Baker Who Won’t Make Cakes for Same-Sex Weddings Appeals Mandatory Re-Education Order

[Seawytch]

The scripture in the new testament is specific. God condemns homosexuality in the old and the new. Ignorant racists who twist scripture for their own selfish reasons are exactly the same as you. You're twisting scripture for your own selfish reasons. The abolitionist Christian church had no problem with the scriptures, did they.

Don't you get it? It doesn't matter what YOU believe. I don't believe the bible is anti gay, YOU do. You don't believe the bible is racist. Some did and still do.



Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples - ABC News

No, you don't get it. I read scripture, period. You're the same as the racists who twisted scripture to support their beliefs. I believe scripture, period.

So do racists. They believe their racist interpretation of the bible just as devoutly as you believe your anti gay interpretation. Only the targets change, bigots don't.

 

[Ibentoken]

Don't you get it? It doesn't matter what YOU believe. I don't believe the bible is anti gay, YOU do. You don't believe the bible is racist. Some did and still do.

Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples - ABC News

No, you don't get it. I read scripture, period. You're the same as the racists who twisted scripture to support their beliefs. I believe scripture, period.

So we have a racist dope smoker to tell us what Jesus was all about, huh?

Ooool, wow. Harvard?

 

[Ibentoken]

He wasn't asked to make something he doesn't carry. How do you still have so little understanding? He sold wedding cakes and that is what was ordered.

Wrong. A cake was ordered for a queer wedding. Why don't you guys go to a muslim baker and try it. Should be interesting.

If the Muslim baker carried wedding cakes and they live in a locality that protects gays in Public Accommodation, a gay couple could sue if the cake was not baked.

A wedding cake was ordered. They made wedding cakes. Now they don't make wedding cakes. End of story.

You also might get your head sawed off when you sue him.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Couldn't queers just get their cakes somewhere else without the fascist charade....

Course they could

Couldn't them darkies just keep quit and eat in the back room instead of demanding to sit up at the counter, or just go somewhere else to eat?

Course they could have.......

I think there is a BIG difference between being black and being gay. For one thing, how do you know someone is gay if they don't tell you?

Two ladies walk into a bakery and order a wedding cake, the baker asks for the names on the cake...

....................Joan and Jane is a pretty good indication.



In that scenario, did the couple "tell them" or did the baker "ask" them?



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

I generally posted private discrimination should not be illegal. I cannot see any real possibility of what that discrimination could be based upon, besides orientation, that would not be met with overwhelming public condemnation.







I also don't buy any moral linkage to discrimination against blacks and against the GLBT. The immorality of racial discrimination was undeniable and could not have any valid underpinnings. JFK and Dirksen both saw that, and it overcame their own misgivings about the govt acting on private actions. I think the Christian bakers are hypocrites who hide their spite behind holier than thou smugness, and they need to have it wiped off their faces. But with a law? Not, imo. In 1960, peaceful protest against private discrimination was not allowed. That's not the case today.







But that's jmo. I'm not going to say those people who think public accommodation laws don't have reasonable views.

How about, we can get rid of PA laws when Yahoos stop burning Mosques in Tennessee.



Gays can just grow their own food.



Washington Lawmaker?s Office: If Gay People Face Discrimination, They ?Can Just Grow Their Own Food?

I do think violence should be illegal. However, it's basically just that I think GLBT folks will win via the free exercise of the first amendment, even in the South ... eventually. That was not the case with blacks in the South in 1960. jmo.

And when legislation is introduced to repeal ALL PA legislation, I'm all for it. Until then, gays are protected in some places just like Christians. Christians can deal with it or adjust their business practices.

 

[Seawytch]

Wrong. A cake was ordered for a queer wedding. Why don't you guys go to a muslim baker and try it. Should be interesting.

If the Muslim baker carried wedding cakes and they live in a locality that protects gays in Public Accommodation, a gay couple could sue if the cake was not baked.

A wedding cake was ordered. They made wedding cakes. Now they don't make wedding cakes. End of story.

You also might get your head sawed off when you sue him.

I still live in America, Islamaphobe.

 

[Ibentoken]

Don't you get it? It doesn't matter what YOU believe. I don't believe the bible is anti gay, YOU do. You don't believe the bible is racist. Some did and still do.



Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples - ABC News

No, you don't get it. I read scripture, period. You're the same as the racists who twisted scripture to support their beliefs. I believe scripture, period.

So do racists. They believe their racist interpretation of the bible just as devoutly as you believe your anti gay interpretation. Only the targets change, bigots don't.

And so do queers and leftists. You have one problem.....I'm not a racist.

 

[Ibentoken]

How about, we can get rid of PA laws when Yahoos stop burning Mosques in Tennessee.



Gays can just grow their own food.



Washington Lawmaker?s Office: If Gay People Face Discrimination, They ?Can Just Grow Their Own Food?

r



I do think violence should be illegal. However, it's basically just that I think GLBT folks will win via the free exercise of the first amendment, even in the South ... eventually. That was not the case with blacks in the South in 1960. jmo.

And when legislation is introduced to repeal ALL PA legislation, I'm all for it. Until then, gays are protected in some places just like Christians. Christians can deal with it or adjust their business practices.

We can also work on changes in the law.

 

[Ibentoken]

If the Muslim baker carried wedding cakes and they live in a locality that protects gays in Public Accommodation, a gay couple could sue if the cake was not baked.

A wedding cake was ordered. They made wedding cakes. Now they don't make wedding cakes. End of story.

You also might get your head sawed off when you sue him.

I still live in America, Islamaphobe.

You keep thinking that, Christophobic hateful bigot.

 

[BlindBoo]

Couldn't queers just get their cakes somewhere else without the fascist charade....

Course they could

Couldn't them darkies just keep quit and eat in the back room instead of demanding to sit up at the counter, or just go somewhere else to eat?

Course they could have.......

I think there is a BIG difference between being black and being gay. For one thing, how do you know someone is gay if they don't tell you?

I don't know, I can never tell, but my wife, she can knock off a gay man from a mile away, even if they don't know it themselves.

 

[dblack]

I generally posted private discrimination should not be illegal. I cannot see any real possibility of what that discrimination could be based upon, besides orientation, that would not be met with overwhelming public condemnation.



I also don't buy any moral linkage to discrimination against blacks and against the GLBT. The immorality of racial discrimination was undeniable and could not have any valid underpinnings. JFK and Dirksen both saw that, and it overcame their own misgivings about the govt acting on private actions. I think the Christian bakers are hypocrites who hide their spite behind holier than thou smugness, and they need to have it wiped off their faces. But with a law? Not, imo. In 1960, peaceful protest against private discrimination was not allowed. That's not the case today.



But that's jmo. I'm not going to say those people who think public accommodation laws don't have reasonable views.

How about, we can get rid of PA laws when Yahoos stop burning Mosques in Tennessee.

How 'bout we arrest the goons burning mosques, and leave everyone else freedom of conscience?

 

[Seawytch]

No, you don't get it. I read scripture, period. You're the same as the racists who twisted scripture to support their beliefs. I believe scripture, period.

So do racists. They believe their racist interpretation of the bible just as devoutly as you believe your anti gay interpretation. Only the targets change, bigots don't.

And so do queers and leftists. You have one problem.....I'm not a racist.

Wow, you are still completely missing the point.

 

[Seawytch]

r



I do think violence should be illegal. However, it's basically just that I think GLBT folks will win via the free exercise of the first amendment, even in the South ... eventually. That was not the case with blacks in the South in 1960. jmo.

And when legislation is introduced to repeal ALL PA legislation, I'm all for it. Until then, gays are protected in some places just like Christians. Christians can deal with it or adjust their business practices.

We can also work on changes in the law.

Sure. And what changes have you proposed to your legislature? I keep hearing about how folks don't want PA laws...and that legislation would be where exactly?

 

[Seawytch]

I generally posted private discrimination should not be illegal. I cannot see any real possibility of what that discrimination could be based upon, besides orientation, that would not be met with overwhelming public condemnation.







I also don't buy any moral linkage to discrimination against blacks and against the GLBT. The immorality of racial discrimination was undeniable and could not have any valid underpinnings. JFK and Dirksen both saw that, and it overcame their own misgivings about the govt acting on private actions. I think the Christian bakers are hypocrites who hide their spite behind holier than thou smugness, and they need to have it wiped off their faces. But with a law? Not, imo. In 1960, peaceful protest against private discrimination was not allowed. That's not the case today.







But that's jmo. I'm not going to say those people who think public accommodation laws don't have reasonable views.

How about, we can get rid of PA laws when Yahoos stop burning Mosques in Tennessee.

How 'bout we arrest the goons burning mosques, and leave everyone else freedom of conscience?

I'm just wondering what the Muslim family in TN is supposed to do if nobody will sell them food or fuel...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No one here is demanding outlawing homosexuality. Live and let live is what we are asking.

You and others on the right are demanding that gay Americans be denied access to public accommodations simply as a consequence of your fear and ignorance, you and other social conservatives are advocating that gay Americans should be subject to discrimination in their home communities for no other reason than who they are, where measures in jurisdictions seeking to ensure gay Americans are allowed access to public accommodations are necessary, proper, and comport with Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Bullshit, this is a State case not federal, if it were federal the American Religious Freedom Act would support the baker, period, end of story.

Incorrect.

State and local jurisdictions are subject to the Federal Constitution and its case law, in accordance with Article VI of the Constitution, where Commerce Clause jurisprudence is binding on the states, state laws, and state courts.

With regard to the New Mexico photographer case, for example, the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected a challenge to that state's public accommodations law citing as justification Commerce Clause case law:

Antidiscrimination laws have been consistently upheld as constitutional. See, e.g.,Hurley, 515 U.S. at 572 (“[Public accommodations laws] do not, as a general matter, violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments.”);Heart of Atlanta Motel, 379 U.S. at 242-44, 258, 261
(sustaining Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against challenges based on the Commerce Clause and the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments). Elane Photography’s desire to work with heterosexual rather than homosexual couples does not give it license to violate the NMHRA.

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf

An issue doesn't need to be a 'Federal case' only in order for the Commerce Clause to be applicable.

Moreover, there is no First Amendment 'violation,' no 'violation' of religious liberty, no 'violation' of private property rights, and no consequence where anything is being 'forced' on anyone.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Pubic Accommodation laws have been challenged and upheld at both the Federal and State court levels.

And Dred Scott was also upheld by the Supreme Court:

The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules.​

I suppose that that settles that. Dred Scott has been settled for all time. We need for all present-day laws in the US to reflect the issues settled in Dred Scott.

Do you see the problem with your tactic of appealing to law in matters of philosophy. All you're doing is claiming "might makes right" in that the arbitrary decision of the USSC means that we're forced to abide by such a decision.

What you don't do is make an argument for the philosophic rationale of FORCED ASSOCIATION.

 

[bendog]

Interesting analogy since the legal justification for PA laws is that govt may affect commerce, if commerce is used to facilitate discrimination.

That is one area John Roberts is unsettling upon

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I generally posted private discrimination should not be illegal. I cannot see any real possibility of what that discrimination could be based upon, besides orientation, that would not be met with overwhelming public condemnation.

I also don't buy any moral linkage to discrimination against blacks and against the GLBT. The immorality of racial discrimination was undeniable and could not have any valid underpinnings. JFK and Dirksen both saw that, and it overcame their own misgivings about the govt acting on private actions. I think the Christian bakers are hypocrites who hide their spite behind holier than thou smugness, and they need to have it wiped off their faces. But with a law? Not, imo. In 1960, peaceful protest against private discrimination was not allowed. That's not the case today.

But that's jmo. I'm not going to say those people who think public accommodation laws don't have reasonable views.

Remember that public accommodations laws address more than just discrimination, they also address the issue of regulating the markets to ensure their integrity.

To allow businesses that serve the general public to refuse to offer goods and services to patrons solely as a consequence of their race, religion, or sexual orientation would clearly be disruptive to the local market; and because all markets are interrelated, such a disruption would adversely effect other markets across the state and eventually across the Nation.

Public accommodations laws are therefore necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures designed to safeguard the integrity of the markets, as state and local jurisdictions are authorized to do by the Commerce Clause.

 

[martybegan]

I generally posted private discrimination should not be illegal. I cannot see any real possibility of what that discrimination could be based upon, besides orientation, that would not be met with overwhelming public condemnation.

I also don't buy any moral linkage to discrimination against blacks and against the GLBT. The immorality of racial discrimination was undeniable and could not have any valid underpinnings. JFK and Dirksen both saw that, and it overcame their own misgivings about the govt acting on private actions. I think the Christian bakers are hypocrites who hide their spite behind holier than thou smugness, and they need to have it wiped off their faces. But with a law? Not, imo. In 1960, peaceful protest against private discrimination was not allowed. That's not the case today.

But that's jmo. I'm not going to say those people who think public accommodation laws don't have reasonable views.

Remember that public accommodations laws address more than just discrimination, they also address the issue of regulating the markets to ensure their integrity.

To allow businesses that serve the general public to refuse to offer goods and services to patrons solely as a consequence of their race, religion, or sexual orientation would clearly be disruptive to the local market; and because all markets are interrelated, such a disruption would adversely effect other markets across the state and eventually across the Nation.

Public accommodations laws are therefore necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures designed to safeguard the integrity of the markets, as state and local jurisdictions are authorized to do by the Commerce Clause.

Things like this the market can handle itself. A person who could give a rats ass about business citing potential disruption is comical to say the least.

Just be honest. you like telling people how to live their lives, you like forcing people to adhere to your moral structure, and you like to punish those who will not comply.

 

[bodecea]

Pubic Accommodation laws have been challenged and upheld at both the Federal and State court levels.

And Dred Scott was also upheld by the Supreme Court:

The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules.​

I suppose that that settles that. Dred Scott has been settled for all time. We need for all present-day laws in the US to reflect the issues settled in Dred Scott.

Do you see the problem with your tactic of appealing to law in matters of philosophy. All you're doing is claiming "might makes right" in that the arbitrary decision of the USSC means that we're forced to abide by such a decision.

What you don't do is make an argument for the philosophic rationale of FORCED ASSOCIATION.

It WAS settled until the 13th amendment...just like "income tax is unconstitutional" until the 16th Amendment, etc.