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

[Ibentoken]

" or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Doesn't mean you can use religion as an excuse to go beyond societal norms. Those norms change over time. You can't, as part of your religion, sacrifice another human. Now, in some states you can't discriminate against the LGBT community. I'm guessing it wont be long before it's federal too. But not yet.

Bullshit. Societal norms don't trump my constitution.

We'll have to wait and see how the courts decide.

I agree.

 

[Ibentoken]

Never, because it's bullshit and entirely untrue. You aren't a slave just because you have to stop at red lights and pay your taxes. What you are is a child, and a stupid and selfish one at that.

This isn't about red lights and taxes. This is about a law that oversteps constitutional rights. Dumb fuck.

No, it doesn't dumbass, which is why the courts rule my way, not yours.

I can see you stomp your feet and hold your breath. It isn't going to work. We have a constitution and that drives you crazy.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Race had to have certain protections because of this countries history of it, in particular slavery. The only slavery I can connect to homosexuality is based on a fetish subset of the community, and was voluntary.

People can make the case that the Civil Rights laws were a suspension of human rights which were necessary during a time of martial law. These attacks on human rights have now been in place for 50 years and we can now lift the martial law and do away with Civil Rights laws.

In other words, it was necessary to suspend human rights laws in order to break a cultural cycle. We did that with the Voting Rights Act and how the Federal Courts supervised elections in some jurisdictions and has now lifted that supervision.

 

[Ibentoken]

My opinion, the court's opinion, the opinion of the majority, not that it matters, and 60 years of legal reasoning and good results for society. Go piss into the wind some more you damn infant.

This is a new law and two queers deliberately targeted the business owner to test the law. Now go fuck yourself, loser.

Bullshit, and it's not a new law, just a new minority that is being protected. Laws like this have been on the books for decades. Grow up and deal with it.

Constitution..... BOO.

 

[BlindBoo]

Bullshit. Societal norms don't trump my constitution.

We'll have to wait and see how the courts decide.

The courts have already decided. Certain Americans, like our little infant here, just need to GTFU!!!!!!!!!!!

The court in AZ decided a similar case. This is a different court.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This is a new law and two queers deliberately targeted the business owner to test the law. Now go fuck yourself, loser.

Bullshit, and it's not a new law, just a new minority that is being protected. Laws like this have been on the books for decades. Grow up and deal with it.

Constitution..... BOO.

As I said, you're an infant. And that's the end of that. Have fun, being a janitor at a church where you can rant about the faggots all day until even they tell you to shut the hell up or you're fired...

 

[Rikurzhen]

Nope, i just respect the rights of people who think "gays are icky."

It's quite likely that thinking "gays are icky" is something that people are born with, just like with homosexuality.

Here's the new victim class - Stop Discriminating Against "Homophobes." They're born that way."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We'll have to wait and see how the courts decide.

The courts have already decided. Certain Americans, like our little infant here, just need to GTFU!!!!!!!!!!!

The court in AZ decided a similar case. This is a different court.

The minds of the courts on this are clear, regardless of a decision here or there going one way or another. This fight is over and done with. Equality and decency won...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nope, i just respect the rights of people who think "gays are icky."

It's quite likely that thinking "gays are icky" is something that people are born with, just like with homosexuality.

Here's the new victim class - Stop Discriminating Against "Homophobes." They're born that way."

So were lots of other "defectives", and most of them you won't give a break to so there will be no exception here.

 

[bodecea]

Nope. You can't force an American citizen to violate their religious beliefs. Period. They will change the law.

Then do so.

I'm sure they will. It's being appealed also.

Good luck with that....since the laws have been on the books for many years.

 

[Rikurzhen]

A lot of things would be awesome, just not likely. There is no political will. Even the tribble head Rand Paul is backing of his bullshit on the Civil Rights Act, denying he ever said anything about it. Why? Because there is no political will to get rid of PA laws or to make changes to the Civil Rights Act.

In fact, the political will is in the other direction, protect gays like all the other minorities are protected. Did you know that you can fire people for being gay in about 30 states but a majority of Americans don't think you can and believe you shouldn't' be able to?

Civil Rights rulings are not popularity contests. When the Supreme Court ruled on Roe vs. Wade and Hobby Lobby, those rulings seriously pissed off some segments of society.

So just because a ruling in politically unpopular doesn't close the issue down.

Secondly, the political popularity and the likelihood of a court overturning are not factors set in stone, they're reactive to events and civilizational progress.

Maybe you've noticed what I've noticed, the opposition to anti-discrimination laws has been growing louder and louder because more and more people are noticing that they trample on the human right of free association and they're willing to jettison everything, and take the discrimination, so long as freedom can be restored to people. This used to be a very rare argument a decade ago but look at this thread - a number of people have made that argument.

The civil rights reform of the coming few decades is probably going to be to gut ant-discrimination laws due to their anti-Human Rights oppressive qualities.

 

[Rikurzhen]

If he offers wedding cakes as a business to the public, he cannot pick and choose which group he serves or not serves....same applies if he were to say he cannot design a cake for an interracial couple....or he refuses to design a cake for an interfaith couple.

The intolerant of you liberals is really something to behold. Quit forcing people to be nice.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If he offers wedding cakes as a business to the public, he cannot pick and choose which group he serves or not serves....same applies if he were to say he cannot design a cake for an interracial couple....or he refuses to design a cake for an interfaith couple.

The intolerant of you liberals is really something to behold. Quit forcing people to be nice.

Actually we're forcing him to act like a grownup, and a business, not a church.

 

[Rikurzhen]

If he offers wedding cakes as a business to the public, he cannot pick and choose which group he serves or not serves....same applies if he were to say he cannot design a cake for an interracial couple....or he refuses to design a cake for an interfaith couple.

The intolerant of you liberals is really something to behold. Quit forcing people to be nice.

Actually we're forcing him to act like a grownup, and a business, not a church.

You're not my Mom, so take your "forcing me to act" bit and shove it. How would you like religious folks using the bludgeon of law to force you to attend church?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The intolerant of you liberals is really something to behold. Quit forcing people to be nice.

Actually we're forcing him to act like a grownup, and a business, not a church.

You're not my Mom, so take your "forcing me to act" bit and shove it. How would you like religious folks using the bludgeon of law to force you to attend church?

If your mom is like that of the other selfish children here, I'd spank her first and then have her spank some common sense and human decency into you! Oh, but you can't tell me what to do, nah nah nahhhh so there!!!!!!!! What a bunch of fucking infants you guys are...

 

[dblack]

A lot of things would be awesome, just not likely. There is no political will. Even the tribble head Rand Paul is backing of his bullshit on the Civil Rights Act, denying he ever said anything about it. Why? Because there is no political will to get rid of PA laws or to make changes to the Civil Rights Act.

In fact, the political will is in the other direction, protect gays like all the other minorities are protected. Did you know that you can fire people for being gay in about 30 states but a majority of Americans don't think you can and believe you shouldn't' be able to?

Civil Rights rulings are not popularity contests. When the Supreme Court ruled on Roe vs. Wade and Hobby Lobby, those rulings seriously pissed off some segments of society.

So just because a ruling in politically unpopular doesn't close the issue down.

Secondly, the political popularity and the likelihood of a court overturning are not factors set in stone, they're reactive to events and civilizational progress.

Maybe you've noticed what I've noticed, the opposition to anti-discrimination laws has been growing louder and louder because more and more people are noticing that they trample on the human right of free association and they're willing to jettison everything, and take the discrimination, so long as freedom can be restored to people. This used to be a very rare argument a decade ago but look at this thread - a number of people have made that argument.

The civil rights reform of the coming few decades is probably going to be to gut ant-discrimination laws due to their anti-Human Rights oppressive qualities.

I do sense that people are starting to notice the creepy authoritarian core of these kinds of laws, and starting to question the whole concept. Hopefully popular revulsion at racism has reached critical mass, so that we can jettison the semi-poisonous "cure" of PA style laws.

 

[kaz]

Actually we're forcing him to act like a grownup, and a business, not a church.

You're forcing him to "act like a grownup" by using a gun to force him to bake a cake rather than just buying a cake from someone who wants to bake it.



Nice demonstration of grown up there...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Actually we're forcing him to act like a grownup, and a business, not a church.

You're forcing him to "act like a grownup" by using a gun to force him to bake a cake rather than just buying a cake from someone who wants to bake it.



Nice demonstration of grown up there...

There's no gun drama queen.

 

[kaz]

Actually we're forcing him to act like a grownup, and a business, not a church.

You're forcing him to "act like a grownup" by using a gun to force him to bake a cake rather than just buying a cake from someone who wants to bake it.



Nice demonstration of grown up there...

There's no gun drama queen.

I see, so government is just making a suggestion?

You have no clue about the world around you. OK, that wasn't an insight...

 

[Rikurzhen]

A lot of things would be awesome, just not likely. There is no political will. Even the tribble head Rand Paul is backing of his bullshit on the Civil Rights Act, denying he ever said anything about it. Why? Because there is no political will to get rid of PA laws or to make changes to the Civil Rights Act.

In fact, the political will is in the other direction, protect gays like all the other minorities are protected. Did you know that you can fire people for being gay in about 30 states but a majority of Americans don't think you can and believe you shouldn't' be able to?

Civil Rights rulings are not popularity contests. When the Supreme Court ruled on Roe vs. Wade and Hobby Lobby, those rulings seriously pissed off some segments of society.

So just because a ruling in politically unpopular doesn't close the issue down.

Secondly, the political popularity and the likelihood of a court overturning are not factors set in stone, they're reactive to events and civilizational progress.

Maybe you've noticed what I've noticed, the opposition to anti-discrimination laws has been growing louder and louder because more and more people are noticing that they trample on the human right of free association and they're willing to jettison everything, and take the discrimination, so long as freedom can be restored to people. This used to be a very rare argument a decade ago but look at this thread - a number of people have made that argument.

The civil rights reform of the coming few decades is probably going to be to gut ant-discrimination laws due to their anti-Human Rights oppressive qualities.

I do sense that people are starting to notice the creepy authoritarian core of these kinds of laws, and starting to question the whole concept. Hopefully popular revulsion at racism has reached critical mass, so that we can jettison the semi-poisonous "cure" of PA style laws.

This entire anti-discrimination mindset reveals the totaliltarianism at the heart of liberals.

The role of government is to govern the people. Liberals see the role of government as reforming people, molding people. They'd object to government forcing people to attend church, not because government is using its power to stomp on people's freedoms but because government is using that power for an end that liberals don't like. Government using that power to force people to be nice, sure let's give the government more jackboot power because there are some throats over there in Aisle #3 that don't yet have a jackboot pressing down on them.

Like a frog which is slowly being boiled, it sometimes jumps out of the water and people don't always immediately notice the tyranny of liberals but piece by piece the tyranny begins to reveal itself.

Sometimes society needs a reset after it becomes obvious that it's been going down the wrong path for a long time. Reagan did that with his economic realignment - people realized 90% top marginal tax rates were a reflection of having gone down a wrong path.