Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Bake me a cake!!!!

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Archigeek View Post
    That's how i typically see it too. Or if I'm too busy to do good work for someone. I've done work for a mosque, and for an Islamic day care. I felt a little weird working on a mosque as a Christian, but hey, all God's children deserve code compliant egress.
    I guess I don't have those types of hangups given that I'm a dirty atheist. I think all organized religion is dumb.. so I treat them all equally.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashliana View Post
    I always lurk, even if I'm not particularly motivated to get into one of these back-and-forths you love so much.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    US
    Posts
    664
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgo01 View Post
    Cakes can't be gay, they are inanimate objects and thus have no sexual attraction to anything.
    You’be clearly never been alone with two German chocolate cakes. Shit gets weird when the lights are off
    Player of Tartnado - UAC warrior
    Player of Roroturk - bolting wizard

  3. #23

    Default

    Christians shouldn't have to obey civil rights laws. But nobody should be able to discriminate against Christians.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    23,766
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeR View Post
    Christians shouldn't have to obey civil rights laws. But nobody should be able to discriminate against Christians.
    Your Latrin is showing.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    2,612

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardCranium View Post
    Yeah, that particular instance with that particular baker is all that is affected. It has no bearing on future cases.
    Colorado government acted with hostility towards religious beliefs. It does have bearing on future cases. This decision curbed government overreach.
    Last edited by Fortybox; 06-04-2018 at 08:48 PM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    2,612

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgo01 View Post
    There's a distinction here that you are either purposefully not understanding or are too dumb to understand.

    The baker didn't discriminate against PEOPLE, they discriminated against the idea of gay marriage.

    The baker didn't say I won't serve you because you're gay so no birthday cakes, anniversary cakes, congratulation cakes, graduation cakes, or any other cakes for you, cause you're gay!

    The baker said he doesn't want to be forced to make a gay wedding cake, presumably he would tell a straight person he won't make a gay wedding cake for his friend's wedding as well, meaning he's discriminating against making cakes for gay weddings, NOT gay people.

    If you want to argue that this rationale still shouldn't fly in the good ol' US of A, then fine, make that argument. But don't make the situation something it isn't so you have an easier time to win the gold in your oppression Olympics.
    ogmogmogmkgomgomg he's back!

    find dreaven

    There are no adventurers questing that match the names specified.

    The usage for this command is: find {player1} {player2} ... {player9} and will provide a list of those players present you wish to find provided they are questing.


  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortybox View Post
    Colorado government acted with hostility towards religious beliefs. It does have bearing on future cases. This decision curbed government overreach.
    LOL You should just stick to memes and echoing the insults of the other trolls.

    This case has no bearing on subsequent cases because it didn't establish anything new. They intentionally side-stepped the entire issue and went with well-established precedent and the specific fact patterns of this case. Kagan even pointed out that this ruling wouldn't apply to other cake makers in Colorado, let alone anyone else. Kennedy went as far as to explicitly state that the 1st amendment isn't a shield against anti-discrimination laws.

    I see why you rarely bother with substance. You have no idea what you're talking about.

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgo01 View Post
    There's a distinction here that you are either purposefully not understanding or are too dumb to understand.

    The baker didn't discriminate against PEOPLE, they discriminated against the idea of gay marriage.

    The baker didn't say I won't serve you because you're gay so no birthday cakes, anniversary cakes, congratulation cakes, graduation cakes, or any other cakes for you, cause you're gay!

    The baker said he doesn't want to be forced to make a gay wedding cake, presumably he would tell a straight person he won't make a gay wedding cake for his friend's wedding as well, meaning he's discriminating against making cakes for gay weddings, NOT gay people.

    If you want to argue that this rationale still shouldn't fly in the good ol' US of A, then fine, make that argument. But don't make the situation something it isn't so you have an easier time to win the gold in your oppression Olympics.
    Said no Court, ever.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun View Post
    LOL You should just stick to memes and echoing the insults of the other trolls.

    This case has no bearing on subsequent cases because it didn't establish anything new. They intentionally side-stepped the entire issue and went with well-established precedent and the specific fact patterns of this case. Kagan even pointed out that this ruling wouldn't apply to other cake makers in Colorado, let alone anyone else. Kennedy went as far as to explicitly state that the 1st amendment isn't a shield against anti-discrimination laws.
    She's right. It is worded specifically to set no precedent at all.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    2,612

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun View Post
    LOL You should just stick to memes and echoing the insults of the other trolls.

    This case has no bearing on subsequent cases because it didn't establish anything new. They intentionally side-stepped the entire issue and went with well-established precedent and the specific fact patterns of this case. Kagan even pointed out that this ruling wouldn't apply to other cake makers in Colorado, let alone anyone else. Kennedy went as far as to explicitly state that the 1st amendment isn't a shield against anti-discrimination laws.

    I see why you rarely bother with substance. You have no idea what you're talking about.
    Yeah, it was a "narrow" decision...

    7-2, lol.

    Keep reasoning. Your tears are delicious.
    Last edited by Fortybox; 06-04-2018 at 09:08 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •