Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Grumblenuts]

Why would one man want to marry another?

We've covered love, sex, and greed so far. What else you wanna plop on the table?

Being dishonest by not including the entire quote I see.

Dishonest would be misquoting you. Focusing upon one of your questions is just that.

 

[Pop23]

What substance did you require except the Law? Which you tried to deny existed?

Again with vacuous accusations. Try addressing the questions?

You seem to not understand the concept here. If you quote the entire post, then the question would appear. You didn't, so it doesn't.

 

[Pop23]

What substance did you require except the Law? Which you tried to deny existed?

Again with vacuous accusations. Try addressing the questions?

The question wasn't relevant, but since you are too lazy to repost it, then I will.

Here's the link:

Breaking News - Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

"We've covered love, sex, and greed so far. What else you wanna plop on the table?"

It's not relevant because love, sex or greed are NOT REQUIRED BY THE STATE TO ENTER INTO A MARRIAGE.

Do you get it now?

I would think, being a so called marriage equality type, this would not come as a surprise to you.

But there I go, being the more progressive in this thread again. Bernie would be so sad for you.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"We've covered love, sex, and greed so far. What else you wanna plop on the table?"

It's not relevant because love, sex or greed are NOT REQUIRED BY THE STATE TO ENTER INTO A MARRIAGE.

Do you get it now?

No. Relevant to what exactly? What is your argument? You can do it!

 

[Pop23]

"We've covered love, sex, and greed so far. What else you wanna plop on the table?"

It's not relevant because love, sex or greed are NOT REQUIRED BY THE STATE TO ENTER INTO A MARRIAGE.

Do you get it now?

No. Relevant to what exactly? What is your argument? You can do it!

You don't know? Of course you do. You're simply afraid of it, and honestly, if I were you, I'd be a bit afraid myself, cuz it shows the Baker was just treating everyone equally.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Baker - "I'm sorry I only sell Jesus cakes now, and as we all know he was VERY intolerant and encouraged all of mankind to judge their fellow man."

 

[Pop23]

Baker - "I'm sorry I only sell Jesus cakes now, and as we all know he was VERY intolerant and encouraged all of mankind to judge their fellow man."

Except he never said he wouldn't sell cake to Gays. Heck he would even, and probably has, sold wedding cakes to gay couples when they were opposite sex couples.

He refuses to sell cake to same sex couples regardless if they are Heterosexual or Homosexual.

EQUALITY BABY! Got to love it!

 

[IsaacNewton]

Baker - "I'm sorry I only sell Jesus cakes now, and as we all know he was VERY intolerant and encouraged all of mankind to judge their fellow man."

Except he never said he wouldn't sell cake to Gays. Heck he would even, and probably has, sold wedding cakes to gay couples when they were opposite sex couples.

He refuses to sell cake to same sex couples regardless if they are Heterosexual or Homosexual.

EQUALITY BABY! Got to love it!

Take the toaster out of the bathtub.

 

[Pop23]

Baker - "I'm sorry I only sell Jesus cakes now, and as we all know he was VERY intolerant and encouraged all of mankind to judge their fellow man."

Except he never said he wouldn't sell cake to Gays. Heck he would even, and probably has, sold wedding cakes to gay couples when they were opposite sex couples.

He refuses to sell cake to same sex couples regardless if they are Heterosexual or Homosexual.

EQUALITY BABY! Got to love it!

Take the toaster out of the bathtub.

Is that where you keep it? I keep mine in the Kitchen. But if there ever is a time that I find it in there, I'll take it out.

Now, to the question at hand. If the Baker treats all sexuality's the same, then how is he discriminating, or are you just bitching so cuz you got your feelings hurt?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Is that where you keep it? I keep mine in the Kitchen. But if there ever is a time that I find it in there, I'll take it out.

Now, to the question at hand. If the Baker treats all sexuality's the same, then how is he discriminating, or are you just bitching so cuz you got your feelings hurt?

You would just change the charged from "sexual orientation", we all know it's about the sexual orientation of the men in question, but you want to play work games.

OK...

The law also limits the ability to discriminate based on the sex of the customers.

Baker provides goods & services to man/woman couples. No violation of the law.

Baker refuses to provide the same goods and services to man/man or woman/woman couples. Same goods and services but refuses based on the sex of the customers. Still in violation of the same law, just a different aspect of it.


.>>>>

 

[Grumblenuts]

Except he never said he wouldn't sell cake to Gays.

True. Whether by "he" you're referring to the baker or the carpenter.

Heck he would even, and probably has, sold wedding cakes to gay couples when they were opposite sex couples.

Pure speculation, thus irrelevant. We know the baker's never done so on purpose. Why not stick to what can easily be backed with evidence? Stated intent is relevant.

He refuses to sell cake to same sex couples regardless if they are Heterosexual or Homosexual.

Evidence? We know he offered to sell cake to the gay couple in question. Just not wedding cake.

EQUALITY BABY! Got to love it!

What equality? How about ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION BABY!

 

[Pop23]

Is that where you keep it? I keep mine in the Kitchen. But if there ever is a time that I find it in there, I'll take it out.

Now, to the question at hand. If the Baker treats all sexuality's the same, then how is he discriminating, or are you just bitching so cuz you got your feelings hurt?

You would just change the charged from "sexual orientation", we all know it's about the sexual orientation of the men in question, but you want to play work games.

OK...

The law also limits the ability to discriminate based on the sex of the customers.

Baker provides goods & services to man/woman couples. No violation of the law.

Baker refuses sell to provide the same goods and services to man/man or woman/woman couples. Same goods and services but refuses based on the sex of the customers. Still in violation of the same law, just a different aspect of it.


.>>>>

OK, now define which sex he is discriminating against.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Is that where you keep it? I keep mine in the Kitchen. But if there ever is a time that I find it in there, I'll take it out.

Now, to the question at hand. If the Baker treats all sexuality's the same, then how is he discriminating, or are you just bitching so cuz you got your feelings hurt?

You would just change the charged from "sexual orientation", we all know it's about the sexual orientation of the men in question, but you want to play work games.

OK...

The law also limits the ability to discriminate based on the sex of the customers.

Baker provides goods & services to man/woman couples. No violation of the law.

Baker refuses to provide the same goods and services to man/man or woman/woman couples. Same goods and services but refuses based on the sex of the customers. Still in violation of the same law, just a different aspect of it.


.>>>>

OK, now define which sex he is discriminating against.

Baker provides goods & services to man/woman couples. No violation of the law.

Baker refuses sell to provide the same goods and services to man/man or woman/woman couples. Same goods and services but refuses based on the sex of the customers. Still in violation of the same law, just a different aspect of it.



The decision is on the sex composition of the customers - but you knew that.


.>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Except he never said he wouldn't sell cake to Gays.

True. Whether by "he" you're referring to the baker or the carpenter.

Heck he would even, and probably has, sold wedding cakes to gay couples when they were opposite sex couples.

Pure speculation, thus irrelevant. We know the baker's never done so on purpose. Why not stick to what can easily be backed with evidence? Stated intent is relevant.

He refuses to sell cake to same sex couples regardless if they are Heterosexual or Homosexual.

Evidence? We know he offered to sell cake to the gay couple in question. Just not wedding cake.

EQUALITY BABY! Got to love it!

What equality? How about ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION BABY!

Speculation? Hell your entire argument is speculation.

Do you have a scientific method to determine sexuality?

You'd make a mint!

And if you don't, how the hell would a Baker?

 

[Pop23]

Is that where you keep it? I keep mine in the Kitchen. But if there ever is a time that I find it in there, I'll take it out.

Now, to the question at hand. If the Baker treats all sexuality's the same, then how is he discriminating, or are you just bitching so cuz you got your feelings hurt?

You would just change the charged from "sexual orientation", we all know it's about the sexual orientation of the men in question, but you want to play work games.

OK...

The law also limits the ability to discriminate based on the sex of the customers.

Baker provides goods & services to man/woman couples. No violation of the law.

Baker refuses to provide the same goods and services to man/man or woman/woman couples. Same goods and services but refuses based on the sex of the customers. Still in violation of the same law, just a different aspect of it.


.>>>>

OK, now define which sex he is discriminating against.

Baker provides goods & services to man/woman couples. No violation of the law.

Baker refuses sell to provide the same goods and services to man/man or woman/woman couples. Same goods and services but refuses based on the sex of the customers. Still in violation of the same law, just a different aspect of it.



The decision is on the sex composition of the customers - but you knew that.


.>>>>

So he serves all, but discriminates to all?

You do understand that, to discriminate against a race, you discriminate against the race as an entirety, Right?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Speculation? Hell your entire argument is speculation.

What argument?

 

[WorldWatcher]

So he serves all, but discriminates to all?

Couple, not individual.

You do understand that, to discriminate against a race, you discriminate against the race as an entirety, Right?

No you discriminate against individuals based on a refused transaction.

If a shop owners sells to black people all the time, but refuses service to an individual because that individual is black - past sales do not exempt him from refusing service to this customer on the basis that the person is black. (Of course the owner can refuse service for other reasons, but if he's dumb enough say "I'm not serving you because your black". That's his own stupidity.)


.>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Speculation? Hell your entire argument is speculation.

What argument?

Yeah, I know

 

[Grumblenuts]

Speculation? Hell your entire argument is speculation.

What argument?

Yeah, I know

Me too.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact

(also known as: counterfactual fallacy, speculative fallacy, "what if" fallacy, wouldchuck)

Description: Offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future, if (the hypothetical part) circumstances or conditions were different. The fallacy also entails treating future hypothetical situations as if they are fact.

Logical Form:

If event X did happen, then event Y would have happened (based only on speculation).

 

[Pop23]

So he serves all, but discriminates to all?

Couple, not individual.

You do understand that, to discriminate against a race, you discriminate against the race as an entirety, Right?

No you discriminate against individuals based on a refused transaction.

If a shop owners sells to black people all the time, but refuses service to an individual because that individual is black - past sales do not exempt him from refusing service to this customer on the basis that the person is black. (Of course the owner can refuse service for other reasons, but if he's dumb enough say "I'm not serving you because your black". That's his own stupidity.)


.>>>>

You may not discriminate based on Color (race) which would make his decision racially biased. I'm not seeing someone who is racially biased singling out an individual to extend that bias to, and not the race itself.

In this case, a homosexual same sex couple is being treated EXACTLY as a heterosexual same sex couple would be. He doesn't, never before, and never since, offered that service. It is against his religious beliefs regardless of the sexuality of the couple.