Supreme Court leans toward web designer

[Voltaire 4,564]

Hopefully they settle it for good this time.

[Strike 3,982]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

 

Oh good....more conspiracy talk.

Is there anything that is not a conspiracy of some kind?

WTF are you talking about?  I just posted an article that shows someone targeted the baker in the bakery case due to his stance, and he's still dealing with that witch:

https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/colorado-baker-gender-transition-cake/73-f78665c7-1eaf-4198-8125-cc59905457cc

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

WTF are you talking about?  I just posted an article that shows someone targeted the baker in the bakery case due to his stance, and he's still dealing with that witch:

https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/colorado-baker-gender-transition-cake/73-f78665c7-1eaf-4198-8125-cc59905457cc

After the post that I quoted.....

you know how a thread works right?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,597]

4 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

 

Oh good....more conspiracy talk.

Is there anything that is not a conspiracy of some kind?

its a conspiracy now to believe that gay activists went into a christian bakery just to get this type of reaction?

 

[Strike 3,982]

2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

After the post that I quoted.....

you know how a thread works right?

BEFORE you posted your response to that post.  And you could just have easily have googled "colorado baker free speech" as I did, or you could just acknowledge NOW that I was RIGHT.   As someone else has said to you multiple times, you might just admit when you're wrong.  It would do a lot for your (lack of) credibility.

[Voltaire 4,564]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

WTF are you talking about?  I just posted an article that shows someone targeted the baker in the bakery case due to his stance, and he's still dealing with that witch:

https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/colorado-baker-gender-transition-cake/73-f78665c7-1eaf-4198-8125-cc59905457cc

Exactly why the case is necesseary, the hounds won't let up harassing this man.

[Strike 3,982]

2 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

Exactly why the case is necesseary, the hounds won't let up harassing this man.

Yep.  I expect the SCOTUS to rule in the Website designer's favor, which should also help the baker. 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

8 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

its a conspiracy now to believe that gay activists went into a christian bakery just to get this type of reaction?

 

I didn't see they went into 5 bakeries specifically looking for one that would not make their cake so they could sue them.

8 minutes ago, Strike said:

BEFORE you posted your response to that post.  And you could just have easily have googled "colorado baker free speech" as I did, or you could just acknowledge NOW that I was RIGHT.   As someone else has said to you multiple times, you might just admit when you're wrong.  It would do a lot for your (lack of) credibility.

It's funny that you were here yesterday looking for intelligent debate and you've done nothing but insult from the start.

I didn't see your second post until I responded because I didn't click on "More replies." So first off, maybe calm down. Second- did the second person maybe target them? Probably so...but you were implying the first people did because "That's what the alphabet people do." Maybe you need to step back a minute and take a breath. 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

Yep.  I expect the SCOTUS to rule in the Website designer's favor, which should also help the baker. 

Didn't the Supreme Court already rule in favor of the baker? Or at the very least said the Commission there acted prejudicially against him? I honestly don't remember the overall outcome of the case.

[MDC 5,896]

13 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

to be fair, the only thing I knew about this is from this thread

 

Me too. The article says state officials say there’s no evidence anyone asked her to create a same sex wedding site and she’s being defended by the same Christian defense fund that defended the baker. 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

I see a concerning trend from the libs on this bored.  They love to argue these things, but do so from a standpoint of not knowing the facts of the issue.  I'll leave it to you to go ahead and research the SCOTUS ruling in the Bakery case.  You are woefully ignorant of exactly what they ruled. 

You could also try to not be a condescending d!ck your whole life here. I was truly asking a question. 

But since you chose dickishness- the Colorado commission ruled against him saying he discriminated against the couple. The Supreme Court said "the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips's rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. " So they punted to some degree I suppose. 

Also, it is baffling you are spending this much time arguing with me because I've said- the business should have the right to refuse service if they want.....your counter was "The alphabet people just go after whoever and libs like you applaud it." Seriously dude- take a breath

[Horseman 1,515]

18 minutes ago, Strike said:

BEFORE you posted your response to that post.  And you could just have easily have googled "colorado baker free speech" as I did, or you could just acknowledge NOW that I was RIGHT.   As someone else has said to you multiple times, you might just admit when you're wrong.  It would do a lot for your (lack of) credibility.

Bump for @Sean Mooney

Quote

 

Time for Life Lessons for Life Losers. 

Be a man, admit when you are wrong. Practice typing out "I was wrong" like Bart Simpson after school.  Get to know the keystrokes, feel it.  Be ready for the next time you are wrong, it happens often. Let it out, admit it like a man when you are wrong. 

Learn It - Live It - Start Winning.  

 

I've never seen a guy so wrong all the time.  Life Loser in the Teacher's Lounge.  Time to start winning Mooney, turn over a new leaf, admit what a foktard your are!

[Strike 3,982]

7 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Also, it is baffling you are spending this much time arguing with me because I've said- the business should have the right to refuse service if they want..

Haven't spent much time at all.  I type fast, and my brain works as fast as Ben Shapiro so it's not like I spend a lot of time formulating my thoughts.  The implication from your posts is she shouldn't pursue a court case and should just make up excuses not to do work when it would violate her beliefs.  We disagree on that point.  I think she's more than entitled to want to know she won't be dragged in to court for her beliefs before expanding her business in to an area where she knows that could happen.

[Horseman 1,515]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Haven't spent much time at all.  I type fast, and my brain works as fast as Ben Shapiro so it's not like I spend a lot of time formulating my thoughts. 

Good point.  Mooney wastes all day formulating the crap that comes out of his mouth.  Except after recess when he has to clean the dodgeballs.  

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

Haven't spent much time at all.  I type fast, and my brain works as fast as Ben Shapiro so it's not like I spend a lot of time formulating my thoughts.  The implication from your posts is she shouldn't pursue a court case and should just make up excuses not to do work when it would violate her beliefs.  We disagree on that point.  I think she's more than entitled to want to know she won't be dragged in to court for her beliefs before expanding her business in to an area where she knows that could happen.

I'm saying this case- the website one- seems like a publicity stunt. She should have the right to refuse service. People have the right to go elsewhere. This lawsuit (and the cake one) should've been laughed at by courts and thrown out. 

[Strike 3,982]

2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I'm saying this case- the website one- seems like a publicity stunt. She should have the right to refuse service. People have the right to go elsewhere. This lawsuit (and the cake one) should've been laughed at by courts and thrown out. 

What do you mean the bakery one should have been laughed at by the courts?  So, the baker should have just taken his punishment by the state? 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

What do you mean the bakery one should have been laughed at by the courts?  So, the baker should have just taken his punishment by the state? 

No...when the gay couple sued the court should've laughed at it and said "Then go somewhere else."

 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

30 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Didn't the Supreme Court already rule in favor of the baker? Or at the very least said the Commission there acted prejudicially against him? I honestly don't remember the overall outcome of the case.

No, you got it, Scotus punted the issue with the prejudicial ruling.

[Strike 3,982]

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

No...when the gay couple sued the court should've laughed at it and said "Then go somewhere else."

 

The gay couple didn't sue.  They took it to the state civil rights commission who, as evidenced by the SCOTUS ruling, had a bias.  The baker is the one who sued in a court of law.

[MDC 5,896]

2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

No...when the gay couple sued the court should've laughed at it and said "Then go somewhere else."

 

Why should a gay couple have to accept being refused what amounts to a public accommodation? 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,667]

They just want to get married. It won’t have any affect on you.  

[Engorgeous George 1,190]

7 minutes ago, MDC said:

Why should a gay couple have to accept being refused what amounts to a public accommodation? 

Because they might subject the rest of us to another Michael Sams cake smash and kiss video.  We should all be spared.

 

Actually I think these 'christians" should seek a fuller understanding of their faith, but I also believe these 'victims" denied public accomodation seek conflict from time to time to make a point.  In the end both parties often deserve each other.  Better of course to resolve these matters in the courts rather than through violence.

[Shooter McGavin 589]

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

Because they might subject the rest of us to another Michael Sams cake smash and kiss video.  We should all be spared.

 

Actually I think these 'christians" should seek a fuller understanding of their faith, but I also believe these 'victims" denied public accomodation seek conflict from time to time to make a point.  In the end both parties often deserve each other.  Better of course to resolve these matters in the courts rather than through violence.

Agree with you here.  This is a case where both sides are wrong, the gay activists should just take their business elsewhere, and these Evangelicals need to get over themselves and accept people.

[MDC 5,896]

17 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Because they might subject the rest of us to another Michael Sams cake smash and kiss video.  We should all be spared.

 

Actually I think these 'christians" should seek a fuller understanding of their faith, but I also believe these 'victims" denied public accomodation seek conflict from time to time to make a point.  In the end both parties often deserve each other.  Better of course to resolve these matters in the courts rather than through violence.

The gay baker couple and this web developer are both testing the limits of the law for sure but it was bound to happen eventually. May as well figure out how it will play out in the courts sooner rather than later. 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

17 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Agree with you here.  This is a case where both sides are wrong, the gay activists should just take their business elsewhere, and these Evangelicals need to get over themselves and accept people.

I'm still stuck on the fact that this is a case where there hasn't been an actual incident.  She doesn't make wedding websites for anyone and nobody has asked her to make one for gay people.  So what facts are we arguing here?  I find it hard to believe the SC is going to create a binding legal decision based completely on a hypothetical situation.

Here's another hypothetical, she creates a wedding website for a straight couple that has no religious connection, just a time/place and the couple's name, can she refuse to sell that exact website/coding/template to a gay couple who want it exactly the same except a name change? Isn't that discrimination, she sold a product to someone she refuses to sell to another? 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,667]

Don’t you dare push back on these culture wars we start. 

[Shooter McGavin 589]

2 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I'm still stuck on the fact that this is a case where there hasn't been an actual incident.  She doesn't make wedding websites for anyone and nobody has asked her to make one for gay people.  So what facts are we arguing here?  I find it hard to believe the SC is going to create a binding legal decision based completely on a hypothetical situation.

Here's another hypothetical, she creates a wedding website for a straight couple that has no religious connection, just a time/place and the couple's name, can she refuse to sell that exact website/coding/template to a gay couple who want it exactly the same except a name change? Isn't that discrimination, she sold a product to someone she refuses to sell to another? 

 

Well her argument is going to be that the gay couple will want a bunch of pics of them sucking each other's c0cks, and that's a sin to her, and she wants to go to heaven, so she can't do that.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

If it's your business you should be able to serve whoever the hell you want. No one should have to do something for someone, go to another business. Ffs.

[MDC 5,896]

10 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

If it's your business you should be able to serve whoever the hell you want. No one should have to do something for someone, go to another business. Ffs.

Ever hear of the Civil Rights Act? 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

I'd argue that if your religious beliefs prevent you from doing a job, you shouldn't get into that line of business.  

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see anything that prevents her from creating all religious wedding sites she wants and practicing the free exercise of that religion.  She can express herself all day long and create as many websites proclaiming her love of Christ(as long as she's doing it on her own and not charging for it).  But I see her running afoul of every equal protection amendment when she says she will engage in commerce only with people who she agrees with religiously.  

This very recent and  IMO crazy idea that businesses/corporations have first amendment rights that supersede individual rights makes no sense to me at all. 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

Question, if I have a store selling Christian symbols, crosses, bibles, robes, candles...do I have a right to refuse to sell those items to a Muslim because I know he's not going to use them in the way my religion prescribes---he's going to use the cross as a toothpick and I consider that sacrilegious.  

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

Why should a gay couple have to accept being refused what amounts to a public accommodation? 

There are other bakers in Colorado (unless they went to 5 purposely looking for someone to sue like Raiders said). They had other options.

The cake owner is probably the typical hypocritical Christian who wants to hate people....

They are all idiots. 

[MDC 5,896]

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

There are other bakers in Colorado (unless they went to 5 purposely looking for someone to sue like Raiders said). They had other options.

The cake owner is probably the typical hypocritical Christian who wants to hate people....

They are all idiots. 

Sure there are other options. Can’t you say that for anyone who walks into a bakery? One baker won’t serve white, black, brown people etc. so go find another? 

I guess I don’t see why belief in the Sky Fairy justifies refusing a public accommodation. 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

Just now, MDC said:

Sure there are other options. Can’t you say that for anyone who walks into a bakery? One baker won’t serve white, black, brown people etc. so go find another? 

I guess I don’t see why belief in the Sky Fairy justifies refusing a public accommodation. 

Yes and I would...if someone doesn't want your money- someone else will. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,667]

This is about a lot more  than a cake. Book it. 

[MDC 5,896]

5 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Yes and I would...if someone doesn't want your money- someone else will. 

I wouldn’t go looking for someone to decline my service, but I definitely wouldn’t tolerate having t refused.