Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Colorado Baker

[Mr.wizard]

Because it is not .What more needs to be said ?

Ok so its not the same because you say so. Got it. If you can't explain it, then you haven't got a valid argument.

What the Baker refused to do wedding cakes for black couples?

[johan]

Its exactly the same. Explain why it isn't.

Because you're asking the sign maker to provide a service that he doesn't offer to anyone. In the case of the Baker who makes wedding cakes, they simply asked for a service that he provides and they were denied specifically for the sexual preference, which as far as I know has nothing to do with baking. 

And I wouldn't fly a pro-life banner. I flew banners for other people, but I wouldn't fly one for them. And it had nothing to with airplanes or banners. Should there be a law forcing me to fly advertising that I don't want to fly?

---

Ok so its not the same because you say so. Got it. If you can't explain it, then you haven't got a valid argument.

What the Baker refused to do wedding cakes for black couples?

That should be the baker's choice. It not a choice I would personally support. But I believe its a choice a providers of non-essential services should have the right to make. We're not talking about housing or health care here. We're talking about cake. No one needs cake ever.

[Mr.wizard]

Because you're asking the sign maker to provide a service that he doesn't offer to anyone. In the case of the Baker who makes wedding cakes, they simply asked for a service that he provides and they were denied specifically for the sexual preference, which as far as I know has nothing to do with baking. 

And I wouldn't fly a pro-life banner. I flew banners for other people, but I wouldn't fly one for them. And it had nothing to with airplanes or banners. Should there be a law forcing me to advertising that I don't want to fly?

No, not advertising someones opinion is not covered under anti-discrimination laws. Now if you decided to fly that banner for a heterosexual and refused to fly that banner for a homosexual then that would be discrimination.

---

Because you're asking the sign maker to provide a service that he doesn't offer to anyone. In the case of the Baker who makes wedding cakes, they simply asked for a service that he provides and they were denied specifically for the sexual preference, which as far as I know has nothing to do with baking. 

And I wouldn't fly a pro-life banner. I flew banners for other people, but I wouldn't fly one for them. And it had nothing to with airplanes or banners. Should there be a law forcing me to fly advertising that I don't want to fly?

---

What the Baker refused to do wedding cakes for black couples?

That should be the baker's choice. It not a choice I would personally support. But I believe its a choice a providers of non-essential services should have the right to make. We're not talking about housing or health care here. We're talking about cake. No one needs cake ever.

No, we are talking about civil rights, and the business owner has a choice, he could not run a business open to the public if he doesn't want to follow the rules.

[johan]

And I wouldn't fly a pro-life banner. I flew banners for other people, but I wouldn't fly one for them. And it had nothing to with airplanes or banners. Should there be a law forcing me to advertising that I don't want to fly?

No, not advertising someones opinion is not covered under anti-discrimination laws. Now if you decided to fly that banner for a heterosexual and refused to fly that banner for a homosexual then that would be discrimination.

Which goes back to a point I already covered. The baker was willing to sell them other items. The baker does not want to do wedding cakes for gay weddings. Its not an item he wants to sell. He wouldn't sell one to the gay couple. I'm heterosexual and he wouldn't sell one to me if I tried to buy one for a gay wedding. If that gay couple came into his shop and wanted to buy a wedding cake the wedding of some heterosexual friends of theirs, the baker would be more than willing to fill that order.

Lets go back to the sign maker. He makes signs. Someone from the Whitesboro Baptist Church comes in and wants him to make a sign that says God Hates Fags. Should there be a law forcing the sign maker to produce that particular sign just because he produces other signs for other groups? Lets take it further. Lets say the Whitesboro Baptists come in and they don't want him to make their God Hates Fags signs because they take great pride in making those signs themselves. But lets say they want the sign maker to make them some exit signs and some men's/women's room signs for their little church of hate. And again, the sign maker refuses. The sign maker makes those exact signs for other customers. But he doesn't want to make them for members of this particular church. Should there be a law forcing the sign maker to do so. I don't think there should, but that's exactly what some here are arguing for.

[Mr.wizard]

No, not advertising someones opinion is not covered under anti-discrimination laws. Now if you decided to fly that banner for a heterosexual and refused to fly that banner for a homosexual then that would be discrimination.

Which goes back to a point I already covered. The baker was willing to sell them other items. The baker does not want to do wedding cakes for gay weddings. Its not an item he wants to sell. He wouldn't sell one to the gay couple. I'm heterosexual and he wouldn't sell one to me if I tried to buy one for a gay wedding. If that gay couple came into his shop and wanted to buy a wedding cake the wedding of some heterosexual friends of theirs, the baker would be more than willing to fill that order.

It doesn't matter who is buying the cake he is refusing the service on the grounds that it is for gay people, that is the definition of discrimination. It is the same discrimination as refusing to sell someone a cake because it's for a Black wedding, even if the person ordering the cake was white. It is clear cut discrimination I don't know why your having such a hard time with this, the question isn't even if it's discrimination the question is should a business owner have the right to discriminate.

---

No, not advertising someones opinion is not covered under anti-discrimination laws. Now if you decided to fly that banner for a heterosexual and refused to fly that banner for a homosexual then that would be discrimination.

Which goes back to a point I already covered. The baker was willing to sell them other items. The baker does not want to do wedding cakes for gay weddings. Its not an item he wants to sell. He wouldn't sell one to the gay couple. I'm heterosexual and he wouldn't sell one to me if I tried to buy one for a gay wedding. If that gay couple came into his shop and wanted to buy a wedding cake the wedding of some heterosexual friends of theirs, the baker would be more than willing to fill that order.

Lets go back to the sign maker. He makes signs. Someone from the Whitesboro Baptist Church comes in and wants him to make a sign that says God Hates Fags. Should there be a law forcing the sign maker to produce that particular sign just because he produces other signs for other groups? Lets take it further. Lets say the Whitesboro Baptists come in and they don't want him to make their God Hates Fags signs because they take great pride in making those signs themselves. But lets say they want the sign maker to make them some exit signs and some men's/women's room signs for their little church of hate. And again, the sign maker refuses. The sign maker makes those exact signs for other customers. But he doesn't want to make them for members of this particular church. Should there be a law forcing the sign maker to do so. I don't think there should, but that's exactly what some here are arguing for.

No, because under discrimination laws a business owner can refuse service as long as they can show good reason for the refusal. So if you refused to do business with westboro baptist church because they are a hate group then you can do that. But if you refused service to christians then it would be considered discrimination under the law.

[Shell B]

Hmm, wait. He would sell a gay couple cipcakes but not a wedding cake? Are we sure that’s accurate?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well..that would have to depend..right?  Are they cupcakes for a gay wedding? 

[Shell B]

I’m serious. Are they not offering wedding cakes for same sex weddings or are they refusing to serve gay people at all? I still don’t know why people want hate cake.

[Joods]

I’m serious. Are they not offering wedding cakes for same sex weddings or are they refusing to serve gay people at all? I still don’t know why people want hate cake.

The bakery owner stated that he would be willing to sell anything else to the couple, meaning cookies, birthday cakes, cupcakes. He would not sell them a wedding cake because their marriage went against his religious beliefs.

---

That's what I got out of watching an interview with CNN Tuesday morning.

[Amarok]

I’m serious. Are they not offering wedding cakes for same sex weddings or are they refusing to serve gay people at all? I still don’t know why people want hate cake.

The bakery owner stated that he would be willing to sell anything else to the couple, meaning cookies, birthday cakes, cupcakes. He would not sell them a wedding cake because their marriage went against his religious beliefs.

---

That's what I got out of watching an interview with CNN Tuesday morning.

What a dick that guy is .

---

Ok so its not the same because you say so. Got it.

No it objectivity is not got nothing to do with me 

 If you can't explain it, then you haven't got a valid argument.

Does not follow .Someone can choose to not elaborate further (because they don't need too) and still be 100% valid . There is no contradiction in that .