Colorado Christian cakeshop sued a third time for discrimination.

LOL. Not even I say that the baker did not discriminate! OF COURSE he discriminated! He chose not to make the cake, even though he would make the cake for a mixed-sex couple. Even if you don't think that he discriminate, didn't the baker's actions have the effect of the gay couple having to walk to the next bakery? Why is it only discrimination which can have that effect? I've clearly got you on an inconsistency here, but I'm sure that you can rise to the challenge!

 

@FreshAir, @XploreR and @yguy, you're discussing abortion and risk having the thread locked! Once you have next clicked "reply" in here,
please copy the text and paste it into the thread linked below and post your reply there:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/alabama’s-draconian-abortion-ban-has-women-on-twitter-ready-to-fight.555883/

 

yes, include yourself in that @chris155au

 

LOL. Yeah but you started that!

 

did I, can you link to the first post that started it, I went back and it seems to start with child hood marriage, then diverted to children having babies, then to abortions and on it went

 

Damn! Yes, I got involved in an exchange between you and another member and then the off-topic exchange started from there. My fault! I must have thought that I was replying in the abortion thread that I was participating in daily at that point! And our exchange may have triggered the current one!

 

Not according to the courts. Depends on what the definition of discrimination is. If you want to carry things to the nth degree .. preferring blondes over brunettes is discrimination - but that is not what we are talking about.

 

yes, we all went down the same rabbit hole... all of our fault

 

What are you talking about? Colorado found him guilty of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I note that you said the plural, "courts" which I can only assume is referring to the multiple state courts that were involved.

Discrimination:
recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

He treated them differently to others customers.

No, we are talking about the legitimate authority of government, which we both agree is when it provides protection from direct harm. You think that the effect of making people walk to another business constitutes direct harm. Do you not think that this harm was done in the baker case?

 

I can't make sense out of anything you have said. What case in Colorado ?
Then you give a dumb dictionary definition which has nothing to do with the legal term
Then you talk about harm with respect to someone liking blonds vs brunettes ? - while this conforms to the dictionary definition - it is not discrimination from a legal perspective.

 

I was thinking again. What if the baker is in his 80's and has a number tattooed on his arm, would he be forced to bake a cake (or be sued) if he refused to bake a cake for a Nazi? Or would it be considered "self-defense" if he baked a powered form of Zyklon B into the cake?

 

The baker case! What were you referring to when you said "not according to the courts?" What are you saying is not according to the courts?

When I said that the baker discriminated, I just meant that he treated them differently. In the legal sense, he WAS guilty according to the Colorado courts.

I just cannot believe that you thought that I was responding to your mention of "blonds vs brunettes." You finished off that post by saying that blonds vs brunettes "is not what we are talking about." and I agreed!
I said, "no we are talking about the legitimate authority of government, which we both agree is when it provides protection from direct harm. You think that the effect of making people walk to another business constitutes direct harm. Do you not think that this harm was done in the baker case?" How did you read all of that and think that I was talking about blonds vs brunettes? I truly can't see how you managed to do that.

 

No, in the US it isn't illegal to discriminate on the basis of political ideology.

Now THAT would be illegal.

 

Well, they walked to the same-sex baker but it hadn't opened yet and so they continued walking to the mixed-sex baker but he refused them so they had to walk back to their car and lo and behold the first baker (who makes cakes same-sex couples) was then open. It seems to me that the mixed-sex baker saved them some walking for when they would return to fetch the finished cake the next day unless they couldn't find a parking space in which case it was the city who was responsible for making them walk further than they wanted. The question is: Who is the guilty party for making the gay couple walk further than necessary?

1. The same-sex baker who wasn't open on time?
2. The mixed-sex baker for refusing to make the cake?
3. The city, for not providing citizens with ample parking spaces?

 

OK, so the 'we-refuse-to-make-a-cake-for-gays' are off the hook. It is obvious that the bakery is a right-wing establishment while the gays ... well! ... are clearly lefty's.

 

Yeah, that sort of defense is never gonna work in court.

 

Exactly. The making them walk argument is totally and outrageously stupid!

 

Why not? If you state that you are against what lefty's .... yadda, yadda, yadda ..... have done (insert a personal experience), then it can be a good defense.

Yes.

 

Whether or not you think it can be a good defense, I'd be surprised if any court in the US would accept it.

 

Johnnie Cochran could float it.

 

Well he's been dead for over 10 years, so he won't be able to do much 'floating' anymore.

 

1. During the first trimester, the embryo is mostly a glob of living cells, much like a wad of algae in a pond, & with about as much consciousness. After the 1st trimester, things get more complicated. By the beginning of the third trimester, your description becomes more pertinent. I'm Pro-Choice, but not Pro-Abortion. But I strongly support a woman's right to choose during that first trimester, whatever her choice might be. For me, after that first trimester, my support for her choice declines rather rapidly, & by the beginning of the 3rd trimester, I feel the mother's choice should be limited to when her own life is threatened or the baby's genetic future health is something none of us would want to experience, or the fetus is already dead inside the womb.
2. There are always exceptions to every rule. There are also individuals willing to do anything imaginable or unimaginable, but they don't represent the general public, or the generally accepted norms.

 

And just what the hell do you think you are?

Prove it.

Half a century ago, acceptance of abortion was not an accepted norm; so there is no reason to believe that half a century hence, acceptance of selective infanticide will not be every bit as accepted as abortion is now.

 

Were you drunk when you read my post and interpreted it the way that you did? I just can't take you seriously anymore, which is strange considering our past interactions where I took you as an intelligent and principled libertarian/limited government person.

 

I did not interpret - I based my post on what you said. Rather than respond you avoid and demonize.