Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[Joods]

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.

[Angrboda]

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.

[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.

[robvalue]

According to NPR, she was told that Masterpiece does not make cakes that celebrate gender transitions.

Phillips has publicly contested the decision. “I know the Bible says that God created male and female and that we don’t get to choose that,” he told Colorado Public Radio. “And I don’t feel like the government has a right to compel me to participate in creating a cake that promotes that message.”

Source

[Angrboda]

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.

I didn't twist shit, asshole. I said quite plainly that you were making an inappropriate analogy. How you see that as twisting shit is beyond me. It's a relatively simple and obvious objection. That you think you can make something out of that which it wasn't seems to be just more bullshit on your part. I understood what you were saying and made a relevant objection to it. That you now want to misrepresent that as twisting your meaning is pure unadulterated horseshit. You're neither clever nor correct. So you can take your claim and shove it up your ass.

[Joods]

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.

I didn't twist shit, asshole.  I said quite plainly that you were making an inappropriate analogy.  How you see that as twisting shit is beyond me.  It's a relatively simple and obvious objection.  That you think you can make something out of that which it wasn't seems to be just more bullshit on your part.  I understood what you were saying and made a relevant objection to it.  That you now want to misrepresent that as twisting your meaning is pure unadulterated horseshit.  You're neither clever nor correct.  So you can take your claim and shove it up your ass.

He tried doing that to me several pages back. I think it's his go to. You know, when he fully knows a person understands his points, but doesn't agree, he uses the tactic of "Oh, you're twisting what I said". 

What bullshit.

[SaStrike]

A union or marriage is an act! Also that's a lot of words for semantics that wouldn't fly in court at all.

---

I feel sorry for the people being discriminated against but hey the court has spoken.

I wouldn't want to go to a store and be denied service or products because of who I am or because my views are different. Why should trans people? But I guess there will always be ignorance and stupidity. I know for a fact that forcing the fools by law to serve me wouldn't actually change their negativity towards me. (In fact might make it worse!)

So might as well go elsewhere

If your posts in this thread are any indication, you know fuckall about what the law and the courts have to say on the matter.

So I'm going to take your opinion with a huge grain of salt.

(And no, the bible sanctioned homosexual sex specifically, not all acts by homosexuals, so your bullshit about it being a semantic argument is just that: bullshit.)

So two men having sex is forbidden in the bible, but two men getting married is fine and christians are just choosing to add that since it's not literally mentioned. Lol ok. I can see that working, don't become a lawyer though, stick to debating borderline "genius" theists, like little rik and mk.

[Amarok]

Road always twists peoples words or comes up with bullshit analogies that have dick all to do with the actual subject. Then pats himself thinking he's being clever .

[robvalue]

I get so sick of bad analogies, and how frequently they are used in religious apologetics.

[Amarok]

I get so sick of bad analogies, and how frequently they are used in religious apologetics.

Here here