Christian bakery wins 'gay cake' ruling from UK supreme court

Well it was either that or ignore since I try to argue the individual points on the merits (which you deemed the "Devil's work" or some-such nonsense) and you just seem to engage in vague, unsupported, pontifications as far as I can tell.

Just for kicks and giggles can you please explain how two people in a consenting and fully legal relationship can be deemed victims? Sure I'll bet that happens in some individual relationships, straight or gay but I can't see how you can ascribe that to an entire group of people. In my experience stable relationships make people happier and better adjusted overall rather than dwelling in solitude just to keep other people happy.

 

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.

 

I'm not talking about the Koran, I'm talking about what is happening in the real world.

I can try to defend the crusades, but there is no point in doing so here.
The Salem Witch Trials, nope, no defense there.

The KKK you say? How so?

But I will say this... what is happening now is current.
What happened in the past is not.

Some people learn and grow, and some people want to stone people to death.

Help me understand that comment please.
I will reply once I have some context.

 

Yeah, the Old Testament is not my thing.
I am willing to admit that I'm a bit perplexed by such utterances.

I will not try to defend the Bible, and especially the Old Testament.

I will only say that stoning people, or throwing gays off roofs, or needing four witnesses to prove you were not raped?
That's really wrong in today's terms.

Make sure you've got that Burqa on, because you wouldn't want to tempt anyone.
Animals are we, after all.

 

It is genetic - and environment which is the interaction between the DNA and the environment.

 

I will make this about as simple as it can be. The standard is, you want to buy a cake? Will they sell it to you? If the answers are yes, there isn't discrimination. If, as part of the service, I ask you to sloganeer your product for me, and the other side doesn't want to? protected. This isn't discrimination. I would expect the gay baker to have just as much latitude here as the religious one. More, if it were a religious gay baker, ... hmmm.. At any rate, the standard is asking in the normal course of business would the transaction be accomplished. If yes, the differentiator here is the messaging then.

Think about it this way. On this forum, we have rules, right? Everyone get's to play as long as the rules that we adhere to are followed. By your standard, if someone identified as a protected class or minority, no limit could be placed on their activity, because according to your theory, any restriction is then discriminatory. Thankfully, the court doesn't agree with your very broad permissiveness.

 

The Christian baker would have been equally opposed to two heterosexuals of the same sex seeking a marriage. Has nothing to do with their sexual orientation

 

I just proved it is once again.

Sorry sport I believe the evidence you keep running from.

And none of that has anything to do with the evidence I gave you.

Now you're getting it. But even the housing and employment bill does not cover homosexuality no matter how much you personally want it to.

Since you refuse to discuss the countless studies I've provided I can only conclude you are sticking with your "nuh uh" debate and don't want to actually address the science.

Your choice.

 

yeah right.

 

The same argument was used to ban interracial marriages and same sex marriage. It’s pretty amazing how they can twist themselves over and over again - throughout history - to defend their views.

 

i agree, just because one doesnt like something allows one not to complete their responsibility.

 

You have my position backwards. I oppose extra rights for preferred citizens.

 

Nah. I think I got it right. And if you had read my post, no additional rights are being extended.

 

Being confused on the difference between proof and evidence doesn't change that you are still wrong. Psychology is a practice and there is zero proof that homosexuality is a mental disorder. You can post all the opinions you want. If it were a mental disability, that would strengthen the case against the baker. I could post evidence that religion is a mental disorder if you want!

There are many things that are not in our constitution or in the fair housing, etc. Maybe homosexuals just don't want to sit in the back of the bus. I am neither homosexual nor religious, so this is not about what I personally want.

I believe that Americans deserve equal treatment. Thats all.

 

I agree with most of your post, but I do not believe that it is right for someone to enjoy legal protection for pointing a righteous finger at another American saying "We don't serve your kind here!" while also enjoying legal protection from the same being done to him. So, I oppose double standards, not the other way around.

 

There ought to be a law against this.

BAKER REFUSES TO MAKE CHRISTIAN CAKE

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2018/10/14/baker-refuses-to-make-christian-cake/

 

A drug abuser and his pusher victimize each other by drawing the worst out of each other, legality notwithstanding. Similarly, a man who seeks from (or provides to) a man that which properly lies in the domain of women degrades that man, thus degrading himself in the process.

 

I don't have a problem with here in the US, one standard for explicitly stated constitutional rights such as religion, and another standard for rights created by some local or state law like gay cake.

 

It doesn't make sense.

LIBERTY: YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG.

In Religious Freedom Case, State Says It Can Force a Muslim Tattoo Artist to Endorse Christianity.

“That’s no different from forcing Christians to celebrate gay weddings.”​

 

What do you mean?

What do you mean "the discipline?"

 

Your claim?

Post 6 is what I responded to isn't it?

 

Don't you find it odd that they never say HOW the rules were broken?

You don't see ANY inconsistency?

 

It’s lazy and they should provide more information to users in these cases. It’s not odd because it’s how their systems word regardless of who is being banned.

In general yes; Social media companies have always been generally poor at managing bad behaviour on their platforms and different groups of users tend to engage in different forms of bad behaviour that aren’t easily measurable or comparable. I’ve not seen anything proving any political bias in that inconsistency.

 

Why are Hamas and Louis Farrakhan still on Twitter?

 

I’ve no idea, I don’t follow either of them. Presumably they’ve not repeatedly broken the rules on the platform. Incidentally, couldn’t both be considered politically conservative anyway?