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.
Why didn't they just find another lunch counter? Nobody said they had to eat at Woolworth's.
View attachment 471415
View attachment 471416
This isn't about rights. This is all about submission.My husband and I went into a bakery once and requested a birthday cake for my mother to be made. The Decorator almost refused to do the cake because she found the message offensive. My husband requrested that HAPPY BIRTHDAY OLD BAG be put on the cake--------had our request been completely refused, we simply would have had the cake made elsewhere.If these guys had walked into the bakery
View attachment 471417
and asked for a chocolate cake with strawberry icing, and the baker refused, you might have a point.
They didn't.
the buyers requested a cake with decorations he found offensive.
Business's should have the right to refuse customers, just as customers have the right to refuse them. A business refusing business is unlikely to stay in business long. AND btw, what fucking idiot wants food made by someone who doesn't like them in a cake business.
Why didn't they just find another lunch counter? Nobody said they had to eat at Woolworth's.
View attachment 471415
View attachment 471416
I don't think it is "apples and oranges". In both cases, the principle is the same. And if we're going to resolve the dispute over this issue we've got to admit that and address it head on. We need to recognize that the laws and polices we adopted for dealing with racism were bad, in principle, and we shouldn't apply them to other similar problems.
In both cases, the principle is the same.
Why didn't they just find another lunch counter? Nobody said they had to eat at Woolworth's.
View attachment 471415
View attachment 471416
I don't think it is "apples and oranges". In both cases, the principle is the same. And if we're going to resolve the dispute over this issue we've got to admit that and address it head on. We need to recognize that the laws and polices we adopted for dealing with racism were bad, in principle, and we shouldn't apply them to other similar problems.
In both cases, the principle is the same.
No, it isn't.
How do they materially differ? Does the bakery have an approved list of words that can be written on a cake? If your name is not on that list, will they refuse to wish you happy birthday?Why didn't they just find another lunch counter? Nobody said they had to eat at Woolworth's.
View attachment 471415
View attachment 471416
I don't think it is "apples and oranges". In both cases, the principle is the same. And if we're going to resolve the dispute over this issue we've got to admit that and address it head on. We need to recognize that the laws and polices we adopted for dealing with racism were bad, in principle, and we shouldn't apply them to other similar problems.
In both cases, the principle is the same.
No, it isn't.
They clearly targeted the guy because he refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding.I said he was an idiot. I suspect he only used his religion as an excuse to justify his bigotry like so many other right wingers do.What religious ceremony would the baker be forced to participate in with the trans cake?You can’t make this shit up. The left are targeting this man for his religious beliefs.
The newest unhinged lunatic is trying to force him to bake a cake that is blue on the outside and pink on the inside to represent the freak’s “transition”.
Colorado baker sued again over alleged LGBTQ bias
Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips case is latest in series of US cases against merchants' religious objectionswww.foxbusiness.com
Why can’t the idiot go to another cake shop, or make their own? Oh yea, because the real goal is to destroy the lives of anyone that disagrees with their batshit crazy Agenda.
It's not religious freedom that's being targeted - it's any resistance to their social engineering agenda. The freedoms at risk are much broader and more fundamental - freedom of conscience, freedom of association. Making this narrowly about religious freedom is a mistake.
Well who made the idiot baker's argument about religion to start with? Since it was all about religion before, I don't see how that ruling could have anything to do with this cake.
You might not appreciate the baker's religion, Christianity, and you might disagree with the Christian idea that Almighty God put Adam and Eve (not Steve) into the garden.
But you are beyond the pale in calling the belief "idiotic".
I disagree with the islamic hatred of bacon and the Hindu's worship of the Sacred Cow and the Shintoist thought that the emperor is Almighty God.
However, I wouldn't call them "idiotic."
Why can't the people wanting the cake just go to another baker?
Are they trying to make a point, or get a payday?
Oh? What does the Bible say about trans-gendered?But your bigotry against Christians is good and righteous.I said he was an idiot. I suspect he only used his religion as an excuse to justify his bigotry like so many other right wingers do.What religious ceremony would the baker be forced to participate in with the trans cake?You can’t make this shit up. The left are targeting this man for his religious beliefs.
The newest unhinged lunatic is trying to force him to bake a cake that is blue on the outside and pink on the inside to represent the freak’s “transition”.
Colorado baker sued again over alleged LGBTQ bias
Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips case is latest in series of US cases against merchants' religious objections
Why can’t the idiot go to another cake shop, or make their own? Oh yea, because the real goal is to destroy the lives of anyone that disagrees with their batshit crazy Agenda.
It's not religious freedom that's being targeted - it's any resistance to their social engineering agenda. The freedoms at risk are much broader and more fundamental - freedom of conscience, freedom of association. Making this narrowly about religious freedom is a mistake.
Well who made the idiot baker's argument about religion to start with? Since it was all about religion before, I don't see how that ruling could have anything to do with this cake.
You might not appreciate the baker's religion, Christianity, and you might disagree with the Christian idea that Almighty God put Adam and Eve (not Steve) into the garden.
But you are beyond the pale in calling the belief "idiotic".
I disagree with the islamic hatred of bacon and the Hindu's worship of the Sacred Cow and the Shintoist thought that the emperor is Almighty God.
However, I wouldn't call them "idiotic."
Why didn't they just find another lunch counter? Nobody said they had to eat at Woolworth's.
View attachment 471415
View attachment 471416
I don't think it is "apples and oranges". In both cases, the principle is the same. And if we're going to resolve the dispute over this issue we've got to admit that and address it head on. We need to recognize that the laws and polices we adopted for dealing with racism were bad, in principle, and we shouldn't apply them to other similar problems.
In both cases, the principle is the same.
No, it isn't.
In both cases, the target is "discrimination". In both cases, the state is mandating that someone accommodate someone else against their will. Both indulge the concepts of "protected class" and "public accommodations". The principles and justification for government forcing restaurants to serve blacks are the exact the same principles and justifications used for forcing a baker to bake cakes for gays.
My point is that they are bad principles and we shouldn't generalize them. Racism has been such a crippling problem in this country that it's easy to see how we turned to overreaching government to solve it. But we must realize that it was overreaching government, and we should avoid indulging it further.
In both cases, the target is "discrimination".
Both indulge the concepts of "protected class" and "public accommodations".
The principles and justification for government forcing restaurants to serve blacks are the exact the same principles and justifications used for forcing a baker to bake cakes for gays.
How do they materially differ? Does the bakery have an approved list of words that can be written on a cake? If your name is not on that list, will they refuse to wish you happy birthday?Why didn't they just find another lunch counter? Nobody said they had to eat at Woolworth's.
View attachment 471415
View attachment 471416
I don't think it is "apples and oranges". In both cases, the principle is the same. And if we're going to resolve the dispute over this issue we've got to admit that and address it head on. We need to recognize that the laws and polices we adopted for dealing with racism were bad, in principle, and we shouldn't apply them to other similar problems.
In both cases, the principle is the same.
No, it isn't.
Talk about apples and oranges.How do they materially differ? Does the bakery have an approved list of words that can be written on a cake? If your name is not on that list, will they refuse to wish you happy birthday?Why didn't they just find another lunch counter? Nobody said they had to eat at Woolworth's.
View attachment 471415
View attachment 471416
I don't think it is "apples and oranges". In both cases, the principle is the same. And if we're going to resolve the dispute over this issue we've got to admit that and address it head on. We need to recognize that the laws and polices we adopted for dealing with racism were bad, in principle, and we shouldn't apply them to other similar problems.
In both cases, the principle is the same.
No, it isn't.
ask a Jewish baker to make a birthday cake celebrating the anniversary of Hitler.
Ask a Black baker to create a cake celebrating the KKK.
How so?Why didn't they just find another lunch counter? Nobody said they had to eat at Woolworth's.
View attachment 471415
View attachment 471416
I don't think it is "apples and oranges". In both cases, the principle is the same. And if we're going to resolve the dispute over this issue we've got to admit that and address it head on. We need to recognize that the laws and polices we adopted for dealing with racism were bad, in principle, and we shouldn't apply them to other similar problems.
In both cases, the principle is the same.
No, it isn't.
In both cases, the target is "discrimination". In both cases, the state is mandating that someone accommodate someone else against their will. Both indulge the concepts of "protected class" and "public accommodations". The principles and justification for government forcing restaurants to serve blacks are the exact the same principles and justifications used for forcing a baker to bake cakes for gays.
My point is that they are bad principles and we shouldn't generalize them. Racism has been such a crippling problem in this country that it's easy to see how we turned to overreaching government to solve it. But we must realize that it was overreaching government, and we should avoid indulging it further.In both cases, the target is "discrimination".
No, it isn't
Both indulge the concepts of "protected class" and "public accommodations".
Protected class?
not quite
The principles and justification for government forcing restaurants to serve blacks are the exact the same principles and justifications used for forcing a baker to bake cakes for gays.
By the same reasoning, would you force a Jewish baker to create a Birthday cake for Adolph Hitler?
How so?Why didn't they just find another lunch counter? Nobody said they had to eat at Woolworth's.
View attachment 471415
View attachment 471416
I don't think it is "apples and oranges". In both cases, the principle is the same. And if we're going to resolve the dispute over this issue we've got to admit that and address it head on. We need to recognize that the laws and polices we adopted for dealing with racism were bad, in principle, and we shouldn't apply them to other similar problems.
In both cases, the principle is the same.
No, it isn't.
In both cases, the target is "discrimination". In both cases, the state is mandating that someone accommodate someone else against their will. Both indulge the concepts of "protected class" and "public accommodations". The principles and justification for government forcing restaurants to serve blacks are the exact the same principles and justifications used for forcing a baker to bake cakes for gays.
My point is that they are bad principles and we shouldn't generalize them. Racism has been such a crippling problem in this country that it's easy to see how we turned to overreaching government to solve it. But we must realize that it was overreaching government, and we should avoid indulging it further.In both cases, the target is "discrimination".
No, it isn't
Both indulge the concepts of "protected class" and "public accommodations".
Protected class?
not quite
The principles and justification for government forcing restaurants to serve blacks are the exact the same principles and justifications used for forcing a baker to bake cakes for gays.
By the same reasoning, would you force a Jewish baker to create a Birthday cake for Adolph Hitler?
I wouldn't use that reasoning at all. It's bad reasoning. That's my point.
But it's the reasoning they use to justify these laws. If Adolph Hitler was covered by a protected class, the government would force the Jewish baker to service him.
If Adolph Hitler was covered by a protected class, the government would force the Jewish baker to service him.
How do they materially differ? Does the bakery have an approved list of words that can be written on a cake? If your name is not on that list, will they refuse to wish you happy birthday?Why didn't they just find another lunch counter? Nobody said they had to eat at Woolworth's.
View attachment 471415
View attachment 471416
I don't think it is "apples and oranges". In both cases, the principle is the same. And if we're going to resolve the dispute over this issue we've got to admit that and address it head on. We need to recognize that the laws and polices we adopted for dealing with racism were bad, in principle, and we shouldn't apply them to other similar problems.
In both cases, the principle is the same.
No, it isn't.
ask a Jewish baker to make a birthday cake celebrating the anniversary of Hitler.
Ask a Black baker to create a cake celebrating the KKK.
How so?Why didn't they just find another lunch counter? Nobody said they had to eat at Woolworth's.
View attachment 471415
View attachment 471416
I don't think it is "apples and oranges". In both cases, the principle is the same. And if we're going to resolve the dispute over this issue we've got to admit that and address it head on. We need to recognize that the laws and polices we adopted for dealing with racism were bad, in principle, and we shouldn't apply them to other similar problems.
In both cases, the principle is the same.
No, it isn't.
In both cases, the target is "discrimination". In both cases, the state is mandating that someone accommodate someone else against their will. Both indulge the concepts of "protected class" and "public accommodations". The principles and justification for government forcing restaurants to serve blacks are the exact the same principles and justifications used for forcing a baker to bake cakes for gays.
My point is that they are bad principles and we shouldn't generalize them. Racism has been such a crippling problem in this country that it's easy to see how we turned to overreaching government to solve it. But we must realize that it was overreaching government, and we should avoid indulging it further.In both cases, the target is "discrimination".
No, it isn't
Both indulge the concepts of "protected class" and "public accommodations".
Protected class?
not quite
The principles and justification for government forcing restaurants to serve blacks are the exact the same principles and justifications used for forcing a baker to bake cakes for gays.
By the same reasoning, would you force a Jewish baker to create a Birthday cake for Adolph Hitler?
I wouldn't use that reasoning at all. It's bad reasoning. That's my point.
But it's the reasoning they use to justify these laws. If Adolph Hitler was covered by a protected class, the government would force the Jewish baker to service him.
If Adolph Hitler was covered by a protected class, the government would force the Jewish baker to service him.
I'd like to see the judge that found for that.
I doubt he'd be on the bench for long.
100% correct. They will never be satisfied until everyoneon this planet complies with their every demand. And even then they will find someone or something to hate. The left is and always has been the biggest threat to this country. The right have a few wingnuts , but the left is 100% wingnuts and they will never quit until they destroy everythng they touch . They stick together like cotton candy , but I guarantee there is nothing sweet about them.You can’t make this shit up. The left are targeting this man for his religious beliefs.
The newest unhinged lunatic is trying to force him to bake a cake that is blue on the outside and pink on the inside to represent the freak’s “transition”.
Colorado baker sued again over alleged LGBTQ bias
Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips case is latest in series of US cases against merchants' religious objections
Why can’t the idiot go to another cake shop, or make their own? Oh yea, because the real goal is to destroy the lives of anyone that disagrees with their batshit crazy Agenda.
Because they HATE losing. They will continue their attacks on this poor guy until he either shuts down, or they die.
How so?Why didn't they just find another lunch counter? Nobody said they had to eat at Woolworth's.
View attachment 471415
View attachment 471416
I don't think it is "apples and oranges". In both cases, the principle is the same. And if we're going to resolve the dispute over this issue we've got to admit that and address it head on. We need to recognize that the laws and polices we adopted for dealing with racism were bad, in principle, and we shouldn't apply them to other similar problems.
In both cases, the principle is the same.
No, it isn't.
In both cases, the target is "discrimination". In both cases, the state is mandating that someone accommodate someone else against their will. Both indulge the concepts of "protected class" and "public accommodations". The principles and justification for government forcing restaurants to serve blacks are the exact the same principles and justifications used for forcing a baker to bake cakes for gays.
My point is that they are bad principles and we shouldn't generalize them. Racism has been such a crippling problem in this country that it's easy to see how we turned to overreaching government to solve it. But we must realize that it was overreaching government, and we should avoid indulging it further.In both cases, the target is "discrimination".
No, it isn't
Both indulge the concepts of "protected class" and "public accommodations".
Protected class?
not quite
The principles and justification for government forcing restaurants to serve blacks are the exact the same principles and justifications used for forcing a baker to bake cakes for gays.
By the same reasoning, would you force a Jewish baker to create a Birthday cake for Adolph Hitler?
I wouldn't use that reasoning at all. It's bad reasoning. That's my point.
But it's the reasoning they use to justify these laws. If Adolph Hitler was covered by a protected class, the government would force the Jewish baker to service him.
If Adolph Hitler was covered by a protected class, the government would force the Jewish baker to service him.
I'd like to see the judge that found for that.
I doubt he'd be on the bench for long.
Some states have already made political affiliation a protected class. With a good lawyer Hitler might have a good case.
Some states have already made political affiliation a protected class.
How so?Why didn't they just find another lunch counter? Nobody said they had to eat at Woolworth's.
View attachment 471415
View attachment 471416
I don't think it is "apples and oranges". In both cases, the principle is the same. And if we're going to resolve the dispute over this issue we've got to admit that and address it head on. We need to recognize that the laws and polices we adopted for dealing with racism were bad, in principle, and we shouldn't apply them to other similar problems.
In both cases, the principle is the same.
No, it isn't.
In both cases, the target is "discrimination". In both cases, the state is mandating that someone accommodate someone else against their will. Both indulge the concepts of "protected class" and "public accommodations". The principles and justification for government forcing restaurants to serve blacks are the exact the same principles and justifications used for forcing a baker to bake cakes for gays.
My point is that they are bad principles and we shouldn't generalize them. Racism has been such a crippling problem in this country that it's easy to see how we turned to overreaching government to solve it. But we must realize that it was overreaching government, and we should avoid indulging it further.In both cases, the target is "discrimination".
No, it isn't
Both indulge the concepts of "protected class" and "public accommodations".
Protected class?
not quite
The principles and justification for government forcing restaurants to serve blacks are the exact the same principles and justifications used for forcing a baker to bake cakes for gays.
By the same reasoning, would you force a Jewish baker to create a Birthday cake for Adolph Hitler?
I wouldn't use that reasoning at all. It's bad reasoning. That's my point.
But it's the reasoning they use to justify these laws. If Adolph Hitler was covered by a protected class, the government would force the Jewish baker to service him.
If Adolph Hitler was covered by a protected class, the government would force the Jewish baker to service him.
I'd like to see the judge that found for that.
I doubt he'd be on the bench for long.
Some states have already made political affiliation a protected class. With a good lawyer Hitler might have a good case.
Some states have already made political affiliation a protected class.
This whole thread reeks of
View attachment 471535
REALLY reeks.
Doesn't matter. It's their business.How do they materially differ? Does the bakery have an approved list of words that can be written on a cake? If your name is not on that list, will they refuse to wish you happy birthday?Why didn't they just find another lunch counter? Nobody said they had to eat at Woolworth's.
View attachment 471415
View attachment 471416
I don't think it is "apples and oranges". In both cases, the principle is the same. And if we're going to resolve the dispute over this issue we've got to admit that and address it head on. We need to recognize that the laws and polices we adopted for dealing with racism were bad, in principle, and we shouldn't apply them to other similar problems.
In both cases, the principle is the same.
No, it isn't.
