Jacanuk's forum posts

#1 Posted by Jacanuk (5031 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

Again they are refusing him service based on his religious belief. His "god hate gays" is based on the bible , its not based on any personal homophobic agenda you might attribute to the statement.

So no the guy didn't get the exact same service as everyone else, he could not get a cake with writing on it, as everyone else can.' And non-christian can get the service.

Did the bakery ever claim it would put anything you want on the cake? Would they make a "I hate you, Jim" cake? Just because a person is religious that doesn't mean a company has to do what every they want them to.

He did get the same service as he could get any cake anyone else could get. Nobody else was allowed a cake like that so how is it discrimination?

Did they ever claim they would not put anything on the cake? did it have a sign in the window that said "text subject to bakers approval" ? If not then we have to assume that yes it did have a policy of putting pretty much everything the customer asked for on the cake. And do i have to show you lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit won because they didn't put something in writing....

Also again again again again he did not receive the same service, he wanted a cake with writing, he did not ask for a cake without, so its pointless to even argue that he wasn't refused service because he could get any other cake. Because thats not what he asked for.

#2 Edited by Jacanuk (5031 posts) -

@korvus said:

@Jacanuk said:

So no the guy didn't get the exact same service as everyone else, he could not get a cake with writing on it, as everyone else can.' And non-christian can get the service.

So you're saying that if I, as a non-religious person, had gone to that same bakery and asked for a cake saying "I hate gays" I would have gotten it just because I'm not a Christian?

No thats not what i am saying.

Where this man have a religious reason, you as a private individual have none. So you would not have the same protection. It might seem unfair but thats the way the law is put together.

#3 Posted by Jacanuk (5031 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@Jacanuk said:

So you are not aware of the fact that in Islam the Quran is a holy and sacred book and that your "but it ends up in the toilet" would make more sense in regards to that? Christianity doesn't have the same idea about the bible.

So for most of christians even the radical the bible is simply a book with god's words in it, and not a holy sacred object that is to be held up high. Which is where the comparison comes in to wedding and Birthday cakes.

That's exactly the point I was trying, its not something exclusive to Islam or anything. Instead, it is a rationale or a sentiment commonly found in many religious creeds with respect to certain elements of those said creeds. Whether it is observed in Christianity or not remains to be validated I guess, but this is by no means an "Islam" thing.

Now to respond to your claim that the bible is supposedly not regarded as a sacred object by Christians: I would find it rather strange for people not to handle a book that is believed to contain the words of God, the omnipotent creator of all being that they hold above all in creation, with veneration and reverence. I would also say that it is peculiar for those people to be so indifferent and lukewarm about the words of God so as to refer to an object containing them or associated with them so frivolously as a book with God's words in it. You're either right and Christians do indeed perceive the bible in that manner in which case I'd say that's irreverent and sacrilegious, or you're wrong and we'll leave it at that.

The comparison still makes no sense whatsoever. A cake in these occasions is a merely celebratory object that has no actual value to anything of value whatsoever. Its not like the birthday or wedding cake is a manifestation of the occasion nor are the things you mentioned are divinely sacred and holy to begin with.

Well, i don't have time to look at all the different religions in the world, but if we take the big ones, yes its exclusive to Islam. Where christians consider the bible a mere book, there is a completely different approach in islam to Quran. As said

"On reading the Qur'an one is at once convinced that it is the Word of Allah, for no man can write such perfect guidance on so many subjects.

The Holy Qur'an says that no man will be able to forge even a part of it and that no corruption shall touch it from any side. It is a miracle that the Holy Qur'an has remained unchanged and unaltered during all these 1400 years and it shall remain so till the Day of Resurrection, for Allah, has taken it on Himself to protect it.

The above pretty much says it all you need to know, the bible does not have the same ideology, for most normal christians its again just a book its collection of all the different artifacts they have found which preach the word of god so its gods words but its still just a book , you can drop it, tear it up, burn it and throw to the birds if you want, it does not have any meaning, try that with the Quran and you will have disgraced the holy words of allah.

So with that i hope you see how your comparison is completely wrong and does not hold water at all.

#4 Posted by Jacanuk (5031 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@toast_burner said:

@Jacanuk said:

It´s funny that you seem to think that your arguments are actually good.

You hypocrisy is so insane that i dont even know if its worth the time to actually try to educate you but its striking that you seem to disregard one life choice for another life choice and make it seem like the same kind of discrimination is ok just because its based on religion and not sexuality, which is just mind boggling stupid.

But the 2 cases are exactly the same, 2 bakeries refuse service in one area based on the person's belief/sexuality.

And what are you talking about? christians are used to getting special treatment? i have never noticed religion getting special treatment, infact you and others in this thread are prime example of the ridiculous treatment many christians have to face if they stick by their bibles words. Also its laughable that you claim christians are wanting special treatment, when we all can see how much the gay community attempts to stand out and want special consideration taken.

In the end though, You are either for all discrimination or against all kind of discrimination. This is not that hard. Its not a pick and chose store where you can pick the things you like and leave the things you dont like.

So you think all businesses should be forced to do something if a Christian asked them to? Ironic that just earlier you were saying that Christians don't get special treatment.

So if a Muslim goes into a butcher and asks for some Halal meat, but as all the meat is local they don't have any. Is that religious discrimination?

No, what i said was that christians have the same rights to be protected against discrimination as you claim homosexual have. This is not special treatment, this is the same treatment everyone else gets.

But what i also said was that you and others show a huge hypocritical stand when you get up in arms over the first bakery but not the 2nd bakeries discrimination.

As i said so many times either you are for discrimination or you are against, you can't pick and choose which group has more or less right to be protected against discrimination.

We've already been over this. It can only be discrimination if they refuse to give a person service based on their religious beliefs, gender, race, or sexuality.

This guy got the exact same treatment everybody else gets, what he and you are angry about was that he didn't get special treatment. The baker wouldn't make a cake like that no matter who asked for it, so it's not discrimination. If you can show that the baker was making similar cakes for non_Christians then you will have a point. But so far you're entire argument is nothing more than a pathetic grasp for Christian superiority and gay bashing.

Again they are refusing him service based on his religious belief. His "god hate gays" is based on the bible , its not based on any personal homophobic agenda you might attribute to the statement.

So no the guy didn't get the exact same service as everyone else, he could not get a cake with writing on it, as everyone else can.' And non-christian can get the service.

#5 Edited by Jacanuk (5031 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

@Jacanuk said:

@Barbariser said:

@Jacanuk said:

Please do provide this board with your legal education and expertise so we at least can be clear on where not to go, becuase your understanding of law is absoloute dreadful and it reminds me of all the laymen who think reading something on google makes them a legal expert.

Also again what you do not seem to even grasp here is not about the legal aspect, since neither bakery would be faced with any legal proceedings from the state. The key here which you clearly have plenty off is hypocritical views that is simply mind blowing stupidity and shows just how bad ultra radical liberals like yourself are for any country. 1 Bakery is not refusing service of any other cake, what they did was say no to provide them with a wedding cake, same as this bakery did, they would make the cakes but not write a message requested, that is denial of service, a 70% service is not service. Therefore this man can sue the bakery since his reason is religion and therefore the bakery is refusing to service a customer based on their religious beliefs. Its really not that hard to get, well for some it looks to be a climb up mount everest.

But honestly i think any further debate with you would actually fly straight over your head like most basic legal terms and understanding seems to have done, not to mention basic grasps of not being a hypocritical clown.

So enjoy your hypocrisy.

ROFL, your silly attempts at sounding like you actually understand anything is absolute gold coming from a moron who quoted constitutional law in a topic about a private entity. Anyone who's taken a single basic law subject in any decent university would know that the relevant field here is commercial law.

You clearly haven't been reading my posts (or anyone else's, for that matter) properly. Let me repeat myself in simple English. Agreeing to bake a wedding cake (and assorted message) for straights and not gays is discrimination against homosexuals. Refusing to bake a homophobic cake at all discriminates against nobody, because nobody can buy it.

Seriously just give up. Damn everyone here can see how you've been destroying yourself with your shitty analogies and rampant abuse of basic legal terminology. Why don't you find another topic to be hilariously wrong about?

@Jacanuk said:

Not really but nice try.

No his analogy is literally spot on, which is far better than literally every single one you have come up with.

Are you really this stupid?

First of all this has nothing to do with commercial law, This is actually about Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this is a federal law. So if you want to pretend to know law at least get your facts straight before you even begin to pretend you are above 2nd grade in junior high.

This act says that any business cannot refuse service based on race, religion, color, national origin , this business clearly refused to service this customer based on his religion. So there isen´t even that much to argue about, you can pretend otherwise but try to pass the bar first before you play lawyer.

So the only one hilarious wrong is you and its funny that you even begin to think you are correct, So do please keep destroying yourself because its funny to disprove you again and again and again.

Oh, and not to forget that there are no federal laws that protect sexuality, so the first bakery actually had every right to refuse service to the gay couple unless there was a state law, and not all states have laws to prevent that.

You can't seriously have thought that would be an actual rebuttal. You do realize that commercial law is a branch of civil law you ignoramus? It specifically refers to law governing the behaviour of businesses. Constitutional law, which is what you actually brought up, only governs the three branches of government. Last I checked, a bakery is a business and not a branch of government. You should have realized this because the Title you cited literally contains the word "commerce" in it!

You're finally right about one thing, which is that there isn't a federal law protecting homosexuals yet. Unfortunately for you, the bakery that was sued for refusing service to gay couples operated in Colorado, which does in fact have the CADA - this protects people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by public accommodations, which includes bakeries. The fact that that Colorado bakery lost the lawsuit should have been a pretty big clue that this regulation existed.

I can't be bothered to repeat myself w.r.t. with your blatant refusal to interpret the case facts correctly. I'm sure everyone by now can see that you are grasping at straws with your desperate attempts to conflate a denial of a special service to all customers with a denial of a general service to a specific group of customers, even after we've spent a dozen posts explaining the difference to you.

I think its funny that you act like you have a law degree. But care to share which one you have so we can get that cleared up.

Also its absolute a blast to see you try to put this in under commercial law, again which part of civil rights act didn't you get? The civil rights act is a part of federal law. And if you had 2 ounce of law knowledge you would know this. So just because this is about Business the statute which this customer would use is the civil rights act. How hard can this be to understand? incase you still want to be a smart ass, please link to the official law site/paper that agrees with you that this case will use any part of the commercial law group. Otherwise just keep diggin a hole for yourself.

Also what part of the civil rights act don't you get? the part where it says that any business cannot refuse service to any customer based on religion, and that this bakery clearly refused service on the grounds of his religious beliefs.

#6 Posted by Jacanuk (5031 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

It´s funny that you seem to think that your arguments are actually good.

You hypocrisy is so insane that i dont even know if its worth the time to actually try to educate you but its striking that you seem to disregard one life choice for another life choice and make it seem like the same kind of discrimination is ok just because its based on religion and not sexuality, which is just mind boggling stupid.

But the 2 cases are exactly the same, 2 bakeries refuse service in one area based on the person's belief/sexuality.

And what are you talking about? christians are used to getting special treatment? i have never noticed religion getting special treatment, infact you and others in this thread are prime example of the ridiculous treatment many christians have to face if they stick by their bibles words. Also its laughable that you claim christians are wanting special treatment, when we all can see how much the gay community attempts to stand out and want special consideration taken.

In the end though, You are either for all discrimination or against all kind of discrimination. This is not that hard. Its not a pick and chose store where you can pick the things you like and leave the things you dont like.

So you think all businesses should be forced to do something if a Christian asked them to? Ironic that just earlier you were saying that Christians don't get special treatment.

So if a Muslim goes into a butcher and asks for some Halal meat, but as all the meat is local they don't have any. Is that religious discrimination?

No, what i said was that christians have the same rights to be protected against discrimination as you claim homosexual have. This is not special treatment, this is the same treatment everyone else gets.

But what i also said was that you and others show a huge hypocritical stand when you get up in arms over the first bakery but not the 2nd bakeries discrimination.

As i said so many times either you are for discrimination or you are against, you can't pick and choose which group has more or less right to be protected against discrimination.

#7 Posted by Jacanuk (5031 posts) -

You hate Fox News, we get it.

Hate is such a strong word.

But everyone knows Fox News is more fake than actually news and its coverage so conservative-bias that it makes the republican party look like a kindergarten. So the above isn't exactly news

#8 Posted by Jacanuk (5031 posts) -

@ianhh6 said:

@Jacanuk: It's a given they're already planning the next Nintendo console, but where did you get the "within the next year" bs?

Its a qualified guess based on the fact that Miyamoto himself have been out confirming a new console. But you can take or leave it and you can even bookmark this thread so 31st dec 2015 you can pull it up if you are right and gloat.

#9 Posted by Jacanuk (5031 posts) -

I'm not feeling it--it seems like every other comic book movie has to be bleak and somber now. It's like it's trying its best NOT to look like a comic book movie.

If this is supposed to whet my appetite for this movie, it hasn't worked. Not a good teaser at all. One more thing--I don't think even Fox has any faith in this movie...if it did, it wouldn't be opening in August.

They dont leave earth there it seems, it looks like some kind of experiment on earth.

But im with you, i dont feel this movie and it has that Nolan dark feel to it and i am sick and tired of superhero movies like that.

But at least Deadpool is coming also which has all the good superhero elements.

#10 Posted by Jacanuk (5031 posts) -

MY GOD has this thread turned stupid!

Indeed.

But that will often happen when you have kids and adult conversation.