If selling a gay couple a wedding cake means a "Christian" baker participated in the marriage...

[Conservative65]

Except that they had to ride in the back of ALL the busses. Inconvenient detail, but true. To make a valid comparison, you'd have to have ONE bus driver who made them ride in the back, while the others let them sit wherever they wanted.

Um, no, it's actually a valid comparison. Some people actually enforced the law, some were a little more lax. The guy who called the cops on Rosa Parks was a specifically nasty turd.

She violated the law. Why do you support breaking the laws?

 

[Crepitus]

One thing to consider, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever been killed with a wedding cake.

To the best of my knowledge, a gun has never killed anyone.

Damn dude, that's one long shakey semantic limb you are climbing out on.

 

[Silhouette]

Liberals must still believe in slavery if they want people to be forced to work for people against their will. I guess it’s not surprising as they started slavery.

Nope. If the homophobic baker doesn't want to bake a cake for gay people, they can do something else in life besides be bakers.

That’s not what the Court found nor indicated.

Behaviors aren’t race. Brace yourself...

 

[Conservative65]

One thing to consider, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever been killed with a wedding cake.

To the best of my knowledge, a gun has never killed anyone.

Damn dude, that's one long shakey semantic limb you are climbing out on.

Nothing to do with semantics. It has to do with the fact that no gun have ever killed anyone. Can you provide a video of a gun growing arms/legs, walking to where it fires, and pulling its own trigger?

Better luck next time, BOY.

 

[WEATHER53]

Liberals must still believe in slavery if they want people to be forced to work for people against their will. I guess it’s not surprising as they started slavery.

Nope. If the homophobic baker doesn't want to bake a cake for gay people, they can do something else in life besides be bakers.

No, in fact, the cake seekers are the party who can go elsewhere.

 

[WEATHER53]

If you follow liberal thinking it’s pretty much the following:
Girl Scouts come to my door selling their cookies and I buy some
The Transgender Alliance comes to my door and I don’t buy their cookies. Liberals want to know what I’m thinking about not buying and buying and if it does not match their thoughts(feelings) then I should be in trouble.

 

[JoeB131]

She violated the law. Why do you support breaking the laws?

Because laws that are stupid and evil deserve to be violated...

Today Rosa is considered a hero.

 

[JoeB131]

That’s not what the Court found nor indicated.

Behaviors aren’t race. Brace yourself...

Why, you guys have already lost. Roberts is already being more moderate beause he knows that if the Court goes too far to the right, there will be reactions.

No, in fact, the cake seekers are the party who can go elsewhere.

Um, no. Commerce law MUST favor the consumer by definition. The burden is on the seller, not the buyer, to comply with the law.

Caveat Vendor!

 

[Silhouette]

Liberals must still believe in slavery if they want people to be forced to work for people against their will. I guess it’s not surprising as they started slavery.

Nope. If the homophobic baker doesn't want to bake a cake for gay people, they can do something else in life besides be bakers.

No, in fact, the cake seekers are the party who can go elsewhere.

Unless the rejection is about race or gender. But behavior, ideals, rituals? Yeah, nobody can force other people to promote those if they go against their moral structure.

That’s not what the Court found nor indicated.

Behaviors aren’t race. Brace yourself...

Why, you guys have already lost. Roberts is already being more moderate beause he knows that if the Court goes too far to the right, there will be reactions.

Moderates expect their moral structure to be respected and their 1st Amendment rights preserved. The reaction from the far left is irrelevant since moderates swing the elections. No worries there. And the conservatives on the Court know this from the reaction in 2016 to the "T" element of the LGBT cult forcing little girls in school to undress in front of deranged boys. That's a moderate rejection you'll never be able to bridge; not even by force...​

 

[JoeB131]

Unless the rejection is about race or gender. But behavior, ideals, rituals? Yeah, nobody can force other people to promote those if they go against their moral structure.

It's a fucking cake, dude.

It has nothing to do with 'ritual". Wedding Cakes aren't even a Christian thing, they are a pagan Roman Tradition. If they bakers wanted to be "Traditional", they should make cakes that look like dicks and vaginas, just like the Romans did.

Moderates expect their moral structure to be respected and their 1st Amendment rights preserved. The reaction from the far left is irrelevant since moderates swing the elections. No worries there. And the conservatives on the Court know this from the reaction in 2016

Uh, guy the Democrats won by 3 million votes in 2016 and 10 million votes in 2018... There's no OH MY GOD THE TRANNIES ARE COMING movement.

When Trump wrecks the economy this year, the GOP will be sent so far back into the corner we will never see them again, and you homophobes can go with them. If you are really lucky, we won't send you to Tolerance Camp.

 

[Silhouette]

Unless the rejection is about race or gender. But behavior, ideals, rituals? Yeah, nobody can force other people to promote those if they go against their moral structure.

It's a fucking cake, dude.

It has nothing to do with 'ritual". Wedding Cakes aren't even a Christian thing, they are a pagan Roman Tradition. If they bakers wanted to be "Traditional", they should make cakes that look like dicks and vaginas, just like the Romans did.

Actually a "gay wedding cake" is a ritual celebrating two males perverting the natural idea of marriage. It doesn't have to do with the bible. An atheist can object to participation in any ritual he finds morally offensive to his person. The 1st Amendment isn't going to be dissolved so the deviant sex addiction cult can force it's value system on others.

Rituals, ideals or behaviors cannot be forced on others to promote. Informing the merchant that a product he produces will go to celebrate a repugnant ritual is key. Once informed, the merchant has the right to say no to any ritual he finds repulsive.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually a "gay wedding cake" is a ritual celebrating two males perverting the natural idea of marriage. It doesn't have to do with the bible. An atheist can object to participation in any ritual he finds morally offensive to his person. The 1st Amendment isn't going to be dissolved so the deviant sex addiction cult can force it's value system on others.

Rituals, ideals or behaviors cannot be forced on others to promote. Informing the merchant that a product he produces will go to celebrate a repugnant ritual is key. Once informed, the merchant has the right to say no to any ritual he finds repulsive.

I'm just laughing because the Ad Generator put a Gay Cruise advertisement on Sil's Post, which is kind of appropriate.

Okay, let's break this down.

Cakes aren't part of the ritual for straights or gays. They are mentioned nowhere in the bible.

Atheists can object all they want, but if they a running a public accommedation, they are still required to provide the services they offer.

Once informed, the mechant has the option of closing up shop and finding something else to do for a living, which is what we did to Memories Pizza and Melissa's Sweet Cakes.

 

[Silhouette]

Okay, let's break this down.

Cakes aren't part of the ritual for straights or gays.


Once informed, the mechant has the option of closing up shop and finding something else to do for a living, which is what we did to Memories Pizza and Melissa's Sweet Cakes.

1. Cakes are absolutely part of the nuptial ceremony/ritual

2. Once informed the merchant has the right to say "no" to participating in or contributing to a ritual, ideal or behavior he or she finds morally offensive.

This is how the Court will rule. It has already indicated this Sparky by telling you last time that a merchant cannot be punished for carrying his faith into his trade. Individuals of race or gender are actually born that way so they cannot be excluded. Behaviors, rituals and ideals are optional to contribute to.

So if not unruly, a woman, black guy, gay guy walks in and wants a cake, mentions no ritual it is connected to, they sell them the cake. If it's a wedding cake the gay guy still can just say "make a basic wedding cake" (he might be buying it for a normal couple). But once he says "make it Steve loves Bruce" or "two grooms" or "man loves man", that is in indication of a ceremony a Christian (or other) baker would/might find offensive.

 

[JoeB131]

1. Cakes are absolutely part of the nuptial ceremony/ritual

Really? Is the cake in the church? So is the chicken dance part of the ritual? What about the Hokey-Pokey?

You see how absurd you sound?

2. Once informed the merchant has the right to say "no" to participating in or contributing to a ritual, ideal or behavior he or she finds morally offensive.

This is how the Court will rule. It has already indicated this Sparky by telling you last time that a merchant cannot be punished for carrying his faith into his trade.

Again, the Court won't open that can of worms... Once you say it's okay to discriminate against gays because of "religion", then you say it's okay to discriminate against blacks or Mormons or Jews or anyone else you think is 'immoral' in your whacky religious view.

So if not unruly, a woman, black guy, gay guy walks in and wants a cake, mentions no ritual it is connected to, they sell them the cake. If it's a wedding cake the gay guy still can just say "make a basic wedding cake" (he might be buying it for a normal couple). But once he says "make it Steve loves Bruce" or "two grooms" or "man loves man", that is in indication of a ceremony a Christian (or other) baker would/might find offensive.

Okay, what if it's a black guy and a white chick, and the baker finds that morally offensive?

 

[hadit]

Except that they had to ride in the back of ALL the busses. Inconvenient detail, but true. To make a valid comparison, you'd have to have ONE bus driver who made them ride in the back, while the others let them sit wherever they wanted.

Um, no, it's actually a valid comparison. Some people actually enforced the law, some were a little more lax. The guy who called the cops on Rosa Parks was a specifically nasty turd.

No, not valid, as I showed. The law does NOT prevent all gay people from getting wedding cakes, so it fails right there.

 

[Silhouette]

Okay, what if it's a black guy and a white chick, and the baker finds that morally offensive?

Loving v Virginia said that race means they can marry. A man & woman as was allowed in that state.

 

[JoeB131]

No, not valid, as I showed. The law does NOT prevent all gay people from getting wedding cakes, so it fails right there.

And not every bus driver enforced the "You got to move back" rule when more white people showed up.

Loving v Virginia said that race means they can marry. A man & woman as was allowed in that state.

Obergefell said a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman. You have no leg to stand on.

 

[Silhouette]

Obergefell said a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman. You have no leg to stand on.

Except that Obergefell was an illegal Hearing because one of the Justices was required by law to recuse herself & didnt.. and a dozen other serious legal flaws in the rationale.

You can’t violate law to bind 300 million people against their will to a cult ideal.

 

[JoeB131]

Except that Obergefell was an illegal Hearing because one of the Justices was required by law to recuse herself & didnt.. and a dozen other serious legal flaws in the rationale.

Yes I'm sure you tell yourself that and it's not because of your irrational hatred of gay people.

Hopefully, they will find a treatment for your homophobia some time soon.

You can’t violate law to bind 300 million people against their will to a cult ideal.

You know what, most of those 300 million are just fine with gay folks. It's going to be homophobes like you who are increasingly in the minority.

Once again, stand on your desk tomorrow and scream out your opinions on gays out loud. Make sure you have a cardboard bankers box at the ready to clean out your desk.

 

[Silhouette]

OK Sparky, keep telling yourself that..