Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Says who?The "go another baker" thing doesn't fly. It puts the onus on the customer when it is the proprietor whose decision it was and who is totally responsible. It is not the responsibility of discrimination victims to go off quietly with their tails tucked between their legs.
If I want a ham sandwich, I know i can't go to a jewish deli. Moreover, I don't expect to get one at a Jewish deli.
So instead of the person having to find another baker for a non-timely, non-essential, contracted service, the solution is to fine into oblivion the offender, because he/she violated Lysistrata's "religion" of FUCK RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BECAUSE I HATE THEM.
We all know who the real hater is here.....
How so? We have to distinguish between who, and what religion. The term "religious people" is entirely generic, whether we are speaking of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, and whatever else. They are all separated into various sects.
What is your obsession with your caps lock?
Christians are the ones being gunned for because they are the easiest target for identity politics driven progs.
View attachment 265076
Churches are not businesses nor do they have business licenses. In fact, they get special rights...even tax exemptions.It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.
Yes, because not being able to bake for a living because of a few specific, non essential, non nessasary contracted transactions is totally fucking fair.
The law should be made to impact what is a compelling government interest, not trivial shit like this.
And I notice you danced around my reference to Plessey.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.
So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?
Discrimination has to have some harm to it to be a compelling government interest. and when it comes to Rights, "correcting" the harm has to be done as gently as possible.
The correct solution would be to make them State their policies up front, via a sign, or on their website.
Where does the 1st amendment say only Churches have the right to free exercise, and not individuals?
Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or limited to when you are sitting in a house of worship.
You are the one who brought up churches....your exact words "So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?" I answered you...and now you move the goalposts because you had no rebuttal.Churches are not businesses nor do they have business licenses. In fact, they get special rights...even tax exemptions.It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.
Yes, because not being able to bake for a living because of a few specific, non essential, non nessasary contracted transactions is totally fucking fair.
The law should be made to impact what is a compelling government interest, not trivial shit like this.
And I notice you danced around my reference to Plessey.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.
So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?
Discrimination has to have some harm to it to be a compelling government interest. and when it comes to Rights, "correcting" the harm has to be done as gently as possible.
The correct solution would be to make them State their policies up front, via a sign, or on their website.
Where does the 1st amendment say only Churches have the right to free exercise, and not individuals?
Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or limited to when you are sitting in a house of worship.
I think you are describing an inevitable process--obviously..the culture will lag far behind the law..and revisionist movements will keep cropping up.The Baker..always with the Baker--Here is the thing...The plaintiff and the defendant..in this case..knew each other...I think the plaintiff deliberately set the whole thing up..and the Baker played into their hands.
A tale of one Attention Whore and 2 Drama Queens!
All the baker had to do was claim scheduling problems and refer them to another baker.
All this 'standing on principle' and such tripe, ruined his business. He decided to go that route.
He has let himself be used..by people that do not give a damn about him--his choice.
Do I think the Baker had the right to refuse to bake or decorate a cake..sure he did.
But he could have handled it far better for all concerned.
A wedding cake is not an essential service that the denial of which would constitute an egregious hardship. If he had been the only Baker in 100 miles..then maybe.
Yeah, that's the slightly gentler, slightly more intelligent version of the same dog shit argument. If he can't muster the respect for his customers, he deserved to go out of business, and nothing else in that non-argument cuts the mustard. Not least, it requires us to forget the centuries of legal discrimination that the Christer Taliban want back. The baker is still free to worship his gawd, he's still free to follow "love thy neighbor" as best he can, and he has as much of an argument as have you, I am sorry to say, which is none. This is not at its core about "hardship". It's about the culture war following Obergefell, which the Taliban try to reverse by other means: "If we can't denigrate their unions any longer and have to accept they can get married, we're taking our revenge by other means, that is, express disrespect towards Those people." That's all this is about, and one has to make a strenuous effort not to see it. It really pains me to see you chime in, if halfheartedly.
This is a gay wedding cake.Are you saying a wedding cake is like a 'dick' cake?The Irony of a group crying about gays getting "special rights"......getting special rights.I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.
How is the gay person's wedding stopped in any way by having to go somewhere else for a cake?
You want protection from having your feeewwwings hurt by hurting the feewwings (or fining them thousands of dollars) of someone else.
Government doesn't have this job. Stand up for yourself, you gutless hack.
In a lot of cities, there are bakeries that specialize in baking cakes shaped like people's private parts, and they take orders to whatever specifications that the perverted cake eaters want.
Are regular bakeries wrong for not baking these special cakes? Or should they be forced to bake a cake shaped like someone's keister? This gay wedding cake thing is very similar, its a specialized field that offends a lot of people
A Gay Wedding cake certainly is. A lot of bakers would have moral objections to baking a "dick cake" just like they would a Gay Wedding cake. Oftentimes, its the same people too.
So you object when someone has a problem with a business breaking business law going to the government for recourse....does that protection from the law only apply to christians?Victimhood...part and parcelThe "go another baker" thing doesn't fly. It puts the onus on the customer when it is the proprietor whose decision it was and who is totally responsible. It is not the responsibility of discrimination victims to go off quietly with their tails tucked between their legs.
If I want a ham sandwich, I know i can't go to a jewish deli. Moreover, I don't expect to get one at a Jewish deli.
So instead of the person having to find another baker for a non-timely, non-essential, contracted service, the solution is to fine into oblivion the offender, because he/she violated Lysistrata's "religion" of FUCK RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BECAUSE I HATE THEM.
We all know who the real hater is here.....
How so? We have to distinguish between who, and what religion. The term "religious people" is entirely generic, whether we are speaking of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, and whatever else. They are all separated into various sects.
What is your obsession with your caps lock?
Christians are the ones being gunned for because they are the easiest target for identity politics driven progs.
I'm sure your goon squads will go for the others sooner or later.
No, running to the government because someone didn't want to sell you a contracted cake, and asked you to go somewhere else is the pinnacle of victimhood,.
I'm still here, my friend. Not running away at all. Simply acknowledging you investing a great deal in this humor. Okey Dokey.You are investing a great deal here. Whatever.That doesn't change, just reaffirms the pattern.It is always fascinating how CRC type arguments having anything to do with gay people always ends up boiling down to talking about the gay sex act......waaaaaaay more than any gay people talk about it.
Figures you can't get the running jokes between me and MDK.
How do people like you go through life without a sense of humor?
MDK, are you offended?
yep, you have no measurable sense of humor.
Run away like you usually do when you've run out of the same shit to bitch about.
About time for you to whine about me having to "do something about it" besides posting on this board.
You are tiresome and predictable.
They are a grievance industry, squarely planted in victimhood, and constantly seeking redress for their addled emotions.Victimhood...part and parcelAgain, just because you sell something doesn't mean you lose your Right to Free Exercise.
Sorry, but just going to another baker is the right move here, unless you have an axe to grind.
We know YOU have an axe to grind, a tiny, little useless axe to grind.
The "go another baker" thing doesn't fly. It puts the onus on the customer when it is the proprietor whose decision it was and who is totally responsible. It is not the responsibility of discrimination victims to go off quietly with their tails tucked between their legs.
If I want a ham sandwich, I know i can't go to a jewish deli. Moreover, I don't expect to get one at a Jewish deli.
So instead of the person having to find another baker for a non-timely, non-essential, contracted service, the solution is to fine into oblivion the offender, because he/she violated Lysistrata's "religion" of FUCK RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BECAUSE I HATE THEM.
We all know who the real hater is here.....
How so? We have to distinguish between who, and what religion. The term "religious people" is entirely generic, whether we are speaking of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, and whatever else. They are all separated into various sects.
What is your obsession with your caps lock?
Christians are the ones being gunned for because they are the easiest target for identity politics driven progs.
I'm sure your goon squads will go for the others sooner or later.
Do you know of any cases where a muslim baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? How about a Hindu baker? A Jewish baker? Did you consider that it just might be christian bakers (and only a very few) who are trying to get special protection to discriminate in their business against gays?Says who?If I want a ham sandwich, I know i can't go to a jewish deli. Moreover, I don't expect to get one at a Jewish deli.
So instead of the person having to find another baker for a non-timely, non-essential, contracted service, the solution is to fine into oblivion the offender, because he/she violated Lysistrata's "religion" of FUCK RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BECAUSE I HATE THEM.
We all know who the real hater is here.....
How so? We have to distinguish between who, and what religion. The term "religious people" is entirely generic, whether we are speaking of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, and whatever else. They are all separated into various sects.
What is your obsession with your caps lock?
Christians are the ones being gunned for because they are the easiest target for identity politics driven progs.
View attachment 265076
Every single person with an IQ over 70 who can watch pathetic Leftists do what they do.
None of these folks would dare go into Muslim enclave and ask for any of this just ask the peaceful Christians for cake and then take them to court over and over and over like the absolute bullies they are.
It's sad. Pathetic.
Churches are not businesses nor do they have business licenses. In fact, they get special rights...even tax exemptions.It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.
Yes, because not being able to bake for a living because of a few specific, non essential, non nessasary contracted transactions is totally fucking fair.
The law should be made to impact what is a compelling government interest, not trivial shit like this.
And I notice you danced around my reference to Plessey.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.
So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?
Discrimination has to have some harm to it to be a compelling government interest. and when it comes to Rights, "correcting" the harm has to be done as gently as possible.
The correct solution would be to make them State their policies up front, via a sign, or on their website.
Where does the 1st amendment say only Churches have the right to free exercise, and not individuals?
Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or limited to when you are sitting in a house of worship.
Special rights because....christian.Churches are not businesses nor do they have business licenses. In fact, they get special rights...even tax exemptions.It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.Yes, because not being able to bake for a living because of a few specific, non essential, non nessasary contracted transactions is totally fucking fair.
The law should be made to impact what is a compelling government interest, not trivial shit like this.
And I notice you danced around my reference to Plessey.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.
So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?
Discrimination has to have some harm to it to be a compelling government interest. and when it comes to Rights, "correcting" the harm has to be done as gently as possible.
The correct solution would be to make them State their policies up front, via a sign, or on their website.
Where does the 1st amendment say only Churches have the right to free exercise, and not individuals?
Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or limited to when you are sitting in a house of worship.
Remember this, Marty, and never forget.
It isn't the "Freedom to worship(inside a church building)", but freedom of religion.
And religion is what people live, and why we had the cases of religious groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby, objecting to being forced to pay for abortions. Religion extends far beyond what happens in the pews.
Do you know of any cases where a muslim baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? How about a Hindu baker? A Jewish baker? Did you consider that it just might be christian bakers (and only a very few) who are trying to get special protection to discriminate in their business against gays?Says who?How so? We have to distinguish between who, and what religion. The term "religious people" is entirely generic, whether we are speaking of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, and whatever else. They are all separated into various sects.
What is your obsession with your caps lock?
Christians are the ones being gunned for because they are the easiest target for identity politics driven progs.
View attachment 265076
Every single person with an IQ over 70 who can watch pathetic Leftists do what they do.
None of these folks would dare go into Muslim enclave and ask for any of this just ask the peaceful Christians for cake and then take them to court over and over and over like the absolute bullies they are.
It's sad. Pathetic.
As I said before....wait for the day when some christian business owner "claims" they don't have to follow safety or health laws for religious reasons.Churches are not businesses nor do they have business licenses. In fact, they get special rights...even tax exemptions.It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.Yes, because not being able to bake for a living because of a few specific, non essential, non nessasary contracted transactions is totally fucking fair.
The law should be made to impact what is a compelling government interest, not trivial shit like this.
And I notice you danced around my reference to Plessey.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.
So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?
Discrimination has to have some harm to it to be a compelling government interest. and when it comes to Rights, "correcting" the harm has to be done as gently as possible.
The correct solution would be to make them State their policies up front, via a sign, or on their website.
Where does the 1st amendment say only Churches have the right to free exercise, and not individuals?
Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or limited to when you are sitting in a house of worship.
So the entire adult population of the U.S. has an individual right to the free exercise of religion? This is a Pandora's Box that you don't want to open.
How do you discuss anything with a rube who has a MAGA hat.As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.
Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender
Our wwi Nazi group name and too dumb to know it,
Or maybe he does???
Special rights because....christian.Churches are not businesses nor do they have business licenses. In fact, they get special rights...even tax exemptions.It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.
So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?
Discrimination has to have some harm to it to be a compelling government interest. and when it comes to Rights, "correcting" the harm has to be done as gently as possible.
The correct solution would be to make them State their policies up front, via a sign, or on their website.
Where does the 1st amendment say only Churches have the right to free exercise, and not individuals?
Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or limited to when you are sitting in a house of worship.
Remember this, Marty, and never forget.
It isn't the "Freedom to worship(inside a church building)", but freedom of religion.
And religion is what people live, and why we had the cases of religious groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby, objecting to being forced to pay for abortions. Religion extends far beyond what happens in the pews.
It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.The government simply enforces the law; if they didn't, we would have anarchy. Being religious doesn't make you special. You cannot break the law because of it.
So Southern States were just enforcing Plessey and Jim Crow?
Sorry, but allowing a Religious exemption for a non-critical, non-timely, contracted service will not result in anarchy. Forcing them to bake or else, however is a pretty good step towards tyranny.
The whole point is they SHOULDN'T have to break the law, because the law in questions shouldn't be applied to them.
Cripes, you are just as tone deaf as body when it comes to running behind the law's skirt.
Yes, because not being able to bake for a living because of a few specific, non essential, non nessasary contracted transactions is totally fucking fair.
The law should be made to impact what is a compelling government interest, not trivial shit like this.
And I notice you danced around my reference to Plessey.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.
If it were simple the SC would have ruled on it last time Masterpiece came up. They did not; they punted. Now we have an even more conservative court. There's nothing simple about it, which is why it went up to the SC in the first place. It's non-discrimination laws vs. first amendment religious Constitutional rights.
You can't give any examples can you? Because it hasn't happened. Seems to be that it's fundie christians who want the special right to refuse service to law-abiding, tax-paying citizens because of a so-called religious belief that isn't even in their bible.Do you know of any cases where a muslim baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? How about a Hindu baker? A Jewish baker? Did you consider that it just might be christian bakers (and only a very few) who are trying to get special protection to discriminate in their business against gays?Says who?Christians are the ones being gunned for because they are the easiest target for identity politics driven progs.
View attachment 265076
Every single person with an IQ over 70 who can watch pathetic Leftists do what they do.
None of these folks would dare go into Muslim enclave and ask for any of this just ask the peaceful Christians for cake and then take them to court over and over and over like the absolute bullies they are.
It's sad. Pathetic.
Gay activists won't do that, will they? Now seriously: you think Islamic bakers, caterers and etc. are really ready to serve the gay community?
But again, the gay activists aren't about to "expose" Islam. Mostly because they're total cowards. Also because "diversity"
You really believe that Adam and Eve stuff? Do you also believe the Earth is only 6000 years old?Special rights because....christian.Churches are not businesses nor do they have business licenses. In fact, they get special rights...even tax exemptions.So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?
Discrimination has to have some harm to it to be a compelling government interest. and when it comes to Rights, "correcting" the harm has to be done as gently as possible.
The correct solution would be to make them State their policies up front, via a sign, or on their website.
Where does the 1st amendment say only Churches have the right to free exercise, and not individuals?
Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or limited to when you are sitting in a house of worship.
Remember this, Marty, and never forget.
It isn't the "Freedom to worship(inside a church building)", but freedom of religion.
And religion is what people live, and why we had the cases of religious groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby, objecting to being forced to pay for abortions. Religion extends far beyond what happens in the pews.
Its not a "Special" rite at all, just a recognition that Christians believe Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden
Toppers aren't cool anymore, huh?This is a gay wedding cake.Are you saying a wedding cake is like a 'dick' cake?The Irony of a group crying about gays getting "special rights"......getting special rights.
How is the gay person's wedding stopped in any way by having to go somewhere else for a cake?
You want protection from having your feeewwwings hurt by hurting the feewwings (or fining them thousands of dollars) of someone else.
Government doesn't have this job. Stand up for yourself, you gutless hack.
In a lot of cities, there are bakeries that specialize in baking cakes shaped like people's private parts, and they take orders to whatever specifications that the perverted cake eaters want.
Are regular bakeries wrong for not baking these special cakes? Or should they be forced to bake a cake shaped like someone's keister? This gay wedding cake thing is very similar, its a specialized field that offends a lot of people
A Gay Wedding cake certainly is. A lot of bakers would have moral objections to baking a "dick cake" just like they would a Gay Wedding cake. Oftentimes, its the same people too.as is this one.
and another one.
A couple of points.....Not that many people put figures on top of their wedding cakes anymore....and the cake is not part of the actual wedding ceremony in any wedding I've been to....they are something for the reception.
