accommodation and their refusal to provide full and equal services.




>>>>

I was addressing the judges use of the dog example.

As I said previously, the solution is easy. Just advise the couple that all proceeds from the sale of the cake would go to an anti same sex marriage group.

Problem either solves itself, or the happy couple can have the cake knowing they are participating in funding against their cause. Mozilla anyone?

Personally I don't think business owners should have to go through such gyrations.

Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses should be repealed. If an business owner wants to discriminate against Blacks or Asians, Irish or Russians, Men or Women, Straight or Gays, Young or Old, Veteran or Civilian, married or divorced - it ought to be up to the business owner.



>>>>

I do believe that they should be compelled by law to post their discriminatory policy at the entryway to the business so that customers can choose to not do business with them if said policy offends them.


I know I wont do business with anyone that discriminates against innocent people on the basis of religion, race or ethnicity.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Segregationists made that same argument 50 years ago.



And they used the bible to back it up.

Fringe elements use the Bible to support their behavior all the time, for example the Anglican church has a very long history of exactly that.



That does not mean it is a viable and defensible claims within the main stream of Christendom.

Except it wasn't a "fringe element"...most of the segregationists and those opposed to interracial marriage used their religion to justify their bigotry...just like today.

lol, yes, Baptists and other Protestants were and still are FRINGE elements of the global church.

Don't be so narrow; the USA does not set the standards for the world in religion.

 

[Seawytch]

The Court noted the claims of Phillips' faith are open to question, at best.

Exactly. You can't use religion as a means to discriminate, especially when it is based solely on animus and not a belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Dogs can't enter into a contract.



They do make really cool posters of dogs playing Poker, but it ain't real, it's comedy, and comedy is protected free speech.

Marriage is not a legal contract for gays in Colorado either. Their marriage is no more legal in CO than the dogs.