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.
Joe said it as succinctly as anyone can.
'A business ain't a human'...an 'American' human with COTUS rights.
It's an enterprise....conducted by humans to be sure, but there is a nuance there, a delineation that must be observed.
As a public 'enterprise' his is obligated to follow the laws of the land....specific to such enterprises. And the court so ruled.
Joe said it as succinctly as anyone can.
'A business ain't a human'...an 'American' human with COTUS rights.
It's an enterprise....conducted by humans to be sure, but there is a nuance there, a delineation that must be observed.
As a public 'enterprise' his is obligated to follow the laws of the land....specific to such enterprises. And the court so ruled.
As a public 'enterprise' his is obligated to follow the laws of the land....specific to such enterprises. And the court so ruled
Hey Tommy, go bake that cake!Colorado baker told to bake that cake
Oh no! You mean no cake for the queers?!!to deny a gay couple a cake
Keep them well oiled and always shift them smoothly.What does the bible say about trannys ?
Let's hope so. At least 8-12 hours of violent retching and diarrhea.They make me sick to my stomach.
----------------------------------------------------So, who makes the cake?
Like most fascists, you want government to force your vision of the good life on the rest of society.
Another statist trope. You have it exactly backwards. Government can't exist without people (and people doing business). This is where modern liberals have utterly betrayed the American dream. They are aggressively replacing individual rights with group privilege - privilege parsed out by a state that presumes to "manage" society.
Again, God gave instructions to the people, but that doesn’t mean there is a standing order to kill people for working on the Sabbath. I’m not completely familiar with the story, but as I recall, God was talking to Moses wasn’t he? He was addressing them specifically.
Also, you are talking about Old Testament vs New Testament. The laws back in the days of Moses were different than in the days of Jesus.
Uh, it can be. It can also be a group of humans. Both of which have rights, much to the chagrin of statists and socialists.Joe said it as succinctly as anyone can.
'A business ain't a human'...an 'American' human with COTUS rights.
Like what? Do we forfeit our rights if we dare to trade with others? Why?It's an enterprise....conducted by humans to be sure, but there is a nuance there, a delineation that must be observed.
We all have that obligation. So what?As a public 'enterprise' his is obligated to follow the laws of the land....specific to such enterprises. And the court so ruled.
Not libertarians. Live and let live is the point. The one you find so "childish".As does everyone else.
Nope. You're resorting to lying, Joe. Out of arguments?You just expect governmentto only do it for the rich and privileged.
Another lie. Once again, libertarians aren't anarchists.I mean, we can live in anarchy ...
Three for three.yes, we know the only privilege out there should be white male hetero and cis-gendered privilige. How dare those other groups think they have privileges, too!
Is this like Twitter refusing to allow Russian disinformation before a US presidential election.
Colorado baker loses appeal over refusing cake to transgender customer
Baker says he refused trans customer because of his Christian faithwww.independent.co.uk
His defence is the ridiculous religous freedom one that he used to deny a gay couple a cake a few yesrs ago. What does the bible say about trannys ?
It seems that a common link in these bigot cases is well funded extremist laawyers. These bigots never refuse cakes for adulterers or criminals or people who eat shellfish.
They make me sick to my stomach.
Read my last several posts. To sum up, it means Congress can't pass laws that target religion. It doesn't mean religious people get a pass on laws that happen to conflict with their religious views. Here's a pretty good article on the topic: Christians don’t understand religious freedomSo, then, what is your interpretation of religious freedom?
In the West, religious freedom is so much taken for granted that many have forgotten what the term entails. While it does prevent your religion being deliberately restricted, it does not grant rights to ignore or violate laws that are there for entirely valid secular reasons. No-one would argue that “religious freedom” grants a right to sacrifice a virgin at full moon or to burn infidels at the stake.
A right to do, for religious reasons, what a secular person could not do is not “religious freedom”, it is religious privilege. And the fundamental principle of equality of all people under the law, regardless of religious beliefs, should prevent the state from granting religious privilege.
For example, the British law exempting Sikhs, but only Sikhs, from wearing a helmet while riding a motorbike is an example of religious privilege. I have no objection to the law allowing one to wear a turban instead of a helmet, but, on a point of principle, if this right is granted to some then it should be available to all, not just to those who believe in particular religious doctrines.
In my view, the Court has lost its way on the matter. That's the point I've been making. They've turned it into a special perk for religious people, instead of a prohibition on the state's power to regulate religion.If the cotus say you have the free exercise of religion, what does that mean to you?
Of course. Someone must decide the rules for what qualifies, legally, as a religion, and what doesn't. And that has Congress doing exactly what the First Amendment prohibits: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."I don’t understand where you get the idea it’s about “state approved religions”. Are there some religions in the US that are not being given the same freedoms?
See above. Some religions are more equal than others. I'm pretty sure I can't just make up my own religion and enjoy all the perks and protections that state-approved religions get.The cotus doesn’t give deference to one religion or another. It just says that people have the right to practice their religion.
----------------------------------------------------
At that bakery? It appears as nobody will, unless Baker Bob delegates the chore.
But, as long as the Bakery Enterprise, LLC, pays the appropriate fine or penalty for disobeying the law of the land --- all good. A nation of laws is a good thing.
And, if Bob's Bakery Enterprise does it again.....well, the fine gets bigger or longer or more onerous so as to discourage BBE from breaking the law of the land. Which is also the underlying intent of most all penalties for breaking the law.....discourage law breaking. By people. Or enterprises.
Actually, it was a standing order. The story is a bit nuts. This poor schlub was out gathering sticks because he was cold or maybe just needed to cooks some food, and he gets stoned to death?
This is the kind of religious crazy I want to avoid. You and Philips should move to Afghanistan, you'd probably be happier there.
Right, by then, they were living under Roman law, and they had to be civilized. The worst thing that ever happened to humanity was how Christianity destroyed Rome. The Dark Ages were the first faith based initiative.
Which is the real reason I want to stomp zealot bakers who want to take us back there.
Read my last several posts. To sum up, it means Congress can't pass laws that target religion. It doesn't mean religious people get a pass on laws that happen to conflict with their religious views. Here's a pretty good article on the topic: Christians don’t understand religious freedom
In my view, the Court has lost its way on the matter. That's the point I've been making. They've turned it into a special perk for religious people, instead of a prohibition on the state's power to regulate religion.
Of course. Someone must decide the rules for what qualifies, legally, as a religion, and what doesn't. And that has Congress doing exactly what the First Amendment prohibits: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."
See above. Some religions are more equal than others. I'm pretty sure I can't just make up my own religion and enjoy all the perks and protections that state-approved religions get.
Read my last several posts. To sum up, it means Congress can't pass laws that target religion. It doesn't mean religious people get a pass on laws that happen to conflict with their religious views. Here's a pretty good article on the topic: Christians don’t understand religious freedom
It doesn't mean religious people get a pass on laws that happen to conflict with their religious views
Of course. Someone must decide the rules for what qualifies, legally, as a religion, and what doesn't. And that has Congress doing exactly what the First Amendment prohibits: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."
See above. Some religions are more equal than others. I'm pretty sure I can't just make up my own religion and enjoy all the perks and protections that state-approved religions get.
The First Amendment doesn't grant religious people the right to ignore laws that the rest of us must follow. Anti-discrimination laws violate fundamental human rights and, in my view, are unconstitutional. But equal protection demands that the law applies to everyone, or is struck down for everyone. What I'm objecting to here is the conception of religious freedom as a special perk for members of state-recognized religions.Ok, but doesn’t that also mean that congress can’t pass a law that forces someone to give up their rights?
Because not everyone will agree with you. The state will have to decide which religions are "established" and which aren't. I guess you just have to hope yours makes the list.Why does anyone have to make up rules for what qualifies as a religion. I kind of think religions are pretty well established already. We already know most, if not all, of the world religions.
Really? Can you point me to a list of the world's "established" religions? Which list does the government use?And you are right, you just can’t make up a religion, the worlds religions are already established.
I cant see a link here.Is this like Twitter refusing to allow Russian disinformation before a US presidential election.
That act doesnt give you the right to discriminate and deny service to groups you dont like. You can refuse service to customers who are rude, or rowdy or that attempt to steal. You can refuse service on the grounds of age.Tommy Tainant as you know, or may not know, we have the Sale & Supply of Goods Act in the UK. The way shopping works is, the retailer/law gives the right to treat. That allows customers to wander, look at, pick up goods, and decide if they want to buy. If this wasn't in place, as soon as someone touched an item, the shop owner could say, "You've touched it, you've bought it".
So items must have a clear price, but, you are under no obligation to pay that price, you could offer a lower price, or the stupid could offer a higher price. Then it's up to the shop owner to decline or accept your offer by ringing the payment through the till.
Many moons ago, a customer wanted to buy a bike, I said yes. He wanted a different seat and handle bars. I declined the sale.
Also, customers falsely believe, "It's on the shelf at that price, you must sell it to me". Wrong. I accept the £5 item sale, ring it in the till and it should have been £25. So sorry, I'm removing them off the shelf, refusing the sale and placing them to one side pending a price check audit.
So yes, I accept the sale of the cake, let's go down to the till, after discussing the design, "Ah, sorry, not something we do, I decline your offer to make a contract of sale and I don't accept payment. Have a good day".
How it works in America, no idea.
Tommy, I agree to buy your house. Two weeks later, I pull out. Tough, unless you live in Scotland, an offer on a house is legally binding. "But but, you said you would buy my house". How many house sales fall through !!
No reason or reasons are required, as a store owner, you simply decide not to accept their offer to make a contract. Your legal rights are set out in the Sale & Supply of Goods Act. I made sure I had a copy of the most up-to-date Trading Standards booklet. As for such things as knives, glue, alcohol etc.. that just simply overrides the store owner's right to simply accept a contract because they want to, the law enforces them to check their age first to make sure that person is valid to offer you a contract.That act doesnt give you the right to discriminate and deny service to groups you dont like. You can refuse service to customers who are rude, or rowdy or that attempt to steal. You can refuse service on the grounds of age.
But not because of who they are.
I have never been refused service anywhere. Neither have you. I dont see why everyone should not enjoy that right.
Nb - I was refused entry to the Cross Foxes in Abbot St a few years back. Mainly because I couldnt stand up after an all day session. I think they had a case if I am honest. We went to the Cambrian instead.
There is no such thing as a "faggot cake", just cake.No reason or reasons are required, as a store owner, you simply decide not to accept their offer to make a contract. Your legal rights are set out in the Sale & Supply of Goods Act. I made sure I had a copy of the most up-to-date Trading Standards booklet. As for such things as knives, glue, alcohol etc.. that just simply overrides the store owner's right to simply accept a contract because they want to, the law enforces them to check their age first to make sure that person is valid to offer you a contract.
The law is the law, it's not based on emotions. The problem with many store owners, they blurt out reasons. By all means accept, then decide to change your mind, and decline. If pressed for a reason, simply state, "I don't wish to accept your offer". When the customer is persistent, ask them to leave.
Yes, I have been refused, because I've asked to pay a different price on a number of occasions. If they refused because they didn't like my jacket, unbeknownst to me, that's up to them, I'm not a social justice warrior. In 99.9999999% of cases, the company accepts your offer because the cashier rings it through the till and takes payment.
Being declined because you're pissed is part of their alcohol license. A work mate is a bouncer, so I know that although they wish to accept and serve you, the law prohibits them.
A pub can serve children alcohol with their meal, but it's their discretion. We were refused in one pub, so we went to another and they got our service.
So if you're denied a faggot cake, simply go elsewhere, it's not rocket science. Simply take your business elsewhere and forever avoid that establishment, unless you have an agenda, as this cake case proves.
That works fine if you never have a dispute with others. Now, the law is ALREADY heavily weighted towards the privileged, that goes without saying, This is one case where the law favors the consumer over the business. (There should be more of these).Not libertarians. Live and let live is the point. The one you find so "childish".
No, you are children who've gotten a bank account from the Koch Brother sugar daddies, which is the only reason anyone has to take you seriously.Another lie. Once again, libertarians aren't anarchists.
But what is he being fined for? I just said his business is being compliant, it’s just that he himself cannot be forced to violate his religious views. So, his business model has no stance against making cakes for gay people, it’s just that the business has no employees who can comply with the request.
Fourth Commandment, bitches.. Or third. The Catholics and Protestants can't agree where the wording break is.Ok, I’ll have to defer to you on this because i don’t know the Bible very well, but can you point me to the texts that show that God gave a standing order to kill people for breaking the Sabbath?
Really, so why did Jesus have to say, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."And again, Roman law or not, Old Testament customs were different than New Testament customs. Stoning was apparently used as a punishment for breaking the laws in the Old Testament, but you dont really read about it in that context as much in the New Testament.
