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

[jknowgood]

Why were muslim truck drivers given $$$$$$$$$$ for refusing to drive trucks with beer on them? And they won in their case citing religious reasons.

Because they were denied a reasonable accommodation . They asked to deliver other stuff. It's not like they worked for a beer company .

Liberals said bake the cake. Well then the Muslims deliver the beer or are you a hypocrite?

Delivering beer for your employer falls under PA laws in Oregon?

Says who? I think you may have missed the 'Public' in 'Public Accommodation'.

Oh so you would be okay if a christian wouldn't deliver beer to a gay Establishment?

I'd be okay with folks following the law. And the muslims dodn't refuse to deliver to a particular location or to a particular person. But a particular cargo. So even in hypothetical analogy land, you're a bit off. As beer doesn't have constitutional rights. While gay people do.

I ask again, what public accommodation law applies to truck drivers like these two men?

Thanks for proving you are a hypocrite. The Muslims got the job knowing what it entailed. So deliver the damn beer.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

So why is the govt fining business owners who don't go along with someone's sexual activities?

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Dayamn! Somebody should let Chief Justice Roberts know about this right away!

Do you have substance to add to this, or are you just going to act like the rest of the brain dead dumbfucks?
If so, please show me how the COTUS gives our govt the right to restrict private property, free speech and individuality.
Just like I told NY.. The COTUS is ALSO about LIMITS to the govt.

You....you do realize this is was a State law, right?

state laws go against the COTUS as well. Like having the Federal govt involved with marriage and thinking states could ban gay marriage. They could constitutionally, IF the fed govt wasn't involved. Technically..

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Dayamn! Somebody should let Chief Justice Roberts know about this right away!

Do you have substance to add to this, or are you just going to act like the rest of the brain dead dumbfucks?
If so, please show me how the COTUS gives our govt the right to restrict private property, free speech and individuality.
Just like I told NY.. The COTUS is ALSO about LIMITS to the govt.

No, you are absolutely right! I have already written CJ Roberts of the SC that you have spoken on the subject, so I am sure that a reversal will be made in their ruling within a week or two.

so.... basically you are just another brain dead dumbfuck. Thanks.

 

[Skylar]

Because they were denied a reasonable accommodation . They asked to deliver other stuff. It's not like they worked for a beer company .

Liberals said bake the cake. Well then the Muslims deliver the beer or are you a hypocrite?

Delivering beer for your employer falls under PA laws in Oregon?

Says who? I think you may have missed the 'Public' in 'Public Accommodation'.

Oh so you would be okay if a christian wouldn't deliver beer to a gay Establishment?

I'd be okay with folks following the law. And the muslims dodn't refuse to deliver to a particular location or to a particular person. But a particular cargo. So even in hypothetical analogy land, you're a bit off. As beer doesn't have constitutional rights. While gay people do.

I ask again, what public accommodation law applies to truck drivers like these two men?

Thanks for proving you are a hypocrite. The Muslims got the job knowing what it entailed. So deliver the damn beer.

I don't think hypocrisy means what you think it means.

As PA laws don't apply to truck drivers working with their employers. You blundered, forgetting the 'public' part of 'public accommodation'.

 

[Clementine]

I'd be okay with folks following the law. And the muslims dodn't refuse to deliver to a particular location or to a particular person. But a particular cargo. So even in hypothetical analogy land, you're a bit off. As beer doesn't have constitutional rights. While gay people do.


I ask again, what public accommodation law applies to truck drivers like these two men?

It's all about denying service to people based on their religion. They are judging people who drink or eat bacon. There is no rule that they cannot serve, handle or haul those things, but they refuse anyway and get away.

A cake with a gay message on it is also cargo. Having to cater a gay wedding means attending the reception. That is more involved than scanning a package of bacon.

Muslim bakeries refuse service to gays, but no one wants to offend them by making them follow laws. They get to adhere to their beliefs.

Either you leave your religious beliefs at home when you run a business or you don't. It simply is not fair that Muslims constantly refuse things based on their religion and others can't.

 

[Stephanie]

someone needs to muzzle the troll. they should also be put out of the business of trolling.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Dayamn! Somebody should let Chief Justice Roberts know about this right away!

Do you have substance to add to this, or are you just going to act like the rest of the brain dead dumbfucks?
If so, please show me how the COTUS gives our govt the right to restrict private property, free speech and individuality.
Just like I told NY.. The COTUS is ALSO about LIMITS to the govt.

You....you do realize this is was a State law, right?

state laws go against the COTUS as well. Like having the Federal govt involved with marriage and thinking states could ban gay marriage. They could constitutionally, IF the fed govt wasn't involved. Technically..

The laws in question are State PA laws. With the authority to create PA laws obviously part of the 10th amendment.

And this was an Oregon State law. The COTUS had nothing to do with it.

 

[George Costanza]

[QUOTE="TNHarley, post: 13154040, member: 39965"
so.... basically you are just another brain dead dumbfuck. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

WOW! What a compelling, cogent argument. Now I'm convinced!

 

[Skylar]

I'd be okay with folks following the law. And the muslims dodn't refuse to deliver to a particular location or to a particular person. But a particular cargo. So even in hypothetical analogy land, you're a bit off. As beer doesn't have constitutional rights. While gay people do.


I ask again, what public accommodation law applies to truck drivers like these two men?

It's all about denying service to people based on their religion.

Denying *public* services to people based on religion. Which existed in the Sweet Cakes case. But didn't in the case of the two Muslim truck drivers.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Dayamn! Somebody should let Chief Justice Roberts know about this right away!

Do you have substance to add to this, or are you just going to act like the rest of the brain dead dumbfucks?
If so, please show me how the COTUS gives our govt the right to restrict private property, free speech and individuality.
Just like I told NY.. The COTUS is ALSO about LIMITS to the govt.

You....you do realize this is was a State law, right?

state laws go against the COTUS as well. Like having the Federal govt involved with marriage and thinking states could ban gay marriage. They could constitutionally, IF the fed govt wasn't involved. Technically..

The laws in question are State PA laws. With the authority to create PA laws obviously part of the 10th amendment.

And this was an Oregon State law. The COTUS had nothing to do with it.

States can make unconstitutional laws. Good lord.
I just gave you a PERFECT example.
Just because its a "state law" doesn't mean it isn't constitutional. States go beyond their powers as well.
State laws get challenged ALL THE TIME

 

[TNHarley]

[QUOTE="TNHarley, post: 13154040, member: 39965"}
so.... basically you are just another brain dead dumbfuck. Thanks.

WOW! What a compelling, cogent argument. Now I'm convinced![/QUOTE]
So you cant add anything either? Then why bother? Is "brain-dead dumbfuck" in the water or something? Good gawd.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

So why is the govt fining business owners who don't go along with someone's sexual activities?

They would not have been fined if they had simply restrained from airing their complaints about the plaintiffs in public, including naming names.

In its closing argument, the Agency asked the forum to award Complainants $75,000 each in emotional suffering damages stemming directly from the denial of service, In addition, the Agency asked the forum to award damages to Complainants for emotional suffering they experienced as a result of the media and social media attention generated by the case from January 29, 2013, the date AK posted LBC’s DOJ complaint on his Facebook page, up to the date of hearing. The Agency’s theory of liability is that since Respondents brought the case to the media’s attention and kept it there by repeatedly appearing in public to make statements deriding Complainants, it was foreseeable that this attention would negatively impact Complainants, making Respondents liable for any resultant emotional suffering experienced by Complainants. The Agency also argues that Respondents are liable for negative third party social media directed at Complainants because it was a foreseeable consequence of the media attention.

The Commissioner concludes that complainants’ emotional harm related to the denial of service continued throughout the period of media attention and that the facts related solely to emotional harm resulting from media attention do not adequately support an award of damages. No further analysis regarding the media attention as a causative factor is, therefore, necessary.

 

[Skylar]

States can make unconstitutional laws. Good lord.

State PA laws aren't unconstitutional. The 10th amendment grants vast powers to the States. And the USSC has already tested the constitution against PA laws, finding them perfectly constitutional

 

[TooTall]

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.
.

Neither are Christians.

Would a gay bake a cake for a Christian?

 

[TNHarley]

You....you do realize this is was a State law, right?

state laws go against the COTUS as well. Like having the Federal govt involved with marriage and thinking states could ban gay marriage. They could constitutionally, IF the fed govt wasn't involved. Technically..

The laws in question are State PA laws. With the authority to create PA laws obviously part of the 10th amendment.

And this was an Oregon State law. The COTUS had nothing to do with it.

States can make unconstitutional laws. Good lord.

State PA laws aren't unconstitutional. The 10th amendment grants vast powers to the States. And the USSC has already tested the constitution against PA laws, finding them perfectly constitutional.

I don't give a shit what the SC said. They also said that that interning the Japanese was legal and the government can sterilize you in the name of eugenics. (buck vs bell I think)

 

[Skylar]

state laws go against the COTUS as well. Like having the Federal govt involved with marriage and thinking states could ban gay marriage. They could constitutionally, IF the fed govt wasn't involved. Technically..

The laws in question are State PA laws. With the authority to create PA laws obviously part of the 10th amendment.

And this was an Oregon State law. The COTUS had nothing to do with it.

States can make unconstitutional laws. Good lord.

State PA laws aren't unconstitutional. The 10th amendment grants vast powers to the States. And the USSC has already tested the constitution against PA laws, finding them perfectly constitutional.

I don't give a shit what the SC said. They also said that that interning the Japanese was legal and the government can sterilize you in the name of eugenics. (buck vs bell I think)

So State PA laws are unconstitutional.....because you say so?

Um, how's that working out for you?

 

[TNHarley]

The laws in question are State PA laws. With the authority to create PA laws obviously part of the 10th amendment.

And this was an Oregon State law. The COTUS had nothing to do with it.

States can make unconstitutional laws. Good lord.

State PA laws aren't unconstitutional. The 10th amendment grants vast powers to the States. And the USSC has already tested the constitution against PA laws, finding them perfectly constitutional.

I don't give a shit what the SC said. They also said that that interning the Japanese was legal and the government can sterilize you in the name of eugenics. (buck vs bell I think)

So State PA laws are unconstitutional.....because you say so?

Um, how's that working out for you?

Do you know what the first amendment is? Please tell me how that relates to the 10th?
Better yet, please inform me of how individuality fits in with the harm principle?
I like how you ignored my examples lol

 

[Skylar]

States can make unconstitutional laws. Good lord.

State PA laws aren't unconstitutional. The 10th amendment grants vast powers to the States. And the USSC has already tested the constitution against PA laws, finding them perfectly constitutional.

I don't give a shit what the SC said. They also said that that interning the Japanese was legal and the government can sterilize you in the name of eugenics. (buck vs bell I think)

So State PA laws are unconstitutional.....because you say so?

Um, how's that working out for you?

Do you know what the first amendment is? Please tell me how that relates to the 10th?
Better yet, please inform me of how individuality fits in with the harm principle?
I like how you ignored my examples lol

If you have an argument to make, make it.

But so far, you citing yourself hasn't really amounted to much.

 

[TNHarley]

State PA laws aren't unconstitutional. The 10th amendment grants vast powers to the States. And the USSC has already tested the constitution against PA laws, finding them perfectly constitutional.

I don't give a shit what the SC said. They also said that that interning the Japanese was legal and the government can sterilize you in the name of eugenics. (buck vs bell I think)

So State PA laws are unconstitutional.....because you say so?

Um, how's that working out for you?

Do you know what the first amendment is? Please tell me how that relates to the 10th?
Better yet, please inform me of how individuality fits in with the harm principle?
I like how you ignored my examples lol

If you have an argument to make, make it.

But so far, you citing yourself hasn't really amounted to much.

So you cant... lol