It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Xenogears
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: DJW001
Again, the bakers did not want their wedding cakes in a gay wedding. If the gay couple was buying a cake for a heterosexual wedding, or if they wanted some other product, they would have continued the transaction. That is a matter of conscience. The Red Hen refused service because they disliked Sanders and her beliefs. That is a matter of persecution.
Wrong.
The Red Hen had started serving Sanders. They then asked her to leave. The rest of her party left of their own will, and The Red Hen didn't charge them anything.
The baker never even started serving.
The two situations are distinctly different. The baker refused gays (a category), ergo discrimination. The Red Hen refused Sarah Sanders (a person), ergo they don't like Sarah Sanders.
He didn’t refuse gays. He refused to have his cake used in an event that violated his conscience.
Don't know, but they probably also wanted a custom made cake with two men on top.
"Sorry, guys, I don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."
originally posted by: intrepid
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
You are making terrible, straw grasping arguments. And slipping in your tired old Russian references in the process. Come on...either make logically cohesive arguments, or simply withdraw your argument.
What do you even think my argument is?
You are arguing against religious freedom.
Wrong. I am arguing against using religion as a pretext to infringe the rights of others.
What right would that be?
The right not to be persecuted for one's beliefs.
Do you guys realize you're arguing the same point...from different viewpoints?
originally posted by: DrBobH
Thought this was a well written and thoughtful assessment of the topic.
www.theroot.com...
Nice to see racism alive and well in our society. This particular website is a potential starting point for dozens of threads.
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: loam
It truly is only a matter of time. One idiot is going to go, as they used to say, postal. Then the fat'll be in the fire for fair.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Greven
Kennedy is not the entirety of SCOTUS. There are other opinions. Either way, all they needed to rule in favour of Phillips was the hostile against his beliefs. They didn’t even bother to consider whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech, mainly because they didn’t need to.
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Greven
Kennedy is not the entirety of SCOTUS. There are other opinions. Either way, all they needed to rule in favour of Phillips was the hostile against his beliefs. They didn’t even bother to consider whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech, mainly because they didn’t need to.
Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.
The opinion that those quotes are from.
The opinion that 6 of the 7 justices who supported the ruling agreed to.
It seems like you disagree with the SCOTUS.