I never placed them into the same category but the struggles they face(ed) and arguments against their equal rights and treatment are strangely similar.
Their decision didn't deal with the underlying issue it dealt with some procedural ****. They deflected and didn't have to reach the issue.
Oh you mean like anabolic steroids? Why can't I take those? Funny how the government bans something that makes you go to the gym & exercise & get healthy but it's ok to get stoned out of your mind & be completely useless just as long as you pay taxes on it. Yeah, that' makes sense... "Let me smoke a joint & then go to the gym!" said no one ever....
The ruling dealt with extreme bias shown by the commission against the bakers religious beliefs. Included with that ruling was examples of the commission upholding other businesses rights such as refusing to deal with christian images but not showing the same regard to the baker. Nothings changed. The baker will be able to show that the commission is singly him out specifically for his religious beliefs. The commission may win in the lower courts but doesn't have a prayer when it gets to the supreme court.
Long term side effects of anabolic steroids Infertility and impotence in men Breast development and testicular shrinkage in men Excessive face and body hair development in women Deepened voice, menstrual irregularities and reduced breast size in women Acne, oily scalp, jaundice, mood swings, delusions and baldness in both men and women Increased risk of high cholesterol, liver disease, liver cancer and heart attack Most of the effects of marijuana are short term and long term effects are debated heavily with the most dangerous being limited to consumption in adolescence. I support your decision entirely to cause yourself infertility though.
Link please cause only old school steroids cause serious side effects. And the women thing? Duh. You're increasing testosterone.
As long as you know the risks, knock yourself the fvck out. It's your body. Oh, and just ftr I partake in neither.
Will it boils down to he didn't want to bake the cake and I have a suspicion the person who ordered it didn't really want a cake from him. This is a way to get him for wrong think to use the courts in a punitive way. You should be able to say he doesn't want to make whatever cake his reasons are irrelevant the fact that he doesn't want to make it should be all that is necessary.
But you’re still claiming that people who choose x should have “equal rights” to people who do not choose x. We should be free to discriminate against people who choose x. If I kick a guy out of my store after he exposes himself, I’m not discriminating against him for having a penis. I’m discriminating against him for waving his penis around in my store. We discriminate against people for their actions all the time.
Their choices are irrelivant and any person that exposes themselves would be treated the same. People on your side of the fence Like to imagine gay people make a choice every morning - they don’t - and that’s why it’s ok to disenfranchise them. You are either for public accommodation to all groups facing large scale discrimination or against it for everyone. And before a bigot screams “what about pedophiles”, children cannot consent. Picking and choosing which group fits your narrative is devoid of intellectual integrity. Why should someone that is professing religious worship of some sky deity be allowed to discriminate against others but those people cannot discriminate against them? It’s absurd.
They do not choose to have sex reassignment procedures every morning. They do not choose to get married every morning. Those are choices. Businesses should not be required to treat those choices as protected identities. They are not identities at all. In fact, plenty of gender disorder and gay people go through life without choosing to do those things. He would also refuse to bake a cake for “cis” people who wanted to celebrate a sex reassignment procedure or two straight people of the same sex who married each other. There is no basis for prohibiting this refusal.
Anyone should be able to discriminate for any reason whatsoever. No one has the right to tell a man that he must work for another.
Again, you are either for involuntary servitude or against it. Your analogy would also hold true for interracial couples and religious individuals. In your mind, how do you justify some groups getting to force pretty much everyone to serve them - and thousands of other protections - why denying them to groups you deem unworthy?
Christians are not against gay people. They are against the homosexual act. Just like they are against sex by heterosexuals outside of marriage.
Like forcing a guy to bake a cake he doesn’t want to bake? (I am against that.) That’s right, a business should not be forced to bake cakes for interracial marriage or for a marriage between a 70-year-old guy and his 18-year-old mail-order bride. Nor should it be forced to serve people who practice an offensive religion. Such business decisions will be punished or supported by the market enough that we don’t need threat of fines or imprisonment to enforce them. Be more specific about what groups you think I believe should get to force others to serve them?
How does this mean that the useless, incompetent, biased, JOKE of a Colorado Civil Rights Commission wasn't slammed by the Supreme Court?
Each person will decide what way they live their lives according to their religion. The ways don't NEED to be prescribed in the text of the religion! No religious text says anything about watching pornography, but religious people tend to think that is against their religion. Exactly. And that's why this case was far more of a freedom of association thing for me and not really a religious freedom one. I believe that a secular baker should have the same freedom as this baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Anything less is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
In regards to a wedding cake? You would also believe that the baker should be able to refuse based on race. Wouldn't you?
Are you under the impression that the reason that this baker broke the law is because of same-sex marriage being in law? You may not be aware, but it was 2012 when the gay couple walked into Jack's bakery and asked for the wedding cake, back when same sex marriage wasn't even in Colorado! Yet, the state found Jack guilty! The hilarious irony is, that at the time, the state were in agreement with Jack on same sex marriage! They were JUST as 'bigoted!' What would you say to someone who asked you why two straight people of the same sex would get married?
