First amendment hating Governor tells Christians to deal with homosexual hatred

[Slade3200]

Except that never happened.

Yes the Muslim baker told the queer couple no and to go down the street. Nothing from liberals.
Christian baker says no and was fined out if business. Both true.

That never happened. You just made it up.

Yeah it did

No, it did not. No gay couple went to a "Muslim Baker" and were refused service.

They have video from Michigan showing a Muslim baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, but the bias media won't report on it.

If nobody reported it then how did you hear about it?

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah it did

No, it did not. No gay couple went to a "Muslim Baker" and were refused service.

They have video from Michigan showing a Muslim baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, but the bias media won't report on it.

Except that's not what the video you're referring to showed.

Righties Go Crazy Over Video Of Muslim Bakeries Refusing To Make A Cake For A Gay Wedding (VIDEO)

Many rightwing nitwits made fools of themselves recently when a Muslim bakery in Michigan refused to accommodate a gay patron, whining about a Christian bakery in Oregon being compelled to pay damages for doing the same thing, claiming a ‘double standard’ and ‘liberal bias.’

Had they bothered to research the law, however, they’d realize that unlike Oregon, Michigan’s public accommodations law has no provision for sexual orientation, where although the Muslim business’ treatment of the gay patron was bigoted and reprehensible, it wasn’t subject to a civil action as in Oregon.

The point is where is your outrage, troll? Sit down and shut up with your BS

Outrage over a fake story? Nope, that what RWers do.

 

[JoeB131]

He bent to a bunch of faggot lovers. If they cared about the cause, they would have defended the cause rather than using money.

You dumb-asses keep thinking that the GOP Cares about you or your Imaginary Friend on a Stick. They don't. They care about what makes money for the 1%. Which you totally aren't.

That's what you guys missed. They used you. It's why they dismantled unions, but gays can get married.

It's why those factory jobs went overseas, but ladies can still get abortions.

It's why the rich got tax cuts, but your kids are still being taught Evolution instead of the Bible in school.

 

[Conservative65]

He bent to a bunch of faggot lovers. If they cared about the cause, they would have defended the cause rather than using money.

You dumb-asses keep thinking that the GOP Cares about you or your Imaginary Friend on a Stick. They don't. They care about what makes money for the 1%. Which you totally aren't.

That's what you guys missed. They used you. It's why they dismantled unions, but gays can get married.

It's why those factory jobs went overseas, but ladies can still get abortions.

It's why the rich got tax cuts, but your kids are still being taught Evolution instead of the Bible in school.

You think the Democrats care for you when all they do is treat you like the puppet that you want to be treated. They yank your chain and you do nothing but let to yank it more.

 

[Conservative65]

As to my opposition to Georgia, that one's easy too. It would have allowed tax funded organizations to discriminate against gays.

Not liking being told no isn't discrimination.

Being told NO because of your race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation is discrimination

So I could go into a bakery owned by a homo and expect to have them make a cake with "Same sex marriage is an abomination to God" on it? Interesting. I doubt you would support them having to do so.

Refusing to do a job because of the content or message vs. refusing to provide service to somebody because of who they are are two very different things. You are a little slow aren't ya?

They really don't get that part. They don't understand that if you don't carry a product or provide a service, you don't have to.


What you cannot do is provide a product or service to person A then refuse to provide that same product or service to person B because they are (insert group protected by anti discrimination law).

Unless you're a faggot, transgender, or some other form of freak the left protects. Then, you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want and they'll hypocritically protect your right to do it because making you do something you don't want to do might hurt your little feelings.

 

[flacaltenn]

Closed for Moderation..
MAY remain closed..

 

[flacaltenn]

bump -- reopened.

 

[bodecea]

Not liking being told no isn't discrimination.

Being told NO because of your race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation is discrimination

So I could go into a bakery owned by a homo and expect to have them make a cake with "Same sex marriage is an abomination to God" on it? Interesting. I doubt you would support them having to do so.

Refusing to do a job because of the content or message vs. refusing to provide service to somebody because of who they are are two very different things. You are a little slow aren't ya?

They really don't get that part. They don't understand that if you don't carry a product or provide a service, you don't have to.


What you cannot do is provide a product or service to person A then refuse to provide that same product or service to person B because they are (insert group protected by anti discrimination law).

Unless you're a faggot, transgender, or some other form of freak the left protects. Then, you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want and they'll hypocritically protect your right to do it because making you do something you don't want to do might hurt your little feelings.

My my....you have a con-federate flag crying towel handy, I hope. Poor poor you.

 

[bodecea]

Except that never happened.

Yes the Muslim baker told the queer couple no and to go down the street. Nothing from liberals.
Christian baker says no and was fined out if business. Both true.

That never happened. You just made it up.

Yeah it did

No, it did not. No gay couple went to a "Muslim Baker" and were refused service.

They have video from Michigan showing a Muslim baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, but the bias media won't report on it.

two things....Michigan doesn't protect sexual orientation in their PA laws....also, that's not what the video shows., no one refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.

You've been had.....again.

 

[JoeB131]

You think the Democrats care for you when all they do is treat you like the puppet that you want to be treated. They yank your chain and you do nothing but let to yank it more.

Why do you think "but, but, but Democrats" gets you off the hook on answering the points made, guy? At least you can do it in coherent English.

The thing is. This came down as a choice between what rich people wanted (keeping their gay customers happy) and what you wanted (keeping your Imaginary Friend on a Stick happy) and you and your Imaginary Friend on a Stick lost.

Oh, checking the weather report. No Fire and Brimstone in the forecast. God must be too busy NOT EXISTING to care whether the homos get married or not.

 

[martybegan]

What religious freedom is being stopped ? You have all the same freedoms .

Trying to change the laws so business can actively discriminate against gays has nothing to do with religion . Shame on you fake Christians trying to sheild your bigotry by using the bible as a front .

Otherwise known as "Bake the fucking cake, peasant".

Otherwise aka "a public service cannot discriminate".

Where is that in the constitution again?

Ever read the 14th amendment?

Equal protection under the law, not equal protection under the baker.

 

[martybegan]

The freeks have free speech. They just don't understand that in the public forum that free speech does not mean Freedom of Expression that disrupts the orderly nature of the public.

So every person is merely a cog that has to spin as our betters want it to spin, "or else".

A single baker not wanting to bake a cake does not disrupt the orderly nature of the public.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

And the Free Exercise Clause has never authorized citizens to use religion as an ‘excuse’ to ignore or violate necessary, proper, and Constitutional laws, such as public accommodations laws.

Whining about Christian bakers as ‘hapless victims’ is nothing but a red herring fallacy completely devoid of merit.

Most of these laws are State laws, so why do you idiots keep bringing up the commerce clause?

Federal laws actually define a "Public Accommodation" far more clearly than "anyone who sells anything everywhere" definition that progressives use.

No one has ever tried ruining bakers before over not baking a cake, so going to past examples is moot.

Says you. For once you actually posted something more than a single line prog hack blurb, I guess you are tired now? Need a nap?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The issue is not the act of baking.

The issue is the principle of non-discrimination in public services.

If you are landlord holding our your property publicly, you cannot discriminate, for instance, against Japanese wanting to rent your property.

 

[JoeB131]

Most of these laws are State laws, so why do you idiots keep bringing up the commerce clause?

Federal laws actually define a "Public Accommodation" far more clearly than "anyone who sells anything everywhere" definition that progressives use.

No one has ever tried ruining bakers before over not baking a cake, so going to past examples is moot.

Says you. For once you actually posted something more than a single line prog hack blurb, I guess you are tired now? Need a nap?

I think you sound a bit tired, Marty.

The thing is, if you allow people to discriminate against gays, then why not against Blacks, Jews, Mormons, Women, etc.

If your religion won't let you bake cakes for gays, maybe you need to find something else to do for a living.

 

[Seawytch]

What religious freedom is being stopped ? You have all the same freedoms .

Trying to change the laws so business can actively discriminate against gays has nothing to do with religion . Shame on you fake Christians trying to sheild your bigotry by using the bible as a front .

Otherwise known as "Bake the fucking cake, peasant".

Otherwise aka "a public service cannot discriminate".

Where is that in the constitution again?

Ever read the 14th amendment?

Equal protection under the law, not equal protection under the baker.

You're right there. A Christian baker can refuse to serve a gay couple but the gay couple does not have an equal right to refuse to serve the Christian couple.

 

[martybegan]

Most of these laws are State laws, so why do you idiots keep bringing up the commerce clause?

Federal laws actually define a "Public Accommodation" far more clearly than "anyone who sells anything everywhere" definition that progressives use.

No one has ever tried ruining bakers before over not baking a cake, so going to past examples is moot.

Says you. For once you actually posted something more than a single line prog hack blurb, I guess you are tired now? Need a nap?

I think you sound a bit tired, Marty.

The thing is, if you allow people to discriminate against gays, then why not against Blacks, Jews, Mormons, Women, etc.

If your religion won't let you bake cakes for gays, maybe you need to find something else to do for a living.

For things where there is no economic harm, why should the government care? And again, these places did not deny sale on a walk up basis to these couples, they did not want to provide a contracted service in relation to a gay wedding, something they find offensive.

The only thing that occurs in this case is hurt feelings, and hurt feelings is not worthy of government intervention to ruin someone over.

 

[martybegan]

Otherwise known as "Bake the fucking cake, peasant".

Otherwise aka "a public service cannot discriminate".

Where is that in the constitution again?

Ever read the 14th amendment?

Equal protection under the law, not equal protection under the baker.

You're right there. A Christian baker can refuse to serve a gay couple but the gay couple does not have an equal right to refuse to serve the Christian couple.

If the gay couple says they oppose opposite sex weddings for religious reasons they should. again you idiots confuse contracted service denial for point of service denial, which in most of these the former is the situation, not the latter.

 

[martybegan]

The issue is not the act of baking.

The issue is the principle of non-discrimination in public services.

If you are landlord holding our your property publicly, you cannot discriminate, for instance, against Japanese wanting to rent your property.

Denial of the ability to live freely where one wants to is an actual harm. That is the difference.

 

[Seawytch]

Otherwise aka "a public service cannot discriminate".

Where is that in the constitution again?

Ever read the 14th amendment?

Equal protection under the law, not equal protection under the baker.

You're right there. A Christian baker can refuse to serve a gay couple but the gay couple does not have an equal right to refuse to serve the Christian couple.

If the gay couple says they oppose opposite sex weddings for religious reasons they should. again you idiots confuse contracted service denial for point of service denial, which in most of these the former is the situation, not the latter.

I don't agree that they should, but that's not the way it IS. The way it IS I don't get to refuse to serve a Christian in all 50 states, but the Christian can refuse to serve me in about half. No equal protection "under the baker".

 

[martybegan]

Where is that in the constitution again?

Ever read the 14th amendment?

Equal protection under the law, not equal protection under the baker.

You're right there. A Christian baker can refuse to serve a gay couple but the gay couple does not have an equal right to refuse to serve the Christian couple.

If the gay couple says they oppose opposite sex weddings for religious reasons they should. again you idiots confuse contracted service denial for point of service denial, which in most of these the former is the situation, not the latter.

I don't agree that they should, but that's not the way it IS. The way it IS I don't get to refuse to serve a Christian in all 50 states, but the Christian can refuse to serve me in about half. No equal protection "under the baker".

Still mixing up refusing the people in question for the service and event in question. Is mushing the two together the only way you have of making your point?