Colorado Christian cakeshop sued a third time for discrimination.

Well, read the article. There is a legitimate difference to get the Matter to be looked at again.
In first case the baker objected to make the cake for gay wedding. The baker argued that he does not mind making cakes for, except for the wedding because it’s against the bakers religious views.
Now in this new case he actually refused to bake the cake to celebrate birthday/transition. So, in a way, this is a whole new argument that the baker makes. He almost contradicts self.

Regardless, it’s obvious gay community is trolling him. At the same time I think it’s stupid to turn down business over silly things like customers orientation, but that’s just my opinion.

 

Gay marriage was unthought of when homosexuals rioted in new york city

The issue then was gays demanding the right to do disgusting things to each other in the privacy of their own bedroooms

If they had suggested gay marriage even the most liberal libs would have laughed at the very idea

 

You responded to my question so that makes you responisible for answering the question before demanding that I answer it

 

Of course it has something to do with their sexuality, even if that wasn’t the direct reason. The existence or and objections to same-sex marriage are fundamentally tied to the existence of homosexual (and bisexual) people and the legal acceptance of their relationships.

Legally speaking, a mixed-sex marriage is equivalent to a same-sex marriage and so treating one different to the other is discriminatory. The difference between the two types of marriage are based exclusively on the gender and orientation of the people involved, which makes it prohibited discrimination.

Also, as you continue to ignore, the business owner isn’t saying everyone should have the right to discriminate against same-sex marriages, only business owners with a religious objection to them. It would have been irrelevant to bring up their faith at all otherwise.

Business have been underpaying women for decades and getting away with it, just like vast amounts of other discrimination. Feel free to start a campaign for the removal of all anti-discrimination legislation in the private sphere but don’t pretend that the market would ever prevent a lot of discrimination happening. You’d just be shifting the balance of freedoms back in the other direction again. “No dogs, blacks or Irish”.

And that still isn’t what these cases are about. It would really deserve its own thread

Long has been and still is. It doesn’t help that homosexuality was essentially criminal within living memory. I’m not pretending this kind of law is a magic wand, it is just a small part in a much wider social evolution.

Yes, they are arguing for a specific religious exemption to the law. If they objected to the law in general, they’d be arguing for it to be invalidated entirely.

You wouldn’t be in a strong position to complain about homosexuals being kicked out of businesses when you’re arguing for the laws against that to be scrapped.

Generally not, at least not in serious enough ways to justify legal action. My point was that you can’t say the problem is small or exclusively involves weddings just because the high profile legal cases (you’ve heard of) do. Like many things, it’s a deeper and wider social issue and laws like this are only one small element in addressing it. Attempts to discredit laws like this can also be one small element in campaigns against equality and homosexuality too.

 

If you think polygamy is a Mormon issue then you haven't been watching the trends. The people who deny
that gay marriage will lead to polygamy are the people who will shut down your opinion to polygamy 20
years from now.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/pol...oral-acceptance-polygamy-record-high-why.aspx



In 2011, the share of Americans who found polygamy "morally acceptable" rose slightly to 11%, but the increase coincided with a
change in how the word "polygamy" was defined in the survey. Prior to 2011, polygamy was defined as being when "a husband has
more than one wife at the same time." Beginning in 2011, this definition became gender-neutral, instead identifying polygamy as when
"a married person has more than one spouse at the same time."


While this change in question wording may have provided a slight bump in the percentage of Americans accepting of polygamy, it is
probably not responsible for the more recent rise in this figure. Over the last five years, the percentage of Americans who think polygamy
is morally acceptable edged up from slightly more than one in 10 (11% in 2012) to just under one in five (17% in 2017).


Granted, this increase is slight by any standard, and may simply be the result of the broader leftward shift on moral issues Americans have
exhibited in recent years. Or, as conservative columnist Ross Douthat notes in his New York Times blog, "Polygamy is bobbing forward in
social liberalism's wake ..." To Douthat and other social conservatives, warming attitudes toward polygamy is a logical consequence of
changing social norms -- that values underpinning social liberalism offer "no compelling grounds for limiting the number of people who might
wish to marry."


It is certainly true that moral perceptions have significantly, fundamentally changed on a number of social issues or behaviors since 2001 --
most notably, gay/lesbian relations, having a baby outside of wedlock, sex between unmarried men and women, and divorce. But these
attitudinal changes did not occur in isolation. They have occurred alongside important cultural and legal changes, including the rising propensity
of divorce following changes to state laws at the end of the 20th century and the gay rights movement that ultimately succeeded in legalizing
same-sex marriage in 2015, to name a few.

 

Sure...
but again the point that those ultra conservative = mostly deep Christians whjo play the moralty authority are often those who have a dark hidden side in matte rof having sex with someone else as the wife or the husband.

I had experienced that personally a few years ago. I am a Catholic by birth, but a convinced atheist for 30 years. In my parish, such a moral apostle was with God and Jesus here and everywhere, and sex is really just for procreation.
One day I went with a few buddies through the city and who just came out of a sex shop with an oral brown plastic bag? Well .... that hypocritical bastard! I would have liked to let him eat his holy bible, page for page!

 

Leftist strategy for the success of America. Force prople to do things against their religion. This is not about civil rights, this is not about gay marriage. It's about hating God and attacking the closest representation they can find.

In the first lawsuit the supreme court determined that the Colorado human rights commission had treated the baker abusively.

The right has given the left just about everything they wanted over the last 50 years.
They need to stop pushing because when the right decides to push back, there will be nothing they can do about it.

Here are some statistics.
1. It takes about 10% of a given population to form a successful revolution.
2. Right wingers with guns comprise about 45% of the population.
3. Radical right wingers with guns massivly outnumber our combined military and police forces
4. The military and and police forced are heavily right leaning.
5. Former military out numbers current military and police and have the same training.
6. In a civil war the right wing would control the countries food supply.

In short, the right wing could take control of the country at any moment they chose to and there is nothing the left wing could do about it. NOTHING. Unless the left was willing to use nukes.

Just for some perspective. Our current military is something along the lines on 2 million.
Just the radical right wingers is is along the lines of 65 million.

 

Just a moment ...
You have explicitly installed religious freedom in your constitution. Correctly?
If so, athen even a Muslim or an atheist might become US President, because religion doe snot matter. Correctly?
You and I, we both know that Putin will be more likely the next US President, rather then this will happen!

So, we already have the first hypocrisy in the US in terms of religion ... because if someone is not an actively professing Christian, then that person can forget to ever become US President!

But then we come to daily life, where far too much the Christian religion plays an important role. Do not go to church often on Sundays in your church somewhere on the butt of the world in the US and you're the "evil" of the village! Is that correct?
Woe to being an atheist, then you have lost directly ... and even more ... you are trying to convert you?

I would say that your "evil lefties" just take your constitution seriously at the point of freedom of religion.

 

For once we are in agreement from the following standpoint; at the very least he is a bad capitalist. Short of promoting pedophilia or illegal drugs usage -- I mean you gotta draw the lie somewhere -- a good capitalist is willing to sell anything to anyone. As for Christianity . . . you ever hear of the Reformation? After that critical event, Christianity pretty much is whatever any splinter sect wants it to be. I mean this was in the news and everything across the drifting centuries.

 

I see he is discriminating and bring this on himself, just sell the cake and all his problems go away - or stop selling things he can't sell without discriminating - problem solved

 

and I did yet you still are unable to respond to anything anyone is asking... you are seeming more and more like you don’t have a point or an argument but are just here to whine.

 

Very few people are going to pick up arms against anyone due to a florist or baker held to the same standard as other businesses — it certainly isn’t 65 million people. The last public polling showed that over 60% of the population believe religious ‘freedom’ to refuse services to groups should be illegal. Almost 70% of the population support marriage equality and a significant majority of the groups that do not are elderly. I guess y’all could hit us with your walkers?

Oh and btw, while I am sure there are some people that “hate god”, most of the people that are against you (the vast majority of the country) either don’t believe your view of it is correct or they don’t believe in it at all. You cannot hate something that isn’t there.

I mean you guys couldn’t even pull out a popular vote win against Hillary Clinton who is absolutely hated by many people. If that doesn’t shoot your ‘we are the majority and fear us’ in the foot nothing will. As for your threats — many of us are more ready for you than you could imagine.

All of your “statistics” are pulled directly from your rearend.

 

Ok, the same could be said for slavery, women's suffrage, and virtually all social progression in our society. What’s your point?

When one of you can give a single reason why gay people should not be allowed to sign a civil document we can revisit the issue but since you are unable to... It’s law.

 

So if it was the law that everyone must be served equally, and a gay baker was asked to bake a cake which had an anti-gay hateful message on it, you would say, "I see he is discriminating and bring this on himself, just sell the cake and all his problems go away - or stop selling things he can't sell without discriminating - problem solved?"

 

So, do you think it's okay that he's being targeted?

 

I wont let you off the hook witout answering my question if thats what you mean

Libs get nuthin’ for nuthin’

 

Neither slavery or womens sufferage were new ideas

Homosecual marriage is totay against nature and human history

 

no, and the baker would not be required to do so either... he is only required to sell the same wedding cakes to everyone and not descriminate

the baker could refuse to write... "I support gays" on the cake, but he must sell the same cakes to everyone

just as BK must sell the same burgers and fries to everyone

 

The baker broke the law. Do you think that it is ok to break laws?

 

Again, you didn’t ask me a question but I still answered it. I guess my answer didn’t give you any space to attack so you are back to ignoring and deflection.

This is why y’all always lose these debates both online, politically and in popular opinion; your rhetoric lacks in an actual argument (besides gays are bad) or integrity — maybe both.

 

Marriage in general does not exist in nature.
Homosexuality exists in nature.
Homosexuality has existed throughout history as have homosexual unions.

And women voting was at one time a new idea, so was blacks being counted as a full person and not having an owner.

 

I completely support people boycotting businesses that discriminate against them plus enlisting anyone else that would find the information pertinent as to where their money goes.

Do you think it’s ok have deceptive advertising?

 

I asked a question that you quoted

Go find MrTLegal wherever he is hiding, or answer it youself, before throwing any questions at me

 

True

Only humans are capable of higher relationships like marriage

And the fact that inferior creatures buttfuck each other does not mean its ok for humans to do it

 

What a badly worded question! Your question implies that an underage girl is breaking the law by having sex!

If a 16 year old girl wants to have sex with a man older than 16 then that is her choice.

Now back to the point you ran away from: Pedophilia is supported by the red states as mirrored in the map in this link showing where child marriages are most prevalent: Post 103

Now why don't you answer your extremely poorly worded question? Judging by your question you clearly support pedophiles in those red states