For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[martybegan]

Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).

And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.

Begging the question fallacy. You're merely asserting your claim, assuming it to be correct. You've backed it with nothing. As your op-ed merely uses the exact same fallacy. And remember, you're not allowed to cite any law or any court ruling for any reason.

Else you violate your own conception of the 'appeal to authority fallacy'. Which you've bizarrely interpreted as any reference to law in a legal discussion.

Try again.

Not even close to a begging the question fallacy. I have stated my position on the original purpose of these laws clearly, that you disagree doesn't make any of them so.

You assume the 'original purpose' of PA laws and base your argument upon that assumption. But you've presented nothing to back that claim, merely assuming its correct.

That's the begging the question fallacy.

Provide evidence to back your assertion rather than merely assuming its true. All without citing any law or making reference to any court ruling. Else you violate your bizarro interpretation of the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy.

Which apparently includes any mention of the law in a legal discussion.

The original federal PA law was written to only include places of assembly, and point of service retail. I linked it in the past. The original discrimination was systemic and government mandated, and thus the federal law was written to eliminate that. They didn't concern themselves with small non point of sale or open area transactions. That came later.

And by assuming a burden of proof on my that you don't seem to provide in your responses to my points, you are just deflecting.

Your accusation of begging the question is bunk, and a typical progressive tactic of doing anything rather than actually responding.

This is not a federal law. It is a STATE law that was violated. A state law in regards to business and commerce and public accommodation.

The State laws were modeled on the Federal one, and expanded by the States. but the original federal one was aimed at systemic government mandated discrimination, not individual trivial cases.

 

[ChrisL]

Finally? I wrote that response yesterday, dolt.

Look, your ideas are just . . . stupid and retarded. No, the law is not going to "allow" you to discriminate. Stop being stupid.

By finally, I mean you went past your appeal to authority regurgitation, for a second at least.

How about you stop being fascist?

Why don't you stop with the name calling? LOL, you are all over her for one logical fallacy while committing numerous ones yourself.

She's calling me a hater, I call her a fascist. it balances out.

And please point out my logical fallacies.

I also called you stupid. Don't forget about that one. Lol!

And I called you a twat. and I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the week.

Look, you are dumb. You don't understand very much about the law. I suggest that you not open a business.

 

[martybegan]

I don't see that right anywhere in the constitution, but I do see the right to free exercise of religion, and there is no caveat for "unless you want to sell something".

See the 9th amendment for rights retains by the people that aren't enumerated. And who says that State PA laws violate the free exercise of religion?

You...citing your opinion? You're begging the question.

But those rights don't automatically trump the enumerated ones, unless there is a compelling government interest.

You have yet to establish that the any 1st amendment rights have been violated. You merely assume it is so.

Begging the question.

means assuming the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning.

And you assume the violation of 1st amendment freedoms as the basis of your claims that the PA laws violate the 1st amendment.

Yours is an argument without corners. You merely assuming the violation is begging the question.

They are not being allowed to freely exercise their religion. You would have a better time saying that the state has an interest in doing so than denying that there is no violation.

They are being forced to do something against their moral code, their moral code is against their religion, so therefore they are being denied free exercise.

Yes they are. The state has not prohibited you in any way from practicing your religion. They don't recognize your discrimination as "practicing your religion."

Then they are actually prohibiting it, but in a way they deem worthy. It still makes it restraint on free exercise, and only a hack wouldn't admit it.

 

[ChrisL]

Begging the question fallacy. You're merely asserting your claim, assuming it to be correct. You've backed it with nothing. As your op-ed merely uses the exact same fallacy. And remember, you're not allowed to cite any law or any court ruling for any reason.

Else you violate your own conception of the 'appeal to authority fallacy'. Which you've bizarrely interpreted as any reference to law in a legal discussion.

Try again.

Not even close to a begging the question fallacy. I have stated my position on the original purpose of these laws clearly, that you disagree doesn't make any of them so.

You assume the 'original purpose' of PA laws and base your argument upon that assumption. But you've presented nothing to back that claim, merely assuming its correct.

That's the begging the question fallacy.

Provide evidence to back your assertion rather than merely assuming its true. All without citing any law or making reference to any court ruling. Else you violate your bizarro interpretation of the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy.

Which apparently includes any mention of the law in a legal discussion.

The original federal PA law was written to only include places of assembly, and point of service retail. I linked it in the past. The original discrimination was systemic and government mandated, and thus the federal law was written to eliminate that. They didn't concern themselves with small non point of sale or open area transactions. That came later.

And by assuming a burden of proof on my that you don't seem to provide in your responses to my points, you are just deflecting.

Your accusation of begging the question is bunk, and a typical progressive tactic of doing anything rather than actually responding.

This is not a federal law. It is a STATE law that was violated. A state law in regards to business and commerce and public accommodation.

The State laws were modeled on the Federal one, and expanded by the States. but the original federal one was aimed at systemic government mandated discrimination, not individual trivial cases.

The states are allowed to make laws regarding commerce and business, and they don't recognize discrimination as practicing a religion. That is a fact. That is why, when challenged, you will fail.

 

[ChrisL]

See the 9th amendment for rights retains by the people that aren't enumerated. And who says that State PA laws violate the free exercise of religion?

You...citing your opinion? You're begging the question.

But those rights don't automatically trump the enumerated ones, unless there is a compelling government interest.

You have yet to establish that the any 1st amendment rights have been violated. You merely assume it is so.

Begging the question.

means assuming the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning.

And you assume the violation of 1st amendment freedoms as the basis of your claims that the PA laws violate the 1st amendment.

Yours is an argument without corners. You merely assuming the violation is begging the question.

They are not being allowed to freely exercise their religion. You would have a better time saying that the state has an interest in doing so than denying that there is no violation.

They are being forced to do something against their moral code, their moral code is against their religion, so therefore they are being denied free exercise.

Yes they are. The state has not prohibited you in any way from practicing your religion. They don't recognize your discrimination as "practicing your religion."

Then they are actually prohibiting it, but in a way they deem worthy. It still makes it restraint on free exercise, and only a hack wouldn't admit it.

No because your "free speech" and "freedom of religion" do not include discrimination.

 

[martybegan]

By finally, I mean you went past your appeal to authority regurgitation, for a second at least.

How about you stop being fascist?

Why don't you stop with the name calling? LOL, you are all over her for one logical fallacy while committing numerous ones yourself.

She's calling me a hater, I call her a fascist. it balances out.

And please point out my logical fallacies.

I also called you stupid. Don't forget about that one. Lol!

And I called you a twat. and I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the week.

Look, you are dumb. You don't understand very much about the law. I suggest that you not open a business.

Typical progressive equating disagreement with "dumb".

You can't argue from any strength besides 'the law says so" so you have to resort to calling me stupid.

 

[ChrisL]

Why don't you stop with the name calling? LOL, you are all over her for one logical fallacy while committing numerous ones yourself.

She's calling me a hater, I call her a fascist. it balances out.

And please point out my logical fallacies.

I also called you stupid. Don't forget about that one. Lol!

And I called you a twat. and I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the week.

Look, you are dumb. You don't understand very much about the law. I suggest that you not open a business.

Typical progressive equating disagreement with "dumb".

You can't argue from any strength besides 'the law says so" so you have to resort to calling me stupid.

Sorry, discrimination is not recognized as a "religious right." That's a fact.

 

[martybegan]

But those rights don't automatically trump the enumerated ones, unless there is a compelling government interest.

You have yet to establish that the any 1st amendment rights have been violated. You merely assume it is so.

Begging the question.

means assuming the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning.

And you assume the violation of 1st amendment freedoms as the basis of your claims that the PA laws violate the 1st amendment.

Yours is an argument without corners. You merely assuming the violation is begging the question.

They are not being allowed to freely exercise their religion. You would have a better time saying that the state has an interest in doing so than denying that there is no violation.

They are being forced to do something against their moral code, their moral code is against their religion, so therefore they are being denied free exercise.

Yes they are. The state has not prohibited you in any way from practicing your religion. They don't recognize your discrimination as "practicing your religion."

Then they are actually prohibiting it, but in a way they deem worthy. It still makes it restraint on free exercise, and only a hack wouldn't admit it.

No because your "free speech" and "freedom of religion" do not include discrimination.

Then they aren't really freedoms, and we might as well get rid of them.

 

[martybegan]

She's calling me a hater, I call her a fascist. it balances out.

And please point out my logical fallacies.

I also called you stupid. Don't forget about that one. Lol!

And I called you a twat. and I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the week.

Look, you are dumb. You don't understand very much about the law. I suggest that you not open a business.

Typical progressive equating disagreement with "dumb".

You can't argue from any strength besides 'the law says so" so you have to resort to calling me stupid.

Sorry, discrimination is not recognized as a "religious right." That's a fact.

So you can force a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple?

 

[ChrisL]

You have yet to establish that the any 1st amendment rights have been violated. You merely assume it is so.

Begging the question.



And you assume the violation of 1st amendment freedoms as the basis of your claims that the PA laws violate the 1st amendment.

Yours is an argument without corners. You merely assuming the violation is begging the question.

They are not being allowed to freely exercise their religion. You would have a better time saying that the state has an interest in doing so than denying that there is no violation.

They are being forced to do something against their moral code, their moral code is against their religion, so therefore they are being denied free exercise.

Yes they are. The state has not prohibited you in any way from practicing your religion. They don't recognize your discrimination as "practicing your religion."

Then they are actually prohibiting it, but in a way they deem worthy. It still makes it restraint on free exercise, and only a hack wouldn't admit it.

No because your "free speech" and "freedom of religion" do not include discrimination.

Then they aren't really freedoms, and we might as well get rid of them.

Your "freedom" to discriminate does not outweigh another person's civil rights. That's another fact. No, the state is not going to agree to disregard anti-discrimination laws when it comes to business practice. You are obviously insane.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I also called you stupid. Don't forget about that one. Lol!

And I called you a twat. and I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the week.

Look, you are dumb. You don't understand very much about the law. I suggest that you not open a business.

Typical progressive equating disagreement with "dumb".

You can't argue from any strength besides 'the law says so" so you have to resort to calling me stupid.

Sorry, discrimination is not recognized as a "religious right." That's a fact.

So you can force a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple?

Nope

 

[ChrisL]

I also called you stupid. Don't forget about that one. Lol!

And I called you a twat. and I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the week.

Look, you are dumb. You don't understand very much about the law. I suggest that you not open a business.

Typical progressive equating disagreement with "dumb".

You can't argue from any strength besides 'the law says so" so you have to resort to calling me stupid.

Sorry, discrimination is not recognized as a "religious right." That's a fact.

So you can force a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple?

A Catholic priest is a part of a "religious institution." A bakery is not. You see? This is why you are dumb.

 

[martybegan]

Not even close to a begging the question fallacy. I have stated my position on the original purpose of these laws clearly, that you disagree doesn't make any of them so.

You assume the 'original purpose' of PA laws and base your argument upon that assumption. But you've presented nothing to back that claim, merely assuming its correct.

That's the begging the question fallacy.

Provide evidence to back your assertion rather than merely assuming its true. All without citing any law or making reference to any court ruling. Else you violate your bizarro interpretation of the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy.

Which apparently includes any mention of the law in a legal discussion.

The original federal PA law was written to only include places of assembly, and point of service retail. I linked it in the past. The original discrimination was systemic and government mandated, and thus the federal law was written to eliminate that. They didn't concern themselves with small non point of sale or open area transactions. That came later.

And by assuming a burden of proof on my that you don't seem to provide in your responses to my points, you are just deflecting.

Your accusation of begging the question is bunk, and a typical progressive tactic of doing anything rather than actually responding.

This is not a federal law. It is a STATE law that was violated. A state law in regards to business and commerce and public accommodation.

The State laws were modeled on the Federal one, and expanded by the States. but the original federal one was aimed at systemic government mandated discrimination, not individual trivial cases.

The states are allowed to make laws regarding commerce and business, and they don't recognize discrimination as practicing a religion. That is a fact. That is why, when challenged, you will fail.

The laws of commerce still must accede to the bill of rights, and a compelling government interest must be shown if they are to be restricted.

 

[martybegan]

And I called you a twat. and I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the week.

Look, you are dumb. You don't understand very much about the law. I suggest that you not open a business.

Typical progressive equating disagreement with "dumb".

You can't argue from any strength besides 'the law says so" so you have to resort to calling me stupid.

Sorry, discrimination is not recognized as a "religious right." That's a fact.

So you can force a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple?

A Catholic priest is a part of a "religious institution." A bakery is not. You see? This is why you are dumb.

Where in the constitution does free exercise of religion be limited to clergy? What of religions with no organized clergy?

 

[ChrisL]

You assume the 'original purpose' of PA laws and base your argument upon that assumption. But you've presented nothing to back that claim, merely assuming its correct.

That's the begging the question fallacy.

Provide evidence to back your assertion rather than merely assuming its true. All without citing any law or making reference to any court ruling. Else you violate your bizarro interpretation of the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy.

Which apparently includes any mention of the law in a legal discussion.

The original federal PA law was written to only include places of assembly, and point of service retail. I linked it in the past. The original discrimination was systemic and government mandated, and thus the federal law was written to eliminate that. They didn't concern themselves with small non point of sale or open area transactions. That came later.

And by assuming a burden of proof on my that you don't seem to provide in your responses to my points, you are just deflecting.

Your accusation of begging the question is bunk, and a typical progressive tactic of doing anything rather than actually responding.

This is not a federal law. It is a STATE law that was violated. A state law in regards to business and commerce and public accommodation.

The State laws were modeled on the Federal one, and expanded by the States. but the original federal one was aimed at systemic government mandated discrimination, not individual trivial cases.

The states are allowed to make laws regarding commerce and business, and they don't recognize discrimination as practicing a religion. That is a fact. That is why, when challenged, you will fail.

The laws of commerce still must accede to the bill of rights, and a compelling government interest must be shown if they are to be restricted.

Sorry, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you are superior to another American citizen and entitled to refuse them service when you open a business in your state.

 

[martybegan]

The original federal PA law was written to only include places of assembly, and point of service retail. I linked it in the past. The original discrimination was systemic and government mandated, and thus the federal law was written to eliminate that. They didn't concern themselves with small non point of sale or open area transactions. That came later.

And by assuming a burden of proof on my that you don't seem to provide in your responses to my points, you are just deflecting.

Your accusation of begging the question is bunk, and a typical progressive tactic of doing anything rather than actually responding.

This is not a federal law. It is a STATE law that was violated. A state law in regards to business and commerce and public accommodation.

The State laws were modeled on the Federal one, and expanded by the States. but the original federal one was aimed at systemic government mandated discrimination, not individual trivial cases.

The states are allowed to make laws regarding commerce and business, and they don't recognize discrimination as practicing a religion. That is a fact. That is why, when challenged, you will fail.

The laws of commerce still must accede to the bill of rights, and a compelling government interest must be shown if they are to be restricted.

Sorry, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you are superior to another American citizen and entitled to refuse them service when you open a business in your state.

Then the 1st amendment holds sway, and government has to prove a compelling interest to force someone to give up their 1st amendment rights.

Getting rid of Jim Crow is a compelling interest, if a whole town decided to ban commerce gays would be a compelling interest, gays being denied a seat at a restaurant, while not a compelling interest, falls under the original intent of PA laws, and would not be an undue burden.

But asking someone to make something for a celebration of the gay lifestyle, said lifestyle being against that person's moral code is not a compelling interest unless other factors are involved.

 

[ChrisL]

Look, you are dumb. You don't understand very much about the law. I suggest that you not open a business.

Typical progressive equating disagreement with "dumb".

You can't argue from any strength besides 'the law says so" so you have to resort to calling me stupid.

Sorry, discrimination is not recognized as a "religious right." That's a fact.

So you can force a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple?

A Catholic priest is a part of a "religious institution." A bakery is not. You see? This is why you are dumb.

Where in the constitution does free exercise of religion be limited to clergy? What of religions with no organized clergy?

You see? This is why I call you dumb-dumb. You do not understand the law at all. Sad. If you open a business, you are under the rules and regulations regarding that particular business. Only religious organizations are allowed to "refuse" service because of religious beliefs. If you open a bakery, a car wash, a grocery store, you do not have that right. You are then considered a "public accommodation" business and you have to obey the laws put forth by your state with regards to discrimination. NO, the states are not going to disregard these laws. That would be stupid. The government is concerned with making an equal and level playing field for all employees, customers and citizens of America. Your religious views do not effect our secular business laws. Sorry, but they don't.

Like I told you earlier, these same arguments were brought up when it was deemed by the states that you could no longer discriminate against black people. They failed then, and they will fail now.

 

[ChrisL]

This is not a federal law. It is a STATE law that was violated. A state law in regards to business and commerce and public accommodation.

The State laws were modeled on the Federal one, and expanded by the States. but the original federal one was aimed at systemic government mandated discrimination, not individual trivial cases.

The states are allowed to make laws regarding commerce and business, and they don't recognize discrimination as practicing a religion. That is a fact. That is why, when challenged, you will fail.

The laws of commerce still must accede to the bill of rights, and a compelling government interest must be shown if they are to be restricted.

Sorry, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you are superior to another American citizen and entitled to refuse them service when you open a business in your state.

Then the 1st amendment holds sway, and government has to prove a compelling interest to force someone to give up their 1st amendment rights.

Getting rid of Jim Crow is a compelling interest, if a whole town decided to ban commerce gays would be a compelling interest, gays being denied a seat at a restaurant, while not a compelling interest, falls under the original intent of PA laws, and would not be an undue burden.

But asking someone to make something for a celebration of the gay lifestyle, said lifestyle being against that person's moral code is not a compelling interest unless other factors are involved.

Gays are American citizens. The government doesn't care what they do in their bedrooms. Only you insecure religious people are concerned with that kind of stuff.

 

[ChrisL]

This is not a federal law. It is a STATE law that was violated. A state law in regards to business and commerce and public accommodation.

The State laws were modeled on the Federal one, and expanded by the States. but the original federal one was aimed at systemic government mandated discrimination, not individual trivial cases.

The states are allowed to make laws regarding commerce and business, and they don't recognize discrimination as practicing a religion. That is a fact. That is why, when challenged, you will fail.

The laws of commerce still must accede to the bill of rights, and a compelling government interest must be shown if they are to be restricted.

Sorry, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you are superior to another American citizen and entitled to refuse them service when you open a business in your state.

Then the 1st amendment holds sway, and government has to prove a compelling interest to force someone to give up their 1st amendment rights.

Getting rid of Jim Crow is a compelling interest, if a whole town decided to ban commerce gays would be a compelling interest, gays being denied a seat at a restaurant, while not a compelling interest, falls under the original intent of PA laws, and would not be an undue burden.

But asking someone to make something for a celebration of the gay lifestyle, said lifestyle being against that person's moral code is not a compelling interest unless other factors are involved.

So . . . when you going to start your email and letter writing campaign to try to convince the government that gay American citizens are evil or sinners and are not entitled to the same treatment as any other American citizen?

 

[LittleNipper]

It has been determined in the State of Oregon, that your religious views and superstitions are not a good enough reason to discriminate against entire groups of people. If you do this, you will be sued by the state for not following the law. If you think you cannot follow the law, then you don't have to open a "public accommodation" business. Simple.

This is because, the "public" includes gays, blacks, and other people you might not like.

And yet Creationism and those who would present it are excluded from Public education. While presenting that homosexuality as an alternative cannot be. I dare say that there are whites, blacks, brown, yellow and red people who can and do believe there are very ethical, logical, and rational reasons that Creationism is a viable alternative to evolution and uniformitarianism. In fact there are very likely more than 40% of the population understands a God Created alternative.
And yet creationist Christians,. Jews, Moslems, and Hindi among others are not accommodated and in fact are DISCRIMINATED against.

Creationist threads are continuously moved to the "religious" section by the request of Atheists and yet secular educated "guesses" are allowed to remain un disturbed.

Of course, you likely believe that religion is purely a choice.... There are black, white, brown, yellow, and red people who have engaged in homosexual sex. It is not the person who is being ostracized but the celebration and commemoration of their choices which are. Sorry, however, there are plenty of businesses which will cater to the "sexual choice" crowd. Public education is a taxpayer monopoly that is being controlled and manipulated by a governmental bureaucracy which is becoming more and more the bully pulpit of hedonistic secularists.

So, the point is, that nothing is SIMPLE. And if YOU want to remain a homosexual, I as a businessman should not be made responsible for providing you with Homosexually oriented cards, toys, hotel marriage suite accommodations, publications, articles, photographs, decorated cakes/candies, and classroom instruction. That is for someone else to choose to do --- this is suppose to be a free country and not a DICTATORSHIP.

What in the world??? This delusional rant doesn't even make sense! The point is, no, you do not have the right to discriminate against other groups of people. If you don't like that, it is too bad because that is the law. And again, this law cited has absolutely NOTHING to do with the product you offer. It has to do with denying to accommodate the public. The "public" includes gay people.

So why do we discriminate against adults who provide young teens with sexual practice and favors? Surely this is a "group." What about if a "group" wanted a satanic cake? Is there no recourse for the Christian baker? As an American, I understand that you have the right to seek out "happiness as you deem fit. However, that should in no way mean that I, as an American running a legitimate business, have to fulfill your personal happiness sheet at the expense of my beliefs and obligations to enlightening society with regards to those of my own.

 

[martybegan]

Typical progressive equating disagreement with "dumb".

You can't argue from any strength besides 'the law says so" so you have to resort to calling me stupid.

Sorry, discrimination is not recognized as a "religious right." That's a fact.

So you can force a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple?

A Catholic priest is a part of a "religious institution." A bakery is not. You see? This is why you are dumb.

Where in the constitution does free exercise of religion be limited to clergy? What of religions with no organized clergy?

You see? This is why I call you dumb-dumb. You do not understand the law at all. Sad. If you open a business, you are under the rules and regulations regarding that particular business. Only religious organizations are allowed to "refuse" service because of religious beliefs. If you open a bakery, a car wash, a grocery store, you do not have that right. You are then considered a "public accommodation" business and you have to obey the laws put forth by your state with regards to discrimination. NO, the states are not going to disregard these laws. That would be stupid. The government is concerned with making an equal and level playing field for all employees, customers and citizens of America. Your religious views do not effect our secular business laws. Sorry, but they don't.

Like I told you earlier, these same arguments were brought up when it was deemed by the states that you could no longer discriminate against black people. They failed then, and they will fail now.

The States were forced originally to do so because they were government, and state governments cannot discriminate based on equal protection (although ironically the 14th amendment only applies to the States, so there really is no constitutional equal protection for federal law).

PA laws of an overreaching nature came later. And they were not challenged because the people being charged were actual racists, and thus not the most pleasing people. Now you have people of faith being persecuted.

A backlash will be inevitable, Americans don't like bullies. Up to this point that concept has helped the gay rights movement, but now that the pendulum has swung, it's probably going to hurt it.