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

I'm just wondering if you were going to invoke 'bigotry' like @rahl. I'm please to see that you are more intelligent than that. And I'm still dying to know what a "drone wedding" is!

 

You're still just trying for chaos and dissention here.

If you want to discuss the topic, fine.

 

Wanting to know what a drone wedding is, is trying for chaos and dissension?

 

That was a tiny piece of an example - a case of something the USA did, not on purpose, but we sure the heck did that. By now it is extraneous.

Let's keep this to the OP topic.

 

Sure, but I just don't know what it is and neither does Google. So what is it?

 

Obama created gay people to annoy homophobes and bigots?

 

Why does that have to be what @slackercruster was saying? Talk about a strawman argument...

 

And I'm sure that you accepted their freedom to chose not to take on your job and you simply gave your business to another printer - something which the left are incapable of getting their heads around!

 

Oh...did I get it wrong? Then maybe you can explain which Obama legacy the poster was referring to.

And I don't think you even know what "strawman" means because the reference to Obama within the context of the post was out of left field and begged to be explained and debated.

 

I have no idea which Obama legacy the poster was referring to, but I doubt that it had much to do with creating gay people.

I agree that the reference to Obama within the context of the post was out of left field and begged to be explained and debated, but you turned it into "Obama created gay people" to suggest that might have been what they were saying. You could've just asked, "what do you mean?"

 

I was being tongue in cheek sarcastic due to the fact that the poster's premise was so ludicrous, it deserved the response I gave and the question I posed. I would love to hear the poster's explanation, but I'd lay odds that I will not get one...or at least not get one that makes any sense.

 

I'm guessing that it has something to do with Obama being as pro-gay rights as he was.

 

There you go with your fallacious argument. You don't think there are people on the right, centrists, and independent that would disagree with you in regards to this case? when you devolve into sweeping generalization like you just did, you LOST all credibility. Why did you even waste time making your case when this was the conclusion you have already reached?? Only a coward would give in to bigotry and take the easy way out by walking.

 

So what? In Trump own words, so is he. When was the last time you see anyone commenting on Trump in regards to this matter??

 

So what? You mean why does this matter? It doesn't matter that Obama was pro-gay rights.

Trump is pro-gay rights? I certainly don't know of any of his gay rights policies.

 

Centrists? Sure they might disagree. However, if we can agree that anyone on the right would consider themselves to be conservative, then nobody can consider themselves to be on the right if they think that the government should be able to put a gun to people's head and force them to provide a service for an event which they do not wish to provide a service for. By the way, there is left, there is right and there is the center, but what the hell is "independent?"

Sorry, what? You think there is something wrong with someone making a case for something because they have already reached a conclusion?

Sorry, who is the coward who is walking? And what do you mean by "walking?"

 

First, a correction on the "independent." Typed that one by mistake.

Only the ardent of the far right would believe people should be discriminated against. By your logic then, the people on the right don't believe blacks should have equal right? that they shouldn't be able to shop in white owned store? Here I thought the right declared that they were the one's fought for civil right and forced the government to step in? So that was all a lie, am I right?

You made a sweeping generalization. That is what you did. And you want us to validate your generalization and it ain't going to happen. How do you know there aren't people on the left who may agree with the baker??

People who walk away from what they think is right are cowards. If the gay couple think they were unjustly been discriminate against, shall they not fight for what they think is right? Your suggestion is for them to turn their back and hit the next store nevermind the next store may treat them in the same manner. Is your solution in life is just to turn your back and walk when treated in such a manner??

 

Would you call Mike Pence far right?

Generally speaking, people on the right DO believe that blacks and gays should have equal rights from government, but they don't consider the labor of private citizens to be something which ANYONE has a right to. Basically, you don't have a right to my services - I don't have a right to your services. This is just basic libertarian conservatism.

By the way, I would rather have government force businesses to not discriminate like in the 1960's, if it meant that the alternative was widespread discrimination. However, thankfully the free market is perfectly capable of making sure that discrimination does not occur. If I'm wrong, then name me a case where a shop has refused to serve a certain customer. Name just one discrimination case after the 1970's which is the most recent that @btthegreat was able to come up with.

Of course they SHOULD be able to, but the government is not necessary in preventing a white owned store from discriminating against a black person! Welcome to 2018!

Now, do you consider a white shop owner who refuses to serve black people to be the same evil as a baker who is happy to serve gay people but would just rather not participate in their wedding?

If I said, something only the left are incapable of getting their heads around then sure I would've been generalising. However, I acknowledge the possibility that people who wouldn't say that they are on the left would also disagree with me. However, I think its safe to say that anyone who would say that they are on the left would absolutely disagree with me.

I don't want anyone to do anything! Other than to be capable of debate! Which to be fair to you, you are demonstrating.

Well I don't, but is that even remotely likely?

They should certainly fight for what they think is right, that is their right. However, they are liars if in support of same sex marriage they told us, "our marriage will NEVER affect you!" Why? Because now they are happy to stomp into businesses and demand that they participate in their wedding.

While I would certainly feel sorry for a couple if they had a seriously hard time getting wedding services, I really don't think that it is likely to happen. Chances are high, that the very next store will serve their wedding. Its not as if 100% of the country are Christians and even if it was, not all Christian businesses would have a 'no services for same sex weddings' policy.

 

Haven't you just given the reason why without these anti-discrimination laws, wide spread discrimination would NOT break out?
You're right - "businesses don't like to offend a huge chunk of possible customer base - If you politicize your business decisions, everyone loses" Because they would go out of business right?

 

@Giftedone: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ia-judge-rules.525648/page-79#post-1068731352

 

Well considering the FANTASTIC news that the Supreme Court decided in favour of the awesome baker,
Jack Philips, this case from California is also DEAD IN THE WATER! A win for the 1st AND 13th Amendments! (13th being involuntary servitude.)