Christian Bake Shop Must Serve Gakes

[novasteve]

Would you force a feminist sign maker to make pro life signs? Libs???

 

[Nosmo King]

So you oppose the selective service requirement for men only, right?

That's changing too. Time for you to catch up on current events.

sex is an immutable characteristic. Men must register with the selective service or be jailed.

And soon so will women. But there's no logical link between draft registration and discrimination by businesses on groups. You have failed to make a cogent argument.

 

[Asclepias]

But only people like you get to discriminate, that makes you progressive. Everyone else is a bigot, right?

No. Everyone gets to do it. Discrimination is not a bad thing. Negative racial, sexual, religious, etc discrimination is a bad thing. Yes you are a bigot. You practice negative discrimination.

So you oppose affirmative action?

No. Its not negative.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Would you force a feminist sign maker to make pro life signs? Libs???

Not a "lib" but I will point out that from a legal perspective:

"Pro Life" is not a criteria identified under the Colorado statute which include race, sex, age, sexual orientation, national origin, ethnicity, and marital status.


>>>>

 

[novasteve]

That's changing too. Time for you to catch up on current events.

sex is an immutable characteristic. Men must register with the selective service or be jailed.

And soon so will women. But there's no logical link between draft registration and discrimination by businesses on groups. You have failed to make a cogent argument.

There is nothing in the works or even suggested that anything will be changing. You have no issue with discrimination against men, you have no problem with men being made aware when they turn 18 that they are disposable. Guck you and your faux outrage about discrimination.

 

[novasteve]

Would you force a feminist sign maker to make pro life signs? Libs???

Not a "lib" but I will point out that from a legal perspective:

"Pro Life" is not a criteria identified under the Colorado statute which include race, sex, age, sexual orientation, national origin, ethnicity, and marital status.


>>>>

So how about forcing a black printer to print white supremacist stuff? Black printer and white patron wanting white power stuff printed

 

[Katzndogz]

Gakes, gay cakes.

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

Was the baker told to make a rainbow wedding cake or not?

Are rainbows offensive? Are they something you would not want your children to see, or draw in a pre-school class? Are they a form of obscenity? Do rainbow cakes require specialized and expensive equipment to make?

Baking a rainbow cake is not a sin. Conducting business with homosexuals is not a sin. The whole idea of using a warped interpretation of scripture to justify hatred is indeed sinful. The baker cannot discriminate and then run behind an altar for cover. It's disgraceful. It's antithetical to the American idea. And, just so Conservatives can finally find a way to see the wrong in the situation, it's bad business.

A rainbow could well be an object of obscenity. It depends on the context. A woman's genitals could be an object of medical examination or an object of titillation in a porn movie.

To my reading, scripture does not command me to judge the sin of another. It does command me to judge my own. Refusing to sell the gay guy anything would be discrimination it would be wrong and if the baker so judged that man he would have sinned himself. In this case, the baker isn't judging the man. He is refusing to commit a personal sin himself.

If it is bad for business, that's not a decision that the public can make on this man's behalf. There is nothing at all to stop a bakery from putting an ad in the newspaper that says "We make the most spectacular same sex wedding cakes in the nation". Would that be good for business? Should an individual be prohibited from putting that ad in the paper? No. It's a business decision. The public doesn't get to tell business owners what's good for business or not.

 

[novasteve]

No. Everyone gets to do it. Discrimination is not a bad thing. Negative racial, sexual, religious, etc discrimination is a bad thing. Yes you are a bigot. You practice negative discrimination.

So you oppose affirmative action?

No. Its not negative.

It is negative for those discriminated against by it. Jesus Chris you fucking moron

 

[WorldWatcher]

Would you force a feminist sign maker to make pro life signs? Libs???

Not a "lib" but I will point out that from a legal perspective:

"Pro Life" is not a criteria identified under the Colorado statute which include race, sex, age, sexual orientation, national origin, ethnicity, and marital status.


>>>>

So how about forcing a black printer to print white supremacist stuff? Black printer and white patron wanting white power stuff printed

White supremacist is a political position, political positions are not covered.

However, if the black printer would print white supremacist literature submitted by a black person but not a white one, then the basis of the discrimination isn't the literature but the person - therefore illegal.

Unlike this case where the baker routinely sold wedding cakes but refused it based on the sexual orientation of the couple.



>>>>

 

[Asclepias]

So you oppose affirmative action?

No. Its not negative.

It is negative for those discriminated against by it. Jesus Chris you fucking moron

You must be the moron. No one is being discriminated against.

 

[Nosmo King]

Was the baker told to make a rainbow wedding cake or not?

Are rainbows offensive? Are they something you would not want your children to see, or draw in a pre-school class? Are they a form of obscenity? Do rainbow cakes require specialized and expensive equipment to make?

Baking a rainbow cake is not a sin. Conducting business with homosexuals is not a sin. The whole idea of using a warped interpretation of scripture to justify hatred is indeed sinful. The baker cannot discriminate and then run behind an altar for cover. It's disgraceful. It's antithetical to the American idea. And, just so Conservatives can finally find a way to see the wrong in the situation, it's bad business.

A rainbow could well be an object of obscenity. It depends on the context. A woman's genitals could be an object of medical examination or an object of titillation in a porn movie.

To my reading, scripture does not command me to judge the sin of another. It does command me to judge my own. Refusing to sell the gay guy anything would be discrimination it would be wrong and if the baker so judged that man he would have sinned himself. In this case, the baker isn't judging the man. He is refusing to commit a personal sin himself.

If it is bad for business, that's not a decision that the public can make on this man's behalf. There is nothing at all to stop a bakery from putting an ad in the newspaper that says "We make the most spectacular same sex wedding cakes in the nation". Would that be good for business? Should an individual be prohibited from putting that ad in the paper? No. It's a business decision. The public doesn't get to tell business owners what's good for business or not.

How on earth can a rainbow be obscene? What a feeble stretch!

And the American people do have a way of determining what is good and what is bad for business. It's the hallmark, the panacea, the Conservative place in the sun: Free Markets.

Once the customers get wind that this business discriminates, the only customers willing to trade with that business will be those with similar problems with their fellow citizens. That variety of customer is called a bigot at best, a blithering idiot in the main and a slimy old asshole at worst. And fortunately, there is a vanishing minority of such folks. Which means the clientele of bigoted businesses is thankfully shrinking rapidly.

 

[novasteve]

No. Its not negative.

It is negative for those discriminated against by it. Jesus Chris you fucking moron

You must be the moron. No one is being discriminated against.

Are you really this stupid? Is anyone?

 

[Asclepias]

It is negative for those discriminated against by it. Jesus Chris you fucking moron

You must be the moron. No one is being discriminated against.

Are you really this stupid? Is anyone?

You seem to be the one that is incredibly stupid. How is it negative discrimination?

 

[Katzndogz]

Are rainbows offensive? Are they something you would not want your children to see, or draw in a pre-school class? Are they a form of obscenity? Do rainbow cakes require specialized and expensive equipment to make?

Baking a rainbow cake is not a sin. Conducting business with homosexuals is not a sin. The whole idea of using a warped interpretation of scripture to justify hatred is indeed sinful. The baker cannot discriminate and then run behind an altar for cover. It's disgraceful. It's antithetical to the American idea. And, just so Conservatives can finally find a way to see the wrong in the situation, it's bad business.

A rainbow could well be an object of obscenity. It depends on the context. A woman's genitals could be an object of medical examination or an object of titillation in a porn movie.

To my reading, scripture does not command me to judge the sin of another. It does command me to judge my own. Refusing to sell the gay guy anything would be discrimination it would be wrong and if the baker so judged that man he would have sinned himself. In this case, the baker isn't judging the man. He is refusing to commit a personal sin himself.

If it is bad for business, that's not a decision that the public can make on this man's behalf. There is nothing at all to stop a bakery from putting an ad in the newspaper that says "We make the most spectacular same sex wedding cakes in the nation". Would that be good for business? Should an individual be prohibited from putting that ad in the paper? No. It's a business decision. The public doesn't get to tell business owners what's good for business or not.

How on earth can a rainbow be obscene? What a feeble stretch!

And the American people do have a way of determining what is good and what is bad for business. It's the hallmark, the panacea, the Conservative place in the sun: Free Markets.

Once the customers get wind that this business discriminates, the only customers willing to trade with that business will be those with similar problems with their fellow citizens. That variety of customer is called a bigot at best, a blithering idiot in the main and a slimy old asshole at worst. And fortunately, there is a vanishing minority of such folks. Which means the clientele of bigoted businesses is thankfully shrinking rapidly.

Then you agree that a baker who did not cater to a same sex couple would quickly be dispatched by such a poor business practice. That's the free market at work.

In truth, most people do not care about gays or their rights. They would not stop utilizing a particular business based on their position about gays. If that were not true, Chick Fil A would not have had their business increase when they said they supported traditional marriage.

 

[Dragonlady]

Libs should a pro choice feminist who supports abortion be forced to print pro life signs for an anti abortion group?

Being anti-abortion or pro-choice is not discrimination on the basis of race, enthicity, age, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.

 

[Dragonlady]

Libs should a pro choice feminist who supports abortion be forced to print pro life signs for an anti abortion group?

Being anti-abortion or pro-choice is not discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, age, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.

 

[WorldWatcher]

A rainbow could well be an object of obscenity. It depends on the context. A woman's genitals could be an object of medical examination or an object of titillation in a porn movie.

To my reading, scripture does not command me to judge the sin of another. It does command me to judge my own. Refusing to sell the gay guy anything would be discrimination it would be wrong and if the baker so judged that man he would have sinned himself. In this case, the baker isn't judging the man. He is refusing to commit a personal sin himself.

If it is bad for business, that's not a decision that the public can make on this man's behalf. There is nothing at all to stop a bakery from putting an ad in the newspaper that says "We make the most spectacular same sex wedding cakes in the nation". Would that be good for business? Should an individual be prohibited from putting that ad in the paper? No. It's a business decision. The public doesn't get to tell business owners what's good for business or not.

How on earth can a rainbow be obscene? What a feeble stretch!

And the American people do have a way of determining what is good and what is bad for business. It's the hallmark, the panacea, the Conservative place in the sun: Free Markets.

Once the customers get wind that this business discriminates, the only customers willing to trade with that business will be those with similar problems with their fellow citizens. That variety of customer is called a bigot at best, a blithering idiot in the main and a slimy old asshole at worst. And fortunately, there is a vanishing minority of such folks. Which means the clientele of bigoted businesses is thankfully shrinking rapidly.

Then you agree that a baker who did not cater to a same sex couple would quickly be dispatched by such a poor business practice. That's the free market at work.

In truth, most people do not care about gays or their rights. They would not stop utilizing a particular business based on their position about gays. If that were not true, Chick Fil A would not have had their business increase when they said they supported traditional marriage.

Agreed, I mean "Sweetcakes by Mellisa" saw a huge boom in business after doing the same thing.

Oh wait...

.............. No they didn't, they saw a significant decrease in sales and had to close the store.



It's one thing when you are an international company and people go out and spend $4.99 for a lunch meal. Much different when you are paying $250 to $2,000 for a wedding cake.


>>>>

 

[Asclepias]

A rainbow could well be an object of obscenity. It depends on the context. A woman's genitals could be an object of medical examination or an object of titillation in a porn movie.

To my reading, scripture does not command me to judge the sin of another. It does command me to judge my own. Refusing to sell the gay guy anything would be discrimination it would be wrong and if the baker so judged that man he would have sinned himself. In this case, the baker isn't judging the man. He is refusing to commit a personal sin himself.

If it is bad for business, that's not a decision that the public can make on this man's behalf. There is nothing at all to stop a bakery from putting an ad in the newspaper that says "We make the most spectacular same sex wedding cakes in the nation". Would that be good for business? Should an individual be prohibited from putting that ad in the paper? No. It's a business decision. The public doesn't get to tell business owners what's good for business or not.

How on earth can a rainbow be obscene? What a feeble stretch!

And the American people do have a way of determining what is good and what is bad for business. It's the hallmark, the panacea, the Conservative place in the sun: Free Markets.

Once the customers get wind that this business discriminates, the only customers willing to trade with that business will be those with similar problems with their fellow citizens. That variety of customer is called a bigot at best, a blithering idiot in the main and a slimy old asshole at worst. And fortunately, there is a vanishing minority of such folks. Which means the clientele of bigoted businesses is thankfully shrinking rapidly.

Then you agree that a baker who did not cater to a same sex couple would quickly be dispatched by such a poor business practice. That's the free market at work.

In truth, most people do not care about gays or their rights. They would not stop utilizing a particular business based on their position about gays. If that were not true, Chick Fil A would not have had their business increase when they said they supported traditional marriage.

Chic fil a is not a representation of the US. It just shows that their customer base are bigots or ignorant of the companies stance. I personally will never eat there again.

 

[BullKurtz]

No. Everyone gets to do it. Discrimination is not a bad thing. Negative racial, sexual, religious, etc discrimination is a bad thing. Yes you are a bigot. You practice negative discrimination.

So you oppose affirmative action?

No. Its not negative.

It is for the more qualified white person who doesn't get the slot. And while I agree integration was a worthy idea, it's never worked. The better educated blacks get, the more hateful they seem to become. There was a moment of opportunity with Dr. King but it didn't have legs....the race-pimps and black panthers destroyed his dream. If Lincoln had been wise he'd have shipped the willies back to Africa. We'd never have known Miles Davis or Hank Aaron, but then we'd have never had to put up with Al Sharpton and Rap Brown either.

 

[Asclepias]

So you oppose affirmative action?

No. Its not negative.

It is for the more qualified white person who doesn't get the slot. And while I agree integration was a worthy idea, it's never worked. The better educated blacks get, the more hateful they seem to become. There was a moment of opportunity with Dr. King but it didn't have legs....the race-pimps and black panthers destroyed his dream. If Lincoln had been wise he'd have shipped the willies back to Africa. We'd never have known Willy Mays or Miles Davis, but then we'd have never had to put up with Al Sharpton and Rap Brown either.

The only people affected by AA are ignorant, lazy, white men. They blame their lack of initiative on AA.