Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Pop23]

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).

My claim was supported by existing law. Yours? Not so much.

 

[dblack]

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.

This is, yet another, example of how these laws violate the First Amendment. What's illegal isn't the discrimination - anyone can get away with that by simply not divulging their reasons. It's the expression of bias that makes it illegal. If the bakers had merely said - sorry, I can't help you, instead of stating the views that inform their bias, they'd never have been prosecuted.

That's not just a technical detail, it's the core purpose of theses laws - they seek to suppress certain kinds of bias that government has deemed dangerous or undesirable.

 

[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.

What bias does the baker have against males?

What bias does the baker have against females?

 

[Pop23]

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.

This is, yet another, example of how these laws violate the First Amendment. What's illegal isn't the discrimination - anyone can get away with that by simply not divulging their reasons. It's the expression of bias that makes it illegal. If the bakers had merely said - sorry, I can't help you, instead of stating the views that inform their bias, they'd never have been prosecuted.

That's not just a technical detail, it's the core purpose of theses laws - they seek to suppress certain kinds of bias that government has deemed dangerous or undesirable.

The Baker, like everyone else based the statement on assumption. That assumption is that the new and improved marriage laws only applies to Gays.

Sorry to break everyone's bubble, but it does not.

The Baker believes that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. It's what he based his entire Wedding business model on, and started advertising that product because it didn't violate his religious belief. He never EVER offered wedding cakes to same sex couples REGARDLESS of sexuality.

I would bet you, had this same couple requested the cake, stating that they were Heterosexual, he would have denied the product as well as it would conflict with his Religious belief and would be a product never before offered in his store.

And that ^^^^^^ my friends is truly PROGRESSIVE thinking!

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

K, little review of pertinent facts:

The two men were going to be married in Massachusetts, and they were looking for a wedding cake for a reception in Colorado.

Mr. Phillips turned them down, saying he would not use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage at odds with his religious faith. Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig said they were humiliated by Mr. Phillips’s refusal to serve them, and they filed a complaint with Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission, saying that Mr. Phillips had violated a state law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig won before the commission and in the state courts.

No hint they ever asked him to "use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage". They walked into a cake shop and asked to buy a wedding cake. He obviously turned them down because they had somehow communicated that they were gay and planning to marry each other, i.e. based on sexual orientation. No idea how he'd treat "a heterosexual same sex couple" ordering a wedding cake unless they claimed to be gay.

 

[Pop23]

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.

K, little review of pertinent facts:

The two men were going to be married in Massachusetts, and they were looking for a wedding cake for a reception in Colorado.

Mr. Phillips turned them down, saying he would not use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage at odds with his religious faith. Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig said they were humiliated by Mr. Phillips’s refusal to serve them, and they filed a complaint with Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission, saying that Mr. Phillips had violated a state law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig won before the commission and in the state courts.

No hint they ever asked him to "use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage". They walked into a cake shop and asked to buy a wedding cake. He obviously turned them down because they had somehow communicated that they were gay and planning to marry each other, i.e. based on sexual orientation. No idea how he'd treat "a heterosexual same sex couple" ordering a wedding cake unless they claimed to be gay.

No idea? After he said: "saying he would not use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage at odds with his religious faith."

His faith states plainly that marriage is between a man and a women. There is no speculation required. His faith would NOT allow him to bake a wedding cake for same sex PERIOD.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

K, little review of pertinent facts:

The two men were going to be married in Massachusetts, and they were looking for a wedding cake for a reception in Colorado.

Mr. Phillips turned them down, saying he would not use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage at odds with his religious faith. Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig said they were humiliated by Mr. Phillips’s refusal to serve them, and they filed a complaint with Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission, saying that Mr. Phillips had violated a state law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig won before the commission and in the state courts.

No hint they ever asked him to "use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage". They walked into a cake shop and asked to buy a wedding cake. He obviously turned them down because they had somehow communicated that they were gay and planning to marry each other, i.e. based on sexual orientation. No idea how he'd treat "a heterosexual same sex couple" ordering a wedding cake unless they claimed to be gay.

No idea? After he said: "saying he would not use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage at odds with his religious faith."

His faith states plainly that marriage is between a man and a women. There is no speculation required. His faith would NOT allow him to bake a wedding cake for same sex PERIOD.

Then you should be able to find and supply pertinent quotes from him to that effect. You speculating all over the place here is just being silly.

 

[Pop23]

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.

K, little review of pertinent facts:

The two men were going to be married in Massachusetts, and they were looking for a wedding cake for a reception in Colorado.

Mr. Phillips turned them down, saying he would not use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage at odds with his religious faith. Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig said they were humiliated by Mr. Phillips’s refusal to serve them, and they filed a complaint with Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission, saying that Mr. Phillips had violated a state law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig won before the commission and in the state courts.

No hint they ever asked him to "use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage". They walked into a cake shop and asked to buy a wedding cake. He obviously turned them down because they had somehow communicated that they were gay and planning to marry each other, i.e. based on sexual orientation. No idea how he'd treat "a heterosexual same sex couple" ordering a wedding cake unless they claimed to be gay.

No idea? After he said: "saying he would not use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage at odds with his religious faith."

His faith states plainly that marriage is between a man and a women. There is no speculation required. His faith would NOT allow him to bake a wedding cake for same sex PERIOD.

Then you should be able to find and supply pertinent quotes from him to that effect. You speculating all over the place here is just being silly.

ummm, dipshit, you supplied the quote!

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

K, little review of pertinent facts:

The two men were going to be married in Massachusetts, and they were looking for a wedding cake for a reception in Colorado.

Mr. Phillips turned them down, saying he would not use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage at odds with his religious faith. Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig said they were humiliated by Mr. Phillips’s refusal to serve them, and they filed a complaint with Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission, saying that Mr. Phillips had violated a state law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig won before the commission and in the state courts.

No hint they ever asked him to "use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage". They walked into a cake shop and asked to buy a wedding cake. He obviously turned them down because they had somehow communicated that they were gay and planning to marry each other, i.e. based on sexual orientation. No idea how he'd treat "a heterosexual same sex couple" ordering a wedding cake unless they claimed to be gay.

No idea? After he said: "saying he would not use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage at odds with his religious faith."

His faith states plainly that marriage is between a man and a women. There is no speculation required. His faith would NOT allow him to bake a wedding cake for same sex PERIOD.

Then you should be able to find and supply pertinent quotes from him to that effect. You speculating all over the place here is just being silly.

ummm, dipshit, you supplied the quote!

Quote of "You speculating all over the place here" and "just being silly"? Sure, they keep piling up!

 

[Pop23]

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.

K, little review of pertinent facts:

The two men were going to be married in Massachusetts, and they were looking for a wedding cake for a reception in Colorado.

Mr. Phillips turned them down, saying he would not use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage at odds with his religious faith. Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig said they were humiliated by Mr. Phillips’s refusal to serve them, and they filed a complaint with Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission, saying that Mr. Phillips had violated a state law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig won before the commission and in the state courts.

No hint they ever asked him to "use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage". They walked into a cake shop and asked to buy a wedding cake. He obviously turned them down because they had somehow communicated that they were gay and planning to marry each other, i.e. based on sexual orientation. No idea how he'd treat "a heterosexual same sex couple" ordering a wedding cake unless they claimed to be gay.

No idea? After he said: "saying he would not use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage at odds with his religious faith."

His faith states plainly that marriage is between a man and a women. There is no speculation required. His faith would NOT allow him to bake a wedding cake for same sex PERIOD.

Then you should be able to find and supply pertinent quotes from him to that effect. You speculating all over the place here is just being silly.

ummm, dipshit, you supplied the quote!

Quote of "You speculating all over the place here" and "just being silly"? Sure, they keep piling up!

You get loonier by the minute. Damn, maybe you are the dude in your Avatar.

I'm not sure you even know what you are talking about. Nope, I'm positive you don't.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Watch the video subtitled "Jack Phillips explains his reasons for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding" knucklehead and commence weeping:
1:16 "I believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong and to participate in, uh, (unclear) is wrong for me."

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

'Jesus Would Have Baked That Cake': Pastor Weighs in on Local Baker's Supreme Court Case -

 

[Grumblenuts]

Supreme Court Christian Cake Baker Ruling Leads Homophobic Store Owner to Put Up a 'No Gays Allowed' Sign – Again -
LOL!

 

[LittleNipper]

You are aware of the part of the Constitution that outlines how new Acts and Amendments must be ratified? Not by the Judicial. It takes the Legislature.

Your aware that case law- AKA binding precedents - carry the force of law. You continue to show your pathetic ignorance of Constitutional law, and how our legal system actually works-

Well oddly enough AKA didn't come into play when slaves were emancipated nor when women received the right to vote. So, I guess I am ignorant of how the Constitution works or everyone else is...

 

[LittleNipper]

'Jesus Would Have Baked That Cake': Pastor Weighs in on Local Baker's Supreme Court Case -

Where is the Bible passage that this so called minister of God bases his sign on. I see no Chapter or Verse sited. And Jesus was raised in the family of a carpenter, not a baker. Jesus is certainly an individual of love and understanding;however, He always upheld the scriptures.
Matthew 10:14-16
14 And if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. 16 Look, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves; therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.…

 

[Grumblenuts]

Was Jesus gay? Probably

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You are aware of the part of the Constitution that outlines how new Acts and Amendments must be ratified? Not by the Judicial. It takes the Legislature.

Your aware that case law- AKA binding precedents - carry the force of law. You continue to show your pathetic ignorance of Constitutional law, and how our legal system actually works-

Well oddly enough AKA didn't come into play when slaves were emancipated nor when women received the right to vote. So, I guess I am ignorant of how the Constitution works or everyone else is...

yes you are , and some others as well.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

'Jesus Would Have Baked That Cake': Pastor Weighs in on Local Baker's Supreme Court Case -

Where is the Bible passage that this so called minister of God bases his sign on. I see no Chapter or Verse sited. And Jesus was raised in the family of a carpenter, not a baker. Jesus is certainly an individual of love and understanding;however, He always upheld the scriptures.
Matthew 10:14-16
14 And if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. 16 Look, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves; therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.…

I don't know or care. He is addressing the philosophical Jesus . Something that you dogmatic theocrats have lost site of.

 

[Silhouette]

'Jesus Would Have Baked That Cake': Pastor Weighs in on Local Baker's Supreme Court Case -

Not according to Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament. Jesus would've gone to hell for an eternity. Because of the relatively few mortal (unforgivable) sins, aiding and abetting the spread of the homosexual lifestyle or practices in any society lands you eternity in the Pit of Fire.

 

[LittleNipper]

'Jesus Would Have Baked That Cake': Pastor Weighs in on Local Baker's Supreme Court Case -

Not according to Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament. Jesus would've gone to hell for an eternity. Because of the relatively few mortal (unforgivable) sins, aiding and abetting the spread of the homosexual lifestyle or practices in any society lands you eternity in the Pit of Fire.

God does not engage in sex. The only unforgivable sin is denying that Jesus is the Savior, the Messiah, the only eternal Son of the Living GOD. That is unforgivable or everyone would be going to heaven. There is no sin that can separate anyone from GOD but the denial and nonacceptance of Christ.