Forcing bakers to make gay wedding cakes violates free speech, California judge rules

good, now stop trolling.

 

How is he trolling? Can you even explain that charge?

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ternet_troll&usg=AOvVaw2gpDd89nQAubqJhl7pZtNk

 

So you can't. I didn't ask you for a defintion of the word I asked you what you claim he did that was trolling and what a shocker, you couldn't support your claim.

 

yes, you can make this claim, if you completely ignore the fact that I just did. Lol

 

I would too if I couldn't support myself with any facts. Next time when you personally attack someone at least have more than your word to fall back on.

 

I quite clearly showed he is trolling. I couldn't give less of a **** if you agree with that or not.

 

Obviously you didn't or you would have been able to explain how he did when I asked. And you couldn't.

 

I quite clearly showed he is trolling. I couldn't give less of a **** if you agree with that or not.

 

Then point to the post. 4 times you've been given the chance and 4 times you have run away.

 

This guy has been a troll on this thread for many pages.

Typically speaking, he's been way overly persistent on irrelevant minutia and not answering questions having to do with the central issue of the thread.

If you want to discuss the thread topic, great!

 

Your opinion means nothing without a shred of evidence to support it. If you want to stay on topic then stay on topic.

Public accommodation for gay weddings does not exist in Federal Law. Freedom of speech and religion does.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ia-judge-rules.525648/page-88#post-1068784634

 

The public accommodations in these baker cases sell cakes, not weddings.

 

Here's a hint as to where these cake cases are headed:

In the SCOTUS case of Employment Division v. Smith (1990) the ruling was that a person may not defy neutral laws of general applicability, such as public accommodation laws, as an expression of religious belief.

In that decision, ultra socially conservative, Catholic, right wing Justice Scalia wrote:

"To permit this, would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

These bakers are going to have to find a reason to kill that decision or make a serious exception to it.

I don't see a whiff of that in the oral argument of the CO baker case before the SCOTUS right now.

 

Just answer me this question: why do you think they might have discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation? By the way, drone weddings?

 

I'm just wondering why you're unable to provide what your understanding is. It should be pretty easy.

 

Guys, its time for everyone to figure this out. For partisan gamesmanship, the idea normally is to magnify the definitions your agenda needs magnified, and to shrink the definitions your agenda needs shrunk. In this debate, that involves the definitions of the following: 'sex', 'sexual orientation', 'religious exercise' , 'freedom of speech', 'discriminate', 'based on', and 'public accommodation'/ 'participation'. but if the goal is drive them to vacate the debate ( the troll's goal), you must put the obligation on your political opponent to do all the work of coming up with a definition and then to see to it that no definition that does not serve your agenda, is accepted. If the court's definition is not working for your agenda, ignore any references to actual decisions, or to the law, and still force you opponent into the trap. Keep right on shoving the same questions over and over and over, insisting that your opponent has not sufficiently answered the question. Force literally all the heavy lifting on your opponent for as many posts and pages as required until they give up. Then declare a 'victory'. Its trolling 101. Its important that you go over the same argumentative line and ignore any other line, because their eventual frustration represents the real pay off. The less intellectual stimulation with new paths, and new ideas, the fewer traps for the troll walk into. Repetition is what altimately provides the 'coup de grace'. They will quit because you bore them to death and they get nothing out of the exchange. .

 

Kind of hard to do that when you ignore people. After accusing people of ignoring you!

 

The left's definition of a 'TROLL': Someone who has successfully persevered in a debate with me using rock solid arguments which I no longer have anything in response to!

 

You haven't succeeded in any rock solid arguments whatsoever. The SCOTUS have hinted in different scenarios that lead me to believe the bakers will not win this case. No matter how much you argue it doesn't make sense, it is what it is.

 

Different scenarios?

 

My understanding is what the law states. It's in black and white, and perfectly clear.

 

uh, no. You quite clearly would fall outside of that definition, as your arguments have not perservered, and you have not used rock solid arguments. They are nonsensical arguments, which have been thoroughly refuted.

 

Asking someone to guess at the motivations of someone such as these bakers is ridiculous.

This is just more trolling.