Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Colorado Baker

[RoadRunner79]

I find it strange that god’s will needs so much support from secular law.

If you think I’m a sinner, isn’t that between me and God? What could you possibly achieve by trying to annoy me on my way to hell?

Are you concerned you will go to hell for performing your business with me? You’re worried god will be really angry at you for selling cakes to me? Or is your snub supposed to make me reconsider my “choices”?

Pah, self-righteous horse shit. It’s nothing to do with God and everything to do with thinking your own hang ups are somehow above the law.

Remember the law?

That would be pretty easy to argue against, if anyone was positing it. The Bible says that all are sinners, so it is difficult to use that as a rejection criteria for a business model.

You could perhaps argue that they are inconsistent in the application. However much like the “because they are gay theory”, this is testable. You can change other variables and see if the issue follows the person who is homosexual. In the case in dispute from the op, and what I see most arguing as well as an additional case of a florist, the hypothesis that it will follow the person fails.

As to you fanciful assumptions of motivations, I find the quite imaginative and somewhat naive. And you talk of people being self-righteousness. LOL

---

So, RR, you ready to defend the "right" of a Seventh Day Adventist baker to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a mixed race wedding? After all, it's his sincere, deeply held belief. It's even backed by scripture, if you ask him.

Or, are you going to claim that's somehow different?

Yes, I could see where that could fall along the same lines. However there are some completing arguments that they are not the same. But I’ll concede for the sake of discussion.

I’m also willing to defend the right of the KKK to freedom of speech.  And would defend the right of a Jew to refuse to make a cake with a swastica on it, or for a Nazi rally. And as previously stated, I think that those who are against the rights of the baker in this case can voice their opinions. I don’t think there is a right however to argue straw men and make up false narratives about those you oppose.

---

I don’t decry the use of the word “bigot” or “discriminate” because of any baggage.  I have a problem when people are using it incorrectly as an emotional polemic.

As if you didn't use the broader definition of discrimination for exactly the same reasons.

By the way, I just wanted to let you know, that I didn't address this, because I don't think that it is pertinent to the discussion.  I kind of think that others where doing the same (which was the point), but if you want to say I was in the wrong, I say I concede, and let's move on.