Christians who don't bake cakes for gays deserve to be put out of business

[IsaacNewton]

So 'kristians' would be ok with an emergency room doctor refusing to treat gravely ill kristians because he was say, Jewish? Or believed in Mithra?

OH WELL THAT'S DIFFERENT! Why. He's in business to make money. They don't do that doctor shite for free you know, in fact they get paid better than just about everyone else.

Or maybe a tow truck driver that comes across a 'kristian' family stranded in a blizzard can refuse to help based on 'his conscience' re religion or whatever else his conscience dictates?

Or maybe if you are Catholic in 1938 Germany you can refuse refuge to Jews.

Careful what you wish for, you may get it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

People should be able to make their own decisions on THEIR PROPERTY. Period
Self proclaimed "liberals" are always screeching about individuality but then run to big brother everytime someone expresses it when they don't agree.
Take your conformity and shove it up your ass. Pussy

No, they shouldn't, they should be required to serve people based on the rule of law, and the civility of their rights.

They shouldn't be allowed to racially discriminate or otherwise. Otherwise racists can institute a defacto SEGREGATION.

Or Bigots can destroy the lives of entire gay communities where the majority are BIGOTS.

gays are not a race you brain-dead dumbfuck.
Those laws are completely unconstitutional. Just like affirmative action. Only bigots appreciate laws that trample on individuality.

Those public accommodation laws are perfectly legal. They've gone through our courts and were ruled constitutional.

The commerce clause of our constitution makes it legal It clearly says congress can regulate business.

You should know that those laws don't just protect homosexuals. No one can discriminate against someone because of their religion.

So if you wanted some goods or services and someone denied you on the basis of your religion they've broken the law and can face the fullest extent of the law.

Just saying they're unconstitutional doesn't make it true.

If you're going to go in business to serve the public, then you have to serve all of the public.

Don't like it? Leave America.

Just like I have told countless other sheeple.. Just because the courts say it's constitutional, doesn't make it so. And to be honest, the commerce clause itself is unconstitutional.
Please tell me where the constitution gives the power o the states to regulate free speech and private property.
Tell me where the constitution gives the federal government the power to be biased against certain races and biological gender?
The courts also said Japanese Internment and forced sterilization is a granted power.
It's fuckin bullshit. And if we have had a goddamn congress that actually followed their oaths, we wouldn't have this shit.
If you don't like the constitution an Americas principles why don't you leave?

Why stop there? Hell, we all know that the constitution is unconstitutional!!!!!!!

 

[Seawytch]

People should be able to make their own decisions on THEIR PROPERTY. Period
Self proclaimed "liberals" are always screeching about individuality but then run to big brother everytime someone expresses it when they don't agree.
Take your conformity and shove it up your ass. Pussy

No, they shouldn't, they should be required to serve people based on the rule of law, and the civility of their rights.

They shouldn't be allowed to racially discriminate or otherwise. Otherwise racists can institute a defacto SEGREGATION.

Or Bigots can destroy the lives of entire gay communities where the majority are BIGOTS.

gays are not a race you brain-dead dumbfuck.
Those laws are completely unconstitutional. Just like affirmative action. Only bigots appreciate laws that trample on individuality.

Those public accommodation laws are perfectly legal. They've gone through our courts and were ruled constitutional.

The commerce clause of our constitution makes it legal It clearly says congress can regulate business.

You should know that those laws don't just protect homosexuals. No one can discriminate against someone because of their religion.

So if you wanted some goods or services and someone denied you on the basis of your religion they've broken the law and can face the fullest extent of the law.

Just saying they're unconstitutional doesn't make it true.

If you're going to go in business to serve the public, then you have to serve all of the public.

Don't like it? Leave America.

Just like I have told countless other sheeple.. Just because the courts say it's constitutional, doesn't make it so. And to be honest, the commerce clause itself is unconstitutional.

Um, actually that's exactly how it works. You can have your opinion, but our opinion does not change the legal standing. Public Accommodation laws have been found Constitutional on more than one occasion.

Please tell me where the constitution gives the power o the states to regulate free speech and private property.

You already know which is why you preemptively came out with your ridiculous statement "And to be honest, the commerce clause itself is unconstitutional"

Tell me where the constitution gives the federal government the power to be biased against certain races and biological gender?

Certain races? Title II of the CRA says race, it doesn't say "some races", it says you cannot discriminate based on race.

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

No mention of gender, gender association or sexual orientation. Those are states laws that have your panties in a twist. Aren't you a "states rights" guy?

The courts also said Japanese Internment and forced sterilization is a granted power.
It's fuckin bullshit. And if we have had a goddamn congress that actually followed their oaths, we wouldn't have this shit.
If you don't like the constitution an Americas principles why don't you leave?

Oh? And how should congress "follow their oaths" when it comes to Public Accommodation laws? Repeal them on a Federal level? Have you called your congressman and asked them to do that?

Whether you like or agree with the rulings, they are still the law until you get it changed or successfully challenge it. Good luck.

 

[SwimExpert]

People should be able to make their own decisions on THEIR PROPERTY. Period
Self proclaimed "liberals" are always screeching about individuality but then run to big brother everytime someone expresses it when they don't agree.
Take your conformity and shove it up your ass. Pussy

No, they shouldn't, they should be required to serve people based on the rule of law, and the civility of their rights.

They shouldn't be allowed to racially discriminate or otherwise. Otherwise racists can institute a defacto SEGREGATION.

Or Bigots can destroy the lives of entire gay communities where the majority are BIGOTS.

Discrimination is a inescapable part of life, and of doing business. You just don't recognize it. You discriminate, probably on a daily basis. We all do. Discrimination is part of decision making. When people complain about "discrimination for any reason" such as you are doing, it really shows just how young and naive you are.

Here's a few examples:

1 - A hotel anticipates a slow evening with many rooms going unsold for the night, consistent with competition in the nearby area. The business makes a decision to offer discounted rooms to walk-ins in order to secure as much revenue as possible for the night. One person walks in and attempts to negotiate a 25% discount, which the business decides to accept. Another person comes in looking for a room but asks for a price 50% the night's normal rate, which the hotel declines.

2 - A bar is open for business in the middle of the week when a middle aged man approaches the front entrance. The doorman notices the man walking unbalanced and refuses to admit the man for fear that he may be intoxicated. The man attempts to explain that he has a long standing physical injury that causes his unusual gait but the doorman is unwilling to listen, attempting to err on the side of caution.

3 - A business is looking to hire for a position but only one person has applied since the position became open a month ago. The candidate is summarily rejected based on having only a two year degree.

4 - Another business has multiple applicants for a programming job and is conducting interviews with four people. All of the candidates appear to have the fundamental qualifications, including all the vital skills and strong work ethic. Two of the four are eliminated from consideration because they are very attractive females and it is feared that hiring them would likely lead to fractures in the team environment because the mostly male team will be likely to compete for their attention.

 

[SwimExpert]

Just like I have told countless other sheeple.. Just because the courts say it's constitutional, doesn't make it so.

Uh, yes, it does. And here's the reason why: Someone or something has to be the arbiter. Who shall that be? You? What makes you so superior? Would you instead cede that position to myself? I would not believe you if you tried to say 'yes.'

Interpretation of the law in determination of how it applies is the very essence of judicial power, granted to the courts by the constitution. Any person who argues otherwise is clothed in massive ego, and nothing more. They would see their personal will done over the nation as opposed to republican governance, which is exactly the opposite of what the constitution creates.

And to be honest, the commerce clause itself is unconstitutional.

Um......This is a perfect example. The commerce clause is the constitution. The constitution cannot be unconstitutional.

 

[rdean]

Christ fed the sinners, and said that he came as a physician to the sick, not as a servant to the righteous.

These "Christian" Bakers who refuse to bake cakes for gays because gays are sinners are hypocrites, they bake cakes for divorced people getting married for their second or 3rd or n-th times.

Jesus never says directly that homosexuality is a sin, but he sure as hell does say that divorced people remarrying are ADULTERERS.

So, these fake-Christian bakers using Christ as an excuse to be bigots are really Satanists whose only purpose is to make people hate God, and hate Christ, and the full power of the Civil Courts and public opinion should destroy theses satanists and their cult-businesses where ever they are found.

It's not religion, it's hate.

Hatred for gays,
Muslims,
Blacks,
Hispanics,
Women's rights and so on.

They love the fetus, but hate the baby.

Just hate, that's all they know, all they care about.
Their hatred will consume them. Satan has become their religion. Remember, he is the father of lies and a master is disguise. Jesus would be appalled.

 

[TNHarley]

Just like I have told countless other sheeple.. Just because the courts say it's constitutional, doesn't make it so.

Uh, yes, it does. And here's the reason why: Someone or something has to be the arbiter. Who shall that be? You? What makes you so superior? Would you instead cede that position to myself? I would not believe you if you tried to say 'yes.'

Interpretation of the law in determination of how it applies is the very essence of judicial power, granted to the courts by the constitution. Any person who argues otherwise is clothed in massive ego, and nothing more. They would see their personal will done over the nation as opposed to republican governance, which is exactly the opposite of what the constitution creates.

And to be honest, the commerce clause itself is unconstitutional.

Um......This is a perfect example. The commerce clause is the constitution. The constitution cannot be unconstitutional.

It was supposed to end state trade barriers. The articles of confederation didn't last long for a reason
James Madison wrote The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite
That clause was NOT a free ticket to fascism.
I meant interpretations by the way. Sorry. Yesterday was fun lol..

 

[TNHarley]

Just like I have told countless other sheeple.. Just because the courts say it's constitutional, doesn't make it so.

Uh, yes, it does. And here's the reason why: Someone or something has to be the arbiter. Who shall that be? You? What makes you so superior? Would you instead cede that position to myself? I would not believe you if you tried to say 'yes.'

Interpretation of the law in determination of how it applies is the very essence of judicial power, granted to the courts by the constitution. Any person who argues otherwise is clothed in massive ego, and nothing more. They would see their personal will done over the nation as opposed to republican governance, which is exactly the opposite of what the constitution creates.

And to be honest, the commerce clause itself is unconstitutional.

Um......This is a perfect example. The commerce clause is the constitution. The constitution cannot be unconstitutional.

http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/mcculloch-v-maryland.html
You believe it

 

[SwimExpert]

Just like I have told countless other sheeple.. Just because the courts say it's constitutional, doesn't make it so.

Uh, yes, it does. And here's the reason why: Someone or something has to be the arbiter. Who shall that be? You? What makes you so superior? Would you instead cede that position to myself? I would not believe you if you tried to say 'yes.'

Interpretation of the law in determination of how it applies is the very essence of judicial power, granted to the courts by the constitution. Any person who argues otherwise is clothed in massive ego, and nothing more. They would see their personal will done over the nation as opposed to republican governance, which is exactly the opposite of what the constitution creates.

And to be honest, the commerce clause itself is unconstitutional.

Um......This is a perfect example. The commerce clause is the constitution. The constitution cannot be unconstitutional.

http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/mcculloch-v-maryland.html
You believe it

*yawn*

Do you have a point, other than to imply that you know more about the constitution than the founders of our nation? Again....ego.

 

[TNHarley]

Just like I have told countless other sheeple.. Just because the courts say it's constitutional, doesn't make it so.

Uh, yes, it does. And here's the reason why: Someone or something has to be the arbiter. Who shall that be? You? What makes you so superior? Would you instead cede that position to myself? I would not believe you if you tried to say 'yes.'

Interpretation of the law in determination of how it applies is the very essence of judicial power, granted to the courts by the constitution. Any person who argues otherwise is clothed in massive ego, and nothing more. They would see their personal will done over the nation as opposed to republican governance, which is exactly the opposite of what the constitution creates.

And to be honest, the commerce clause itself is unconstitutional.

Um......This is a perfect example. The commerce clause is the constitution. The constitution cannot be unconstitutional.

http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/mcculloch-v-maryland.html
You believe it

*yawn*

Do you have a point, other than to imply that you know more about the constitution than the founders of our nation? Again....ego.

Little early to be tired, ey?
I am using the founders for my side.
Did you not read my quote?

 

[Esmeralda]

If someone doesn't want to bake a cake for someone. Well, they shouldn't have too.

So, that would mean, if a black person comes into your bakery and you don't want to bake a cake for him, that would be perfectly fine? Can't happen. When you are in business in the US, you have abide by the law, which means your cannot discriminate. If you don't like it, don't go into business.

 

[SwimExpert]

Just like I have told countless other sheeple.. Just because the courts say it's constitutional, doesn't make it so.

Uh, yes, it does. And here's the reason why: Someone or something has to be the arbiter. Who shall that be? You? What makes you so superior? Would you instead cede that position to myself? I would not believe you if you tried to say 'yes.'

Interpretation of the law in determination of how it applies is the very essence of judicial power, granted to the courts by the constitution. Any person who argues otherwise is clothed in massive ego, and nothing more. They would see their personal will done over the nation as opposed to republican governance, which is exactly the opposite of what the constitution creates.

And to be honest, the commerce clause itself is unconstitutional.

Um......This is a perfect example. The commerce clause is the constitution. The constitution cannot be unconstitutional.

http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/mcculloch-v-maryland.html
You believe it

*yawn*

Do you have a point, other than to imply that you know more about the constitution than the founders of our nation? Again....ego.

Little early to be tired, ey?
I am using the founders for my side.
Did you not read my quote?

Lack of intellectual stimulation tends to make me sleepy, no matter the time of day.

You're using the founders, but your link does not support anything you're saying. If anything, it works counter to your position.

 

[TNHarley]

If someone doesn't want to bake a cake for someone. Well, they shouldn't have too.

So, that would mean, if a black person comes into your bakery and you don't want to bake a cake for him, that would be perfectly fine? Can't happen. When you are in business in the US, you have abide by the law, which means your cannot discriminate. If you don't like it, don't go into business.

It should be.

 

[TNHarley]

Just like I have told countless other sheeple.. Just because the courts say it's constitutional, doesn't make it so.

Uh, yes, it does. And here's the reason why: Someone or something has to be the arbiter. Who shall that be? You? What makes you so superior? Would you instead cede that position to myself? I would not believe you if you tried to say 'yes.'

Interpretation of the law in determination of how it applies is the very essence of judicial power, granted to the courts by the constitution. Any person who argues otherwise is clothed in massive ego, and nothing more. They would see their personal will done over the nation as opposed to republican governance, which is exactly the opposite of what the constitution creates.

And to be honest, the commerce clause itself is unconstitutional.

Um......This is a perfect example. The commerce clause is the constitution. The constitution cannot be unconstitutional.

http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/mcculloch-v-maryland.html
You believe it

*yawn*

Do you have a point, other than to imply that you know more about the constitution than the founders of our nation? Again....ego.

Little early to be tired, ey?
I am using the founders for my side.
Did you not read my quote?

Lack of intellectual stimulation tends to make me sleepy, no matter the time of day.

You're using the founders, but your link does not support anything you're saying. If anything, it works counter to your position.

Please explain how my link is constitutional.
I don't Ben over and take it just because some partisans rule on something. It might make it "legal" but it doesn't make it constitutional

 

[TNHarley]

BTW, you are an arrogant asshole
And that is pretty bad comin from me..

 

[Weatherman2020]

Christ fed the sinners, and said that he came as a physician to the sick, not as a servant to the righteous.

These "Christian" Bakers who refuse to bake cakes for gays because gays are sinners are hypocrites, they bake cakes for divorced people getting married for their second or 3rd or n-th times.

Jesus never says directly that homosexuality is a sin, but he sure as hell does say that divorced people remarrying are ADULTERERS.

So, these fake-Christian bakers using Christ as an excuse to be bigots are really Satanists whose only purpose is to make people hate God, and hate Christ, and the full power of the Civil Courts and public opinion should destroy theses satanists and their cult-businesses where ever they are found.

This freak fakes as a Christian.

 

[Mac1958]

It's pretty much in the hands of the "offended" party, regardless of race or sexuality or whatever.

They can choose to file a complaint and see to it the bakery is punished or they can choose to work with someone who wants to work with them.

The law is secondary here; it doesn't even have to enter the conversation unless and until a complaint is filed.
.

 

[SwimExpert]

Please explain how my link is constitutional

Well, it's a 200 year old piece of Supreme Court jurisprudence. That speaks for itself.

I don't Ben over and take it just because some partisans rule on something. It might make it "legal" but it doesn't make it constitutional

You continue to attempt to draw a distinction between that is "constitutional" and the jurisprudence of the courts. You need to justify this. How do you propose constitutionality be determined if we remove is from the courts? The constitution assigns that power to the federal judiciary. Why do you want to undo what the constitution has done?

 

[TNHarley]

Please explain how my link is constitutional

Well, it's a 200 year old piece of Supreme Court jurisprudence. That speaks for itself.

I don't Ben over and take it just because some partisans rule on something. It might make it "legal" but it doesn't make it constitutional

You continue to attempt to draw a distinction between that is "constitutional" and the jurisprudence of the courts. You need to justify this. How do you propose constitutionality be determined if we remove is from the courts? The constitution assigns that power to the federal judiciary. Why do you want to undo what the constitution has done?

I'm not saying I want to, I'm saying I think they are wrong a lot. I don't agree with how they are selected. That leads to partisanship.
My argument is that the constitution doesn't leave much room for debate. Especially with the limits of the federal government.

 

[bodecea]

People should be able to make their own decisions on THEIR PROPERTY. Period
Self proclaimed "liberals" are always screeching about individuality but then run to big brother everytime someone expresses it when they don't agree.
Take your conformity and shove it up your ass. Pussy

No, they shouldn't, they should be required to serve people based on the rule of law, and the civility of their rights.

They shouldn't be allowed to racially discriminate or otherwise. Otherwise racists can institute a defacto SEGREGATION.

Or Bigots can destroy the lives of entire gay communities where the majority are BIGOTS.

gays are not a race you brain-dead dumbfuck.
Those laws are completely unconstitutional. Just like affirmative action. Only bigots appreciate laws that trample on individuality.

Civil Rights should only be based on race?