You are stretching to great lengths and are completely disingenuous.
Do you believe the baker should have to make any cake that a black or gay person demands?
Supreme Court Seems Ready to Back Web Designer Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage (Article)
- Thread starter Morrison71
- Start date
Do you believe the baker should have to make any cake that a black or gay person demands?
I misspoke, I meant the religious nonsense against gay marriage should go away as well.
This is where I’m wondering how this all stops. We seem to be headed towards letting anyone object to any service they don’t like based on religious grounds. The first amendment is not a get out of jail free card.
I agree. There's also the issue of people expecting their messages to be accepted by those who disagree with them.
Thank you.
I also agree, but they did not. The cake sucked anyway, I can't believe the icing was ordered and they called it frosting. Follow me on insta for the next!
Expecting to be treated the same as another is not the same as expecting your "message" to be accepted by others. Gay couples aren't expecting the baker or website designer to accept their "message", all they are asking for is the business provide same service they would any other couple.
But you are defending their right to use that religious nonsense by claiming it is their first amendment right to refuse service to a gay couple.
And, again, they are. What you and the couple is expecting service that would not be provided to any other couple.
Nope - this is still wrong.
Nothing is being refused this gay couple that wouldn't be refused of anyone.
I should have said you are defending their right to refuse service for a gay wedding based on religious nonsense.
Religion seems to be a greenlight to do whatever you want. Don't like gay people. Religion excuses you being shitty to them. Don't like abortion? Religion excuses you to force people into birth. Don't like certain topics taught in school? Religion excuses to to ban it and force your dogma in instead. Anymore religion is more about control than anything else.
I heard on NPR last year that the vast majority of religion based cases SCOTUS hears now are Christian based. It's a direct pivot to the religion cases previously heard which were minority religions. It would seem that the Court is now interested in doing nothing more than hearing Christianity cases and almost always ruling in their favor these days.
That you don't realize how incredibly stupid that sounds is breathtaking. So he COULD refuse to serve black people as long as he doesn't sell to white people who are buying for black people. THAT is literally your claim. THAT, according to you, is treating everyone equally. It's mind-numbingly idiotic and this will cue your "you're putting words in my mouth rant" when it's EXACTLY what you claim.
No you ****ing moron, that's not it. Let me spell it out again.
IT WOULDN'T MATTER WHO ORDERED THE SAM SEX CAKE, HE WOULD REFUSE TO MAKE IT.
It doesn't matter if they are gay, straight, black, white or buying for someone else - NO ONE was going to get a same sex wedding cake from this guy. It's the SAME FOR EVERYONE!
JFC. I mostly ignore your tirades with other people because I'm generally on the side of your argument. This demonstrates why it's hard for anyone to take your arguments seriously - you twist and spin and misrepresent to try to make your point. It's buillshit.
There is no such thing as a "same sex wedding cake"!!!
There are WEDDING CAKES. He refuses to make ANY wedding cake for same sex couples - even if...and for god's sake, pay REALLY close attention here...even if it's IDENTICAL to a cake he would bake for a straight couple. You couldn't in any way be able to tell which was which. They would be IDENTICAL in every way.
Gay or straight?
Gay or straight?
Gay or straight?
Gay or straight? Is Alek male or female???? OMFG!!!!!
It is the act of baking a wedding cake for a same sex couple he objects to. JFC, you are advancing the absolute dumbest argument of all time on HORT and that's saying a lot. You have completely lost your mind here.
Are you taking this seriously NOW?
Last edited:
Are you aware that in European Bibles from the 13th, 14th, 15th century, what is translated in mid 20 century America as "homosexual" translates to "boy molester" instead? Time after time after time. Martin Luther’s own German translation from 1534 uses the German term "knabenschander" where American translators used "homosexual". Knaben is boy, schander is molester. Given that it was a traditional act at the time to pair young boys with adult men for sex, it even makes sense.
Has 'Homosexual' Always Been in the Bible?
A scholar uncovers evidence that the Greek word translated as "homosexual" in modern versions of the Bible actually meant something quite different to its originators.
um-insight.net
Homosexuality & the Bible | Schuyler Bailar | PINKMANTARAY
Homosexuality & the Bible
www.pinkmantaray.com
Regardless, even if you accept that it is "homosexual", it's only in reference to men. Women are never once mentioned. So lesbians are a-ok.
I. Know. That. Shouldn't the same be true about any business that refuses to serve gay people who are also a protected class? That was the point.
Why do you ask me for links if you’re not even going to bother reading them?
BTW, you posted this, apparently in agreement with Riley:
Could you identify this cake for me? Is it a "same-sex wedding cake" or not? TIA
Screw the SCOTUS, its a STINK'N swamp, that needs a strong ethics program. Its GARBAGE and 75% of the American people agree.
Iirc it wasn't so much the cake as it was taking part in the ceremony by providing the cake.BTW, you posted this, apparently in agreement with Riley:
Could you identify this cake for me? Is it a "same-sex wedding cake" or not? TIA
No, it was literally the baking of a cake for a same-sex ceremony. He claimed it was art and his artistic expression in creating the cake would compromise his religious beliefs.
Is this the exact cake that Mullins and Craig tried to purchase?BTW, you posted this, apparently in agreement with Riley:
Could you identify this cake for me? Is it a "same-sex wedding cake" or not? TIA
At the numerous weddings I have attended the cake was no where near the ceremony, it was at the reception. The baker could have set up the cake at the reception venue and left without serving it. I'm sure someone else could have sliced and served the cake.
Just more bullshit twisting from you. Of course there's a difference. Each of the cakes you showed is different. THAT'S the point. It is a unique creation.There is no such thing as a "same sex wedding cake"!!!
There are WEDDING CAKES. He refuses to make ANY wedding cake for same sex couples - even if...and for god's sake, pay REALLY close attention here...even if it's IDENTICAL to a cake he would bake for a straight couple. You couldn't in any way be able to tell which was which. They would be IDENTICAL in every way.
Gay or straight?
Gay or straight?
Gay or straight?
Gay or straight? Is Alek male or female???? OMFG!!!!!
It is the act of baking a wedding cake for a same sex couple he objects to. JFC, you are advancing the absolute dumbest argument of all time on HORT and that's saying a lot. You have completely lost your mind here.
Are you taking this seriously NOW?
The gay couple came in with a binder of designs they wanted him to look at. You're so full of shit trying to say they were just asking for a generic wedding cake. And it's this kind of disingenuous crap that makes it impossible to take anything you say seriously.
It doesn't matter. The claim is that there's something called a "same-sex wedding cake". The only thing that would identify one as such would be some kind of topper. Guess what? The baker doesn't have to carry those. He can even refuse to put an actual message on the cake - like "GO GAYS!" - that would identify it for a same-sex ceremony. His claim is that he doesn't have to bake ANY wedding cake for same-sex couples. It doesn't matter WHAT the cake looks like...he can't create it because it violates his religious beliefs.
So...if one of the cakes pictured above was requested by a same-sex couple, can the baker refuse to create it? Why? I look forward to your analysis.
The other rather idiotic claim is that he's allowed to refuse to bake "same-sex wedding cakes" as long as he doesn't bake one for anybody. If a proxy...a straight couple...came in and ordered a wedding cake pictured above...can you explain how the baker would know it was for a gay ceremony? What if - OMG - they didn't tell him? He's got to refuse to bake that "same-sex wedding cake" for ANYONE according to the moronic argument being advanced. How. Does. He. Know?
It is if it's to celebrate a same sex wedding you ****ing moron.BTW, you posted this, apparently in agreement with Riley:
Could you identify this cake for me? Is it a "same-sex wedding cake" or not? TIA
That's true but it's irrelevant to the point. He wasn't going to make a cake for anyone that was celebrating a gay marriage. No matter where the cake was delivered. No matter who purchased the cake. tarheel is flailing wildly trying to make this about serving gays, but it's not.
You've completely lost your mind. If he doesn't know then there is nothing to discuss. But he did know and because he knew it was for a same sex wedding he wasn't going to make the cake. If the gay couple came in and asked for the exact cakes you pictured and said it was for a straight friends wedding he would have made it.
You know exactly what I meant. He wasn't going to make a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony.
If the only argument you have left is nitpicking verbiage then you may as well concede so we can all move on to the next thread.
I understand that was the baker's position. The couple in the suit were actually married in a different state because at the time same sex marriage wasn't legal in Colorado so the cake was for a celebration reception.
The question I have is if the current court rules that the website designer can refuse service to a same sex couple, what would stop her or another vendor from refusing to serve a interracial couple? Some people still believe there are religious reasons against race mixing. Both types of unions are only legal because of SC decisions.
A wedding cake is always to celebrate a wedding. Where the celebration takes place is irrelevant.
And you continue to get it wrong. It's about not providing service to a same sex couple - it's about not creating a same sex site regardless if the customer is gay, straight, black, white or anything else. The lawsuit is a bogus piece of crap regardless, but at least get what is being argued about right.
So...which cake pictured celebrates a same-sex wedding? Identify it. That's the one you claim the baker can legally refuse to create - as long as he refuses to create that cake for anyone who requests it. Are any of them "same-sex wedding cakes"? Are all of them?
AWESOME!!! You finally GET IT! It's not about the f'n cake!!! There is no "same-sex wedding cake". He's discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation and that's ILLEGAL. Just like it would be illegal if he refused to bake a cake for any black couple. JFC...why was that so hard for you to understand?
