Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Colorado Baker

[johan]

No, you can do your own homework.  That was the entire reason that the wingnutosphere declared the decision apocalypse for a certain segment of "strongly held beliefs"...and it should be pretty easy to find a ton of info about it on google.  The hope..you see, was that even if they couldn;t hold the line..there wouldn;t be enough political will (or votes) to add language to our legislation.  

The DOMA ruling nuked that last obstructionist fantasy by upending any such need.  Conveniently, this is exactly the question you just found yourself asking.

I did my homework. DOMA simply does not do what you claim it does so I guess we'll have to disagree on it. If DOMA did do what you claim, then why didn't any justices cite it or the civil rights act in their ruling on this case. Seems if DOMA did what you think it does, this particular case would be pretty open and shut simple. But no one mentioned it in this case. Hmm.... wonder why...

[The Grand Nudger]

No, "we" won;t have to do any such thing.  You may require it as a condition of your continued diversions..but I have no use for it. Nor was there any reason to mention it in this case, as this case was not a comment on that ruling.

What makes you think, btw, that there was something about this case that wasn;t "pretty open and shut simple"? Are you still running with the wingnut messaging campaign that this case gave people (or even the baker in question) the right to discriminate against teh gays? There are only so many times I can point out that this is not what happened.

---

You have no right to refuse a person on account of their gayness, no more so than the color of their skin..no matter how much money it costs you to start your salon.  That's totally irrelevant, as is the "art" business.

White people don't get relaxers. I don't do relaxers. So you're saying I have to stock my salon with relaxer chemicals on the off chance someone might come in and want one and that I have to give them one because they ask for it? Wrong. And if they want to claim discrimination, bring it. I wouldn't be stocking supplies for services I don't intend on performing regardless of someone's color or sexual orientation. So if a black person wants to rant and rave because I refuse to provide a service to them that I don't keep supplies for, they will lose. 

No, Joods, lol..I'm telling you exactly what you just quoted. If someone comes into your business and demands a product that you don;t have or dont sell...then you dont have or sell that product. If they come in and try to buy a product that you do have and do sell and you say..."no, because of gay" or "no, because of black"...then yeah, you;ve put your quarter million dollar investment at risk.

Is there something that you wanted to ask me...about that...or...?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

It's just a silly and constant attempt to frame the discussion as though it were something else.  A bigot refused service on account of his bigotry.  That;s what happened.  An artist wasn;t being compelled to paint a masterpiece by the state.  The success of that silly narrative misdirection is expressed in people who probably aren;t gay hatin closet queers repeating the comments as though they were the gospel of saint douche.  

The world that some people don;t think they want to live in..that very terrible world, is one where bigots don;t have carte blanche to be bigots.  Oh, the horror!

Now, if bigots want their bigotry to be taken seriously (and they do, they want it -sooooooo- bad)..then they should own it for what it is and make -that- case...and not babble to us about the evils of compelling artistic masterpieces.  Tell us how allowing that bigotry serves the best interests of the state and it;s people...as it is, for what it is, without all the bullshit.

Well, to be fair there is a certain amount of skill involved in decorating a special cake.  Sure, the baker could make a generic vanilla cake with plain cream frosting.  But could he decorate it to the customer's specifications?  He does know his own abilities.  

Now suppose a homosexual went in to buy a dozen donuts and the baker refused to sell them to him because he knows that the guy is a homosexual.  That's a different issue.

[Joods]

No, "we" won;t have to do any such thing.  You may require it as a condition of your continued diversions..but I have no use for it. Nor was there any reason to mention it in this case, as this case was not a comment on that ruling.

What makes you think, btw, that there was something about this case that wasn;t "pretty open and shut simple"? Are you still running with the wingnut messaging campaign that this case gave people (or even the baker in question) the right to discriminate against teh gays? There are only so many times I can point out that this is not what happened.

---

White people don't get relaxers. I don't do relaxers. So you're saying I have to stock my salon with relaxer chemicals on the off chance someone might come in and want one and that I have to give them one because they ask for it? Wrong. And if they want to claim discrimination, bring it. I wouldn't be stocking supplies for services I don't intend on performing regardless of someone's color or sexual orientation. So if a black person wants to rant and rave because I refuse to provide a service to them that I don't keep supplies for, they will lose. 

No, Joods, lol..I'm telling you exactly what you just quoted.

Okay then. I'll just shut up now.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, to be fair

I'll stop you right there...because...to be fair..we enacted civil rights legislation backed by the 5th and 14 amendments of the us constitution.

You;re welcome.

[johan]

No, "we" won;t have to do any such thing.  You may require it as a condition of your continued diversions..but I have no use for it.  Nor was there any reason to mention it in this case, as this case was not a comment on that ruling.  

What makes you think, btw, that there was something about this case that wasn;t "pretty open and shut simple"?  Are you still running with the wingnut messaging campaign that this case gave people (or even the baker in question) the right to discriminate against teh gays?  There are only so many times I can point out that this is not what happened.

Do you enjoy being this angry all the time?

[Silver]

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Well, to be fair

I'll stop you right there...because...to be fair..we enacted civil rights legislation backed by the 5th and 14 amendments of the us constitution.

You;re welcome.

When the 5th mendment was passed it only applied to free white men.  Even white women didn't get the full effect of it.  And it took over 100 years before blacks and other minorities began to get the full effects of the 14th Amendment.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hold on, lemme check to see what day it is.  

Yep..Still 2018.  

..............so?

---

Do you enjoy being this angry all the time?

Yes, yes, I know..you reckon that the "umadbro" thing gets you anywhere, you already made that clear.  It doesn;t.  

OFC I;m mad that I have to explain the fucking basics of civil rights and equal protection under law to you.  That;s part of why our great experiment is on fire..at present. I get that, to your mind, I;m just not one of the cool kids thats totally unbothered by it.

Apathy, the new antipathy. None of the effort, all of the effect.

[A Theist]

Hold on, lemme check to see what day it is.  

Yep..Still 2018.  

..............so?

---

Do you enjoy being this angry all the time?

Yes, yes, I know..you reckon that the "umadbro" thing gets you anywhere, you already made that clear.  It doesn;t.  

OFC I;m mad that I have to explain the fucking basics of civil rights and equal protection under law to you.  That;s part of why our great experiment is on fire..at present. I get that, to your mind, I;m just not one of the cool kids thats totally unbothered by it.

Apathy, the new antipathy. None of the effort, all of the effect.

Evidently, you're the one who doesn't seem to understand the basics of civil rights. Equal protection under the law doesn't mean you get to pick and choose who's rights are protected. In this case the SCOTUS determined that a government agency, namely Colorado's civil rights commission, showed anti religious bias and hostility toward the Baker's faith. I know you were looking forward to the Supreme Court slapping down a Christian, but I'm glad you were sorely disappointed.