Colorado baker told to bake that cake

[ThisIsMe]

Shush, the grownups are talking.




Actually, there are good reasons for them, mostly to protect women from abuse.


Why just on tribal land? Why shouldn't I be able to smoke Peyote as part of my religion if I leave the reservation (essentially, government concentration camps, anyway.)


No, you keep missing the point. We have murder laws for a good reason. We have PA laws for a good reason. Your belief in your imaginary sky friend should not be a good reason to break them.



nope. He broke the law. Done. I could care less about the reason.

Just like if I find you with a bloody ax and a dead hooker in your truck, I don't really have to determine what your motives were.



Joseph Smith and other founders of Mormonism engaged in polygamy with underage girls. Read a book.


Actually, most companies have "No Protolyzing" rules. Which means you can't go around screaming about Jesus to your coworkers because that is considered a hostile work environment.



I'm going to break this to you gently. THere are no rights. Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942". There are merely the privileges that society thinks you should have because they are fairly reasonable.



Nope, we can keep crushing the religious assholes with the laws we have now. And when they get tired of spending money and looking like assholes on a national stage, they will knock this shit the fuck off.

Actually, there are good reasons for them, mostly to protect women from abuse.

Hey, if you are a consenting adult and you know what you are getting yourself into, then who is the government to stand in your way?

Why just on tribal land? Why shouldn't I be able to smoke Peyote as part of my religion if I leave the reservation (essentially, government concentration camps, anyway.)

I misspoke. That is no restriction to be in tribal land. They can use peyote in conjunction with their religious practices anywhere. At least according to what I’m reading.

42 U.S. Code § 1996a - Traditional Indian religious use of peyote

www.law.cornell.edu

No, you keep missing the point. We have murder laws for a good reason. We have PA laws for a good reason. Your belief in your imaginary sky friend should not be a good reason to break them.

No, I’m not missing the point. You’re trying to back me into a corner by getting me to say the one religious practice is acceptable, while another is not. I’m a fair person and believe the cotus grants you freedom of religion, so, if you are really wanting human sacrifice, that’s something you need to call your congressman about.

Your belief in your imaginary sky friend should not be a good reason to break them.

How do you know He is imaginary? I can’t prove He is real, but, like over 70% of the world population believes in a God of some sort.. seems to be a consensus that there is a higher power of some type., enough that the founders thought it should be included in the cotus.

nope. He broke the law. Done. I could care less about the reason.

A law that forces you to give up your freedoms is not applicable. Again, they can’t create a law that contradicts the cotus.

Just like if I find you with a bloody ax and a dead hooker in your truck, I don't really have to determine what your motives were.

Not even the same thing. You’re right, you don’t in the case of a murder (well you do in order to find the level of the crime), but when you’re trying to accuse someone of doing something out of hate, you absolutely need to know the motive.

Joseph Smith and other founders of Mormonism engaged in polygamy with underage girls. Read a book.

I don’t need to read a book, I asked you if the Mormons currently engage in that practice.

Actually, most companies have "No Protolyzing" rules. Which means you can't go around screaming about Jesus to your coworkers because that is considered a hostile work environment.

What does that have to do with our conversation?

I'm going to break this to you gently. THere are no rights. Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942". There are merely the privileges that society thinks you should have because they are fairly reasonable.

Sure we have rights, at least we’re supposed to, so long as we don’t willingly give them up. The left does seem to be doing their damndest to whittle them away though.

Nope, we can keep crushing the religious assholes with the laws we have now. And when they get tired of spending money and looking like assholes on a national stage, they will knock this shit the fuck off.

It is your right to hate and to not believe, but others have the right to practice their religion.

 

[ThisIsMe]

To a degree, that is true.

Hence why we have public accommodation laws.

The business gets the benefits of fire, police, roads, utilities, infrastructure, and yes, even the internet.
In return, they have to comply with laws to not discriminate against people on the basis of their race, religion, gender, national origin, or sexual orientation.

That sounds completely reasonable to me.

But the business also pays taxes for those things, generally, much more than the average person does.

The public also benefits as much from those businesses, as those businesses sell the goods those people need/want.

 

[JoeB131]

Sexual orientation is not part of any protected class. That business pays taxes so they should have the right to serve anyone they please. It's THEIR BUSINESS.

Actually, it is in Colorado and several other states.
Businesses get more subsidies than taxes they pay.

Do you support a muslim business being forced to make a penis cake for a gay wedding? What about a big anus cake with a penis shaped cake going into it? What about a big pink pussy cake for a lesbian wedding?

Nobody makes cakes like that. They actually should, because the Wedding Cake is a

I always find it funny that you Christian whiners think that Muslims are getting some special treatment you aren't getting, when your average Muslim just hopes he can get through the day without some inbred redneck beating him up.

"Whoops, Cleetus, I think that one was a Sikh!"

"Don't matter, Bubba, he still had a rag on his head!"

 

[JoeB131]

No, I’m not missing the point. You’re trying to back me into a corner by getting me to say the one religious practice is acceptable, while another is not. I’m a fair person and believe the cotus grants you freedom of religion, so, if you are really wanting human sacrifice, that’s something you need to call your congressman about.

I'm not backing you into a corner at all. Either you think that Religion gives you the right to break the law, or you don't.
We have murder laws. I can't break them to please my Aztec God.
We have public accommodation laws. You can't break them to please your Abrahamic God.
That's... actually pretty reasonable.

How do you know He is imaginary? I can’t prove He is real, but, like over 70% of the world population believes in a God of some sort.. seems to be a consensus that there is a higher power of some type., enough that the founders thought it should be included in the cotus.

The fact is that no matter what sky pixie you believe in, the vast majority of humanity believes in some different sky pixie. Or no Sky Pixies. Or multiple sky pixies. Not to mention all the Sky Pixies that used be worshipped, but aren't anymore. Poor Zeus and Odin, they were a lot cooler than Yahweh, any day of the week.

A law that forces you to give up your freedoms is not applicable. Again, they can’t create a law that contradicts the cotus.

Good thing no one did that, then. The same laws applies to non-believers as believers. You can't discriminate against gays because God tells you to, and you can't discriminate against them because you don't like the icky butt stuff.

Not even the same thing. You’re right, you don’t in the case of a murder (well you do in order to find the level of the crime), but when you’re trying to accuse someone of doing something out of hate, you absolutely need to know the motive.

Actually, no. He broke the law. Gays asked for a service, he refused them, violating the state's public accommodation laws.

What does that have to do with our conversation?

Everything. the bible is very clear that you should be screaming Jesus' testimony at every opportunity. But companies want you to actually be doing the work they pay you for.

Now, I did have a coworker once who was a Jehovah's Witless, who spent all day doing that until HR told her to knock it off. The ironic thing is that our boss was a gay woman. She pretty much freaked out when I told her I thought there was nothing wrong with that.

Sure we have rights, at least we’re supposed to, so long as we don’t willingly give them up. The left does seem to be doing their damndest to whittle them away though.

Nope. Again, just ask the Japanese-Americans in 1942, who were subsequently rounded up because we were scared of them. No rights at all. Rights can go away in an instance if the vast majority says they are.

It is your right to hate and to not believe, but others have the right to practice their religion.

Sure they do, as long as they don't break other laws.

But the business also pays taxes for those things, generally, much more than the average person does.

The public also benefits as much from those businesses, as those businesses sell the goods those people need/want.

Actually, half the fucking tax code is subsidizing businesses. They don't pay more in taxes.
Which is why we have public accommodation laws, to make sure that EVERYONE has equal access to those goods and services we subsidize. Their root is in when black people couldn't get hotel rooms or service in stores. You run a business, you have to provide the services you offer to everyone. Even the icky butt sex people that Jesus tells you to hate. (Even though Jesus never actually said that.)

 

[HeyNorm]

I'm not backing you into a corner at all. Either you think that Religion gives you the right to break the law, or you don't.
We have murder laws. I can't break them to please my Aztec God.
We have public accommodation laws. You can't break them to please your Abrahamic God.
That's... actually pretty reasonable.



The fact is that no matter what sky pixie you believe in, the vast majority of humanity believes in some different sky pixie. Or no Sky Pixies. Or multiple sky pixies. Not to mention all the Sky Pixies that used be worshipped, but aren't anymore. Poor Zeus and Odin, they were a lot cooler than Yahweh, any day of the week.



Good thing no one did that, then. The same laws applies to non-believers as believers. You can't discriminate against gays because God tells you to, and you can't discriminate against them because you don't like the icky butt stuff.



Actually, no. He broke the law. Gays asked for a service, he refused them, violating the state's public accommodation laws.



Everything. the bible is very clear that you should be screaming Jesus' testimony at every opportunity. But companies want you to actually be doing the work they pay you for.

Now, I did have a coworker once who was a Jehovah's Witless, who spent all day doing that until HR told her to knock it off. The ironic thing is that our boss was a gay woman. She pretty much freaked out when I told her I thought there was nothing wrong with that.



Nope. Again, just ask the Japanese-Americans in 1942, who were subsequently rounded up because we were scared of them. No rights at all. Rights can go away in an instance if the vast majority says they are.


Sure they do, as long as they don't break other laws.



Actually, half the fucking tax code is subsidizing businesses. They don't pay more in taxes.
Which is why we have public accommodation laws, to make sure that EVERYONE has equal access to those goods and services we subsidize. Their root is in when black people couldn't get hotel rooms or service in stores. You run a business, you have to provide the services you offer to everyone. Even the icky butt sex people that Jesus tells you to hate. (Even though Jesus never actually said that.)

Actually Joe, if this was about sin, the baker would make a wedding cake for two straight same sex individuals getting married because, by their very nature, they would not have sex. But, there ya go, he won’t for them either.

So you can sleep easy Joe.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Actually Joe, if this was about sin, the baker would make a wedding cake for two straight same sex individuals getting married because, by their very nature, they would not have sex. But, there ya go, he won’t for them either.

So you can sleep easy Joe.

That isnt a huge demographic Norm.

 

[dblack]

Voluntary association usually favors the privileged. No thank you, I want recourse if I feel I've been wronged.

Yeah! Fuck that "live and let live" shit! It's "my way or the highway, motherfucker!"

Er, "Joe's way" rather, sorry.

Which brand jackboots do you recommend?

 

[HeyNorm]

That isnt a huge demographic Norm.

How do you know? Sexuality is not required on the marriage license application. It could be HUGE!

 

[Chillicothe]

840'sh posts on this silly topic (albeit, some of 'em..my own).....but, by now, it has slipped into the Twilight Zone of discussion.
The cake has grown way way stale.
Time to shelve it.
Or compost it.
-fini-

IMHO

 

[dblack]

840'sh posts on this silly topic (albeit, some of 'em..my own).....but, by now, it has slipped into the Twilight Zone of discussion.
The cake has grown way way stale.
Time to shelve it.
Or compost it.
-fini-

IMHO

It's not about cakes. Or gay marriage. It's about how much power government should have to pursue the "social engineering" goals of the majority, at the expense of everyone else.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

How do you know? Sexuality is not required on the marriage license application. It could be HUGE!

.

I don't even know if sex is required in a marriage, by any legal definition. "Non-consummation" used to be grounds for annulment of a marriage, in some states.

I was just wondering about that.

.

 

[HeyNorm]

.

I don't even know if sex is required in a marriage, by any legal definition. "Non-consummation" used to be grounds for annulment of a marriage, in some states.

I was just wondering about that.

.

There are 8 states that require consumation of the marriage. Colorado is not one of those, and the others, the constutionality is highly questionable, since Windsor clearly said that marriage is a financial arrangement

 

[Chillicothe]

. It's about how much power government should have to pursue the "social engineering" goals of the majority

No, it is not.

It's about societal norms and expectations where if one benefits by the taxed contributions of all.....then one is obligated to be fair to 'the all'.

Ala'....."am so grateful to benefit by the tax-paid physical infrastructure, tax-paid regulatory oversight of food-safety, banking, internet, policing, and courts....... but, but I don't wanna serve those "all", because.......well, because I don't wanna."

 

[HeyNorm]

No, it is not.

It's about societal norms and expectations where if one benefits by the taxed contributions of all.....then one is obligated to be fair to 'the all'.

Ala'....."am so grateful to benefit by the tax-paid physical infrastructure, tax-paid regulatory oversight of food-safety, banking, internet, policing, and courts....... but, but I don't wanna serve those "all", because.......well, because I don't wanna."

………..the baker won’t bake a same sex wedding cake for a straight same sex couple either. Your argument fails.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Nobody makes cakes like that. They actually should, because the Wedding Cake is a

I always find it funny that you Christian whiners think that Muslims are getting some special treatment you aren't getting, when your average Muslim just hopes he can get through the day without some inbred redneck beating him up.

So the answer to my question is "No, muslims shouldn't be forced to bake cakes that go against their religious beliefs, only Christians should be forced to." And then some bullshit blather about beating up a Muslim. That was fluff and meant nothing.

Thanks for playing.

 

[dblack]

No, it is not.

It's about societal norms and expectations where if one benefits by the taxed contributions of all.....then one is obligated to be fair to 'the all'.

Maybe for you, I suppose. If you think government should be in charge of enforcing societal norms, then that's where we disagree. Maybe because I'm not normal.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Actually, it is in Colorado and several other states.

Actually in Colorado the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the business refusing to serve gays:

U.S. Supreme Court leans toward web designer with anti-gay marriage stance

The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority on Monday appeared ready to rule that a Christian web designer has a right to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages in a case the liberal justices said could empower certain businesses to discriminate based on constitutional free speech...

www.reuters.com

The conservative justices indicated support for Smith's view that businesses offering creative services like web design are protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee against government abridgment of free speech from being forced to express messages through their work that they oppose

That's exactly the same thing as someone who is being forced to bake a cake for a lifestyle that they oppose because now THEIR name is tied to that cake.

But thanks for playing.

 

[dblack]

Maybe for you, I suppose. If you think government should be in charge of enforcing societal norms, then that's where we disagree. Maybe because I'm not normal.

The funny thing is, government enforcing social norms is the reason gay marriage name a political issue in the first place.

 

[Chillicothe]

government should be in charge of enforcing societal norms, then that's where we disagree. Maybe because I'm not normal.

-------------------------------------------------------

I can't speak to your own personal 'normalcy'.
So let's move on.

The 'societal norms' referenced by my avatar are: that people follow the law of the land; that illegal discrimination be called out and corrected; that basic fairness be adhered to in serving the public that paid for the amenities and infrastructure that allows one to operate a business in an urban setting.

THOSE ....are 'societal norms' that are pragmatic, useful, expected, and.......normal.

IMHO

 

[Tommy Tainant]

………..the baker won’t bake a same sex wedding cake for a straight same sex couple either. Your argument fails.

Hard to bake a cake for people who dont exist.