Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
.
The couple could have easily chosen to take their business elsewhere.
Instead, they chose to make an issue of it.
That's how the PC Police operates. The "laws" are not the issue here, although that's the excuse. Control is. Conformity.
.
The baker can choose to follow the law of his state, he chose not to do so. Thus, he can expect state action. One can choose to live, and operate one's business in locations that do not require "violating" one's faith, though how only refusing to make wedding cakes for gay Americans is a "faith" remains unexplained.
So it is more proper for a business to have to relocate than for a couple to have to find another baker. The laws of his state are stupid, or more to the point, a judges interpretation of said law is stupid.
They married LockeJaw.Are the dogs still married or did they get a divorce?
The baker can choose to follow the law of his state, he chose not to do so. Thus, he can expect state action. One can choose to live, and operate one's business in locations that do not require "violating" one's faith, though how only refusing to make wedding cakes for gay Americans is a "faith" remains unexplained.
So it is more proper for a business to have to relocate than for a couple to have to find another baker. The laws of his state are stupid, or more to the point, a judges interpretation of said law is stupid.
So we can make exemptions for a business if there is another baker? What if there isn't and what if it isn't a baker, but a grocery store, gas station, septic service, etc. I was told by a USMB bigot that I could just move if I were a rural dweller who could not get goods and services.
Is the Civil Rights Act stupid too?
.
The couple could have easily chosen to take their business elsewhere.
Instead, they chose to make an issue of it.
That's how the PC Police operates. The "laws" are not the issue here, although that's the excuse. Control is. Conformity.
.
The baker can choose to follow the law of his state, he chose not to do so. Thus, he can expect state action. One can choose to live, and operate one's business in locations that do not require "violating" one's faith, though how only refusing to make wedding cakes for gay Americans is a "faith" remains unexplained.
[
Who has asked to renounce his faith? Will he bake cakes for atheists? Convicted felons? It appears only gay humans are subject to restrictions in his faith.
At the time, Phillips told Denver's KDVR that his religious beliefs prevented him from serving the couple, and admitted to refusing service to other same-sex couples. But in December, administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer rejected that reasoning, noting that Phillips's shop had previously agreed to make a cake for the wedding of two dogs, rendering his supposed religiously based opposition moot.
Who has asked to renounce his faith? Will he bake cakes for atheists? Convicted felons? It appears only gay humans are subject to restrictions in his faith.A cake is an important aspect of any wedding. Knowingly baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding, is endorsing support for that wedding. May as well attend the ceremony while at it. Just abandon your faith, no big deal, right?So you feel that you should have the right to deny a product to a customer on the basis of what the customer is going to do with it after they leave your shop.
What would you be willing to sell the same-sex couple for their wedding feast? Would you deny them loaves of bread? If so, then you are plainly in violation of Colorado's public accommodation laws because it does not matter if they take the bread home for personal consumption or serve the bread at a wedding feast; as a baker providing public accommodation, you can't deny them bread. You do understand it is important that you cannot deny bread to people, don't you?
Would you deny them pastries? See above.
So what is so special about cake? We have established they can get the cake from you anyway.
Folks have forgotten that religious freedom is a constitutional right.
I am pleased to hear that Mr. Phillips will stand his ground, and not renounce his faith, just as I expected. He'll likely go to jail in order to keep practicing his faith, just as I would.
There will be some reporting requirements so that Jack can demonstrate that he doesnt exercise his belief system anymore that he has divested himself of his beliefs, she said.
He will also be required to create new policies and procedures for his staff.
We consider this reporting to be aimed at rehabilitating Jack so that he has the right thoughts, Martin said. Thats offensive to everything America stands for.
Phillips, who is celebrating his 40th year in business this week, told me hes not going to create any new policies.
My old ones are pretty adequate as far as Im concerned, he said. I dont plan on giving up my faith and changing because of that.
Baker Will Not Renounce His Faith
The baker can choose to follow the law of his state, he chose not to do so. Thus, he can expect state action. One can choose to live, and operate one's business in locations that do not require "violating" one's faith, though how only refusing to make wedding cakes for gay Americans is a "faith" remains unexplained.
So it is more proper for a business to have to relocate than for a couple to have to find another baker. The laws of his state are stupid, or more to the point, a judges interpretation of said law is stupid.
So we can make exemptions for a business if there is another baker? What if there isn't and what if it isn't a baker, but a grocery store, gas station, septic service, etc. I was told by a USMB bigot that I could just move if I were a rural dweller who could not get goods and services.
Is the Civil Rights Act stupid too?
.
The couple could have easily chosen to take their business elsewhere.
Instead, they chose to make an issue of it.
That's how the PC Police operates. The "laws" are not the issue here, although that's the excuse. Control is. Conformity.
.
The baker can choose to follow the law of his state, he chose not to do so. Thus, he can expect state action. One can choose to live, and operate one's business in locations that do not require "violating" one's faith, though how only refusing to make wedding cakes for gay Americans is a "faith" remains unexplained.
[
Who has asked to renounce his faith? Will he bake cakes for atheists? Convicted felons? It appears only gay humans are subject to restrictions in his faith.
At the time, Phillips told Denver's KDVR that his religious beliefs prevented him from serving the couple, and admitted to refusing service to other same-sex couples. But in December, administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer rejected that reasoning, noting that Phillips's shop had previously agreed to make a cake for the wedding of two dogs, rendering his supposed religiously based opposition moot.
[
Who has asked to renounce his faith? Will he bake cakes for atheists? Convicted felons? It appears only gay humans are subject to restrictions in his faith.
At the time, Phillips told Denver's KDVR that his religious beliefs prevented him from serving the couple, and admitted to refusing service to other same-sex couples. But in December, administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer rejected that reasoning, noting that Phillips's shop had previously agreed to make a cake for the wedding of two dogs, rendering his supposed religiously based opposition moot.
It certainly is a SINGULAR "faith", yes.
I understand and support the baker's right to not serve fags.
Which doesnt make any sense given the fact no such right exists.
Otherwise, you certainly seem to care about this issue for someone who doesnt care.
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
At the time, Phillips told Denver's KDVR that his religious beliefs prevented him from serving the couple, and admitted to refusing service to other same-sex couples. But in December, administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer rejected that reasoning, noting that Phillips's shop had previously agreed to make a cake for the wedding of two dogs, rendering his supposed religiously based opposition moot.
It certainly is a SINGULAR "faith", yes.
It is hilarious that you libs are supporting and using as an example a judges opinion that compared queer weddings with the marriage of dogs.
It certainly is a SINGULAR "faith", yes.
It is hilarious that you libs are supporting and using as an example a judges opinion that compared queer weddings with the marriage of dogs.
The judge didn't compare "queer weddings" to the marriage of dogs.
The judge evaluated the bakers belief that marriage was only between a man and a woman and wouldn't provide a cake to a same-sex couple but had been willing to supply a wedding cake to two dogs getting married. The evaluation was the bakers commitment to marriage being only one man and one woman. Dog's are not men and women.
>>>>
It certainly is a SINGULAR "faith", yes.
It is hilarious that you libs are supporting and using as an example a judges opinion that compared queer weddings with the marriage of dogs.
The judge didn't compare "queer weddings" to the marriage of dogs.
The judge evaluated the bakers belief that marriage was only between a man and a woman and wouldn't provide a cake to a same-sex couple but had been willing to supply a wedding cake to two dogs getting married. The evaluation was the bakers commitment to marriage being only one man and one woman. Dog's are not men and women.
>>>>
It is hilarious that you libs are supporting and using as an example a judges opinion that compared queer weddings with the marriage of dogs.
The judge didn't compare "queer weddings" to the marriage of dogs.
The judge evaluated the bakers belief that marriage was only between a man and a woman and wouldn't provide a cake to a same-sex couple but had been willing to supply a wedding cake to two dogs getting married. The evaluation was the bakers commitment to marriage being only one man and one woman. Dog's are not men and women.
>>>>
Brilliant!
A judge using a different species entirely to make his ruling!
The judge didn't compare "queer weddings" to the marriage of dogs.
The judge evaluated the bakers belief that marriage was only between a man and a woman and wouldn't provide a cake to a same-sex couple but had been willing to supply a wedding cake to two dogs getting married. The evaluation was the bakers commitment to marriage being only one man and one woman. Dog's are not men and women.
>>>>
Brilliant!
A judge using a different species entirely to make his ruling!
He didn't just a different species to make his ruling, he pointed out an that the baker did not apply beliefs. He was the one willing to make a dog wedding cake but not sell one to a same-sex human couple.
Pointing out the bakers capricious application of his beliefs is does not mean that is what the ruling was based on.
>>>>
Unlike the judge, the baker can tell the difference between people and dogs.
