Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[RoadRunner79]

LOL.... no I don't think that he has a moral objection to baking a cake.  And in the other case, he specifically said that he would sell them something else, so it is not about the person either (I'm unsure if this was the case here, but I would assume).

Then he lied because he still refused to sell a non-wedding cake to someone in the LGBT community. Clearly he has no issues with baking cakes. He has issues with baking cakes for a certain group of people.

Why does this seem to elude you so much? Furthermore, why are you seemingly okay with what he's doing?

This isn't lying, and the statement does not preclude not selling other services, which he does not do (such as a bachelor party or a Halloween cake).  He stated that he would sell them another cake, so it is not about not selling to the person. 

It seems that people keep leaving out why he rejected the order, and making it all about the person.   This seem equivalent (to me) to proof-texting or quoting out of context. An important detail is being left out, in order to make it appear that something else is being said; which is not being stated.  Perhaps this is out of ignorance, and the people need to educate themselves on what is going on (before sticking their foot in their mouth), but at this point it kind of appears to be more of an intellectual dishonesty (or perhaps just a severe mental handicap).  It seems that people have trouble discussing accurately with this.