Colorado baker is back in court over cake refusal for transitioning person

Originally posted by Robtard
You implied it when you posed the scenario that Chic-fil-A was a victim of just being Christian. This is incorrect, they exposed an intolerant view and the opposition exposed a counter.

As you like to quote "don't start none, won't be none"

Nope, I didn't imply it. Do better next time.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
👆 I'm all for the freedom of people to conduct themselves and associate with who they see fit... which is kinda the entire reason for my stance on this issue.

You think the baker's a piece of shit? Fine

Wanna boycott him? Fine

Wanna protest him? Fine

Wanna use violence to control his labor and expressive faculties? That's where I draw the line.

I also feel people should be able to boycott if they want.

It doesn't mean I can't also think someone is kind of a piece of shit for wanting to shut down a place others enjoy merely because they don't like it.

It's very similar to how we have free speech, but it doesn't mean people can't think you're an a-hole for the things you say.

Originally posted by Robtard
You implied it when you posed the scenario that Chic-fil-A was a victim of just being Christian. This is incorrect, they exposed an intolerant view and the opposition exposed a counter.

As you like to quote "don't start none, won't be none"

Basicallly blah blah blah

Originally posted by Emperordmb
👆 I'm all for the freedom of people to conduct themselves and associate with who they see fit... which is kinda the entire reason for my stance on this issue.

You think the baker's a piece of shit? Fine

Wanna boycott him? Fine

Wanna protest him? Fine

Wanna use violence to control his labor and expressive faculties? That's where I draw the line.

I don't believe a single person here has condoned violence against this bigoted man?

That's obviously wrong and anyone who has either attacked or physically harmed him and/or his business should face appropriate charges.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't believe a single person here has condoned violence against this bigoted man?

That's obviously wrong and anyone who has either attacked or physically harmed him and/or his business should face appropriate charges.

Likewise nobody said boycotts and protests shouldn't be allowed 👆

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't believe a single person here has condoned violence against this bigoted man?

That's obviously wrong and anyone who has either attacked or physically harmed him and/or his business should face appropriate charges.

If the people who think he should be forced to bake the cake or have his business shut down get their way, then he will have his sovereignty over his own property and labor removed by an institution backed by an implicit threat of violence.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Nobody has condoned vigilante violence, but they have condoned state violence.

If the people who think he should be forced to bake the cake or have his business shut down get their way, then he will have his sovereignty over his own property and labor removed by an institution backed by an implicit threat of violence.

Correct; but you're ignoring that your scenario hinges on the grounds that he [possibly] broke the law and is therefore a criminal and subject to appropriate legal repercussions. You have no problem with "state violence" if used appropriately, the question here is did he or did he not break Colorado laws.

It's why the courts were throwing it around, to see if he indeed broke the law or not.

State violence used because someone wouldn't bake a cake will never ever be appropriate.

That's for the courts to decide.

As much as you don't like it, a public business can be penalized for having "No Jews or Blacks or Gays inside" sign or policy, as an example.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's for the courts to decide.

As much as you don't like it, a public business can be penalized for having "No Jews or Blacks or Gays inside" sign or policy, as an example.

I'm not talking about legalities. State violence against someone for not baking a cake will never be right or just.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm not talking about legalities. State violence against someone for not baking a cake will never be right or just.

Have you realized by now, everything Robs says is bullshit?

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm not talking about legalities. State violence against someone for not baking a cake will never be right or just.

Well your feelings aside, this has always been about what is legal and what is not. So yes, the legal issue does matter; it's the key point.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well your feelings aside, this has always been about what is legal and what is not. So yes, the legal issue does matter; it's the key point.

Neat, doesn't change what I said.

And I'm glad Colorado has finally stopped harassing this poor guy 👆

Originally posted by Surtur
Neat, doesn't change what I said.

And I'm glad Colorado has finally stopped harassing this poor guy 👆

I'll make my way up there soon enough. Think I'll ask for a hot pink pussy cake topped with a baby Jesus to celebrate the arrival of our Lord and Savior.

Do Christians believe Mary gave birth to him the old fashioned way, or that he materialized into her lap, like something out of Star Trek?

He'd probably say no and say it was pornographic.

Also I'm pretty sure they think storks bring the babies.

What ever happened to the golden rule, "Don't be a dick"?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
What ever happened to the golden rule, "Don't be a dick"?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
What ever happened to the golden rule, "Don't be a dick"?

One could argue he's being a dick for refusing, but you could also argue they are being dicks for trying to force this man to do something that he clearly believes goes against his spiritual beliefs.

One could also argue you shouldn't have the law crack down on you for being a dick, or be harassed, or sent death threats, or have people make insincere requests of you for the sole purpose of attacking you legally.

Originally posted by Surtur
One could argue he's being a dick for refusing, but you could also argue they are being dicks for trying to force this man to do something that he clearly believes goes against his spiritual beliefs.

That's idiotic coming from you, Surt, because you're an atheist.

Right and wrong shouldn't be determined by delusional beliefs.