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

[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.

What a sad thing.

It is sad. Because we don't want to promote opposition to legitimate anti-discrimination laws. Most of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act, those that guarantee equal protection and equal treatment under the law were, and still are, necessary. But over zealous attempts at social engineering give the racists cover and offer them the opportunity to undo real progress in the guise of defending freedom.

 

[kaz]

So you've contacted your Congressmen about removing all Federal Public Accommodation laws? Is he or she going to introduce legislation?

I think changing minds is effective, you think writing your congressman is. I've given your instructions that I follow your values all due consideration, written it down, wiped my ass with it, and flushed.

So have you contacted your local church about anti-gay reprogramming yet since you have admitted that it is effective? I'd hate to see anyone go to hell who can be saved. Repent and you will be forgiven, seek the Lord and you will become straight.

 

[kaz]

It is sad. Because we don't want to promote opposition to legitimate anti-discrimination laws. Most of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act, those that guarantee equal protection and equal treatment under government were, and still are, necessary. But over zealous attempts and social engineering give racists cover.

The only widespread discrimination liberals can ever point to are government laws. Jim Crow was government, yet they use that to blame business. They have found one baker who doesn't want to bake a gay cake, and justify national solutions to the problem. Free markets are a far more effective solution. They don't want that, because they only time they want to use the word free is regarding other people's stuff.

 

[kaz]

What's sad is the way to protect minorities are free markets and Democrats are restricting those more and more.

Jim Crow was ... government ....

So liberal logic is that government government had laws that discriminate because businesses overwhelmingly wont, we want the best employees and paying customers. The color we care about is green.

So now government has to cure a government problem with government laws. And it's our fault. Even though the discrimination laws government forced on us were government, and now it's our fault that government needs laws restricting discrimination.

Is there some point you realize how just intellectually vacant all your crap is and let the markets work, as they keep trying to do?

So you've contacted your Congressmen about removing all Federal Public Accommodation laws? Is he or she going to introduce legislation?

Isn't it odd...they want to cry about their rights this...their rights that? Well, they DO have the right to vote for legislation and legislators who can eliminate these Public Accommodation laws. Why haven't they done so? Or is it behind their efforts to get government out of the marriage business altogether?

Isn't it odd that you're crying that the courts enforced the Constitution, even in a narrow way?

 

[Seawytch]

What's sad is the way to protect minorities are free markets and Democrats are restricting those more and more.

Jim Crow was ... government ....

So liberal logic is that government government had laws that discriminate because businesses overwhelmingly wont, we want the best employees and paying customers. The color we care about is green.

So now government has to cure a government problem with government laws. And it's our fault. Even though the discrimination laws government forced on us were government, and now it's our fault that government needs laws restricting discrimination.

Is there some point you realize how just intellectually vacant all your crap is and let the markets work, as they keep trying to do?

So you've contacted your Congressmen about removing all Federal Public Accommodation laws? Is he or she going to introduce legislation?

Isn't it odd...they want to cry about their rights this...their rights that? Well, they DO have the right to vote for legislation and legislators who can eliminate these Public Accommodation laws. Why haven't they done so? Or is it behind their efforts to get government out of the marriage business altogether?

Oh, I'm sure they signed an online petition or something somewhere. They're working really hard to get PA laws repealed and get the "gubmit" out of the "marriage biz". They just have to be.

 

[dblack]

What's sad is the way to protect minorities are free markets and Democrats are restricting those more and more.

Jim Crow was ... government ....

So liberal logic is that government government had laws that discriminate because businesses overwhelmingly wont, we want the best employees and paying customers. The color we care about is green.

So now government has to cure a government problem with government laws. And it's our fault. Even though the discrimination laws government forced on us were government, and now it's our fault that government needs laws restricting discrimination.

Is there some point you realize how just intellectually vacant all your crap is and let the markets work, as they keep trying to do?

So you've contacted your Congressmen about removing all Federal Public Accommodation laws? Is he or she going to introduce legislation?

Isn't it odd...they want to cry about their rights this...their rights that? Well, they DO have the right to vote for legislation and legislators who can eliminate these Public Accommodation laws. Why haven't they done so? Or is it behind their efforts to get government out of the marriage business altogether?

Uh... I, for one, have. But it's more important to go after this kind of nonsense in the courts. In a democracy, constitutional limits and the courts are often the only way minorities can protect their rights.

 

[dblack]

So you've contacted your Congressmen about removing all Federal Public Accommodation laws? Is he or she going to introduce legislation?

Isn't it odd...they want to cry about their rights this...their rights that? Well, they DO have the right to vote for legislation and legislators who can eliminate these Public Accommodation laws. Why haven't they done so? Or is it behind their efforts to get government out of the marriage business altogether?

Oh, I'm sure they signed an online petition or something somewhere. They're working really hard to get PA laws repealed and get the "gubmit" out of the "marriage biz". They just have to be.

So, were you just bullshitting earlier, when you claimed to agree that PA laws and protected classes were wrong?

 

[Redfish]

So you've contacted your Congressmen about removing all Federal Public Accommodation laws? Is he or she going to introduce legislation?

Isn't it odd...they want to cry about their rights this...their rights that? Well, they DO have the right to vote for legislation and legislators who can eliminate these Public Accommodation laws. Why haven't they done so? Or is it behind their efforts to get government out of the marriage business altogether?

Oh, I'm sure they signed an online petition or something somewhere. They're working really hard to get PA laws repealed and get the "gubmit" out of the "marriage biz". They just have to be.

Ok wytchey, one more time.

which is more important to you, societal acceptance or equal rights? They are not the same thing and you can have one without the other. Try to be honest for just once and actually think for a few minutes before responding.

 

[Seawytch]

Isn't it odd...they want to cry about their rights this...their rights that? Well, they DO have the right to vote for legislation and legislators who can eliminate these Public Accommodation laws. Why haven't they done so? Or is it behind their efforts to get government out of the marriage business altogether?

Oh, I'm sure they signed an online petition or something somewhere. They're working really hard to get PA laws repealed and get the "gubmit" out of the "marriage biz". They just have to be.

So, were you just bullshitting earlier, when you claimed to agree that PA laws and protected classes were wrong?

I never said they were wrong, I said I support your drive to get rid of them. I say go for it and then I asked what you're doing to accomplish it.

They were necessary and I still think that in some places they are. It's really easy for people to say "let the market decide" when there is a market. In some places there isn't. They still burn Mosques in TN. You think that Muslim family in rural TN is going to have a "market" to decide in?

 

[Redfish]

So you've contacted your Congressmen about removing all Federal Public Accommodation laws? Is he or she going to introduce legislation?

Isn't it odd...they want to cry about their rights this...their rights that? Well, they DO have the right to vote for legislation and legislators who can eliminate these Public Accommodation laws. Why haven't they done so? Or is it behind their efforts to get government out of the marriage business altogether?

Uh... I, for one, have. But it's more important to go after this kind of nonsense in the courts. In a democracy, constitutional limits and the courts are often the only way minorities can protect their rights.

I disagree, the right way to solve these issues is by the ballot box. The majority belief should prevail. Thats the way democracies work.

Now, before someone gets all spun up about majorities dumping on minorities, thats not the issue. Gay marriage is not a minority issue. Gays can have complete equality in every aspect via a legal civil union.

But as I have said many times, the gay agenda is not about equality, its about government forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle that a majority of our citizens find objectionable.

 

[Seawytch]

Isn't it odd...they want to cry about their rights this...their rights that? Well, they DO have the right to vote for legislation and legislators who can eliminate these Public Accommodation laws. Why haven't they done so? Or is it behind their efforts to get government out of the marriage business altogether?

Oh, I'm sure they signed an online petition or something somewhere. They're working really hard to get PA laws repealed and get the "gubmit" out of the "marriage biz". They just have to be.

Ok wytchey, one more time.

which is more important to you, societal acceptance or equal rights? They are not the same thing and you can have one without the other. Try to be honest for just once and actually think for a few minutes before responding.

Both would be great, but if I have to choose one over the other, I'll take the equality. The acceptance comes with time. Blacks had the equality before the social acceptance. If you look at the polls, gays got the acceptance before the equality. Bassackwards in my opinion.

What does that have to do with Public Accommodation laws, that in some locals, protect gays and lesbians along with Christians and people with disabilities?

 

[Redfish]

Oh, I'm sure they signed an online petition or something somewhere. They're working really hard to get PA laws repealed and get the "gubmit" out of the "marriage biz". They just have to be.

So, were you just bullshitting earlier, when you claimed to agree that PA laws and protected classes were wrong?

I never said they were wrong, I said I support your drive to get rid of them. I say go for it and then I asked what you're doing to accomplish it.

They were necessary and I still think that in some places they are. It's really easy for people to say "let the market decide" when there is a market. In some places there isn't. They still burn Mosques in TN. You think that Muslim family in rural TN is going to have a "market" to decide in?

burning the property of others is already illegal. no new laws are needed.

 

[Redfish]

Oh, I'm sure they signed an online petition or something somewhere. They're working really hard to get PA laws repealed and get the "gubmit" out of the "marriage biz". They just have to be.

Ok wytchey, one more time.

which is more important to you, societal acceptance or equal rights? They are not the same thing and you can have one without the other. Try to be honest for just once and actually think for a few minutes before responding.

Both would be great, but if I have to choose one over the other, I'll take the equality. The acceptance comes with time. Blacks had the equality before the social acceptance. If you look at the polls, gays got the acceptance before the equality. Bassackwards in my opinion.

What does that have to do with Public Accommodation laws, that in some locals, protect gays and lesbians along with Christians and people with disabilities?

OK, that makes sense. Now, why would a gay couple want to do business with a baker that does not approve of gays?

I am a white guy, I have no desire to demand service in a black bar in the 9th ward. I have no desire to sue them if they don't serve me.

 

[Seawytch]

So, were you just bullshitting earlier, when you claimed to agree that PA laws and protected classes were wrong?

I never said they were wrong, I said I support your drive to get rid of them. I say go for it and then I asked what you're doing to accomplish it.

They were necessary and I still think that in some places they are. It's really easy for people to say "let the market decide" when there is a market. In some places there isn't. They still burn Mosques in TN. You think that Muslim family in rural TN is going to have a "market" to decide in?

burning the property of others is already illegal. no new laws are needed.

That doesn't address my point. Since they still burn Mosques in TN, how likely is it that a Muslim family living in rural TN is going to be denied service without Federal Public Accommodation laws to prevent it?

 

[Seawytch]

Ok wytchey, one more time.

which is more important to you, societal acceptance or equal rights? They are not the same thing and you can have one without the other. Try to be honest for just once and actually think for a few minutes before responding.

Both would be great, but if I have to choose one over the other, I'll take the equality. The acceptance comes with time. Blacks had the equality before the social acceptance. If you look at the polls, gays got the acceptance before the equality. Bassackwards in my opinion.

What does that have to do with Public Accommodation laws, that in some locals, protect gays and lesbians along with Christians and people with disabilities?

OK, that makes sense. Now, why would a gay couple want to do business with a baker that does not approve of gays?

I am a white guy, I have no desire to demand service in a black bar in the 9th ward. I have no desire to sue them if they don't serve me.

Good for you, but the black guy would likely sue you if you didn't serve him.

Sorry, but until I can legally not serve a Christian because he is a Christian, he should't be able to not serve me 'cause I'm gay.

 

[dblack]

Isn't it odd...they want to cry about their rights this...their rights that? Well, they DO have the right to vote for legislation and legislators who can eliminate these Public Accommodation laws. Why haven't they done so? Or is it behind their efforts to get government out of the marriage business altogether?

Uh... I, for one, have. But it's more important to go after this kind of nonsense in the courts. In a democracy, constitutional limits and the courts are often the only way minorities can protect their rights.

I disagree, the right way to solve these issues is by the ballot box. The majority belief should prevail. Thats the way democracies work.

That's the way unlimited democracies work. This is where conservatives will say "but we're not a democracy, we're a republic", and liberals will start chanting "we the people", yada, yada, wash, rinse, repeat....

Now, before someone gets all spun up about majorities dumping on minorities, thats not the issue. Gay marriage is not a minority issue. Gays can have complete equality in every aspect via a legal civil union.

The minority in question here is bakers who don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings. The gay weddings issue is sort of assumed to be resolved as a premise for the current debate.

But as I have said many times, the gay agenda is not about equality, its about government forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle that a majority of our citizens find objectionable.

I know a lot of gays, and none of them have ever slipped up and divulged any secret "agenda". Leaders eager for more power glom on to any excuse they can to expand it, and that's what these laws are about.

 

[Redfish]

I never said they were wrong, I said I support your drive to get rid of them. I say go for it and then I asked what you're doing to accomplish it.

They were necessary and I still think that in some places they are. It's really easy for people to say "let the market decide" when there is a market. In some places there isn't. They still burn Mosques in TN. You think that Muslim family in rural TN is going to have a "market" to decide in?

burning the property of others is already illegal. no new laws are needed.

That doesn't address my point. Since they still burn Mosques in TN, how likely is it that a Muslim family living in rural TN is going to be denied service without Federal Public Accommodation laws to prevent it?

they probably have a better chance than a Christian family in Egypt or Afghanistan.

you are mixing PA laws with gay marriage----they are not analogous.

 

[Seawytch]

The baker that was sued did not live in a "gay marriage" state by the way...

 

[Seawytch]

burning the property of others is already illegal. no new laws are needed.

That doesn't address my point. Since they still burn Mosques in TN, how likely is it that a Muslim family living in rural TN is going to be denied service without Federal Public Accommodation laws to prevent it?

they probably have a better chance than a Christian family in Egypt or Afghanistan.

you are mixing PA laws with gay marriage----they are not analogous.

I'm quite aware that Public Accommodation laws have nothing to do with marriage equality. In fact, the state where the baker was sued is not a marriage equality state, but they DO have PA laws that protect gays alongside blacks and Christians.

 

[Redfish]

Both would be great, but if I have to choose one over the other, I'll take the equality. The acceptance comes with time. Blacks had the equality before the social acceptance. If you look at the polls, gays got the acceptance before the equality. Bassackwards in my opinion.

What does that have to do with Public Accommodation laws, that in some locals, protect gays and lesbians along with Christians and people with disabilities?

OK, that makes sense. Now, why would a gay couple want to do business with a baker that does not approve of gays?

I am a white guy, I have no desire to demand service in a black bar in the 9th ward. I have no desire to sue them if they don't serve me.

Good for you, but the black guy would likely sue you if you didn't serve him.

Sorry, but until I can legally not serve a Christian because he is a Christian, he should't be able to not serve me 'cause I'm gay.

you are dodging, why would you want to do business with someone who does not like you, for whatever reason?

and you are wrong about the black guy suing me. I know lots of blacks and they have no desire to do business with a honky tonk or white biker bar. Its called FREEDOM.