Bake me a cake!!!!

[Parkbandit]

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.

[Orthin]

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

[ClydeR]

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

[Gelston]

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

Your Latrin is showing.

[Fortybox]

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.

[Fortybox]

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.

[time4fun]

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.

[time4fun]

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.

[RichardCranium]

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.

[Fortybox]

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.