Christian Bake Shop Must Serve Gakes

[Quantum Windbag]

Its against state law to deny them services based on sexual orientation.

So no they were not in the wrong.

Are you saying that the law is your infallible god and moral compass? If so, you are worse than a scumbag because even scumbags understand that the law can be wrong.

Are you saying you are a bigot? Are you saying we should have second class citizens because of sexual orientation?
That almost makes you as bad as being a racist.

I am not the person in this thread that is condemning the baker for his beliefs, am I? In fact, if you go back and look you will be unable to find me saying that the gay couple should stop being gay. What they do in private, or even in public, is their business, what the baker does is his. Bigotry would be demanding that one side, or the other, change their ways because I am insisting that they shouldn't be allowed to act, think, or simply be, who they are.

Take a good look in the mirror if you want to see a bigot.

 

[manifold]

I keep hearing "religious liberty," but all I can think of is "states rights."

Why is that, I wonder ?

Should Woolworth's have been able to stick to THEIR "values?" And finally, what makes the baker different from Woolworth's?

He's not.

The difference here that you refuse to recognize is that the victims aren't the same, not even close.

Your attempts to conflate a gay couple dragging a homophobic baker through court to force him to bake a cake with systematic and institutionalized racism against black people is intellectually and ethically reprehensible.

You and the plaintiffs should be ashamed of yourselves for what you're doing, not proud.

Not if you actually believe in that coexist bumper sticker on the back of your Subaru.

Apparently the law in the state disagrees with your view. go figure. You ever stop to think the homophobic backer was going for a chic-fil A moment, not realizing the moment was gone?

Wrong.

Once again I agree with the ruling, given the law and the facts in this case.

That has nothing to do with my opinion that the plaintiffs are intolerant assholes for filing suit in the first place. Just because something is within one's rights doesn't make it right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The shop owners were not within their states rights to refuse to make the cake and discriminate because of sexual orientation. State law has determined that discrimination is illegal.

State law cannot tell me what my rights are, and everyone has a right not to work for other people if they do not want to. That is actually part of the Constitution of the United States of America, which trumps state law.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
​

Lol...yeah tell this to a judge. God you would lose so badly.

Actually, no one made that argument. They also didn't argue that forcing artists to produce a work of art that they object to is a violation of free speech. The first might be shaky under current jurisprudence, but the latter is a slam dunk.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gakes, gay cakes.

Judge orders bakeshop to serve same-sex customers after owner REFUSED to make rainbow wedding cake for gay couple | Mail Online

If an establishment is open to the public, it is open to all of the public, including those with whom it has a political disagreement.

But....I heard a radio caller provide the best solution.
Tell the folks with whom one disagrees, in this case a gay couple, that you would be happy to accommodate them, but the cost of the cake would be donated to a traditional marriage organization.

A win-win.

Does the bakery sell wedding cakes to people getting a divorce? If not, you can't argue that the business is open to the public.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then go cry about it to the state congress who passed said law. While there stop and see mal. Im sure he will give you a gay welcome.

How about you go piss on a third rail somewhere.

I already said the law is on the side of the plaintiffs and I'm ok with the law.

I'm merely condemning the plaintiffs for exploiting the law to be intolerant assholes.

So using the law makes you an asshole

That was your opinion when Westboro Baptist Church used the law to protest soldiers funerals.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you saying you are a bigot? Are you saying we should have second class citizens because of sexual orientation?
That almost makes you as bad as being a racist.

Not being able to force someone into performing a service that they clearly do not want to perform does not make someone a second class citizen. When citizenship depends on getting a wedding cake at your command, from whomever you command it, we have more serious problems than second hand citizens. It's the baker who is really the second class citizen because it is the baker that has had his business decisions taken from him by law.

Same argument made by the people of Nashville when the SNCC students sat at the Woolworths lunch counter.

Not true, and not even remotely the same. As I have already pointed out, the Woolworth's lunch counter was segregated by law. That was wrong because the state was forcing people to obey a law that violated their moral principles in order to earn a living.

The sad part is that you didn't learn the lesson there, and are now insisting on doing the same thing.

 

[Plasmaball]

Are you saying that the law is your infallible god and moral compass? If so, you are worse than a scumbag because even scumbags understand that the law can be wrong.

Are you saying you are a bigot? Are you saying we should have second class citizens because of sexual orientation?
That almost makes you as bad as being a racist.

Not being able to force someone into performing a service that they clearly do not want to perform does not make someone a second class citizen. When citizenship depends on getting a wedding cake at your command, from whomever you command it, we have more serious problems than second hand citizens. It's the baker who is really the second class citizen because it is the baker that has had his business decisions taken from him by law.

Ah the baker is the victim angle.the poor baker just wants to bake his cakes for his select customers. Its fun watching you guys jump from hoop to hoop. Had this been a state regualtion stating he cant sell certain cakes you would be crying about capitialism. Yet when its religious, capitalism gets tossed out the window. Its interesting watching shifting principles.

 

[Plasmaball]

State law cannot tell me what my rights are, and everyone has a right not to work for other people if they do not want to. That is actually part of the Constitution of the United States of America, which trumps state law.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
​

Lol...yeah tell this to a judge. God you would lose so badly.

Actually, no one made that argument. They also didn't argue that forcing artists to produce a work of art that they object to is a violation of free speech. The first might be shaky under current jurisprudence, but the latter is a slam dunk.

Artists? Wow really digging deep for this one huh. Reality is you have nothing.

 

[Plasmaball]

How about you go piss on a third rail somewhere.

I already said the law is on the side of the plaintiffs and I'm ok with the law.

I'm merely condemning the plaintiffs for exploiting the law to be intolerant assholes.

So using the law makes you an asshole

That was your opinion when Westboro Baptist Church used the law to protest soldiers funerals.

It was? Link..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lol...yeah tell this to a judge. God you would lose so badly.

Actually, no one made that argument. They also didn't argue that forcing artists to produce a work of art that they object to is a violation of free speech. The first might be shaky under current jurisprudence, but the latter is a slam dunk.

Artists? Wow really digging deep for this one huh. Reality is you have nothing.

I am going to turn syrenn lose on you, feel free to tell a pastry chef that her cakes are not works of art.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So using the law makes you an asshole

That was your opinion when Westboro Baptist Church used the law to protest soldiers funerals.

It was? Link..

Are you trying to claim they aren't assholes now?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Whatever idiot parent named their kid Adolph Hitler should never have procreated. Musta been a skinhead.

ya think?

Being a skinhead is a behavior. If a bakery can discriminate based on this kind of behavior and pretty much everyone agrees that they could, and should, then why not on some other kind of behavior, like being gay.

Ya, like interracial marriage, that's a behavior. People aren't born already married to someone of a different race/ethnicity, they choose to make that decision so it's totally cool to deny them equal treatment.



>>>>

 

[Plasmaball]

That was your opinion when Westboro Baptist Church used the law to protest soldiers funerals.

It was? Link..

Are you trying to claim they aren't assholes now?

I asked for a link..figures youd pull this boring stunt.

 

[Plasmaball]

Actually, no one made that argument. They also didn't argue that forcing artists to produce a work of art that they object to is a violation of free speech. The first might be shaky under current jurisprudence, but the latter is a slam dunk.

Artists? Wow really digging deep for this one huh. Reality is you have nothing.

I am going to turn syrenn lose on you, feel free to tell a pastry chef that her cakes are not works of art.

Do whatever you need. This baker is not making art. Their is a difference between cake art and baking a cake. You once again do understand what you are talking about.

 

[BullKurtz]

I suggest the baker put some Ex-Lax in the chocolate frosting for his fudge-packer customers. He gets their money, and they get the drizzly shits..... works in a pinch when they're out of Vaseline.

win win

 

[WorldWatcher]

I suggest the baker put some Ex-Lax in the chocolate frosting for his fudge-packer customers. He gets their money, and they get the drizzly shits..... works in a pinch when they're out of Vaseline.

win win

Until...

1. They sue him in civil court for intentional damaging both their persons, their guests, and their event.

2. Since it would have been an intentional event, the insurance company would disallow the claim and the owner would be on the hook for their own lawyer and the award of the court. The "gays" would probably end up owning his business and his personal assets.

3. They were shut down for food safety violations.

4. Probably prosecuted under poisoning laws in criminal court and spend time in jail.​

Other than that, beautiful plan.



>>>>

 

[BullKurtz]

I suggest the baker put some Ex-Lax in the chocolate frosting for his fudge-packer customers. He gets their money, and they get the drizzly shits..... works in a pinch when they're out of Vaseline.

win win

Until...

1. They sue him in civil court for intentional damaging both their persons, their guests, and their event.

2. Since it would have been an intentional event, the insurance company would disallow the claim and the owner would be on the hook for their own lawyer and the award of the court. The "gays" would probably end up owning his business and his personal assets.

3. They were shut down for food safety violations.

4. Probably prosecuted under poisoning laws in criminal court and spend time in jail.​

Other than that, beautiful plan.



>>>>

Another USMB "lawyer" pops up. Who's gonna pick through their sewage to find the trace amount of Ex-Lax, Mr. Darrow? Doctoring food for desired effect is beyond difficult to prosecute. And besides, the runs is every homo's dream scenario ain't it?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I suggest the baker put some Ex-Lax in the chocolate frosting for his fudge-packer customers. He gets their money, and they get the drizzly shits..... works in a pinch when they're out of Vaseline.

win win

Until...

1. They sue him in civil court for intentional damaging both their persons, their guests, and their event.

2. Since it would have been an intentional event, the insurance company would disallow the claim and the owner would be on the hook for their own lawyer and the award of the court. The "gays" would probably end up owning his business and his personal assets.

3. They were shut down for food safety violations.

4. Probably prosecuted under poisoning laws in criminal court and spend time in jail.​

Other than that, beautiful plan.



>>>>

Another USMB "lawyer" pops up. Who's gonna pick through their sewage to find the trace amount of Ex-Lax, Mr. Darrow? Doctoring food for desired effect is beyond difficult to prosecute. And besides, the runs is every homo's dream scenario ain't it?

Leftovers of the cake are not typically stored in the sewer, freezers are much better.

Proving the cake was poisoned will be the easy part.


>>>>

 

[Camp]

I suggest the baker put some Ex-Lax in the chocolate frosting for his fudge-packer customers. He gets their money, and they get the drizzly shits..... works in a pinch when they're out of Vaseline.

win win

Until...

1. They sue him in civil court for intentional damaging both their persons, their guests, and their event.

2. Since it would have been an intentional event, the insurance company would disallow the claim and the owner would be on the hook for their own lawyer and the award of the court. The "gays" would probably end up owning his business and his personal assets.

3. They were shut down for food safety violations.

4. Probably prosecuted under poisoning laws in criminal court and spend time in jail.​

Other than that, beautiful plan.



>>>>

Another USMB "lawyer" pops up. Who's gonna pick through their sewage to find the trace amount of Ex-Lax, Mr. Darrow? Doctoring food for desired effect is beyond difficult to prosecute. And besides, the runs is every homo's dream scenario ain't it?

The bakers who stood their ground and refused to bake the cake had courage, ethics and honor to stand up for what they believed in, wrong or right. Your solution is a dishonest and cowardly solution that would poison guest, to include little kids and old people. You would do that because you didn't have the honor or guts to stand up to some gay guys. It would also make you a thief because you would be taken money under false pretense. And you call yourself a Marine. You disgrace the Corps.

 

[BullKurtz]

Until...

1. They sue him in civil court for intentional damaging both their persons, their guests, and their event.

2. Since it would have been an intentional event, the insurance company would disallow the claim and the owner would be on the hook for their own lawyer and the award of the court. The "gays" would probably end up owning his business and his personal assets.

3. They were shut down for food safety violations.

4. Probably prosecuted under poisoning laws in criminal court and spend time in jail.​

Other than that, beautiful plan.



>>>>

Another USMB "lawyer" pops up. Who's gonna pick through their sewage to find the trace amount of Ex-Lax, Mr. Darrow? Doctoring food for desired effect is beyond difficult to prosecute. And besides, the runs is every homo's dream scenario ain't it?

The bakers who stood their ground and refused to bake the cake had courage, ethics and honor to stand up for what they believed in, wrong or right. Your solution is a dishonest and cowardly solution that would poison guest, to include little kids and old people. You would do that because you didn't have the honor or guts to stand up to some gay guys. It would also make you a thief because you would be taken money under false pretense. And you call yourself a Marine. You disgrace the Corps.

tell ya what....when you have a moment I need some socks darned, Loretta.