Muslim baker...make me a Mohammed cake; Muslim hotel owner...host my pork festival; Can they refuse?

[bucs90]

This Indiana shit is silly. Freedom means being free not to do something also.

So.....

If I go find a Muslim baker...and demand cakes be made for my religious diversity celebration. ..should he do it? I want cakes in the shape and image of each religious figure. Especially prophet Mohammed! He cant refuse...right? I want it catered. He may have to watch the Mohammed cake...get its head sliced off.

Should he have to do.it?

Oh...and the party will be held at a Muslim owned hotel. In conjunction with the Pork Festival I want to have. If I pay the fee for the conference room...must the Muslim owner rent it to me for my pork festival. ...and my religious diversity cake party where we'll be enjoying a Mohammed cake?

Oh....its different now huh? Because MY opinion is that those Muslim business owners should be able to tell me no and suffer no consequences. Their religious belief should be respected.

The Muslims are not allowed to make pictures of Allah or Muhammad....Muhammad.can be pictured but not his face...

But they are a business open to the public. The publics wishes trump their religion...right? They do custom cakes. Well...heres an image of Mohammed. I want a Mohammed cake. Cream cheese turban.

 

[Ravi]

Only if it is a product they offer. JESUS CHRIST you people are morons.

And our Christian baker does not offer cake-top decorations featuring same-sex couples.

Does that work for you, according to your logic?

Yep.

There we go.

Problem solved.

Now...

What will your position be, when the Gay freak-a-zoids take the Christian baker to court, for refusing to affix a same-sex-couple decoration on top?

Once again, if they do not offer an item they are not obligated to sell it.

But all bakeries offer custom decoration. Birthday cake demands almost make it mandatory for them to survive. If they'll put Mickey Mouse or a dinosaur or other images on it...surely they can copy the image of Mohammed on it for me.

And...they offer catering. I can force them to cater my pork and koran burning festival.

bakeries have a catalog to select from. They can certainly refuse a customization that is not in their catalog or that they feel is not within their skill set.

And yes you could probably force them to cater your event if they cater events.

 

[Ravi]

I don't think discrimination against customers based upon their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation or disability is fair. That is what the law addresses. That is why we go by the law rather than what you think is fair.

Agreed.

We are, indeed, a Nation of Laws, and every American of goodwill is content that it be so.

So this acolyte of the Algore Temple of Global Warming has a flat tire on his SUV on the way to choir practice.

I run a tire shop.

He calls me to fix his flat but I see his "Save the Planet" propaganda plastered all over the vehicle and I tell him to fix his own damn tire - 'cause to help him is against my religion.

Now what?

Now you hit upon the dilemma of these questions about Mohammed images on a cake or a pork festival conducted by Muslims or Jews. The religious doctrine regarding these things are absolute, certain and long established. You will not find experts that disagree with the claim that these things would absolutely violate an established religions beliefs and doctrines. Not so much with the Christian anti gay views. Many denominations of Christianity argue that the anti gay ideas held by many are anti Christian. Arguments are made that the anti gay idea is political and psychological and not really a teaching of Christianity. Can anyone one just make the claim that their decisions in life are guided by religious belief and be covered with the negative or harmful consequences by claiming religious belief?

And many denominations hold otherwise.

What about the ones that hold otherwise?

Especially the ones that have held otherwise in a demonstrable pattern and history that stretches back centuries or even millennia?

That is why I call it a dilemma. Will the courts have to select which "experts" are experts? Will some kind of standards have to be used to determine what religious beliefs are accepted for inclusion in qualified beliefs? Can I start a religion tomorrow that demands my sons and I hunt wild game to provide for nourishment that god has provided and thus be allowed to hunt everyday and ignore government imposed seasons?

This law also makes it so that the government is the decider on if someone's religious beliefs are valid or not. And it is just comical that all these RWNJs support this.

It would protect Muslims from betraying their religion too.

If the government deems their belief valid.

 

[boedicca]

I don't think discrimination against customers based upon their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation or disability is fair. That is what the law addresses. That is why we go by the law rather than what you think is fair.

Agreed.

We are, indeed, a Nation of Laws, and every American of goodwill is content that it be so.

Now you hit upon the dilemma of these questions about Mohammed images on a cake or a pork festival conducted by Muslims or Jews. The religious doctrine regarding these things are absolute, certain and long established. You will not find experts that disagree with the claim that these things would absolutely violate an established religions beliefs and doctrines. Not so much with the Christian anti gay views. Many denominations of Christianity argue that the anti gay ideas held by many are anti Christian. Arguments are made that the anti gay idea is political and psychological and not really a teaching of Christianity. Can anyone one just make the claim that their decisions in life are guided by religious belief and be covered with the negative or harmful consequences by claiming religious belief?

And many denominations hold otherwise.

What about the ones that hold otherwise?

Especially the ones that have held otherwise in a demonstrable pattern and history that stretches back centuries or even millennia?

That is why I call it a dilemma. Will the courts have to select which "experts" are experts? Will some kind of standards have to be used to determine what religious beliefs are accepted for inclusion in qualified beliefs? Can I start a religion tomorrow that demands my sons and I hunt wild game to provide for nourishment that god has provided and thus be allowed to hunt everyday and ignore government imposed seasons?

This law also makes it so that the government is the decider on if someone's religious beliefs are valid or not. And it is just comical that all these RWNJs support this.

It would protect Muslims from betraying their religion too.

If the government deems their belief valid.

I find it quite horrifying to think of the Government as an Arbiter of True Faith. That seems to me to be completely opposed to the establishment clause. Religious beliefs are personal. The government has no business applying a spiritual litmus test.

 

[bucs90]

And our Christian baker does not offer cake-top decorations featuring same-sex couples.

Does that work for you, according to your logic?

Yep.

There we go.

Problem solved.

Now...

What will your position be, when the Gay freak-a-zoids take the Christian baker to court, for refusing to affix a same-sex-couple decoration on top?

Once again, if they do not offer an item they are not obligated to sell it.

But all bakeries offer custom decoration. Birthday cake demands almost make it mandatory for them to survive. If they'll put Mickey Mouse or a dinosaur or other images on it...surely they can copy the image of Mohammed on it for me.

And...they offer catering. I can force them to cater my pork and koran burning festival.

bakeries have a catalog to select from. They can certainly refuse a customization that is not in their catalog or that they feel is not within their skill set.

And yes you could probably force them to cater your event if they cater events.

No they cant discriminate. If fat Bob asks for a NASCAR cake and a #3 decoration and a car from a photo...they do it. So...heres my image. Make it....or ill sue.

And its disgusting that you AGREE that a Muslim baker should be legally forced to cater a pork and koran burning party. Fuck that. Muslims should be free to say no to that. But...you said they'll probably have to do it. Thats liberalism for ya.

That pork and koran burning party is also gonna have Mohammed cakes that I baked. And we're cutting heads off the cake and offering it to the Muslim caterers. Still think they should be forced to cater it?

 

[Ravi]

Agreed.

We are, indeed, a Nation of Laws, and every American of goodwill is content that it be so.
And many denominations hold otherwise.

What about the ones that hold otherwise?

Especially the ones that have held otherwise in a demonstrable pattern and history that stretches back centuries or even millennia?

That is why I call it a dilemma. Will the courts have to select which "experts" are experts? Will some kind of standards have to be used to determine what religious beliefs are accepted for inclusion in qualified beliefs? Can I start a religion tomorrow that demands my sons and I hunt wild game to provide for nourishment that god has provided and thus be allowed to hunt everyday and ignore government imposed seasons?

This law also makes it so that the government is the decider on if someone's religious beliefs are valid or not. And it is just comical that all these RWNJs support this.

It would protect Muslims from betraying their religion too.

If the government deems their belief valid.

I find it quite horrifying to think of the Government as an Arbiter of True Faith. That seems to me to be completely opposed to the establishment clause. Religious beliefs are personal. The government has no business applying a spiritual litmus test.

That's what this law does though.

 

[boedicca]

That is why I call it a dilemma. Will the courts have to select which "experts" are experts? Will some kind of standards have to be used to determine what religious beliefs are accepted for inclusion in qualified beliefs? Can I start a religion tomorrow that demands my sons and I hunt wild game to provide for nourishment that god has provided and thus be allowed to hunt everyday and ignore government imposed seasons?

This law also makes it so that the government is the decider on if someone's religious beliefs are valid or not. And it is just comical that all these RWNJs support this.

It would protect Muslims from betraying their religion too.

If the government deems their belief valid.

I find it quite horrifying to think of the Government as an Arbiter of True Faith. That seems to me to be completely opposed to the establishment clause. Religious beliefs are personal. The government has no business applying a spiritual litmus test.

That's what this law does though.

Only because the government wrote laws to allow them to do that. Government always seeks to expand power. We are incredibly far astray from our Constitutional Rights.

 

[Ravi]

Yep.

There we go.

Problem solved.

Now...

What will your position be, when the Gay freak-a-zoids take the Christian baker to court, for refusing to affix a same-sex-couple decoration on top?

Once again, if they do not offer an item they are not obligated to sell it.

But all bakeries offer custom decoration. Birthday cake demands almost make it mandatory for them to survive. If they'll put Mickey Mouse or a dinosaur or other images on it...surely they can copy the image of Mohammed on it for me.

And...they offer catering. I can force them to cater my pork and koran burning festival.

bakeries have a catalog to select from. They can certainly refuse a customization that is not in their catalog or that they feel is not within their skill set.

And yes you could probably force them to cater your event if they cater events.

No they cant discriminate. If fat Bob asks for a NASCAR cake and a #3 decoration and a car from a photo...they do it. So...heres my image. Make it....or ill sue.

And its disgusting that you AGREE that a Muslim baker should be legally forced to cater a pork and koran burning party. Fuck that. Muslims should be free to say no to that. But...you said they'll probably have to do it. Thats liberalism for ya.

That pork and koran burning party is also gonna have Mohammed cakes that I baked. And we're cutting heads off the cake and offering it to the Muslim caterers. Still think they should be forced to cater it?

If a bakery offers to make cakes based on photos then they would not be able to disallow photos, unless the photo is obscene or violates the law in some other way.

 

[Kondor3]

This Indiana shit is silly. Freedom means being free not to do something also.

So.....

If I go find a Muslim baker...and demand cakes be made for my religious diversity celebration. ..should he do it? I want cakes in the shape and image of each religious figure. Especially prophet Mohammed! He cant refuse...right? I want it catered. He may have to watch the Mohammed cake...get its head sliced off.

Should he have to do.it?

Oh...and the party will be held at a Muslim owned hotel. In conjunction with the Pork Festival I want to have. If I pay the fee for the conference room...must the Muslim owner rent it to me for my pork festival. ...and my religious diversity cake party where we'll be enjoying a Mohammed cake?

Oh....its different now huh? Because MY opinion is that those Muslim business owners should be able to tell me no and suffer no consequences. Their religious belief should be respected.

The Muslims are not allowed to make pictures of Allah or Muhammad....Muhammad.can be pictured but not his face...

A well-established Christian sect says that its members are not allowed to make images of same-sex couples. Same thing.

 

[Kondor3]

My guess is that a Muslim baker wouldn't offer graven images to anyone.

Hell, just to spice things up, let's say that he's a Cafeteria Muslim - picking and choosing which religious precepts to honor or observe, and which to ignore - and who routinely affixes imagery to the top of cakes...

But the request for an image of Muhammed on the cake is The Last Straw, and One Step Too Far into the Land of Wickedness, and he can't bring himself to go that far against his faith and his people, and he refuses.

Akin to a Catholic who routinely bakes and decorates cakes for Gays but who refuses a customer order for a cake when he learns that the cake is to feature an image of a fully-clothed Virgin Mary getting gangbanged under her skirts by all twelve Apostles.

People have their limits, and so should The Law, in this context.

Neither of those examples involve a refusal which violates any law.

Yes, yes, yes... we all understand the strict letter of the law, as well as the concept of protected classes.

What we're doing here is to ask whether it is - right? - fair? - proper? - to force business people to conduct their businesses in violation of their religious beliefs.

If it is not fair to do so - and variations on the Muslim/Christian comparison theme do this some good service - then The Law is unfair.

And, if The Law is unfair, then The Law needs to be changed.

( a sneak preview of the next legal attack-vector against the Gay Mafia )

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Tres amusing to watch Ravi try to dance this dance. She's a piece of shit.

 

[Kondor3]

Tres amusing to watch Ravi try to dance this dance. She's a piece of shit.

Insha'Allah...

 

[Moonglow]

This Indiana shit is silly. Freedom means being free not to do something also.

So.....

If I go find a Muslim baker...and demand cakes be made for my religious diversity celebration. ..should he do it? I want cakes in the shape and image of each religious figure. Especially prophet Mohammed! He cant refuse...right? I want it catered. He may have to watch the Mohammed cake...get its head sliced off.

Should he have to do.it?

Oh...and the party will be held at a Muslim owned hotel. In conjunction with the Pork Festival I want to have. If I pay the fee for the conference room...must the Muslim owner rent it to me for my pork festival. ...and my religious diversity cake party where we'll be enjoying a Mohammed cake?

Oh....its different now huh? Because MY opinion is that those Muslim business owners should be able to tell me no and suffer no consequences. Their religious belief should be respected.

The Muslims are not allowed to make pictures of Allah or Muhammad....Muhammad.can be pictured but not his face...

A well-established Christian sect says that its members are not allowed to make images of same-sex couples. Same thing.

It's from the Brand New Good Word....Where homosexuality reigns supreme in the hierarchy of sin...

 

[Moonglow]

This law also makes it so that the government is the decider on if someone's religious beliefs are valid or not. And it is just comical that all these RWNJs support this.

It would protect Muslims from betraying their religion too.

If the government deems their belief valid.

I find it quite horrifying to think of the Government as an Arbiter of True Faith. That seems to me to be completely opposed to the establishment clause. Religious beliefs are personal. The government has no business applying a spiritual litmus test.

That's what this law does though.

Only because the government wrote laws to allow them to do that. Government always seeks to expand power. We are incredibly far astray from our Constitutional Rights.

Yeah, taking away our slaves was the first one....

 

[Moonglow]

Agreed.

We are, indeed, a Nation of Laws, and every American of goodwill is content that it be so.
And many denominations hold otherwise.

What about the ones that hold otherwise?

Especially the ones that have held otherwise in a demonstrable pattern and history that stretches back centuries or even millennia?

That is why I call it a dilemma. Will the courts have to select which "experts" are experts? Will some kind of standards have to be used to determine what religious beliefs are accepted for inclusion in qualified beliefs? Can I start a religion tomorrow that demands my sons and I hunt wild game to provide for nourishment that god has provided and thus be allowed to hunt everyday and ignore government imposed seasons?

This law also makes it so that the government is the decider on if someone's religious beliefs are valid or not. And it is just comical that all these RWNJs support this.

It would protect Muslims from betraying their religion too.

If the government deems their belief valid.

I find it quite horrifying to think of the Government as an Arbiter of True Faith. That seems to me to be completely opposed to the establishment clause. Religious beliefs are personal. The government has no business applying a spiritual litmus test.

I find it abhorrent that christians feel that one sin is worse than all the others...

 

[Kondor3]

...It's from the Brand New Good Word....Where homosexuality reigns supreme in the hierarchy of sin...

No, it's the same old Moral Principle that has been extant for several millennia, and it's not the Worst of the Sins, just one of the Filthiest and most Perverted.

 

[Syriusly]

...I don't think discrimination against customers based upon their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation or disability is fair. That is what the law addresses. That is why we go by the law rather than what you think is fair.

We are in absolute agreement.

Good- I am glad we both agree and that think discrimination against customers based upon their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation or disability is not fair.

That is what the law addresses. That is why we go by the law rather than what you think is fair.

 

[Kondor3]

...I don't think discrimination against customers based upon their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation or disability is fair. That is what the law addresses. That is why we go by the law rather than what you think is fair.

We are in absolute agreement.

Good- I am glad we both agree and that think discrimination against customers based upon their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation or disability is not fair.

That is what the law addresses. That is why we go by the law rather than what you think is fair.

Which is why the Law needs to be changed.

So that it is fair to the 97% rather than the 3%.

 

[Syriusly]

...I don't think discrimination against customers based upon their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation or disability is fair. That is what the law addresses. That is why we go by the law rather than what you think is fair.

That may very well be the next legal Attack Vector, in combating the Gay Mafia.

But what will we do about the Christian Mafia......oh the horrors....

 

[Syriusly]

...I don't think discrimination against customers based upon their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation or disability is fair. That is what the law addresses. That is why we go by the law rather than what you think is fair.

We are in absolute agreement.

Good- I am glad we both agree and that think discrimination against customers based upon their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation or disability is not fair.

That is what the law addresses. That is why we go by the law rather than what you think is fair.

Which is why the Law needs to be changed.

So that it is fair to the 97% rather than the 3%.

LOL....you seem to have missed the point of the law......actually not missed, so much as dislike that the law prohibits the 97% from discriminating against homosexuals or Jews or Mormons.....