Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same sex wedding cake case. (Part 2)

That’s a matter of opinion. It was the ruling of the commission and I don’t believe any of the appeals successfully challenged that aspect.

Not unconditionally, no. We all live in a society of rules and laws which will often stand in the way of us being able to do exactly what we want. You can question the specifics or implementation of those laws but only a true anarchist could argue against them existing at all.

Any, the argument here has never been that all business owners should be free to do what they want. They’re not saying all anti-discrimination laws are wrong, they’re not even saying this particular anti-discrimination law is wrong, they’re only saying that it shouldn’t apply to them (and people like them) in this circumstance.

 

The sequence of events and the words of the baker? You mean the literal 60 second exchange which took place when the couple asked for the cake and the baker said he can't bake cakes for same sex weddings but told them that they can have any pre made product? THAT is evidence which demonstrates proof of intent to discriminate? Surely you can't be serious.

The very fact that he offered them other products is actually evidence that he DIDN'T have intent to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation! After all, if the couple's sexual orientation was an issue for him, why would he have told them that they can have the other products?

Should gay people be able to live their lives in the way that they want?

Who is "they?"

 

The sequence of events plus all of the formal statements and documentation provided by both sides to the commission (and subsequently to the courts). That is quite literally the evidence, just as it is in any other case. There is really nothing unusual or complicated about what I’m actually saying there. You just need to stop trying conflate those factual functional statements any value judgements I might make.

It isn’t just about refusing service. If a business treats a customer differently in any way on the basis of their sexual orientation, it’s still discrimination. This customer was treated differently and the stated reason for that by the baker was because the customer was marrying another man rather than a woman.

Not unconditionally, no. We all live in a society of rules and laws which will often stand in the way of us being able to do exactly what we want. You can question the specifics or implementation of those laws but only a true anarchist could argue against them existing at all.

I hope you can see what I did there.

Anyone making or supporting legal arguments against equal application of discrimination law.

 

Exactly, so you mean the literal 60 second exchange which took place, right?

 

However long it actually was, sure. I don't see the relevance the length of time has though.

 

Sure, but the content is! And it isn't disputed that all that the exchange comprised of was the couple asking for the cake and the baker saying he can't bake cakes for same sex weddings but told them that they can have any pre made product. That was literally it!

 

Then the customers raised the discrimination complaint, documenting what occurred and why they believed the baker was in breach of the law and the baker was able to submit their defence, documenting why they don’t believe their actions were in breach. It is that documentation the commission and later courts reviews. Another word we can use for the documentation is evidence.

I’ve still no idea why you’re even questioning this basic statement of fact. It’s irrelevant to the actual question of the rights and wrongs of the case anyway.

 

"We?" "Speak for yourself. How can any of that be considered evidence? I mean seriously, you put it in the same box as eye witnesses and fingerprints?

 

Everything presented to support a case in the commission or courts is evidence by definition. This isn't a value judgement, just a basic definition of the word. Even if it's circumstantial, inconsistent or even false, it's still evidence.

This still has nothing to do with the actual rights and wrongs of the case.

 

What I should've said, was how any of that being considered CREDIBLE evidence?

 

I never said it necessarily was. Part of the role of judges, jurors etc. is to assess the credibility of the evidence before them. That said, we’re mostly talking about the defendants own words (via his lawyers) explaining his claimed motivation for his actions and the legal reasoning why he believes that shouldn’t be considered a breach of the relevant laws. If anything, the commission judgement must have deemed some of that as not entirely credible since it didn’t accept that defence.

 

Do you believe that gay people should be allowed to be who they are?

Who is making those arguments?

 

I don’t really understand the question but the answer probably remains the same, which was my point in repeating it. Basically the answer is the same regardless of whether you're talking about homosexuals or heterosexuals, religious or non-religious, black or white, male or female.

Sorry, I’m not interested in going around in circles over yet another side point again.

 

Do you believe that homosexuals should be allowed to express their homosexuality?

Nobody is "supporting legal arguments against equal application of discrimination law." If you think that there are examples of this, you need to be able to specify cases.

 

Exactly as much as heterosexuals should be allowed to “express their heterosexuality”. It never ceases to amaze me how much trouble people have with simple concepts of equality.

 

Which is how much?

So no specific cases then. Got you. Stop making stuff up.

 

How do you expect me to answer that question? "Quite a bit", "27.9% per year", "This much; <------------------------------->". Rights, freedoms and restrictions to them will touch an almost infinite number of things in an infinite number of ways right across all of our lives. Exactly how, where and when any restrictions are imposed isn't really important in this context, the point remains that the sexual orientation of the people involved shouldn't make any difference.

 

the OP trolls hard for the money

 

Correction: The OP ARGUES hard for the money. Contrary to the left's understanding, "troll" does not mean arguing well.

 

Why can't a homosexual express their homosexuality without limitation?

 

That question has nothing to do with homosexuality specifically. You're essentially asking why our societies have rules, laws and social conventions which is an entirely different topic of conversation.

 

I'm sure that a homosexual would disagree with you on that. I'm pretty sure they would say that expression of their sexuality has EVERYTHING to do with their sexuality!

What "rules, laws and social conventions" relate to homosexuality and/or its expression?

 

You've gone off topic on your own thread (after all, one assertion is the baker was discriminating against same-sex marriage, not homosexuals). If you wish to discuss why we don't live in true anarchic societies, you really need to start a new thread. I might even contribute.

 

Even if it WAS off topic, would I not be allowed to go off topic in my own thread? And what would be stopping you from responding to an off topic question? The threat of a ban? Anyway, it very much ISN'T off topic.

What does the expression of a homosexual's sexuality have to do with "why we don't live in true anarchic societies?" Seriously, what the hell man?

 

You can but you shouldn’t. I can but I don’t have to.

Nothing specifically, that’s my point. The rules and laws in a society (should!) apply to everyone equally. If you’re doing something prohibited, it doesn’t make any difference if it’s because you’re “expressing” your sexuality, religion, cultural tradition or anything else. We’re all free to do whatever we like right for whatever reason (actual or imagined), right up to the point the consequences of that breaks a rule or law.