Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And you know this for a fact ----HOW exactly? Your say so is not enough. What proof do you offer?
Next you may say Jesus and Pontius Pilate never existed.
How do I know you exist!
He said what he said. Listen to it yourself if you don't believe me.True, but exactly equivalent to what the baker actually said in reference to selling any gay couple a wedding cake.
Looking... looking.... still not seeing "straight same sex as well"... I must be stupid...
That’s not on the bakery.
Dishonest Dishonest Dishonest.
The baker had made cakes for gays for years. He had never made a same sex wedding cake for straight or gay.
What question were you answering?I was answering a simple question by pulling up the SC decision.Are you suggesting that indicates he was asked to do something beyond the POS or what?The very first sentence of the Opinion. Link on page 1 of this thread.Yep?I don't know where you heard that, but the gay couple clearly requested he create a wedding cake for them.Btw, someone early on claimed this was not a point of sale (POS) transaction. I've seen nothing to indicate it was anything but. The couple walked walked into the shop and the baker refused to bake them a wedding cake. No writing ordered on the cake. Nothing indicating delivery or any need for personal involvement in their particular ceremony whatsoever. Just a baker being asked to bake a cake for an every day secular ceremony.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., is a Colorado bakery owned and operated by Jack Phillips, an expert baker and devout Christian. In 2012 he told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages
Say I agree completely, and I do appreciate the thoughtful response, are you suggesting that a government taking steps to "keep bigotry from spreading" is automatically a bad thing?Fact is the law doesn't require him to remain silent. He doesn't have to hide his beliefs in his own store. What he has to do is provide equivalent service to all comers if he wants to continue selling to "the public" in Colorado.
This is simply not true. First of all, as we've already established, he can discriminate all he wants as long as he keeps his reasoning to himself. Second, the law only prohibits a few kinds of discrimination - those on the "protected classes" list. Everything else is fair game. Businesses can discriminate against people because of their looks, their accent, their clothes. They can discriminate against people because they're poor, fat, stupid, or pretty much any other bias that isn't on the list.
These laws don't ensure that all customers are treated equally. And they don't ensure that any particular groups won't get discriminate against. They simply prevent the business from claiming any of the prohibited reasons when they discriminate. And that's not a technicality. That's the point. The laws are trying to keep bigotry from spreading.
Which again is nonsense in this case since he clearly rejected them before any "custom design" could even be discussed - as argued by their attorney by the way and ignored in favor of the baker's fantasy version of events. They could have just wanted a plain wedding cake that they could then "custom design" themselves later. We'll never know... didn't allow them to even ask.I believe the "custom design" was the basis of the baker's legal argument. An artistic expression and therefore protected by the First Amendment?And where ya pullin' this "custom design" BS from now? And you think the State's civil rights commission wasn't "legal" and "forbade same sex marriages at the time"? Yet, that's who the Supremes returned the case to anyway? Incredible!He refused to custom design an original wedding cake that celebrated a same sex marriage in a state (CO) that didn't even have a legal version of/ actually forbade same sex marriages at the time.
You having some kind of problem reading the thread? What are you actually getting at?What question were you answering?I was answering a simple question by pulling up the SC decision.Are you suggesting that indicates he was asked to do something beyond the POS or what?The very first sentence of the Opinion. Link on page 1 of this thread.Yep?I don't know where you heard that, but the gay couple clearly requested he create a wedding cake for them.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., is a Colorado bakery owned and operated by Jack Phillips, an expert baker and devout Christian. In 2012 he told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages
You ever seen a wedding cake? Bakers don't make them up ahead of time and put them in the display case. They are all created one at a time using the specifications of the customer. If they wanted a plain old sheet cake, they would have gone to the supermarket. Or baked it themselves and used Betty Crocker Decorator Icing in a tube.Which again is nonsense in this case since he clearly rejected them before any "custom design" could even be discussed - as argued by their attorney by the way and ignored in favor of the baker's fantasy version of events. They could have just wanted a plain wedding cake that they could then "custom design" themselves later. We'll never know... didn't allow them to even ask.I believe the "custom design" was the basis of the baker's legal argument. An artistic expression and therefore protected by the First Amendment?And where ya pullin' this "custom design" BS from now? And you think the State's civil rights commission wasn't "legal" and "forbade same sex marriages at the time"? Yet, that's who the Supremes returned the case to anyway? Incredible!He refused to custom design an original wedding cake that celebrated a same sex marriage in a state (CO) that didn't even have a legal version of/ actually forbade same sex marriages at the time.
Since it seems you've inexplicably simply grown hostile, I won't bother any more. Sorry I asked you a question!You ever seen a wedding cake? Bakers don't make them up ahead of time and put them in the display case. They are all created one at a time using the specifications of the customer. If they wanted a plain old sheet cake, they would have gone to the supermarket. Or baked it themselves and used Betty Crocker Decorator Icing in a tube.Which again is nonsense in this case since he clearly rejected them before any "custom design" could even be discussed - as argued by their attorney by the way and ignored in favor of the baker's fantasy version of events. They could have just wanted a plain wedding cake that they could then "custom design" themselves later. We'll never know... didn't allow them to even ask.I believe the "custom design" was the basis of the baker's legal argument. An artistic expression and therefore protected by the First Amendment?And where ya pullin' this "custom design" BS from now? And you think the State's civil rights commission wasn't "legal" and "forbade same sex marriages at the time"? Yet, that's who the Supremes returned the case to anyway? Incredible!He refused to custom design an original wedding cake that celebrated a same sex marriage in a state (CO) that didn't even have a legal version of/ actually forbade same sex marriages at the time.
It seems you are trying to make the baker out to be more of a monster than he is, same as some people are making the gay couple out to be monsters. Neither argument is going to solve this problem.
I certainly didn't mean it as hostile. Sorry you took it that way.Since it seems you've inexplicably simply grown hostile, I won't bother any more. Sorry I asked you a question!You ever seen a wedding cake? Bakers don't make them up ahead of time and put them in the display case. They are all created one at a time using the specifications of the customer. If they wanted a plain old sheet cake, they would have gone to the supermarket. Or baked it themselves and used Betty Crocker Decorator Icing in a tube.Which again is nonsense in this case since he clearly rejected them before any "custom design" could even be discussed - as argued by their attorney by the way and ignored in favor of the baker's fantasy version of events. They could have just wanted a plain wedding cake that they could then "custom design" themselves later. We'll never know... didn't allow them to even ask.I believe the "custom design" was the basis of the baker's legal argument. An artistic expression and therefore protected by the First Amendment?And where ya pullin' this "custom design" BS from now? And you think the State's civil rights commission wasn't "legal" and "forbade same sex marriages at the time"? Yet, that's who the Supremes returned the case to anyway? Incredible!He refused to custom design an original wedding cake that celebrated a same sex marriage in a state (CO) that didn't even have a legal version of/ actually forbade same sex marriages at the time.
It seems you are trying to make the baker out to be more of a monster than he is, same as some people are making the gay couple out to be monsters. Neither argument is going to solve this problem.
He said what he said. Listen to it yourself if you don't believe me.True, but exactly equivalent to what the baker actually said in reference to selling any gay couple a wedding cake.
Looking... looking.... still not seeing "straight same sex as well"... I must be stupid...
That’s not on the bakery.
Dishonest Dishonest Dishonest.
The baker had made cakes for gays for years. He had never made a same sex wedding cake for straight or gay.
I certainly didn't mean it as hostile. Sorry you took it that way.Since it seems you've inexplicably simply grown hostile, I won't bother any more. Sorry I asked you a question!You ever seen a wedding cake? Bakers don't make them up ahead of time and put them in the display case. They are all created one at a time using the specifications of the customer. If they wanted a plain old sheet cake, they would have gone to the supermarket. Or baked it themselves and used Betty Crocker Decorator Icing in a tube.Which again is nonsense in this case since he clearly rejected them before any "custom design" could even be discussed - as argued by their attorney by the way and ignored in favor of the baker's fantasy version of events. They could have just wanted a plain wedding cake that they could then "custom design" themselves later. We'll never know... didn't allow them to even ask.I believe the "custom design" was the basis of the baker's legal argument. An artistic expression and therefore protected by the First Amendment?And where ya pullin' this "custom design" BS from now? And you think the State's civil rights commission wasn't "legal" and "forbade same sex marriages at the time"? Yet, that's who the Supremes returned the case to anyway? Incredible!
It seems you are trying to make the baker out to be more of a monster than he is, same as some people are making the gay couple out to be monsters. Neither argument is going to solve this problem.
You ever seen a wedding cake? Bakers don't make them up ahead of time and put them in the display case. They are all created one at a time using the specifications of the customer. If they wanted a plain old sheet cake, they would have gone to the supermarket. Or baked it themselves and used Betty Crocker Decorator Icing in a tube.
It seems you are trying to make the baker out to be more of a monster than he is, same as some people are making the gay couple out to be monsters. Neither argument is going to solve this problem.
But it will stay forever lodged in "Breaking News" in USMB though.This issue is never going away
Forgiven in any case. But baking a generic wedding cake is neither rocket science nor unheard of in any sense. And honestly never could find what "simple question" you were supposedly addressing from the beginning. Not for lack of trying...I certainly didn't mean it as hostile. Sorry you took it that way.Since it seems you've inexplicably simply grown hostile, I won't bother any more. Sorry I asked you a question!You ever seen a wedding cake? Bakers don't make them up ahead of time and put them in the display case. They are all created one at a time using the specifications of the customer. If they wanted a plain old sheet cake, they would have gone to the supermarket. Or baked it themselves and used Betty Crocker Decorator Icing in a tube.Which again is nonsense in this case since he clearly rejected them before any "custom design" could even be discussed - as argued by their attorney by the way and ignored in favor of the baker's fantasy version of events. They could have just wanted a plain wedding cake that they could then "custom design" themselves later. We'll never know... didn't allow them to even ask.I believe the "custom design" was the basis of the baker's legal argument. An artistic expression and therefore protected by the First Amendment?And where ya pullin' this "custom design" BS from now? And you think the State's civil rights commission wasn't "legal" and "forbade same sex marriages at the time"? Yet, that's who the Supremes returned the case to anyway? Incredible!
It seems you are trying to make the baker out to be more of a monster than he is, same as some people are making the gay couple out to be monsters. Neither argument is going to solve this problem.
Yes, no hostility at all and you're "The Decider" - got all that months ago.He said what he said. Listen to it yourself if you don't believe me.True, but exactly equivalent to what the baker actually said in reference to selling any gay couple a wedding cake.
Looking... looking.... still not seeing "straight same sex as well"... I must be stupid...
That’s not on the bakery.
Dishonest Dishonest Dishonest.
The baker had made cakes for gays for years. He had never made a same sex wedding cake for straight or gay.
What’s important is what he said about same sex heterosexual couples.
Got that quote dimwit?
I don't see that at all. Conforming is something society compels on us all, to a certain extent. If someone's religious beliefs are so opposed to society's, they have the option of forming and living in their own insular communities like the Amish. I can see both sides of this argument; you are going to great lengths to demonize the gay community. Yes, there are activists out there on both sides, like the group that has defended the baker pro bono. I don't see that the approach is helping in the least.You ever seen a wedding cake? Bakers don't make them up ahead of time and put them in the display case. They are all created one at a time using the specifications of the customer. If they wanted a plain old sheet cake, they would have gone to the supermarket. Or baked it themselves and used Betty Crocker Decorator Icing in a tube.
It seems you are trying to make the baker out to be more of a monster than he is, same as some people are making the gay couple out to be monsters. Neither argument is going to solve this problem.
Well the baker didn't got to their business trying to destroy them financially with fines and a lawsuit did he? So you're either going to have to face the reality that these activists...I mean "couples" are targeting Christians to "conform or be cast out of the marketplace". The Court said they shouldn't do that. But they are. And everybody but a brain dead toad knows it.
Yes, no hostility at all and you're "The Decider" - got all that months ago.He said what he said. Listen to it yourself if you don't believe me.True, but exactly equivalent to what the baker actually said in reference to selling any gay couple a wedding cake.That’s not on the bakery.
Dishonest Dishonest Dishonest.
The baker had made cakes for gays for years. He had never made a same sex wedding cake for straight or gay.
What’s important is what he said about same sex heterosexual couples.
Got that quote dimwit?
You said,Forgiven in any case. But baking a generic wedding cake is neither rocket science nor unheard of in any sense. And honestly never could find what "simple question" you were supposedly addressing from the beginning. Not for lack of trying...I certainly didn't mean it as hostile. Sorry you took it that way.Since it seems you've inexplicably simply grown hostile, I won't bother any more. Sorry I asked you a question!You ever seen a wedding cake? Bakers don't make them up ahead of time and put them in the display case. They are all created one at a time using the specifications of the customer. If they wanted a plain old sheet cake, they would have gone to the supermarket. Or baked it themselves and used Betty Crocker Decorator Icing in a tube.Which again is nonsense in this case since he clearly rejected them before any "custom design" could even be discussed - as argued by their attorney by the way and ignored in favor of the baker's fantasy version of events. They could have just wanted a plain wedding cake that they could then "custom design" themselves later. We'll never know... didn't allow them to even ask.I believe the "custom design" was the basis of the baker's legal argument. An artistic expression and therefore protected by the First Amendment?
It seems you are trying to make the baker out to be more of a monster than he is, same as some people are making the gay couple out to be monsters. Neither argument is going to solve this problem.
