If someone comes in and says, “Make me a transition cake…”, then no matter that the design or the lettering (or lack thereof), then it’s a transition cake.
Whether or not you agree with that answer, to the person who holds religious convictions against gender transition, it’s a transition cake, and he is being asked to participate in celebrating what is morally reprehensible to him.
You know that point already.
You don’t need to know MY argument on that. (And I never said you did.) You know that point already. You’ve heard it. You’ve seen it.
When you understood me to be saying they were “morally objectionable in the same way”. Saying they are both moral objections is not saying they are equally objectionable or a value judgement on the validity of either objection. And I deduced I had yours right buy your sidestepping the question because you couldn’t bring yourself to say, yes, she should have to paint the picture for the pedophile because she doesn’t get to consider the purpose to which her product will be put and elevate her moral objection over his request for her offered service.
No I didn’t. I don’t even have a moral objection to transgender celebration cakes, celebrate away, if I sold cakes I’d sell you as many of them as you wanted.
I just want you to either give a straight answer or just move on and don’t answer if that’s your choice. Accusing me of trolling for trying to get a straight answer to you is abuse of honored guest. So either knock that ■■■■ off or answer. It’s very simple.
What was the original request of the cake to be made?
When I’m responding to YOU, I want to know what YOU think. Everyone has different ideas. If it’s been answered, link it. If you don’t want to link it, then just don’t engage any further.
Maybe you don’t want to read 1400 posts, but at least understand what the thread is about before injecting yourself.
Stop addressing posts to me, and I’ll stop responding to them.
I really don’t find your participation here sincere. The fact that you don’t even know what the initial premise of the thread is tells me you have no real interest in actual engagement of the thread’s issue.
I was being rhetorical and making a point. If you don’t want to engage, then please stop responding. There was a point to be made. If you’re no longer interest, and there’s nothing to discuss, I don’t get why you’re still responding.
Party of personal responsibility huh? And someone else MADE you do something. I read you loud and clear.
I know what it is. I was trying to make a point and have a discussion. You aren’t interested in that-all you want to do is browbeat and insult. Abuse of honored guest. Please, if you aren’t interested in what I have to say, just don’t respond any longer.
Any law that infringes on the free exercise of religion is, by definition, unconstitutional per the first amendment.
Whether or not a governmental law exonerates a proprietor of the consumer’s future use does not change what a religious moral tenet says about participation in an immoral act.
Hiding behind bad law because you want to force your immorality onto someone else is reprehensible.
The person you sold it to hires a gas company to direct connect to gas.
There was no ventilation. There is a gas leak. Gas hits the flame and the doors below the grill blow out and burn the hell out of the person standing in front of the grill.
First if all, the quotes I posted about Mr. Jack’s case (the same ones @wiley8425 pointed to, I believe) were from a concurring opinion by Gorsuch THAT ALITO JOINED. So there are two that agreed on those words.
But … we arnt done yet. The majority opinion also references these same cases in the following excerpt of the majority opinion.(source is referenced at bottom of this post)
At the time, state law also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages the storekeeper considered offensive. Indeed, while enforcement proceedings against Phillips were ongoing, the Colorado Civil Rights Division itself endorsed this proposition in cases involving other bakers’ creation of cakes, concluding on at least three occasions that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. See Jack v. Gateaux, Ltd., Charge No. P20140071X (Mar. 24, 2015); Jack v. Le Bakery Sensual, Inc., Charge No. P20140070X (Mar. 24, 2015); Jack v. Azucar Bakery, Charge No. P20140069X (Mar. 24, 2015).
The narrative really has you in a tizzy. And you used that typical dumbass lib arrogance to put it on display. You really really deserve this post.