freeman3 wrote:Stop with the personal attacks because you get frustrated by my arguments. You can argue without doing that.
I've really tried. However, your arguments have become non-responsive.
You make some silly attacks and then you can't back them up. Where in the case did it say the baker used his talent to create a cake with any gay themes (not saying you argued that but if no gay themes then what does the design have to do with anything)? He is just making some generalized statement that wedding cakes are custom designed and that he uses his artistic talent to do wedding cakes .
Firstly, this whole argument discounts everything the baker said, everything the Signal report said, and, basically, his whole defense.
Secondly, how about answering this: what sort of wedding cake do you go to a bakery for? If you want a generic crap cake you go to Costco or a local grocer. When you go to a bakery that actually cares, you get the different flavors, but you also get to give great guidance about what the design should be. That's the whole point. The very fact that two men want him to design a "wedding cake" says, "Disregard what you believe in order to make us what we want."
To believe the Constitution demands that, you have to rip out the First Amendment.
Oh, sure. The ACLU is going to be
very fair. What side did they take in the Missouri case?
The ACLU is not known as "The Anti-Christian Liberty Union" for nothing. They loath religion, unless it's loopy or Muslim.
That summary was as one-sided as if it had been written by the homosexual couple's lawyers. Oh, maybe that's because they were! In fact, their attorney was James Esseks, who is also the director of the A.C.L.U.’s L.G.B.T.-rights project.
The defendant and the complainants talked for 20 seconds. I doubt there is enough said in those 20 seconds to justify the USSC ruling against the defendant.
The facts of the case in the opinion indicate that they never got to the actual design because he flat out refused to bake a case to be used in a same-sex marriage. It is flat out wrong to say that he refused to do the cake like they wanted it done. He just did not want to be involved in making a cake that would be used in a same sex marriage. The facts are clear.
They could have bought a generic cake and said nothing to him, IF that was the case.
Yeah, I get he'll sell other goods to gay customers. But I am not sure why you think that refusing to sell a wedding cake to gay customers while willing to do so for heterosexual ones is not discrimination. Of course it is! This distinction made between WHO they are and WHAT they are doing is ridiculous. They are two gay customers wanting to get a same-sex marriage and you want to argue that refusing to bake a wedding cake for them is not related to their being gay? No court is going to buy that argument. The only issue is whether said discrimination is outweighed by freedom of religion
I guess we'll see. I like my chances. If the justices want to gut the Bill of Rights, then maybe we don't have any rights.