re: SCOTUS Says You Don't Have To Bake That Gay Cake

Nope. I’m okay with all of those.

I can understand the business owner’s frustration, but they operate in a society, with social contracts, public roads, government protections, and limited liability because of the government.

This is nearing a libertarian debate, and those debates end poorly for libertarians.

quote:

---

This is nearing a libertarian debate, and those debates end poorly for libertarians.

---

You're right. frick freedom.

quote:

---

If you're making a custom product you should have the right to universally deny service to anyone

---

Agree but that isn't necessarily the law.

What this ruling DOES say is that if you are going to require a custom product to be make, you can't have one set of rules for christians and one for sjw liberals.

I think I really like that decision.

Apparently the commission in Colorado said that bakers didn't have to make a cake that had disparaging remarks about gays, but this christian baker DID have to make a cake that celebrated an event against his conscience.

It reads in a way that if CO had said said "nope, sorry bakers if the customer's want anti-gay messages you have to make it" then they might have upheld the same action in the Christian baker's case.

I like the fairness there. And in someways it seems more a slap at the SJWs in CO than if they have just said you can't force Christian to bake a cake for gays when they marry. It zeroes in on the hypocrisy of the left.

Gotta like that.

There is no point discussing the meaning of a legal ruling on this forum. The ruling is an indictment of the biased proceedings before the Colorado agency. But the result is that the gays lost, so it just MUST be broader than that.

There are 9-0 rulings that are “narrow” in application.

This is just the continuance motion in Concord all over again.

You aren’t wrong about the futility, yet here I am.... again.

It’s a correct point. This board reads whatever they want into any and all court rulings.

Is ballscaster the dude who used to argue for Bernie all the time and go mental, or was that the rocket guy? Either way, not him. I’ve been here since 2003 and am the reason you can’t use a confederate flag. I’m well aware of conservative arguments and principles, and I even like one or two.

If it is based on nothing more than the attorney’s wishful thinking about the opinion, yes it is.

Let me guess. It's wishful thinking when the interpretation differs from yours? Attorneys disagree ALL the time. It's why there are attorneys. If things were black and white nobody would be needed to argue. I have never found myself in any adversarial hearing where opinions and arguments differed.