Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The baker wouldn't have a sign saying he won't serve gay people. His sign would say he doesn't serve weddings between people of the same sex. A sign like that would be illegal under Colorado law.
Except he and his attorney are arguing that he is not a baker who won't serve certain people but rather an artist with 1st Amendment Freedom of Expression issues and that he should be able to determine who he sells his cakes to and who he does not.
The are portraying him as the Michelangelo of wedding cakes who is choosy about who he accepts commissions from.
you posted your opinion on who was on the wrong side of history even though more than 60% of Democrats supported the legislation you are using as your bench mark And even though only a few federally elected members of your party currently support the subject matter you are attacking Dems on.
In both the House and the Senate, a higher percentage of Republicans voted to pass the 1965 Civil Rights Act than Democrats. That's a KNOWN FACT.
Stop wasting your time complaining about something that isn't so and work, instead, to add LGBT as a Federally Protected Class. Additional Classes have been added over the years since 1965. You can tell by looking at the list on Wikipedia.
Destroyed based on the fact that the court said New Mexico was right.
No, they didn't:
Federal Court upheld Pitt's (state university) expulsion of a F to M but anatomically female transgender for using men's locker/shower rooms on campus after male students complained about her presence in their facilities:
Quote:
"Federal Judge Kim R. Gibson dismissed Johnston's suit, saying that his transgender status was not covered by either the Constitution's equal-protection clause or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars sex discrimination by institutions receiving federal funds.
With regard to the equal-protection clause, Gibson writes that transgender status is not a "suspect class" under equal-protection review, so that Pitt can prevail as long as it shows a "rational basis" for its actions. The university "explained that its policy is based on the need to ensure the privacy of its students to disrobe and shower outside of the presence of members of the opposite sex. This justification has been repeatedly upheld by courts," Gibson writes."
Except he and his attorney are arguing that he is not a baker who won't serve certain people but rather an artist with 1st Amendment Freedom of Expression issues and that he should be able to determine who he sells his cakes to and who he does not.
The are portraying him as the Michelangelo of wedding cakes who is choosy about who he accepts commissions from.
So how many opposite sex weddings did he turn down and why? Right.
If he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman that should be good enough reason for declining to participate in same sex wedding by baking a cake He has claimed his belief is on religious grounds so that is already part of this case.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,560 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6042
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
In both the House and the Senate, a higher percentage of Republicans voted to pass the 1965 Civil Rights Act than Democrats. That's a KNOWN FACT.
but that wasnt your argument so try again.
Quote:
Stop wasting your time complaining about something that isn't so and work, instead, to add LGBT as a Federally Protected Class. Additional Classes have been added over the years since 1965. You can tell by looking at the list on Wikipedia.
you said yourself Dems were on the wrong side of history by not adding it when we were in power, So why arent you saying the same of Republicans ?????
Yes, it was. I even posted the 1965 Civil Rights Act voting stats.
Quote:
you said yourself Dems were on the wrong side of history by not adding it when we were in power, So why arent you saying the same of Republicans ?????
Only 40% of Republicans support same sex marriage. It's not their battle. It's Dems' battle. Dems had the support of their voters in 2010, but failed to do what their base wanted. They didn't add LGBT as a Federally Protected Class:
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,560 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6042
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Yes, it was. I even posted the 1965 Civil Rights Act voting stats.
No, your argument was that Democrats were on the wrong side of history because some didnt support the CRA.
You then argued that Dems were on the wrong side of history because, in your opinion, enough didnt support equal protect.
Quote:
Only 40% of Republicans support same sex marriage. It's not their battle. It's Dems' battle. Dems had the support of their voters in 2010, but failed to do what their base wanted. They didn't add LGBT as a Federally Protected Class:
Wrong side of history is wrong side of history. Again, you cant have it both ways.
Also, no your article does not support your claim.
50%( the percentage given in your link)
is 30 votes in the senate. 128 in the House.
0 Republican senators supported added LGBT protections.
So Again, your argument doesnt make sense on the basis you are presenting it.
The best argument you could make is right is right and wrong is wrong. But you are going to do that, because you cant be bothered to admit your side is wrong.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,560 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6042
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
It didn't. That's why the Federal Court ruling against LGBT stands to this day.
What they said is that it isnt mentioned in Title IX
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
