The logic is simple.
If we let women have kids they cannot afford children starve*.
If we let a business man decide who to make a cake for some gay dudes get their feelings hurt.
Are you really saying that some gay dudes getting their feelings hurt is equivalent to kids starving to death?D:
If we let a business man decide who to make a cake for some gay dudes get their feelings hurt.
We should roll back all discrimination so that companies do not need to serve blacks anymore. DAMN YOU LIBS!
Lol. Even for you this is pathetic.
Wow, you are dim.
You don't understand that 'feelings hurt' and 'having their Constitutional rights violated' are two different things. Then again, I suppose if this were a 2nd amendment thread, you'd be able to see the difference.
No. Comparing the government telling people what to do to prevent children from starving to the government telling people what to do to prevent gay people from having their feelings hurt.
THAT is pathetic.
Except there was never any claim the gay couple had their constitutional rights violated. The claims were that the bakery did not violate the law, and/or that the law was an unconstitutional violation of the bakeshop owners constitutional rights.
No matter how much liberals might wish it there is no constitutional right to not have your feelings hurt.
And again, you don't understand the case and have not read the judge's ruling and reasoning.
Black people not being allowed to use the same water faucets as white people wasn't just hurting their feelings. Equal protection is the same in this case as it was for theirs in the 1960s.
The logic is simple.
If we let women have kids they cannot afford children starve*.
If we let a business man decide who to make a cake for some gay dudes get their feelings hurt.
Are you really saying that some gay dudes getting their feelings hurt is equivalent to kids starving to death?D:
So the answer is simple. Government enforced vasectomies for all men. Men can impregnate multiple women so this would be the superior method of enforced control.
Wrong. On at least 3 accounts.
(1) According to liberals having children is entirely a woman's choice. It seems inherently unjust to hold men responsible for women's choices.
(2) Not all men father children they cannot afford. It seems inherently unjust(and stupid) to punish men when they have caused no problems.
(3) Abortion is a temporary solution. Sterilization is a permanent solution. Seems pretty stupid to use a permanent solution to what is quite possibly a temporary problem.
Wrong on 3 accounts:
(1)your just butt hurt
(2) not all women do either.
(3) vasectomies are reversible. When you can pay enough for the surgery it's proof you can probably afford your kids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VasectomyThe typical success rate of pregnancy following a vasectomy reversal is around 55% if performed within 10 years, and drops to around 25% if performed after 10 years.[39] After reversal, sperm counts and motility are usually much lower than pre-vasectomy levels. There is evidence that men who have had a vasectomy may produce more abnormal sperm, which would explain why even a mechanically successful reversal does not always restore fertility.[40][41] The higher rates of aneuploidy and diploidy in the sperm cells of men who have undergone vasectomy reversal may lead to a higher rate of birth defects
Now answer me again why this business should be allowed to perform illegal practices instead of working to change the law.
(1) The practice is not illegal. As they are discriminating against an event they disagree with. Not sexual orientation.
Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context. When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination.
While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances,[the] law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.
Black people don't need to be allowed to eat at the lunch counter with white people. It's not that they are discriminating against black people, they just disagree with mixed-race lunch.
As has been repeatedly told to you, your argument has been heard by the courts and it lost. Repeatedly. Completely.
Cue the New Mexico Supreme Court on exactly this argument:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/162566449/Elaine-Photography-v-Willcock
Start on page 6.
Money quote from SCOTUS itself:
Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context. When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination.
While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances,[the] law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.
Long story short: When you discriminate specifically against conduct closely associated with being gay, like marrying another person of the same sex, that is also considered discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Do I really need to explain why your quotes don't apply here?
Do you really not see the difference in the government passing a law and what a private individual does?
EDIT: And note the case in question mentioned another court case in which targeting abortion did not constitute targeting women.
Are you going to suggest that same-sex marriage is more associated with being gay than abortion is associated with being a woman
And again, you don't understand the case and have not read the judge's ruling and reasoning.
Black people not being allowed to use the same water faucets as white people wasn't just hurting their feelings. Equal protection is the same in this case as it was for theirs in the 1960s.
Wrong. SCOTUS ruled that opposition to abortion was motivated by the desire to protect the victims of abortion, not out of animus towards women. Please read more carefully in the future.
I'm sorry, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere to allow people to exercise conscientious objections. Otherwise refusal to serve cake to someone who legally has sex with animals is a violation of that person's civil rights. At some point, we have to allow people to act in accordance with their definition of what is sexually deviant.
Refusing to bake a cake for someone because you don't like their lifestyle is not the same as the law enforcing racial discrimination. There are plenty of places where you can get a cake baked. It's wrong to force someone to bake you a cake against their moral objections.
Sexual orientation (and more importantly sexual behavior) is not the same as race.
And the motivation of this guy is to defend the sanctity of marriage not animus towards gay people. Which is why he has no issue with serving birthday cakes to gays.
I'm sorry, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere to allow people to exercise conscientious objections. Otherwise refusal to serve cake to someone who legally has sex with animals is a violation of that person's civil rights. At some point, we have to allow people to act in accordance with their definition of what is sexually deviant.
Refusing to bake a cake for someone because you don't like their lifestyle is not the same as the law enforcing racial discrimination. There are plenty of places where you can get a cake baked. It's wrong to force someone to bake you a cake against their moral objections.
Sexual orientation (and more importantly sexual behavior) is not the same as race.
I guess Jim Crow should have been legal as the motivation of Jim Crow laws was to defend the sanctity of the lunch counter. I can almost see the wheels grinding in your head as you desperately try to find a way out of the hole you're in.
This is getting pathetic. You said a bunch of dumb things and got called on it.
Guess what? There is a line drawn! And it's not at bestiality but at what Colorado State Law says it is.
So no, having to serve the public as the law states does not mean that homonecrobestiality or whatever slippery slope straw man argument you want to add is now a protected class.
Source for this?
Lets explain the difference here. No one think that the black people shouldn't be able to eat lunch. The issue was that some people didn't want eat lunch with black people.
The person in question thinks that same-sex marriage shouldn't exist at all.
Do you not see the difference?
Guess what? There is a line drawn! And it's not at bestiality but at what Colorado State Law says it is.
So no, having to serve the public as the law states does not mean that homonecrobestiality or whatever slippery slope straw man argument you want to add is now a protected class.
Regardless, you're almost certainly too irrational to change your own opinions on this. All I'm interested in is you acknowledging that the law has spoken on the issue. I notice that you didn't really address the ruling at all despite its explicit and quite lengthy demolition of your argument. This is of course because you can't. For whatever reason you will do absolutely anything to avoid changing your mind or admitting you were wrong.