This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-04-2015, 06:05 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(07-04-2015 06:03 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(07-04-2015 05:44 PM)cactus Wrote:  Again, with the bakeries. It's always a bakery in these stories. People need to get more creative, seriously.

I didn't realize that society was so reliant on cakes baked by others...my dumb ass usually bakes them.

Perhaps I should schedule a hate party so I too can buy a mean cake. Tongue

I tend to prefer sarcastic cakes. Thumbsup

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-04-2015, 08:44 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake.
[Image: cake.jpg]

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Anjele's post
07-04-2015, 08:54 PM
Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(07-04-2015 06:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-04-2015 06:03 PM)Anjele Wrote:  I didn't realize that society was so reliant on cakes baked by others...my dumb ass usually bakes them.

Perhaps I should schedule a hate party so I too can buy a mean cake. Tongue

I tend to prefer sarcastic cakes. Thumbsup
[Image: 5842733991_42bd2000eb1_zpspql4wo7b.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like pablo's post
08-04-2015, 01:16 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2015 01:21 PM by Patriot10mm.)
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
Decisions like this should always come down to the intent of the writers of the constitution ie the founding fathers. The way I look at things is, what would George Washington or Samuel Adams or Thomas Jefferson or James Madison think about a law or court decision. If those guys would have looked down upon it, its probably a bad decision. Would the founding fathers have taken the side of gay marriage at the time they lived? No. Would they support a business refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding? I'm fairly confident they would support the bakery refusing service.

The founding fathers had reasons for what they did, and although they didn't always agree on every issue, they worked together and came up with a document that was almost perfect. With the exception of slavery, nothing else really needed to be changed or added. But, societies evolve and they knew that. So, they included the option to amend the constitution through a specific process.

Instead of interpreting gay marriage through the constitution via free speech, or the equal protection clause offered by the 14th amendment (which was about race and nothing else) we should do the right thing and add the proper constitutional amendment.

The constitution as it is written, and the intent and the founders and the elected leaders after them, does not support gay marriage.

An amendment should be passed so that the constitution is clear.

Death is a debt we all must pay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 01:21 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 01:16 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  Decisions like this should always come down to the intent of the writers of the constitution ie the founding fathers. The way I look at things is, what would George Washington or Samuel Adams or Thomas Jefferson or James Madison think about a law or court decision. If those guys would have looked down upon it, its probably a bad decision. Would the founding fathers have taken the side of gay marriage at the time they lived? No. Would they support a business refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding? I'm fairly confident they would support the bakery refusing service.

The founding fathers had reasons for what they did, and although they didn't always agree on every issue, they worked together and came up with a document that was almost perfect. With the exception of slavery, nothing else really needed to be changed or added. But, societies evolve and they knew that. So, they included the option to amend the constitution through a specific process.

Instead of interpreting gay marriage through the constitution via free speech, or the equal protection clause offered by the 14th amendment (which was about race and nothing else) we should do the right thing and add the proper constitutional amendment.

The constitution as its written, and the intent and the founders and the elected leaders after them, does not support gay marriage.

An amendment should be passed so that the constitution is clear.

The Founding Fathers are not the eternal or perpetual arbiters of all things for the rest of the history of the United States. That is why dead people don't govern the living.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 01:29 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 01:21 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 01:16 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  Decisions like this should always come down to the intent of the writers of the constitution ie the founding fathers. The way I look at things is, what would George Washington or Samuel Adams or Thomas Jefferson or James Madison think about a law or court decision. If those guys would have looked down upon it, its probably a bad decision. Would the founding fathers have taken the side of gay marriage at the time they lived? No. Would they support a business refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding? I'm fairly confident they would support the bakery refusing service.

The founding fathers had reasons for what they did, and although they didn't always agree on every issue, they worked together and came up with a document that was almost perfect. With the exception of slavery, nothing else really needed to be changed or added. But, societies evolve and they knew that. So, they included the option to amend the constitution through a specific process.

Instead of interpreting gay marriage through the constitution via free speech, or the equal protection clause offered by the 14th amendment (which was about race and nothing else) we should do the right thing and add the proper constitutional amendment.

The constitution as its written, and the intent and the founders and the elected leaders after them, does not support gay marriage.

An amendment should be passed so that the constitution is clear.

The Founding Fathers are not the eternal or perpetual arbiters of all things for the rest of the history of the United States. That is why dead people don't govern the living.

I understand this, but their beliefs of the time make clear the intent of the laws they wrote. Judges today try to interpret things based on their own beliefs and prejudices instead of the actual meaning and intent of a law or the constitution. An amendment would solve the problem. When the 14th amendment was written in 1868 did they intend for it to be used for gay marriage? No. Not one bit. And its wrong for judges to utilize its for that purpose.

Death is a debt we all must pay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 01:32 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 01:29 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 01:21 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The Founding Fathers are not the eternal or perpetual arbiters of all things for the rest of the history of the United States. That is why dead people don't govern the living.

I understand this, but their beliefs of the time make clear the intent of the laws they wrote. Judges today try to interpret things based on their own beliefs and prejudices instead of the actual meaning and intent of a law or the constitution. An amendment would solve the problem.

That is not what judges are supposed to do. They interpret the law in a strict sense. The fact that some (like the fucktard in Alabama) don't do their job ethically is not representative of the system needing a new law to say the same things.

The personal views and opinions of the Founding Fathers, is irrelevant.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 01:33 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
The fact that a judge interprets a law as written, is perfectly valid. And that is also why new laws get written, in the event that a pre-existing law allows for a loophole or an unintended consequence. That is why our laws are not static.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 01:39 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
John Oliver touches briefly on this in this segment where he ends up interviewing Edward Snowden. He talks about the Patriot Act and the original principal author's intent with respect to certain provisions within it, where the law has been interpreted to allow for something unintended when that was never the point. This is why you alter laws or don't allow them to be renewed or amend them (that doesn't require new amendments to the constitution either).

It is the same reason why the ACA keeps getting taken to the Supreme Court, because some moron interprets it in a way that it clearly was not meant to be interpreted and then claims it should be repealed.




Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 01:45 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
The patriot act is a whole different thing. And I'm one of those people that think if the patriot act were up for a vote during founding fathers time, the writer of it would have been imprisoned or worse.

Death is a debt we all must pay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Patriot10mm's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: