Denver baker sued for refusing to write anti-gay slogans on cake

[bripat9643]

I wonder if you can actually feed yourself, I don't hate anyone. Liberals cannot say that.

So you want to claim you don't hate anyone, but you just hate to see certain types of people have equal rights.

Yes, that's so much nicer...

Who said I hate, I disagree there is a difference. I was wanting to compromise, but you couldn't have that.

No you weren't. Besides, why do we have to 'compromise' when it comes to gay rights?

Are you willing to 'compromise' your own rights?

The Supreme Court has already compromised our rights, so it's not like we have a choice.

I thought God gave you your rights, not the Government.

Maybe you should get God to prove he did in fact give you your rights.

Our rights come from nature, but that doesn't stop government from violating them.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Our rights come from nature, but that doesn't stop government from violating them.

No my little infant, they don't. In nature you have no rights, not a single one, and she couldn't care less whether you live or die.

 

[bripat9643]

According to Ms. Silva, Jack pulled out a piece of paper with the phrase “God hates gays” and anti-gay passages he said were from the Bible. Silva also said that Jack wanted her to draw two men holding hands with an “X” crossing them out.

"After I read it, I was like 'No way.' " Silva told USA Today. " ‘We're not doing this. This is just very discriminatory and hateful.’ ”

Instead, Silva said she told Jack that she would make a cake with a blank Bible page so that he could draw the messages himself. She even claims she offered him frosting and a pastry bag to do so.

“I told him, ‘I’ll make you a cake any flavor and shape that you like and then I’ll give you the icing and you can write the message yourself,’” Silva told the Daily News.

But according to Silva’s account, Jack became “very pushy and disruptive,” refused to write the message himself, and said he needed to talk to an attorney.

Sounds like its the baker who has a case, possibly for assault.

IF a baker has to make a wedding cake with two homos on it, then he should also have to make the cake requested above. The law has taken away the baker's right to draw the line on what he can put on a cake.

No- you just don't understand the law.

I understand that the law and the liberal judges who interpret it are fucked. They will dream up some utterly hypocritical rational for ruling one way in one case and the opposite way in another case. That's why libturd judges do.

Obviously any judge you disagree with becomes a 'libturd' judge.

Like I said- you just don't understand the law.

Isn't it fascinating how conservatives think that the Constitution was a custom designed document to perfectly coincide with and advance every article of the conservative agenda?

The Constitution is the conservative agenda, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Our rights come from nature, but that doesn't stop government from violating them.

No my little infant, they don't. In nature you have no rights, not a single one, and she couldn't care less whether you live or die.

Try taking a bone away from a dog and then tell me he doesn't believe in rights.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

IF a baker has to make a wedding cake with two homos on it, then he should also have to make the cake requested above. The law has taken away the baker's right to draw the line on what he can put on a cake.

No- you just don't understand the law.

I understand that the law and the liberal judges who interpret it are fucked. They will dream up some utterly hypocritical rational for ruling one way in one case and the opposite way in another case. That's why libturd judges do.

Obviously any judge you disagree with becomes a 'libturd' judge.

Like I said- you just don't understand the law.

Isn't it fascinating how conservatives think that the Constitution was a custom designed document to perfectly coincide with and advance every article of the conservative agenda?

The Constitution is the conservative agenda, moron.

The Constitution was Radical. That's what the people at the time it was written thought, but you wouldn't know that now would you my little infant?

 

[NYcarbineer]

IF a baker has to make a wedding cake with two homos on it, then he should also have to make the cake requested above. The law has taken away the baker's right to draw the line on what he can put on a cake.

No- you just don't understand the law.

I understand that the law and the liberal judges who interpret it are fucked. They will dream up some utterly hypocritical rational for ruling one way in one case and the opposite way in another case. That's why libturd judges do.

Obviously any judge you disagree with becomes a 'libturd' judge.

Like I said- you just don't understand the law.

Isn't it fascinating how conservatives think that the Constitution was a custom designed document to perfectly coincide with and advance every article of the conservative agenda?

The Constitution is the conservative agenda, moron.

If it was you people wouldn't be crying about it ad nauseum.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you want to claim you don't hate anyone, but you just hate to see certain types of people have equal rights.

Yes, that's so much nicer...

Who said I hate, I disagree there is a difference. I was wanting to compromise, but you couldn't have that.

No you weren't. Besides, why do we have to 'compromise' when it comes to gay rights?

Are you willing to 'compromise' your own rights?

The Supreme Court has already compromised our rights, so it's not like we have a choice.

I thought God gave you your rights, not the Government.

Maybe you should get God to prove he did in fact give you your rights.

Our rights come from nature, but that doesn't stop government from violating them.

And ironically but unsurprisingly, where do conservatives run when they think their rights have been violated?

To the Supreme Court. The ultimate Government.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Our rights come from nature, but that doesn't stop government from violating them.

No my little infant, they don't. In nature you have no rights, not a single one, and she couldn't care less whether you live or die.

Try taking a bone away from a dog and then tell me he doesn't believe in rights.

Just because he can lick his own balls doesn't mean nature thought he deserved that. The only rights you have are what the government provides, and you can get enforced. Nature and God can't help you out on that in the slightest.

 

[mdk]

Gay marriage, and marriage itself, has nothing to do with children Sil. What children deserve they already don't get here.

And you don't live in a Democracy, meaning Mob Rule, so your statement is nonsense since the Majority do not rule here in the first place.

If marriage has nothing to do with children, then why did Kennedy say that the children stuck in gay homes are in "immediate legal harm" because of the gay people play-acting "mom and dad" not being able to marry?

I think you're going to find that the states are only in the business of incentivizing marriage (at an initial loss to themselves) so that they can have the best formative environment to produce the least-costly citizens later on. Shall I start quoting the Prince's Trust study again or have you got it memorized by now?

Please do. Why don't you quote the part of The Prince's Trust that mentions same-sex parents? Oh wait...you can't do that because the study doesn't mention gay parents, you've imagined it entirely. Of course that won't stop you from peddling the narrative despite the fact.

 

[Faun]

I think he has to sell them cakes, but I don't know about having to write the messages in frosting the couple wants. This will be a messy fight.

Denver baker sued for refusing to write anti-gay slogans on cake - Yahoo News

And conservatives wonder why they're viewed as brain-dead knuckle-dragging Neanderathal bigots.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gay marriage, and marriage itself, has nothing to do with children Sil. What children deserve they already don't get here.

And you don't live in a Democracy, meaning Mob Rule, so your statement is nonsense since the Majority do not rule here in the first place.

If marriage has nothing to do with children, then why did Kennedy say that the children stuck in gay homes are in "immediate legal harm" because of the gay people play-acting "mom and dad" not being able to marry?

I think you're going to find that the states are only in the business of incentivizing marriage (at an initial loss to themselves) so that they can have the best formative environment to produce the least-costly citizens later on. Shall I start quoting the Prince's Trust study again or have you got it memorized by now?

Please do. Why don't you quote the part of The Prince's Trust that mentions same-sex parents? Oh wait...you can't do that because the study doesn't mention gay parents, you've imagined it entirely. Of course that won't stop you from peddling the narrative despite the fact.

Sil simply has no integrity on this issue.

 

[Faun]

If the gay couple wanted to put hate speech on their cake, yeah.......I'd support the baker on that one.

Now you're changing your criteria. Previously, you complained that it would force the baker to violate their beliefs. So which is it?

The baker doesn't believe in hate speech, and the baker DID NOT refuse to bake a cake, they objected to the hate speech the person wanted put on it. And, they also offered frosting and a pastry bag so the person could put it on the cake themselves.

What if instead of anti gay slogans, it was a KKK member who wanted a cake with a black man being hung, surrounded by KKK members and it says on the cake "kill all the darkies"?

Nope.........you can't force someone to say things they don't believe in.

So if you can't force someone to go against their beliefs, then you can't force someone to accommodate a gay couple if it violates their beliefs.

There is nothing discriminatory about a wedding cake, so the only reason not to sell one is based on discrimination. On the flip side, writing hateful messages on a cake is discriminatory. Something one should not be forced to do.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The moron in the OP's 1st Amendment rights cannot be imposed on the baker's 1st Amendment rights.

As a baker she complied by baking the cake. She even offered to help the hatemonger write his bile. But PA laws do not require her to do his dirty work.

When the original baker refused to make a cake for the gay wedding all he needed to do was to bake the cake and let them put whatever topping they wanted on it. He violated PA laws by refusing to even bake them a cake.

In this instance she was in compliance by baking the "bible shaped" cakes.

So I don't see her losing this on PA grounds myself.

 

[Faun]

The moron in the OP's 1st Amendment rights cannot be imposed on the baker's 1st Amendment rights.

As a baker she complied by baking the cake. She even offered to help the hatemonger write his bile. But PA laws do not require her to do his dirty work.

When the original baker refused to make a cake for the gay wedding all he needed to do was to bake the cake and let them put whatever topping they wanted on it. He violated PA laws by refusing to even bake them a cake.

In this instance she was in compliance by baking the "bible shaped" cakes.

So I don't see her losing this on PA grounds myself.

Not to mention, a baker exposes themselves to lawsuits if they write hateful, discriminatory messages on a cake. You can't force bakers to be bigots.

 

[bripat9643]

Our rights come from nature, but that doesn't stop government from violating them.

No my little infant, they don't. In nature you have no rights, not a single one, and she couldn't care less whether you live or die.

Try taking a bone away from a dog and then tell me he doesn't believe in rights.

Just because he can lick his own balls doesn't mean nature thought he deserved that. The only rights you have are what the government provides, and you can get enforced. Nature and God can't help you out on that in the slightest.

If that's true, then no injustice is done to gays by not allowing them to marry.

Turds like you never think out the logical conclusions of your moron theories.

 

[bripat9643]

The moron in the OP's 1st Amendment rights cannot be imposed on the baker's 1st Amendment rights.

As a baker she complied by baking the cake. She even offered to help the hatemonger write his bile. But PA laws do not require her to do his dirty work.

When the original baker refused to make a cake for the gay wedding all he needed to do was to bake the cake and let them put whatever topping they wanted on it. He violated PA laws by refusing to even bake them a cake.

In this instance she was in compliance by baking the "bible shaped" cakes.

So I don't see her losing this on PA grounds myself.

Not to mention, a baker exposes themselves to lawsuits if they write hateful, discriminatory messages on a cake. You can't force bakers to be bigots.

That's pure idiocy. Unless they name specific persons, there is no cause for a tort.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Our rights come from nature, but that doesn't stop government from violating them.

No my little infant, they don't. In nature you have no rights, not a single one, and she couldn't care less whether you live or die.

Try taking a bone away from a dog and then tell me he doesn't believe in rights.

Just because he can lick his own balls doesn't mean nature thought he deserved that. The only rights you have are what the government provides, and you can get enforced. Nature and God can't help you out on that in the slightest.

If that's true, then no injustice is done to gays by not allowing them to marry.

Turds like you never think out the logical conclusions of your moron theories.

Damn you're a moron. The principle here is Equality Before the Law. It means your whitey ass gets treated the same as the ******* and vice versa, and the same applies to homos and breeders.

 

[bripat9643]

Our rights come from nature, but that doesn't stop government from violating them.

No my little infant, they don't. In nature you have no rights, not a single one, and she couldn't care less whether you live or die.

Try taking a bone away from a dog and then tell me he doesn't believe in rights.

Just because he can lick his own balls doesn't mean nature thought he deserved that. The only rights you have are what the government provides, and you can get enforced. Nature and God can't help you out on that in the slightest.

If that's true, then no injustice is done to gays by not allowing them to marry.

Turds like you never think out the logical conclusions of your moron theories.

Damn you're a moron. The principle here is Equality Before the Law. It means your whitey ass gets treated the same as the ******* and vice versa, and the same applies to homos and breeders.

If government passes laws that are not equal, then no injustice is done. That's your theory. Slavery wouldn't be an injustice if the government made it legal. Apparently you believe people have some natural right to be treated equally, but you just denied that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If government passes laws that are not equal, then no injustice is done. That's your theory.

No, that's my theory because that's utterly idiotic. And they don't have a "right" by God or nature to be treated equally but under our laws granting us rights they are supposed to be unless some compelling reason can be found for them being unequal.

 

[bripat9643]

If government passes laws that are not equal, then no injustice is done. That's your theory.

No, that's my theory because that's utterly idiotic. And they don't have a "right" by God or nature to be treated equally but under our laws granting us rights they are supposed to be unless some compelling reason can be found for them being unequal.

So before the 14th Amendment was passed, no injustice was being done to slaves.

You have to be a major loon to believe that. All the morons who defend Lincoln claim the Civil War was justified because slavery was such a heinous violation of human rights. However, your theory says slavery didn't violate anyone's rights.