Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote: Lemme get this straight...

It's a "criminal" activity, to refuse to bake a cake with a message that a baker finds offensive. And any baker who refuses to bake a cake with a message he finds offensive, should "do time".

I want everyone reading this, to really let that sink in.

I never said any of that, let that sink in, Rick just flat out lied. This is a misrepresentation of what I said and not actually what I said.

No Dan. It's a proper representation.

Take either instance, the one in Ireland, and the one in the US, and the fact that both cases have in common, is that the baker refused to bake a cake because of the message the customer wanted, and not because the customer was gay .

And you said that it was a crime, and they should do the time.

Nobody in either instance, discriminated based on the customer's sexual orientation.

You keep changing the facts. You are misrepresenting your Brothers and Sisters in Christ, by saying they discriminated based on the customer being gay.

Yes they did discriminate based on sexual orientation, it's quite easy to figure out.

Scenario a) Sells wedding cake to hetero couple for hetero wedding

Scenario b) Doesn't sell wedding cake to gay couple for gay wedding

The only difference is the sexual orientation of the couples, therefore it is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I have not changed any facts, the facts are they refuse service of a wedding cake based on that particular couples sexual orientation, anyone can see that is the case.

Dan,

You do realize that in the instance in Ireland, the cake baker didn't even know the customer's sexual orientation, don't you?

Irrelevant.
They refused to sell a cake for a gay wedding, did they or did they not do that?

Lets create another scenario.

a) Hetero person buys wedding cake for a hetero wedding and baker sells it to them

b) Gay person buys cake for hetero wedding and baker sells it to them

c) Hetero buys wedding cake for gay wedding and baker refuses service

d) Gay person buys wedding cake for gay wedding and baker refuses service

a and b there is no discrimination, scenario b and c the baker has discriminated against the sexual orientation of the people who are getting married by refusing service, the person who is actually doing the buying is not relevant.

The reason the baker has refused service is based on discrimination against sexual orientation.

Scenario a) Sells wedding cake to hetero couple for hetero wedding

Scenario b) Doesn't sell wedding cake to gay couple for gay wedding

As long as the gay couple doesn't demand a cake with an unGodly message on it, fine! But that's not the case, IS it???!!!

Let's say, the heterosexuals happen to ALREADY be a couple, AND they are Mormons, who want to add another wife - who also happens to be heterosexual. And they want a cake decorated with two brides and one groom - and the slogan they want on the cake, "The three shall become one!" And the baker refuses because he believes Scripture teaches one man and one woman in marriage. Then, the refusal is, again, not about selling a cake, but that the purchasers want the baker to also take part in creating a slogan his conscience will not allow him. SAME deal as the refused homosexuals! And it has nothing to do with their sexuality - as they are ALL heterosexuals.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:
I never said any of that, let that sink in, Rick just flat out lied. This is a misrepresentation of what I said and not actually what I said.

No Dan. It's a proper representation.

Take either instance, the one in Ireland, and the one in the US, and the fact that both cases have in common, is that the baker refused to bake a cake because of the message the customer wanted, and not because the customer was gay .

And you said that it was a crime, and they should do the time.

Nobody in either instance, discriminated based on the customer's sexual orientation.

You keep changing the facts. You are misrepresenting your Brothers and Sisters in Christ, by saying they discriminated based on the customer being gay.

Yes they did discriminate based on sexual orientation, it's quite easy to figure out.

Scenario a) Sells wedding cake to hetero couple for hetero wedding

Scenario b) Doesn't sell wedding cake to gay couple for gay wedding

The only difference is the sexual orientation of the couples, therefore it is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I have not changed any facts, the facts are they refuse service of a wedding cake based on that particular couples sexual orientation, anyone can see that is the case.

Dan,

You do realize that in the instance in Ireland, the cake baker didn't even know the customer's sexual orientation, don't you?

Irrelevant.
They refused to sell a cake for a gay wedding, did they or did they not do that?

No Dan, they didn't. But, if you paid attention to the facts of the case, you'd know that. It wasn't a cake for a gay wedding. It was a cake that the customer wanted to read, "Support Gay Marriage".
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote: No Dan. It's a proper representation.

Take either instance, the one in Ireland, and the one in the US, and the fact that both cases have in common, is that the baker refused to bake a cake because of the message the customer wanted, and not because the customer was gay .

And you said that it was a crime, and they should do the time.

Nobody in either instance, discriminated based on the customer's sexual orientation.

You keep changing the facts. You are misrepresenting your Brothers and Sisters in Christ, by saying they discriminated based on the customer being gay.

Yes they did discriminate based on sexual orientation, it's quite easy to figure out.

Scenario a) Sells wedding cake to hetero couple for hetero wedding

Scenario b) Doesn't sell wedding cake to gay couple for gay wedding

The only difference is the sexual orientation of the couples, therefore it is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I have not changed any facts, the facts are they refuse service of a wedding cake based on that particular couples sexual orientation, anyone can see that is the case.

Dan,

You do realize that in the instance in Ireland, the cake baker didn't even know the customer's sexual orientation, don't you?

Irrelevant.
They refused to sell a cake for a gay wedding, did they or did they not do that?

No Dan, they didn't. But, if you paid attention to the facts of the case, you'd know that. It wasn't a cake for a gay wedding. It was a cake that the customer wanted to read, "Support Gay Marriage".
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233

It's the same thing though, your point is irrelevant.

The baker is still refusing service based on discrimination of ones sexual orientation.

Dan has officially taken the "obtuse" crown from Kenny.

Kenny,

If you're listening, I will no longer call you obtuse. Dan is the official G&S Obtuse King.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Yes they did discriminate based on sexual orientation, it's quite easy to figure out.

Scenario a) Sells wedding cake to hetero couple for hetero wedding

Scenario b) Doesn't sell wedding cake to gay couple for gay wedding

The only difference is the sexual orientation of the couples, therefore it is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I have not changed any facts, the facts are they refuse service of a wedding cake based on that particular couples sexual orientation, anyone can see that is the case.

Dan,

You do realize that in the instance in Ireland, the cake baker didn't even know the customer's sexual orientation, don't you?

Irrelevant.
They refused to sell a cake for a gay wedding, did they or did they not do that?

No Dan, they didn't. But, if you paid attention to the facts of the case, you'd know that. It wasn't a cake for a gay wedding. It was a cake that the customer wanted to read, "Support Gay Marriage".
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233

It's the same thing though, your point is irrelevant.


The baker is still refusing service based on discrimination of ones sexual orientation.

No Dan. Again, facts are key here. They did not refuse to sell products to homosexuals. They refused to sell a cake with a particular message.

RickD wrote:Dan has officially taken the "obtuse" crown from Kenny.

Kenny,

If you're listening, I will no longer call you obtuse. Dan is the official G&S Obtuse King.

More personal attacks, I guess nothing changes around here.

The case is simple, If I asked for a cake that said "I love Asian people" even though I am not Asian and they refused service they would be refusing on racist grounds which is discrimination.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote: Dan,

You do realize that in the instance in Ireland, the cake baker didn't even know the customer's sexual orientation, don't you?

Irrelevant.
They refused to sell a cake for a gay wedding, did they or did they not do that?

No Dan, they didn't. But, if you paid attention to the facts of the case, you'd know that. It wasn't a cake for a gay wedding. It was a cake that the customer wanted to read, "Support Gay Marriage".
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233

It's the same thing though, your point is irrelevant.


The baker is still refusing service based on discrimination of ones sexual orientation.

No Dan. Again, facts are key here. They did not refuse to sell products to homosexuals. They refused to sell a cake with a particular message.

I have already covered this, it is irrelevant who is purchasing the service, the only thing which is relevant is the reason why they are refusing service, which in this case is discrimination. They may very well be refusing the message but the reason why they refuse is based on discrimination.

Dan,

Calling you "slow to understand", is not a personal attack. It's an obvious observation.

RickD wrote:Dan,

Calling you "slow to understand", is not a personal attack. It's an obvious observation.

The thing is Rick I do fully understand your position, I just don't agree with it. Maybe you are the one that is obtuse, because I seem to be repeating the same things a lot and you still keep bringing the same thing up which is irrelevant to my argument.

dan wrote:
the person who is actually doing the buying is not relevant.

Are you serious?

Think about this Dan.

The person trying to buy the cake is the one claiming to be discriminated against!

Come on Dan! Are you really this obtuse, or are you just playing with us?

RickD wrote:

dan wrote:
the person who is actually doing the buying is not relevant.

Are you serious?

Think about this Dan.

The person trying to buy the cake is the one claiming to be discriminated against!

Come on Dan! Are you really this obtuse, or are you just playing with us?

But they are in a way, not one that is protected by law, but they are still being discriminated against for wanting to support gay people. The real discrimination however is against the gay community, that is the important one.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:Dan,

Calling you "slow to understand", is not a personal attack. It's an obvious observation.

The thing is Rick I do fully understand your position, I just don't agree with it. Maybe you are the one that is obtuse, because I seem to be repeating the same things a lot and you still keep bringing the same thing up which is irrelevant to my argument.

Dan,

You don't even argue against the facts of the case! You don't even acknowledge the facts, nevermind my position.

I think you are correct though. I must be obtuse, if I keep thinking you are objective enough to actually argue your point based on the facts of the cases, instead of your misrepresentation of what actually happened.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:Dan,

Calling you "slow to understand", is not a personal attack. It's an obvious observation.

The thing is Rick I do fully understand your position, I just don't agree with it. Maybe you are the one that is obtuse, because I seem to be repeating the same things a lot and you still keep bringing the same thing up which is irrelevant to my argument.

Dan,

You don't even argue against the facts of the case! You don't even acknowledge the facts, nevermind my position.

I think you are correct though. I must be obtuse, if I keep thinking you are objective enough to actually argue your point based on the facts of the cases, instead of your misrepresentation of what actually happened.

I did argue the facts of the case, I only watched the first one with the guy called Jack. My argument still stands even against this one, which I have not read, but since you have laid out all the facts for me, the argument remains the same anyway, they are still discriminating based on the sexual orientation of who the message is aimed at.