Colorado baker told to bake that cake

[dblack]

We’ll, you are certainly eluding to it. You seem to have the same opinion as joe in that legislation should have more weight than cotus rights. That equal protection laws mean that one person has to give up their rights to be able to accommodate someone else’s rights.

Nope. Quote it. Never said anything like that.

No, I’m not contradicting, I gave you my definition of an established religion. Again, one that is established, meaning, already existing, globally recognized, well documented, detailed accounts, holy books or texts, written laws…etc. like Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc…

Why does it matter whether a religion is globally recognized and well documented? Why shouldn't less well known, less documented religions have the same rights? (and for that matter, why shouldn't everyone have the same rights?)

If you are looking for a list of established world religions, look it up on the internet…

I'm looking for you to recognize the contradiction in your point of view. If the government, in matters of law, must decide which religions are legitimate, and which aren't - it's doing exactly what the First Amendment prohibits: making law respecting the establishment of religion.

Nobody decided, the religions are already decided…government doesn’t get to come in and say “this religion is acceptable and this one is not”, according to cotus.

To enforce your version of religious freedom, they must. You've already said that only certain religions should get the perk (globally recognized, well documented, etc...) - how is that not government picking and choosing religions for special treatment?

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, gawd - more of the left right idiocy? I quoted those examples specifically because "the right" is no better than "the left" when it comes to respecting liberty. Both sides are inconsistent hypocrites. Both are fundamentally statist and want as much power over society as possible. They just have different levers that they want to pull.

yet I almost never see you on the abortion threads taking the American Taliban to task when they say a woman should be forced to have her rapist's baby.

You give someone a choice, be forced to have their rapist's baby or bake a cake for people you don't like and get money for doing so, nearly every last person would chose the latter.

Individual rights are incompatible with your worldview. Your rejection of the concept is obvious out of the gate. But thanks for clarifying.

Individual rights are incompatible with the reality of social animals. There are no rights, there are only privileges that the majority grants. Any fool who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942". That's how fast "rights" disappear.

 

[JoeB131]

Because he doesn’t believe it’s imaginary, and his religion says it’s a sin, and the cotus says he can freely exercise his religion?

So we should let him break the law because of delusions in his head. Hey, the voices in my head told me to gun down a mall. They'd hold me to account for that, even if I told them the voice in my head was "God".

But are we still living under those laws? Again, those are OT customs and laws, but most Christian’s observe NT beliefs and laws…so, are those laws still in effect?

No, because we are civilized, and we don't use a book of Bronze Age superstitions to govern ourselves. Thankfully.
So when someone tries to quote it to justify why he is discriminating against gays, we need to slap his ass with huge fines until he complies or goes out of business.

 

[dblack]

yet I almost never see you on the abortion threads taking the American Taliban to task when they say a woman should be forced to have her rapist's baby.

Then you're not paying ANY fucking attention. But I'm sick of trying to convince partisan fucks that there is actually a reality outside their stilted worldview. You go ahead and remain convinced I'm "right-winger", and the Trumpsters can remain convinced I'm a "lefty". You're both just as fucking brainwashed and clueless. You deserve each other.

You give someone a choice, be forced to have their rapist's baby or bake a cake for people you don't like and get money for doing so, nearly every last person would chose the latter.

Yeah, me too. so what?

Individual rights are incompatible with the reality of social animals. There are no rights, there are only privileges that the majority grants. Any fool who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942". That's how fast "rights" disappear.

I realize that is your point of view. Your point of view sucks. It's the logic of totalitarian governments throughout history.

 

[JoeB131]

Then you're not paying ANY fucking attention. But I'm sick of trying to convince partisan fucks that there is actually a reality outside their stilted worldview. You go ahead and remain convinced I'm "right-winger", and the Trumpsters can remain convinced I'm a "lefty". You're both just as fucking brainwashed and clueless. You deserve each other.

Nice faux outrage, but I've never seen you take the anti-choice crazies to task.

I realize that is your point of view. Your point of view sucks. It's the logic of totalitarian governments throughout history.

My point of view is realistic. I have to live in the real world, not some Ayn Rand fantasy.

 

[dblack]

Nice faux outrage, but I've never seen you take the anti-choice crazies to task.

Again, you haven't been paying any attention. I do it all the time. You're just wrong. I don't expect you to admit it. I don't give a fuck. You're just another partisan drone.

My point of view is realistic. I have to live in the real world, not some Ayn Rand fantasy.

No, your view is dangerously authoritarian.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Well, cotus disagrees with you.



Because child molestation is not a teaching of the catholic religion. As far as the Rastafarian…if there are any who are practicing in the US and marijuanna is a tenant of their faith, I suggest they petition the government for infringing on their religious rights.



The establishment clause simply means the government can’t establish a national religion. That’s all. It doesn’t mean that religion can’t exist in government, it just means government can’t state a national religion.

Separation of church and state is the opposite of what you stated. It was to keep the government from imposing itself on religion

Separation of church and state - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It’s my understanding that the Danbury church was fearing that since their state had no religious protections enshrined in its constitution that other more prominent religions would establish a state religion. And to that, Jefferson said that there would be a wall of separation, meaning, government would not interfere and would not allow a state sponsored religion. Or something like that.

I thought that the seperation issue derived from their experience in England. Puritans were persecuted for their faith by the English state and they were keen to avoid that in their new country.

America was an escape from oppression.

Of course the Puritans also oppressed other faiths when they held power under Cromwell.

Their excesses led to the restoration of the monarchy by a disgruntled non puritan population.

There are hundreds of religions and if they allused their religious beliefs to withdraw service then civil society would fall down pretty quickly.

The UK govt now accepts Jedi Warrior as a religion on the census form. It doesnt give them the right to do Jedi stuff.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, you haven't been paying any attention. I do it all the time. You're just wrong. I don't expect you to admit it. I don't give a fuck. You're just another partisan drone.

Then you should have no problem linking to an abortion thread where you stood up to the loons, right?

No, your view is dangerously authoritarian.

Meh, not really. YOu see, I like clean water and safe streets and businesses that follow the law.

I follow the law, you should, too.

You see the problem is you think government is bad. Nope, government is a reflection of it's people. They didn't invent Hitler from whole cloth, he was the result of a militaristic and racist culture. The "Good Germans" never show up.

 

[dblack]

Then you should have no problem linking to an abortion thread where you stood up to the loons, right?

You don't know how to work the search function??

Here: Search results for query: abortion

Have fun!

You see the problem is you think government is bad.

No, I think ubiquitous, authoritarian government - the kind you cheer for - is bad.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Perhaps the best way for the baker to handle this would be to bake the cake, then write up a flyer detailing how he was forced, by whom, with names and addresses, including time and place of the wedding. Distribute the flyers all over town.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't know how to work the search function??

Here: Search results for query: abortion

Have fun!

No, I think ubiquitous, authoritarian government - the kind you cheer for - is bad.

You seem to actually be defending the right of states to ban abortion in those posts... but never mind.

Again, you can just play in your sandbox, but the adults realize civilization requires laws and people to enforce them.

Perhaps the best way for the baker to handle this would be to bake the cake, then write up a flyer detailing how he was forced, by whom, with names and addresses, including time and place of the wedding. Distribute the flyers all over town.

Or perhaps he can just bake the cake and take the money... which seems to require the least amount of effort for the most reward.

 

[dblack]

You seem to actually be defending the right of states to ban abortion in those posts... but never mind.

You're lying piece of shit. You didn't even read them, did you??

Listen - piss off. Troll someone else.

 

[JoeB131]

You're lying piece of shit. You didn't even read them, did you??

Listen - piss off. Troll someone else.

I glanced one of them, where you were whining that overturning roe doesn't mean that the whole country has banned abortion, just parts of it...

It was kind of boring.

You seem a lot more passionate about unwilling bakers than unwilling mothers.

 

[dblack]

I glanced one of them, where you were whining that overturning roe doesn't mean that the whole country has banned abortion, just parts of it...

It was kind of boring.

You seem a lot more passionate about unwilling bakers than unwilling mothers.

You're a lying partisan piece of shit. Stop responding to my posts.

 

[JoeB131]

You're a lying partisan piece of shit. Stop responding to my posts.

Stop saying stupid shit.

 

[dblack]

Stop saying stupid shit.

You're a lying partisan piece of shit. Stop responding to my posts.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There is no reward in performing an act you know to be wrong. After all, a rapist is not absolved of guilt because he leaves payment behind. If the baker is forced to perform the least he can do is identify those threatening. Expose them. Names, addresses, wedding venue.

 

[JoeB131]

You're a lying partisan piece of shit. Stop responding to my posts.

Sorry, man, you get on here spewing Libertarian Children nonsense, I'm going to mock it.

There is no reward in performing an act you know to be wrong. After all, a rapist is not absolved of guilt because he leaves payment behind. If the baker is forced to perform the least he can do is identify those threatening. Expose them. Names, addresses, wedding venue.

That's called "Doxxing" and it's against the law.

Doxxing: What Is It and How to Prevent It

Doxxing is the release of personal information without permission. Find out what it means to be doxxed, if it’s legal & how to prevent doxxing.

www.avg.com

Oh, DBlack would whine that's just the mean old government protecting people who aren't him.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Sorry, man, you get on here spewing Libertarian Children nonsense, I'm going to mock it.



That's called "Doxxing" and it's against the law.

Doxxing: What Is It and How to Prevent It

Doxxing is the release of personal information without permission. Find out what it means to be doxxed, if it’s legal & how to prevent doxxing.

www.avg.com

Oh, DBlack would whine that's just the mean old government protecting people who aren't him.

Read it again. It's no doxxing. It is printing physical flyers with the threats, the names and addresses of the threatening parties and the venue that the baker was forced to unwillingly serve.

An alternative would be to hire a few protesters to loudly protest the wedding. There are many ways to fight this kind of unwilling servitude.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

After all if gays wanted to protest the baker, say go to his house, or confront him at a restaurant no one would find the slightest fault with that.