ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Wrong. She asked for a pink cake with blue frosting. That is not compelled speech. He agreed to bake it. She said it was for a transition party. He then changed his mind and refused to make it because of that. After previously agreeing. That is the definition of refusal of service based on sex. As the courts agreed. You’re just flat wrong on the specifics and issues at play.

“We conclude that creating a pink cake with blue frosting is not inherently expressive and any message or symbolism it provides to an observer would not be attributed to the baker.” Courts own words.
So ... if she kept her mouth shut then she would've had the cake?

How did she tell him? Was it in a way as to rub it in his face?
 
Which is why it has to be litigated. The fundamental issue here is does religious belief give you the right to discriminate against others who are protected by the same legal mechanism your religious belief is. It’s a contradiction in our system that must be resolved.

That's a nonsense contradiction you pseudo-sophisticates complete morons have created to further your agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WTF Cat
And since I know you're going to say he agreed to make it, the. Wouldn't, and no one would make a cake in my hypothetical, say a phone call comes in asking for the white cake, with dimensions required. Baker makes the cake, obviously nazi guy comes in to buy it, baker refuses to sell it to him.

Discrimination based on race, or nah?

Or, how about, leave the guy alone, and order a cake from someone else who will.make it, you despicable liberal nut job.
Political opinions(like being a Nazi) are not protected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jameslee32
Speaking of nonsense to further an agenda.



1*RxmPeSybIUtxea4Vh98y2g.jpeg
 
So ... if she kept her mouth shut then she would've had the cake?

How did she tell him? Was it in a way as to rub it in his face?
Which illustrates his refusal was based on identity, not content.

She mentioned on the phone being excited to get the cake for her party. Nothing contentious or insulting.
 
That's a nonsense contradiction you pseudo-sophisticates complete morons have created to further your agenda.
Some Christians say acknowledging gay marriages is against their religion. Kim Davis maintained that. So there is a clear conflict when the law requires you to acknowledge that marriage and your religion requires you do not, with both their sex and your religion being protected.

This is just one example directly related to the subject matter at hand. You can formulate any number of others where religious and other rights come into friction. This must be litigated. Religious freedom is not blanket amnesty to do whatever you want ‘for meh religion!”
 
So, which is it? Putin, or the greedy oil companies? Putin, or the greedy baby formula companies? Putin, or the greedy eggs farmers? Putin, or the greedy (...)

You're a clown.

The fact you allegedly 'educated' children is a national travesty.
It's not an "or" issue. It's an "and" issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dionysus444
Some Christians say acknowledging gay marriages is against their religion. Kim Davis maintained that. So there is a clear conflict when the law requires you to acknowledge that marriage and your religion requires you do not, with both their sex and your religion being protected.

This is just one example directly related to the subject matter at hand. You can formulate any number of others where religious and other rights come into friction. This must be litigated. Religious freedom is not blanket amnesty to do whatever you want ‘for meh religion!”

Kim Davis was a public official whose job was to enforce and execute laws.

This guy is a private baker who makes cakes.

There was no other county clerk. Bigoted leftists can go to hundreds of other bakers. Not comparable at all.
 
Kim Davis was a public official whose job was to enforce and execute laws.

This guy is a private baker who makes cakes.

There was no other county clerk. Bigoted leftists can go to hundreds of other bakers. Not comparable at all.
You can argue he should be allowed to discriminate, as several here have, but that isn't the law. If you want it to be you can endeavor to change it, but right now that isn't relevant.
 
Maybe if Big Oil wasn't raping every American and charging triple what they should for gas... We'd all have a few more bucks in our pocket. But the Pubs just love to scream FJB instead of looking at the insane greed going on.
They should be making big profits. No sense in investing in future production wells with Dims in charge.
 
It is the law. His freedom to religion via First Amendment supersedes a CO state law. And SCOTUS will 100% rule in his favor if it has to go that far.
It isn't a CO state law. It's the Civil Rights Act. If you want to overturn it, like I said, you're welcome to try. Don't think you'll find much support for that in the populace though.
 
And since I know you're going to say he agreed to make it, the. Wouldn't, and no one would make a cake in my hypothetical, say a phone call comes in asking for the white cake, with dimensions required. Baker makes the cake, obviously nazi guy comes in to buy it, baker refuses to sell it to him.

Discrimination based on race, or nah?

Or, how about, leave the guy alone, and order a cake from someone else who will.make it, you despicable liberal nut job.
Cake.

One of the most delicious foods available... and liberals find a way to screw that up lol.
 
Sex is an immutable characteristic. Being gay or trans is not a choice. The cake is a pink cake with blue frosting. That is not speech. It’s a pink cake with blue frosting. Phillips is free to hate gay and trans people as much as he wants, but if he also wants to run a business he has to serve them. That’s the law. The trans person is just trying to buy a cake from a cake shop, not deny service to Phillips because he’s Christian.
Where is your evidence that he hates anyone? The hate seems to be flowing toward him, because he will not behave as you commanded. It’s a narrow view of humanity to purposefully misuse the words the way you do. Hate, racism, etc. Stop being so narrow-minded and judgmental.

If the trans person was merely walking into a bakery and buying something off the shelf, it would likely not be a service. But, the trans person is demanding a unique product not sold off the shelf. That is a service.

I think you struggle with the English language. You once contended having a history degree made you a historian.
 
It isn't a CO state law. It's the Civil Rights Act. If you want to overturn it, like I said, you're welcome to try. Don't think you'll find much support for that in the populace though.

My mistake. I knew his previous case ran afoul of CO law hence a state commission is who he had issues with.

Having said that, my point still remains. His religious rights via the First Amendment supersede any federal law. You know this.
 
Which is why it has to be litigated. The fundamental issue here is does religious belief give you the right to discriminate against others who are protected by the same legal mechanism your religious belief is. It’s a contradiction in our system that must be resolved.
It’s a statutory right vs a constitutional right. A statute cannot be written or applied in a way that violates the constitution.
 
Where is your evidence that he hates anyone? The hate seems to be flowing toward him, because he will not behave as you commanded. It’s a narrow view of humanity to purposefully misuse the words the way you do. Hate, racism, etc. Stop being so narrow-minded and judgmental.

If the trans person was merely walking into a bakery and buying something off the shelf, it would likely not be a service. But, the trans person is demanding a unique product not sold off the shelf. That is a service.

I think you struggle with the English language. You once contended having a history degree made you a historian.
How does it feel to be wrong? Especially when it’s your entire career and you’re being schooled by a layman. Thought about dragging up your old posts now that the verdict’s come down but figured you’d be unable to stay quiet anyway. So here to eat your crow?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jameslee32
Some Christians say acknowledging gay marriages is against their religion. Kim Davis maintained that. So there is a clear conflict when the law requires you to acknowledge that marriage and your religion requires you do not, with both their sex and your religion being protected.

This is just one example directly related to the subject matter at hand. You can formulate any number of others where religious and other rights come into friction. This must be litigated. Religious freedom is not blanket amnesty to do whatever you want ‘for meh religion!”
Kim Davis was a public servant charged to abide by the law. The baker is a private citizen. Surely you see the distinction without more explanation.
 
They should be making big profits. No sense in investing in future production wells with Dims in charge.
Pubs have had control of the House for 5 of the last 7 terms, the Senate for 3 of the last 5 terms, have split with the Dems on the last 4 Presidential terms and have held a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for the last 53 years.
You really think Big Oil is basing it's future decision making processes on who is running the government? That makes very little sense given the constant swings in political leadership in America.
 
Stopped reading your response when you asserted that oil companies have no incentive or money available for investment. Oil will always be necessary until it runs out and they made RECORD profits last year.
They are playing the gullible fools like always. Blame Biden as the oil flows at the same rate as under Trump and rake in record breaking profits.



Your oil production chart doesn't say what you think it says.
 
'SCIENCE', says SCIENCE DUDE!

Literally maybe the dumbest poster on the board, from either side of the aisle!

Hahahahahahs
My science trumps your illogical reasoning on just about every topic but sports. My sports takes are admittedly based entirely on raw emotion and fanaticism.
 
Pubs have had control of the House for 5 of the last 7 terms, the Senate for 3 of the last 5 terms, have split with the Dems on the last 4 Presidential terms and have held a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for the last 53 years.
You really think Big Oil is basing it's future decision making processes on who is running the government? That makes very little sense given the constant swings in political leadership in America.

Tell me you don't understand who is currently in charge, without telling me you don't understand who is currently in charge.

No new investments in new drills, rigs, exploration, etc for last 2 years= greater net profits for last 2 years. Good lord, it ain't hard to understand.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT