RE: An American dialogue

RE: An American dialogue (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 8:51:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: Yeah, those uppity Christians, refusing to turn their backs on their faith and having the cock of "gay rights" forced down their throats That is because it is NOT GAY rights... it is human rights. Butch There is also a right to exercise one's religion as one sees fit. Where is the right to force someone to do something their religious beliefs oppose? The argument is that" the bakery owner's religious beliefs oppose creating and decorating a gay wedding cake". Yet, he had created many wedding cakes, and wants to continue doing so, so that part of the argument is invalid. Which leaves us with the bakery owner's religious beliefs opposes homosexuality. And no one is forcing him to take part in that. Nope. Let's see if I can break this down for you, using your own poor argument. You wrote: "the bakery owner's religious beliefs oppose creating and decorating a gay wedding cake" While not exactly true, it's damn close, and close enough that the difference is immaterial. Then you wrote: "he had created many wedding cakes, and wants to continue doing so." You are falsely equating decorating a cake celebrating a heterosexual wedding with decorating a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding. According to his beliefs, those two things are not the same. Would it be okay to force you to favorably march in a parade supporting an anti-gay message? Favorably march means you are marching in support of the message. Do all churches perform homosexual weddings? I've asked before and you never explained why it's okay for a church to not perform a homosexual wedding, even though they perform heterosexual weddings. Your response was to the effect that it was okay since they decline to perform weddings for some heterosexual couples, too. If that's okay, as long as Masterpiece Cakeshop declines to decorate a cake for a heterosexual wedding, it's okay, right? Does it occur to you, that Masterpiece Cakeshop might not have accepted work celebrating every heterosexual wedding it's been offered? I know when I got married, we were lucky in that it was a late summer wedding and not in the prime wedding time, else our 6-month wedding prep would have been 12 months too late.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 9:10:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I see it as simple discrimination He could have used a number of other ways to deny them a cake that wouldnt have made it "discrimination" He chose to use their orientation against them. Having said that, I expect the SCOTUS will rule in favour of him and chaos will ensue. And that makes me angry on so many levels He won't decorate a cake celebrating a homosexual wedding. That's the God's honest truth (pun intended). What way to discriminate would have been okay? You realize you're saying it would have been better had he lied than tell the truth, right? people lie to each other all the time to get out of something they dont wanna do. often in a way to not upset the person asking for something. I guess its better to blatantly discriminate than it is to "lie"? Why are there quotes around lie? That implies it's not really a lie, even though it is. Perhaps (and I have no idea if this is something Philips believes or not) there is a belief that lying, too, is a sin, and Masterpiece Cakeshop doesn't want to cross their beliefs there, either. Yes, people lie. But, there are also people who hold themselves to higher standards. Just like there are people here who will apologize and acknowledge mistakes when those mistakes are pointed out, even though most do not. I'd rather people and businesses speak the truth. That way, you know who/what they are. Would you rather frequent an establishment and have your dollars go towards someone whose beliefs you disagree with or would you rather frequent an establishment where you can get the same service reasonably of the same quality, and have your dollars go to someone who doesn't hold beliefs you disagree with? Masterpiece Cakeshop has drawn a line in the sand that they oppose gay weddings and won't custom decorate a cake celebrating one. Would you rather go there, for a custom decorated cake celebrating a heterosexual wedding, or would you rather go to a place that would have no problem custom decorating a cake celebrating a homosexual wedding, even if the cake you're commissioning is in celebration of a heterosexual wedding? Is it going to be religious discrimination if people stop going to Masterpiece Cakeshop for non-custom baked goods if they do so because of Masterpiece Cakeshop's belief? Isn't that how the general public does things? People will go on boycotts because of a company's beliefs or actions, in an effort to punish that company for the belief/action. The company has two choices: stay the course, or change. Either way, they get to deal with the consequences. Masterpiece Cakeshop should be allowed to deal with the consequences the public decides with their dollars, not from government attempting to infringe on their exercise of their religious beliefs.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 9:13:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub If that were true my friend then some Muslims would feel entitled to throw gays off of roofs...some Christians would feel empowered to stone gays to death... My friend religion rights have limits... the limit is when your religious right denys me my human rights. Are we as Americans going to allow some religions to have privileges that non religious do not have? If you say Christians can deny food to gays but not none religious you are giving special privileges to a Christian sect. Because we are a country of many religions with many beliefs as well and a good portion of agnostics and atheist our Constitution FIRST guarantees our human rights and only then provides that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Denying food is not free exercising of their religion... Providing a cake is not prohibiting their religion... If it is please show me anywhere in the Bible where it says not to provide food to anyone. Bottom Line I believe our human right to equality trump religious rights when when the two come in conflict. Butch A custom decorated cake is far more than just "food" and you fucking know it. What a disingenuous argument. Also, you do not have a human right to commission anyone to do custom work for you.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 9:14:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV I'm not surprised at all about DS's behavior. Nor am I surprised at all with just how tribal this thread has become. It's virtually the same in all of them, isn't it? But how many of you here could actually be impacted by a decision in this case that goes against your side? What's at stake for you? Or people you love? For me, what's at stake is continued indignities, being treated as a second-class citizen, turned away for who I am and who I love. I have faith that the Supreme Court will get this issue right, but it may not come in this decision. I can keep fighting, if that's the case. You don't give a shit about forcing someone to act opposed to their religious beliefs, though. Imagine that.

BoscoX -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 9:24:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV I'm not surprised at all about DS's behavior. Nor am I surprised at all with just how tribal this thread has become. It's virtually the same in all of them, isn't it? But how many of you here could actually be impacted by a decision in this case that goes against your side? What's at stake for you? Or people you love? For me, what's at stake is continued indignities, being treated as a second-class citizen, turned away for who I am and who I love. I have faith that the Supreme Court will get this issue right, but it may not come in this decision. I can keep fighting, if that's the case. You don't give a shit about forcing someone to act opposed to their religious beliefs, though. Imagine that. This is perfectly in line with the DNC's goal of dividing Americans in as many ways as possible

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 9:28:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV I'm not surprised at all about DS's behavior. Nor am I surprised at all with just how tribal this thread has become. It's virtually the same in all of them, isn't it? But how many of you here could actually be impacted by a decision in this case that goes against your side? What's at stake for you? Or people you love? For me, what's at stake is continued indignities, being treated as a second-class citizen, turned away for who I am and who I love. I have faith that the Supreme Court will get this issue right, but it may not come in this decision. I can keep fighting, if that's the case. You don't give a shit about forcing someone to act opposed to their religious beliefs, though. Imagine that. This is perfectly in line with the DNC's goal of dividing Americans in as many ways as possible It's not just a DNC thing. It's a US thing at the very least. Even apolitical people still try to put us in divisions.

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 10:13:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV And you're on the side of Roy Moore, an alleged pedophile. Really? Wtf does Roy Moore have to do with any of this? This is low for you, JVoV. Ah, thanks for catching that. It's a fairly obvious fallacy of relevance, just as DS's concern about the involvement of the ACLU. Isn't that low of him? Right. His claim that the ACLU is involved is the same as bringing up an alleged pedophile. That's fucked up and twisted logic, there, JVoV. Did you debunk his claim? Perhaps you should actually go back and read the thread before forming an opinion, much less before making wild accusations. I don't refute that the ACLU is involved. But they were not first on the scene, as it were, which is what DS claimed. In fact, the couple's original attorney in this case, a Paula Grieson, handled the initial court documentation, before attorneys from the ACLU or the DA's office joined. As for alleged pedophile Roy Moore, he is now involved in the case. As I've also stated in this thread, he founded the Foundation for Moral Law, which his wife is President of, and he seems to be getting a $180,000 salary from. The Foundation for Moral Law has filed a brief in the Supreme Court case, in support of the bakery, and religion freedom and such. I posted a link to a scotus blog earlier in the thread. It was quite enlightening to Google all the foundations and such that have filed briefs for either side. But I've already stated that my Roy Moore comment was a fallacy of relevance, as is DS whining about the ACLU's involvement, or the timing of such. The difference being that everything I've said has been factual and can be proven as such, no matter how trivial it may be. But again, all of this has already been said, if you only cared to read.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 10:29:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV And you're on the side of Roy Moore, an alleged pedophile. Really? Wtf does Roy Moore have to do with any of this? This is low for you, JVoV. Ah, thanks for catching that. It's a fairly obvious fallacy of relevance, just as DS's concern about the involvement of the ACLU. Isn't that low of him? Right. His claim that the ACLU is involved is the same as bringing up an alleged pedophile. That's fucked up and twisted logic, there, JVoV. Did you debunk his claim? Perhaps you should actually go back and read the thread before forming an opinion, much less before making wild accusations. I don't refute that the ACLU is involved. But they were not first on the scene, as it were, which is what DS claimed. In fact, the couple's original attorney in this case, a Paula Grieson, handled the initial court documentation, before attorneys from the ACLU or the DA's office joined. As for alleged pedophile Roy Moore, he is now involved in the case. As I've also stated in this thread, he founded the Foundation for Moral Law, which his wife is President of, and he seems to be getting a $180,000 salary from. The Foundation for Moral Law has filed a brief in the Supreme Court case, in support of the bakery, and religion freedom and such. I posted a link to a scotus blog earlier in the thread. It was quite enlightening to Google all the foundations and such that have filed briefs for either side. But I've already stated that my Roy Moore comment was a fallacy of relevance, as is DS whining about the ACLU's involvement, or the timing of such. The difference being that everything I've said has been factual and can be proven as such, no matter how trivial it may be. But again, all of this has already been said, if you only cared to read. So, the answer to my question, is: yes. Man, it's amazing how many words you felt it necessary to use, when one would have sufficed. I will not speak for, nor explain Michael's actions here. That's on him. Not me. Moore's alleged pedophilia means fuckall to the case at hand, which is why bringing up pedophilia was irrelevant. The only reason I pointed that out to you, is that you're alluding to anyone on the side of Masterpiece Cakeshop also being okay with pedophilia. As one that believes government has no right or authority to interfere with someone's free exercise of religion, and that Masterpiece Cakeshop shouldn't be forced to decorate cakes celebrating something they find opposed to their religious beliefs or close their custom decorating business, I'm offended that you would allude to my being okay with pedophilia. Whatever is going on with you and Michael, is between you and Michael. You two can either figure it out, deal with it, or block each other. Frankly, I don't give a fuck which. But, don't make sweeping allusions that bring others into it and not expect to be called out on it.

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 11:40:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: Yeah, those uppity Christians, refusing to turn their backs on their faith and having the cock of "gay rights" forced down their throats That is because it is NOT GAY rights... it is human rights. Butch There is also a right to exercise one's religion as one sees fit. Where is the right to force someone to do something their religious beliefs oppose? The argument is that" the bakery owner's religious beliefs oppose creating and decorating a gay wedding cake". Yet, he had created many wedding cakes, and wants to continue doing so, so that part of the argument is invalid. Which leaves us with the bakery owner's religious beliefs opposes homosexuality. And no one is forcing him to take part in that. Nope. Let's see if I can break this down for you, using your own poor argument. You wrote: "the bakery owner's religious beliefs oppose creating and decorating a gay wedding cake" While not exactly true, it's damn close, and close enough that the difference is immaterial. Then you wrote: "he had created many wedding cakes, and wants to continue doing so." You are falsely equating decorating a cake celebrating a heterosexual wedding with decorating a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding. According to his beliefs, those two things are not the same. Would it be okay to force you to favorably march in a parade supporting an anti-gay message? Favorably march means you are marching in support of the message. False equivalency, bad analogy. Either way, your parade argument is invalid. Private citizens are not bound by the same discrimination laws as for-profit businesses are. quote: Do all churches perform homosexual weddings? I've asked before and you never explained why it's okay for a church to not perform a homosexual wedding, even though they perform heterosexual weddings. Your response was to the effect that it was okay since they decline to perform weddings for some heterosexual couples, too. If that's okay, as long as Masterpiece Cakeshop declines to decorate a cake for a heterosexual wedding, it's okay, right? Again, standards are different for churches than they are for-profit businesses. There is no comparison here. In fact, Florida has The Pastor Protection Act, which gives churches and clergy immunity from litigation if they deny a marriage they don’t support on religious grounds. I believe other States have enacted similar legislation in recent years. Our Florida law seems reasonable, but you'll note that it does not extend to court officials, notary publics, or secular wedding chapels, nor does it extend to venues that are available to be used for weddings and receptions that are not owned by a church. quote: Does it occur to you, that Masterpiece Cakeshop might not have accepted work celebrating every heterosexual wedding it's been offered? I know when I got married, we were lucky in that it was a late summer wedding and not in the prime wedding time, else our 6-month wedding prep would have been 12 months too late. Does it occur to you how irrelevant that is? The bakery owner has already stipulated that he denied service to the couple for religious reasons. Now, had he used the excuse of being unavailable due to overwhelming business for the date the cake would be requested, he could have saved himself all sorts of trouble, but he was honest about his reason to discriminate. It does occur to me that businesses are legally forbidden to discriminate against a person because of their religion though. Shouldn't the same work in reverse? That businesses can't enforce their religion by discriminating against people that don't subscribe to their views?

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 12:15:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Do all churches perform homosexual weddings? I've asked before and you never explained why it's okay for a church to not perform a homosexual wedding, even though they perform heterosexual weddings. Your response was to the effect that it was okay since they decline to perform weddings for some heterosexual couples, too. If that's okay, as long as Masterpiece Cakeshop declines to decorate a cake for a heterosexual wedding, it's okay, right? Again, standards are different for churches than they are for-profit businesses. There is no comparison here. In fact, Florida has The Pastor Protection Act, which gives churches and clergy immunity from litigation if they deny a marriage they don’t support on religious grounds. I believe other States have enacted similar legislation in recent years. Our Florida law seems reasonable, but you'll note that it does not extend to court officials, notary publics, or secular wedding chapels, nor does it extend to venues that are available to be used for weddings and receptions that are not owned by a church. Government isn't religious. It would be pretty tough for government to discriminate on religious grounds, no? An agent of the government can not discriminate on religious grounds on behalf of the government because that would be saying that government was religious; which it is not (and I'm very happy with that being the case). Secular wedding chapels, by definition, are not religious, so they don't have religious grounds to fall back on. I do believe owners of venues available for weddings and receptions should have the right to choose their renters, and to discriminate if it runs afoul of their religious beliefs, as long as they are consistent (no gay wedding celebrations, vs. just not this couple or that couple, but those gay couples over we'll celebrate). I'm sure that won't sit well with you, but that's my honest belief. quote: quote: Does it occur to you, that Masterpiece Cakeshop might not have accepted work celebrating every heterosexual wedding it's been offered? I know when I got married, we were lucky in that it was a late summer wedding and not in the prime wedding time, else our 6-month wedding prep would have been 12 months too late. Does it occur to you how irrelevant that is? The bakery owner has already stipulated that he denied service to the couple for religious reasons. Now, had he used the excuse of being unavailable due to overwhelming business for the date the cake would be requested, he could have saved himself all sorts of trouble, but he was honest about his reason to discriminate. You stated you didn't have a problem with a church not performing homosexual weddings because they also didn't do every heterosexual wedding either. They sometimes decline hetero couples, too. I apply that logic to Masterpiece Cakeshop and, suddenly, it's irrelevant? It wasn't irrelevant when we're talking about a church, but it is when we're talking about a custom-created wedding cake? I think you need to spend some time and figuring out how you can rationalize that bullshit. quote: It does occur to me that businesses are legally forbidden to discriminate against a person because of their religion though. Shouldn't the same work in reverse? That businesses can't enforce their religion by discriminating against people that don't subscribe to their views? You didn't even reverse it. LMMFAO!! Reminds me of a recent episode of The Goldbergs where Barry wants to make a hit rap song styled after The Fresh Prince's "Parents Just Don't Understand" (which was also the title of the episode) by naming it "Parents Just Don't Get It." The reverse would be people being legally forbidden from discriminating against a business for religious reasons. I'm sure you're all for the public being allowed to discriminate along religious lines (I have no problem with it). Did Masterpiece Cakeshop's refusal to custom decorate a cake based on their religious beliefs force the gay couple to believe their homosexuality was wrong? The very fact that they are open and were getting married and were celebrating with friends and family sorta tells me they were pretty strong in their belief that homosexuality was not wrong. Is it wrong that Masterpiece Cakeshop refuses to custom decorate Halloween cakes on religious grounds? Or that they refuse to custom decorate "Divorce" cakes, also on religious grounds? I bet that doesn't bother you at all.

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 12:21:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri A custom decorated cake is far more than just "food" and you fucking know it. What a disingenuous argument. Also, you do not have a human right to commission anyone to do custom work for you. Most state sales tax laws would disagree. https://www.revenue.wi.gov/Pages/TaxPro/news-2016-160510b.aspx quote: Example 4: Cake Decorator is hired to prepare, cut, and serve wedding cake for 200 guests for a fee of $350. The $350 charge by Cake Decorator is subject to Wisconsin sales tax. The wedding cake is prepared food because plates are provided with the wedding cake. The charge is taxable regardless of who owns the plates for serving. You are aware that the law treats prepared foods all the same, right? Does a family owned restaurant have the right to deny service to a gay couple out on a date, if the family is deeply religious? Can they kick them out if they kiss, like the straight couples do?

DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 2:20:18 AM)
Dishonorable, defamatory, scumbag. Not to mention: the death of lofty goals: [image]http://www.collarspace.com/attachments/121417/x9BEBDD62-8582-4D94-9475-B66A2B4CF19F1.jpg.pagespeed.ic.HJW5as8WVN.jpg[/image] [image]http://www.collarspace.com/attachments/121417/x9BEBDD62-8582-4D94-9475-B66A2B4CF19F2.jpg.pagespeed.ic.6nwc__fUrw.jpg[/image]

DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 2:21:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I wouldnt trust him to shut a door without lying. Awwwww! Stalking me, still, even when No one rattled your cage. Stay "classy".

DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 2:23:08 AM)
Dishonorable, defamatory, scumbag. Not to mention: the death of lofty goals: [image]http://www.collarspace.com/attachments/121417/x9BEBDD62-8582-4D94-9475-B66A2B4CF19F1.jpg.pagespeed.ic.HJW5as8WVN.jpg[/image] [image]http://www.collarspace.com/attachments/121417/x9BEBDD62-8582-4D94-9475-B66A2B4CF19F2.jpg.pagespeed.ic.6nwc__fUrw.jpg[/image]

DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 2:34:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Right. His claim that the ACLU is involved is the same as bringing up an alleged pedophile. That's fucked up and twisted logic, there, JVoV. Did you debunk his claim? No it can't and I'll tell you why: I said the ACLU was involved in the case. I said I wouldn't be surprised if they were involved early on. Then, it, the he-cunt called me a liar. Then, I showed it where two ACLU attorneys were involved in the very first court filing (up until NOV 2013, there was no court. All decisions were by the Colorado Commission). I also posited that there was a chance the couple had gone to the ACLU before they went to the state commission. I was called a liar, again. It would NOT be unusual for the ACLU to have "represented" the couple in front of the commission, but the first *court filing* would have been when the baker refused to accept the commission's decision. That didn't matter, of course and I was told I had purposely misrepresented the truth. The trouble is: either the he-cunt can't read or it was more important for him to be able to attack the messenger, instead of the message. I provided the link to the very first court filing. It (the he-cunt) didn't like that. In fact, it's first argument after that (I think was)"So now you have a problem with gay people having legal representation" (another attempt at moving goal posts, rather than admit it was wrong). It's a dishonorable, defamatory, scumbag. Peace, Michael

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 2:39:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri A custom decorated cake is far more than just "food" and you fucking know it. What a disingenuous argument. Also, you do not have a human right to commission anyone to do custom work for you. Most state sales tax laws would disagree. https://www.revenue.wi.gov/Pages/TaxPro/news-2016-160510b.aspx quote: Example 4: Cake Decorator is hired to prepare, cut, and serve wedding cake for 200 guests for a fee of $350. The $350 charge by Cake Decorator is subject to Wisconsin sales tax. The wedding cake is prepared food because plates are provided with the wedding cake. The charge is taxable regardless of who owns the plates for serving. You are aware that the law treats prepared foods all the same, right? Does a family owned restaurant have the right to deny service to a gay couple out on a date, if the family is deeply religious? Can they kick them out if they kiss, like the straight couples do? Really? Going to a restaurant is the same thing as commissioning a custom decorated wedding cake?!? You're going further and further off the deep end, JVoV. The restaurant comparison is only related to the retail aspect of the bakery. That is, the day-in and day-out foot traffic for various baked goods that aren't customized. The custom decorating part is what makes the wedding cake completely different.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 3:38:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Right. His claim that the ACLU is involved is the same as bringing up an alleged pedophile. That's fucked up and twisted logic, there, JVoV. Did you debunk his claim? No he can't and I'll tell you why: I said the ACLU was involved in the case. I said I wouldn't be surprised if they were involved early on. Then, the he-cunt called me a liar. Then, I showed him where two ACLU attorneys were involved in the very first court filing (up until NOV 2013, there was no court. All decisions were by the Colorado Commission). I was told I had purposely mis-represented the truth. The trouble is: either the he-cunt can't read or it was more important for him to be able to attack the messenger, instead of the message. I also posited that there was a chance the couple had gone to the ACLU before they went to the state commission. I was called a liar, again. I provided the link to the very first court filing. He didn't like that. In fact, it's first argument after that (I think was)"So now you have a problem with gay people having legal representation" (another attempt at moving goal posts, rather than admit it was wrong). It's a dishonorable, defamatory, scumbag. Peace, Michael We agree on a whole lot of things, Michael, but I'm not sure you're right on this one. What you posted that showed 2 ACLU lawyers was a response to the legal representatives of Masterpiece Cakeshop, or something like that. From THAT piece, it didn't look like it was the very first court filing. However, since I've now done some digging, it turns out that, the ACLU was involved in the first court case. The couple were represented by ACLU lawyers at the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge in December of 2013. https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/craig-and-mullins-v-masterpiece-cakeshop-decision quote: Complainants were represented by Paula Greisen, Esq.,and Dana Menzel, Esq.,King & Greisen, LLC; Amanda Goad, Esq.,American Civil Liberties Union Foundation LGBT & AIDS Project; and Sara Rich, Esq.,and Mark Silverstein, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Colorado. JVoV mentioned the couple went to the State agency that deals with their issue (the Colorado CRC is the agency, but wasn't specified by JVoV). You mentioned the ACLU wasn't a State Agency. JVoV brought up the name of the case, showing it was the CO CRC listed as one side of the case. You were asked to stop lying (could be interpreted as being called a liar). You mentioned that the ACLU was involved in the case, and posited that the couple could have gone to them first and were told the Colorado CRC has to rule first before the could help. No way to prove one way or the other if what you posited happened or didn't happen. JVoV shifts the discussion, saying the ACLU isn't "leading the charge" (which is true, but wasn't what you stated), and then asked you for credible evidence the couple did what you posited they could have done (go to the ACLU first). You posted a link from 11/12/2013 entitled: "Complainants' Response in Opposition to Respondents' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment." While this could be misleading, I think you're right. It's misleading, at least to me, because there had to be an earlier hearing for the Respondents' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment to be filed, and I have yet to come across a filing for the Complainants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (both sides filed cross motions for summary judgment at the same time). It does look like the Colorado CRC deemed that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated Colorado Civil Rights law (which is not a court of law, but a State Agency). The Colorado CRC found it necessary for an Administrative Law case to be opened, and both sides filed cross motions. I'd be shocked if the ACLU wasn't representing the Complainants in the filing of their motion while representing them in response to Masterpiece Cakeshop's motion. So, it does look like the ACLU was involved from the first court case (Administrative Law Judgement) on. So, you were correct in that. I sincerely hope you'll stop spamming the thread with the oft-repeated post. It's really serving no useful function to anyone but (maybe) you.

DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 3:46:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I sincerely hope you'll stop spamming the thread with the oft-repeated post. It's really serving no useful function to anyone but (maybe) you. Until it (the he-cunt) does the honorable thing, every time it mentions me in a post or responds to me, I will continue to point out its willful misrepresentation and its "lofty goals" with which the thread was started. I do respect you and your opinion and appreciate you, doing the actual reading, before arriving at a decision, but I intend to treat it (the he-cunt) as it seems to want to treat me. Peace, Michael

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 3:52:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I sincerely hope you'll stop spamming the thread with the oft-repeated post. It's really serving no useful function to anyone but (maybe) you. Until it (the he-cunt) does the honorable thing, every time it mentions me in a post or responds to me, I will continue to point out its willful misrepresentation and its "lofty goals" with which the thread was started. I do respect you and your opinion and appreciate you, doing the actual reading, before arriving at a decision, but I intend to treat it (the he-cunt) as it seems to want to treat me. Peace, Michael I'd recommend you put him on hide then. JVoV isn't going to be apologizing, imo. So, you're going to continue to repost and on and on it will go.

Lucylastic -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 5:59:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I wouldnt trust him to shut a door without lying. Awwwww! Stalking me, still, even when No one rattled your cage. Stay "classy". Who is stalking who. ..... Jus saying Im not involved in you stalking jvov. You take that for yourself.

Page: << < prev 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625