Court allows Christian baker Jack Phillips to sue Colorado for anti-religious hostility

[Conservative65]

That can of worms is exactly what the Court is being asked to open and will open in this lawsuit. Every case is a can of worms that comes to them. Hence the reason they weren't resolved in the lower courts. Hence the reason they're "the Superiors"...ie: superior reasoning powers. At least when they're not blatant activists... (RGB)

Except once you say, "It's okay to discriminate against gays if you sincerely believe your religion calls for it", you can discriminate against Blacks, Jews, Mormons, ladies wearing pants, handicapped people, or just about anyone else you like. There's enough loony in the bible to support anything, really... and why limit ourselves to the bible.

What you call discrimination is called a choice. Learn the difference before running your mouth.

 

[JoeB131]

Since this was the only thing close to an argument you made...

No one said it would be a good economic/business decision to do that. However, it's still a choice that owners should have. I thought you lefties believed in choice. You claim you do. I guess that only applies to things you support.

The Homophobic Baker has a choice.

He can either

1) Do what he promised to do.
or
2) Close up his shop and find something else to do for a living.

Frankly, this is the same choice that those who aren't business owners have. Do the job or leave.

 

[JoeB131]

What you call discrimination is called a choice. Learn the difference before running your mouth.

Actually, the law is pretty clear on it. You can't discriminate based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Your "choice' is whether or not you want to do that for a living.

 

[Conservative65]

Since this was the only thing close to an argument you made...

No one said it would be a good economic/business decision to do that. However, it's still a choice that owners should have. I thought you lefties believed in choice. You claim you do. I guess that only applies to things you support.

The Homophobic Baker has a choice.

He can either

1) Do what he promised to do.
or
2) Close up his shop and find something else to do for a living.

Frankly, this is the same choice that those who aren't business owners have. Do the job or leave.

It's OK, Joe, you and your faggot boyfriend will be able to get a cake.

When you were fired for not doing your job, why didn't you do what you said you'd do? Apparently when you didn't, your boss(es) closed up shop for you and you haven't stopped whining since.

 

[Conservative65]

What you call discrimination is called a choice. Learn the difference before running your mouth.

Actually, the law is pretty clear on it. You can't discriminate based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Your "choice' is whether or not you want to do that for a living.

Still a choice. I thought you lefties believed in choice. Apparently that only applies when it comes to killing babies.

 

[JoeB131]

When you were fired for not doing your job, why didn't you do what you said you'd do? Apparently when you didn't, your boss(es) closed up shop for you and you haven't stopped whining since.

Actually, what my bosses did was lose the major customer that i worked on... that's what they managed to do. They kept pretending it was okay to soak them with a 30% margin and that they would never think of just buying directly from a manufacturer, which is exactly what they did.

 

[JoeB131]

Still a choice. I thought you lefties believed in choice. Apparently that only applies when it comes to killing babies.

Sure. You can either follow the business laws or not be in that business.

This ain't complicated, buddy.

Business laws are there to protect the consumer, not the businessman.

 

[Conservative65]

Still a choice. I thought you lefties believed in choice. Apparently that only applies when it comes to killing babies.

Sure. You can either follow the business laws or not be in that business.

This ain't complicated, buddy.

Business laws are there to protect the consumer, not the businessman.

So you admit choice only applies to things you support.

It's OK, someone will bake you and your fag boyfriend a cake for your wedding.

 

[Conservative65]

When you were fired for not doing your job, why didn't you do what you said you'd do? Apparently when you didn't, your boss(es) closed up shop for you and you haven't stopped whining since.

Actually, what my bosses did was lose the major customer that i worked on... that's what they managed to do. They kept pretending it was okay to soak them with a 30% margin and that they would never think of just buying directly from a manufacturer, which is exactly what they did.

What your bosses did was get rid of an employee that was a liability. They gained far more by doing that.

 

[JoeB131]

So you admit choice only applies to things you support.

No, i think that consumer disputes should be resolved in the favor of the consumer in most cases.

What your bosses did was get rid of an employee that was a liability. They gained far more by doing that.

They didn't do better after I left, they did a lot worse... Lost 60% of their employees and 70% of their business before they got bought up by a bigger company.

 

[Rustic]

Still a choice. I thought you lefties believed in choice. Apparently that only applies when it comes to killing babies.

Sure. You can either follow the business laws or not be in that business.

This ain't complicated, buddy.

Business laws are there to protect the consumer, not the businessman.

Forcing someone to do something for someone else is the protection of no one

 

[Silhouette]

Forcing someone to do something for someone else is the protection of no one

That may be true. But then again a group of small town merchants in the Deep South might decide they won’t serve blacks.

So a distinction will be made by the Court between discrimination based on static qualities like race or gender vs behavioral such as religious or cult ideals & rituals. This means the gay graphic designer can refuse to print a billboard for a Christian client that says “homosexuality is a sin unto God”. And the Christian baker can refuse to design a gay wedding cake.

 

[JoeB131]

Forcing someone to do something for someone else is the protection of no one

Again, we do that all the time.

It's why you aren't experience explosive diarrhea from that restaurant you at ate yesterday. Someone MADE them follow the health codes.

 

[JoeB131]

That may be true. But then again a group of small town merchants in the Deep South might decide they won’t serve blacks.

So a distinction will be made by the Court between discrimination based on static qualities like race or gender vs behavioral such as religious or cult ideals & rituals. This means the gay graphic designer can refuse to print a billboard for a Christian client that says “homosexuality is a sin unto God”. And the Christian baker can refuse to design a gay wedding cake.

Probably not.

No one really thinks sexual orientaiton is a choice except for latent homosexuals who repress themselves.

 

[Silhouette]

No one really thinks sexual orientaiton is a choice except for latent homosexuals who repress themselves.

After become deeply habitual, nobody really thinks the behavior of drug addiction is a choice either. Nevertheless it remains a behavior others aren't forced to promote.

 

[hadit]

Here's where liberals tend to lump everything into a box and label it "bad". A baker that refuses to take part in a gay wedding is not discriminating against gay people, he's discriminating against the wedding. Note that a gay man can come in and buy cupcakes. He can order a birthday cake. He can order a fourth of July party cake. He just can't force the baker to celebrate a "wedding".

Do liberals not understand nuance?

It's not a matter of nuance. It's a matter of wanting to treat someone like a second class citizen because you don't like the kind of sex they are having.

He's not "taking part". He delivers the cake, he goes home. Period.

That's your interpretation, not his. Does he need to put something like, "Congratulations Adam and Steve" on it? And yes, it's a matter of nuance, because that gay couple can come into the store, buy anything they want, get baked goods for all kinds of parties, etc. There's just one activity the baker doesn't want to celebrate with them. He's not treating them like second class citizens, he's discriminating against the "wedding" itself. Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to provide his best sandwiches for a KKK rally if he knows that's what they're for? I say no.

 

[Silhouette]

Does he need to put something like, "Congratulations Adam and Steve" on it? And yes, it's a matter of nuance, because that gay couple can come into the store, buy anything they want, get baked goods for all kinds of parties, etc. There's just one activity the baker doesn't want to celebrate with them. He's not treating them like second class citizens, he's discriminating against the "wedding" itself. Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to provide his best sandwiches for a KKK rally if he knows that's what they're for? I say no.

And the Court will find that informing the merchant is key.

 

[Conservative65]

So you admit choice only applies to things you support.

No, i think that consumer disputes should be resolved in the favor of the consumer in most cases.

What your bosses did was get rid of an employee that was a liability. They gained far more by doing that.

They didn't do better after I left, they did a lot worse... Lost 60% of their employees and 70% of their business before they got bought up by a bigger company.

No, you admitted you only like choice when it comes to things you support. It's as clear as the cowardice in your posts.

Yet you've provided nothing to support those statements. Do you have any verifiable proof?

 

[Conservative65]

Still a choice. I thought you lefties believed in choice. Apparently that only applies when it comes to killing babies.

Sure. You can either follow the business laws or not be in that business.

This ain't complicated, buddy.

Business laws are there to protect the consumer, not the businessman.

Forcing someone to do something for someone else is the protection of no one

Joe is the type that thinks people owe him something in life. He's proven it when he admitted being a social welfare freeloader.

 

[Silhouette]

Sparky is know to promote an agenda at the expense of facts to be sure. Along with many of his other comrades here.