Bakers...they won't stop if you just bake the cake...they want you to like it....

[rightwinger]

Of course people have the right to be served by businesses. Are you really that stupid?

Really? Where does this right come from? And don't start quoting the law at me. I think you already admitted that you are born with all the rights you're ever going to have.

You think a lot of silly shit that has no relation to reality.

In other words, you have no clue where your so-called "right to be served" comes from.

Again, you are jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. I have no desire to interact with you more than to laugh at you or to remind you how stupid you sound. You aren't mentally capable of a real conversation. You are entertaining though.

That's right: run away with your tail between your legs like a scared little puppy dog.

We'll just put you down as admitting that no one has a right to be served by any business.

No one has a right to run a public business without following our laws

 

[bripat9643]

They have the right to provide service to whomever the choose, numskull. No one has a right to be served by any business.

Of course people have the right to be served by businesses. Are you really that stupid?

Really? Where does this right come from? And don't start quoting the law at me. If you claim rights come from the government I'll tear you apart.

Anarchist Fingerboy doesn't acknowledge the law

Another self-identifying moron who thinks the government creates your rights.

The government is US

We established our rights through government

The government is not us, and even if it was, that still doesn't mean it creates rights. I have rights regardless of what you think about them. According to you, that isn't true. According to you if the majority says queers don't have the right to marry, then they don't.

 

[bripat9643]

Really? Where does this right come from? And don't start quoting the law at me. I think you already admitted that you are born with all the rights you're ever going to have.

You think a lot of silly shit that has no relation to reality.

In other words, you have no clue where your so-called "right to be served" comes from.

Again, you are jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. I have no desire to interact with you more than to laugh at you or to remind you how stupid you sound. You aren't mentally capable of a real conversation. You are entertaining though.

That's right: run away with your tail between your legs like a scared little puppy dog.

We'll just put you down as admitting that no one has a right to be served by any business.

No one has a right to run a public business without following our laws

Yeah, like the Jews in Nazi Germany. You don't even consider whether the laws are just or not. That is so like a Nazi

 

[rightwinger]

Of course people have the right to be served by businesses. Are you really that stupid?

Really? Where does this right come from? And don't start quoting the law at me. If you claim rights come from the government I'll tear you apart.

Anarchist Fingerboy doesn't acknowledge the law

Another self-identifying moron who thinks the government creates your rights.

The government is US

We established our rights through government

The government is not us, and even if it was, that still doesn't mean it creates rights. I have rights regardless of what you think about them. According to you, that isn't true. According to you if the majority says queers don't have the right to marry, then they don't.

We the people create rights. We also created government

 

[rightwinger]

You think a lot of silly shit that has no relation to reality.

In other words, you have no clue where your so-called "right to be served" comes from.

Again, you are jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. I have no desire to interact with you more than to laugh at you or to remind you how stupid you sound. You aren't mentally capable of a real conversation. You are entertaining though.

That's right: run away with your tail between your legs like a scared little puppy dog.

We'll just put you down as admitting that no one has a right to be served by any business.

No one has a right to run a public business without following our laws

Yeah, like the Jews in Nazi Germany. You don't even consider whether the laws are just or not. That is so like a Nazi

You think a lot of silly shit that has no relation to reality.

In other words, you have no clue where your so-called "right to be served" comes from.

Again, you are jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. I have no desire to interact with you more than to laugh at you or to remind you how stupid you sound. You aren't mentally capable of a real conversation. You are entertaining though.

That's right: run away with your tail between your legs like a scared little puppy dog.

We'll just put you down as admitting that no one has a right to be served by any business.

No one has a right to run a public business without following our laws

Yeah, like the Jews in Nazi Germany. You don't even consider whether the laws are just or not. That is so like a Nazi

 

[bripat9643]

Really? Where does this right come from? And don't start quoting the law at me. If you claim rights come from the government I'll tear you apart.

Anarchist Fingerboy doesn't acknowledge the law

Another self-identifying moron who thinks the government creates your rights.

The government is US

We established our rights through government

The government is not us, and even if it was, that still doesn't mean it creates rights. I have rights regardless of what you think about them. According to you, that isn't true. According to you if the majority says queers don't have the right to marry, then they don't.

We the people create rights. We also created government

The first sentence is obviously false. If that was the case, then why were all the queers crying about the right to marry before it was on the books in any state? You turds don't even believe you position on rights.

 

[martybegan]

The queers did do business with them, numskull. They ordered a couple of wedding rings and then refused to pay.

They were informed about the sign after they placed the order

Didn't make the ring so special

So....we were told that if these business owners simply made the product they would be fine......apparently that isn't the case......is it?

It seems you still don't get it

If you open a business, you are required to accomodate everyone
If you patronize a business, you can go where you please

That is why it is wise for businesses not to openly offend their customers

In case you haven't been paying attention, there are at least as many willing to patronize said business because they agree with the owners' opinions as their are those who would take their business elsewhere. So, please, let those who will patronize this business, or another, as they desire. What needs to cease is the propensity of certain types to seek out and victimize specific businesses based solely on the business owner's personal convictions.

Clearly you've not been paying attention.

State and local public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where it's perfectly appropriate for government to ensure the integrity of the local market and all other interrelated markets. It's naïve and sophomoric to believe that jurisdictions are going to allow business owners to disrupt and destabilize the markets by refusing to serve patrons for capricious, unwarranted reasons.

Moreover, one cannot elect to ignore or violate just and proper laws – such as public accommodations laws – using religion or “personal convictions” as 'justification,' and religious liberty is not compromised because the intent of such laws is regulatory, not to disadvantage religious expression.

i.e. "Bake the cake, you damn peasant. "

PA laws were created to prevent gross, systemic and overriding discrimination that had a tangible economic impact on the parties being discriminated against, I doubt the people who wrote them would ever see them be used on a non-essential, trivial matter such as having a cake baked at a wedding. The right to be served is not absolute, and should be attenuated by the severity of the economic impact, and the moral rights of the party providing the service.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, you have no clue where your so-called "right to be served" comes from.

Again, you are jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. I have no desire to interact with you more than to laugh at you or to remind you how stupid you sound. You aren't mentally capable of a real conversation. You are entertaining though.

That's right: run away with your tail between your legs like a scared little puppy dog.

We'll just put you down as admitting that no one has a right to be served by any business.

No one has a right to run a public business without following our laws

Yeah, like the Jews in Nazi Germany. You don't even consider whether the laws are just or not. That is so like a Nazi

In other words, you have no clue where your so-called "right to be served" comes from.

Again, you are jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. I have no desire to interact with you more than to laugh at you or to remind you how stupid you sound. You aren't mentally capable of a real conversation. You are entertaining though.

That's right: run away with your tail between your legs like a scared little puppy dog.

We'll just put you down as admitting that no one has a right to be served by any business.

No one has a right to run a public business without following our laws

Yeah, like the Jews in Nazi Germany. You don't even consider whether the laws are just or not. That is so like a Nazi

As I have said many times, Godwin's "law" is just a tactic designed to protect liberals from the truth.

You are a fucking Nazi. That's the truth.

 

[bripat9643]

They were informed about the sign after they placed the order

Didn't make the ring so special

So....we were told that if these business owners simply made the product they would be fine......apparently that isn't the case......is it?

It seems you still don't get it

If you open a business, you are required to accomodate everyone
If you patronize a business, you can go where you please

That is why it is wise for businesses not to openly offend their customers

In case you haven't been paying attention, there are at least as many willing to patronize said business because they agree with the owners' opinions as their are those who would take their business elsewhere. So, please, let those who will patronize this business, or another, as they desire. What needs to cease is the propensity of certain types to seek out and victimize specific businesses based solely on the business owner's personal convictions.

Clearly you've not been paying attention.

State and local public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where it's perfectly appropriate for government to ensure the integrity of the local market and all other interrelated markets. It's naïve and sophomoric to believe that jurisdictions are going to allow business owners to disrupt and destabilize the markets by refusing to serve patrons for capricious, unwarranted reasons.

Moreover, one cannot elect to ignore or violate just and proper laws – such as public accommodations laws – using religion or “personal convictions” as 'justification,' and religious liberty is not compromised because the intent of such laws is regulatory, not to disadvantage religious expression.

i.e. "Bake the cake, you damn peasant. "

PA laws were created to prevent gross, systemic and overriding discrimination that had a tangible economic impact on the parties being discriminated against, I doubt the people who wrote them would ever see them be used on a non-essential, trivial matter such as having a cake baked at a wedding. The right to be served is not absolute, and should be attenuated by the severity of the economic impact, and the moral rights of the party providing the service.

There is no right to be served, period.

 

[rightwinger]

Anarchist Fingerboy doesn't acknowledge the law

Another self-identifying moron who thinks the government creates your rights.

The government is US

We established our rights through government

The government is not us, and even if it was, that still doesn't mean it creates rights. I have rights regardless of what you think about them. According to you, that isn't true. According to you if the majority says queers don't have the right to marry, then they don't.

We the people create rights. We also created government

The first sentence is obviously false. If that was the case, then why were all the queers crying about the right to marry before it was on the books in any state? You turds don't even believe you position on rights.

That is how we create rights......public assembly and the right to petition
Worked for women, worked for blacks.....now it is working for gays

 

[rightwinger]

So....we were told that if these business owners simply made the product they would be fine......apparently that isn't the case......is it?

It seems you still don't get it

If you open a business, you are required to accomodate everyone
If you patronize a business, you can go where you please

That is why it is wise for businesses not to openly offend their customers

In case you haven't been paying attention, there are at least as many willing to patronize said business because they agree with the owners' opinions as their are those who would take their business elsewhere. So, please, let those who will patronize this business, or another, as they desire. What needs to cease is the propensity of certain types to seek out and victimize specific businesses based solely on the business owner's personal convictions.

Clearly you've not been paying attention.

State and local public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where it's perfectly appropriate for government to ensure the integrity of the local market and all other interrelated markets. It's naïve and sophomoric to believe that jurisdictions are going to allow business owners to disrupt and destabilize the markets by refusing to serve patrons for capricious, unwarranted reasons.

Moreover, one cannot elect to ignore or violate just and proper laws – such as public accommodations laws – using religion or “personal convictions” as 'justification,' and religious liberty is not compromised because the intent of such laws is regulatory, not to disadvantage religious expression.

i.e. "Bake the cake, you damn peasant. "

PA laws were created to prevent gross, systemic and overriding discrimination that had a tangible economic impact on the parties being discriminated against, I doubt the people who wrote them would ever see them be used on a non-essential, trivial matter such as having a cake baked at a wedding. The right to be served is not absolute, and should be attenuated by the severity of the economic impact, and the moral rights of the party providing the service.

There is no right to be served, period.

Nor a right to remain in business

 

[rightwinger]

Again, you are jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. I have no desire to interact with you more than to laugh at you or to remind you how stupid you sound. You aren't mentally capable of a real conversation. You are entertaining though.

That's right: run away with your tail between your legs like a scared little puppy dog.

We'll just put you down as admitting that no one has a right to be served by any business.

No one has a right to run a public business without following our laws

Yeah, like the Jews in Nazi Germany. You don't even consider whether the laws are just or not. That is so like a Nazi

Again, you are jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. I have no desire to interact with you more than to laugh at you or to remind you how stupid you sound. You aren't mentally capable of a real conversation. You are entertaining though.

That's right: run away with your tail between your legs like a scared little puppy dog.

We'll just put you down as admitting that no one has a right to be served by any business.

No one has a right to run a public business without following our laws

Yeah, like the Jews in Nazi Germany. You don't even consider whether the laws are just or not. That is so like a Nazi

As I have said many times, Godwin's "law" is just a tactic designed to protect liberals from the truth.

You are a fucking Nazi. That's the truth.

To those whose only response is nazi hyperbole....Godwins law is the perfect retort

 

[martybegan]

So....we were told that if these business owners simply made the product they would be fine......apparently that isn't the case......is it?

It seems you still don't get it

If you open a business, you are required to accomodate everyone
If you patronize a business, you can go where you please

That is why it is wise for businesses not to openly offend their customers

In case you haven't been paying attention, there are at least as many willing to patronize said business because they agree with the owners' opinions as their are those who would take their business elsewhere. So, please, let those who will patronize this business, or another, as they desire. What needs to cease is the propensity of certain types to seek out and victimize specific businesses based solely on the business owner's personal convictions.

Clearly you've not been paying attention.

State and local public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where it's perfectly appropriate for government to ensure the integrity of the local market and all other interrelated markets. It's naïve and sophomoric to believe that jurisdictions are going to allow business owners to disrupt and destabilize the markets by refusing to serve patrons for capricious, unwarranted reasons.

Moreover, one cannot elect to ignore or violate just and proper laws – such as public accommodations laws – using religion or “personal convictions” as 'justification,' and religious liberty is not compromised because the intent of such laws is regulatory, not to disadvantage religious expression.

i.e. "Bake the cake, you damn peasant. "

PA laws were created to prevent gross, systemic and overriding discrimination that had a tangible economic impact on the parties being discriminated against, I doubt the people who wrote them would ever see them be used on a non-essential, trivial matter such as having a cake baked at a wedding. The right to be served is not absolute, and should be attenuated by the severity of the economic impact, and the moral rights of the party providing the service.

There is no right to be served, period.

For essential services, I can see denial of service as a serious issue, and PA laws can cover those without delving into non essential transactions. The main issue is PA has been re-defined as "any business", and that is wrong.

 

[martybegan]

It seems you still don't get it

If you open a business, you are required to accomodate everyone
If you patronize a business, you can go where you please

That is why it is wise for businesses not to openly offend their customers

In case you haven't been paying attention, there are at least as many willing to patronize said business because they agree with the owners' opinions as their are those who would take their business elsewhere. So, please, let those who will patronize this business, or another, as they desire. What needs to cease is the propensity of certain types to seek out and victimize specific businesses based solely on the business owner's personal convictions.

Clearly you've not been paying attention.

State and local public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where it's perfectly appropriate for government to ensure the integrity of the local market and all other interrelated markets. It's naïve and sophomoric to believe that jurisdictions are going to allow business owners to disrupt and destabilize the markets by refusing to serve patrons for capricious, unwarranted reasons.

Moreover, one cannot elect to ignore or violate just and proper laws – such as public accommodations laws – using religion or “personal convictions” as 'justification,' and religious liberty is not compromised because the intent of such laws is regulatory, not to disadvantage religious expression.

i.e. "Bake the cake, you damn peasant. "

PA laws were created to prevent gross, systemic and overriding discrimination that had a tangible economic impact on the parties being discriminated against, I doubt the people who wrote them would ever see them be used on a non-essential, trivial matter such as having a cake baked at a wedding. The right to be served is not absolute, and should be attenuated by the severity of the economic impact, and the moral rights of the party providing the service.

There is no right to be served, period.

Nor a right to remain in business

Actually that is more of a right than to be served, as a person has a right to make a living.

 

[rightwinger]

It seems you still don't get it

If you open a business, you are required to accomodate everyone
If you patronize a business, you can go where you please

That is why it is wise for businesses not to openly offend their customers

In case you haven't been paying attention, there are at least as many willing to patronize said business because they agree with the owners' opinions as their are those who would take their business elsewhere. So, please, let those who will patronize this business, or another, as they desire. What needs to cease is the propensity of certain types to seek out and victimize specific businesses based solely on the business owner's personal convictions.

Clearly you've not been paying attention.

State and local public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where it's perfectly appropriate for government to ensure the integrity of the local market and all other interrelated markets. It's naïve and sophomoric to believe that jurisdictions are going to allow business owners to disrupt and destabilize the markets by refusing to serve patrons for capricious, unwarranted reasons.

Moreover, one cannot elect to ignore or violate just and proper laws – such as public accommodations laws – using religion or “personal convictions” as 'justification,' and religious liberty is not compromised because the intent of such laws is regulatory, not to disadvantage religious expression.

i.e. "Bake the cake, you damn peasant. "

PA laws were created to prevent gross, systemic and overriding discrimination that had a tangible economic impact on the parties being discriminated against, I doubt the people who wrote them would ever see them be used on a non-essential, trivial matter such as having a cake baked at a wedding. The right to be served is not absolute, and should be attenuated by the severity of the economic impact, and the moral rights of the party providing the service.

There is no right to be served, period.

For essential services, I can see denial of service as a serious issue, and PA laws can cover those without delving into non essential transactions. The main issue is PA has been re-defined as "any business", and that is wrong.

Public business= Public accommodation

 

[martybegan]

In case you haven't been paying attention, there are at least as many willing to patronize said business because they agree with the owners' opinions as their are those who would take their business elsewhere. So, please, let those who will patronize this business, or another, as they desire. What needs to cease is the propensity of certain types to seek out and victimize specific businesses based solely on the business owner's personal convictions.

Clearly you've not been paying attention.

State and local public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where it's perfectly appropriate for government to ensure the integrity of the local market and all other interrelated markets. It's naïve and sophomoric to believe that jurisdictions are going to allow business owners to disrupt and destabilize the markets by refusing to serve patrons for capricious, unwarranted reasons.

Moreover, one cannot elect to ignore or violate just and proper laws – such as public accommodations laws – using religion or “personal convictions” as 'justification,' and religious liberty is not compromised because the intent of such laws is regulatory, not to disadvantage religious expression.

i.e. "Bake the cake, you damn peasant. "

PA laws were created to prevent gross, systemic and overriding discrimination that had a tangible economic impact on the parties being discriminated against, I doubt the people who wrote them would ever see them be used on a non-essential, trivial matter such as having a cake baked at a wedding. The right to be served is not absolute, and should be attenuated by the severity of the economic impact, and the moral rights of the party providing the service.

There is no right to be served, period.

For essential services, I can see denial of service as a serious issue, and PA laws can cover those without delving into non essential transactions. The main issue is PA has been re-defined as "any business", and that is wrong.

Public business= Public accommodation

Only in your partisan little mind.

 

[rightwinger]

In case you haven't been paying attention, there are at least as many willing to patronize said business because they agree with the owners' opinions as their are those who would take their business elsewhere. So, please, let those who will patronize this business, or another, as they desire. What needs to cease is the propensity of certain types to seek out and victimize specific businesses based solely on the business owner's personal convictions.

Clearly you've not been paying attention.

State and local public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where it's perfectly appropriate for government to ensure the integrity of the local market and all other interrelated markets. It's naïve and sophomoric to believe that jurisdictions are going to allow business owners to disrupt and destabilize the markets by refusing to serve patrons for capricious, unwarranted reasons.

Moreover, one cannot elect to ignore or violate just and proper laws – such as public accommodations laws – using religion or “personal convictions” as 'justification,' and religious liberty is not compromised because the intent of such laws is regulatory, not to disadvantage religious expression.

i.e. "Bake the cake, you damn peasant. "

PA laws were created to prevent gross, systemic and overriding discrimination that had a tangible economic impact on the parties being discriminated against, I doubt the people who wrote them would ever see them be used on a non-essential, trivial matter such as having a cake baked at a wedding. The right to be served is not absolute, and should be attenuated by the severity of the economic impact, and the moral rights of the party providing the service.

There is no right to be served, period.

Nor a right to remain in business

Actually that is more of a right than to be served, as a person has a right to make a living.

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

 

[martybegan]

Clearly you've not been paying attention.

State and local public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where it's perfectly appropriate for government to ensure the integrity of the local market and all other interrelated markets. It's naïve and sophomoric to believe that jurisdictions are going to allow business owners to disrupt and destabilize the markets by refusing to serve patrons for capricious, unwarranted reasons.

Moreover, one cannot elect to ignore or violate just and proper laws – such as public accommodations laws – using religion or “personal convictions” as 'justification,' and religious liberty is not compromised because the intent of such laws is regulatory, not to disadvantage religious expression.

i.e. "Bake the cake, you damn peasant. "

PA laws were created to prevent gross, systemic and overriding discrimination that had a tangible economic impact on the parties being discriminated against, I doubt the people who wrote them would ever see them be used on a non-essential, trivial matter such as having a cake baked at a wedding. The right to be served is not absolute, and should be attenuated by the severity of the economic impact, and the moral rights of the party providing the service.

There is no right to be served, period.

Nor a right to remain in business

Actually that is more of a right than to be served, as a person has a right to make a living.

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

 

[candycorn]

i.e. "Bake the cake, you damn peasant. "

PA laws were created to prevent gross, systemic and overriding discrimination that had a tangible economic impact on the parties being discriminated against, I doubt the people who wrote them would ever see them be used on a non-essential, trivial matter such as having a cake baked at a wedding. The right to be served is not absolute, and should be attenuated by the severity of the economic impact, and the moral rights of the party providing the service.

There is no right to be served, period.

Nor a right to remain in business

Actually that is more of a right than to be served, as a person has a right to make a living.

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

Again, what is the difference between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to serve a black person?

 

[rightwinger]

i.e. "Bake the cake, you damn peasant. "

PA laws were created to prevent gross, systemic and overriding discrimination that had a tangible economic impact on the parties being discriminated against, I doubt the people who wrote them would ever see them be used on a non-essential, trivial matter such as having a cake baked at a wedding. The right to be served is not absolute, and should be attenuated by the severity of the economic impact, and the moral rights of the party providing the service.

There is no right to be served, period.

Nor a right to remain in business

Actually that is more of a right than to be served, as a person has a right to make a living.

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

"we have a right to refuse service to anyone" and "we don't serve negroes" has been found to be illegal regardless of how trivial the service

Open for business? You are open to all