Now the Left is trying to force that Baker to make a transgender cake.

[Seymour Flops]

The baker should make a chocolate cake with dark chocolate frosting that says "CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR RETIREMENT" and tell the customer that the cake identifies as transgender cake.

 

[struth]

There are bible verses on the Supreme Court building.

and a monument to Moses

 

[skye]

Why can't the trangenders choose another bakery then?

People shouldn't be forced to do things against their will, values and principles

Choose another freaking bakery and be done with it, don't be troublemakers!

Ge'ez!

 

[meaner gene]

A lawyer knows he can refuse services to anyone based on any reason. A law firm isn't a public accomdation therefore the Civil Rights Act doesn't apply to them

A lawyer can refuse for any reason. A lawyer doesn't have to accept appointment of a case by the Court.

Actually legal ethics, remember he has to be a member in good standing of a state or federal bar, puts that requirement on them.

If a client seeks his help, he can't refuse because he doesn't like their race, religion or national origin.

If he's assigned a case, he can't refuse except on substantial grounds that a judge would accept.

 

[struth]

Actually legal ethics, remember he has to be a member in good standing of a state or federal bar, puts that requirement on them.

If a client seeks his help, he can't refuse because he doesn't like their race, religion or national origin.

If he's assigned a case, he can't refuse except on substantial grounds that a judge would accept.

yes he can. A lawyer can refuse to represent whomever theg want. I am not sure where you get getting this odd idea they have to do anything l.

the bar doesn’t force them to represent anyone either

the court appoints then to court appointed causes but the lawyer has to accept the appoint

 

[meaner gene]

So, just so I understand, you don't believe that someone should A) be able to practice their religion as they see fit and B) be free from being compelled to act in ways which are counter to their beliefs?.

Then why don't we allow the Muslims to follow the Quran?

What Does The Quran Say About Infidels?

The Quran's Sura 5:33 says about infidels, “They shall be slain or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off.”

Surah 9:5: "Then kill the disbelievers (non-Muslims) wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush …".

 

[meaner gene]

yes he can. A lawyer can refuse to represent whomever theg want. I am not sure where you get getting this odd idea they have to do anything l.

the bar doesn’t force them to represent anyone either

the court appoints then to court appointed causes but the lawyer has to accept the appoint

Lawyers have to follow the rules if they want to continue to practice law.

Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.

Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights.

 

[struth]

Lawyers have to follow the rules if they want to continue to practice law.

Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.

Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights.

haha yes a lawyer can not take a case, but certainly can’t harm the persons rights…so you don’t comprehend what yoiu are posting?

 

[meaner gene]

haha yes a lawyer can not take a case, but certainly can’t harm the persons rights…so you don’t comprehend what yoiu are posting?

It means a lawyer needs legitimate grounds to decline a client.
His religion or prejudices can't play any role.

 

[struth]

It means a lawyer needs legitimate grounds to decline a client.
His religion or prejudices can't play any role.

sure they can, the fact someone hates dems, is as legit reason they can’t represent them…fairl… but they do have an obligations to give them legal advice when doing so not to prejudice their rights

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Lawyers have to follow the rules if they want to continue to practice law.

Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.

Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights.

Lawyers never refuse a case. They might say "my fee is $800.00 per hour with a $75,000 retainer. But they won't refuse.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Yep. For the wrong reasons. As I said, I recognize that numerous courts have promoted the attitude that the First affords special perks to religion. I don't agree.

Well, see, here's the thing, dipshit: What you agree with or disagree with is pretty meaningless. You can not like it all day long and it won't alter the fact that you're wrong...

That fact that you dodge the hypothetical on such grounds, rather than address the point made, tells me that you're quite the chickenshit. With no real confidence in your "convictions".

Eat my shit, bitch.

Using the "murder" argument is a lot like calling someone a Nazi. Once you've done that it's proof that you've nothing intelligent left to say...

Because judges are now strictly partisan appointments. And partisans are the stupidist, most cowardly people on the planet.

Sometimes the jokes just write themselves...

 

[dblack]

Well, see, here's the thing, dipshit: What you agree with or disagree with is pretty meaningless.

Agreed. As is your opinion. Neither will have much impact.

You can not like it all day long and it won't alter the fact that you're wrong...

Nice opinion, dude.

Eat my shit, bitch.

I wouldn't call your opinions "shit". More naive and uninformed. And you at least try to defend them. That's more than most here can muster.

Using the "murder" argument is a lot like calling someone a Nazi. Once you've done that it's proof that you've nothing intelligent left to say...

Nope. It's a valid rhetorical technique to point out flaws in a weak argument. The fact that you resort to diversion, rather than address the point made, tells me how little confidence you have in your claims.

Sometimes the jokes just write themselves...

Don't they just.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I wouldn't call your opinions "shit". More naive and uninformed. And you at least try to defend them. That's more than most here can muster.

My apologies. I thought you were smart enough to understand that my comment had nothing to do with your idiotic opinions and was, instead, a response to you calling me a chickenshit.

So, yeah... Fuck you...

Nope. It's a valid rhetorical technique to point out flaws in a weak argument. The fact that you resort to diversion, rather than address the point made, tells me how little confidence you have in your claims.

I have total confidence in my claims.

Unlike you, though, I'm not stupid enough to use some childish extreme in a failed attempt to make a point...

Don't they just.

I just think it's funny that you feels somehow qualified to comment on how stupid someone is when you can't even spell "stupidest" correctly...

 

[j-mac]

Same thing they used to say when they had signs that said….No Colored

Oh yes...The freak show has had it so hard....Maybe we should consider reparations for them too....

 

[dblack]

I have total confidence in my claims.

Unlike you, though, I'm not stupid enough to use some childish extreme in a failed attempt to make a point...

I suppose if you haven't done much actual debating or logic, the -> technique might be unfamiliar to you. But there's nothing childish about it. It's a standard way of testing the validity of a general principle or premise.

Assuming both participants are honestly interested in exploring the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments, it works like this:

honest_debater: "Laws that force a baker to bake cakes for gay weddings violate the baker's freedom of religion."
critic: "Why do you say that? What criteria do we use to determine that his religious freedom has been violated?"
honest_debater: "The law says he can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, but his religion requires it. The law conflicts with his religious belief, therefore it violates his freedom of religion."
critic: "So, are you saying that any law that contradicts a person's religious beliefs is a violation of their freedom of religion?"
honest_debater: "Yes"
critic: "Then what about murder? If someone's religious belief endorses murder, do laws against murder violate their religious freedom?"
honest_debater: "Of course not."
critic: "Agreed. So, why, then, is it a violation of religious freedom in one case, and not the other? What criteria do you use to tell the difference?"

...

The last question is the most important. Of course we never got there because you screamed foul and ended the discussion. Too bad. It's an interesting question.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I suppose if you haven't done much actual debating or logic, the -> technique might be unfamiliar to you. But there's nothing childish about it. It's a standard way of testing the validity of a general principle or premise.

Assuming both participants are honestly interested in exploring the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments, it works like this:

honest_debater: "Laws that force a baker to bake cakes for gay weddings violate the baker's freedom of religion."
critic: "Why do you say that? What criteria do we use to determine that his religious freedom has been violated?"
honest_debater: "The law says he can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, but his religion requires it. The law conflicts with his religious belief, therefore it violates his freedom of religion."
critic: "So, are you saying that any law that contradicts a person's religious beliefs is a violation of their freedom of religion?"
honest_debater: "Yes"
critic: "Then what about murder? If someone's religious belief endorses murder, do laws against murder violate their religious freedom?"
honest_debater: "Of course not."
critic: "Agreed. So, why, then, is it a violation of religious freedom in one case, and not the other? What criteria do you use to tell the difference?"

...

The last question is the most important. Of course we never got there because you screamed foul and ended the discussion. Too bad. It's an interesting question.

The difference is that one is someone not baking a cake and the other is someone committing murder.

Being the captain of your high school debate team doesn't mean shit to me. If you're too fucking stupid to decipher why one can be allowed and the other cannot, I can't help you, because you're an idiot...

 

[dblack]

The difference is that one is someone not baking a cake and the other is someone committing murder.

Well, it's the discrimination that is illegal. As is murder. Both are illegal. Why should someone be exempted from one, because of religious belief, and not the other? How do we determine which laws can be ignored in the name of religion and which can't? If my religion doesn't believe in taxation, can I skip that law?

Hopefully you can appreciate the point here. Contradicting someone's religious belief doesn't necessarily mean that a law violates their religious freedom. So what IS the important factor in determining whether a law violates religious freedom?

The "murder" hypothetical seemed to distract you, so lets look at a real example. My grandfather was a racist and a follower of the RLDS church. He firmly believed that black people were cursed by God and should be shunned. In your view, do the civil rights laws banning racial discrimination violate his freedom of religion?.

 

[Oddball]

Except most businesses aren't "private", in that they have to register with, and thus submit to the rules of the state.

If the moonbats didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Why should someone be exempted from one, because of religious belief, and not the other?

Because one of them ends up in someone being dead.

Seriously, dude, stop. Your debate team approach to this is making you look like an idiot...