Author Topic: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker  (Read 12396 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,042
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #325 on: June 06, 2018, 12:25:46 AM »
No preferential rights.  Whites,  straights and Christians are similarly protected against arbitrary discrimination in public accommodations.

The Colorado Commission's actions in this case alone proves that statement bullshit.

They are persecuted, not protected.  They are subservient, not equal.   Special rights and accommodations have been afford by the courts to those who practice perverted behavior as a fundamental right that must be afforded 'dignity'.

There is no equal protection, despite your insistence there is.

Some animals are more equal than others in this perverse society you and your compadres have created.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline Jazzhead

  • Mark Sanford for President
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,170
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #326 on: June 06, 2018, 12:32:30 AM »
Let's turn back to the case at hand. 

Since in this court case referred to in this thread it was determined that a Civil Rights Commission engaged in violating the civil rights of a citizen, how does that get reconciled?

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.  I see the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision as a due process case, not an equal protection case.  Phillips was denied due process because the adjudicator (the Commission) exhibited evidence of bias against religion.   

What do you see as the equal protection issue?    This is a matter of claiming an exemption from a law of general application on the basis of religion.   The law says if you deal with the public, then treat customers fairly.   Doesn't matter who you are or who they are.   You claim a religious exemption.   How does that reflect on the law's equal protection?     

"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline Jazzhead

  • Mark Sanford for President
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,170
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #327 on: June 06, 2018, 07:00:28 AM »
Homosexuality is not an "immutable" trait.  In fact, it's the first protected class ever added to the civil rights statues that is not.  It's a "behavior."

What is proscribed (in some jurisdictions) is discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation".    That's not behavior, that's wiring.   A homosexual who enters a store with no shoes or shirt can be bounced the same as a straight man who does the same thing. 

And likewise,  Mr. Phillips refused service because a gay couple requested a wedding cake for "our wedding".  If a straight couple had made the same request, he would have honored it.   The discrimination, facially,  was on the basis of who the customer was,  not how he/she behaved.   
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,035
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #328 on: June 06, 2018, 07:17:02 AM »
What is proscribed (in some jurisdictions) is discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation".    That's not behavior, that's wiring.   A homosexual who enters a store with no shoes or shirt can be bounced the same as a straight man who does the same thing. 

And likewise,  Mr. Phillips refused service because a gay couple requested a wedding cake for "our wedding".  If a straight couple had made the same request, he would have honored it.   The discrimination, facially,  was on the basis of who the customer was,  not how he/she behaved.   

Again, you are 100% wrong.  First of all, at no time was the couple refused service.  The court documents are clear.  The baker offered to make them anything he made.  But same-sex weddomg cales were simply not something he made - for anyone, regardless of sexual preference.

Again, if two straight people of the same gender came in the store to order a wedding cake for their wedding, he would have refused.

The court documents are also clear in that at no time did plaintiffs inform the baker of their sexual preference, nor did the baker ever cite sexual preference as the reason he didn't make wedding cakes for non-conventional weddings.

All of these points have been pointed out to you repeatedly, yet you continue to offer a false narrative of events.  Why is that?

And as for "wiring", sexual preferences change.  Humans also have a will whereas we can choose whether we want to engage in sexual activity or not.  Having sex is a choice, based solely on the prefernce of an individual at any given moment.  If someone wants to have gay sex, that is their decision.  If they don't want to have gay sex, that is also their decisiion.  And if they want to change their outlook on who they are attracted to, that is also their decision.

But then of course none of that has anything at all to do with whether a baker can be forced to make a cake against his deeply held convictions about marriage being a covenant between one man and one woman where two genders become one spiritual union.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,042
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #329 on: June 06, 2018, 08:31:17 AM »
All of these points have been pointed out to you repeatedly, yet you continue to offer a false narrative of events.  Why is that?

Because the facts do not fit his homosexual advocacy is right and good while we Christians are hateful bigots agenda.

So he will do as he always does, ignore facts he does not like to push his antithetical agendas.

Again, if two straight people of the same gender came in the store to order a wedding cake for their wedding, he would have refused.

The straight mother of one of the homos accompanied them into the store with a book of ideas and designs - for all we know she is the one who made the request and the moment it was announced what the cake was for - Phillips declined and stated he does not make cakes for same-sex weddings, and offered them anything else off the shelf, but not a custom-designed wedding cake for a homosexual celebration of perversion.

nor did the baker ever cite sexual preference as the reason he didn't make wedding cakes for non-conventional weddings.

Phillips also makes it clear he does not make cakes for Halloween or Demonic themes, divorces, or any other celebration that contravenes his faith.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2018, 08:37:32 AM by INVAR »
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,629
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #330 on: June 06, 2018, 08:43:23 AM »
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.  I see the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision as a due process case, not an equal protection case.  Phillips was denied due process because the adjudicator (the Commission) exhibited evidence of bias against religion.   

What do you see as the equal protection issue?    This is a matter of claiming an exemption from a law of general application on the basis of religion.   The law says if you deal with the public, then treat customers fairly.   Doesn't matter who you are or who they are.   You claim a religious exemption.   How does that reflect on the law's equal protection?   
Not sure what I am getting at?

Read the article:
The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-to-baker-over-gay-couple-dispute-idUSKCN1J01WU

There is recourse when someone violates the civil rights of a citizen of the US.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission was found violating those rights.
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #331 on: June 06, 2018, 09:05:06 AM »
Let's turn back to the case at hand. 

Since in this court case referred to in this thread it was determined that a Civil Rights Commission engaged in violating the civil rights of a citizen, how does that get reconciled?

@IsailedawayfromFR
In general the civil rights commissions around the country were not put in place to ensure all people were treated equal. 
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 45,801
  • We got 'im now!®
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #332 on: June 06, 2018, 09:35:11 AM »
If a straight couple had made the same request, he would have honored it.   

This has been disproved so many times I can't count.  @Hoodat and @INVAR are only the most recent to explain it to you, just above this post.  You have ignored it every time, which tells me you are not arguing in good faith, you are merely lecturing on the topic of your choice.

My debating flowchart has a hundred empty, unanswered lines pointing at you.  If this were a real debate as scored in a High School debate tournament, you would lose hands down, to a unanimous board of Judges.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Online txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,701
  • Rule #39
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #333 on: June 06, 2018, 09:48:16 AM »
This has been disproved so many times I can't count.  @Hoodat and @INVAR are only the most recent to explain it to you, just above this post.  You have ignored it every time, which tells me you are not arguing in good faith, you are merely lecturing on the topic of your choice.

My debating flowchart has a hundred empty, unanswered lines pointing at you.  If this were a real debate as scored in a High School debate tournament, you would lose hands down, to a unanimous board of Judges.

Makes you wonder how he got through first year law.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 45,801
  • We got 'im now!®
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #334 on: June 06, 2018, 09:53:27 AM »
Makes you wonder how he got through first year law.

Arguments in court are not scored by the same criteria.  He is not the only person I've seen illustrating this principle.  First- and second-year law school is the last any lawyer ever sees the rules of debate.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Online txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,701
  • Rule #39
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #335 on: June 06, 2018, 09:55:57 AM »
Arguments in court are not scored by the same criteria.  He is not the only person I've seen illustrating this principle.  First- and second-year law school is the last any lawyer ever sees the rules of debate.

Well whether it's the rules of debate or arguments before the court...I'm not seeing a convincing case being brought forth.

The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 45,801
  • We got 'im now!®
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #336 on: June 06, 2018, 10:19:58 AM »
Well whether it's the rules of debate or arguments before the court...I'm not seeing a convincing case being brought forth.

Me neither.  When an argumenter starts using "facts" not in evidence, he loses the debate at the first rebuttal both in court (and the Judge is unbiased) and in a formal debate.  A good opponent Lawyer will shoot that down in a heartbeat.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #337 on: June 06, 2018, 10:21:37 AM »
Well whether it's the rules of debate or arguments before the court...I'm not seeing a convincing case being brought forth.

@txradioguy
Oh yeah well everyone knows that just makes you a misogynistic, racist, transgenerist, sexist, nazi who likes to torture little kitties.

Because reasonable people all know better.



yes, this is /s
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Online txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,701
  • Rule #39
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #338 on: June 06, 2018, 10:31:55 AM »
@txradioguy
Oh yeah well everyone knows that just makes you a misogynistic, racist, transgenerist, sexist, nazi who likes to torture little kitties.

Because reasonable people all know better.



yes, this is /s

 :silly:
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,035
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #339 on: June 06, 2018, 10:37:28 AM »
Me neither.  When an argumenter starts using "facts" not in evidence, he loses the debate at the first rebuttal

And when an arguer continues to use these same "facts" after being shown again and again and again that said "facts" are untrue, invalid, or not in evidence, then that arguer reveals a gaping hole in character.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline Jazzhead

  • Mark Sanford for President
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,170
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #340 on: June 06, 2018, 10:43:10 AM »

The court documents are also clear in that at no time did plaintiffs inform the baker of their sexual preference, nor did the baker ever cite sexual preference as the reason he didn't make wedding cakes for non-conventional weddings.


Don't be an idiot.   The same-sex couple told Phillips the cake was wanted for "our wedding".   If a man and woman entered the store and requested a cake for "our wedding" - the EXACT SAME REQUEST - Phillips would have complied.   That is, facially, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 

It is idiotic to ignore the obvious sexual orientation of the customers by positing the absurd situation of a two straight men requesting a cake for their wedding.   
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 45,801
  • We got 'im now!®
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #341 on: June 06, 2018, 10:43:25 AM »
And when an arguer continues to use these same "facts" after being shown again and again and again that said "facts" are untrue, invalid, or not in evidence, then that arguer reveals a gaping hole in character.

That is the point the "arguer" crosses over to "lecturer."
« Last Edit: June 06, 2018, 11:14:54 AM by Cyber Liberty »
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Jazzhead

  • Mark Sanford for President
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,170
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #342 on: June 06, 2018, 10:44:01 AM »
And when an arguer continues to use these same "facts" after being shown again and again and again that said "facts" are untrue, invalid, or not in evidence, then that arguer reveals a gaping hole in character.

You just described yourself to a tee, @Hoodat.
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,042
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #343 on: June 06, 2018, 10:51:23 AM »
Don't be an idiot.   The same-sex couple told Phillips the cake was wanted for "our wedding".   If a man and woman entered the store and requested a cake for "our wedding" - the EXACT SAME REQUEST - Phillips would have complied.   That is, facially, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 

It is idiotic to ignore the obvious sexual orientation of the customers by positing the absurd situation of a two straight men requesting a cake for their wedding.

He doesn't make same-sex wedding cakes PERIOD.  Doesn't matter WHO orders them.  That has been stated repeatedly. 

You ignore it because like your homo advocacy pals, deviant and evil behavior is now a protected caste status, and no one is permitted to deny servicing and celebrating that deviancy under the false narrative of 'equal protection'.

I will always and forever discriminate against evil behavior and refuse to serve it.  You can try and put a gun to my head and force me to serve it - but that just makes you the tyrant I claim that you are.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #344 on: June 06, 2018, 10:52:00 AM »
Don't be an idiot.   The same-sex couple told Phillips the cake was wanted for "our wedding".   If a man and woman entered the store and requested a cake for "our wedding" - the EXACT SAME REQUEST - Phillips would have complied.   That is, facially, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 

It is idiotic to ignore the obvious sexual orientation of the customers by positing the absurd situation of a two straight men requesting a cake for their wedding.

@Jazzhead
Why do you think the rights of the cake buyers should supersede the rights of the baker?

edited to point out there is no right to buy a cake in the Constitution.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2018, 10:52:51 AM by driftdiver »
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #345 on: June 06, 2018, 10:55:20 AM »
We should go find gay bakers and ask each of them to produce a cake for successful gay conversion therapy.  A celebration type thing.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,042
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #346 on: June 06, 2018, 10:56:56 AM »
@Jazzhead
Why do you think the rights of the cake buyers should supersede the rights of the baker?

edited to point out there is no right to buy a cake in the Constitution.

Yes there is.  It is in the "penumbras and emanations" of the Constitution, not enumerated that can magically discover any such right at any time depending on the whim of the Justice in the black robe.

Meanwhile Enumerated Rights can be 'reasonably regulated' out of existence and perverted into a government-granted privilege that requires government permission and license before being permitted to exercise that right, under strict government supervision and guidelines.

But Rights discovered in the penumbras and emanations may not be infringed or regulated in any manner.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline Jazzhead

  • Mark Sanford for President
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,170
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #347 on: June 06, 2018, 11:01:10 AM »
@Jazzhead
Why do you think the rights of the cake buyers should supersede the rights of the baker?

I never said they did.   Indeed, why do you insist that the rights of the baker supersede the rights of his customers?  It is the baker that decides his menu of services;  his customer merely wants what he has advertised to provide.   To me, the power dynamic here favors the baker.   
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,035
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #348 on: June 06, 2018, 11:01:14 AM »
You just described yourself to a tee, @Hoodat.

Really?  Then you should have no problem showing that ad that shows that Masterpiece Bakery sells off-the-shelf wedding cakes.  Been waiting months to see it.  You continue to claim it.  Yet no ad.  Go figure.

Contrast that with my approach.  When I say that the baker offered to make any other item for the plaintiffs, but simply did not make same-sex wedding cakes, I also provide the evidence.  This marks the fourth time that I have posted this:

Quote
In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery
in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and
create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips
declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for
same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising
Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them
any other baked goods
.


https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2015/14CA1351-PD.pdf

Notice the difference here.  I backed up my claim with the actual court decision.  Contrast that with what you backed your claims with - nothing.

It is clear you have integrity issues, Jazzhead.  Perhaps you should ask yourself why.  Seriously, why is it so important for you to reiterate the same false narrative again and again?  What do you gain from it?
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,662
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #349 on: June 06, 2018, 11:10:35 AM »
I never said they did.   Indeed, why do you insist that the rights of the baker supersede the rights of his customers?  It is the baker that decides his menu of services;  his customer merely wants what he has advertised to provide.   To me, the power dynamic here favors the baker.

Because the customer can get his product from another supplier instead of forcing the baker into making a product he doesn't want to produce.  That may not always be the case but it certainly was in this case.  This Baker was known to be devout in his religious beliefs and how it impacted his business.  Homosexuality isn't the only topic he uses to limit his business where it conflicts with his beliefs.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf