Reply With Quote
idk if they demanded it but here's a gay cake
Nobody is demanding a gay cake.
idk if they demanded it but here's a gay cake
You specifically said it could open the door for things like being forced to make a Trump cake. I can't explain the slippery slope fallacy and your crystal clear use of it here any more than I have. Anything further is redundancy.
Also...if someone wanted to pay me, I'd make this ^ cake for them.
Not what I'm talking about. If you know what what stare decisis is, does that knowledge change yourslippery slope
There's precedent for people being forced to make cakes against their will. So why is the Trump cake hypothetical outlandish?
You quoted a source saying that it's using an extreme end to warn against a current decision. How is a Trump cake extreme? Simply saying, "These two things are logically connected" doesn't make it a slippery slope.
The precedent is denying service to a gay couple, not making an outlandish cake against their will, genius.
Making Trump cakes isn't their business. Making wedding cakes is.
And that precedent makes it legitimate to force a cake maker to make a cake against his beliefs. Explain why that cannot be used by a subsequent court to hold that a cake maker can be forced to make a trump cake against their beliefs.
Good to see you backed off
Isn't who's business? Again, you keep going to this specific case. I am talking about the law or precedent that will come from this. Is that ONLY going to cover regular (or even any) wedding cakes? No. But what will it cover? That was my question. We don't know how this is going to shake out, and it could have consequences that people aren't considering.
Yes, your slippery slope.
If someone doesn't have the materials to make a Trump cake, how are they supposed to make one.
It's still a slippery slope. Not sure where you got that I backed off, but you're a multiple time proven dumb so there's that.And that precedent makes it legitimate to force a cake maker to make a cake against his beliefs. Explain why that cannot be used by a subsequent court to hold that a cake maker can be forced to make a trump cake against their beliefs.
Good to see you backed off
Oh, dumb . Cool.
Explain what stare decisis means.
And that too
No, there's actually going to be a national standard created from this. That's not some threat from me to get everyone in line. It'll happen soon, and it's perfectly fair to think about what it will be.
Lol fancy words to look smart.
Nobody is being forced here to make a gay cake. Whatever that might be.
You're a ing idiot.
Trump Cake coming!
Can't answer straightforward questions huh? For someone who's
I already answered your question in two different ways. You're just slow and stupid.Can't answer straightforward questions huh? For someone who's
But I'll do it again:
1) a trump cake is very specific. If someone doesn't normally make one, you can't force them to make one.
2) nobody is being asked to make a "gay cake". They were asked to make a wedding cake which was going to be for a gay wedding celebration.
If you ask again, I'll try to dumb it down further, but I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it for you.
Let me go about it this way:
I want to buy a cake for a Trump 2016 rally. So, I go to a bakery run by a pastry chef who is very and very liberal. I mention why I want the cake, and ask him to bake me one with his normal cakes (no "Trump 2016" bull on it). He refuses. Can I sue the bakery and force them to bake and sell me a cake?
If the answer is no, explain why?
If the answer is yes, what difference does it then make if I ask them to put "Trump 2016" (or "Mike and Tom forever," or " s rule," or "The Prophet Mohammed is the Best," etc...) or not on the cake? If the baker is already required to make and sell me the cake, why draw the line at the words on the cake?
I think you're drawing the line at the cake having words that express a pro-gay opinion. What if it says "Mike and Tom," or has the two groomsmen on it? More importantly, why do the words on the cake matter if the basis of the baker's objection is that they do not want to have their products/work used in connection with a cause they don't support?
This isn't like the Ollie's BBQ case where the Supreme Court held there was no basis for denying ribs to black people because there's a countervailing 1st amendment objection here. You're going to have to have a court say that birthday cakes to s is more important than the christian-right baker's first amendment rights. That's a really ty ruling.
Tldr don't really care about your stupid scenario.
The CRA of 64 has protected classes. Some states go further and protect gays. I think it's just a matter of time before gays are protected on a federal level too.
That's about it. No slippery Trump cake slope.
What a lazy, stupid take
I've already read up on it and I'm confident I'm right. I don't really give a if you agree or not. I think you're an idiot not worth going back and forth on this with. Sorry.
^ More lazy, stupid drivel.
Lol I'm not gonna do research or critical thinking for you.
Nice try, lazy re .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions