Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[Joods]

This case is just a transparent cover for anti-religious bigotry. The request was made by a lawyer in bad-faith with the intention of creating conflict. The very sample lawyer asked for a cake to Satan smoking a joint, then one with a Pentagram, then one with that included an upside down cross and a fully functioning vibrator. Anyone can see that this is just harassment of Philips because of his religion. The trans activist lawyer's request was bogus from the start.

It wouldn't matter if she asked for one cake or 40. He has a pattern of denying the LGBT community goods and services that he happily provides to those outside of that community. The lawyer has proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.

[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.

[Amarok]

If he going bake a WEDDING CAKE for straight he should also have to to do it for gays end of story the waffling and bitching of the Christians of this site is unbelievable

[Joods]

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.

If you're accusing me of violating a rule, have at it. I quoted you and I was responding to that quote, while remaining on topic, which is NOT a rule violation. Where's the violation that I misquoted you or took what you said out of context?

Furthermore if you're insinuating that I'm the R-word because I don't agree with your side, (yeah, I'm going there because you strongly hinted at it by saying "severe mental handicap" and you know how much I loathe that), then you can take your own severely handicapped ass and Fuck right off.

The baker has a habit, a pattern of denying services and goods to those persons he has a hatred against. He furthers this with his shitty religious beliefs, which he hides behind in order to get around doing the right thing.

If the asshole doesn't want to make cakes for everyone, he should sell his shop and become a preacher. That way he can pander to his kind all he wants.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

If you're accusing me of violating a rule, have at it. I quoted you and I was responding to that quote, while remaining on topic, which is NOT a rule violation. Where's the violation that I misquoted you or took what you said out of context?

Furthermore if you're insinuating that I'm the R-word because I don't agree with your side, (yeah, I'm going there because you strongly hinted at it by saying "severe mental handicap" and you know how much I loathe that), then you can take your own severely handicapped ass and Fuck right off.

The baker has a habit, a pattern of denying services and goods to those persons he has a hatred against. He furthers this with his shitty religious beliefs, which he hides behind in order to get around doing the right thing.

If the asshole doesn't want to make cakes for everyone, he should sell his shop and become a preacher. That way he can pander to his kind all he wants.

I wasn’t saying that you have broken a rule, but only telling a part of the story to spread a false narrative is similar to prooftexting or quoting someone out of context.

Also for your pattern that you think you see... what is your sample size? How much data are you basing this on? It would seem that to avoid cherry picking, that you need to include that he offered to sell them something else (in the first case);as well as the other jobs that he has turned down.

If you have another reasonable option for why people mischaracterize the situation, I’m happy to hear it.

[Cecelia]

I do love how Christians are so willing to advertise their bigotry.

[Joods]

If you're accusing me of violating a rule, have at it. I quoted you and I was responding to that quote, while remaining on topic, which is NOT a rule violation. Where's the violation that I misquoted you or took what you said out of context?

Furthermore if you're insinuating that I'm the R-word because I don't agree with your side, (yeah, I'm going there because you strongly hinted at it by saying "severe mental handicap" and you know how much I loathe that), then you can take your own severely handicapped ass and Fuck right off.

The baker has a habit, a pattern of denying services and goods to those persons he has a hatred against. He furthers this with his shitty religious beliefs, which he hides behind in order to get around doing the right thing.

If the asshole doesn't want to make cakes for everyone, he should sell his shop and become a preacher. That way he can pander to his kind all he wants.

I wasn’t saying that you have broken a rule, but only telling a part of the story to spread a false narrative is similar to prooftexting or quoting someone out of context.

No it isn't. I addressed the part of your quote that I wanted to address. That you don't agree with my opinion doesn't have fuck all to do with quoting someone out of context. Again, if you think I broke a rule, report my ass.

Also for your pattern that you think you see... what is your sample size?

The sample size would be the number of time a request was made, regardless of who made it, and the refusals that went along with it. It's been mentioned that the lawyer has made numerous requests for other types of cakes only to be continuously shot down. Every time.

How much data are you basing this on?

See above.

It would seem that to avoid cherry picking, that you need to include that he offered to sell them something else (in the first case);as well as the other jobs that he has turned down.

You don't get to set the perimeters for my opinions.

If you have another reasonable option for why people mischaracterize the situation, I’m happy to hear it.

I like how you totally ignored being called out for what you said. Dodge much? You can still Fuck off.

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, the sample size?

[RoadRunner79]

I wasn’t saying that you have broken a rule, but only telling a part of the story to spread a false narrative is similar to prooftexting or quoting someone out of context.

No it isn't. I addressed the part of your quote that I wanted to address. That you don't agree with my opinion doesn't have fuck all to do with quoting someone out of context. Again, if you think I broke a rule, report my ass.

I'm not saying that you are quoting me out of context, but that leaving information out intentionally from the story is similar.  It's a mis-characterization.  And has nothing to do with our disagreement.

Also for your pattern that you think you see... what is your sample size?  

The sample size would be the number of time a request was made, regardless of who made it, and the refusals that went along with it. It's been mentioned that the lawyer has made numerous requests for other types of cakes only to be continuously shot down. Every time.

How much data are you basing this on?

See above.

Again, how much data are you basing this on?   And are you including all the information?

It would seem that to avoid cherry picking, that you need to include that he offered to sell them something else (in the first case);as well as the other jobs that he has turned down.  

You don't get to set the perimeters for my opinions.

Ok... but your opinion doesn't seemed to be based on the truth of the matter. 

If you have another reasonable option for why people mischaracterize the situation, I’m happy to hear it.

I like how you totally ignored being called out for what you said. Dodge much? You can still Fuck off.

It wasn't important to the discussion. (I thought it was a diversion to make this about me actually)   We can call it a cognitive impairment if you like.   I wasn't using it in a derogatory sense, but as a difficulty in understanding and being able to accurately describe the situation.  Even when pointed out, people are continually leaving out a part of the story.  And it was one of the options.

edit:  We can remove that option if you like.   However, with the number of times the ignorance position has been corrected and countered, I don't really think that is an option anymore.  Again, if you would like to add another option, feel free.

---

Lol, the sample size?

Yes, I'm only familiar with what is in the news, perhaps the other poster has more information.   But to make a conclusion based on limited information and apart from everything else would be wrong.


Cute pic with the kid by the way.

[Amarok]

Roads arrogance on full display