Colorado is after this guy.

[martybegan]

What is so suicidal about a baker not wanting to bake a cake?

The law in this case isn't about harm, it's about butt hurt, and government should not be in the business of taking sides when it comes to butt hurt.

But the government does that all the time, usually to keep the butthurt from escalating into something more serious. Your dog's shitting on the neighbors lawn, the government will come over and cite you. Your blighted house making the neighborhood look bad? The government will write up a violation I know that you have the Liber-Retard-ian view that this is government overstepping its bounds, but mostly, it prevents bigger problems, like someone coming over and starting a fight over dog shit.

So in an anarchist world, the Baker doesn't bake his cake and bunch of queens come over and burn down his place. Let's all agree that that's bad.

You want the government to protect the baker but not the customers.

I want it to protect both.

A $25 fine. Not "bake or else"

And that concept of government eventually leads to them telling you how to do everything.

Sorry, you may want to be a mindless marionette to government whims, that's not for me.

or you may be stupid enough to think they may never come after things you like

Why would the automatic response be burning down the baker? Sorry, but most people don't have the hateful fascist jerk of fantasies you have.

Talk about argumentum ad absurdum.

 

[martybegan]

Exactly. No one's rights are being violated when a bakery won't bake them a cake.

And nobody's rights are being violated when you are being held to the business promises you make.

This is simply a contract dispute, which was settled in favor of the customer.

Their right to free exercise is being violated.

 

[dblack]

Exactly. No one's rights are being violated when a bakery won't bake them a cake.

And nobody's rights are being violated when you are being held to the business promises you make.

This is simply a contract dispute, which was settled in favor of the customer.

Their right to free exercise is being violated.

Free exercise isn't a free pass to ignore laws that are otherwise properly legislated. If someone belonged to a religion that advocates human sacrifice, laws against murder aren't a violation of their free exercise rights. They're just laws against murder and we have to follow them regardless of our religion. Same goes for anything else.

I realize that Congress and the Court have gone down this road with the practice of "legislative accommodation" (the concept of including carve outs in laws to accommodate specific religious practices), but I think that's been a mistake. Tailoring laws to accommodate specific religious practices is, in itself, a violation of the first by making law "respecting an establishment of religion". They've turned the concept inside out. Instead of preventing government from interfering in religion, the government is now micromanaging religion, deciding which religions are "legitimate" and which practices are allowed and which aren't. This is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to prevent. The law should be completely "color-blind" when it comes to religion. If we think murder should be illegal, it doesn't matter which religion you belong to - it's still illegal. Same goes for any other law, including anti-discrimination laws.

 

[martybegan]

Exactly. No one's rights are being violated when a bakery won't bake them a cake.

And nobody's rights are being violated when you are being held to the business promises you make.

This is simply a contract dispute, which was settled in favor of the customer.

Their right to free exercise is being violated.

Free exercise isn't a free pass to ignore laws that are otherwise properly legislated. If someone belonged to a religion that advocates human sacrifice, laws against murder aren't a violation of their free exercise rights. They're just laws against murder and we have to follow them regardless of our religion. Same goes for anything else.

I realize that Congress and the Court have gone down this road with the practice of "legislative accommodation" (the concept of including carve outs in laws to accommodate specific religious practices), but I think that's been a mistake. Tailoring laws to accommodate specific religious practices is, in itself, a violation of the first by making law "respecting an establishment of religion". They've turned the concept inside out. Instead of preventing government from interfering in religion, the government is now micromanaging religion, deciding which religions are "legitimate" and which practices are allowed and which aren't. This is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to prevent. The law should be completely "color-blind" when it comes to religion. If we think murder should be illegal, it doesn't matter which religion you belong to - it's still illegal. Same goes for any other law, including anti-discrimination laws.

Going black-white with this type of thing may be the "easy" way out, but things like this were not meant to be easy.

One cannot compare human sacrifice to not wanting to bake a specific cake. One should also be able to set a line somewhere that allows for the greatest overall amount of liberty.

Denying a pre-wrapped cupcake to a gay person at the register is not the greatest amount of liberty for all parties, just like forcing a baker to bake a specific cake for a specific event they don't approve of isn't the greatest amount of liberty for all parties either.

 

[dblack]

Exactly. No one's rights are being violated when a bakery won't bake them a cake.

And nobody's rights are being violated when you are being held to the business promises you make.

This is simply a contract dispute, which was settled in favor of the customer.

Their right to free exercise is being violated.

Free exercise isn't a free pass to ignore laws that are otherwise properly legislated. If someone belonged to a religion that advocates human sacrifice, laws against murder aren't a violation of their free exercise rights. They're just laws against murder and we have to follow them regardless of our religion. Same goes for anything else.

I realize that Congress and the Court have gone down this road with the practice of "legislative accommodation" (the concept of including carve outs in laws to accommodate specific religious practices), but I think that's been a mistake. Tailoring laws to accommodate specific religious practices is, in itself, a violation of the first by making law "respecting an establishment of religion". They've turned the concept inside out. Instead of preventing government from interfering in religion, the government is now micromanaging religion, deciding which religions are "legitimate" and which practices are allowed and which aren't. This is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to prevent. The law should be completely "color-blind" when it comes to religion. If we think murder should be illegal, it doesn't matter which religion you belong to - it's still illegal. Same goes for any other law, including anti-discrimination laws.

Going black-white with this type of thing may be the "easy" way out, but things like this were not meant to be easy.

What do you mean by "going black and white"??

One cannot compare human sacrifice to not wanting to bake a specific cake.

I'm not.

I'm making the point the legislative accommodation actually reduces religious liberty.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"The Law says it. I believe it. That settles it."

The motto of the fundamentalist authoritarian.

Meh, the Authoritarian is the one who thinks it's okay to abuse people because an imaginary pixie in the sky says so.

How is not making someone a cake "abuse"? ?

You're probably one of those crazy radicals who just ignores people who don't want to associate with you.

 

[JoeB131]

It's both. It's an attempt to violate free speech under the guise of the Commerce Clause.

Not at all. Mr. Hateful Baker has every right to hang out with the Westboro bunch and his "God Hates Fags" sign. Absolutely no one is going to arrest him for that. But the minute he put out a sign that said, "Wedding cakes for sale", guess what, he has to provide wedding cakes.

This isn't complicated.

If he feels that strongly about it... then he can find something else to do for a living.

Joe, you don't even understand the law you're defending. Protected classes aren't "endangered" groups. They're traits, traits we all have, that (according to the law) can't be used as justification for discrimination. In theory, everyone is protected from discrimination based on a "protected class". eg. everyone is protected from discrimination based on gender, race, religion etc.... White people are protected from racial discrimination the same way black people are. If a business puts up a No Whitey sign, they'll be busted just the same as the business that puts up a No Blacks sign. Anything less would be an obvious violation of equal protection.

Okay, no argument so far.

Anyway, Trump's goons are currently pushing to add political affiliation to the protected classes list. They want to use it to force Facebook, and other web platforms, to host their propaganda. This is the kind of shit that happens when we allow bad laws to become precedent.

Well, Trump's goons can push that... but it would open a whole pandoras box, so they probably won't. I don't think Trump is going to be around that long, anyway.

 

[martybegan]

Exactly. No one's rights are being violated when a bakery won't bake them a cake.

And nobody's rights are being violated when you are being held to the business promises you make.

This is simply a contract dispute, which was settled in favor of the customer.

Their right to free exercise is being violated.

Free exercise isn't a free pass to ignore laws that are otherwise properly legislated. If someone belonged to a religion that advocates human sacrifice, laws against murder aren't a violation of their free exercise rights. They're just laws against murder and we have to follow them regardless of our religion. Same goes for anything else.

I realize that Congress and the Court have gone down this road with the practice of "legislative accommodation" (the concept of including carve outs in laws to accommodate specific religious practices), but I think that's been a mistake. Tailoring laws to accommodate specific religious practices is, in itself, a violation of the first by making law "respecting an establishment of religion". They've turned the concept inside out. Instead of preventing government from interfering in religion, the government is now micromanaging religion, deciding which religions are "legitimate" and which practices are allowed and which aren't. This is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to prevent. The law should be completely "color-blind" when it comes to religion. If we think murder should be illegal, it doesn't matter which religion you belong to - it's still illegal. Same goes for any other law, including anti-discrimination laws.

Going black-white with this type of thing may be the "easy" way out, but things like this were not meant to be easy.

What do you mean by "going black and white"??

One cannot compare human sacrifice to not wanting to bake a specific cake.

I'm not.

I'm making the point the legislative accommodation actually reduces religious liberty.

Black white means "one side wins 100% or the other side wins 100%.

Ok for discussion, not so much for actual application.

Unless you live in a society that is 100% just like you there will always have to be accomodation, legislative or otherwise.

 

[JoeB131]

A $25 fine. Not "bake or else"

Well, usually a $25.00 fine is sufficeint to get you to stop letting your dog shit on other people's laws.... YOu need a bigger club for bigots, they have a lower learning curve.

Sorry, you may want to be a mindless marionette to government whims, that's not for me.

or you may be stupid enough to think they may never come after things you like

Yawn, guy, I know you live in fear the government is coming to get you... I don't worry about those sorts of things.

Why would the automatic response be burning down the baker? Sorry, but most people don't have the hateful fascist jerk of fantasies you have.

Why not? Frankly, I'm surprised, given how many hate crimes that are committed against gay folks every year, they aren't retaliating more forcefully.

Again, I know gay folks who've been fired, I've known gay folks who've been beaten up... I really, Really can get all upset because Mr. Hateful Baker had to bake a cake he was paid money for.

One cannot compare human sacrifice to not wanting to bake a specific cake. One should also be able to set a line somewhere that allows for the greatest overall amount of liberty.

Why not? Once you've decided, "Hey, you can't deny people service because you don't like them", then you don't have a religious exemption to that. Sorry, man, you just don't.

If you want to say, "I can disobey laws I don't like because an imaginary fairy in the sky said so", then frankly, we should be able to cut out people's hearts to give them to Quetzalcoatl.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This cheap little tramp has had his 15 minutes of fame. Now he has to obey the law.

Seriously? You leftist crudballs deliberately seek this guy out to harass him and destroy his business, and NOW you're whining because he's getting too much attention? Or is it just that you're pissed and bitter that you expected the rest of the nation to be as batshit crazy as you are and vilify him, and it's not working out that way? Awwww, poor widdle leftist baby.

Maybe you should contact your soulmates in Colorado, tell them to dial back the fascist vitriol, and maybe get lives. Oh, and don't even get me started on the utter joke of your self-righteous "obey the law". Mr. Phillips IS obeying the law. He was told to do something that violated his First Amendment rights (you remember the First Amendment; it's one of those laws you're pretending to be in favor of); he defended himself in court; he won. That's how the law works, which you would know if you actually gave a tin shit about it. What YOU mean is "obey the left".

 

[dblack]

And nobody's rights are being violated when you are being held to the business promises you make.

This is simply a contract dispute, which was settled in favor of the customer.

Their right to free exercise is being violated.

Free exercise isn't a free pass to ignore laws that are otherwise properly legislated. If someone belonged to a religion that advocates human sacrifice, laws against murder aren't a violation of their free exercise rights. They're just laws against murder and we have to follow them regardless of our religion. Same goes for anything else.

I realize that Congress and the Court have gone down this road with the practice of "legislative accommodation" (the concept of including carve outs in laws to accommodate specific religious practices), but I think that's been a mistake. Tailoring laws to accommodate specific religious practices is, in itself, a violation of the first by making law "respecting an establishment of religion". They've turned the concept inside out. Instead of preventing government from interfering in religion, the government is now micromanaging religion, deciding which religions are "legitimate" and which practices are allowed and which aren't. This is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to prevent. The law should be completely "color-blind" when it comes to religion. If we think murder should be illegal, it doesn't matter which religion you belong to - it's still illegal. Same goes for any other law, including anti-discrimination laws.

Going black-white with this type of thing may be the "easy" way out, but things like this were not meant to be easy.

What do you mean by "going black and white"??

One cannot compare human sacrifice to not wanting to bake a specific cake.

I'm not.

I'm making the point the legislative accommodation actually reduces religious liberty.

Black white means "one side wins 100% or the other side wins 100%.

Ok for discussion, not so much for actual application.

Unless you live in a society that is 100% just like you there will always have to be acconmodation, legislative or otherwise.

Hmm.. ok. This seems to have become your standard line when you have no answer to an argument.

I'm not making any kind of black or white statements here. I'm saying I think legislative accommodation is a misreading of the First Amendment, for the reasons I mentioned. It's not a 'compromise'. It inverts the application of the religion clause, and requires government to do exactly what the First Amendment was supposed to prevent. It puts government in a position of authorizing certain religious practices and rejecting others.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If he feels that strongly about it... then he can find something else to do for a living.

I have come to wonder if the Mark of the Beast, spoken of in Revelation 13, might, rather than being any kind of visual or physical mark, might instead be an ideological mark—that people will be prevented from engaging in commerce unless they are willing to use their professional resources to actively uphold and promote evil.

Certainly, what you are advocating and defending is a clear beginning in this direction, that people should not be allowed to engage in certain professions unless they are willing to use these professions to promote and uphold immoral sexual perversions.

Sure, you say, that anyone not willing to actively promote evil, “can find something else to do for a living”; but if you are allowed to cross this line, what professions are safe? Why should anyone expect that such evil, subhuman filth such as you, if you are allowed to get away with this, will not find ways to force every profession to promote evil and perversions, and to effectively banish all decent people from doing anything to make an honest living?

1. And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
5. And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
6. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9. If any man have an ear, let him hear.
10. He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
11. And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14. And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

 

[JoeB131]

Maybe you should contact your soulmates in Colorado, tell them to dial back the fascist vitriol, and maybe get lives. Oh, and don't even get me started on the utter joke of your self-righteous "obey the law". Mr. Phillips IS obeying the law. He was told to do something that violated his First Amendment rights (you remember the First Amendment; it's one of those laws you're pretending to be in favor of); he defended himself in court; he won. That's how the law works, which you would know if you actually gave a tin shit about it. What YOU mean is "obey the left".

Actually, he probably violated the law this time because he was all for provided the cake as ordered, until he was told who was ordering it and why.

But, no, there isn't a first amendment right to violate other laws, which is why we haven't had witch burnings in a while.

 

[JoeB131]

I have come to wonder if the Mark of the Beast, spoken of in Revelation 13, might, rather than being any kind of visual or physical mark, might instead be an ideological mark—that people will be prevented from engaging in commerce unless they are willing to use their professional resources to actively uphold and promote evil.

You know, Mormon boy, You babble on and on and on about "Evil"... but then you don't give me any reason why gay folks are "evil" other than the Bible says so.

The Bible says eating Shrimp is evil. Working on Sunday is evil. Wearing clothing of mixed fabrics is evil. There's a whole flipping list of things the bible says that are "evil" that you guys do every day.

Meanwhile, that same book was perfectly okay with slavery, which most sensible people actually do consider evil. It advocated absolute genocide (ironic later) against the enemies of Israel, putting every man, woman and child to the sword. Of course, you'll never hear these verses read today at Church... you'll get some mumbling about how that's how people lived in those days.

So you are going to have to come with a slightly better argument than "The Bible Says So".

Certainly, what you are advocating and defending is a clear beginning in this direction, that people should not be allowed to engage in certain professions unless they are willing to use these professions to promote and uphold immoral sexual perversions.

I think it's called, "Obeying the law".

Sure, you say, that anyone not willing to actively promote evil, “can find something else to do for a living”; but if you are allowed to cross this line, what professions are safe? Why should anyone expect that such evil, subhuman filth such as you, if you are allowed to get away with this, will not find ways to force every profession to promote evil and perversions, and to effectively banish all decent people from doing anything to make an honest living?

Homophobes aren't decent people. Frankly, what I see is someone who is full of irrational hatred. They've also done studies that show that really homophobic people are usually latent homosexuals themselves, but that's another story.

How do people being gay affect your life in any way. What people do in their bedrooms has no real effect on my life.

The thing is, we have laws that say you can't discriminate against people on the basis of their race, religion, national origin, gender or sexual orientation, and these laws protect you as much as they protect gay people.

I means that as much as I absolutely despise Mormons, I can't refuse them service just because they are Mormons. And Mr. Philips can't refuse them service because they are gay.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Homophobes aren't decent people.

Those who openly side with sick, immoral sex perverts, certainly are not decent people.

 

[JoeB131]

Homophobes aren't decent people.

Those who openly side with sick, immoral sex perverts, certainly are not decent people.

again, I noticed you avoided the issue...

Other than the bible, what makes gay people evil, sick or immoral?

That they stick things in holes that normally used for that? Uh, hate to break this to you, but 99% of straights do fellatio and cunnilingus, and 37% of them have done anal.

So do you have an argument other than the Bible that being gay is immoral?

It was a pretty simple question.

We'll wait for an answer.

 

[martybegan]

A $25 fine. Not "bake or else"

Well, usually a $25.00 fine is sufficeint to get you to stop letting your dog shit on other people's laws.... YOu need a bigger club for bigots, they have a lower learning curve.

Sorry, you may want to be a mindless marionette to government whims, that's not for me.

or you may be stupid enough to think they may never come after things you like

Yawn, guy, I know you live in fear the government is coming to get you... I don't worry about those sorts of things.

Why would the automatic response be burning down the baker? Sorry, but most people don't have the hateful fascist jerk of fantasies you have.

Why not? Frankly, I'm surprised, given how many hate crimes that are committed against gay folks every year, they aren't retaliating more forcefully.

Again, I know gay folks who've been fired, I've known gay folks who've been beaten up... I really, Really can get all upset because Mr. Hateful Baker had to bake a cake he was paid money for.

One cannot compare human sacrifice to not wanting to bake a specific cake. One should also be able to set a line somewhere that allows for the greatest overall amount of liberty.

Why not? Once you've decided, "Hey, you can't deny people service because you don't like them", then you don't have a religious exemption to that. Sorry, man, you just don't.

If you want to say, "I can disobey laws I don't like because an imaginary fairy in the sky said so", then frankly, we should be able to cut out people's hearts to give them to Quetzalcoatl.

View attachment 214613

Or you just jerk off to ruining people you don't like

Because you are an idiot.

Again, it's because you are a hateful fascist jerk.

More argumentum ad absurdum from one of the most hatefully absurd posters on this board.

 

[martybegan]

Their right to free exercise is being violated.

Free exercise isn't a free pass to ignore laws that are otherwise properly legislated. If someone belonged to a religion that advocates human sacrifice, laws against murder aren't a violation of their free exercise rights. They're just laws against murder and we have to follow them regardless of our religion. Same goes for anything else.

I realize that Congress and the Court have gone down this road with the practice of "legislative accommodation" (the concept of including carve outs in laws to accommodate specific religious practices), but I think that's been a mistake. Tailoring laws to accommodate specific religious practices is, in itself, a violation of the first by making law "respecting an establishment of religion". They've turned the concept inside out. Instead of preventing government from interfering in religion, the government is now micromanaging religion, deciding which religions are "legitimate" and which practices are allowed and which aren't. This is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to prevent. The law should be completely "color-blind" when it comes to religion. If we think murder should be illegal, it doesn't matter which religion you belong to - it's still illegal. Same goes for any other law, including anti-discrimination laws.

Going black-white with this type of thing may be the "easy" way out, but things like this were not meant to be easy.

What do you mean by "going black and white"??

One cannot compare human sacrifice to not wanting to bake a specific cake.

I'm not.

I'm making the point the legislative accommodation actually reduces religious liberty.

Black white means "one side wins 100% or the other side wins 100%.

Ok for discussion, not so much for actual application.

Unless you live in a society that is 100% just like you there will always have to be acconmodation, legislative or otherwise.

Hmm.. ok. This seems to have become your standard line when you have no answer to an argument.

I'm not making any kind of black or white statements here. I'm saying I think legislative accommodation is a misreading of the First Amendment, for the reasons I mentioned. It's not a 'compromise'. It inverts the application of the religion clause, and requires government to do exactly what the First Amendment was supposed to prevent. It puts government in a position of authorizing certain religious practices and rejecting others.

I have an answer, you just don't like it or agree with it.

Government authorizes certain actions and limits others all the time, even within the constraints of Constitutional civil rights.

 

[JoeB131]

Or you just jerk off to ruining people you don't like

Because you are an idiot.

Again, it's because you are a hateful fascist jerk.

More argumentum ad absurdum from one of the most hatefully absurd posters on this board.

Marty, I'm greatly enjoying the space I occupy rent free in your head, buddy.

 

[martybegan]

Or you just jerk off to ruining people you don't like

Because you are an idiot.

Again, it's because you are a hateful fascist jerk.

More argumentum ad absurdum from one of the most hatefully absurd posters on this board.

Marty, I'm greatly enjoying the space I occupy rent free in your head, buddy.

The only space you occupy is that sad pathetic seat in front of your probably 15 year old computer.