Lets assume that is true.
If that is so…well apparently they told the baker it was for a gay wedding…which brings us back to my A/B scenario.
I’ll sell that teenager a can of spray paint to bling up his Yugo. I ain’t selling the little shit a can of spray paint when he say’s he’s going to bling up the local train car.
Being gay or marrying someone of the same gender is not illegal.
Change the analogy then if it bothers you.
There is a LARGE gray area (that everyone has) between behavior/actions that one might or might not endorse and that are outright illegal.
Being gay and marrying someone of the same gender is not illegal.
You’re the one with the poor analogy.
You clearly equated being gay and same sex marriage with an illegal act.
Let’s jump back on another track.
Does this create a split that SCOTUS must resolve? I’m no lawyer - heaven forfend - but didn’t the Colorado case fall on similar lines and the judge there ruled the other way?
Maybe I’m not up to speed but if so, won’t it be resolved soon?
You won’t sell it to that little shit, but you’ll refer him to a competitor so that he can get his spraypaint needs met?
Or, y’know, there is the difference that
A) Person is engaged in innocuous, lawful activity;
B) Person is engaged in a crime, and if you knowingly sell them the product it’s possible you’ll face lawsuits or even criminal charges.
That’s a scotch different from the scenario at hand, dude.
I take you are not familiar with the concept of what might or might not be considered unethical or immoral (or hell, just even not nice) by someone does not map one to one with what is illegal.
If you are down the street I might.
You’re lumping same sex marriage in with clearly illegal acts. No one is fooled.
That’s enough. Everyone’s on heightened oversight, here. No personal cracks from this point forward. You want to debate? Debate.
I think some of you folks might be upset when the Supremes (not the band) come out with their ruling on the similar case.
The case is a fundamental right right there in the constitution…vs a right that is derived from those fundamental rights.
Ruling one way involves someone being forced (by the government none the less) to violate a core personal principle. The other forces somebody to find someone else to bake them a cake (that they might need once or twice in their lifetime).
Yes…you can make all sorts of arguements about violation of “civil rights” that have serious consequences…getting into college…getting hired…getting that bank loan…being able to buy a house in the “nice” neighborhood…being able to buy gas at “that” gas station…and on and on…and those arguements about THOSE things and the life impacting implications I actually agree with.
But this is about as trivial as it can be IMO in practical terms without it actually not just being a case of somebody only saying “gay people are icky” and somebody calling out the lawyers.
And you have Trumps appointee…and we all know how he will rule…and you have Stevens (and I wouldn’t bet much on him to vote pro get the cake).
We will see.
I suspect at best the Supremes will rule pro “the gay folks get the cake” but it will be so narrowly defined as to be meaningless for all practical purposes…kinda like a Roe v Wade…but abortions are only legal for the first month or so.
Well, yeah. Sometimes the Supreme Court does shitty things. They may make a shitty ruling here. If they do, I suspect that McConnell’s shitty move to de-pack the Supreme Court will come into play.
But that conversation is not particularly interesting.
20 weeks is not a month or so.
No duh…
I said it would be like Roe V Wade BUT the ruling was abortion was only legal for the first month or so.
Ask any woman…or most men…how useful that would be in practical terms.
I’ll remember that if the results don’t go the way you like.
I linked the wiki page on the Colorado case – I think on the first page. As I said earlier, it hasn’t been decided yet but will be within the year. Why the lawyer OP somehow decided not to reference that in his initial post also remains a mystery.
A link to the previous discussion of the Colorado Masterpiece case: Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
Why is following basic constitutional principles a shitty thing? We have an amendment process.
OK. You do that.
Now this? This is begging the question.
Chances are excellent that the SC will issue a divided ruling on this issue, because it’s a complex issue without one side clearly on the right side of the constitution. For me, for reasons I’ve stated previously, I find the “speech” argument completely unconvincing (very briefly, the defendant has proven repeated the speech in question doesn’t bother them at all, has made exactly the speech in question on many occasions, so their claim that the speech is compelled is false), whereas I find equal protection clauses completely convincing.
Your approach–to suggest that folks who disagree with you hate the constitution or something–is a ridiculous approach.