Colorado Christian cakeshop sued a third time for discrimination.

Actually, I should've said that the mixed race couple are clearly being treated differently to a same race couple, but I don't believe it is discrimination on the basis of race. In your employer example, you haven't said HOW the Catholic is being treated differently. Treated differently to another employee of a different faith who is allowed to express their faith by wearing something around their neck? Plus, this has nothing to do with the baker case and you dodged ALL of my latest replies. Seems like an excuse to me to avoid responding to my scrutiny, which you've dealt with very well so far I have to say.

 

So still nothing on how it is socially advantageous to be anti-same sex marriage and anti-abortion? I'd still love to know what planet your living on!

 

yes

 

Right wingers DO NOT in fact believe that women have any rights.

 

lol

 

Right wingers don't believe that women should have the right to vote?

 

Then why make the rape argument?

 

You don't have to terminate human life in order to refuse to bake a cake for somebody.

 

That's a "No true Scotsman..." fallacy.

Only real Christians agree with me so anybody who disagrees with me is fake.

 

You still wouldn't have the right to someone else's labor. Nobody has to make a cake for you that says something they disagree with. And I don't think it's wise to force anybody to do that.

 

Well sure it's discrimination. I don't think anybody's arguing that it isn't. Argument is whether he has the right to discriminate on this basis.

Does a painter who is Jewish have the rights to discriminate against someone who wants him to paint a swastika on something?

is it celebrating a so-called gender transition?

no it doesn't. Have you ever been in a restaurant that requires a dress code? They can refuse to serve you if you're not wearing a coat or an evening dress. You can refuse all the customers you want. I run a private mechanic business I refuse any customer that drives a Volkswagen.

 

Lol. You're arguing just for the sake of arguing ! The law does state that you can't refuse the service to a minority that you would provide for others if it is the same service. If that Jewish painter provides the service of painting swastikas to others then he can't deny that service to a minority. Someone who is not in the right dress code is not in a minority group. Lol at you thinking VWs are categorised as minority groups. Try refusing to service s black man's car because he is black

BTW I've quoted the law many times in this thread

 

cause forcing rape victims to have their rapists baby is wrong

 

Nor do I

 

To avoid having others on this forum take my post out of context & drag it, & this discussion, into the Twilight Zone, I'll amend my original statement to read:
Right wingers DO NOT in fact, believe women have any rights regarding abortion.

 

I doubt the baker provides birthday cakes celebrating transition to anyone.

if you can show the picture provides birthday cakes specifically made to celebrate the transitioning to anyone else you have an argument.

They could be.

that's not even close to allegorical to the discussion. The baker didn't refuse to bake a cake for someone because they were gay or transitioning. He refused to bake cakes celebrating that. Just like if I refuse to fix a black man's Volkswagen it wouldn't be because he was black it was be because it's a Volkswagen. he doesn't have the right to sue me over racial discrimination especially since I've worked on black mens Buicks Blackman's Chevrolets.

well it seems to be an argument about what the law should be. So quoting what the law says has no argumentative value at all.

Let's say this was 1820, and you are arguing against the law that said it was okay for people to own slaves. Would someone telling you it's the law be an argument against anything you said?

 

Sure, like that isn't where it came from to begin with.

Name a prominent right winger who wants to outlaw abortions of life-threatening pregnancies.

 

Yes, but you also believe that forcing non-rape victims to have their baby is wrong. So then why make the rape argument?

 

You conservatives are such literalists. First, I do believe several of the recent ultra-extremist right wing anti-abortion laws passed in such states as AL, MO, LA, & GA, don't allow abortions after 6 or 8 weeks, for any reason. Even if I'm wrong, having an abortion to save a mother's life is a necessity, not an open choice available to the mother. Extremist Pro-Lifers don't allow women to have any choice in that incredibly important & personal decision making process. Everything is decided by white male politicians in legislative chambers or courthouses with no direct connection to the mother, her feelings, or her needs. Because of this, Pro-Lifers are a major danger to the currently existing personal rights of all American women, who comprise half of our national population.

 

Because they are two separate arguments that affect two separate groups of women. Both are important.

 

I think both are wrong, but it drives home the point to those that want to force rape victims to have their rapists babies... I do understand why that would make some anti-choicers uncomfortable

 

Forcing rape victims to have their rapist's babies, is victimizing those poor women three times, because, many of them would be forced to raise those babies themselves, without help from the rapist fathers. The so-called "Pro-Life" side is SO profoundly misnamed. They care about the fetus before birth (before life begins), but lose all interest in the baby once born, & they NEVER care about the mother at all.

 

If I can take that to mean my default assumption is that people mean what they say, is that supposed to be a problem?

You're not making a lick of sense.

I understand the psychological need to sanctify this murderous act, but I'd say the decision of a parent as to whether to kill his or her infant is every bit as "important and personal". Wouldn't you?

 

Nobody--ABSOLUTELY NOBODY--is killing infants. And, nobody is suggesting we should.

 

Well of course not, as that would be an atrocity, whereas doing the same damn thing to a child en utero is merely a medical procedure.

Get real, there was a tenured Princeton professor advocating "selective" infanticide years ago, to say nothing of the ghoul Northam.