Colorado Christian cakeshop sued a third time for discrimination.

What was your point?

 

Oh, so you don't mean the original same sex wedding case with the same baker?

 

Don't you make a distinction between boycotting and targeting?

Jack's business is open to EVERYONE!

 

The difference is, the birthday cake for the twins would be blue and pink to represent the boy and girl, not to expresses a gender transition.

 

Don't you argue that refusing to bake a cake for a same sex wedding is ALSO not part of his religious beliefs?

 

Is a steak custom made, using artistic, creative expression to produce a UNIQUE result? That would certainly be one hell of an interesting steak.

 

No, they are fundamentally tied to the Biblical definition of marriage.

What I mean is, the "legal acceptance of their relationships" makes no difference to Jack, who would also refuse a cake for a same sex commitment ceremony before same sex marriage was in law.
Also, the "legal acceptance of their relationships" makes no difference to Public Accommodation law which, at least in Colorado, would also require Jack to make a cake for a same sex commitment ceremony. No difference at all presumably.

I agree.

Sure, but do you know of any equality laws in Public Accommodation? Again, such a law would require members of the KKK to be served equally.

I'm sure they’re interested in fundamental rights and freedoms, they're just not interested in fighting for them as part of their PERSONAL case! Do you actually know of some sort of way that they could've changed the law while at the same time winning their case? Are you a lawyer or something? I'd like to see YOU take on a law as part of a personal case. Again, GET REAL JOE!

Any black and white examples? You didn't say which Western country/countries it is happening in.

Exactly. No widespread anti-gay discrimination in public accommodation prior to the laws being introduced.

Again, it doesn't mean that they were "arguing for discrimination law to be retained" which was your earlier ridiculous and utterly baseless contention.

Absolutely. Religious people shouldn't have more protection under the law than anyone else. In the US context, it would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution.

How so?

You think that these state Public Accommodation laws are unconstitutional?

 

The requested written personal message on the wedding cake could be used as evidence that it was refused because of his religious belief. This new case regarding the birthday cake shows that he discriminates against transgenders and has nothing to do with religious beliefs

 

The act in question is the providing of the service of baking a cake, not how it's used afterwards

 

How did Jack break the law BEFORE the human waste walked into his shop to make the order?

 

Their existence is fundamentally tied to homosexuality and it's legalisation and at least some of the objections are tied to that. You can't just assert it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

So his objection isn't about marriage specifically but more generally to any formalisation of same-sex relationships and thus discriminating on the basis of gender and (perceived) orientation?

You're playing semantic games again, you know exactly what I mean. What the customer is remains irrelevant, the reason the business refuses to serve them is the only factor. If that reason is based on a perceived characteristic specified in the relevant laws (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc.), it is illegal. That is very simple and you are not an idiot. Stop trying to pretend you don't understand. I don't converse with dishonest people.

Yes, but I don't think they have the same idea of fundamental rights and freedoms as me or you. I don't believe they would support the removal of discrimination protection from Christians in any circumstances.

No, and nor should they be able to. They shouldn't win their case if what they did was legitimately against the law. Arguing to change the law is a separate issue. If they disagree with the law in general but are pretending to accept it (by demanding exemptions) so they can win their case, that feels more than a little dishonest to me.

There are no black and white examples, that's why they go to court. You can easily find examples if you cared to search. Your dishonest responses are putting me off putting in the effort to find examples.

No, widespread anti-gay discrimination everywhere, including in public accommodation. If you're denying that well-known history, we're totally done here.

Their position is that they should have a special exemption to the law. For that to work, the law must be otherwise legitimate and remain in place. If they thought discrimination law in general is wrong they could say so, though it might weaken their case, giving them the choice of honesty or victory.

But that's exactly what this case is about!

No, I missed the word "unconstitutional" in your question/

 

No, if SCOTUS says he has the right under the Constitution, there is no state law that can take it away.

Supremacy Clause:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

 

It may not be possible to create homosexuals without a genetic predisposition.

 

What requested personal message?

 

How would the cake be used?

 

Are you under the impression that Jack won in SCOTUS because they ruled that the Constitution says that people can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?

 

he is a bigot and wants to discriminate? just like a baker that refused to serve a inter-racial couple?

 

eaten

 

For not wanting to make a cake with hateful words?

 

I never said that, I said for refusing to sell the exact same cake to one customer but not another based based on race or gender

 

Exactly! So then EVERY baker should bake ANY kind of cake for EVERY kind of person?

 

Read the post again. I'm responding to the bolded text. "Those kinda cakes" = cakes with hateful words, right? LINK TO POST: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...discrimination.557207/page-18#post-1070691474

 

he doesn't sell those kinda cakes to anyone, that is his choice, the baker could stop selling wedding cakes to anyone, then it woudl not be discrimination not to sell wedding cakes to gays... simple

if a store doesn't sell pork to anyone, you can't force them to sell pork

if a store sells pork, they can't discriminate who they sell it to based on race or gender

 

I do not think biology forces people to have children, republicans to that

people can choose to have children if they want, or they can choose not to if they want - their choice

 

Republicans force people to have children in all cases? Surely you can't be serious!