Leftists harassing Christian baker AGAIN

[DandyDonovan]

It is not the requirement of an american citizen to ignore their own morals and their own right to free exercise without a compelling government interest. Even in those cases government has to use the least restrictive method of resolving the issue.

This incident was a trap, because the person in question could have just asked for the cake, but went on to explain why the cake was to be made as such. And when the baker denied the cake requested by the Church of Satan people, (Satan blowing a dildo) he showed his consistency on the matter of his beliefs.

Again, non-timely, non-nessasary, contracted services do not meet the requirement of a compelling government interest.

But for people like you it isn't about tolerance, it's about forced acceptance via government fiat.

What small miserable people you must be.

There are compelling state interests in facilitating commerce and in eradicating discrimination. Everybody is "forced" to do something by a government entity. There are no exceptions.
I, taxpayer, was forced to pay for providing services to people who accepted tax exemptions, even though they were de facto political parties, to pay for "abstinence education," including obscenely telling young people that sex made them dirty like used chewing gum on the floor, the invasion of Iraq, etc. Who do you think was forced to pay for that moron jeffress to go to Jerusalem to shame the American people at the opening of the unnecessary embassy? Who do you think is forced to pay salaries to trump and his troop of whores like sanders, devos, huber?

Now the orange whore wants us taxpayers to pay for his wall, even though the 'ho said that the Mexicans would pay for it.

Moreover, we don't know how many Americans were forced to give birth by government fiat.

We, The People, have always lived under government fiat.

There is no compelling interest when a single baker doesn't want to do a single type of transaction. If they were the only baker for 100 miles, or if all the bakers in an area decided to do the same thing, then government would probably have an interest. Even then what the government should do is require the cake to be baked without anything that would indicate the position the baker found offensive.

And that you have to go beyond the crux of this argument to rant "ORANGE MAN BAD" shows you have no real argument.

You still are trying to transfer responsibility onto unsuspecting consumers from licensed and incorporated business people who know, or should know, the rules for doing business in this country. Why should the consumers waste their time and gas driving around?

Some people have to go to local government agencies, like people seeking marriage licenses. Some of them met up with that bitch who refused to do her job and sent them driving around. There is no evidence that the state ever reimbursed these people for their time, effort, and gas.

For consumer goods, like cakes, I have done some searching around, too. I have not seen one advertisement by bakers that mentioned on their websites that there were some restrictions on what they offered. They lied on their websites. One said that their "romantic" location was the perfect place to hold a special occasion, then refused to book a same-sex occasion, proving that their advertisement was a lie.

Again, any rules that violate the constitution are not viable.

And I don't see in the constitution where people are guaranteed what they want from other citizens.

And government is a different story, not relevant to this discussion.

Your issue is you probably think religious people are crazy, and since you can't empathize with them, they can go fuck themselves.

LIke most progressives, it's all about "me me me"

Your issue is you probably think religious people are crazy, and since you can't empathize with them, they can go fuck themselves.

Nope. Not in 66 years, until these crazy bitches showed up trying to be "religious" with some "religion" that they make up all the time and feel some bizarre need to spread all over general society. Before this time, religious people had dignity, and each religion let everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof, alone.

Apparently, you think that I should support ISIS. I don't.

I definately think that dumb old hippy turned authoritarians like you need to hurry up and die off so the rest of us can try to reign in the government.

 

[Lysistrata]

There are compelling state interests in facilitating commerce and in eradicating discrimination. Everybody is "forced" to do something by a government entity. There are no exceptions.
I, taxpayer, was forced to pay for providing services to people who accepted tax exemptions, even though they were de facto political parties, to pay for "abstinence education," including obscenely telling young people that sex made them dirty like used chewing gum on the floor, the invasion of Iraq, etc. Who do you think was forced to pay for that moron jeffress to go to Jerusalem to shame the American people at the opening of the unnecessary embassy? Who do you think is forced to pay salaries to trump and his troop of whores like sanders, devos, huber?

Now the orange whore wants us taxpayers to pay for his wall, even though the 'ho said that the Mexicans would pay for it.

Moreover, we don't know how many Americans were forced to give birth by government fiat.

We, The People, have always lived under government fiat.

There is no compelling interest when a single baker doesn't want to do a single type of transaction. If they were the only baker for 100 miles, or if all the bakers in an area decided to do the same thing, then government would probably have an interest. Even then what the government should do is require the cake to be baked without anything that would indicate the position the baker found offensive.

And that you have to go beyond the crux of this argument to rant "ORANGE MAN BAD" shows you have no real argument.

You still are trying to transfer responsibility onto unsuspecting consumers from licensed and incorporated business people who know, or should know, the rules for doing business in this country. Why should the consumers waste their time and gas driving around?

Some people have to go to local government agencies, like people seeking marriage licenses. Some of them met up with that bitch who refused to do her job and sent them driving around. There is no evidence that the state ever reimbursed these people for their time, effort, and gas.

For consumer goods, like cakes, I have done some searching around, too. I have not seen one advertisement by bakers that mentioned on their websites that there were some restrictions on what they offered. They lied on their websites. One said that their "romantic" location was the perfect place to hold a special occasion, then refused to book a same-sex occasion, proving that their advertisement was a lie.

Again, any rules that violate the constitution are not viable.

And I don't see in the constitution where people are guaranteed what they want from other citizens.

And government is a different story, not relevant to this discussion.

Your issue is you probably think religious people are crazy, and since you can't empathize with them, they can go fuck themselves.

LIke most progressives, it's all about "me me me"

Your issue is you probably think religious people are crazy, and since you can't empathize with them, they can go fuck themselves.

Nope. Not in 66 years, until these crazy bitches showed up trying to be "religious" with some "religion" that they make up all the time and feel some bizarre need to spread all over general society. Before this time, religious people had dignity, and each religion let everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof, alone.

Apparently, you think that I should support ISIS. I don't.

I definately think that dumb old hippy turned authoritarians like you need to hurry up and die off so the rest of us can try to reign in the government.

"[R]ein in the goverment from what, exactly? The trump government is all about constraining Americans and our rights. Moreover, the trump administration has welcomed the right-wing "Christian" cults into its sphere to attack the rights of Americans. Care to explain? What are these thugs doing in government?

 

[DandyDonovan]

There is no compelling interest when a single baker doesn't want to do a single type of transaction. If they were the only baker for 100 miles, or if all the bakers in an area decided to do the same thing, then government would probably have an interest. Even then what the government should do is require the cake to be baked without anything that would indicate the position the baker found offensive.

And that you have to go beyond the crux of this argument to rant "ORANGE MAN BAD" shows you have no real argument.

You still are trying to transfer responsibility onto unsuspecting consumers from licensed and incorporated business people who know, or should know, the rules for doing business in this country. Why should the consumers waste their time and gas driving around?

Some people have to go to local government agencies, like people seeking marriage licenses. Some of them met up with that bitch who refused to do her job and sent them driving around. There is no evidence that the state ever reimbursed these people for their time, effort, and gas.

For consumer goods, like cakes, I have done some searching around, too. I have not seen one advertisement by bakers that mentioned on their websites that there were some restrictions on what they offered. They lied on their websites. One said that their "romantic" location was the perfect place to hold a special occasion, then refused to book a same-sex occasion, proving that their advertisement was a lie.

Again, any rules that violate the constitution are not viable.

And I don't see in the constitution where people are guaranteed what they want from other citizens.

And government is a different story, not relevant to this discussion.

Your issue is you probably think religious people are crazy, and since you can't empathize with them, they can go fuck themselves.

LIke most progressives, it's all about "me me me"

Your issue is you probably think religious people are crazy, and since you can't empathize with them, they can go fuck themselves.

Nope. Not in 66 years, until these crazy bitches showed up trying to be "religious" with some "religion" that they make up all the time and feel some bizarre need to spread all over general society. Before this time, religious people had dignity, and each religion let everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof, alone.

Apparently, you think that I should support ISIS. I don't.

I definately think that dumb old hippy turned authoritarians like you need to hurry up and die off so the rest of us can try to reign in the government.

"[R]ein in the goverment from what, exactly? The trump government is all about constraining Americans and our rights. Moreover, the trump administration has welcomed the right-wing "Christian" cults into its sphere to attack the rights of Americans. Care to explain? What are these thugs doing in government?

What rights has Trump taken or even proposed to take from you or any other American you fucking moron. In actuality the OPPOSITE is true and Trump has given rights back to Congress, the states and the people that Obama stole for the office of President.

You are a moron of epic proportions.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Note to bakers....

It’s just a freak’n cake

Stop being such assholes

This is harassment. Why don't you stand in Harlem with a "I hate *******" sign? It doesn't matter if you find that offensive.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

He should be allowed to refuse service to anyone he wishes. For any reason.

Nope.

Yup. And for any reason. Let the free market decide if his business practices are rewarded or not. Why would I want to give my money to someone that doesn’t want nor deserve it?

If you serve the public, everyone is included where he likes it or not. I believe in the Separation of Church and State, and if you do not , move to Saudi Arabia. Take the baker with you.

What if Colorado required you to do a Nazi salute?

 

[Silhouette]

No. I don't refuse to answer. There is no evidence that the restaurant refused to serve white, heterosexual, Christian women. She was refused service only because of the political deals, contracts, and contacts that she chose to make. She freely chose her associates, whether the mafia or trump.

I bet that there were white, heterosexual, Christian women in the same dining room who were served and enjoying their dinners.

So the restaurant rejected her because it didn’t like her value system & resultant choices she made? I’d say in her case they really were saying “we don’t like your kind in here”. Whereas if a tranny walked in, ordered a pink cake with blue icing with nothing else said, the baker would assume he just meant to simply eat it to sustain his body. No ritual mentioned or imposed upon the baker.

Lgbt are behaviors based on a deviant sex value system. They are not innate. You can’t force someone to celebrate your value system with you by contributing to a ritual they celebrate that is repugnant to you.

 

[DandyDonovan]

No. I don't refuse to answer. There is no evidence that the restaurant refused to serve white, heterosexual, Christian women. She was refused service only because of the political deals, contracts, and contacts that she chose to make. She freely chose her associates, whether the mafia or trump.

I bet that there were white, heterosexual, Christian women in the same dining room who were served and enjoying their dinners.

So the restaurant rejected her because it didn’t like her value system & resultant choices she made? I’d say in her case they really were saying “we don’t like your kind in here”. Whereas if a tranny walked in, ordered a pink cake with blue icing with nothing else said, the baker would assume he just meant to simply eat it to sustain his body. No ritual mentioned or imposed upon the baker.

Lgbt are behaviors based on a deviant sex value system. They are not innate. You can’t force someone to celebrate your value system with you by contributing to a ritual they celebrate that is repugnant to you.

But, nor should you be able to by force of government force a business to serve you dinner if they find your politics so repugnant that they don't want your money

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I don't feel sorry for this clown. He's had his 15 minutes of fame.

Nobody wiped you to. Haters gotta hate

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Jack Phillips, Christian baker, hit with new complaint over transgender birthday cake

These pieces of shit never learn do they!? Its time to get this back to the supreme court with 2 new justices!

Maybe the freaks should find a new business if they can’t follow the law, hack

you queers will not win the sympathy of the majority of Americans because there is not problem for you to order a cake from a sympathetic baker. It would be different if we re living in a gay Jim Crowe era. We are not!

 

[mdk]

No. I don't refuse to answer. There is no evidence that the restaurant refused to serve white, heterosexual, Christian women. She was refused service only because of the political deals, contracts, and contacts that she chose to make. She freely chose her associates, whether the mafia or trump.

I bet that there were white, heterosexual, Christian women in the same dining room who were served and enjoying their dinners.

So the restaurant rejected her because it didn’t like her value system & resultant choices she made? I’d say in her case they really were saying “we don’t like your kind in here”. Whereas if a tranny walked in, ordered a pink cake with blue icing with nothing else said, the baker would assume he just meant to simply eat it to sustain his body. No ritual mentioned or imposed upon the baker.

Lgbt are behaviors based on a deviant sex value system. They are not innate. You can’t force someone to celebrate your value system with you by contributing to a ritual they celebrate that is repugnant to you.

Does this standard apply to everyone else or just gays?

 

[DandyDonovan]

No. I don't refuse to answer. There is no evidence that the restaurant refused to serve white, heterosexual, Christian women. She was refused service only because of the political deals, contracts, and contacts that she chose to make. She freely chose her associates, whether the mafia or trump.

I bet that there were white, heterosexual, Christian women in the same dining room who were served and enjoying their dinners.

So the restaurant rejected her because it didn’t like her value system & resultant choices she made? I’d say in her case they really were saying “we don’t like your kind in here”. Whereas if a tranny walked in, ordered a pink cake with blue icing with nothing else said, the baker would assume he just meant to simply eat it to sustain his body. No ritual mentioned or imposed upon the baker.

Lgbt are behaviors based on a deviant sex value system. They are not innate. You can’t force someone to celebrate your value system with you by contributing to a ritual they celebrate that is repugnant to you.

Does this standard apply to everyone else or just gays?

Although I agree this baker has a right to refuse service to "the queers" I would be interested to know how he feels about men who have anal sex with their wives .

 

[Silhouette]

Although I agree this baker has a right to refuse service to "the queers" I would be interested to know how he feels about men who have anal sex with their wives .

How the hell would anyone even know that? The refusal of service to two men wont be supported. However, it’s the notion of forcing another to celebrate a ritual representative of a behavior that is intolerant to that person’s moral code. If two gay men are hungry, feed them. If they want you to produce something to celebrate their “wedding”, just say no.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Although I agree this baker has a right to refuse service to "the queers" I would be interested to know how he feels about men who have anal sex with their wives .

How the hell would anyone even know that? The refusal of service to two men wont be supported. However, it’s the notion of forcing another to celebrate a ritual representative of a behavior that is intolerant to that person’s moral code. If two gay men are hungry, feed them. If they want you to produce something to celebrate their “wedding”, just say no.

How would anyone know? Because you fucking moron, these queers are purposely going into places where they know the owners are Christians and demanding cakes to celebrate their queerness. IOW they are purposely looking to cause trouble.

It's pathetic

 

[boedicca]

Jack Phillips, Christian baker, hit with new complaint over transgender birthday cake

These pieces of shit never learn do they!? Its time to get this back to the supreme court with 2 new justices!

Progressivism is a Statist Religion. You will either comply or the State will be used to damn you to hell.

 

[mdk]

Although I agree this baker has a right to refuse service to "the queers" I would be interested to know how he feels about men who have anal sex with their wives .

How the hell would anyone even know that? The refusal of service to two men wont be supported. However, it’s the notion of forcing another to celebrate a ritual representative of a behavior that is intolerant to that person’s moral code. If two gay men are hungry, feed them. If they want you to produce something to celebrate their “wedding”, just say no.

Would I be allowed to refuse service to a Jew? Or to a Protestant? Or to a women? Or to a Mexican? Or to a ginger? Do you support public accommodations laws for some and not for others?

 

[DandyDonovan]

Although I agree this baker has a right to refuse service to "the queers" I would be interested to know how he feels about men who have anal sex with their wives .

How the hell would anyone even know that? The refusal of service to two men wont be supported. However, it’s the notion of forcing another to celebrate a ritual representative of a behavior that is intolerant to that person’s moral code. If two gay men are hungry, feed them. If they want you to produce something to celebrate their “wedding”, just say no.

Would I be allowed to refuse service to a Jew? Or to a Protestant? Or to a women? Or to a Mexican? Or to a ginger? Do you support public accommodations laws for some and not for others?

In my world you certainly would be allowed to discriminate against those nasty white CIS gendered males.

But not against Donovan supporters, they would be protected and could in fact make you into an actual save if they so wished.

 

[boedicca]

No. I don't refuse to answer. There is no evidence that the restaurant refused to serve white, heterosexual, Christian women. She was refused service only because of the political deals, contracts, and contacts that she chose to make. She freely chose her associates, whether the mafia or trump.

I bet that there were white, heterosexual, Christian women in the same dining room who were served and enjoying their dinners.

So the restaurant rejected her because it didn’t like her value system & resultant choices she made? I’d say in her case they really were saying “we don’t like your kind in here”. Whereas if a tranny walked in, ordered a pink cake with blue icing with nothing else said, the baker would assume he just meant to simply eat it to sustain his body. No ritual mentioned or imposed upon the baker.

Lgbt are behaviors based on a deviant sex value system. They are not innate. You can’t force someone to celebrate your value system with you by contributing to a ritual they celebrate that is repugnant to you.

Does this standard apply to everyone else or just gays?

Although I agree this baker has a right to refuse service to "the queers" I would be interested to know how he feels about men who have anal sex with their wives .

Get back to us when men who do anal with their wives form an Identity Politics group and try to force bakers to make cakes celebrating the act.

 

[DandyDonovan]

No. I don't refuse to answer. There is no evidence that the restaurant refused to serve white, heterosexual, Christian women. She was refused service only because of the political deals, contracts, and contacts that she chose to make. She freely chose her associates, whether the mafia or trump.

I bet that there were white, heterosexual, Christian women in the same dining room who were served and enjoying their dinners.

So the restaurant rejected her because it didn’t like her value system & resultant choices she made? I’d say in her case they really were saying “we don’t like your kind in here”. Whereas if a tranny walked in, ordered a pink cake with blue icing with nothing else said, the baker would assume he just meant to simply eat it to sustain his body. No ritual mentioned or imposed upon the baker.

Lgbt are behaviors based on a deviant sex value system. They are not innate. You can’t force someone to celebrate your value system with you by contributing to a ritual they celebrate that is repugnant to you.

Does this standard apply to everyone else or just gays?

Although I agree this baker has a right to refuse service to "the queers" I would be interested to know how he feels about men who have anal sex with their wives .

Get back to us when men who do anal with their wives form an Identity Politics group and try to force bakers to make cakes celebrating the act.

Now how do you know that those wives who take it in the ass don't self identify as males making those men who have anal sex sex with them gay? How dare you make assumptions like that.

 

[boedicca]

No. I don't refuse to answer. There is no evidence that the restaurant refused to serve white, heterosexual, Christian women. She was refused service only because of the political deals, contracts, and contacts that she chose to make. She freely chose her associates, whether the mafia or trump.

I bet that there were white, heterosexual, Christian women in the same dining room who were served and enjoying their dinners.

So the restaurant rejected her because it didn’t like her value system & resultant choices she made? I’d say in her case they really were saying “we don’t like your kind in here”. Whereas if a tranny walked in, ordered a pink cake with blue icing with nothing else said, the baker would assume he just meant to simply eat it to sustain his body. No ritual mentioned or imposed upon the baker.

Lgbt are behaviors based on a deviant sex value system. They are not innate. You can’t force someone to celebrate your value system with you by contributing to a ritual they celebrate that is repugnant to you.

Does this standard apply to everyone else or just gays?

Although I agree this baker has a right to refuse service to "the queers" I would be interested to know how he feels about men who have anal sex with their wives .

Get back to us when men who do anal with their wives form an Identity Politics group and try to force bakers to make cakes celebrating the act.

Now how do you know that those wives who take it in the ass don't self identify as males making those men who have anal sex sex with them gay? How dare you make assumptions like that.

I don't care what other people do in their bedrooms as consenting adults. I just don't want to be forced into participating as an unwilling voyeur. There's a very good reason why normal people don't turn their kinks into political agendas.

 

[DandyDonovan]

So the restaurant rejected her because it didn’t like her value system & resultant choices she made? I’d say in her case they really were saying “we don’t like your kind in here”. Whereas if a tranny walked in, ordered a pink cake with blue icing with nothing else said, the baker would assume he just meant to simply eat it to sustain his body. No ritual mentioned or imposed upon the baker.

Lgbt are behaviors based on a deviant sex value system. They are not innate. You can’t force someone to celebrate your value system with you by contributing to a ritual they celebrate that is repugnant to you.

Does this standard apply to everyone else or just gays?

Although I agree this baker has a right to refuse service to "the queers" I would be interested to know how he feels about men who have anal sex with their wives .

Get back to us when men who do anal with their wives form an Identity Politics group and try to force bakers to make cakes celebrating the act.

Now how do you know that those wives who take it in the ass don't self identify as males making those men who have anal sex sex with them gay? How dare you make assumptions like that.

I don't care what other people do in their bedrooms as consenting adults. I just don't want to be forced into participating as an unwilling voyeur. There's a very good reason why normal people don't turn their kinks into political agendas.

f

Fags aren't normal. I say we throw them off of tall buildings. Don't forget to shout "allahaluaackbar" as they fall to their deaths.