Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?You can't label hate for others, that in itself is hateful. Nobody says it's hateful but leftists. Your congregation is not god, it's filled with flawed humans.I have been a Christian for 60 years and never has my minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this hatful dogma come from? Are these 'Christian' bakers just twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve a vile purpose? And seeking legal cover for their vile purpose, aren't they twisting an open and inclusive set of laws?
Christians, oddly enough, get the idea from the bible. It labels certain things as sinful so forcing a Christian to accommodate a sinful relationship is wrongheaded and a disgrace to our system of justice. Leftists are trying to destroy individual freedoms every where they can.
the key word is "immutable".When did race become a sexual orientation or visa versa? I think they should be allowed to discriminate based on race, height or anything else. If a black bar owner doesn't want to serve a white man I think it should be his right. BUT that has nothing to do with sex.By that reasoning a public hotel can discriminate against an African America due to his complexion. A public restaurant can discriminate against a Latino American due to his heritage.Liberals live in a fog. There's no such thing as a public baker. Open to the public doesn't not mean publicly owned.If he is a public baker he needs to bake that cake. We can't be prejudice on who we wait on or serve when our door is open to the public.
Complexion, heritage and sexual orientation. All immutable traits and all equally protected under the law.
Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?You can't label hate for others, that in itself is hateful. Nobody says it's hateful but leftists. Your congregation is not god, it's filled with flawed humans.I have been a Christian for 60 years and never has my minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this hatful dogma come from? Are these 'Christian' bakers just twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve a vile purpose? And seeking legal cover for their vile purpose, aren't they twisting an open and inclusive set of laws?
Christians, oddly enough, get the idea from the bible. It labels certain things as sinful so forcing a Christian to accommodate a sinful relationship is wrongheaded and a disgrace to our system of justice. Leftists are trying to destroy individual freedoms every where they can.
And these 'Christians' use that faith to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve. And the law was never intended to serve as cover for such behavior.
Why accept a business license if you don't intend on following business laws. That is "intent to deceive".jake doesn't realize that PA does not mean "any time money changes hands", which is how idiots like him want to define it.
The scope of Public Accommodation laws though is defined by the State Legislature and what businesses (typically for profit) to which it applies. That you may not agree with how the Legislature defines Public Accommodation laws does not change the application of the law within the jurisdiction of that State law.
>>>>
Speaking of arguing the how instead of the why....
But to be fair you do it in a more detailed way than Farkey....
Getting hung up on the "law is the law is the law" doesn't cover why we are doing something, and more importantly, why something like a PA law overrides free exercise of religion without any consideration whatsoever.
The same sex couple are paying customers. They are not ruining a business, they are patrons of the business. Any 'ruin' that happens to that business is brought on by the actions of that business.Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?You can't label hate for others, that in itself is hateful. Nobody says it's hateful but leftists. Your congregation is not god, it's filled with flawed humans.I have been a Christian for 60 years and never has my minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this hatful dogma come from? Are these 'Christian' bakers just twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve a vile purpose? And seeking legal cover for their vile purpose, aren't they twisting an open and inclusive set of laws?
Christians, oddly enough, get the idea from the bible. It labels certain things as sinful so forcing a Christian to accommodate a sinful relationship is wrongheaded and a disgrace to our system of justice. Leftists are trying to destroy individual freedoms every where they can.
And these 'Christians' use that faith to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve. And the law was never intended to serve as cover for such behavior.
And ruining someone's business brings humiliation and grief as well, why does the gay couple's butthurt override the religious couple's butthurt to the point of ruining the religious couple, or forcing them to do something they don't want to do?
You people are really fucking wimps.
There is no private rights of property and association when operating in the public space. To suggest such a situation indicates a lack of civil willingness to be part of all of society.Idk, that's sounds a lot like Jim Crow to me.
Not Jim Crow like at all. Jim Crow were a body of laws that actually required business to discriminate based on race.
Repeal of Public Accommodation laws simply respects the rights of property and association of the business owner. They are not required to discrimination (like Jim Crow laws) but are free to accept or reject and offer of commerce based on whatever criteria they choose to use.
Very different concept.
>>>>
There is no logic in your argument. If the baker offers a service to the public, then he is a public baker.Liberals live in a fog. There's no such thing as a public baker. Open to the public doesn't not mean publicly owned.If he is a public baker he needs to bake that cake. We can't be prejudice on who we wait on or serve when our door is open to the public.
Yes...what would be next? Refusing to follow safety or health standards for "religious" reasons?The same sex couple are paying customers. They are not ruining a business, they are patrons of the business. Any 'ruin' that happens to that business is brought on by the actions of that business.Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?You can't label hate for others, that in itself is hateful. Nobody says it's hateful but leftists. Your congregation is not god, it's filled with flawed humans.I have been a Christian for 60 years and never has my minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this hatful dogma come from? Are these 'Christian' bakers just twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve a vile purpose? And seeking legal cover for their vile purpose, aren't they twisting an open and inclusive set of laws?
Christians, oddly enough, get the idea from the bible. It labels certain things as sinful so forcing a Christian to accommodate a sinful relationship is wrongheaded and a disgrace to our system of justice. Leftists are trying to destroy individual freedoms every where they can.
And these 'Christians' use that faith to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve. And the law was never intended to serve as cover for such behavior.
And ruining someone's business brings humiliation and grief as well, why does the gay couple's butthurt override the religious couple's butthurt to the point of ruining the religious couple, or forcing them to do something they don't want to do?
You people are really fucking wimps.
Figure out who are the bad actors in this scenario.
The problem is you are pretending to be god and deciding who's humility is worthy of addressing. You think it isn't humiliating for a man to lose his livelyhood, food and shelter for his family for not going along with something he considers morally wrong? I'd rather the gays couple be inconvenienced by going elsewhere.Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?You can't label hate for others, that in itself is hateful. Nobody says it's hateful but leftists. Your congregation is not god, it's filled with flawed humans.I have been a Christian for 60 years and never has my minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this hatful dogma come from? Are these 'Christian' bakers just twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve a vile purpose? And seeking legal cover for their vile purpose, aren't they twisting an open and inclusive set of laws?
Christians, oddly enough, get the idea from the bible. It labels certain things as sinful so forcing a Christian to accommodate a sinful relationship is wrongheaded and a disgrace to our system of justice. Leftists are trying to destroy individual freedoms every where they can.
And these 'Christians' use that faith to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve. And the law was never intended to serve as cover for such behavior.
Why accept a business license if you don't intend on following business laws. That is "intent to deceive".jake doesn't realize that PA does not mean "any time money changes hands", which is how idiots like him want to define it.
The scope of Public Accommodation laws though is defined by the State Legislature and what businesses (typically for profit) to which it applies. That you may not agree with how the Legislature defines Public Accommodation laws does not change the application of the law within the jurisdiction of that State law.
>>>>
Speaking of arguing the how instead of the why....
But to be fair you do it in a more detailed way than Farkey....
Getting hung up on the "law is the law is the law" doesn't cover why we are doing something, and more importantly, why something like a PA law overrides free exercise of religion without any consideration whatsoever.
The same sex couple are paying customers. They are not ruining a business, they are patrons of the business. Any 'ruin' that happens to that business is brought on by the actions of that business.Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?You can't label hate for others, that in itself is hateful. Nobody says it's hateful but leftists. Your congregation is not god, it's filled with flawed humans.I have been a Christian for 60 years and never has my minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this hatful dogma come from? Are these 'Christian' bakers just twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve a vile purpose? And seeking legal cover for their vile purpose, aren't they twisting an open and inclusive set of laws?
Christians, oddly enough, get the idea from the bible. It labels certain things as sinful so forcing a Christian to accommodate a sinful relationship is wrongheaded and a disgrace to our system of justice. Leftists are trying to destroy individual freedoms every where they can.
And these 'Christians' use that faith to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve. And the law was never intended to serve as cover for such behavior.
And ruining someone's business brings humiliation and grief as well, why does the gay couple's butthurt override the religious couple's butthurt to the point of ruining the religious couple, or forcing them to do something they don't want to do?
You people are really fucking wimps.
Figure out who are the bad actors in this scenario.
Yes...what would be next? Refusing to follow safety or health standards for "religious" reasons?The same sex couple are paying customers. They are not ruining a business, they are patrons of the business. Any 'ruin' that happens to that business is brought on by the actions of that business.Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?You can't label hate for others, that in itself is hateful. Nobody says it's hateful but leftists. Your congregation is not god, it's filled with flawed humans.I have been a Christian for 60 years and never has my minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this hatful dogma come from? Are these 'Christian' bakers just twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve a vile purpose? And seeking legal cover for their vile purpose, aren't they twisting an open and inclusive set of laws?
Christians, oddly enough, get the idea from the bible. It labels certain things as sinful so forcing a Christian to accommodate a sinful relationship is wrongheaded and a disgrace to our system of justice. Leftists are trying to destroy individual freedoms every where they can.
And these 'Christians' use that faith to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve. And the law was never intended to serve as cover for such behavior.
And ruining someone's business brings humiliation and grief as well, why does the gay couple's butthurt override the religious couple's butthurt to the point of ruining the religious couple, or forcing them to do something they don't want to do?
You people are really fucking wimps.
Figure out who are the bad actors in this scenario.
Why feel the need to follow business laws and regulations just because you received a business license?Why accept a business license if you don't intend on following business laws. That is "intent to deceive".jake doesn't realize that PA does not mean "any time money changes hands", which is how idiots like him want to define it.
The scope of Public Accommodation laws though is defined by the State Legislature and what businesses (typically for profit) to which it applies. That you may not agree with how the Legislature defines Public Accommodation laws does not change the application of the law within the jurisdiction of that State law.
>>>>
Speaking of arguing the how instead of the why....
But to be fair you do it in a more detailed way than Farkey....
Getting hung up on the "law is the law is the law" doesn't cover why we are doing something, and more importantly, why something like a PA law overrides free exercise of religion without any consideration whatsoever.
Why feel the need to force a baker to make a cake for you they don't want to make?
it's called "being an asshole"
Why feel the need to follow business laws and regulations just because you received a business license?Why accept a business license if you don't intend on following business laws. That is "intent to deceive".jake doesn't realize that PA does not mean "any time money changes hands", which is how idiots like him want to define it.
The scope of Public Accommodation laws though is defined by the State Legislature and what businesses (typically for profit) to which it applies. That you may not agree with how the Legislature defines Public Accommodation laws does not change the application of the law within the jurisdiction of that State law.
>>>>
Speaking of arguing the how instead of the why....
But to be fair you do it in a more detailed way than Farkey....
Getting hung up on the "law is the law is the law" doesn't cover why we are doing something, and more importantly, why something like a PA law overrides free exercise of religion without any consideration whatsoever.
Why feel the need to force a baker to make a cake for you they don't want to make?
it's called "being an asshole"
Then those laws would be fought and REPEALED or else a Kosher or halal baker/restaurant would not get such a business license. See how easy that is?Yes...what would be next? Refusing to follow safety or health standards for "religious" reasons?The same sex couple are paying customers. They are not ruining a business, they are patrons of the business. Any 'ruin' that happens to that business is brought on by the actions of that business.Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?You can't label hate for others, that in itself is hateful. Nobody says it's hateful but leftists. Your congregation is not god, it's filled with flawed humans.
Christians, oddly enough, get the idea from the bible. It labels certain things as sinful so forcing a Christian to accommodate a sinful relationship is wrongheaded and a disgrace to our system of justice. Leftists are trying to destroy individual freedoms every where they can.
And these 'Christians' use that faith to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve. And the law was never intended to serve as cover for such behavior.
And ruining someone's business brings humiliation and grief as well, why does the gay couple's butthurt override the religious couple's butthurt to the point of ruining the religious couple, or forcing them to do something they don't want to do?
You people are really fucking wimps.
Figure out who are the bad actors in this scenario.
What if health laws were passed that banned Kosher or halal slaughter?
Same sex customers at a bakery are patrons. They are not putting the baker, whose reason for business is to provide baked goods, out of business. The actions of the baker, imposing a mercantile imperator, a seal of approval, for which he has no brief, on a couple is what is putting him out of business.The problem is you are pretending to be god and deciding who's humility is worthy of addressing. You think it isn't humiliating for a man to lose his livelyhood, food and shelter for his family for not going along with something he considers morally wrong? I'd rather the gays couple be inconvenienced by going elsewhere.Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?You can't label hate for others, that in itself is hateful. Nobody says it's hateful but leftists. Your congregation is not god, it's filled with flawed humans.I have been a Christian for 60 years and never has my minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this hatful dogma come from? Are these 'Christian' bakers just twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve a vile purpose? And seeking legal cover for their vile purpose, aren't they twisting an open and inclusive set of laws?
Christians, oddly enough, get the idea from the bible. It labels certain things as sinful so forcing a Christian to accommodate a sinful relationship is wrongheaded and a disgrace to our system of justice. Leftists are trying to destroy individual freedoms every where they can.
And these 'Christians' use that faith to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve. And the law was never intended to serve as cover for such behavior.
You use the term Christian in quotes as if you are the final arbitrator of what is truly Christian. That's the level of tyranny and arrogance we've come to expect from the left.
Don't get a business license then if you don't like the laws and regs you'd have to follow......or else, get the laws repealed.Why feel the need to follow business laws and regulations just because you received a business license?Why accept a business license if you don't intend on following business laws. That is "intent to deceive".The scope of Public Accommodation laws though is defined by the State Legislature and what businesses (typically for profit) to which it applies. That you may not agree with how the Legislature defines Public Accommodation laws does not change the application of the law within the jurisdiction of that State law.
>>>>
Speaking of arguing the how instead of the why....
But to be fair you do it in a more detailed way than Farkey....
Getting hung up on the "law is the law is the law" doesn't cover why we are doing something, and more importantly, why something like a PA law overrides free exercise of religion without any consideration whatsoever.
Why feel the need to force a baker to make a cake for you they don't want to make?
it's called "being an asshole"
why feel the need to make fucking with religious freedom a condition of a business license?
Exactly. I refused to print Planned Parenthood material, didn't want their money. Some people think their money rules. Not everyone wants your money people!The same sex couple are paying customers. They are not ruining a business, they are patrons of the business. Any 'ruin' that happens to that business is brought on by the actions of that business.Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?You can't label hate for others, that in itself is hateful. Nobody says it's hateful but leftists. Your congregation is not god, it's filled with flawed humans.I have been a Christian for 60 years and never has my minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this hatful dogma come from? Are these 'Christian' bakers just twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve a vile purpose? And seeking legal cover for their vile purpose, aren't they twisting an open and inclusive set of laws?
Christians, oddly enough, get the idea from the bible. It labels certain things as sinful so forcing a Christian to accommodate a sinful relationship is wrongheaded and a disgrace to our system of justice. Leftists are trying to destroy individual freedoms every where they can.
And these 'Christians' use that faith to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve. And the law was never intended to serve as cover for such behavior.
And ruining someone's business brings humiliation and grief as well, why does the gay couple's butthurt override the religious couple's butthurt to the point of ruining the religious couple, or forcing them to do something they don't want to do?
You people are really fucking wimps.
Figure out who are the bad actors in this scenario.
"Paying customer" doesn't override free exercise, you fucking pansy.
And the blame the victim crap here is cute, fucktard.
The big difference between kosher and haall restaurants is the menu. Kosher and halaal dishes are served. In the bakeries, wedding cakes are on the menu.Then those laws would be fought and REPEALED or else a Kosher or halal baker/restaurant would not get such a business license. See how easy that is?Yes...what would be next? Refusing to follow safety or health standards for "religious" reasons?The same sex couple are paying customers. They are not ruining a business, they are patrons of the business. Any 'ruin' that happens to that business is brought on by the actions of that business.Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?
And these 'Christians' use that faith to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve. And the law was never intended to serve as cover for such behavior.
And ruining someone's business brings humiliation and grief as well, why does the gay couple's butthurt override the religious couple's butthurt to the point of ruining the religious couple, or forcing them to do something they don't want to do?
You people are really fucking wimps.
Figure out who are the bad actors in this scenario.
What if health laws were passed that banned Kosher or halal slaughter?
You don't like a PA law, REPEAL IT....don't get a business license and think you can just ignore the laws/regs you pretend are against your "religion".
Wrong. You are not a patron if you are not wanted. Go look up the word since you don't understand basic English. Business is a two way street, many people are confused about that. I've turned down many people for various reasons, they were not patrons or customers.Same sex customers at a bakery are patrons. They are not putting the baker, whose reason for business is to provide baked goods, out of business. The actions of the baker, imposing a mercantile imperator, a seal of approval, for which he has no brief, on a couple is what is putting him out of business.The problem is you are pretending to be god and deciding who's humility is worthy of addressing. You think it isn't humiliating for a man to lose his livelyhood, food and shelter for his family for not going along with something he considers morally wrong? I'd rather the gays couple be inconvenienced by going elsewhere.Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?You can't label hate for others, that in itself is hateful. Nobody says it's hateful but leftists. Your congregation is not god, it's filled with flawed humans.I have been a Christian for 60 years and never has my minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this hatful dogma come from? Are these 'Christian' bakers just twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve a vile purpose? And seeking legal cover for their vile purpose, aren't they twisting an open and inclusive set of laws?
Christians, oddly enough, get the idea from the bible. It labels certain things as sinful so forcing a Christian to accommodate a sinful relationship is wrongheaded and a disgrace to our system of justice. Leftists are trying to destroy individual freedoms every where they can.
And these 'Christians' use that faith to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve. And the law was never intended to serve as cover for such behavior.
You use the term Christian in quotes as if you are the final arbitrator of what is truly Christian. That's the level of tyranny and arrogance we've come to expect from the left.
Do these 'Christian' bakers morally vet each of their clients, or just the ones they hate?
And I use quotes arouyd the word Christian referring to these bakers because they are using Christianity to serve a vile purpose the same way the Taliban uses Islam.
Would someone still planning be able to privately contract with a muslim or Kosher butcher to get Kosher or halal meat? Of course.Yes...what would be next? Refusing to follow safety or health standards for "religious" reasons?The same sex couple are paying customers. They are not ruining a business, they are patrons of the business. Any 'ruin' that happens to that business is brought on by the actions of that business.Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?You can't label hate for others, that in itself is hateful. Nobody says it's hateful but leftists. Your congregation is not god, it's filled with flawed humans.
Christians, oddly enough, get the idea from the bible. It labels certain things as sinful so forcing a Christian to accommodate a sinful relationship is wrongheaded and a disgrace to our system of justice. Leftists are trying to destroy individual freedoms every where they can.
And these 'Christians' use that faith to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve. And the law was never intended to serve as cover for such behavior.
And ruining someone's business brings humiliation and grief as well, why does the gay couple's butthurt override the religious couple's butthurt to the point of ruining the religious couple, or forcing them to do something they don't want to do?
You people are really fucking wimps.
Figure out who are the bad actors in this scenario.
What if health laws were passed that banned Kosher or halal slaughter?
