Christian Bake Shop Must Serve Gakes

[Asclepias]

Whites "had 400 years of affirmative action"?

Seems Koshergirl has kicked the stuffing out of ol Assplaster to the point he's free-associating between hits on a roach. But back to reality.....there has never been, in the history of the entire western world, a society that promoted a class of losers instead of the most qualified before LBJ's horrendous presidency. Why would we if we want our enterprise to succeed? And what does a black person get out of AA? Most have their white coworkers sufficiently frightened of physical violence or they'd see the looks and snarks they get behind their back. But that's "progressives" for ya. Assume this nation will always be rich and powerful enough to tolerate aspiring to the lowest common denominator while we sink further into crippling debt and decay. Thankfully we're waking up but its probably too late....we're be a third-world dictatorship if we don't start taking back our country and quick.

You miss the point stupid. I personally dont care what a white person may think of how I got my job. I'm happy I got it and able to build financial wealth and legacy where before that opportunity was denied or severely limited. When you realize that I'm not looking around wondering what white people think about me maybe you will get the point. I simple could give two flying fucks what you think. i want opportunity to do what whites had 400 years to do. AA provides that. You dont like it too bad. You mad? Tuff shit.

You sure are spending a lot of time answering me if you don't care what I think. But then you know and I know you're white as a sheet and this is all a little comedy break from your meaningless job in a cubicle somewhere in Tempe. You're a pose not a person. I'm a Detroiter....I know the black idiom, the black vernacular, the black rhythm and cadence...you ain't black.

You are stupid in a funny way. You are a means to an end fake marine. When you say something stupid I use it to say what I want and make you look dumb in the process. Your hill billy brain cant compete with my Black one. So say some more stupid stuff so I can use you to point out how dumb your type is. Please with sugar on top.

 

[Asclepias]

What do Americans today have to do with Americans or Europeans centuries ago or even decades ago? Did the students who lose out in affirmative action persecute anyone? Well you faggot?

If they are white then their families should have gotten off their asses sometime in the last 400 years and did something to build economic stability in their families so they would not have to compete for the low hanging fruit jobs with the rest of the untouchables. Blame your ancestors for not getting their shit together in all that time.

You are such a fucking cocksucker

Why do people always start thinking gay thoughts when they are mad?

 

[koshergrl]

Waiting for the evidence of Chick fil A's horrific anti-gay promotions, lolol...

 

[novasteve]

If they are white then their families should have gotten off their asses sometime in the last 400 years and did something to build economic stability in their families so they would not have to compete for the low hanging fruit jobs with the rest of the untouchables. Blame your ancestors for not getting their shit together in all that time.

You are such a fucking cocksucker

Why do people always start thinking gay thoughts when they are mad?

You mean like libfag Alec Baldwin or every liberal who accuses conservatives of being gay?

 

[High_Gravity]

This isn't like forcing a guy to sell you a pair of shoes or sell you a car, they want to force a guy to bake for them, cooking is a very intimate thing, do you really want a guy who obviously dislikes you handling your food?

 

[Asclepias]

You are such a fucking cocksucker

Why do people always start thinking gay thoughts when they are mad?

You mean like libfag Alec Baldwin or every liberal who accuses conservatives of being gay?

No....I mean like you fantasizing about cocksuckers, faggots, and things of that nature.

 

[novasteve]

It's about being in your face and making demands, attention

 

[Asclepias]

Waiting for the evidence of Chick fil A's horrific anti-gay promotions, lolol...

I told you to stop waiting. Thats why you are mad about AA. Get off your ass and do something.

 

[Katzndogz]

This isn't like forcing a guy to sell you a pair of shoes or sell you a car, they want to force a guy to bake for them, cooking is a very intimate thing, do you really want a guy who obviously dislikes you handling your food?

Make the cake and put a disclaimer on it in red frosting

"Baked under protest".

 

[High_Gravity]

It's about being in your face and making demands, attention

And ending up with a wedding cake full of spit, ear wax and pubic hairs. No thank you.

 

[Asclepias]

It's about being in your face and making demands, attention

Are you gay? I'm not. If you want to get in someones face pick someone like Bull. I'm pretty sure he is in the closet so you two together may be able to get to some of that cocksucking you seem to like.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Really? Then why does every public opinion poll which ask people about their stance on same sex marrage show that the majority of Americans favour making same sex marriage legal in all states? The percentage of people who don't care, one way or the other, is actually quite small.

Polls: Plurality support same-sex marriage ruling ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

In U.S., 52% Back Law to Legalize Gay Marriage in 50 States

Poll: Supreme Court decisions in sync with Americans on gay marriage but not Voting Rights

In truth, those who don't care about the rights of people different from themselves are the ones most in danger of losing their own rights. You seem to live in a narrow-minded, bigoted, racist bubble. How sad for you.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Really? Then why does every public opinion poll which ask people about their stance on same sex marrage show that the majority of Americans favour making same sex marriage legal in all states? The percentage of people who don't care, one way or the other, is actually quite small.

Polls: Plurality support same-sex marriage ruling ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

In U.S., 52% Back Law to Legalize Gay Marriage in 50 States

Poll: Supreme Court decisions in sync with Americans on gay marriage but not Voting Rights

In truth, those who don't care about the rights of people different from themselves are the ones most in danger of losing their own rights. You seem to live in a narrow-minded, bigoted, racist bubble. How sad for you.

If you protest a business that holds a position like anti whatever they atart crying "no fair". I say dont beg to spend your money with companies that dont like you or your views. When they come up short at the end of the month we will see how much their faith means to them.

 

[koshergrl]

Waiting for the evidence of Chick fil A's horrific anti-gay promotions, lolol...

I told you to stop waiting. Thats why you are mad about AA. Get off your ass and do something.

What the hell are you talking about?

And thanks for admitting you're a liar. CF never promoted "anti-gayness" lolol...

 

[Asclepias]

Waiting for the evidence of Chick fil A's horrific anti-gay promotions, lolol...

I told you to stop waiting. Thats why you are mad about AA. Get off your ass and do something.

What the hell are you talking about?

And thanks for admitting you're a liar. CF never promoted "anti-gayness" lolol...

I'm talking about you being lazy. Get off your ass and look up the link if you don't know. Their stance is against gays. If you dont get that then there is not much hope for stupid of that magnitude.

 

[Camp]

Waiting for the evidence of Chick fil A's horrific anti-gay promotions, lolol...

I told you to stop waiting. Thats why you are mad about AA. Get off your ass and do something.

What the hell are you talking about?

And thanks for admitting you're a liar. CF never promoted "anti-gayness" lolol...

The anti-gay promotion didn't come from CF itself, but it was funded by CF profits. Dan Cathy, the President of of CF contributed huge sums of money to organizations that coducted anti-gay campaingns. The organizations were involved with other issues besides their anti-gay campaigns, so there was no direct link to Cathy and CF. Where Cathy screwed up was when he made a comment on twitter regarding a court decision that supported same sex marriage. That opened the flood gates for investigative reporters and put Cathy on the hot seat. Most controversial was Cathy's support for a group that was giving financial support to elements in Uganda that were implementing brutal treatment of gays in that country. Cathy was quick to take the blame on himself and insisted and proved that his personal beliefs in no way influenced the treatment of his employees or customers. His handling of the crisis that developed is a model of public relation crisis management. Cathy successfully separated the situation from his business, met with leaders of gay organizatiions, sought ways to show GF's willingness to work with the gay community to insure they got favorable, equal and blind treatment at CF restaurants. The key was that he separated his political and religious beliefs from his business.

 

[koshergrl]

Why on earth would I try to prove your point, that I know is a lie?
Moron. The onus is on you to prove your points, or acknowledge you're talking out your ass. So you are, in fact, the lazy one. As well as the stupid one.

 

[koshergrl]

I told you to stop waiting. Thats why you are mad about AA. Get off your ass and do something.

What the hell are you talking about?

And thanks for admitting you're a liar. CF never promoted "anti-gayness" lolol...

The anti-gay promotion didn't come from CF itself, but it was funded by CF profits. Dan Cathy, the President of of CF contributed huge sums of money to organizations that coducted anti-gay campaingns. The organizations were involved with other issues besides their anti-gay campaigns, so there was no direct link to Cathy and CF. Where Cathy screwed up was when he made a comment on twitter regarding a court decision that supported same sex marriage. That opened the flood gates for investigative reporters and put Cathy on the hot seat. Most controversial was Cathy's support for a group that was giving financial support to elements in Uganda that were implementing brutal treatment of gays in that country. Cathy was quick to take the blame on himself and insisted and proved that his personal beliefs in no way influenced the treatment of his employees or customers. His handling of the crisis that developed is a model of public relation crisis management. Cathy successfully separated the situation from his business, met with leaders of gay organizatiions, sought ways to show GF's willingness to work with the gay community to insure they got favorable, equal and blind treatment at CF restaurants. The key was that he separated his political and religious beliefs from his business.

So the names, and a link that confirms CF's support of, these "anti-gay campaigns"?

Specifics, people. Otherwise, it's just a lot of yammering about nothing.

 

[Asclepias]

Why on earth would I try to prove your point, that I know is a lie?
Moron. The onus is on you to prove your points, or acknowledge you're talking out your ass. So you are, in fact, the lazy one. As well as the stupid one.

I'm not trying to prove a point. You are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are free of course to disagree with the ruling and find fault with it. That doesn't change the fact that the courts have never found that "freedom of religion" means that anyone can do anything in the name of religion and be exempt from generally applicable laws.

Justice Scalia (not one anyone would consider a Liberal judge) addressed this very issue in Employment Division v. Smith:

"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.​

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."​

>>>>

You are wrong in stating that the law does not make any exceptions for religious beliefs,

Psst - I never said that. What I said is that religious beliefs do not automatically exempt one from the law.

You might want to check with the mods because someone hacked into your account and is posting as you.

(T)he courts have never found that "freedom of religion" means that...exempt from generally applicable laws.

Of course there are cases where laws have been found unconstitutional based on overly restrictive results to a religious beliefs. Not the point. Some claim that religious beliefs **AUTOMATICALLY** provide an exception to complying with secular law. That is not the case.

And there are cases where the court has ruled that specific people are exempt from constitutional laws that apply to everyone else.

Also, I would appreciate it if you stopped arguing against the positions other people take and actually deal with the issues that the people you are addressing raise. I know you like to think that arguing with other people makes you look intelligent, but it really doesn't.

And as you pointed out, part of the Sherbert Test is to examine if there is a compelling government interest (which there as government routinely regulate commerce within the scope of their jurisdiction) and is the conduct a burden on those beliefs. Baking a cake for a bakery is not a burden on their beliefs as it routine action already performed.

Except that is not how a compelling government interest is determined. In order to prove a compelling interest the government has to prove that actual harm will result if the mandate is not imposed. (Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association) Until you can demonstrate that there is actual harm from not having access to wedding cakes you cannot argue that the government has a compelling interest in mandating that people get them. That is why public accommodation laws worked in the first place, if there are no hotels that will rent a room and the weather is freezing, harm is pretty easy to demonstrate. The same can be said for food. On the other hand, if you don't get a wedding cake you might not have bought in the first fucking place you will not sustain harm, even if there is no place within 24,000 miles that will sell you a different cake.

Ya never now, these cases may eventually reach the Supreme Court and they may indicate that religius reasons can be an exception to Public Accommodation laws. In which case businesses will be able to discriminate against blacks, asians, Jews, Muslims, the elderly, women, the old, and the handicapped - all they would have to do is claim religious beliefs.


>>>>

There you go with the unconditional support of fascism again. Tell me something, if you really want to be reasonable, and actually argue from the position of the laws as they exist, why do you insist that restricting public accommodation laws to actual harm will result in widespread discrimination? Do you have any evidence that restaurants who refused to feed people who are not wearing shoes caused widespread death and destruction?