Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[RoadRunner79]

Your still ignoring the fact that the customer gave the significance of the pink and blue colors and what they wanted to convey.

bold mine.

Because according to paragraph 129, it's what the shop owner specifically asks for. My god man, PLEASE LEARN TO READ.

And what the cakeshop denied.

The shop owner denied it after he found out the details of the event. Duh. 

You can call that opinion, bit you still are creating lies to slander a person.  If he had subsequently denied a cake without this symbology, then you may have a point, and I would stand with you in descriminating against a person. Bit that is not the case.

Also it’s not about  having an opinion at odds with mine; that I am comparing to prooftexting and quoting out of context. I don’t think that this is difficult to understand.

Yet you can't even comprehend a single paragraph (129) that's been pointed out for every single fucking person reading this thread to see.

I read that paragraph, and it doesn’t change anything and is unclear if that was the case here. But as you stated here, it is about the details of what the cake was meant to say that he objected. Not about who was ordering the cake.

---

Also it’s not about  having an opinion at odds with mine; that I am comparing to prooftexting and quoting out of context. I don’t think that this is difficult to understand.

It's not difficult to understand. Nor is the point that analogies which are sufficiently dissimilar to the case being discussed carry no weight. That, too, shouldn't be difficult to understand.

So basically you understand what I was trying to say, but twisted it to mean something else. I think that is a better example than defense of what I was getting at.