CENTER STAGE

[Iceweasel]

Iceweasel: Your post was messy. Your attributions and quotes were out of place. My words and your words blended into each other. I did my best to fix it, but in the future please edit your post because it's very difficult and time consuming to respond.

It's clear to me that the "rule of law" is whatever they want it to be. They, being the dominate force in any given issue. There is no logical reason people in a free country should be forced to serve people they don't want to serve. That's government making demands to satisfy a political agenda, nothing more.

We elect our representatives to serve us in the political branches of government. Our elected officials make policy determinations. Our lawmakers have determined that discrimination (and the ensuing strife) causes harm or threatens harm to the common welfare of the people. Our laws address those harms or threatened harms as a matter of public policy. What you might believe to be liberty and justice for yourself (i.e., the right to discriminate) another person might believe to be a deprivation of liberty and an injustice (i.e., victimization through discrimination). Perhaps you may move freely through society and engage in business transactions with commercial enterprises, but others cannot and anguish and strife ensues. As a matter of public policy, legislatures (both federal and state) have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations. There is a logical reason why discrimination is against the law. Without ordered liberty, justice for vast segments of our population simply doesn't exist.

Here is a quote from the Colorado case that I linked in an earlier post: "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

For those who missed the link in prior posts, here it is: Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.

Gays have been denied service for wedding cakes and were able to sue for lack of service. Bullshit. Loss of freedom is a big deal to many people to but you can't factor that into your societal harm question for some reason. What you are doing is misapplying a law that helped black folks get food, clothing, shelter, etc. They needed the protection because they had nothing and little chance to start businesses themselves.

No one even knows if someone is homosexual unless they make it an issue. So again, it's YOUR sense of morality that's important. No one else's.

You respond with "Bullshit"? That's impolite and does not constitute a logical argument. The Colorado public accommodation law, Section 24-34-601(2), C.R.S., in relevant part provides the following:

"It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or group, because of . . . sexual orientation . . . the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation."​

Your grievance isn't with me. I don't enact laws, I just read the laws and the cases that interpret and apply the law. That's how I inform and educate myself. There exist thousands of laws in every state that regulate conduct. Everyone is presumed to know the law, and if a person violates the law, there are usually adverse consequences. I'm sure there are thousands of people sitting in jails and prisons at this very moment, and their loss of freedom is indeed a big deal to them. There are many people who may desire the freedom to discriminate against same-sex couples and do so without consequences, but some state legislatures have made that conduct unlawful.

I am not misapplying the law. I am simply informing you what the rule of law is, why it was enacted, and how it has been applied.

My sense of morality? I think I ought to keep my nose out of other people's bedrooms, and obey the law.

I do believe there was a reason back in the day when a black man couldn't open up a store but that was long ago and hardly the case any more. Sexual orientation? Where does it stop? If a rich guy has 15 whores he bangs on a regular basis and wants to have a cake commemorating the occasion are we still allowed by our caring government to refuse the job?

If promiscuous rich guys, as a class of persons, can demonstrate a history of discrimination in public accommodations based on who they are, then perhaps they can convince our lawmakers that they are entitled to protection under our anti-discrimination laws. Gay people, whether you consider some of them to be promiscuous and regardless of the size of their individual wealth, are entitled to protection under the law because there exists a proven history of oppression. I believe you are intelligent enough to discern the difference.

Ah, since it isn't illegal to discriminate against them it's OK to discriminate against them. That's what I thought. What a hypocrite!

Why do you find it necessary to call me a "hypocrite"? Please don't call me names. It doesn't cost anything to be civil. Again, I'm responding to your questions in accordance with my opening post ... with reason, logic, and the rule of law.

People still retain the freedom of contract and they retain the freedom to discriminate all they want unless doing so violates the law. It is unlawful in the area of public accommodations in some states to refuse goods or services to an individual because of his/her race, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.

If a similar statute exists in your state, you are free to contact your state lawmakers and encourage them to include promiscuous rich guys and exclude homosexual persons as protected classes.

I turned down Planned Parenthood because I don't want to help them kill babies, is that still allowed? And for how long? All the discussion about legal decisions is pointless to me because the bar moves when they want it to move.

Planned Parenthood is not a person falling within a class of historically oppressed persons, it is an organization ... I don't know of any law that prevents you from doing business or refusing to do business with Planned Parenthood.

Again, no gay was refused service for being gay, people don't want to be forced to participate in the celebration of their sexuality. I did discriminate against people who's lifestyle I opposed by denying service to them and their cause. You're dodging the point. Typical for you guys, you're like jello. You believe in this or that as a matter of convienience.

The decision-makers in some of the cases we're discussing don't agree with your argument. If you think Planned Parenthood people ought to be a protected class, contact your legislative representatives. I'm not dodging any point. You want to walk down a irrelevant path, and I kindly walked with you, and you thanked me by calling me jello and making an odd comment about what I allegedly believe. Please use reason and logic and the rule of law.

As far as marriage, the government should get out of any legal definition and let people define it for themselves, no government penalty or breaks. That's the only fair solution in today's world of moral relativity and government tyranny.

Abolition of the civil institution of marriage would cause chaos and grave harm to our society and the vulnerable persons who would be victimized without the vast protections and benefits that flow from marriage. That's not the "fair solution" simply because some people don't approve of other people's marriages.

Wrong. I said they can then get a contract with whoever they chose. Any contract they wanted, including anything similar to state sponsored marriage. They won't be harmed except to lose out on some government tax breaks. And in fact, since about half the population is single it's unfair to them to subsidize marriage. It WAS instituted because that's how most families formed and society benefited from the stability and norms. That's been thrown out the window so it makes zero sense to keep it around. Let's be progressive and get rid of an archaic institution that hurts some and benefits others who will never contribute future tax payers or producers.

Same sex couples have families too. You make a lot of sweeping statements that have no logical, factual, or legal support. The United States Supreme Court already ruled that same sex couples have the same right to marry that heterosexual couples have. Thus, your unsupported argument is moot.

You broke the post apart you dumb clit. In the future don't blame others for your stupidity. You joined the site to explain to people how backwards they are for believing in tradition marriage and obfuscate, insult and demean those that disagree with you.

Yes, gays can adopt. I was talking about reproduction, quite obviously. What the fuck is wrong with you? You're like all the other homosexual propagandists out there. You either are a liar and know better or you a too slow to follow grade school level concepts.

I know the laws are not in agreement with me. I said so repeatedly, dipshit! Your position is the law is the law, though shit. Well, the law was not for gay marriage but it needed to be changed. So you are for laws when you agree with them and against them when they aren't BUT you hypocritically refuse to accept it when someone else disagrees with the laws as they currently are.

That's all this site needed was another lying smearing asshole putting down traditional people with intellectual dishonesty. FUCK YOU!

 

[Iceweasel]

Why do you find it necessary to call me a "hypocrite"? Please don't call me names. It doesn't cost anything to be civil. Again, I'm responding to your questions in accordance with my opening post ... with reason, logic, and the rule of law.

People still retain the freedom of contract and they retain the freedom to discriminate all they want unless doing so violates the law. It is unlawful in the area of public accommodations in some states to refuse goods or services to an individual because of his/her race, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.

If a similar statute exists in your state, you are free to contact your state lawmakers and encourage them to include promiscuous rich guys and exclude homosexual persons as protected classes.

Same sex couples have families too. You make a lot of sweeping statements that have no logical, factual, or legal support. The United States Supreme Court already ruled that same sex couples have the same right to marry that heterosexual couples have. Thus, your unsupported argument is moot.

Fuck you, you condescending cvnt. Feel free to leave the board if you can't handle disagreement. When you talk down to people you get what you deserve, this isn't your board. It cost nothing for you to grow a backbone and debate fairly. Repeatedly saying the same stupid shit doesn't make your stupid shit any better.

Yes, you are a hypocrite for the reasons I stated. You don't like a law, so you want to change it. If it's used or misused, too bad, it's the law of the land. That's an argument a toddler would come up with.

Listen asshole, the rule of the law is not a good argument if the law unfairly targets individuals. Parroting the line mindlessly doesn't make it a good point.

And please provide for us how many homosexuals have reproduced. Use factual, logical and legal arguments. Have an adult explain the question to you if you honestly can't grasp it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Hello Darkwind. Why are you saying anti-discrimination laws are "bad laws"? The people of Oregon elect representatives to their state legislature. The elected state representatives enact laws. One of those laws was a prohibition of discrimination in public accommodations. Why doesn't that reflect the values of the people?

Legislators often don't reflect the values of the people but they do have the option of tossing them out of office. The problem that you and many have is that for whatever reason you cannot distinguish between individuals and relationships. Relationships aren't people. It would be different if they said to get out, they don't serve homosexuals (which I think should still be their right in a free society) and one that celebrates the relationship. It's the old making Jews bake Muslim cakes analogy.

There just isn't the same level of desire to be hip and cutting edge to try to force it upon them. Most Muslims probably don't want Jews to bake their cakes. Gays seem to seek out those that have a problem with homosexual relationships.

Under the state anti-discrimination law, victims of discrimination are allowed to file a complaint with a state commission. Melissa Klein and her husband were given notice and an opportunity to be heard. A hearing was held and the Kleins were represented by an attorney. I don't see any "abuse" in this situation. The commission entered an order and the Kleins were given notice of their rights to appeal the commission's order to the state court. I don't see anything here that was "created out of fantasy". Perhaps you could elaborate.

Since it's legal it's OK. Unless you disagree with the law, then it must be overturned. Do you guys ever listen to yourselves?

Anti-discrimination laws have been codified for years and years and years. I don't see any outcry from the people to their elected representatives to repeal those laws or threats that they'll be thrown out of office if they don't repeal those laws.

Please read Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.:

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

Individuals vs. relationships ... hair-splitting.

This case linked above also addresses the hair-splitting argument, with citations to authority, and found it to be without any merit. Business proprietors claim they are not discriminating against the person on the basis of sexual orientation and claim they just don't bake cakes for same-sex marriages / commitment ceremonies, etc., but only gay people enter same-sex marriages. The argument is disingenuous, has been used in many forms, and has been rejected over and over again. Please, read the case linked above ... it cites to many other authoritative cases.

You are the one who concluded that the case was all about abuse and fantasy, and the burden is on you to present the facts and law to support your conclusion. I don't see abuse and fantasy. I see a duly enacted law that is being enforced.

You are seriously missing the point. There are cities and states with accomodations that include sexual orientation exactly because it isn't a Constitutional matter. There would be none if it was a right.

No, individuals are not relationships. That isn't hair splitting because you say so. Nor are you representing the other side very well. It isn't the individual they oppose. In FACT, many served gay customers but the problem was when they were asked to do something for the wedding.

I'm not interested in any god damn case law, we are in front of the Supreme Court, we are on a message board and I said what I said and you obfuscate and redirect rather than offer a explanation on why your morality should trump all others.

Debra is kicking your ass in this argument. She definitely knows what she's talking about. I would believe that she actually ran a business.

You are welcome to your opinion. No, she's trotted out the exact same bullshit we've heard thousands of times before. "She" obfuscates, redirects and asserts her opinion by authority. I illustrated the hypocrisy by asking about the man (never said rich) that wanted to celebrate his 4 sex partners on a cake and the only argument to not force the baker to do it is "well, he has no protection".

Really? What kind of answer is that? Gays didn't have the protection but now they do in some places. There is no Constitutional right to force a baker put your cake together or it wouldn't be drafted in city and state laws. The right answer is he isn't protected because not enough guys lobbied legislators to include them in public accommodation laws.

It's wrong, unconstitutional and oppressive to force businesses to accommodate your sexual preferences if it's against their will. That's why libs love big government, grease the right rails and you can bully people to do anything.

 

[ChrisL]

Hello Darkwind. Why are you saying anti-discrimination laws are "bad laws"? The people of Oregon elect representatives to their state legislature. The elected state representatives enact laws. One of those laws was a prohibition of discrimination in public accommodations. Why doesn't that reflect the values of the people?

Legislators often don't reflect the values of the people but they do have the option of tossing them out of office. The problem that you and many have is that for whatever reason you cannot distinguish between individuals and relationships. Relationships aren't people. It would be different if they said to get out, they don't serve homosexuals (which I think should still be their right in a free society) and one that celebrates the relationship. It's the old making Jews bake Muslim cakes analogy.

There just isn't the same level of desire to be hip and cutting edge to try to force it upon them. Most Muslims probably don't want Jews to bake their cakes. Gays seem to seek out those that have a problem with homosexual relationships.

Under the state anti-discrimination law, victims of discrimination are allowed to file a complaint with a state commission. Melissa Klein and her husband were given notice and an opportunity to be heard. A hearing was held and the Kleins were represented by an attorney. I don't see any "abuse" in this situation. The commission entered an order and the Kleins were given notice of their rights to appeal the commission's order to the state court. I don't see anything here that was "created out of fantasy". Perhaps you could elaborate.

Since it's legal it's OK. Unless you disagree with the law, then it must be overturned. Do you guys ever listen to yourselves?

Anti-discrimination laws have been codified for years and years and years. I don't see any outcry from the people to their elected representatives to repeal those laws or threats that they'll be thrown out of office if they don't repeal those laws.

Please read Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.:

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

Individuals vs. relationships ... hair-splitting.

This case linked above also addresses the hair-splitting argument, with citations to authority, and found it to be without any merit. Business proprietors claim they are not discriminating against the person on the basis of sexual orientation and claim they just don't bake cakes for same-sex marriages / commitment ceremonies, etc., but only gay people enter same-sex marriages. The argument is disingenuous, has been used in many forms, and has been rejected over and over again. Please, read the case linked above ... it cites to many other authoritative cases.

You are the one who concluded that the case was all about abuse and fantasy, and the burden is on you to present the facts and law to support your conclusion. I don't see abuse and fantasy. I see a duly enacted law that is being enforced.

You are seriously missing the point. There are cities and states with accomodations that include sexual orientation exactly because it isn't a Constitutional matter. There would be none if it was a right.

No, individuals are not relationships. That isn't hair splitting because you say so. Nor are you representing the other side very well. It isn't the individual they oppose. In FACT, many served gay customers but the problem was when they were asked to do something for the wedding.

I'm not interested in any god damn case law, we are in front of the Supreme Court, we are on a message board and I said what I said and you obfuscate and redirect rather than offer a explanation on why your morality should trump all others.

Debra is kicking your ass in this argument. She definitely knows what she's talking about. I would believe that she actually ran a business.

You are welcome to your opinion. No, she's trotted out the exact same bullshit we've heard thousands of times before. "She" obfuscates, redirects and asserts her opinion by authority. I illustrated the hypocrisy by asking about the man (never said rich) that wanted to celebrate his 4 sex partners on a cake and the only argument to not force the baker to do it is "well, he has no protection".

Really? What kind of answer is that? Gays didn't have the protection but now they do in some places. There is no Constitutional right to force a baker put your cake together or it wouldn't be drafted in city and state laws. The right answer is he isn't protected because not enough guys lobbied legislators to include them in public accommodation laws.

It's wrong, unconstitutional and oppressive to force businesses to accommodate your sexual preferences if it's against their will. That's why libs love big government, grease the right rails and you can bully people to do anything.

No it is not unconstitutional. Lol. You religion does not give you the right to open a business and refuse to serve certain American citizens because . . . this is America.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Was it in the state of Oregon? Different states have different laws, you know. The point is, that the baker is messed up if he thinks that by baking a cake, he is endorsing anything. He is simply doing his job.

So the baker doesn't have the same rights as the shirt printer, got it.

A cake isn't speech. Text is. I suspect that if the cake baker had baked the cake but refused to put any text on it related to the wedding....they would have been fine.

I would be willing to take a bet on that one, no one wants an undecorated wedding cake, they wouldn't have been fine.

Text and decoration are two different things. As you well know. Which is why you intentionally moved your goal posts.

Alas, the bakers refused to even bake the cake, running headlong into their state's PA laws.

How many decorated wedding cakes have you seen that didn't contain text? For me, zero. If you think the faghadist would have been satisfied with anything less than the full monte, your nuts. I have however seen shirts with offensive images with no text.

Really?

 

[ChrisL]

So the baker doesn't have the same rights as the shirt printer, got it.

A cake isn't speech. Text is. I suspect that if the cake baker had baked the cake but refused to put any text on it related to the wedding....they would have been fine.

I would be willing to take a bet on that one, no one wants an undecorated wedding cake, they wouldn't have been fine.

Text and decoration are two different things. As you well know. Which is why you intentionally moved your goal posts.

Alas, the bakers refused to even bake the cake, running headlong into their state's PA laws.

How many decorated wedding cakes have you seen that didn't contain text? For me, zero. If you think the faghadist would have been satisfied with anything less than the full monte, your nuts. I have however seen shirts with offensive images with no text.

Really?

Those are beautiful.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Why would you put your business at risk? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to simply not discriminate?

Not everyone in life is willing to roll over for tyranny. Hard to believe huh?

Since when is not discriminating against others, tyranny? I thought the Republican party was not known to run on emotions, but instead value our laws and the Constitution. Was I wrong?

Very wrong. As I said before if a bakery refused to make a cake celebrating a guy and his four sluts he was boning he could use the same argument you do.

I gotta tell you, this just tickled the shit out of me!


Me: I thought the Republican party was not known to run on emotions, but instead value our laws and the Constitution. Was I wrong?

Weasel: Very wrong.

Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! That's some funny stuff.

 

[Iceweasel]

Legislators often don't reflect the values of the people but they do have the option of tossing them out of office. The problem that you and many have is that for whatever reason you cannot distinguish between individuals and relationships. Relationships aren't people. It would be different if they said to get out, they don't serve homosexuals (which I think should still be their right in a free society) and one that celebrates the relationship. It's the old making Jews bake Muslim cakes analogy.

There just isn't the same level of desire to be hip and cutting edge to try to force it upon them. Most Muslims probably don't want Jews to bake their cakes. Gays seem to seek out those that have a problem with homosexual relationships.

Since it's legal it's OK. Unless you disagree with the law, then it must be overturned. Do you guys ever listen to yourselves?

Anti-discrimination laws have been codified for years and years and years. I don't see any outcry from the people to their elected representatives to repeal those laws or threats that they'll be thrown out of office if they don't repeal those laws.

Please read Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.:

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

Individuals vs. relationships ... hair-splitting.

This case linked above also addresses the hair-splitting argument, with citations to authority, and found it to be without any merit. Business proprietors claim they are not discriminating against the person on the basis of sexual orientation and claim they just don't bake cakes for same-sex marriages / commitment ceremonies, etc., but only gay people enter same-sex marriages. The argument is disingenuous, has been used in many forms, and has been rejected over and over again. Please, read the case linked above ... it cites to many other authoritative cases.

You are the one who concluded that the case was all about abuse and fantasy, and the burden is on you to present the facts and law to support your conclusion. I don't see abuse and fantasy. I see a duly enacted law that is being enforced.

You are seriously missing the point. There are cities and states with accomodations that include sexual orientation exactly because it isn't a Constitutional matter. There would be none if it was a right.

No, individuals are not relationships. That isn't hair splitting because you say so. Nor are you representing the other side very well. It isn't the individual they oppose. In FACT, many served gay customers but the problem was when they were asked to do something for the wedding.

I'm not interested in any god damn case law, we are in front of the Supreme Court, we are on a message board and I said what I said and you obfuscate and redirect rather than offer a explanation on why your morality should trump all others.

Debra is kicking your ass in this argument. She definitely knows what she's talking about. I would believe that she actually ran a business.

You are welcome to your opinion. No, she's trotted out the exact same bullshit we've heard thousands of times before. "She" obfuscates, redirects and asserts her opinion by authority. I illustrated the hypocrisy by asking about the man (never said rich) that wanted to celebrate his 4 sex partners on a cake and the only argument to not force the baker to do it is "well, he has no protection".

Really? What kind of answer is that? Gays didn't have the protection but now they do in some places. There is no Constitutional right to force a baker put your cake together or it wouldn't be drafted in city and state laws. The right answer is he isn't protected because not enough guys lobbied legislators to include them in public accommodation laws.

It's wrong, unconstitutional and oppressive to force businesses to accommodate your sexual preferences if it's against their will. That's why libs love big government, grease the right rails and you can bully people to do anything.

No it is not unconstitutional. Lol. You religion does not give you the right to open a business and refuse to serve certain American citizens because . . . this is America.

I don't have a religion. Government is not supposed to impose where it doesn't belong and association is where it doesn't belong. Open to the public does not mean publically owned.

 

[ChrisL]

Anti-discrimination laws have been codified for years and years and years. I don't see any outcry from the people to their elected representatives to repeal those laws or threats that they'll be thrown out of office if they don't repeal those laws.

Please read Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.:

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

Individuals vs. relationships ... hair-splitting.

This case linked above also addresses the hair-splitting argument, with citations to authority, and found it to be without any merit. Business proprietors claim they are not discriminating against the person on the basis of sexual orientation and claim they just don't bake cakes for same-sex marriages / commitment ceremonies, etc., but only gay people enter same-sex marriages. The argument is disingenuous, has been used in many forms, and has been rejected over and over again. Please, read the case linked above ... it cites to many other authoritative cases.

You are the one who concluded that the case was all about abuse and fantasy, and the burden is on you to present the facts and law to support your conclusion. I don't see abuse and fantasy. I see a duly enacted law that is being enforced.

You are seriously missing the point. There are cities and states with accomodations that include sexual orientation exactly because it isn't a Constitutional matter. There would be none if it was a right.

No, individuals are not relationships. That isn't hair splitting because you say so. Nor are you representing the other side very well. It isn't the individual they oppose. In FACT, many served gay customers but the problem was when they were asked to do something for the wedding.

I'm not interested in any god damn case law, we are in front of the Supreme Court, we are on a message board and I said what I said and you obfuscate and redirect rather than offer a explanation on why your morality should trump all others.

Debra is kicking your ass in this argument. She definitely knows what she's talking about. I would believe that she actually ran a business.

You are welcome to your opinion. No, she's trotted out the exact same bullshit we've heard thousands of times before. "She" obfuscates, redirects and asserts her opinion by authority. I illustrated the hypocrisy by asking about the man (never said rich) that wanted to celebrate his 4 sex partners on a cake and the only argument to not force the baker to do it is "well, he has no protection".

Really? What kind of answer is that? Gays didn't have the protection but now they do in some places. There is no Constitutional right to force a baker put your cake together or it wouldn't be drafted in city and state laws. The right answer is he isn't protected because not enough guys lobbied legislators to include them in public accommodation laws.

It's wrong, unconstitutional and oppressive to force businesses to accommodate your sexual preferences if it's against their will. That's why libs love big government, grease the right rails and you can bully people to do anything.

No it is not unconstitutional. Lol. You religion does not give you the right to open a business and refuse to serve certain American citizens because . . . this is America.

I don't have a religion. Government is not supposed to impose where it doesn't belong and association is where it doesn't belong. Open to the public does not mean publically owned.

States have the right to make the laws regarding how you do business. Stop whining. It is tiresome and pathetic.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Was it in the state of Oregon? Different states have different laws, you know. The point is, that the baker is messed up if he thinks that by baking a cake, he is endorsing anything. He is simply doing his job.

So the baker doesn't have the same rights as the shirt printer, got it.

A cake isn't speech. Text is. I suspect that if the cake baker had baked the cake but refused to put any text on it related to the wedding....they would have been fine.

I would be willing to take a bet on that one, no one wants an undecorated wedding cake, they wouldn't have been fine.

Text and decoration are two different things. As you well know. Which is why you intentionally moved your goal posts.

Alas, the bakers refused to even bake the cake, running headlong into their state's PA laws.

How many decorated wedding cakes have you seen that didn't contain text? For me, zero. If you think the faghadist would have been satisfied with anything less than the full monte, your nuts. I have however seen shirts with offensive images with no text.

Just curious, what do the wedding cakes say down there in Texas? Happy wedding day, now get me a beer? LOL!

 

[Iceweasel]

You are seriously missing the point. There are cities and states with accomodations that include sexual orientation exactly because it isn't a Constitutional matter. There would be none if it was a right.

No, individuals are not relationships. That isn't hair splitting because you say so. Nor are you representing the other side very well. It isn't the individual they oppose. In FACT, many served gay customers but the problem was when they were asked to do something for the wedding.

I'm not interested in any god damn case law, we are in front of the Supreme Court, we are on a message board and I said what I said and you obfuscate and redirect rather than offer a explanation on why your morality should trump all others.

Debra is kicking your ass in this argument. She definitely knows what she's talking about. I would believe that she actually ran a business.

You are welcome to your opinion. No, she's trotted out the exact same bullshit we've heard thousands of times before. "She" obfuscates, redirects and asserts her opinion by authority. I illustrated the hypocrisy by asking about the man (never said rich) that wanted to celebrate his 4 sex partners on a cake and the only argument to not force the baker to do it is "well, he has no protection".

Really? What kind of answer is that? Gays didn't have the protection but now they do in some places. There is no Constitutional right to force a baker put your cake together or it wouldn't be drafted in city and state laws. The right answer is he isn't protected because not enough guys lobbied legislators to include them in public accommodation laws.

It's wrong, unconstitutional and oppressive to force businesses to accommodate your sexual preferences if it's against their will. That's why libs love big government, grease the right rails and you can bully people to do anything.

No it is not unconstitutional. Lol. You religion does not give you the right to open a business and refuse to serve certain American citizens because . . . this is America.

I don't have a religion. Government is not supposed to impose where it doesn't belong and association is where it doesn't belong. Open to the public does not mean publically owned.

States have the right to make the laws regarding how you do business. Stop whining. It is tiresome and pathetic.

The whine is between your ears, I haven't started a single thread on this. States rights don't mean shit if you disagree with them, remember gay marriage? Laws change all the time, the left is not the one ones allowed to make it happen, sorry.

 

[ChrisL]

Debra is kicking your ass in this argument. She definitely knows what she's talking about. I would believe that she actually ran a business.

You are welcome to your opinion. No, she's trotted out the exact same bullshit we've heard thousands of times before. "She" obfuscates, redirects and asserts her opinion by authority. I illustrated the hypocrisy by asking about the man (never said rich) that wanted to celebrate his 4 sex partners on a cake and the only argument to not force the baker to do it is "well, he has no protection".

Really? What kind of answer is that? Gays didn't have the protection but now they do in some places. There is no Constitutional right to force a baker put your cake together or it wouldn't be drafted in city and state laws. The right answer is he isn't protected because not enough guys lobbied legislators to include them in public accommodation laws.

It's wrong, unconstitutional and oppressive to force businesses to accommodate your sexual preferences if it's against their will. That's why libs love big government, grease the right rails and you can bully people to do anything.

No it is not unconstitutional. Lol. You religion does not give you the right to open a business and refuse to serve certain American citizens because . . . this is America.

I don't have a religion. Government is not supposed to impose where it doesn't belong and association is where it doesn't belong. Open to the public does not mean publically owned.

States have the right to make the laws regarding how you do business. Stop whining. It is tiresome and pathetic.

The whine is between your ears, I haven't started a single thread on this. States rights don't mean shit if you disagree with them, remember gay marriage? Laws change all the time, the left is not the one ones allowed to make it happen, sorry.

Oh puhleese, you do nothing but whine. "I can't discriminate against gays. Woe is me!"

 

[ChrisL]

So the baker doesn't have the same rights as the shirt printer, got it.

A cake isn't speech. Text is. I suspect that if the cake baker had baked the cake but refused to put any text on it related to the wedding....they would have been fine.

I would be willing to take a bet on that one, no one wants an undecorated wedding cake, they wouldn't have been fine.

Text and decoration are two different things. As you well know. Which is why you intentionally moved your goal posts.

Alas, the bakers refused to even bake the cake, running headlong into their state's PA laws.

How many decorated wedding cakes have you seen that didn't contain text? For me, zero. If you think the faghadist would have been satisfied with anything less than the full monte, your nuts. I have however seen shirts with offensive images with no text.

Just curious, what do the wedding cakes say down there in Texas? Happy wedding day, now get me a beer? LOL!

Now get in the kitchen and make me a sammich!

 

[Carla_Danger]

Iceweasel: Your post was messy. Your attributions and quotes were out of place. My words and your words blended into each other. I did my best to fix it, but in the future please edit your post because it's very difficult and time consuming to respond.

It's clear to me that the "rule of law" is whatever they want it to be. They, being the dominate force in any given issue. There is no logical reason people in a free country should be forced to serve people they don't want to serve. That's government making demands to satisfy a political agenda, nothing more.

We elect our representatives to serve us in the political branches of government. Our elected officials make policy determinations. Our lawmakers have determined that discrimination (and the ensuing strife) causes harm or threatens harm to the common welfare of the people. Our laws address those harms or threatened harms as a matter of public policy. What you might believe to be liberty and justice for yourself (i.e., the right to discriminate) another person might believe to be a deprivation of liberty and an injustice (i.e., victimization through discrimination). Perhaps you may move freely through society and engage in business transactions with commercial enterprises, but others cannot and anguish and strife ensues. As a matter of public policy, legislatures (both federal and state) have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations. There is a logical reason why discrimination is against the law. Without ordered liberty, justice for vast segments of our population simply doesn't exist.

Here is a quote from the Colorado case that I linked in an earlier post: "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

For those who missed the link in prior posts, here it is: Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.

Gays have been denied service for wedding cakes and were able to sue for lack of service. Bullshit. Loss of freedom is a big deal to many people to but you can't factor that into your societal harm question for some reason. What you are doing is misapplying a law that helped black folks get food, clothing, shelter, etc. They needed the protection because they had nothing and little chance to start businesses themselves.

No one even knows if someone is homosexual unless they make it an issue. So again, it's YOUR sense of morality that's important. No one else's.

You respond with "Bullshit"? That's impolite and does not constitute a logical argument. The Colorado public accommodation law, Section 24-34-601(2), C.R.S., in relevant part provides the following:

"It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or group, because of . . . sexual orientation . . . the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation."​

Your grievance isn't with me. I don't enact laws, I just read the laws and the cases that interpret and apply the law. That's how I inform and educate myself. There exist thousands of laws in every state that regulate conduct. Everyone is presumed to know the law, and if a person violates the law, there are usually adverse consequences. I'm sure there are thousands of people sitting in jails and prisons at this very moment, and their loss of freedom is indeed a big deal to them. There are many people who may desire the freedom to discriminate against same-sex couples and do so without consequences, but some state legislatures have made that conduct unlawful.

I am not misapplying the law. I am simply informing you what the rule of law is, why it was enacted, and how it has been applied.

My sense of morality? I think I ought to keep my nose out of other people's bedrooms, and obey the law.

I do believe there was a reason back in the day when a black man couldn't open up a store but that was long ago and hardly the case any more. Sexual orientation? Where does it stop? If a rich guy has 15 whores he bangs on a regular basis and wants to have a cake commemorating the occasion are we still allowed by our caring government to refuse the job?

If promiscuous rich guys, as a class of persons, can demonstrate a history of discrimination in public accommodations based on who they are, then perhaps they can convince our lawmakers that they are entitled to protection under our anti-discrimination laws. Gay people, whether you consider some of them to be promiscuous and regardless of the size of their individual wealth, are entitled to protection under the law because there exists a proven history of oppression. I believe you are intelligent enough to discern the difference.

Ah, since it isn't illegal to discriminate against them it's OK to discriminate against them. That's what I thought. What a hypocrite!

Why do you find it necessary to call me a "hypocrite"? Please don't call me names. It doesn't cost anything to be civil. Again, I'm responding to your questions in accordance with my opening post ... with reason, logic, and the rule of law.

People still retain the freedom of contract and they retain the freedom to discriminate all they want unless doing so violates the law. It is unlawful in the area of public accommodations in some states to refuse goods or services to an individual because of his/her race, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.

If a similar statute exists in your state, you are free to contact your state lawmakers and encourage them to include promiscuous rich guys and exclude homosexual persons as protected classes.

I turned down Planned Parenthood because I don't want to help them kill babies, is that still allowed? And for how long? All the discussion about legal decisions is pointless to me because the bar moves when they want it to move.

Planned Parenthood is not a person falling within a class of historically oppressed persons, it is an organization ... I don't know of any law that prevents you from doing business or refusing to do business with Planned Parenthood.

Again, no gay was refused service for being gay, people don't want to be forced to participate in the celebration of their sexuality. I did discriminate against people who's lifestyle I opposed by denying service to them and their cause. You're dodging the point. Typical for you guys, you're like jello. You believe in this or that as a matter of convienience.

The decision-makers in some of the cases we're discussing don't agree with your argument. If you think Planned Parenthood people ought to be a protected class, contact your legislative representatives. I'm not dodging any point. You want to walk down a irrelevant path, and I kindly walked with you, and you thanked me by calling me jello and making an odd comment about what I allegedly believe. Please use reason and logic and the rule of law.

As far as marriage, the government should get out of any legal definition and let people define it for themselves, no government penalty or breaks. That's the only fair solution in today's world of moral relativity and government tyranny.

Abolition of the civil institution of marriage would cause chaos and grave harm to our society and the vulnerable persons who would be victimized without the vast protections and benefits that flow from marriage. That's not the "fair solution" simply because some people don't approve of other people's marriages.

Wrong. I said they can then get a contract with whoever they chose. Any contract they wanted, including anything similar to state sponsored marriage. They won't be harmed except to lose out on some government tax breaks. And in fact, since about half the population is single it's unfair to them to subsidize marriage. It WAS instituted because that's how most families formed and society benefited from the stability and norms. That's been thrown out the window so it makes zero sense to keep it around. Let's be progressive and get rid of an archaic institution that hurts some and benefits others who will never contribute future tax payers or producers.

Same sex couples have families too. You make a lot of sweeping statements that have no logical, factual, or legal support. The United States Supreme Court already ruled that same sex couples have the same right to marry that heterosexual couples have. Thus, your unsupported argument is moot.

You broke the post apart you dumb clit. In the future don't blame others for your stupidity. You joined the site to explain to people how backwards they are for believing in tradition marriage and obfuscate, insult and demean those that disagree with you.

Yes, gays can adopt. I was talking about reproduction, quite obviously. What the fuck is wrong with you? You're like all the other homosexual propagandists out there. You either are a liar and know better or you a too slow to follow grade school level concepts.

I know the laws are not in agreement with me. I said so repeatedly, dipshit! Your position is the law is the law, though shit. Well, the law was not for gay marriage but it needed to be changed. So you are for laws when you agree with them and against them when they aren't BUT you hypocritically refuse to accept it when someone else disagrees with the laws as they currently are.

That's all this site needed was another lying smearing asshole putting down traditional people with intellectual dishonesty. FUCK YOU!

 

[Carla_Danger]

Why would you put your business at risk? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to simply not discriminate?

Not everyone in life is willing to roll over for tyranny. Hard to believe huh?

Since when is not discriminating against others, tyranny? I thought the Republican party was not known to run on emotions, but instead value our laws and the Constitution. Was I wrong?

Very wrong. As I said before if a bakery refused to make a cake celebrating a guy and his four sluts he was boning he could use the same argument you do.

I gotta tell you, this just tickled the shit out of me!


Me: I thought the Republican party was not known to run on emotions, but instead value our laws and the Constitution. Was I wrong?

Weasel: Very wrong.

Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! That's some funny stuff.

Yes, you're wrong. Come back and read it when you sober up.

No, it's right there for all to see.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I give Debra credit for trying. lol

 

[Iceweasel]

You are welcome to your opinion. No, she's trotted out the exact same bullshit we've heard thousands of times before. "She" obfuscates, redirects and asserts her opinion by authority. I illustrated the hypocrisy by asking about the man (never said rich) that wanted to celebrate his 4 sex partners on a cake and the only argument to not force the baker to do it is "well, he has no protection".

Really? What kind of answer is that? Gays didn't have the protection but now they do in some places. There is no Constitutional right to force a baker put your cake together or it wouldn't be drafted in city and state laws. The right answer is he isn't protected because not enough guys lobbied legislators to include them in public accommodation laws.

It's wrong, unconstitutional and oppressive to force businesses to accommodate your sexual preferences if it's against their will. That's why libs love big government, grease the right rails and you can bully people to do anything.

No it is not unconstitutional. Lol. You religion does not give you the right to open a business and refuse to serve certain American citizens because . . . this is America.

I don't have a religion. Government is not supposed to impose where it doesn't belong and association is where it doesn't belong. Open to the public does not mean publically owned.

States have the right to make the laws regarding how you do business. Stop whining. It is tiresome and pathetic.

The whine is between your ears, I haven't started a single thread on this. States rights don't mean shit if you disagree with them, remember gay marriage? Laws change all the time, the left is not the one ones allowed to make it happen, sorry.

Oh puhleese, you do nothing but whine. "I can't discriminate against gays. Woe is me!"

Look in the mirror, you're whining constantly that someone on an internet board dares to disagree with you. I never complained about not being able to refuse service to gays, you can't even read. I have and do serve them. so did the bakery and florist. You don't even know what the fucking issue is.

 

[ChrisL]

No it is not unconstitutional. Lol. You religion does not give you the right to open a business and refuse to serve certain American citizens because . . . this is America.

I don't have a religion. Government is not supposed to impose where it doesn't belong and association is where it doesn't belong. Open to the public does not mean publically owned.

States have the right to make the laws regarding how you do business. Stop whining. It is tiresome and pathetic.

The whine is between your ears, I haven't started a single thread on this. States rights don't mean shit if you disagree with them, remember gay marriage? Laws change all the time, the left is not the one ones allowed to make it happen, sorry.

Oh puhleese, you do nothing but whine. "I can't discriminate against gays. Woe is me!"

Look in the mirror, you're whining constantly that someone on an internet board dares to disagree with you. I never complained about not being able to refuse service to gays, you can't even read. I have and do serve them. so did the bakery and florist. You don't even know what the fucking issue is.

Nope, I'm just telling you the facts. You cannot open a business and discriminate against gay people. Period.

 

[ChrisL]

Iceweasel: Your post was messy. Your attributions and quotes were out of place. My words and your words blended into each other. I did my best to fix it, but in the future please edit your post because it's very difficult and time consuming to respond.


For those who missed the link in prior posts, here it is: Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.

You respond with "Bullshit"? That's impolite and does not constitute a logical argument. The Colorado public accommodation law, Section 24-34-601(2), C.R.S., in relevant part provides the following:

"It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or group, because of . . . sexual orientation . . . the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation."​

Your grievance isn't with me. I don't enact laws, I just read the laws and the cases that interpret and apply the law. That's how I inform and educate myself. There exist thousands of laws in every state that regulate conduct. Everyone is presumed to know the law, and if a person violates the law, there are usually adverse consequences. I'm sure there are thousands of people sitting in jails and prisons at this very moment, and their loss of freedom is indeed a big deal to them. There are many people who may desire the freedom to discriminate against same-sex couples and do so without consequences, but some state legislatures have made that conduct unlawful.

I am not misapplying the law. I am simply informing you what the rule of law is, why it was enacted, and how it has been applied.

My sense of morality? I think I ought to keep my nose out of other people's bedrooms, and obey the law.



Why do you find it necessary to call me a "hypocrite"? Please don't call me names. It doesn't cost anything to be civil. Again, I'm responding to your questions in accordance with my opening post ... with reason, logic, and the rule of law.

People still retain the freedom of contract and they retain the freedom to discriminate all they want unless doing so violates the law. It is unlawful in the area of public accommodations in some states to refuse goods or services to an individual because of his/her race, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.

If a similar statute exists in your state, you are free to contact your state lawmakers and encourage them to include promiscuous rich guys and exclude homosexual persons as protected classes.




The decision-makers in some of the cases we're discussing don't agree with your argument. If you think Planned Parenthood people ought to be a protected class, contact your legislative representatives. I'm not dodging any point. You want to walk down a irrelevant path, and I kindly walked with you, and you thanked me by calling me jello and making an odd comment about what I allegedly believe. Please use reason and logic and the rule of law.

Same sex couples have families too. You make a lot of sweeping statements that have no logical, factual, or legal support. The United States Supreme Court already ruled that same sex couples have the same right to marry that heterosexual couples have. Thus, your unsupported argument is moot.

You broke the post apart you dumb clit. In the future don't blame others for your stupidity. You joined the site to explain to people how backwards they are for believing in tradition marriage and obfuscate, insult and demean those that disagree with you.

Yes, gays can adopt. I was talking about reproduction, quite obviously. What the fuck is wrong with you? You're like all the other homosexual propagandists out there. You either are a liar and know better or you a too slow to follow grade school level concepts.

I know the laws are not in agreement with me. I said so repeatedly, dipshit! Your position is the law is the law, though shit. Well, the law was not for gay marriage but it needed to be changed. So you are for laws when you agree with them and against them when they aren't BUT you hypocritically refuse to accept it when someone else disagrees with the laws as they currently are.

That's all this site needed was another lying smearing asshole putting down traditional people with intellectual dishonesty. FUCK YOU!

What a dickhead you are.

What a clithead you are.

That was lame, like you.

Dickhead is OK but clithead is lame? Like I said 'intellectual dishonesty'.

I don't think you know what intellectual dishonesty means. It actually describes your stance on this issue.

1. Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A cake isn't speech. Text is. I suspect that if the cake baker had baked the cake but refused to put any text on it related to the wedding....they would have been fine.

I would be willing to take a bet on that one, no one wants an undecorated wedding cake, they wouldn't have been fine.

Text and decoration are two different things. As you well know. Which is why you intentionally moved your goal posts.

Alas, the bakers refused to even bake the cake, running headlong into their state's PA laws.

How many decorated wedding cakes have you seen that didn't contain text? For me, zero. If you think the faghadist would have been satisfied with anything less than the full monte, your nuts. I have however seen shirts with offensive images with no text.

Most, actually.Text is more of a sheet cake kinda thing. Wedding cakes typically don't include text. Especially the higher end cakes.

And 'faghadist', huh? You're not even trying to put a thin veneer on your animus toward gays and lesbians, are you? Again, this is why you lost. And will continue to lose. As your hatred isn't founded in any rational basis.

I reserve the term for the extremist and activist, you know the ones who think they have a right to impose themselves on and try to destroy the society for rest of us. At the very best they are an anomaly of nature, at worst they are a bunch of deviant perverts. I consider the activist the latter. Only activist will bust someone's balls over a freaking cake when there are close to 400 other bakeries available.

Seeking one's comprehensive civil rights is not "extremism."

Consequently your hate indeed is devoid of a rational basis.