SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Tassman]

Let's see....

• purposely marginalizes the baker to simply a "cake-maker"
• Claims that's all a baker does
• refers to him as a "snowflake baker"
• dramaqueen language - "he swoons"
• dramaqueen language - "mortally offended"

...you simply can't make a "straight" case without getting into twisting the truth and spewing forth nonsense.

Yet another "rare" example of CP name-calling. One notes the lack of a substantive response.

[Cow Poke]

Yet another "rare" example of CP name-calling. One notes the lack of a substantive response.

Actually, I spelled out a list of your gross misrepresentations, and your OWN name calling -- "snowflake baker".

There was no name calling on my part, Tassman. What name, exactly, did I call you?

(And your head is rolling loose again - you need to get that fixed)

[Leonhard]

Yet another "rare" example of CP name-calling. One notes the lack of a substantive response.

You do realise he wasn't talking about you, but the language that you had been using right?

[Cow Poke]

You do realise he wasn't talking about you, but the language that you had been using right?

I don't think he has a clue. Maybe he's dizzy cause his head is always rolling.

[Leonhard]

I don't think he has a clue. Maybe he's dizzy cause his head is always rolling.

I can understand misunderstanding someone. I've done that myself on this forum too many times to recall, you'd have to be either really careless or really upset to mistake what you wrote for name-calling him. I mean its his own writing isn't it?

[Cow Poke]

I can understand misunderstanding someone. I've done that myself on this forum too many times to recall, you'd have to be either really careless or really upset to mistake what you wrote for name-calling him. I mean its his own writing isn't it?

So, he just needs to tell us what name I called him. I don't see it.

[Tassman]

Actually, I spelled out a list of your gross misrepresentations, and your OWN name calling -- "snowflake baker".

There was no name calling on my part, Tassman. What name, exactly, did I call you?

(And your head is rolling loose again - you need to get that fixed)

True! It was just your standard mockery in lieu of a substantive response, not name-calling per se. One gets used to that from you.

[Sparko]

A cake-maker makes and decorates cakes. That what baker's do. And, as in all professions, certain skills are involved in producing the finished product...but, in this instance, they do not differ in kind between wedding cakes made for straight couples or gay couples. So, for some precious snowflake baker to swoon at the prospect of having to create a "work of art" for a gay wedding is just a rationalisation of discrimination. Same would apply for those whose religious values are mortally offended by creating a wedding cake for a mixed marriage couple or "Christ-murdering" Jews. In all instances to refuse service to ANY couples legally entitled to marry is an offence against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A portrait artist makes and paints portraits. That what portrait artists do. And, as in all professions, certain skills are involved in producing the finished product...but, in this instance, they do not differ in kind between portraits made of straight couples or gay couples.

Would you force a portrait artist to paint a gay couple?

[Cow Poke]

True! It was just your standard mockery in lieu of a substantive response, not name-calling per se.

So, just your standard big fat lie on your part. Good job!

[Tassman]

Would you force a portrait artist to paint a gay couple?

If the portrait artist operated from an establishment, that comes under the heading of a ‘Public Accommodation’ yes of course. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin in Public Accommodations.

[Tassman]

So, just your standard big fat lie on your part. Good job!

You are calling me a liar?

[Leonhard]

You are calling me a liar?

You're either lying about him having name-called, or you're so thick you haven't realised he was citing you.

[Sparko]

If the portrait artist operated from an establishment, that comes under the heading of a ‘Public Accommodation’ yes of course. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin in Public Accommodations.

So your previous argument that decorating a cake was not "art" was just a ruse. You would force artists to create art on demand even if they did not want to. Basically if a German NAZI went to a portrait artist and demanded a painting of Hitler, you think the artist would have to accommodate him.

Your understanding of the CRA is completely ignorant. Why don't you go read it?

[Cow Poke]

You are calling me a liar?

Unless you prefer monumentally stupid, yes.

[Tassman]

So your previous argument that decorating a cake was not "art" was just a ruse.

Decorating a cake is a professional skill, just as is flower arranging or hairdressing. But the argument is not about art; that’s just a ruse...a rationalisation on your part. It’s about making a wedding cake. There is no more artistic skill required in a wedding cake for a gay couple than there is for a straight couple, or a Jewish couple or a mixed race couple. A baker is not entitled to refuse service to any of these categories of people even if his religious sensibilities are offended by them.

You would force artists to create art on demand even if they did not want to.

A Cake shop is a place of public accommodation under the Civil Rights Act. The Law states that a baker has to provide full service to all customers regardless of his personal prejudices.

Basically if a German NAZI went to a portrait artist and demanded a painting of Hitler, you think the artist would have to accommodate him.

That’s not the argument. The argument is whether or not a couple getting legally married are entitled to service in a cake shop under the Civil Rights Act and the answer is yes.

Unless you prefer monumentally stupid, yes.

I prefer you to acknowledge that you have no valid argument, as is patently obvious.