Denver baker sued for refusing to write anti-gay slogans on cake

[NYcarbineer]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to transmit your hate speech.

You have the right to say what you want, I don't have to give you air time or cake time.

Yet it is discrimination if a baker doesn't want to place two groom statues in top if a cake he bakes. It doesn't matter what you think. It's a double standard. The customer has a right to the cake he wants.

Refusing to put two guys or two gals on the cakes you sell - if you are willing to put a guy/gal on it - is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The baker has the right to refuse to put anti-gay phrases on a cake,

as long as it applies to everyone. That is different than denying certain groups of people the right to buy a cake in the first place.

The same would apply if the baker refused to put anti-rightwing nut phrases on a cake.

What you advocate does not apply to everyone.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually we believe that your kind is the cause of that. Evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

I wonder if you can actually feed yourself, I don't hate anyone. Liberals cannot say that.

So you want to claim you don't hate anyone, but you just hate to see certain types of people have equal rights.

Yes, that's so much nicer...

Who said I hate, I disagree there is a difference. I was wanting to compromise, but you couldn't have that.

No you weren't. Besides, why do we have to 'compromise' when it comes to gay rights?

Are you willing to 'compromise' your own rights?

Well I was forced to, so now we will have kids with blood parents in society as normal. Thanks to liberals.

You have a remarkable capacity for making posts that make no sense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The baker has the right to refuse to put anti-gay phrases on a cake,

as long as it applies to everyone. That is different than denying certain groups of people the right to buy a cake in the first place.

The same would apply if the baker refused to put anti-rightwing nut phrases on a cake.

What you advocate does not apply to everyone.

It does in this case. The baker is deciding what he sells, not who he will sell to.

CVS can decide they won't sell cigarettes without discriminating against anyone. This baker can decide she won't sell cakes with offensive language on them, without discriminating against anyone.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to transmit your hate speech.

You have the right to say what you want, I don't have to give you air time or cake time.

Yet it is discrimination if a baker doesn't want to place two groom statues in top if a cake he bakes. It doesn't matter what you think. It's a double standard. The customer has a right to the cake he wants.

Refusing to put two guys or two gals on the cakes you sell - if you are willing to put a guy/gal on it - is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

So would refusing to place a guy/gal couple holding a sign "God hates fags" on top of a cake you sell. Yet you would defend that. If you demand your rights be honored then expect other to have the same. You can't have it both ways.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

[

It does in this case. The baker is deciding what he sells, not who he will sell to.

CVS can decide they won't sell cigarettes without discriminating against anyone. This baker can decide she won't sell cakes with offensive language on them, without discriminating against anyone.

A baker should be able to not sell a gay-themed wedding cake then.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

[

It does in this case. The baker is deciding what he sells, not who he will sell to.

CVS can decide they won't sell cigarettes without discriminating against anyone. This baker can decide she won't sell cakes with offensive language on them, without discriminating against anyone.

A baker should be allowed to not sell a gay-themed wedding cake then. Agree with that and all will be satisfied.

 

[jknowgood]

I wonder if you can actually feed yourself, I don't hate anyone. Liberals cannot say that.

So you want to claim you don't hate anyone, but you just hate to see certain types of people have equal rights.

Yes, that's so much nicer...

Who said I hate, I disagree there is a difference. I was wanting to compromise, but you couldn't have that.

No you weren't. Besides, why do we have to 'compromise' when it comes to gay rights?

Are you willing to 'compromise' your own rights?

Well I was forced to, so now we will have kids with blood parents in society as normal. Thanks to liberals.

You have a remarkable capacity for making posts that make no sense.

You perverts are ruining a moral society.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to transmit your hate speech.

You have the right to say what you want, I don't have to give you air time or cake time.

Yet it is discrimination if a baker doesn't want to place two groom statues in top if a cake he bakes. It doesn't matter what you think. It's a double standard. The customer has a right to the cake he wants.

Refusing to put two guys or two gals on the cakes you sell - if you are willing to put a guy/gal on it - is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

So would refusing to place a guy/gal couple holding a sign "God hates fags" on top of a cake you sell. Yet you would defend that. If you demand your rights be honored then expect other to have the same. You can't have it both ways.

That makes no sense.

Besides, let's remember, the Colorado bakery that refused to sell a cake to the gay couple refused them, outright, BECAUSE they were a gay, same sex couple.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you want to claim you don't hate anyone, but you just hate to see certain types of people have equal rights.

Yes, that's so much nicer...

Who said I hate, I disagree there is a difference. I was wanting to compromise, but you couldn't have that.

No you weren't. Besides, why do we have to 'compromise' when it comes to gay rights?

Are you willing to 'compromise' your own rights?

Well I was forced to, so now we will have kids with blood parents in society as normal. Thanks to liberals.

You have a remarkable capacity for making posts that make no sense.

You perverts are ruining a moral society.

All else being equal, what is more 'immoral'?

Two persons of the same sex getting married,

or a husband cheating on his wife? or a man and a woman having pre-marital sex? or a man hiring a female prostitute?

 

[JakeStarkey]

NYc, we are talking about marriage, not immorality.

The fact remains that AvgGuy is certainly not what his name implies.

The majority of Americans want and believe in Marriage Equality, it will happen this summer, and that will be the end of it.

 

[JoeB131]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to transmit your hate speech.

You have the right to say what you want, I don't have to give you air time or cake time.

Yet it is discrimination if a baker doesn't want to place two groom statues in top if a cake he bakes. It doesn't matter what you think. It's a double standard. The customer has a right to the cake he wants.

Well, no, they don't. That's why the guy who wanted a birthday cake that said, "Happy Birthday, Adolf Hitler" not only didn't get his cake, they took the kids the fuck out of that home.

Because someone who'd name his son Adolf Hitler has got serious issues.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You perverts are ruining a moral society.

News for you, this has never been a moral society, ever, however equality is a moral thing so stop fighting it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I just wrote 'I hate gay people' on a cake last night. I'll let you know if I get sued tomorrow.

You can't have your hatred, and eat it too...

 

[jknowgood]

You perverts are ruining a moral society.

News for you, this has never been a moral society, ever, however equality is a moral thing so stop fighting it.

In your world i'm sure it hasn't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You perverts are ruining a moral society.

News for you, this has never been a moral society, ever, however equality is a moral thing so stop fighting it.

In your world i'm sure it hasn't.

That's correct because a moral nation doesn't treat many of its citizens as second-class, it doesn't have institutional racism, it doesn't count human beings as 3/5ths human, it doesn't try to keep women barefoot and pregnant, and it doesn't use its military and economic might to remake the world to its liking, meaning, we have never been a moral nation but at least on marriage equality we are now trying and you, well you of course are dead set against such a thing making you just another immoral traditionalist in a long line of Americans who approved of all of the immorality above.

 

[Silhouette]

You perverts are ruining a moral society.

News for you, this has never been a moral society, ever, however equality is a moral thing so stop fighting it.

Agreed. All children have equal rights to have a mother and a father incentivized by states to be in their home as parental role models.

Also, all children have equal rights to live in a state where behaviors are regulated by the majority. If anything-goes "marriage equality" happens, let it be state by state after a consensus deliberation, as Windsor 2013 mandates.

All children also have the right to a judicial federal appelate system where judges underneath SCOTUS respect and abide by SCOTUS' Findings on a specific question of law until SCOTUS notifies them otherwise on the merits of any challenge to those current Findings.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Also, all children have equal rights to live in a state where behaviors are regulated by the majority.

Gay marriage, and marriage itself, has nothing to do with children Sil. What children deserve they already don't get here.

And you don't live in a Democracy, meaning Mob Rule, so your statement is nonsense since the Majority do not rule here in the first place.

 

[Silhouette]

Gay marriage, and marriage itself, has nothing to do with children Sil. What children deserve they already don't get here.

And you don't live in a Democracy, meaning Mob Rule, so your statement is nonsense since the Majority do not rule here in the first place.

If marriage has nothing to do with children, then why did Kennedy say that the children stuck in gay homes are in "immediate legal harm" because of the gay people play-acting "mom and dad" not being able to marry?

I think you're going to find that the states are only in the business of incentivizing marriage (at an initial loss to themselves) so that they can have the best formative environment to produce the least-costly citizens later on. Shall I start quoting the Prince's Trust study again or have you got it memorized by now?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gay marriage, and marriage itself, has nothing to do with children Sil. What children deserve they already don't get here.

And you don't live in a Democracy, meaning Mob Rule, so your statement is nonsense since the Majority do not rule here in the first place.

If marriage has nothing to do with children, then why did Kennedy say that the children stuck in gay homes are in "immediate legal harm" because of the gay people play-acting "mom and dad" not being able to marry?

I think you're going to find that the states are only in the business of incentivizing marriage (at an initial loss to themselves) so that they can have the best formative environment to produce the least-costly citizens later on. Shall I start quoting the Prince's Trust study again or have you got it memorized by now?

Nothing you, or anyone else for that matter, say will change the fact that marriage isn't about children.