Why we'll never bake your fake wedding cake PT. II

You don't know that I'm right.

 

I didn't think so.

Pathetic.

 

No you inferred that. I wasn't implying anything.

You find? I don't think you know what that phrase means. But I invite you to point out and dissect an argument I made that contained a straw man fallacy.

Do you mean to say that homosexuals don't deserve constitutional rights? Or are you saying people don't have the right to be homosexual?

How were they silenced?

Nothing.

It's impossible without the repeal of the constitution. Canada to my knowledge isn't protected under our constitution.

Nobody played the race card a poster drew similarities between something in history. You just made a knee jerk conclusion about something based in political buzzwords. Your argument wasn't well thought out, which is why it was fallacies.

 

Well you missed the analogy than clearly. The analogy where the two things are similar it's his they are viewed by those that hold prejudices against them. Not by the nature of the variable itself. So you them admit that you had no clue what he was referring to?

Yeah, sure.

What false accusations?

Never was. Seems kind of stupid setting that religion is protected in the first amendment.

Some people may disagree with you because they simply think differently. It's not because they want to get you. That's a bit narcissistic and a bit delusional.

Ah, top off your fallacy cake with an ad hominem. Keep it classy.

 

I never inferred that. You did imply that I inferred that, and now you are admitting that you think I inferred that. Then you put it in a strawman argument in the form of a question.

See below.

I never said that homosexuals don't deserve constitutional rights. That is a strawman argument.
I never said that people don't have the right to be homosexual. That is a strawman argument.
What did I tell you about making strawman arguments? What did I tell you about your lack of self awareness?

That is your stated goal, "...if you are too afraid to speak out because you may get criticised reason has successfully silenced dissonance."

I never said that Canada was protected under our constitution. That is a strawman argument.
What did I tell you about making strawman arguments? What did I tell you about your lack of self awareness?

Except they did or race would not nor should not be a part of the conversation on gay marriage. I didn't bring it up, they did. It is racist to do so because it diminishes the suffering and the accomplishments of the civil rights movement. Homosexuals have no right to lay claim to the black civil rights movement.

 

That assumption would be a mistake.

Exactly. Being black is not the same as being gay. It's not even similar.

Strawman. What did I tell you about strawman arguments? I never admitted to having no clue as to what he meant.

The false accusations that I am prejudice against blacks because I am Christian.

Now you are backing of of your opinion again. Where are your convictions? Are you saying that the bakers don't have to bake the cake anymore?

Those were words of encouragement to stay on your game.

 

You inferred I did not imply. It's still your mistake. And it remains the gaping hole in your argument.

What documents list our rights?

Nothing.

If you choose to be silent because what you are saying it's dissonance and you don't want to be heavily criticised for it. That's your choice.

No (*)(*)(*)(*) Sherlock. I said Canada was not protected by the constitution. Therefore what happens there is not the least bit relevant. The crash you are saying happened there can't happen here unless we repeal the constitution. Basically your argument is based on something that can't happen legally.

No it's not.

Nothing.

It's used as an analogy, and an appt one.

No it doesn't, it underscores it.

Well we do have every right to lay claim to the civil rights movement because we are part of it. For you to say it's for black people only is actually quite prejudiced.

 

It's apt.

Who said it was?

Its not.

What about your false accusations that I'm out to get people because I'm gay? Hypocrisy much?

When did I say they had to?

What game?

 

I think that you have demonstrated quite an ability to construct strawman arguments. I hope that I have helped to raise your awareness on this flaw in your argument techniques.

Gays have the same rights as all Americans. Even the right to marry.

My argument is not based on something that can't happen legally, it is base on your stated goal to silence religion.

I never said that civil rights was only for black people. Strawman.

Only 1 strawman argument in that one. you are getting better.

 

I'd have to see the accusation and the context.

Isn't that the point of this thread? Forcing people to bake a cake against their religious beliefs?

 

You have only raised awareness of how poorly you defend your position that you have to sink to accusing me of your mistakes and pretending they didn't occur.

Americans have the right to marry? Where it's that in the constitution and Bill of rights?

I never stated that being my goal.
Your position is based on lies and fallacy.

You did.

There hasn't been a single one in my posts at all. But feel free to lie.

 

First of you belong to a religion that bans you from bashing cakes, that's a pretty stupid religion. And if you belong to such a stupid religion, being a basket it's probably a bad vocation.

I don't know how many times you have to make this mistake. I don't think any basket should be forced to bake a cake fur somebody, and I also haven't seen such a case.

 

Marriage is the responsibility of the states or counties, not the federal government. That is why people get a state marriage licence, not a federal one.

This is not something you said, "...if you are too afraid to speak out because you may get criticised reason has successfully silenced dissonance"?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know anyone claiming it is against their religion to bake cakes. Strawman.

 

And when the state unjustly discriminates against people it is the supreme court's duty to intervene. And because the states have failed to justify said discrimination against homosexual couples they are likely going to loose that ability. its called liberty for all.

Yes, where did i mention religion?

Great there is no reason for sweet cakes by Malissa to object to baking the cake for the infamous couple.

 

Gays can get married in all 50 states. They've been doing it for decades.

You are welcome to withdraw or backpedal on your remarks.

Except for the fact that she does not offer same sex wedding cakes as a service.

 

Pathetic argument.

For thousands of years religious people have specifically targeted gay people with imprisonment, stoning, chemical castration, had them fired from their jobs, disrespected their military service and are now subjecting them to untested psychological experiments (conversion therapy).

For the religious to wail and gnash their teeth because a gay person demands a cake is just pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

 

Homosexuality is a sin.

 

Pathetic excuse for bigotry.

 

The bigotry is on the part of those who disparage and degrade a persons religious beliefs.

 

Pathetic. Religious people are pushing gay people from buildings. They are subjecting gay people to untested psychological experiments. For thousands of years religious people have targeted gay people.

Your arguments remind me of the the bully child who torments the neighbors dog and then goes crying to mommy about the mean dog when it finally nips back.

Pathetic.

 

I Believe I said Homosexual couples are being discriminated against. same sex couples can't get married in all fifty states and that was what I was saying.

No need I wish to science dissonance. if your religion is dissonance that seems more like your problem.

It's just a cake.

 

Backward beliefs should be degraded, religion really has nothing to do with it other than a weak excuse to believe such dissonance.

 

More bigotry by attempting to tie me or other Christians with the sins of the past or the atrocities of other religions today. Do I blame you for the sins of your fathers? Do I blame you for the sins of others? Do other people's sins against other people entitle you to sin against me? Where does this logic come from? I have not victimized you or any gay person.

 

And I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. The only purpose of same sex marriage is to destroy the family, the church and the institution of marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

Saying people's religious beliefs are backwards because you don't believe in them is also bigotry.

 

That is definitely your opinion, the only difference is that soon you won't legally be able to prevent two people of the same-sex from marrying. Hope you enjoy that power being taken from you and other anti-SSM folks.

No that is not bigotry, but nice try. You really should learn the English language a little better there, your comments look quite foolish.