Originally posted by Playmaker
That's not you agreeing with the ruling nor is it you saying that a Christian baker should have that right. Why avoid answering a simple yes or no question?
Actually, if I accept the standard set by a ruling, that's all that matters. I did then and I still do now.
Now can the Cult of Trump explain why it has such a problem with so-called "der Leftist!" following the new set standards because it has now affected one of their own negatively?
Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, if I accept the standard set by a ruling, that's all that matters. I did then and I still do now.Now can the Cult of Trump explain why it has such a problem with so-called "der Leftist!" following the new set standards because it has now affected one of their own negatively?
I'm not a Trump clown but what I don't want to see is a battle of zealots, it dumbs all of our discussion points down.
Once again though we are acting as if one situation was the same as the other, it wasn't.
How are they not the same?
-The cake thing happened, it was fought against and the ruling was that the baker did nothing wrong. Cool. Standard has been set hence forth. You're allowed to say "no thank you" in regards to your goods and services, regardless.
-Now SHS is told "no thank you" and the Cult of Trump has a problem with it. SHS complained, Mike Huckabee complained, Trump (our president) complained and upped it up by personal attacks against the owner and establishment. There were more.
Originally posted by Robtard
How are they not the same?-The cake thing happened, it was fought against and the ruling was that the baker did nothing wrong. Cool. Standard has been set hence forth. You're allowed to say "no thank you" in regards to your goods and services, regardless.
-Now SHS is told "no thank you" and the Cult of Trump has a problem with it. SHS complained, Mike Huckabee complained, Trump (our president) complained and upped it up by personal attacks against the owner and establishment. There were more.
Ok, one said buy and enjoy anything from my store (except a custom cake) the other said you can't have anything from my store.
I don't really give a shit that they complained, ask me if they lost employees or business or court costs as a result that required a supreme court ruling.
You are focusing far too much on who is complaining.
You're doing a splitting hairs type of thing, man.
The pro-baker argument was that people are not entitled to the work/business of others, period. That was what was argued specifically against in the cake thread(go look). The court ruling was towards that; that's the standard now.
That happened in the bakery, just as it happened in this eatery.
Originally posted by Robtard
You're doing a splitting hairs type of thing, man.The argument was that people are not entitled to the work/business of others, period. That was what was argued specifically against in the cake thread(go look). The court ruling was towards that.
That happened in the bakery, just as it happened in this eatery.
I'm not splitting hairs, I said earlier the owner had the right to kick her out.
You split the discussion to decide how it was different, I engaged and here we are.
One said no service the other discerned on the service they provided.
I argued that both situations are the same. Both had people denied services at the will of the establishment's owner(s).
The argument is, since the court ruling established that this behavior is legal and is the standard now, why is the Cult of Trump flipping out over SHS getting like treatment when it's what the wanted all along.
They literally won with the court decision, but now they're crying foul because one of their own was affected by it.
Originally posted by snowdragon
I'm not splitting hairs, I said earlier the owner had the right to kick her out.You split the discussion to decide how it was different, I engaged and here we are.
One said no service the other discerned on the service they provided.
Don't hold you breath. Rob will jump through all kinds of loops to avoid having to hold any consistent views.
Originally posted by Robtard
I argued that both situations are the same. Both had people denied services at the will of the establishment's owner(s).The argument is, since the court ruling established that this behavior is legal and is the standard now, why is the Cult of Trump flipping out over SHS getting like treatment when it's what the wanted all along.
They literally won with the court decision, but now they're crying foul because one of their own was affected by it.
The bakery should never have even hit the supreme court, the ONLY reason they ruled in favor of the baker was the bias of his religion in the local government based on previous choices the council made over "biased" service.
It's not even legal now but political views don't create a protected class. It's just a ridiculous discussion because people will look for nuances in the discussion to one up. Kick her out, I really don't care. I don't want to see more moron zealots on either pursue the ridiculous agenda based on simple emotional directives they follow.
More to the point wasn't she harrassed as she left and went elsewhere? Is that the same as the bakery......nvm it wasn't.
I actually agree with Rob here. Yes there are obvious differences between the baker and the Red Hen situations, but the same principle obviously applies. People who are ranting over this are basically guilty of the same thing that those the left are when they blame Trump for the same types of things/policies that Obama was guilty of.
Everyone needs to stop trying to outdo he other side when it comes to hypocrisy because even if you win... you lose.
Originally posted by snowdragon
The bakery should never have even hit the supreme court, the ONLY reason they ruled in favor of the baker was the bias of his religion in the local government based on previous choices the council made over "biased" service.It's not even legal now but political views don't create a protected class. It's just a ridiculous discussion because people will look for nuances in the discussion to one up. Kick her out, I really don't care. I don't want to see more moron zealots on either pursue the ridiculous agenda based on simple emotional directives they follow.
More to the point wasn't she harrassed as she left and went elsewhere? Is that the same as the bakery......nvm it wasn't.
Disagree, there was arguments on both sides and contention, the SC came in and ruled, setting the standards which we go forward with now.
Now one of their own was told to leave and they don't like it.
Originally posted by darthgoober
I actually agree with Rob here. Yes there are obvious differences between the baker and the Red Hen situations, but the same principle obviously applies. People who are ranting over this are basically guilty of the same thing that those the left are when they blame Trump for the same types of things/policies that Obama was guilty of.Everyone needs to stop trying to outdo he other side when it comes to hypocrisy because even if you win... you lose.
I can break it down: both sides are guilty of the same thing, but only one side was so massively butthurt they took it to the supreme court.
Originally posted by Surtur
I can break it down: both sides are guilty of the same thing, but only one side was so massively butthurt they took it to the supreme court.
Your argument is flawed and here's why again: SHS couldn't take it to court because the SC already ruled, it happened to her after the standard was set. This is a key point with the Cult of Trump ignores.
ps You're the biggest hypocrite on KMC, it is known
Originally posted by Robtard
Disagree, there was arguments on both sides and contention, the SC came in and ruled, setting the standards which we go forward with now.
Dude their ruling was so narrowly defined it should not shake up our culture in any way. They based their ruling not on the definitive case but on how the local govt had treated the baker with their language and previous rulings based on his religion.
Even Adam commented on this case, its a nothing burger. We can disagree but realize there is a difference even if you don't like that difference.
Originally posted by Robtard
Your argument is flawed and here's why again: SHS couldn't take it to court because the SC already ruled, it happened to her after the standard was set. This is a key point with the Cult of Trump ignores.ps You're the biggest hypocrite on KMC, it is known
She certainly could have tried to take it there. Do better.
Originally posted by darthgoober
I actually agree with Rob here. Yes there are obvious differences between the baker and the Red Hen situations, but the same principle obviously applies. People who are ranting over this are basically guilty of the same thing that those the left are when they blame Trump for the same types of things/policies that Obama was guilty of.Everyone needs to stop trying to outdo he other side when it comes to hypocrisy because even if you win... you lose.
Thanks, buddy 👆 Even if you're a crazy Chinese closet trumper 😛
Originally posted by Surtur
I can break it down: both sides are guilty of the same thing, but only one side was so massively butthurt they took it to the supreme court.
But here's the thing, now that Dems have acknowledged the importance of precedent many of their positions are more vulnerable than ever. You know the way people mockingly say "But Obama" as a way to dismiss arguments defending Trump? Well that's not a real option anymore because if Obama and democrats set a precedent then by the same principle they can't criticize Trump and Republicans for using that precedent to their advantage.