Henrin;1062635620[B said:[/B]]If you support the law then you must support involuntary servitude and thus slavery.
Then the decision was a correct one for that state. The state decided to add sexual orientation to their special classes and that comports fine with the US Constitution. The state is the "decider" on this issue. As repugnant as I find being forced by law to do business with those I would choose not to - this is a legitimate decision in light of the state's chosen position.
That is an egregious lie for which you can provide no proof.
You are talking to yourself.
you are 100% correct, it is a lie and there is no proof of it
not to mention it has already factually proven there is no force and there factually is no slavery going on here
the man CHOSE to open a business and there are laws and rules that regulate this
the man CHOSE to ignore these laws and rules break the law and infringe on peoples rights
these facts wont change, maybe the dumbass will think twice next time before breaking the law
If the congrgation of the Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK came into my restaurant for coffee and donuts I wouldn't serve them because I feel that would be my right. It seems you would serve them, which stems from a law you support.
what does the either group have to do with the store owner illegally discrimination and violating/infringing on equal rights?
it seems you are making stuff up
what i support is not illegally discrimination and violating/infringing on equal rights :shrug:
Still can't tell me how it's equal rights, can you? I will admit it's a great slogan, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense here.
see ruling it will educate you to the facts which is why your opinion is meaningless and factual wrong
Factually wrong? I don't believe you have ever shown how. Care to do it here and now? Lets see if you can manage.
yes factually wrong and it was done when the judges ruling was quoted, facts > your opinion.
1.)So basically you think the court ends the discussion?
2.)I believe that is the argument of a statist, not the argument of a person with their own mind.
The ruling in is. Chalk another one up for the good guys
Colorado judge: Bakery owner discriminated against gay couple - Washington TimesA Colorado judge ruled Friday against a bakery owner who refused to prepare a cake for a gay couple’s wedding reception.
Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ordered Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, to “cease and desist from discriminating against complainants and other same-sex couples by refusing to sell them wedding cakes or any other product [he] would provide to heterosexual couples.”
Read more: Colorado judge: Bakery owner discriminated against gay couple - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Another ruling that bigotry will no longer be tolerated in America. If this baker is truly concerned about his religious beliefs....perhaps he should start by trying to be more "Christ-like" and try living the principles that Jesus Christ taught.
1.) nope never made that claim, thats a failed strawman
2.) since that claim wasnt made your opinion is again meanignless
is there ANYTHING YOU HAVE ON TOPIC? just another post about ME and i am not the topic
PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC
yes factually wrong and it was done when the judges ruling was quoted, facts > your opinion.
OK im sorry but this is just stupid. Im not saying its right that he is discriminating, but segregation happens all over the place every day. Just pick another bakery instead of sueing the guy for it. Half the time i thing they just want the money and barely give a crap about the segregation.
1.) Since the only fact that is your side is court rulings what else could you be using?
Please tell me what other facts you have?
1.) what? i have no idea what this says but you do seem to be saying i have posted facts now, before it was i didnt have any weird
2.) the ruling makes you wrong, not sure what else is needed
also do you have any FACTS that support you and prove the ruling factually wrong? any? not your OPINIONS facts?
1.)So like I said, the only thing you are using is a court ruling.
2.) You might as well admit you are unwilling to think about the issue if that is all you're going to do.
what does the either group have to do with the store owner illegally discrimination and violating/infringing on equal rights?
it seems you are making stuff up
what i support is not illegally discrimination and violating/infringing on equal rights :shrug:
1.) nope never made that claim, thats a failed strawman
2.) since that claim wasnt made your opinion is again meanignless
is there ANYTHING YOU HAVE ON TOPIC? just another post about ME and i am not the topic
PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC
Can you refuse service because of someone's religion?
He is spot on topic.
more details please
whats the service, whos doing the refusing, where is this taking place etc etc
more details please
whats the service, whos doing the refusing, where is this taking place etc etc
Cake, the owner, Colorado.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?