Remember The Baker Cleared By SCOTUS? Well, Guess What

[SassyIrishLass]

What is it with queers and forcing bakers?

It's almost as if it's a specific agenda.....hmmm.

I think this lunatic shrew, Autumn Scardina, makes that painfully obvious. There's not even a pretense at "discrimination" or "emotional trauma", because this crazy person has made it blatantly clear that all he/she/it (I'm honestly not even clear which one applies at this point) is looking for is a chance to sue . . . and also to make Mr. Phillip's life miserable. The homosexual couple at least had a thin tissue of possibility that they MIGHT actually just want a cake, as opposed to deliberately targeting him. This scuzzy piece of work doesn't even have that.

Yeah...it would get old very quickly. You have to admire the baker's standing for his rights.

 

[BlackFlag]

Yeah freeing the slaves just put a facade over the country too. They should have let slavery go on and on until the oppressors found it in their great loveable hearts to to give slaves some time off every once in a while or something

Republicans fought and died to Free the Slaves.

It was dimocrap scum that were the slavers.

And what's slavery got to do with this?

You're just losing the argument and ran out of whiney excuses

You celebrate the “dimocrap scum (God you’re a retard)” that fought those reublicans. You celebrate their flag, their cause, and their statues. Why is that?

Slaves were discriminated and oppressed, like the gay people your bakers were discriminating against. That’s what it has to do with it.

 

[rightwinger]

What is it with queers and forcing bakers?

It's almost as if it's a specific agenda.....hmmm.

What is it about bakers being so high and mighty about a stupid cake?

 

[BlackFlag]

The last several decades of civil rights legislation proves that anti-discrimination laws work just fine

Not really, all they do is lead in the end to a more divided society.

And that still does not change the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law". The SCOTUS choose the former and ignores the actual Constitution in doing so.

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good ******* grief

No, anti-discrimination laws do. They put a facade over the problem instead of allowing it to be fixed. It is just one more example of people wanting the government to make them behave.

And you keep ignoring that the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law".

Yeah freeing the slaves just put a facade over the country too. They should have let slavery go on and on until the oppressors found it in their great loveable hearts to to give slaves some time off every once in a while or something

You are conflating two separate things. Owning another human being is a separate issue from discrimination.

I know you are just trying to make an emotional argument and cannot present your case from a side of logic, but you are failing badly

Emotional argument? It’s not but you’ll lose so I don’t give a **** what you call it.

 

[Edgetho]

I think this lunatic shrew, Autumn Scardina, makes that painfully obvious. There's not even a pretense at "discrimination" or "emotional trauma", because this crazy person has made it blatantly clear that all he/she/it (I'm honestly not even clear which one applies at this point) is looking for is a chance to sue . . . and also to make Mr. Phillip's life miserable. The homosexual couple at least had a thin tissue of possibility that they MIGHT actually just want a cake, as opposed to deliberately targeting him. This scuzzy piece of work doesn't even have that.

I also wonder why this baker keeps leading with his chin.

If someone wants a cake baked for a couple of carpet munchers with a pink face licking an operating Dildo, do it.

For $20,000.

Don't refuse, price them out.

It's what I did when I had my place. I didn't refuse to sell them a product, I priced them out.

Cocky New Yorker walks in, his price will be double anybody else's. At least double.

Simple. Problem solved.

So I gotta wonder how much of this isn't brought on by the baker himself?

Any illumination on the topic would be okay with me.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not really, all they do is lead in the end to a more divided society.

And that still does not change the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law". The SCOTUS choose the former and ignores the actual Constitution in doing so.

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good ******* grief

No, anti-discrimination laws do. They put a facade over the problem instead of allowing it to be fixed. It is just one more example of people wanting the government to make them behave.

And you keep ignoring that the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law".

Yeah freeing the slaves just put a facade over the country too. They should have let slavery go on and on until the oppressors found it in their great loveable hearts to to give slaves some time off every once in a while or something

You are conflating two separate things. Owning another human being is a separate issue from discrimination.

I know you are just trying to make an emotional argument and cannot present your case from a side of logic, but you are failing badly

Emotional argument? It’s not but you’ll lose so I don’t give a **** what you call it.

Yes, pure emotion with no logic at all in your argument. you are comparing slavery to not baking a cake, that is pure emotion since it lacks any logic at all.

Tell me, if you can...if some groups have more protections than other groups, how can there be equal protection? More is the antithesis of equal.

 

[BlackFlag]

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good ******* grief

No, anti-discrimination laws do. They put a facade over the problem instead of allowing it to be fixed. It is just one more example of people wanting the government to make them behave.

And you keep ignoring that the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law".

Yeah freeing the slaves just put a facade over the country too. They should have let slavery go on and on until the oppressors found it in their great loveable hearts to to give slaves some time off every once in a while or something

You are conflating two separate things. Owning another human being is a separate issue from discrimination.

I know you are just trying to make an emotional argument and cannot present your case from a side of logic, but you are failing badly

Emotional argument? It’s not but you’ll lose so I don’t give a **** what you call it.

Yes, pure emotion with no logic at all in your argument. you are comparing slavery to not baking a cake, that is pure emotion since it lacks any logic at all.

Tell me, if you can...if some groups have more protections than other groups, how can there be equal protection? More is the antithesis of equal.

I compared it to Civil Rights, and your brain fizzled. I had to give you something more clear cut, and you’re using it to back away from the conversation.

 

[emilynghiem]

The last several decades of civil rights legislation proves that anti-discrimination laws work just fine

Not really, all they do is lead in the end to a more divided society.

And that still does not change the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law". The SCOTUS choose the former and ignores the actual Constitution in doing so.

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good ******* grief

No, anti-discrimination laws do. They put a facade over the problem instead of allowing it to be fixed. It is just one more example of people wanting the government to make them behave.

And you keep ignoring that the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law".

Yeah freeing the slaves just put a facade over the country too. They should have let slavery go on and on until the oppressors found it in their great loveable hearts to to give slaves some time off every once in a while or something

You are conflating two separate things. Owning another human being is a separate issue from discrimination.

I know you are just trying to make an emotional argument and cannot present your case from a side of logic, but you are failing badly

Also BlackFlag cc: Golfing Gator
Race is scientifically proven to be genetic and not a choice of the person.
One's sexual orientation is not proven either way, but studies will show the causes DIFFER.
It's not genetic like race, because studies on twins show it's not 100% correlation where twins of like DNA having the same orientation.

The argument that orientation is a CHOICE how to act on it socially/culturally/in public
is equally faith based and up to each person what they do or do not believe.

Last I checked BlackFlag the govt could not make policies
that ESTABLISH one faith-based belief over another.
It's discrimination by creed, in other terms.

Trying to compare orientation with race only goes so far.
The common factor is not to abuse or harass people because of their beliefs.

For individuals, it's known as the Golden Rule where you learn to treat others with respect that you want for yourself.
That cannot be enforced by Govt but remains free choice that individuals learn to respect each other's beliefs.

The part that Govt can enforce is not to discriminate either by race, creed, etc.

I have posted in another thread, the idea that gender identity might be better off
treated as a faith based expression and exercise so it is protected by the First and Fourteenth
Amendment REGARDLESS what people believe or don't believe. You don't have to agree
with a belief for it to be protected from govt infringement.

Since orientation and identity cannot be proven like Race to be always determined at birth,
what I am suggesting is treating it as someone's faith based identity that cannot be discriminated against either.
Would that help solve this problem by bypassing it?
Moving it from govt jurisdiction back to people's individual free choice of faith
based beliefs we all have equal rights to decide regardless how much we disagree?

 

[BlackFlag]

Not really, all they do is lead in the end to a more divided society.

And that still does not change the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law". The SCOTUS choose the former and ignores the actual Constitution in doing so.

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good ******* grief

No, anti-discrimination laws do. They put a facade over the problem instead of allowing it to be fixed. It is just one more example of people wanting the government to make them behave.

And you keep ignoring that the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law".

Yeah freeing the slaves just put a facade over the country too. They should have let slavery go on and on until the oppressors found it in their great loveable hearts to to give slaves some time off every once in a while or something

You are conflating two separate things. Owning another human being is a separate issue from discrimination.

I know you are just trying to make an emotional argument and cannot present your case from a side of logic, but you are failing badly

Also BlackFlag cc: Golfing Gator
Race is scientifically proven to be genetic and not a choice of the person.
One's sexual orientation is not proven either way, but studies will show the causes DIFFER.
It's not genetic like race, because studies on twins show it's not 100% correlation where twins of like DNA having the same orientation.

The argument that orientation is a CHOICE how to act on it socially/culturally/in public
is equally faith based and up to each person what they do or do not believe.

Last I checked BlackFlag the govt could not make policies
that ESTABLISH one faith-based belief over another.
It's discrimination by creed, in other terms.

Trying to compare orientation with race only goes so far.
The common factor is not to abuse or harass people because of their beliefs.

For individuals, it's known as the Golden Rule where you learn to treat others with respect that you want for yourself.
That cannot be enforced by Govt but remains free choice that individuals learn to respect each other's beliefs.

The part that Govt can enforce is not to discriminate either by race, creed, etc.

I have posted in another thread, the idea that gender identity might be better off
treated as a faith based expression and exercise so it is protected by the First and Fourteenth
Amendment REGARDLESS what people believe or don't believe. You don't have to agree
with a belief for it to be protected from govt infringement.

Since orientation and identity cannot be proven like Race to be always determined at birth,
what I am suggesting is treating it as someone's faith based identity that cannot be discriminated against either.
Would that solve this problem by bypassing it?

How old were you when you chose to be straight? If you had to consciously make that choice, then I have bad news fir you...

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think this lunatic shrew, Autumn Scardina, makes that painfully obvious. There's not even a pretense at "discrimination" or "emotional trauma", because this crazy person has made it blatantly clear that all he/she/it (I'm honestly not even clear which one applies at this point) is looking for is a chance to sue . . . and also to make Mr. Phillip's life miserable. The homosexual couple at least had a thin tissue of possibility that they MIGHT actually just want a cake, as opposed to deliberately targeting him. This scuzzy piece of work doesn't even have that.

I also wonder why this baker keeps leading with his chin.

If someone wants a cake baked for a couple of carpet munchers with a pink face licking an operating Dildo, do it.

For $20,000.

Don't refuse, price them out.

It's what I did when I had my place. I didn't refuse to sell them a product, I priced them out.

Cocky New Yorker walks in, his price will be double anybody else's. At least double.

Simple. Problem solved.

So I gotta wonder how much of this isn't brought on by the baker himself?

Any illumination on the topic would be okay with me.

You actually wonder why a man with strong beliefs would continue to stand for his beliefs, rather than just abandoning them to make people leave him alone?

Sorry, but I don't consider it to be "bringing it on yourself" by simply stating your position and standing up to bullies.

From a religious standpoint, doing what you're suggesting would be viewed as lying, which would be every bit as sinful in his eyes as baking the cake would be. Christians are required to do what is right (insofar as they know what that is), not to do what is easier or more convenient.

 

[tinydancer]

The counter lawsuit is awesome.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, anti-discrimination laws do. They put a facade over the problem instead of allowing it to be fixed. It is just one more example of people wanting the government to make them behave.

And you keep ignoring that the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law".

Yeah freeing the slaves just put a facade over the country too. They should have let slavery go on and on until the oppressors found it in their great loveable hearts to to give slaves some time off every once in a while or something

You are conflating two separate things. Owning another human being is a separate issue from discrimination.

I know you are just trying to make an emotional argument and cannot present your case from a side of logic, but you are failing badly

Emotional argument? It’s not but you’ll lose so I don’t give a **** what you call it.

Yes, pure emotion with no logic at all in your argument. you are comparing slavery to not baking a cake, that is pure emotion since it lacks any logic at all.

Tell me, if you can...if some groups have more protections than other groups, how can there be equal protection? More is the antithesis of equal.

I compared it to Civil Rights, and your brain fizzled. I had to give you something more clear cut, and you’re using it to back away from the conversation.

This is the definition of civil rights....the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.

Not baking a cake does not deprive someone of political or social freedom, it merely means they have walk down the street to one of the other 20 bakers in the area.

Slavery on the other hand did deprive people of both political and social freedom.

By the way...if some groups have more protections than other groups, how can there be equal protection?

 

[iceberg]

Anybody surprised about this? I'm not. They never quit. They respect nothing, not you, not me, not your religion, not even the Supreme Court

Colorado Officials Are Once Again Vindictively Prosecuting Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ignoring Supreme Court Decision
Ace of Spades HQ


Actually, Anthony Kennedy permitted this, by claiming that the Court couldn't reach the merits of the case but could say that the procedure in the original prosecution was biased.

But how can this prosecution be non-biased when the same people are going after him?

Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop fame is suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

The Commission commenced new proceedings against Phillips on behalf of a transgender complainant just weeks after he prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Phillips' attorneys say the Commission is engaged in a concerted campaign to destroy him, which is unlawful.

Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court after declining to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple, filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

...

"The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs," said Kristen Waggoner, an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney who represents Phillips. "Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him -- something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do."



And here's the new cake that someone looking to file a complaint demanded he bake:

On the same day the high court agreed to review the Masterpiece case, an attorney named Autumn Scardina called Phillips' shop and asked him to create a cake celebrating a sex transition. The caller asked that the cake include a blue exterior and a pink interior, a reflection of Scardina's transgender identity. Phillips declined to create the cake, given his religious conviction that sex is immutable, while offering to sell the caller other pre-made baked goods.

In the months that followed, the bakery received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, sexually explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. One solicitation submitted by email asked the cake shop to create a three-tiered white cake depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo. Phillips believes Scardina made all these requests.



And so the Civil Rights Commission is going after him again based on this very complainey complainant.

Edge:

dimocraps is what they is. You know what I call them......... You??

and the surprise is???

i see the right accepting nothing short of their way also. in the end, 50% of the people are going to be pissed at the outcome of the trump investigations and demand someone do something.

sooner or later that "something" needs to be getting on with life in an imperfect world.

 

[Edgetho]

You celebrate the “dimocrap scum (God you’re a retard)” that fought those reublicans. You celebrate their flag, their cause, and their statues. Why is that?

Slaves were discriminated and oppressed, like the gay people your bakers were discriminating against. That’s what it has to do with it.

Gays are oppressed? Where? In this Country?

Are you really THAT ******* stupid?

They OWN Hollywood. They OWN the New Yawk Media. They control most College Campuses.

Nobody is oppressing gays, shithead. We're trying to prevent them from attaining their goal as a privileged class of people, jerkoff.

Besides, I've never seen a former Black Man.

You are a truly stupid human being. You take you cues straight from the Media.

 

[Seawytch]

Not really, all they do is lead in the end to a more divided society.

And that still does not change the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law". The SCOTUS choose the former and ignores the actual Constitution in doing so.

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good ******* grief

If certain groups aren't allowed to keep other certain groups as second class citizens, it's obviously a more divided society.........right?

Not baking a cake is not "keeping" a group. **** you statist are pathetic.

Not baking a cake is fine now.....just like not serving a member of trump's staff is fine now.

yes, both are fine. Not serving anyone you wish is fine for whatever reason you want as long as you are not the government is fine.

I think personally both the baker and the lady at the Red Hen are misguided and as such would never give either of them my money, but I will fight all day long for their right to make that choice.

Just the government? Doctors can refuse? Gas stations? Hotels? Grocery stores?

 

[Seawytch]

You celebrate the “dimocrap scum (God you’re a retard)” that fought those reublicans. You celebrate their flag, their cause, and their statues. Why is that?

Slaves were discriminated and oppressed, like the gay people your bakers were discriminating against. That’s what it has to do with it.

Gays are oppressed? Where? In this Country?

Are you really THAT ******* stupid?

They OWN Hollywood. They OWN the New Yawk Media. They control most College Campuses.

Nobody is oppressing gays, shithead. We're trying to prevent them from attaining their goal as a privileged class of people, jerkoff.

Besides, I've never seen a former Black Man.

You are a truly stupid human being. You take you cues straight from the Media.

Did You Know It's Legal In Most States To Discriminate Against LGBT People?

 

[BlackFlag]

Not baking a cake does not deprive someone of political or social freedom, it merely means they have walk down the street to one of the other 20 bakers in the area.

That it doesn't “deprive them of freedom” is your opinion, not a fact. My opinion and theirs is different. That all they had to do was walk down the street, is like saying the black people at the counter only had to walk down the street to somewhere that would let them sit at the counter. Our laws say they don’t. THAT is a fact, not an opinion.

 

[BlackFlag]

You celebrate the “dimocrap scum (God you’re a retard)” that fought those reublicans. You celebrate their flag, their cause, and their statues. Why is that?

Slaves were discriminated and oppressed, like the gay people your bakers were discriminating against. That’s what it has to do with it.

Gays are oppressed? Where? In this Country?

Are you really THAT ******* stupid?

They OWN Hollywood. They OWN the New Yawk Media. They control most College Campuses.

Nobody is oppressing gays, shithead. We're trying to prevent them from attaining their goal as a privileged class of people, jerkoff.

Besides, I've never seen a former Black Man.

You are a truly stupid human being. You take you cues straight from the Media.

Being able to get married and buy a cake makes people part of a privileged class? Holy shit, did you know that YOU’RE part of a privileged class then? Retard.

 

[Doc1]

Yeah freeing the slaves just put a facade over the country too. They should have let slavery go on and on until the oppressors found it in their great loveable hearts to to give slaves some time off every once in a while or something

Republicans fought and died to Free the Slaves.

It was dimocrap scum that were the slavers.

And what's slavery got to do with this?

You're just losing the argument and ran out of whiney excuses

You celebrate the “dimocrap scum (God you’re a retard)” that fought those reublicans. You celebrate their flag, their cause, and their statues. Why is that?

Slaves were discriminated and oppressed, like the gay people your bakers were discriminating against. That’s what it has to do with it.

You equated Slavery and him not baking a cake. You're an idiot.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good ******* grief

If certain groups aren't allowed to keep other certain groups as second class citizens, it's obviously a more divided society.........right?

Not baking a cake is not "keeping" a group. **** you statist are pathetic.

Not baking a cake is fine now.....just like not serving a member of trump's staff is fine now.

yes, both are fine. Not serving anyone you wish is fine for whatever reason you want as long as you are not the government is fine.

I think personally both the baker and the lady at the Red Hen are misguided and as such would never give either of them my money, but I will fight all day long for their right to make that choice.

Just the government? Doctors can refuse? Gas stations? Hotels? Grocery stores?

You say that in this perfect tone of shock, as though you take it for granted that EVERYONE agrees with you that there are people who "owe" their services to others, whether they want to or not.