If Gays Are Allowed to Target and Discriminate Against Christian Businesses. . . .

[kaz]

Because in your world, religious people don't have freedoms, right? Since you probably dont believe the way they do, you feel they shouldn't have any protections under the law.

That is a gross misrepresentation of what I believe . I do indeed believe that religious beliefs and practices should have protection. However I do not believe that religion should be used as a weapon against those that the so called Christians like you disapprove of for political purposes

Lol, most people call me a conservative...I'm not, I'm more of a constitutionalist and I can understand how some would call me a Christian, after reading my posts here. Let's say that im still in the category of trying to figure out where my faith stands.

My point in this thread is that, in this instance, you can't protect one person's liberties without trampling on someone else's. The Baker felt lending his creativeness to the occasion would have been a contradiction to his faith. It was a religious observance, not discrimination. The Baker offered to sell them any cake already prepared, but he wouldn't, in his estimation, be a part of the event by making a product especially for the event.

You can't protect one person's liberties without trampling on someone else's? That is only true if you consider discrimination in the name of religious freedom a "liberty" Your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins.

But it wasn't discrimination. It was a religious observance. He didn't say he wasnt going to make the cake because he doesn't like gays, he said he didn't want to because it was against his beliefs. Theres a difference.

He didn't bake the cake BECAUSE they are gay. It doesn't matter whether he " likes " them or not. It is still discrimination. You can repeat bullshit as many times as you can without turning blue but it is still BULLSHIT

Yes, citizens of the United States are servants of government. I feel you. Oh, and go to hell, ...

 

[buttercup]

He didn't bake the cake BECAUSE they are gay. It doesn't matter whether he " likes " them or not. It is still discrimination. You can repeat bullshit as many times as you can without turning blue but it is still BULLSHIT

That is easily refuted, because he wasn't opposed to serving them. He just does not create artwork/messages that go against his conscience. He probably would've done the same thing to a straight customer who asked for a pornographic cake. It's his business, in my opinion he doesn't even need a reason to decline a particular job he does not want to take. Do you understand freedom of association? Freedom of conscience?

You are as authoritarian as it gets.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Not talking about a butcher who runs a meat market, in taking about a butcher that processes animals for people who bring them in. Under your stance, if I bring in 20 hogs and 50 live lobsters, they must process them for me.

No quite true.

If the business does not "process" hogs or lobsters for ANYONE, then there is not issue. However if the shop processed hogs for black people but refuse to provide the same service to white people, they would be in violation of the law.

If a baker doesn't sell wedding cakes to anyone, they are not inviolation of the law. However if they sell wedding cakes to white people but refuse to sell them to an interracial couple because of race, they would be in violation of the law.


Public Accommodation laws do not mandate what goods and services must be supplied, only that if the shop owner doe include them in their business model that goods and services can't be refused based on certain characteristics of the customer.



.>>>>

Ok, you're right, but her is a bad example.

How about this, I go to a Muslim baker and ask him to bake me a cake that states there is only one God, the God of Abraham.

There, that satisfies the situation almost verbatim.

I understand what you're trying to say, but your knowledge of religions is kind of sad.

Just so you know, Islam recognizes Abraham as a prophet

Yeah, my religion is bad, you are correct, but the point remains the same.

 

[Pop23]

You see liberal bigotry on display here already. In both cases, the Christian vendors were willing to do anything else except the one thing the gay couple wanted, and so the gay couple sued the Christian vendors. Heck, in the Mennonite case, the Mennonite couple even had gay employees. But, nope, not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis.

Yeah there was another water fountain right down the street. They could have just walked over to that one.

A public water fountain?

Could have been either

Definitely no on the public fountain.
Most people that dont agree with PA laws do not support discrimination by the govt.
However, most people that do support PA laws support discrimination from the govt.

Ever notice that said slippery slopes don’t exist (same sex marriage debates) now want to convince you that they do?

They are a confused bunch.

 

[Pop23]

You see liberal bigotry on display here already. In both cases, the Christian vendors were willing to do anything else except the one thing the gay couple wanted, and so the gay couple sued the Christian vendors. Heck, in the Mennonite case, the Mennonite couple even had gay employees. But, nope, not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis.

Yeah there was another water fountain right down the street. They could have just walked over to that one.

You can't force an artist to create a work of art he doesn't want to.

Those that try are looney

 

[ThisIsMe]

Not talking about a butcher who runs a meat market, in taking about a butcher that processes animals for people who bring them in. Under your stance, if I bring in 20 hogs and 50 live lobsters, they must process them for me.

No quite true.

If the business does not "process" hogs or lobsters for ANYONE, then there is not issue. However if the shop processed hogs for black people but refuse to provide the same service to white people, they would be in violation of the law.

If a baker doesn't sell wedding cakes to anyone, they are not inviolation of the law. However if they sell wedding cakes to white people but refuse to sell them to an interracial couple because of race, they would be in violation of the law.


Public Accommodation laws do not mandate what goods and services must be supplied, only that if the shop owner doe include them in their business model that goods and services can't be refused based on certain characteristics of the customer.



.>>>>

Ok, you're right, but her is a bad example.

How about this, I go to a Muslim baker and ask him to bake me a cake that states there is only one God, the God of Abraham.

There, that satisfies the situation almost verbatim.

I'm not really into religion but I think that Islam is one of the religions of Abraham

An Abrahamic religion is a religion whose followers believe in prophet Abraham and his descendants to hold an important role in human spiritual development. The best known Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Abrahamic religion - Simple English Wikipedia, the free ...
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion

I know, my knowledge of Islam is pretty weak for sure, but you know what my point was.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

He didn't bake the cake BECAUSE they are gay. It doesn't matter whether he " likes " them or not. It is still discrimination. You can repeat bullshit as many times as you can without turning blue but it is still BULLSHIT

That is easily refuted, because he wasn't opposed to serving them. He just does not create artwork/messages that go against his conscience. He probably would've done the same thing to a straight customer who asked for a pornographic cake. It's his business, in my opinion he doesn't even need a reason to decline a particular job he does not want to take. Do you understand freedom of association? Freedom of conscience?

You are as authoritarian as it gets.

Do you understand laws against discrimination? You are as ignorant as it gets.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ok then, so then we can have gay owned businesses making cakes with anti gay Bible verses, Muslim butchers processing pork products, and anti gun stationary stores printing pro gun materials, right?

And we can have Buddhists going into a steak house demanding a vegetarian meal . We can have Japanese person going into an Italian restaurant demanding sushi. Right? Fucking stupid!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gays have every right to challenge bias. The problem is, defining the bias. In the case of the Baker, bias was found AGAINST the Baker and the decision was reversed. Look, there is no 3rd sex so.....claiming bias against a non-existing group will be based on BELIEF.....Just like religion is based on BELIEF. There is no provable, scientific proof of any 3rd sex.

What the fuck does a third sex have to do with this? Do you understand that homosexuality is not at gender identity issue? Apparently not. Holy fucking shit!!

 

[Slyhunter]

The gay couple were served. The baker was not willing to do what they wanted. Big difference.

No they weren't, the couple was refused service when they went for an appointment to order a wedding cake. There was never any discussion of design.


.>>>>

The baker said they could buy a cake. He just wouldn't design one for them.

"The Baker" needs to grow the fuck up and learn that he can't have everything his way all of the time. He needs to learn that other people have feelings and that it is not all about him. Most of all he, and the rest of you need to understand the real and true meaning of religious freedom. Hint- it is not about what other do and how they live.

Bottom line- he refused service based on sexual orientation. Fuck him.

You have no empathy for those who have differing opinions than your own. You are the one with the problem.

 

[Slyhunter]

Bullshit, the baker said he would've sold them a cake. He's sell anyone a cake. He just wouldn't decorate it to their instructions.

• He refused to make a gay cake, he did not refuse to sell a gay a cake.

Really? What exactly were their instructions?

He said, on Fox, that he would sell a cake to anyone who wants to buy it, but he's not going to design a cake for a gay wedding.

What was the design and how does it impinge on his religious freedom?

Doesn't matter what the design was. Could have been a plain sheet cake. The point is, he felt he was participating in the ceremony by using his creative skills in support of the event.

Too damned bad. he refused services in a place of public accommodation

That gay couple went out of their way to find a religious baker. They passed by tens of other bakers to reach this shop. They picked on this baker because he is religious. They had an agenda to wipe out religious people and their rights.

 

[Dragonlady]

Ok then, so then we can have gay owned businesses making cakes with anti gay Bible verses, Muslim butchers processing pork products

Do you have any idea how stupid that is? I'm sure that you don't . The gay guys who wanted a cake just wanted a fucking cake. They did not ask for any pro gay message on it.

But the Muslim butcher is the epitome of idiocy. Muslim butchers do not provide pork to anyone so it is not discrimination . That is like saying that a sushi restaurant could be sued for not serving Italian food. Is it remotely possible that you are so fucking out to lunch that you can't understand that?

Not talking about a butcher who runs a meat market, in taking about a butcher that processes animals for people who bring them in. Under your stance, if I bring in 20 hogs and 50 live lobsters, they must process them for me.

Bullshit! Same stupidity, different day. You're just trying to dig your way out of the hole that you dug for yourself. Not working. It's the same thing.

I'm not in a hole. Just trying to figure out how it's not a similar situation. Christian Baker is wrong, but Muslim meat processing ok?

Your Muslim analogy doesn’t work. The Muslim butcher wouldn’t process pork for anyone. He wouldn’t just refuse to butcher pigs for gay farmers.

The baker designs and sells wedding cakes, but only for customers he who he deems to be “moral” enough.

The SC was really clear. The ONLY reason they ruled for the baker is because the Colorado Tribunal violated HIS rights in the original hearing, mocking his religion and questioning his sincerity. Had they not done so, the baker would have lost his case on the merits of his violation of PA laws.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The gay couple were served. The baker was not willing to do what they wanted. Big difference.

No they weren't, the couple was refused service when they went for an appointment to order a wedding cake. There was never any discussion of design.


.>>>>

The baker said they could buy a cake. He just wouldn't design one for them.

"The Baker" needs to grow the fuck up and learn that he can't have everything his way all of the time. He needs to learn that other people have feelings and that it is not all about him. Most of all he, and the rest of you need to understand the real and true meaning of religious freedom. Hint- it is not about what other do and how they live.

Bottom line- he refused service based on sexual orientation. Fuck him.

You have no empathy for those who have differing opinions than your own. You are the one with the problem.

I have no empathy for bigots


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Really? What exactly were their instructions?

He said, on Fox, that he would sell a cake to anyone who wants to buy it, but he's not going to design a cake for a gay wedding.

What was the design and how does it impinge on his religious freedom?

Doesn't matter what the design was. Could have been a plain sheet cake. The point is, he felt he was participating in the ceremony by using his creative skills in support of the event.

Too damned bad. he refused services in a place of public accommodation

That gay couple went out of their way to find a religious baker. They passed by tens of other bakers to reach this shop. They picked on this baker because he is religious. They had an agenda to wipe out religious people and their rights.

Prove it . Prove that is why they went to this baker


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Leo123]

What the fuck does a third sex have to do with this? Do you understand that homosexuality is not at gender identity issue? Apparently not. Holy fucking shit!!

OK so there is no such thing as 'transgender' thanks for the clarification.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What the fuck does a third sex have to do with this? Do you understand that homosexuality is not at gender identity issue? Apparently not. Holy fucking shit!!

OK so there is no such thing as 'transgender' thanks for the clarification.

If you’re trying to convince me that you are as dumb as a rock you’re doing a good job of it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Natural Citizen]

And we can have Buddhists going into a steak house demanding a vegetarian meal . We can have Japanese person going into an Italian restaurant demanding sushi. Right? Fucking stupid!

Any time that any Individual or any group of Individuals walks into or onto anyone elses private property for any reason, including any given attempt at barter, they've made a biased decision to do so. They themselves have discriminated against someone else by choosing to attempt to do business with one place rather than another.

 

[Natural Citizen]

If you’re trying to convince me that you are as dumb as a rock you’re doing a good job of it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One might assume the same of you. Do you understand the concept of the Individual's right to his or her life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Do you know what that means? Do you understand the concept of coercion of man with regard to his labor? I for one, get the impression that you might not.

The federal government is not sovereign. It lacks just power to authorize or to empower any person, any group, or any organization to violate any Individual's rights to life, liberty, or any pursuit of happiness, including any of their supporting rights such as their rights to property or freedom of association.

You might think that the federal government has the power to send men with guns to force Individuals or groups of Individuals to relinquish their property to other Individuals or to other groups of Individuals who are of the confused impression that they're entitled to someone elses private property, but you are mistaken.

 

[Natural Citizen]

He's just another mealy mouthed, statist, if you ask me, folks.

He whines like one anyway.

 

[Leo123]

What the fuck does a third sex have to do with this? Do you understand that homosexuality is not at gender identity issue? Apparently not. Holy fucking shit!!

OK so there is no such thing as 'transgender' thanks for the clarification.

If you’re trying to convince me that you are as dumb as a rock you’re doing a good job of it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What the fuck does a third sex have to do with this? Do you understand that homosexuality is not at gender identity issue? Apparently not. Holy fucking shit!!

OK so there is no such thing as 'transgender' thanks for the clarification.

If you’re trying to convince me that you are as dumb as a rock you’re doing a good job of it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do homosexuals self-identify as 'transgender?' Hey, maybe they can make up some more alphabet-soup to identify themselves.