Don’t expect this brainwashed POS to understand logic. He’s a moron who has no critical thinking and simply adopts whatever position or talking point he is given and then does not stray from it despite routinely getting owned with every logical rebuttal.
They didn’t. They ruled on a technicality about the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Hence the re-file and different lower court outcome. Will probably make it’s way back up to the Supreme.
I think you have hit on the crux of a bigger problem in this country. This country has gone from freedom being the thing we covet and protect more than anything else to a country that wants to force everyone to behave a certain way over everything else. Why does it need resolving? Why is it important that the cake maker be forced to do something against his will and why is it important that the cake buyer purchase his cake from this particular cake maker? A cake buyer has no right to be able to purchase a cake of any description from a specific maker. Just because you want to buy something from me doesn't mean I'm obligated to sell it to you. In a free society, why is that a problem? Buy it from someone who is willing to sell it to you. Yet, we have abandoned the concept of freedom for the idea that if we think you are being mean to someone you should be forced to do what we think you should do. That's not freedom.
They hold an opinion. He isn’t refusing service because they’re white(illegal), he’s refusing because they’re in the KKK(legal).
Bostock v. Clayton County. The SC ruling is basically that if you allow Joe, a man, to date Susie, a woman, but don’t allow him to date Dave, another man, then you’re discriminating against him based on his sex. If he were female you would be fine with him dating Dave. So the only reason you care is because he is a man, his sex.
You’re allowed to discriminate against someone for having shitty opinions like being in the klan. Just not because he’s gay. And that’s not how intersectionality works.
The baker is refusing service not because they’re gay, (illegal) but because the want a cake to display their opinion.(legal)
A wedding is a wedding. The only reason you see it as not “normal” is because they’re gay. Discrimination based on their sexual orientation.
See above.
Ok so let’s flip it. What if a Klansman Baker had a black person come in and ask for a cake that says “CRT is the way to be, KKK Sucks” does the klansman have a right to refuse that? After all it’s the opinion he’s refusing.
Now you're conflating immutable genetic characteristics with mental/emotional orientation issues.
Can’t that same logic be applied to the black baker denying service to the klansman? Is he denying him service because he’s an idiot whitey or because of his “opinion”
The cake buyer isn't a klansman, just wants a hood in the shape of a Klan hood.
You’re dead ass wrong. Intersectionality literally means existing at an intersection. Who are you to determine which features define a person?
According to Bostock v. Clayton County sexual orientation and gender identity protections result from sex protection, an immutable characteristic. Same as race.
I’m not. The US legal system defines what you can and cannot discriminate based on.
Ok, still doesn’t change the point being made.
They’re trying to get him to choose. Either provide service or quit. He has a right to his religious beliefs but not to sell cakes. If his religious convictions are so strong he can close up shop and keep them.
You know you're in trouble when the Rifle Droppers are intimidating you.Here we have the most popular president in U.S. history being bullied by a frenchman...
He has chosen, they also have choice to Go to another cake decorator.
Not all walks of life. You would be a fine example of lifestyle they do not celebrate. They mainly prefer those with a basis in mental illness.
Yes. @Dionysus444 is informed and all about justice...but can't quite grasp that the state is empowering harrassment because he agrees with it and it's the government doing it so it's fine.
