Go back
Baker loses appeal, transgirl wanted s’thing he doesn’t make

Baker loses appeal, transgirl wanted s’thing he doesn’t make

Debates

Mott The Hoople

Joined
05 Nov 06
Moves
147486
Clock
01 Feb 23
Vote Up
Vote Down

@no1marauder said
So, did the SCOTUS invalidate the law as you claimed?

Nope, it's still in effect.
show me where I said any law was invalidated …oh thats right, I didnt . you are 💩weaseling again.

are you backing off claiming the case was sent back to the state? 😂

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
01 Feb 23
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@mott-the-hoople said
show me where I said any law was invalidated …oh thats right, I didnt . you are 💩weaseling again.

are you backing off claiming the case was sent back to the state? 😂
You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision.

You were wrong; the SCOTUS has never overturned a State anti-discrimination law.

True, I was thinking about an Oregon case which got returned to State courts by the SCOTUS under similar facts, but even though the SCOTUS ruled for the baker in Colorado on the narrow grounds that the specific language in the Civil Rights Commission's decision showed hostility to religion, it specifically refused to overturn the law.

EDIT: Here's an article about the Oregon case I was thinking of: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-religious-liberties-oregon/index.html

Mott The Hoople

Joined
05 Nov 06
Moves
147486
Clock
01 Feb 23
Vote Up
Vote Down

@no1marauder said
You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision.

You were wrong; the SCOTUS has never overturned a State anti-discrimination law.

True, I was thinking about an Oregon case which got returned to State courts by the SCOTUS under similar facts, but even though the SCOTUS ruled for the baker in Colorado on th ...[text shortened]... f: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-religious-liberties-oregon/index.html
you are losing it…You are just straight making up things and claiming I said it. You are lying.

You know how to copy and paste…show these things you claim or slink away in lying shame.

Mott The Hoople

Joined
05 Nov 06
Moves
147486
Clock
01 Feb 23
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@no1marauder said
You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision.

You were wrong; the SCOTUS has never overturned a State anti-discrimination law.

True, I was thinking about an Oregon case which got returned to State courts by the SCOTUS under similar facts, but even though the SCOTUS ruled for the baker in Colorado on th ...[text shortened]... f: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-religious-liberties-oregon/index.html
“You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision. “

show it you liar

Mott The Hoople

Joined
05 Nov 06
Moves
147486
Clock
01 Feb 23
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@no1marauder said
You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision.

You were wrong; the SCOTUS has never overturned a State anti-discrimination law.

True, I was thinking about an Oregon case which got returned to State courts by the SCOTUS under similar facts, but even though the SCOTUS ruled for the baker in Colorado on th ...[text shortened]... f: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-religious-liberties-oregon/index.html
“You were wrong; the SCOTUS has never overturned a State anti-discrimination law.”

show it you liar

Mott The Hoople

Joined
05 Nov 06
Moves
147486
Clock
01 Feb 23
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@no1marauder said
You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision.

You were wrong; the SCOTUS has never overturned a State anti-discrimination law.

True, I was thinking about an Oregon case which got returned to State courts by the SCOTUS under similar facts, but even though the SCOTUS ruled for the baker in Colorado on th ...[text shortened]... f: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-religious-liberties-oregon/index.html
“True, I was thinking about an Oregon case which got returned to State courts by the SCOTUS under similar facts, but even though the SCOTUS ruled for the baker in Colorado on the narrow grounds that the specific language in the Civil Rights Commission's decision showed hostility to religion, it specifically refused to overturn the law.

EDIT: Here's an article about the Oregon case I was thinking of: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-religious-liberties-oregon/index.html”

yet you accuse me of being uninformed

Mott The Hoople

Joined
05 Nov 06
Moves
147486
Clock
01 Feb 23
Vote Up
Vote Down

looks like 💩weasel tucked his tail between his legs and slinked away.

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
01 Feb 23
Vote Up
Vote Down

@mott-the-hoople said
looks like 💩weasel tucked his tail between his legs and slinked away.
Unlike the right wing morons here, I don't spend my entire life on this board.

Mott: I asked what law? no one can tell me

So I told you.

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
01 Feb 23
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@mott-the-hoople said
“You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision. “

show it you liar
Mott: scotus has ruled on this before, no law was violated. want to try again?

Looks like you were caught, for about the 1000th time, of baselessly calling someone else a "liar" on this board.

Mott The Hoople

Joined
05 Nov 06
Moves
147486
Clock
01 Feb 23
Vote Up
Vote Down

@no1marauder said
Mott: scotus has ruled on this before, no law was violated. want to try again?

Looks like you were caught, for about the 1000th time, of baselessly calling someone else a "liar" on this board.
LOL… when the scotus rules no law was violated…ummm that means no law was violated 😂

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
01 Feb 23
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@mott-the-hoople said
LOL… when the scotus rules no law was violated…ummm that means no law was violated 😂
Pathetic.

MOTT: what law requires this baker to furnish anything?

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
01 Feb 23
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@mott-the-hoople said
LOL… when the scotus rules no law was violated…ummm that means no law was violated 😂
State laws are in effect unless and until a binding court decision renders them void. No court decision has ever rendered a State anti-discrimination statute void, so you are completely wrong.

As usual.

Mott The Hoople

Joined
05 Nov 06
Moves
147486
Clock
01 Feb 23
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@no1marauder said
State laws are in effect unless and until a binding court decision renders them void. No court decision has ever rendered a State anti-discrimination statute void, so you are completely wrong.

As usual.
I never said they wasnt in effect.

I said the scotus ruled he did not violate any law.

no amount of word twisting will change that.

Wajoma
Die Cheeseburger

Provocation

Joined
01 Sep 04
Moves
78933
Clock
02 Feb 23
Vote Up
Vote Down

@no1marauder said
LMAO! "Literally make them a slave"? Do you even know what a "slave" is?

I think the best way to assure that customers aren't discriminated against by those who are allowed to operate in the economic system by the society that created it is to ban such unethical and immoral conduct.
Forced labor, not to mention the stolen ingredients. If the baker refuses they'll demand money if he refuses to pay they'll confiscate his property, if he defends his property (including land) men with guns will confiscate his life. Slavery.

Customers discriminate all day everyday, they're just the other half of the trade, they discriminate on the basis of race and religion and a thousand other irrational baseis and that's just how it should be because they're the ones missing out.

AverageJoe1
Catch the Train 47!

Lake Como

Joined
27 Jul 10
Moves
54599
Clock
02 Feb 23
Vote Up
Vote Down

@wajoma said
Forced labor, not to mention the stolen ingredients. If the baker refuses they'll demand money if he refuses to pay they'll confiscate his property, if he defends his property (including land) men with guns will confiscate his life. Slavery.

Customers discriminate all day everyday, they're just the other half of the trade, they discriminate on the basis of race and religio ...[text shortened]... usand other irrational baseis and that's just how it should be because they're the ones missing out.
So, a cookie store baker is accosted by these quasi-gendered people to bake a huge wedding cake, with no in-your-face statements to be made about sexuality and gender on this cake. Just a 5-tier wedding cake. Just like I would go in and order a wedding cake.
But Marauder et al miss the point as usual. This cookie baker does indeed have all of the ingredients to make a wedding cake, but he does not make wedding cakes.
Should SCOTUS make baker create a wedding cake in his cookie shop? He only makes cookies. The sign in his shop says 'No Political Cookies'. The baker was traumatized by 9/11 and renounced politics from his life.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.