HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party

[Conservative65]

Well you don't speak for them. Don't even pretend that you do. Again, you're trying to make this about where they're better off. I'm not speaking to where they're better off. Let's assume they are better off here ... the question is -- was it worth their ancestors to endure hundreds of years of slavery?

Only liberal turds think government exists to implement their schemes to perfect society. There is no reason government has to force a business to serve people they don't want to serve. None. The fact that you object is not a reason. It's pure petulance.

Wow, finally some clarity. Turns out, as a conservative, you don't understand this nation was built on that "Liberal turd" premise.

If nothing else, you concede the forming of this nation was based on Liberal philosophies. Here, from the Declaration of Independence ... the government was to protect our inalienable rights ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,​

Not exactly. Problem is what many Liberals claim as rights simply aren't rights at all.

The problem with your use of the Declaration is that Liberals confuse pursuit of happiness as being the same as a guarantee.

The concept of how the government should function comes form the Constitution and it is anything but your version of Liberal. It may be Liberal but the powers granted to the federal government are of a traditional Liberal mindset, a.k.a Libertarian, not bleeding heart Liberal.

Governments do get their ability to government from the people who elect them. Problem is the people electing Liberals of today want those officials to secure things that aren't rights. Something isn't a right simply because someone wants it but can't have it. People have the right to vote. People have the right to not incriminate themselves in a court of law. People have a right to a fair and speedy trial. Marriage isn't a right. Welfare and food stamps aren't a right. Abortion isn't a right. Turds like you on the Supreme Court may seem to think so but the founding fathers would disagree.

Unfortunately, you're projecting your conservative biases onto me. I am not saying that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are guarantees. I am saying a function of the government, as clearly established by our founding fathers, was to ensure everyone has access to those inalienable rights. That doesn't mean they will achieve it nor does it say it's the government's job to ensure they achieve it. But the government is tasked to ensure they at least have access.

That's why it was imperative in the 60's to pass affirmative action. Without that, blacks would have continued to be denied access to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. They would not have had, nor could not have, the same level of education and job experience as many whites at the time. They did not have the same opportunities at the time. Had companies been allowed, many (especially ones run by racists) would have used lack of experience as the reason for not hiring blacks, whom they didn't actually want to hire. Blacks would still be fighting for opportunities to grant them access to pursue happiness.

Oh, and marriage is absolutely a right. It falls in line with the pursuit of happiness. Abortion is also a right. It's the woman's right to choose the destiny of her own body.

The problem is when someone isn't happy, Liberals make the claim they didn't have the opportunity to pursue it. When they aren't, Liberals want to sue the government to appease them especially certain groups.

Why is it wrong to use lack of experience to not hire anyone. It only seems to be a problem when blacks aren't hired. That's when claims of racism are thrown around as an excuse. White people are told to shut up and move along.

It was wrong to use lack of experience as an excuse not to hire blacks in the 60's because they were denied access to the same jobs and education as whites. It was not reasonable to suppress them for hundreds of years and then expect them to have the same level of qualifications overnight in 1964 because they finally won their civil rights.

Because racism was so interweaved in the fabric of our society, companies had to be forced to ensure blacks could get jobs and entry into schools even though they were less qualified. A separate argument could be made of how long that should last, but it was an absolute necessity at the time and a core function of our government to ensure blacks had the same access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as anyone else.

By claiming marriage is a right, you make it a guarantee of happiness. Not one single homo has ever been denied the ability to marry. Don't confuse limiting the extent of a right with denying it. Much like freedom of speech, there are things that people can't say as a limit to that free speech but it doesn't mean their right to free speech is being denied.

Again, you're projecting your conservative bias upon me. Not only is it not a guarantee of happiness, I stated it's not. But it can [edit: lead to happiness] which is what makes it a pursuit of happiness. You're the one who's project a right is a guarantee to happiness, not me.

And what makes it a pursuit of happiness is the opportunity to be bonded with the person you love for life. Gays are denied that. You point out they have the ability now to get married, but in reality, they don't have the ability (though they are getting it one state at a time) to marry the person they love. They are being denied the right to pursue happiness by the very government that was created to protect that right.

If abortion is a right and the sole choice of a woman, why do so many who make the choice to have kids they can't afford instead of abortion get to demand someone else pay for the choice you say is theirs alone. I'll give them a the choice as long as I get one on the same level to say no to feeding their damn kids when they can't. Since it's my money, shouldn't the choice to say no be one I have as that would deny me the pursuit of happiness if I didn't?

Now you are conflating their right to abortion with how it's paid for. Two separate discussions. Who pays for it does not diminish their rights.

So less experienced blacks should have been hired?

Since marriage itself is something you call a right, if they can marry, and they can, they get that right. Who is a separate issue. You are conflating the right you claim with who it is. Two separate things.

Who pays for the children or abortion is part of the discussion. If the woman wants the choice and chooses to have kids, she can pay for them or they can do without. She made the choice that produced the result.

 

[sealybobo]

In this case pay is given for services or goods.

Can I own a business and charge christians more?

Sure you can. As one of them, unlike the faggots, I'll simply take my business elsewhere. That's the difference between people with principles and whiny little bitches. The former simply move on and the latter demand people cater to them as a special class of spoiled brats.

I agree and I disagree. Should a business owner be allowed to deny a black?

Jeffrey Geiger was denied membership the the swank Detroit Athletic Club. Members said no. Maybe these restaurants should become private social clubs. Because a public business can't descriminate.

A black business should also be able to deny whites. I'm consistent.

A privately owned business doesn't become public unless it's publicly funded.

I hope this encloseourages blacks to start their own businesses and blacks to buy from them. I'll shop there too. That will bring whiteys prices down and they'll be begging gays and blacks to come back.

There's no way its legal to not serve someone because they are gay. Can they? Maybe on religions grounds?

How does starting your own business bring prices down?

If blacks stop going to home depot and instead shop at home boy depot it'll bring home depot prices down. That's what competition does.

 

[sealybobo]

I hope this encloseourages blacks to start their own businesses and blacks to buy from them. I'll shop there too. That will bring whiteys prices down and they'll be begging gays and blacks to come back.

There's no way its legal to not serve someone because they are gay. Can they? Maybe on religions grounds?

Since over 20% of blacks are unemployed, how are they going to get the money to start a business? Bet you support special loans to blacks so they can.

Don't worry about whitey. We've survived for a long time without relying on blacks.

Apparently it's legal for a homo to not serve someone wanting a cake. Once again, if a homo didn't want to serve me because I oppose same sex marriage, I'll go elsewhere and not whine about it. They don't. They demand acceptance and for others to do for them simply because they ask.

You've survived without blacks when? Before you enslaved them and had them and every other immigrant built america for you?

Since my family didn't come to the U.S. until around 1910, none of them had anything to do with enslaving people. Before coming as LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, they were peasants under the Russian czars. They came and helped build America. They didn't nor do their descendants, that means me, demand someone owes them anything as a result. We earned it and considered ourselves full Americans not hyphenated Americans. While my family history may be E. European, I don't consider myself European. I've never been to Europe much like most blacks have never been to any of the over 50 countries of Africa. While I may cook and eat ethnic food from recipes passed down from my grandmothers, I consider myself 100% American. My great grandparents, the generation that came from Europe also did the same. Don't think they weren't mistreated. Unlike immigrants from W. Europe, they didn't speak much English. Unlike immigrants today, they didn't demand they be taught in their language until they learned English. However, many blacks still consider themselves as much African as they do American based on the use of the politically correct term.

What? Your ancestors came to the U.S. willingly? How fortunate were they?

Don't think that where they came from was a cakewalk. If I recall correctly, and I do, the country of Liberia was established as a place for free blacks to either go back to Africa or to the continent of their ancestors. Since it isn't overpopulated, tells me many didn't want to go nor want to go now. What many blacks, and guilt ridden whites, want now is for blacks to be given reparations and/or rewarded with special treatment for what none living today experienced as a slave. Worse than that, they want white people to sit down, shut up, and be told how bad we are as a race for having done what we did including those like me who didn't take part in what white people are supposed to be ashamed of doing. Sorry, don't buy it.

Were still doing it. Your gandpappy didn't own a slave but he came here and in 1 generation his kid had it better than blacks.

 

[sealybobo]

Maybe reparations could be asked from countries that sold the slaves. Aren't they be equally responsible?

Wouldn't those countries have been run by black tribal chiefs at the time?

I don't see why that would be my problem. Just like I don't see how slavery should be my problem. Neither me, nor my family had nothing to do with it.

That's right you have something to do with it not nothing.

 

[sealybobo]

I hope this encloseourages blacks to start their own businesses and blacks to buy from them. I'll shop there too. That will bring whiteys prices down and they'll be begging gays and blacks to come back.

There's no way its legal to not serve someone because they are gay. Can they? Maybe on religions grounds?

Since over 20% of blacks are unemployed, how are they going to get the money to start a business? Bet you support special loans to blacks so they can.

Don't worry about whitey. We've survived for a long time without relying on blacks.

Apparently it's legal for a homo to not serve someone wanting a cake. Once again, if a homo didn't want to serve me because I oppose same sex marriage, I'll go elsewhere and not whine about it. They don't. They demand acceptance and for others to do for them simply because they ask.

Where do you get 20% unemployment for blacks from?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

From a true source that doesn't take out those that have quit looking for work but can work in order to make the numbers appear as something they aren't. You probably believe that the overall unemployment is what the Obama administration says it is. You sound like the typical ass kissing Liberal.

What's your source...?

Overall it's actually about 11 - 12%. For younger blacks seeking jobs, it's 25%. A record 12.2 million black aren't in the labor force. Even at 11 - 12%, it's double that of the overall claimed rate. Defend that.

No jobs in the hood.

 

[sealybobo]

Don't think that where they came from was a cakewalk. If I recall correctly, and I do, the country of Liberia was established as a place for free blacks to either go back to Africa or to the continent of their ancestors. Since it isn't overpopulated, tells me many didn't want to go nor want to go now. What many blacks, and guilt ridden whites, want now is for blacks to be given reparations and/or rewarded with special treatment for what none living today experienced as a slave. Worse than that, they want white people to sit down, shut up, and be told how bad we are as a race for having done what we did including those like me who didn't take part in what white people are supposed to be ashamed of doing. Sorry, don't buy it.

Fact is that slavery was the best thing that ever happened to the black race. The 40 million american blacks have a far better life than the blacks in africa. If anything blacks should pay reparations to whites.

My Greek grandparents left Greece because it sucked there. I wonder why blacks in our ghettos dont move to Canada Australia or to Africa. Or just move to a better city in America.

 

[Pogo]

Don't think that where they came from was a cakewalk. If I recall correctly, and I do, the country of Liberia was established as a place for free blacks to either go back to Africa or to the continent of their ancestors. Since it isn't overpopulated, tells me many didn't want to go nor want to go now. What many blacks, and guilt ridden whites, want now is for blacks to be given reparations and/or rewarded with special treatment for what none living today experienced as a slave. Worse than that, they want white people to sit down, shut up, and be told how bad we are as a race for having done what we did including those like me who didn't take part in what white people are supposed to be ashamed of doing. Sorry, don't buy it.

Fact is that slavery was the best thing that ever happened to the black race. The 40 million american blacks have a far better life than the blacks in africa. If anything blacks should pay reparations to whites.

My Greek grandparents left Greece because it sucked there. I wonder why blacks in our ghettos dont move to Canada Australia or to Africa. Or just move to a better city in America.

That's already how they got to Detroit and Chicago and Philadelphia etc.

Moving takes money. And a waiting "situation". It ain't easy for the most comfortable of us.
Now apply that to the poor.

Swear ta god, this site should have a "think" button before you get to "post reply".....

 

[Faun]

Dayam, you're ignorant. I trump your satirist with the Declaration of Independence.... "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

... and the U.S. Constitution ... "We the People of the United States...."

Where does either document claim "we are the government?"

The "we the people" claim in the Constitution is obviously false since a few men in Philadelphia wrote it, not all the people in the United States.

I can't help you are unable to comprehend the meaning of, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

The sentence structure indicates the author viewed government as something separate from "men" or "the people." Otherwise he wouldn't have said they are instituted "among men." Something that is "among men" is separate from the men.

You skewered yourself again. This whole libturd "we are the government" meme is just another scheme designed to fool people into believing that they agreed to be looted and coerced by the government. No one ever did.

The sentence reads, "Governments are instituted among Men." Exactly how fucking insane are you to thinkin Jefferson spoke of government separated from "men?"

I just told you that, moron. How stupid do I have to be not to agree with your wrong opinion? I take that to be a rhetorical question. Your opinion is obviously wrong. It ignores the meaning of "among."

I see ... so in your world of senility ... "among" means "separate."

Of course, I also recall your former struggles with the English language when you idiotically thought S. Carolina maintained complete legal jurisdiction over Fort Sumter because they maintained the right to serve process documents.

You make up your own definitions for words to suit your arguments.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I love it when liberal idiocy is used against liberals. The solution ? Let PRIVATE businesses refuse service to anyone they please.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES BLACK BAKERY OWNER LOSES LAWSUIT FORCED TO BAKE RACIST KKK CAKE Washington Weekly News

april 2 2015
A Georgia court recently found that a bakery owner who happened to be black was guilty of discrimination because she refused to bake a racist cake for an upcoming KKK gathering.

And this is not a joke.

A Georgia court has ruled in favor of Marshall Saxby, the Grand Wizard of a local KKK chapter, in a lawsuit stemming from two years ago when a local bakery denied him service.

The three judge panel concluded unanimously that the bakery had violated civil rights laws by discriminating against Saxby when they refused to sell him a cake for his organization’s annual birthday party.

Elaine Bailey, who owns Bailey Bakeries, refused to bake a cake for the ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs.

Saxby filed the lawsuit claiming that Bailey’s refusal of service was discriminatory against his religious beliefs.

Next thing ya know blacks, Jews, Catholics, and homosexuals will start showing up at cross-burning meetings when on public land.

"...Dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!" - "Ghostbusters"

 

[paperview]

• 

 

[Faun]

Seriously? You're that delusional that you think if they think it's better to live here now, that somehow translates into them believing slavery was worth it? That doesn't even make sense, Not even when employing conservative logic.

In reality, the two subjects have nothing to do with each other.

Actually they do. Interesting how that claim comes about when you've been proven as a retard.

Then let's see you explain it. Let's say they remain here because they like it better here. How does that translate into slavery was worth it? Why would they go to a country they've never been to, which they believe is not as good as the U.S., if they believed slavery wasn't worth it?

I've already explained it. You simply don't get it.

If slavery hadn't existed, they'd still be living like their ancestors or in tribal warfare like those still there.

No, you failed to establish the connection. You still fail. You basically just said they believe slavery was worth it because you say they do. If they believe slavery was not worth it, why would they move to a country they've never been to which they believe is not as good as the U.S.

I said they feel slavery is worth it because it gives them a place they apparently feel is better than where they would have been without slavery. They must like it here. They choose to stay. It offered them something that without they would still be living like 3rd world people.

Liking it here better, where most of them have lived their entire life, in no way indicates they think slavery was worth it. It only means they think it's better here. Conservatives and logic mix like oil and water.

 

[Faun]

I have no doubt you get that look for most of the darrhea that spills out of your mouth in general. Especially given your penchant for changing the subject when you're losing.

Asking them to speak a language of their claimed race is diarrhea? If they claim to be half African, how is expecting them to speak it wrong?

Lose to you? That's laughable.

You lost to yourself earlier. After disparaging me for using the BLS for unemployment data, you ultimately confessed you do too.

According to your logic, you're a typical ass kissing Liberal.

Can't be one of your lowlife kind since I'm not a Liberal.

I'm going by your own definition. When I posted a link to the BLS to prove your numbers were bullshit (which you've since admitted), you claimed I must be an ass kissing Liberal. Well we've since learned you use the same source as I do. Even when you tried to feign reliance upon other sources, we learned it was still based upon the same source I cited which inspired you to call someone an ass kissing Liberal.

Realize it or not, you called yourself and ass kissing Liberal. Who cares if you think of yourself as one or not. That's your description.

If you think I am, you must be the award winner for ass kissers. Pucker up. You must like the taste of chocolate ass and whatever Hillary has between her legs tastes like. You smooch them regularly. I don't.

I can only go by what you say and in response to me posting figures from the BLS, you said that makes me a typical ass kissing Liberal. Well how on Earth does that not apply to you too since you've revealed your source for employment statistics is also the BLS, same as mine??

 

[bripat9643]

Where does either document claim "we are the government?"

The "we the people" claim in the Constitution is obviously false since a few men in Philadelphia wrote it, not all the people in the United States.

I can't help you are unable to comprehend the meaning of, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

The sentence structure indicates the author viewed government as something separate from "men" or "the people." Otherwise he wouldn't have said they are instituted "among men." Something that is "among men" is separate from the men.

You skewered yourself again. This whole libturd "we are the government" meme is just another scheme designed to fool people into believing that they agreed to be looted and coerced by the government. No one ever did.

The sentence reads, "Governments are instituted among Men." Exactly how fucking insane are you to thinkin Jefferson spoke of government separated from "men?"

I just told you that, moron. How stupid do I have to be not to agree with your wrong opinion? I take that to be a rhetorical question. Your opinion is obviously wrong. It ignores the meaning of "among."

I see ... so in your world of senility ... "among" means "separate."

That's what it means for everyone who speaks English, moron.

a·mong

preposition: among; preposition: amongst

1. surrounded by; in the company of.
   "wild strawberries hidden among the roots of the trees"
   synonyms: surrounded by, in the company of, amid, in the middle of, with;More
   literaryamidst, in the midst of
   "you're among friends"
2. being a member or members of (a larger set)."he was among the first 29 students enrolled" synonyms: included in, one/some of, in the group/number of "a child was among the injured"

Of course, I also recall your former struggles with the English language when you idiotically thought S. Carolina maintained complete legal jurisdiction over Fort Sumter because they maintained the right to serve process documents.

You make up your own definitions for words to suit your arguments.

The title to the Ft Sumter property is on file in a building in Charleston. So who has legal jurisdiction over it?

Wrong twice in one post. That's pathetic.

 

[Faun]

I can't help you are unable to comprehend the meaning of, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

The sentence structure indicates the author viewed government as something separate from "men" or "the people." Otherwise he wouldn't have said they are instituted "among men." Something that is "among men" is separate from the men.

You skewered yourself again. This whole libturd "we are the government" meme is just another scheme designed to fool people into believing that they agreed to be looted and coerced by the government. No one ever did.

The sentence reads, "Governments are instituted among Men." Exactly how fucking insane are you to thinkin Jefferson spoke of government separated from "men?"

I just told you that, moron. How stupid do I have to be not to agree with your wrong opinion? I take that to be a rhetorical question. Your opinion is obviously wrong. It ignores the meaning of "among."

I see ... so in your world of senility ... "among" means "separate."

That's what it means for everyone who speaks English, moron.

a·mong

preposition: among; preposition: amongst

1. surrounded by; in the company of.
   "wild strawberries hidden among the roots of the trees"
   synonyms: surrounded by, in the company of, amid, in the middle of, with;More
   literaryamidst, in the midst of
   "you're among friends"
2. being a member or members of (a larger set)."he was among the first 29 students enrolled" synonyms: included in, one/some of, in the group/number of "a child was among the injured"

Of course, I also recall your former struggles with the English language when you idiotically thought S. Carolina maintained complete legal jurisdiction over Fort Sumter because they maintained the right to serve process documents.

You make up your own definitions for words to suit your arguments.

The title to the Ft Sumter property is on file in a building in Charleston. So who has legal jurisdiction over it?

Wrong twice in one post. That's pathetic.

Funny ... I don't see the word "separate" like you do in the definition of among.

As far as your idiocy over legal jurisdiction, it matters not who is in possession of the title. What matters is whose name is on it. You're so fucking retarded, you think you own my car if I hand you the title to it without signing it over to you.

 

[bripat9643]

The sentence structure indicates the author viewed government as something separate from "men" or "the people." Otherwise he wouldn't have said they are instituted "among men." Something that is "among men" is separate from the men.

You skewered yourself again. This whole libturd "we are the government" meme is just another scheme designed to fool people into believing that they agreed to be looted and coerced by the government. No one ever did.

The sentence reads, "Governments are instituted among Men." Exactly how fucking insane are you to thinkin Jefferson spoke of government separated from "men?"

I just told you that, moron. How stupid do I have to be not to agree with your wrong opinion? I take that to be a rhetorical question. Your opinion is obviously wrong. It ignores the meaning of "among."

I see ... so in your world of senility ... "among" means "separate."

That's what it means for everyone who speaks English, moron.

a·mong

preposition: among; preposition: amongst

1. surrounded by; in the company of.
   "wild strawberries hidden among the roots of the trees"
   synonyms: surrounded by, in the company of, amid, in the middle of, with;More
   literaryamidst, in the midst of
   "you're among friends"
2. being a member or members of (a larger set)."he was among the first 29 students enrolled" synonyms: included in, one/some of, in the group/number of "a child was among the injured"

Of course, I also recall your former struggles with the English language when you idiotically thought S. Carolina maintained complete legal jurisdiction over Fort Sumter because they maintained the right to serve process documents.

You make up your own definitions for words to suit your arguments.

The title to the Ft Sumter property is on file in a building in Charleston. So who has legal jurisdiction over it?

Wrong twice in one post. That's pathetic.

Funny ... I don't see the word "separate" like you do in the definition of among.

That's because you're a moron.

In the first example, strawberries aren't tree roots. So obviously we're talking about two separate things.

In the second example, how can something be a member of a larger set and be the larger set? A member of a larger set is something distinct from the larger set.

You are too fucking stupid for words to describe.

As far as your idiocy over legal jurisdiction, it matters not who is in possession of the title. What matters is whose name is on it. You're so fucking retarded, you think you own my car if I hand you the title to it without signing it over to you.

Wrong, moron. A title is a legal document subject to state jurisdiction. That's why it's on file at the state capital. The Federal government owned the property, just as I own my house. It didn't have legal jurisdiction over the property, just as I can't make the laws in force in my house. I can't make a law saying I can kill you if you're a guest on my property.

 

[BlindBoo]

Oh sweet baby Jesus.

How long?

Tribune Herald is for satirical purposes only.

KKK wins lawsuit against bakery for discrimination Tribune Herald

August 23, 2013

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Who pays for the children or abortion is part of the discussion. If the woman wants the choice and chooses to have kids, she can pay for them or they can do without. She made the choice that produced the result.

Damn right. When abortion was legalized in 1973 and men were excluded from the decision, all laws forcing men to pay child support should have been repealed.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

No jobs in the hood.

When you can't read or count or even tell time, nobody is gonna hire you. That's the black dilemma.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Geeze Louise... has the world gone mad?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

. I wonder why blacks in our ghettos dont move to Canada Australia or to Africa. Or just move to a better city in America.

They've already moved to states that give the best welfare. That's all blacks care about.