I do believe that he was talking about the state level anti-discrimination laws that are at the heart of the case that is being discussed. I did not see any claim to the fact that there are federal anti-discrimination laws.
If you read my post #554, I explicitly said “federal laws”. The post you quoted was my reply to his reply to #554.
#556? Maybe? 
Anyway, yes, you did explicitly say federal laws, which is exaclty what I am talking about, as Ibn did not make a claim about federal laws. He did make a statement about anti-discrimination laws, but as the laws that are being discussed are state anti-discrimination laws, I would assume that those he was talking about, not some hypothetical federal laws that would not apply to this case.
Tattoo artists?! Those sinners?
No, 544 (Emphasis added):
I’m idly curious about how that works, too.
“For the purpose of creating this suit”. The suit was not “created” by that group at all. The suit was created by the gay couple.
But it was part of the state appeal process, so even if we were talking about the SCOTUS case, the defense was not “created” for it. It has been used all along.
What was created was the artistry claim.
Once again, *do *please read posts before you reply to them.
Okay, 544, then. My initial confusion was that you said 554, which was a post by someone else.
Still, that post that you are replying to, he says
Not referring to a federal law. Now, if you were trying to be specific, you could say, “Only in states where sexual orientation is a protected class”, but as he is obviously referring to this case, which takes place in a state that has sexual orientation as a protected class, I do not see the utility in bringing up a lack of federal protected class.
So, yes, tattoo artists and hairstylists can refuse service to gay people all day in states that do not hold orientation as a protected class, they may not do so in Colorado, the state that is relevant to the discussion.
I was thinking of Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws which do prohibit discriminating against gays.
Yes, that’s what I was thinking of.
Sorry to John for not making that clear.
OK, but the thing is we’re in federal court now, and the tensions at issue here is CO’s law vs the 1st amendment. That’s what is being decided.
Ah, but that’s a different claim than what you originally made. I can quote this all day long*, and if you want to retract it, that’s fine. But this is what you wrote (emphasis added, again):
The “cake baking is actually art” stuff was invented for the purpose of creating this suit.
*But I won’t, becauase it’s plainly there for anyone to see. You can deny it again if you like, but we can all read it.
Put the shovel down, John.
“after he refused to fill an order for a cake that included a depiction of a rainbow, a symbol that is supportive of gay marriage.”
If that’s the case then the Colorado commission actually is just hostile to faith. That’s open and shut content discrimination.
You said: “The “cake baking is actually art” stuff was invented for the purpose of creating this suit.”
You use the words invented and created. I think John Mace is taking issue with your characterization of the baker as being the driving force behind the lawsuit. I don’t think it matters but perhaps you did.
Can you allow discrimination against rainbows without allowing discrimination against gays?
Are rainbows like Scalia’s yarmulkes?
Then, again, he needs to read before he responds, because I said the opposite.
Damn, fellas. :rolleyes:
It sounded to me like you were saying that the bakery concocted this disingenuous argument of cake=art in order to bring this lawsuit. So I said that the baker didn’t bring the lawsuit, you answered with an ad hominem attack against a religious group that s supporting the baker in the lawsuit.
Oldguy in post 540 seemed to think you were saying the same thing, but h thought you were saying that they were bringing the lawsuit in the sense that they were appealing the lower court decision.
And John Mace said that this argument was not created for SCOTUS, it has been there all along.
Would they make a rainbow cake for a child’s birthday? Did they have a “no rainbows on any cakes” policy? Or does it depend on the sexual orientation of the client?