Gay wedding cakes at Muslim bakeries.

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'm a lefty so thanks for...

Bullshit.

 

[Slade3200]

Do you think the civil rights act was a bad thing for this country?

Federal public accommodation laws were only a small part of the overall Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A more well defined question would be "Do you think the public accommodation provisions of the civil rights act was a bad thing for this country?"


Hope this helps.


>>>>>

True, but Gator said that he doesn’t believe in anti-discrimination laws. That goes beyond public accommodation. Either way I am curious about what he thinks

I do not think the Constitution gives the government the right to tell a person whom they must serve in their private business or what they must serve. I understand why we had them when we did, but that still does not make the constitution, in my opinion. Good or bad does not play into if something is constitutional or not.

Right now there are roughly a half a dozen "protected" classes that you cannot discriminate against, anyone else you are free to do so. So, what the government is doing by making protected classes is giving some people more protection under the law than others, which is clearly against the constitution.

The constitution also granted us the flexibilty to govern to best serve the general welfare of the people. The government is built on the constitution but it is so much more than that.

 

[westwall]

I'm a lefty so thanks for...

Bullshit.

Naah. I really am. I am probably more left on some things than you are. But, i am not an extremist so can see the world from the other side as well, and when they have a legit argument I pay attention. Unlike you it seems.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'm a lefty so thanks for...

Bullshit.

Naah. I really

Again, BULLSHIT, and not only BULLSHIT, but the thread had nothing to do with the Constitution, which you cherry pick as good as any member of the Bundy Clan.
The thread's original post simply said,

"Ever wonder WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if you asked a Muslim bakery to bake a cake for a gay wedding?"

Whereupon I immediately pointed out, in the post that NONE of you
Corn-stitution-ernalists have the guts to read, that the top imam in the city went and told a bunch of Muslim cabbies to accommodate everyone, even if you thought their views were not in compliance with Islam.
One could reasonably extrapolate that other top imams would be telling the same to Muslim bakers..."You're in America, and in America we respect people even if their values conflict with ours, Allah will understand."

Why you keep running to the Constitution, I could care less, this is about human decency, not your sacred cow, for which you seem to think everything is literally applicable today, as if the Founders and authors did not give any thought to the dynamics of a changing society in the modern age and the future.

I beg to differ. Since you're such a Constitutionalist, then you know that the authors wrote voluminous treatises on how our republic's laws needed to meet the needs of future generations.

And I could give two shits if your Lefty credentials are leftier than mine.
I'll go get a box of Cap'n Crunch and cut out the panel on the side of the box and mail it away to Battle Creek, Michigan and get MY VERY OWN IWW Red Card, or I would, if I gave two shits.

I don't, and the reason I don't is because I have some liberal views, and some conservative views. I identify as a liberal because today's conservatives have lost their way, and because it seems like Barry Goldwater's predictions about the Religious Right turning church into a political business were SPOT FUCKING ON.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

And last but not least, what would YOU, or the original poster, think if a gay couple came into MY so called "Christian bakery" and asked me to bake their wedding cake and I said:

"Listen, I don't know if you realize this but I have pretty strong views about this whole gay marriage thing, and I do not support it. So could you just be honest and tell me WHY you picked MY bakery? If you know about my religious views, then you know it's kind of a thorn in my side to have to do this. So just tell me why."

And then, if the gay couple said, "Because we've gone to four other bakeries and they all gave us a hard time, and you're pretty much the last bakery in the neighborhood.",
you know what I would say?

I'd say: "Okay, tell you what, I'll make your cake, and it's gonna be a dandy, you're gonna love it, and I'll pray about this and ask God to understand that I am just trying to be a decent human being, but once I bake this cake for you, I am also going to get in touch with other bakeries and find out if there are any who don't have a problem with this like I do, so that next time your kind won't have so much trouble."

My point here, what I'm getting at, is....would it really kill these so called "Christian bakers" to do something decent? If the gay couple are assholes, I have no problem telling them to leave my shop because I do refuse service to unpleasant people...I do it all the time in my film editing business.

Would it really kill these religious types to go the extra mile and wash the feet of the publicans, the pimps and whores the way Jesus did?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The constitution also granted us the flexibilty to govern to best serve the general welfare of the people. The government is built on the constitution but it is so much more than that.

It's a FRAMEWORK.
Houses have frames, cars and trucks have frames, paintings have frames.
Frames are important, and framing is important stuff.

But we do not live in frames, we don't drive frames and we don't go to the museum to look at famous frames.

And the Founding Fathers knew that, this being the very BIRTH of their republic, the best they could do is supply "we the people" with a solid framework but they also knew, as evidenced by the mountains of other stuff they wrote, that they kept themselves up at night, wondering what the America of the future would be like, and wondering IF their framework would be sufficiently strong for "we the people" to fill it in with a proper, morally sound and decent interpretation of the laws which could serve the general welfare, something else that they referred to on a rather frequent basis.

Well, the general welfare has gone up in smoke, folks.
And don't even get me started on morals.
And I doubt I am alone in saying that either.

 

[Syriusly]

And it wouldn't matter.

Muslims should also make the fucking cake.

Religion no matter the god is just bs reason to discriminate.

Which is an abrogation of the freedom of religion enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Why do you want to trample on peoples Rights?

And when the Muslim cabbies refuse to pick up the blind person with the guide dog?

Are we trampling on the cabbie's rights by requiring that they transport handicapped customers regardless of what their religion says?

Let me know where it says that in the Koran. That's the problem with your hyperbole, it is pure unadulterated BS.

LOL- Westwall, you are usually better at this.

Where it says what in the Koran? Cabbies refusing to transport blind people with dogs? Probably the same place it says in the Bible that bakers can't bake cakes for gay couples.

But that of course misses the entire point.

Either a business can be told to serve customers regardless of their 'closely held religious beliefs'- or they can't.
It doesn't matter whether the business is a baker or a cabbie- whether they are Christian or Muslim- either they can be told to serve a customer regardless of their beliefs or not.

But you seem to be indicating that they have to prove that this is a doctrine of their religion- that it is in the "Holy Book'- but that is even more dangerous- because that puts the government in a position to decide what is a real religious principle and what is not. Do we want judges deciding what is true Christianity or what is true Islam? I don't.

Not BS- Christian Bakers- Muslim cabbies- both refusing customers because of their 'strongly held religious beliefs'- personally I think that they should just serve their customers. But I don't remember any Christians arguing that the Muslim's freedom of religion were being trampled on- no more than I see Muslims arguing that this baker's freedom of religion are being trampled on.

 

[Syriusly]

Let me know where it says that in the Koran. That's the problem with your hyperbole, it is pure unadulterated BS.

I already pointed out that the Muslim community has demonstrated that they are ahead of the curve in comparison to the Christian bakeries.
Their own imams instructed the outliers that they now live in a society which respects all religious values including values which aren't even religious at all, and that they must abide by accommodating different people.

It's too bad that my post scares the living shit out you folks on the right, which is why NONE of you can even work up the nuts to READ it much less comment on what I posted.

I even posted it in another thread similar to this one, same thing, no one on the Right has had the intestinal fortitude to even acknowledge what I posted>

You people are allergic to facts, and worse yet, you think BELIEF actually supercedes fact, which indicates that you do not know the difference belief and fact.

I'm a lefty so thanks for missing that. And yes, fortunately there are some bakeries who do indeed cater to the LGBT community. However, just like it is not all christian bakers, it is likewise not all muslim bakers who decide to not provide service. The simple way to deal with that is simply to not buy from them. There are enough bakeries out there that it won't be a problem to find one. The people suing the bakers are political activists who wish to impose their belief system on others. That is as clear a violation of the COTUS as I can imagine.

The COTUS doesn't care what your opinion is. The COTUS merely states that NO ONE shall be compelled to violate their religious beliefs. I hate to break it to ya, but that is the reality.

Since you are a self proclaimed 'lefty'- lets not forget that this whole thread is built on the fake news claims of a right wing liar. Did you watch the 'video'? Its pretty obvious to anyone who cares that he carefully cut and edited scenes to make it appear that they were refusing to sell him a cake for a gay wedding- but none of them actually do that. One guy says 'no'- but his english is not very good and the video is so heavily cut and edited there is no way to tell if he is saying no he won't bake a wedding cake or no- he doesn't bake wedding cakes. I posted a great article by an author who lives in Detroit who knows the bakeries and points out that one of the bakeries make pita bread- they don't even make cakes. The video is a fraud- intended to attack both gays and muslims.

"the people suing the bakers'? Who are these people? The cases I know of are gay couples who filed complaints with the government entities that enforce public accommodation laws- and the bakers were fined for breaking the laws. Are they 'political activists' because they filed a complaint? Using the very same law that would protect the Christian bakers if some Muslim refused to do business with them?

Now maybe you believe that Public Accommodation laws violate the Constitution. Or maybe you think that the religious beliefs of a business owner means that they can choose to refuse to do business with a Jew- or blacks- or Muslims- or gays.

Well the case before the Supreme Court will decide that. Just remember- if the court says that a Christian can refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple- Christians can then decide not to sell to Jews or Muslims- based upon whatever closely held religious beliefs they decide are dear to them.

 

[Syriusly]

The decision to have a baby is the most personal, private matter a woman ever faces. It’s not a decision which is taken lightly or casually, nor should it be. And it’s not a decision which is anyone’s business but that of the woman who will be living with the consequences of that decision for the rest of her life.

And her baby that may only have a few weeks to live if she decides it is not convenient to have it right now

Babies aren’t generally aborted simply for “convenience”. They’re aborted because of money. 80% of women who have abortions are living below or just slightly above the poverty line. More than half of them are married or in a committed relationship, and most already have one or more children.

Republicans oppose every measure that would enable poor women to continue their pregnancies: higher minimum wages, mandated maternity leaves, job protections for pregnant women, access to health care, and access to licensed, subsidized Day care.

In Canada we have all of these things and one other thing - free abortions. Despite the free abortions, our rate of abortion is half what yours is. Coincidence? I think not.

So when you’re ready to talk about what you’re prepared to do to encourage poor women to have those babies, let me know.

Yeah I really hate the abortion debate- because it is really a religious debate- and no one ever 'wins' an argument about religion.

I think all of us would be happy for there to be less abortions. Despite the rhetoric of the 'pro-life' movement- I don't know of anyone who is 'pro-abortion' any more than I know anyone is 'pro-appendectomy'. I am for choice for women to have the choice for abortion just as I am for women having the choice to have an appendectomy.

Wow. You just drew a moral equivalency between an appendectomy and killing a child in the womb!]

Wow. You just objected to the moral equivalency between a legal appendectomy and a legal abortion that doesn't kill any child.

Like i said I hate the abortion debate- its just another religious debate- so I leave it to you- not the subject of this thread and I generally don't engage you fanatics.

Wow. You just objected to the moral equivalency of a woman making her own choice of how to handle the medical conditions affecting her health.

Like i said I hate the abortion debate- its just another religious debate- so I leave it to you- not the subject of this thread and I generally don't engage you fanatics

 

[Kat]

It is DISCRIMINATION to FORCE a cake maker to make a cake that collides with their religious beliefs.

Nobody is advocating JEWISH BAKERIES make cakes honoring HITLER.

WHY do HOMOS get to SHOVE their agenda down everyone else's throats???

Or in this case- a Conservative man pretending to be gay in order to shove his agenda down everyone's throat.

What's funny is religious people shove their shit down everyones throat all the time and they're expected to be protected by the law. Why not gays and everyone else? Oh'yess, because religion needs to control or else.

You mean like you shoving your sh*t down our throats? No wonder no one pays attention. How many people have you ''changed'' with your hate filled posts? 0? That would be the correct answer.
Can you be nice ever? Can you try to purge yourself of the hatred? You are going to explode one day.

 

[Syriusly]

It is DISCRIMINATION to FORCE a cake maker to make a cake that collides with their religious beliefs.

Nobody is advocating JEWISH BAKERIES make cakes honoring HITLER.

WHY do HOMOS get to SHOVE their agenda down everyone else's throats???

Or in this case- a Conservative man pretending to be gay in order to shove his agenda down everyone's throat.

What's funny is religious people shove their shit down everyones throat all the time and they're expected to be protected by the law. Why not gays and everyone else? Oh'yess, because religion needs to control or else.

You mean like you shoving your sh*t down our throats? No wonder no one pays attention. How many people have you ''changed'' with your hate filled posts? 0? That would be the correct answer.
Can you be nice ever? Can you try to purge yourself of the hatred? You are going to explode one day.

Odd that you respond to that post with a complaint about not being nice.

Did you see the OP?

Or any of the hate filled posts attacking 'HOMOS"?

Certainly the hate filled posts don't change any minds. But don't pretend this is one sided.

 

[Kat]

It is DISCRIMINATION to FORCE a cake maker to make a cake that collides with their religious beliefs.

Nobody is advocating JEWISH BAKERIES make cakes honoring HITLER.

WHY do HOMOS get to SHOVE their agenda down everyone else's throats???

Or in this case- a Conservative man pretending to be gay in order to shove his agenda down everyone's throat.

What's funny is religious people shove their shit down everyones throat all the time and they're expected to be protected by the law. Why not gays and everyone else? Oh'yess, because religion needs to control or else.

You mean like you shoving your sh*t down our throats? No wonder no one pays attention. How many people have you ''changed'' with your hate filled posts? 0? That would be the correct answer.
Can you be nice ever? Can you try to purge yourself of the hatred? You are going to explode one day.

Odd that you respond to that post with a complaint about not being nice.

Did you see the OP?

Or any of the hate filled posts attacking 'HOMOS"?

Certainly the hate filled posts don't change any minds. But don't pretend this is one sided.

I agree with you, and I have not pretended otherwise.

 

[westwall]

Let me know where it says that in the Koran. That's the problem with your hyperbole, it is pure unadulterated BS.

I already pointed out that the Muslim community has demonstrated that they are ahead of the curve in comparison to the Christian bakeries.
Their own imams instructed the outliers that they now live in a society which respects all religious values including values which aren't even religious at all, and that they must abide by accommodating different people.

It's too bad that my post scares the living shit out you folks on the right, which is why NONE of you can even work up the nuts to READ it much less comment on what I posted.

I even posted it in another thread similar to this one, same thing, no one on the Right has had the intestinal fortitude to even acknowledge what I posted>

You people are allergic to facts, and worse yet, you think BELIEF actually supercedes fact, which indicates that you do not know the difference belief and fact.

I'm a lefty so thanks for missing that. And yes, fortunately there are some bakeries who do indeed cater to the LGBT community. However, just like it is not all christian bakers, it is likewise not all muslim bakers who decide to not provide service. The simple way to deal with that is simply to not buy from them. There are enough bakeries out there that it won't be a problem to find one. The people suing the bakers are political activists who wish to impose their belief system on others. That is as clear a violation of the COTUS as I can imagine.

The COTUS doesn't care what your opinion is. The COTUS merely states that NO ONE shall be compelled to violate their religious beliefs. I hate to break it to ya, but that is the reality.

Since you are a self proclaimed 'lefty'- lets not forget that this whole thread is built on the fake news claims of a right wing liar. Did you watch the 'video'? Its pretty obvious to anyone who cares that he carefully cut and edited scenes to make it appear that they were refusing to sell him a cake for a gay wedding- but none of them actually do that. One guy says 'no'- but his english is not very good and the video is so heavily cut and edited there is no way to tell if he is saying no he won't bake a wedding cake or no- he doesn't bake wedding cakes. I posted a great article by an author who lives in Detroit who knows the bakeries and points out that one of the bakeries make pita bread- they don't even make cakes. The video is a fraud- intended to attack both gays and muslims.

"the people suing the bakers'? Who are these people? The cases I know of are gay couples who filed complaints with the government entities that enforce public accommodation laws- and the bakers were fined for breaking the laws. Are they 'political activists' because they filed a complaint? Using the very same law that would protect the Christian bakers if some Muslim refused to do business with them?

Now maybe you believe that Public Accommodation laws violate the Constitution. Or maybe you think that the religious beliefs of a business owner means that they can choose to refuse to do business with a Jew- or blacks- or Muslims- or gays.

Well the case before the Supreme Court will decide that. Just remember- if the court says that a Christian can refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple- Christians can then decide not to sell to Jews or Muslims- based upon whatever closely held religious beliefs they decide are dear to them.

Which is certainly possible. However, he does state clearly that many Muslim bakery's had no problem baking the cake. Even he admitted it was not all of them. Just as it is not all christian bakery's that refuse to bake cakes for the LGBT community.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And her baby that may only have a few weeks to live if she decides it is not convenient to have it right now

Babies aren’t generally aborted simply for “convenience”. They’re aborted because of money. 80% of women who have abortions are living below or just slightly above the poverty line. More than half of them are married or in a committed relationship, and most already have one or more children.

Republicans oppose every measure that would enable poor women to continue their pregnancies: higher minimum wages, mandated maternity leaves, job protections for pregnant women, access to health care, and access to licensed, subsidized Day care.

In Canada we have all of these things and one other thing - free abortions. Despite the free abortions, our rate of abortion is half what yours is. Coincidence? I think not.

So when you’re ready to talk about what you’re prepared to do to encourage poor women to have those babies, let me know.

Yeah I really hate the abortion debate- because it is really a religious debate- and no one ever 'wins' an argument about religion.

I think all of us would be happy for there to be less abortions. Despite the rhetoric of the 'pro-life' movement- I don't know of anyone who is 'pro-abortion' any more than I know anyone is 'pro-appendectomy'. I am for choice for women to have the choice for abortion just as I am for women having the choice to have an appendectomy.

Wow. You just drew a moral equivalency between an appendectomy and killing a child in the womb!]

Wow. You just objected to the moral equivalency between a legal appendectomy and a legal abortion that doesn't kill any child.

Like i said I hate the abortion debate- its just another religious debate- so I leave it to you- not the subject of this thread and I generally don't engage you fanatics.

Wow. You just objected to the moral equivalency of a woman making her own choice of how to handle the medical conditions affecting her health.

Like i said I hate the abortion debate- its just another religious debate- so I leave it to you- not the subject of this thread and I generally don't engage you fanatics

It is not a religious debate in my opinion, it is one of science.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

And it wouldn't matter.

Muslims should also make the fucking cake.

Religion no matter the god is just bs reason to discriminate.

So an individual has the right to force a person to ignore their religious beliefs.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

And her baby that may only have a few weeks to live if she decides it is not convenient to have it right now

Babies aren’t generally aborted simply for “convenience”. They’re aborted because of money. 80% of women who have abortions are living below or just slightly above the poverty line. More than half of them are married or in a committed relationship, and most already have one or more children.

Republicans oppose every measure that would enable poor women to continue their pregnancies: higher minimum wages, mandated maternity leaves, job protections for pregnant women, access to health care, and access to licensed, subsidized Day care.

In Canada we have all of these things and one other thing - free abortions. Despite the free abortions, our rate of abortion is half what yours is. Coincidence? I think not.

So when you’re ready to talk about what you’re prepared to do to encourage poor women to have those babies, let me know.

Yeah I really hate the abortion debate- because it is really a religious debate- and no one ever 'wins' an argument about religion.

I think all of us would be happy for there to be less abortions. Despite the rhetoric of the 'pro-life' movement- I don't know of anyone who is 'pro-abortion' any more than I know anyone is 'pro-appendectomy'. I am for choice for women to have the choice for abortion just as I am for women having the choice to have an appendectomy.

Wow. You just drew a moral equivalency between an appendectomy and killing a child in the womb!]

Wow. You just objected to the moral equivalency between a legal appendectomy and a legal abortion that doesn't kill any child.

Like i said I hate the abortion debate- its just another religious debate- so I leave it to you- not the subject of this thread and I generally don't engage you fanatics.

Wow. You just objected to the moral equivalency of a woman making her own choice of how to handle the medical conditions affecting her health.

Like i said I hate the abortion debate- its just another religious debate- so I leave it to you- not the subject of this thread and I generally don't engage you fanatics

For me none of these debates has anything to do with religion. No one has the right to force someone to ignore their religious beliefs. Abortion is a person who doesn't want to take responsibility for their personal decisions, not to mention murdering an innocent

 

[Peach]

Public businesses only, keep you business private and avoid those you wish to avoid::

2 U.S.C. §2000a(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.

42 U.S.C. § 2000a(c) (c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce, and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any state or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

42 U.S.C. § 2000a(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

 

[WorldWatcher]

Public businesses only, keep you business private and avoid those you wish to avoid::

2 U.S.C. §2000a(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.

42 U.S.C. § 2000a(c) (c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce, and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any state or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

42 U.S.C. § 2000a(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

Just to repeat.

The bakers case has nothing to do with Federal Public Accommodation laws. The bakers would found to be in violation of STATE Public Accommodation laws so the United States Code doesn't apply.



>>>>

 

[Political Junky]

Ever wonder what would happen if someone asked a Muslim bakery to make a gay wedding cake? Wonder no more.

About the same as Right Wing Christians.

 

[bripat9643]

And it wouldn't matter.

Muslims should also make the fucking cake.

Religion no matter the god is just bs reason to discriminate.

Anyone should be allowed to choose who they serve and what they serve. Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional as they give one group more protection than another


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

lol, so you can refuse blacks and disabled people? Please show me where in the constitutions it is unconstitutional. idiot.

Equal protections in the 14th amendment.

You are entitled to equal protection of the law, not from the preferences of your fellow citizens.

 

[bripat9643]

Jesus said, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Gee, I have never heard of a Christian baker turning away someone getting married for the second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth time.

Ever.

The "Christian" bakers are endorsing adultery. Every day.

These hypocrites are fake Christians.

The First Amendment doesn't make you the aribiter of what is Christian and what isn't.