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

[Redfish]

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.

What the fuck does "marriage equality" mean? What a stupid term. Are polygamous mormons entitled to 'marriage equality'? how about bigamists? incestists ? (I created a new word), those who want to 'marry' their pets? Where does this crap end?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

As long as there are laws on the books saying you discriminate on you based upon your race, gender, religion etc, you can sue. In some places that includes gays...the only one you REALLY care about. You aren't trying to repeal PA laws, just the gay ones.

 

[Desperado]

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

This is the million dollar question! Maybe they feel they have better odds than winning the lottery if they can sue the baker for a million dollars.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

I'm not a liberal, but let me ask you. Was Heartland of Atlanta Motel required by Jim Crow to only rent rooms to white people?

Here is the decision which upheld Federal Public Accommodation laws -->> Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute



I've read it before and just scanned it again, can't find one word that indicates the owners were required by State law to limit their patronage to white people. Seems that if the law required them to that it would be mentioned in the factual history of the case.

Could you help us find it?



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

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.

What the fuck does "marriage equality" mean? What a stupid term. Are polygamous mormons entitled to 'marriage equality'? how about bigamists? incestists ? (I created a new word), those who want to 'marry' their pets? Where does this crap end?

Gosh, I must have said something you have no argument for...tangent time!!!!

There is no such thing as gay marriage, there is only marriage and the proper application of the 14th Amendment as it applies to gays and lesbians.

 

[kaz]

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.

I'm not a liberal, but let me ask you. Was Heartland of Atlanta Motel required by Jim Crow to only rent rooms to white people?

Here is the decision which upheld Federal Public Accommodation laws -->> Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute



I've read it before and just scanned it again, can't find one word that indicates the owners were required by State law to limit their patronage to white people. Seems that if the law required them to that it would be mentioned in the factual history of the case.

Could you help us find it?



>>>>

I addressed that point in my quote that you included in your question.

 

[Redfish]

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.

What the fuck does "marriage equality" mean? What a stupid term. Are polygamous mormons entitled to 'marriage equality'? how about bigamists? incestists ? (I created a new word), those who want to 'marry' their pets? Where does this crap end?

Gosh, I must have said something you have no argument for...tangent time!!!!

There is no such thing as gay marriage, there is only marriage and the proper application of the 14th Amendment as it applies to gays and lesbians.

If thats true, then the only possible conclusion is that polygamy, bigamy, and all other forms of 'marriage' are also legal. How can you justify denying marriage equality to these other minority groups? Its a serious question.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Just a point of correction, the baker wasn't sued (which implies direct tort action) by the couple, a complaint was filed for the violation with the appropriate state agency and they are the ones that pursued the matter - not the couple.


My as a private individual suing another private individual is one thing.

A complaint filed of a law violation and then the responsible agency performing an independent investigation to determine if the law was violated is something different.



(Just my opinion, but when you use the language "sued" it buys into the anti-Marriage Equality crowds mindset that it was a personal seek-n-destroy mission by activists.)

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

I'm not a liberal, but let me ask you. Was Heartland of Atlanta Motel required by Jim Crow to only rent rooms to white people?

Here is the decision which upheld Federal Public Accommodation laws -->> Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute



I've read it before and just scanned it again, can't find one word that indicates the owners were required by State law to limit their patronage to white people. Seems that if the law required them to that it would be mentioned in the factual history of the case.

Could you help us find it?



>>>>

I addressed that point in my quote that you included in your question.

Ummm - How does a baker violating Colordao law show that the Heartland of Atlanta Motel 50-years ago was required by Georgia State Law not to rent rooms to non-white people?

Common, you are claiming that the wide spread discrimination against coloreds was required by State law - where was the Heartland Motel required under the law to rent to whites only?



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

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.

What evidence do we have that the gay couple KNEW that the cake baker was going to refuse them service when they first ordered their cake? Was there a "No Gay Couples Need Apply" sign on the shop door?

 

[Seawytch]

What the fuck does "marriage equality" mean? What a stupid term. Are polygamous mormons entitled to 'marriage equality'? how about bigamists? incestists ? (I created a new word), those who want to 'marry' their pets? Where does this crap end?

Gosh, I must have said something you have no argument for...tangent time!!!!

There is no such thing as gay marriage, there is only marriage and the proper application of the 14th Amendment as it applies to gays and lesbians.

If thats true, then the only possible conclusion is that polygamy, bigamy, and all other forms of 'marriage' are also legal. How can you justify denying marriage equality to these other minority groups? Its a serious question.

It's not the only possible conclusion, it's the slippery slope fallacy question.

If you believe that the state has no compelling interest in prevent polygamist and "all other forms" (be more specific), then the onus is on you to challenge the courts. Good luck.

 

[bodecea]

Gosh, I must have said something you have no argument for...tangent time!!!!

There is no such thing as gay marriage, there is only marriage and the proper application of the 14th Amendment as it applies to gays and lesbians.

If thats true, then the only possible conclusion is that polygamy, bigamy, and all other forms of 'marriage' are also legal. How can you justify denying marriage equality to these other minority groups? Its a serious question.

It's not the only possible conclusion, it's the slippery slope fallacy question.

If you believe that the state has no compelling interest in prevent polygamist and "all other forms" (be more specific), then the onus is on you to challenge the courts. Good luck.

I love it when gays wanting to legally marry are blamed for the out-of-wedlock birth rate, the divorce rate among heteros, incest, beastiality, and polygamy.......I guess we are all powerful.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm not a liberal, but let me ask you. Was Heartland of Atlanta Motel required by Jim Crow to only rent rooms to white people?

Here is the decision which upheld Federal Public Accommodation laws -->> Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute



I've read it before and just scanned it again, can't find one word that indicates the owners were required by State law to limit their patronage to white people. Seems that if the law required them to that it would be mentioned in the factual history of the case.

Could you help us find it?



>>>>

I addressed that point in my quote that you included in your question.

Ummm - How does a baker violating Colordao law show that the Heartland of Atlanta Motel 50-years ago was required by Georgia State Law not to rent rooms to non-white people?

Common, you are claiming that the wide spread discrimination against coloreds was required by State law - where was the Heartland Motel required under the law to rent to whites only?



>>>>

I would note that one key difference here (and one that I brought up earlier but was not engaged on) is the simple fact that the cited case covered a discrimination that was massive, widespread and debilitating. The national law was conceived because no other reasonable approach was envisioned at that time. The nation was dealing with a very widespread belief that blacks were less than whites. This affected every faucet of their lives.

On the flipside, gays are ‘struggling’ with the dozen bakeries and photographers across the country that done want to take part in their weddings. The problem is not widespread, pervasive or limiting in any way shape or form. NONE of the gays in question were found lacking anything by this discrimination.

There is no need for such law in this case – society is taking care of the issue. As has already been pointed out, gays are socially accepted. The idea that we need to apply laws to limit the freedoms of 300 million Americans to achieve what a boycott would is absolutely asinine and the acceptance of it completely wrong. We do NOT need to create another protected class to address the tiny speck of people acting like fools.

 

[dblack]

I addressed that point in my quote that you included in your question.

Ummm - How does a baker violating Colordao law show that the Heartland of Atlanta Motel 50-years ago was required by Georgia State Law not to rent rooms to non-white people?

Common, you are claiming that the wide spread discrimination against coloreds was required by State law - where was the Heartland Motel required under the law to rent to whites only?



>>>>

I would note that one key difference here (and one that I brought up earlier but was not engaged on) is the simple fact that the cited case covered a discrimination that was massive, widespread and debilitating. The national law was conceived because no other reasonable approach was envisioned at that time. The nation was dealing with a very widespread belief that blacks were less than whites. This affected every faucet of their lives.

And oddly placed pun, but clever nonetheless.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Considering they had to segregate lunch counters based on local laws, again, it was government doing it, and I have already said that should not happen.

Oh really? It wasn't a Woolworth's call?

The law in South Carolina at the time. Fitting because the Greensboro protest was the most prominent.

"No persons, firms, or corporations, who or which furnish meals to passengers at station restaurants or station eating houses, in times limited by common carriers of said passengers, shall furnish said meals to white and colored passengers in the same room, or at the same table, or at the same counter."

List of Jim Crow law examples by State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The left loves to harken back and bitch about "Jim Crow", but they always forget that the correct phrase is "Jim Crow LAWS". Whatever they want to think now, the civil rights movement wasn't about individual people being prejudiced; it was about governments codifying and enforcing prejudice.

 

[Redfish]

Gosh, I must have said something you have no argument for...tangent time!!!!

There is no such thing as gay marriage, there is only marriage and the proper application of the 14th Amendment as it applies to gays and lesbians.

If thats true, then the only possible conclusion is that polygamy, bigamy, and all other forms of 'marriage' are also legal. How can you justify denying marriage equality to these other minority groups? Its a serious question.

It's not the only possible conclusion, it's the slippery slope fallacy question.

If you believe that the state has no compelling interest in prevent polygamist and "all other forms" (be more specific), then the onus is on you to challenge the courts. Good luck.

Nope, its a legal reality. Once gay marriage is ruled legal then there is no possible legal defence that can be brought to deny polygamy and bigamy and everything else.

If discrimination and equality are the reasons for allowing gay marriage, then the precedent is established and all forms of marriage must be allowed. Its not a slippery slope, its a legal reality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well sure. But in the context of the conversation, they should be treated the same under the law, right?

Why? How does sexuality get lumped with race, and thus gets the same protection, while things like the fact I am fat, or ugly, or like Star Wars doesn't.

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.

How does religion get lumped in with race and thus get the same protections?

It doesn't. Race gets lumped in with religion. Religious protections were there first.

 

[BlindBoo]

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...

I hope you're right and the Colorado Appeals Court rules the same way as the AZ did.

 

[Katzndogz]

No gay was refused service at that bakery. They were refused the personal labor of the baker. Slavery is still illegal isn't it?

 

[Redfish]

If thats true, then the only possible conclusion is that polygamy, bigamy, and all other forms of 'marriage' are also legal. How can you justify denying marriage equality to these other minority groups? Its a serious question.

It's not the only possible conclusion, it's the slippery slope fallacy question.

If you believe that the state has no compelling interest in prevent polygamist and "all other forms" (be more specific), then the onus is on you to challenge the courts. Good luck.

I love it when gays wanting to legally marry are blamed for the out-of-wedlock birth rate, the divorce rate among heteros, incest, beastiality, and polygamy.......I guess we are all powerful.

^^^^off topic and juvenile