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

[Ravi]

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.

I can see a day in the future when a court must decide if the bible forbids baking a cake for a gay couple.

 

[Ravi]

Pork festival would likely have to be allowed. I doubt the cake would have to be made. You can see the difference, right?

What is the difference between...

A Muslim being offended or inhibited from fashioning a cake with an image of Muhammed upon it, utilizing his religion's bans on representation of the human form, or the Prophet, as the basis for his refusal...

...versus...

A Christian being offended or inhibited from fashioning a cake with an image of a homosexual couple upon it, utilizing his religion's bans upon homosexuality as the basis for his refusal?

There is no difference. No one was asked to put an image of a homosexual couple on a cake. A bakery does not have to provide a product it doesn't offer.

So, if a bakery only offered straight wedding cakes, you would say "well sorry gays, that bakery doesn't offer gay wedding cakes? I think not , you dishonest piece of shit

I'd offer either kind, if I were a baker. But that is a choice bakers can make for themselves.

 

[Kondor3]

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

You're a ridiculous, ignorant idiot.

Why?

It's a legitimate question.

And, given that Muslims are the darlings of the Liberals-Wanna-Protect-Everybody-Even-if-the-Others-Don't-Reciprocate crowd, well, the use of Muslims in the example is a perfect way to 'get the goat' of Liberals, and to get them to examine what they are doing, in both a Legal sense, and, more importantly, in an Ethical sense.

And, of course, if the Ethics of the thing - if the equal treatment (or lack thereof) - or the Fairness of the thing (or lack thereof) - pertains to the very real perception that Christian businessmen must do things that violate their religious beliefs or consciences - yet Muslim businessmen can get away with avoiding identical or similar things that violate their beliefs or consciences...

What better way to get Liberals to take a long, hard look at what they're doing, with an eye towards not only the Letter of the Law, but also the Spirit of the Law - in other words, with respect to the use of Protected Classes to force people into business transactions that genuinely violate their sincerely-held and centuries-old traditional religious principles?

Not that anyone with even half-a-brain expects Liberals to buy into the Religious Principles concept as a legitimate defense - far too many of your kind hold Religion and belief in a godhead as ridiculous...

But when the argument is secularized, and suitable analogies are served-up, which tug-at and nag the conscience, with respect to Fairness (Group A is obliged to violate their long-held beliefs and principles, but Group B is free to continue to uphold theirs under similar circumstances), well, that bothersome old Fairness Concept can be brought to bear...

And, if a broader consensus is eventually reached, that Protected Class status is being leveraged to put Group A into a Bad Place with respect to violating their religious principles and that Group B is being given a free pass just because the subject(s) are not within a Protected Class, well...

The better ones amongst you will come to agree that the present Legal Configuration is not Fair...

And once consensus is reached that the present Legal Configuration is not Fair...

Broader support will materialize, for a paradigm shift, designed to change The Law, to return to a more equitable and sane approach to this very real problem...

Ridiculous?

Ignorant?

Idiotic?

Hardly.

Merely getting too close to the Fairness Concept for your (and your side's) comfort.

And, I promise you, this is just the beginning... the very earliest in what promises to be a decades-long or generation-spanning struggle for the Soul of the Nation.

And, just as you, yourself, quite probably perceive it, the struggle is worthwhile, and the Outcome - a return to sanity and decency - is everything.

Your opponents are every bit as patriotic and committed to the Rule of Law and Constitutionality as you are and love our country every bit as much as you do.

They just perceive much differently, what those Laws should say, and how they should be interpreted.

And they are coming for you, and yours, in a Legal sense, and with respect to social engineering of a better and more wholesome sort.

These efforts in Indiana and Oklahoma and Georgia, et al, aren't the last dying gasps of an old struggle.

They are the opening salvos in a new struggle - and these are just practice or registration fire.

The good stuff is coming, over the next few years, and the next decade or two, and it's going to be far more challenging and effective than some folks on your side can possibly imagine.

This is going to be fun to watch, as America rediscovers its courage - and sanity - and decency - in this matter.

En garde.

 

[Ravi]

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

You're a ridiculous, ignorant idiot.

Why?

It's a legitimate question.

And, given that Muslims are the darlings of the Liberals-Wanna-Protect-Everybody-Even-if-the-Others-Don't-Reciprocate crowd, well, the use of Muslims in the example is a perfect way to 'get the goat' of Liberals, and to get them to examine what they are doing, in both a Legal sense, and, more importantly, in an Ethical sense.

And, of course, if the Ethics of the thing - if the equal treatment (or lack thereof) - or the Fairness of the thing (or lack thereof) - pertains to the very real perception that Christian businessmen must do things that violate their religious beliefs or consciences - yet Muslim businessmen can get away with avoiding identical or similar things that violate their beliefs or consciences...

What better way to get Liberals to take a long, hard look at what they're doing, with an eye towards not only the Letter of the Law, but also the Spirit of the Law - in other words, with respect to the use of Protected Classes to force people into business transactions that genuinely violate their sincerely-held and centuries-old traditional religious principles?

Not that anyone with even half-a-brain expects Liberals to buy into the Religious Principles concept as a legitimate defense - far too many of your kind hold Religion and belief in a godhead as ridiculous...

But when the argument is secularized, and suitable analogies are served-up, which tug-at and nag the conscience, with respect to Fairness (Group A is obliged to violate their long-held beliefs and principles, but Group B is free to continue to uphold theirs under similar circumstances), well, that bothersome old Fairness Concept can be brought to bear...

And, if a broader consensus is eventually reached, that Protected Class status is being leveraged to put Group A into a Bad Place with respect to violating their religious principles and that Group B is being given a free pass just because the subject(s) are not within a Protected Class, well...

The better ones amongst you will come to agree that the present Legal Configuration is not Fair...

And once consensus is reached that the present Legal Configuration is not Fair...

Broader support will materialize, for a paradigm shift, designed to change The Law, to return to a more equitable and sane approach to this very real problem...

Ridiculous?

Ignorant?

Idiotic?

Hardly.

Merely getting too close to the Fairness Concept for your (and your side's) comfort.

And, I promise you, this is just the beginning... the very earliest in what promises to be a decades-long or generation-spanning struggle for the Soul of the Nation.

And, just as you, yourself, quite probably perceive it, the struggle is worthwhile, and the Outcome - a return to sanity and decency - is everything.

Your opponents are every bit as patriotic and committed to the Rule of Law and Constitutionality as you are and love our country every bit as much as you do.

They just perceive much differently, what those Laws should say, and how they should be interpreted.

And they are coming for you, and yours, in a Legal sense, and with respect to social engineering of a better and more wholesome sort.

These efforts in Indiana and Oklahoma and Georgia, et al, aren't the last dying gasps of an old struggle.

They are the opening salvos in a new struggle - and these are just practice or registration fire.

The good stuff is coming, over the next few years, and the next decade or two, and it's going to be far more challenging and effective than some folks on your side can possibly imagine.

This is going to be fun to watch, as America rediscovers its courage - and sanity - and decency - in this matter.

En garde.

Once again, a baker does not have to provide a product he doesn't offer.

 

[Kondor3]

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

You're a ridiculous, ignorant idiot.

Why?

It's a legitimate question.

And, given that Muslims are the darlings of the Liberals-Wanna-Protect-Everybody-Even-if-the-Others-Don't-Reciprocate crowd, well, the use of Muslims in the example is a perfect way to 'get the goat' of Liberals, and to get them to examine what they are doing, in both a Legal sense, and, more importantly, in an Ethical sense.

And, of course, if the Ethics of the thing - if the equal treatment (or lack thereof) - or the Fairness of the thing (or lack thereof) - pertains to the very real perception that Christian businessmen must do things that violate their religious beliefs or consciences - yet Muslim businessmen can get away with avoiding identical or similar things that violate their beliefs or consciences...

What better way to get Liberals to take a long, hard look at what they're doing, with an eye towards not only the Letter of the Law, but also the Spirit of the Law - in other words, with respect to the use of Protected Classes to force people into business transactions that genuinely violate their sincerely-held and centuries-old traditional religious principles?

Not that anyone with even half-a-brain expects Liberals to buy into the Religious Principles concept as a legitimate defense - far too many of your kind hold Religion and belief in a godhead as ridiculous...

But when the argument is secularized, and suitable analogies are served-up, which tug-at and nag the conscience, with respect to Fairness (Group A is obliged to violate their long-held beliefs and principles, but Group B is free to continue to uphold theirs under similar circumstances), well, that bothersome old Fairness Concept can be brought to bear...

And, if a broader consensus is eventually reached, that Protected Class status is being leveraged to put Group A into a Bad Place with respect to violating their religious principles and that Group B is being given a free pass just because the subject(s) are not within a Protected Class, well...

The better ones amongst you will come to agree that the present Legal Configuration is not Fair...

And once consensus is reached that the present Legal Configuration is not Fair...

Broader support will materialize, for a paradigm shift, designed to change The Law, to return to a more equitable and sane approach to this very real problem...

Ridiculous?

Ignorant?

Idiotic?

Hardly.

Merely getting too close to the Fairness Concept for your (and your side's) comfort.

And, I promise you, this is just the beginning... the very earliest in what promises to be a decades-long or generation-spanning struggle for the Soul of the Nation.

And, just as you, yourself, quite probably perceive it, the struggle is worthwhile, and the Outcome - a return to sanity and decency - is everything.

Your opponents are every bit as patriotic and committed to the Rule of Law and Constitutionality as you are and love our country every bit as much as you do.

They just perceive much differently, what those Laws should say, and how they should be interpreted.

And they are coming for you, and yours, in a Legal sense, and with respect to social engineering of a better and more wholesome sort.

These efforts in Indiana and Oklahoma and Georgia, et al, aren't the last dying gasps of an old struggle.

They are the opening salvos in a new struggle - and these are just practice or registration fire.

The good stuff is coming, over the next few years, and the next decade or two, and it's going to be far more challenging and effective than some folks on your side can possibly imagine.

This is going to be fun to watch, as America rediscovers its courage - and sanity - and decency - in this matter.

En garde.

Once again, a baker does not have to provide a product he doesn't offer.

We can assume that the Muslim baker is a 'cafeteria' Muslim - picking and choosing the degree to which he practices and observes the precepts of his faith...

He routinely decorates cakes with imagery,

But he draw the line at images of Muhammed on a cake... that's over-the-line for him.... just too much... and he refuses.

Then he gets sued.

And the court, finding that he already DOES offer such products (cake-tops with imagery on them), orders him to bake a cake with an image of Muhammed on it.

He is obliged to do so, at law.

The REAL question is, is it FAIR that he should be forced to do so?

And, if it is NOT fair, then should not the law be changed so that it IS fair?

 

[Ravi]

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

You're a ridiculous, ignorant idiot.

Why?

It's a legitimate question.

And, given that Muslims are the darlings of the Liberals-Wanna-Protect-Everybody-Even-if-the-Others-Don't-Reciprocate crowd, well, the use of Muslims in the example is a perfect way to 'get the goat' of Liberals, and to get them to examine what they are doing, in both a Legal sense, and, more importantly, in an Ethical sense.

And, of course, if the Ethics of the thing - if the equal treatment (or lack thereof) - or the Fairness of the thing (or lack thereof) - pertains to the very real perception that Christian businessmen must do things that violate their religious beliefs or consciences - yet Muslim businessmen can get away with avoiding identical or similar things that violate their beliefs or consciences...

What better way to get Liberals to take a long, hard look at what they're doing, with an eye towards not only the Letter of the Law, but also the Spirit of the Law - in other words, with respect to the use of Protected Classes to force people into business transactions that genuinely violate their sincerely-held and centuries-old traditional religious principles?

Not that anyone with even half-a-brain expects Liberals to buy into the Religious Principles concept as a legitimate defense - far too many of your kind hold Religion and belief in a godhead as ridiculous...

But when the argument is secularized, and suitable analogies are served-up, which tug-at and nag the conscience, with respect to Fairness (Group A is obliged to violate their long-held beliefs and principles, but Group B is free to continue to uphold theirs under similar circumstances), well, that bothersome old Fairness Concept can be brought to bear...

And, if a broader consensus is eventually reached, that Protected Class status is being leveraged to put Group A into a Bad Place with respect to violating their religious principles and that Group B is being given a free pass just because the subject(s) are not within a Protected Class, well...

The better ones amongst you will come to agree that the present Legal Configuration is not Fair...

And once consensus is reached that the present Legal Configuration is not Fair...

Broader support will materialize, for a paradigm shift, designed to change The Law, to return to a more equitable and sane approach to this very real problem...

Ridiculous?

Ignorant?

Idiotic?

Hardly.

Merely getting too close to the Fairness Concept for your (and your side's) comfort.

And, I promise you, this is just the beginning... the very earliest in what promises to be a decades-long or generation-spanning struggle for the Soul of the Nation.

And, just as you, yourself, quite probably perceive it, the struggle is worthwhile, and the Outcome - a return to sanity and decency - is everything.

Your opponents are every bit as patriotic and committed to the Rule of Law and Constitutionality as you are and love our country every bit as much as you do.

They just perceive much differently, what those Laws should say, and how they should be interpreted.

And they are coming for you, and yours, in a Legal sense, and with respect to social engineering of a better and more wholesome sort.

These efforts in Indiana and Oklahoma and Georgia, et al, aren't the last dying gasps of an old struggle.

They are the opening salvos in a new struggle - and these are just practice or registration fire.

The good stuff is coming, over the next few years, and the next decade or two, and it's going to be far more challenging and effective than some folks on your side can possibly imagine.

This is going to be fun to watch, as America rediscovers its courage - and sanity - and decency - in this matter.

En garde.

Once again, a baker does not have to provide a product he doesn't offer.

We can assume that the Muslim baker is a 'cafeteria' Muslim - picking and choosing the degree to which he practices and observes the precepts of his faith...

He routinely decorates cakes with imagery,

But he draw the line at images of Muhammed on a cake... that's over-the-line for him.... just too much... and he refuses.

Then he gets sued.

And the court, finding that he already DOES offer such products (cake-tops with imagery on them), orders him to bake a cake with an image of Muhammed on it.

He is obliged to do so, at law.

The REAL question is, is it FAIR that he should be forced to do so?

And, if it is not fair, then should not the law be changed so that it IS fair?

He doesn't offer Mo cakes to anyone, therefore he isn't discriminating under Public Accommodation law.

 

[Kondor3]

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

You're a ridiculous, ignorant idiot.

Why?

It's a legitimate question.

And, given that Muslims are the darlings of the Liberals-Wanna-Protect-Everybody-Even-if-the-Others-Don't-Reciprocate crowd, well, the use of Muslims in the example is a perfect way to 'get the goat' of Liberals, and to get them to examine what they are doing, in both a Legal sense, and, more importantly, in an Ethical sense.

And, of course, if the Ethics of the thing - if the equal treatment (or lack thereof) - or the Fairness of the thing (or lack thereof) - pertains to the very real perception that Christian businessmen must do things that violate their religious beliefs or consciences - yet Muslim businessmen can get away with avoiding identical or similar things that violate their beliefs or consciences...

What better way to get Liberals to take a long, hard look at what they're doing, with an eye towards not only the Letter of the Law, but also the Spirit of the Law - in other words, with respect to the use of Protected Classes to force people into business transactions that genuinely violate their sincerely-held and centuries-old traditional religious principles?

Not that anyone with even half-a-brain expects Liberals to buy into the Religious Principles concept as a legitimate defense - far too many of your kind hold Religion and belief in a godhead as ridiculous...

But when the argument is secularized, and suitable analogies are served-up, which tug-at and nag the conscience, with respect to Fairness (Group A is obliged to violate their long-held beliefs and principles, but Group B is free to continue to uphold theirs under similar circumstances), well, that bothersome old Fairness Concept can be brought to bear...

And, if a broader consensus is eventually reached, that Protected Class status is being leveraged to put Group A into a Bad Place with respect to violating their religious principles and that Group B is being given a free pass just because the subject(s) are not within a Protected Class, well...

The better ones amongst you will come to agree that the present Legal Configuration is not Fair...

And once consensus is reached that the present Legal Configuration is not Fair...

Broader support will materialize, for a paradigm shift, designed to change The Law, to return to a more equitable and sane approach to this very real problem...

Ridiculous?

Ignorant?

Idiotic?

Hardly.

Merely getting too close to the Fairness Concept for your (and your side's) comfort.

And, I promise you, this is just the beginning... the very earliest in what promises to be a decades-long or generation-spanning struggle for the Soul of the Nation.

And, just as you, yourself, quite probably perceive it, the struggle is worthwhile, and the Outcome - a return to sanity and decency - is everything.

Your opponents are every bit as patriotic and committed to the Rule of Law and Constitutionality as you are and love our country every bit as much as you do.

They just perceive much differently, what those Laws should say, and how they should be interpreted.

And they are coming for you, and yours, in a Legal sense, and with respect to social engineering of a better and more wholesome sort.

These efforts in Indiana and Oklahoma and Georgia, et al, aren't the last dying gasps of an old struggle.

They are the opening salvos in a new struggle - and these are just practice or registration fire.

The good stuff is coming, over the next few years, and the next decade or two, and it's going to be far more challenging and effective than some folks on your side can possibly imagine.

This is going to be fun to watch, as America rediscovers its courage - and sanity - and decency - in this matter.

En garde.

Once again, a baker does not have to provide a product he doesn't offer.

We can assume that the Muslim baker is a 'cafeteria' Muslim - picking and choosing the degree to which he practices and observes the precepts of his faith...

He routinely decorates cakes with imagery,

But he draw the line at images of Muhammed on a cake... that's over-the-line for him.... just too much... and he refuses.

Then he gets sued.

And the court, finding that he already DOES offer such products (cake-tops with imagery on them), orders him to bake a cake with an image of Muhammed on it.

He is obliged to do so, at law.

The REAL question is, is it FAIR that he should be forced to do so?

And, if it is not fair, then should not the law be changed so that it IS fair?

He doesn't offer Mo cakes to anyone, therefore he isn't discriminating under Public Accommodation law.

We have moved past the simple-simon mantra of how the law is presently configured, and into a new realm, one which examines the Rightness or Fairness of a given law, and whether that law needs to be changed or re-interpreted, in order to be fair to all, under similar circumstances - such as cases involving the violation of one's broadly-recognized and historically established religious beliefs.

In any discussion of ethics and rightness and fairness, a simplistic falling back upon the current configuration of the law is entirely inadequate.

We all understand the current configuration of the law, to varying degrees, and we all understand the concept of Protected Classes, and how this concept impacts application of the law.

We now move onto the far more challenging and critical issue of the Rightness or Fairness of the law, under circumstances where Group A can refuse but Group B cannot.

For those capable of contributing at that level, anyway.

 

[Ravi]

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

You're a ridiculous, ignorant idiot.

Why?

It's a legitimate question.

And, given that Muslims are the darlings of the Liberals-Wanna-Protect-Everybody-Even-if-the-Others-Don't-Reciprocate crowd, well, the use of Muslims in the example is a perfect way to 'get the goat' of Liberals, and to get them to examine what they are doing, in both a Legal sense, and, more importantly, in an Ethical sense.

And, of course, if the Ethics of the thing - if the equal treatment (or lack thereof) - or the Fairness of the thing (or lack thereof) - pertains to the very real perception that Christian businessmen must do things that violate their religious beliefs or consciences - yet Muslim businessmen can get away with avoiding identical or similar things that violate their beliefs or consciences...

What better way to get Liberals to take a long, hard look at what they're doing, with an eye towards not only the Letter of the Law, but also the Spirit of the Law - in other words, with respect to the use of Protected Classes to force people into business transactions that genuinely violate their sincerely-held and centuries-old traditional religious principles?

Not that anyone with even half-a-brain expects Liberals to buy into the Religious Principles concept as a legitimate defense - far too many of your kind hold Religion and belief in a godhead as ridiculous...

But when the argument is secularized, and suitable analogies are served-up, which tug-at and nag the conscience, with respect to Fairness (Group A is obliged to violate their long-held beliefs and principles, but Group B is free to continue to uphold theirs under similar circumstances), well, that bothersome old Fairness Concept can be brought to bear...

And, if a broader consensus is eventually reached, that Protected Class status is being leveraged to put Group A into a Bad Place with respect to violating their religious principles and that Group B is being given a free pass just because the subject(s) are not within a Protected Class, well...

The better ones amongst you will come to agree that the present Legal Configuration is not Fair...

And once consensus is reached that the present Legal Configuration is not Fair...

Broader support will materialize, for a paradigm shift, designed to change The Law, to return to a more equitable and sane approach to this very real problem...

Ridiculous?

Ignorant?

Idiotic?

Hardly.

Merely getting too close to the Fairness Concept for your (and your side's) comfort.

And, I promise you, this is just the beginning... the very earliest in what promises to be a decades-long or generation-spanning struggle for the Soul of the Nation.

And, just as you, yourself, quite probably perceive it, the struggle is worthwhile, and the Outcome - a return to sanity and decency - is everything.

Your opponents are every bit as patriotic and committed to the Rule of Law and Constitutionality as you are and love our country every bit as much as you do.

They just perceive much differently, what those Laws should say, and how they should be interpreted.

And they are coming for you, and yours, in a Legal sense, and with respect to social engineering of a better and more wholesome sort.

These efforts in Indiana and Oklahoma and Georgia, et al, aren't the last dying gasps of an old struggle.

They are the opening salvos in a new struggle - and these are just practice or registration fire.

The good stuff is coming, over the next few years, and the next decade or two, and it's going to be far more challenging and effective than some folks on your side can possibly imagine.

This is going to be fun to watch, as America rediscovers its courage - and sanity - and decency - in this matter.

En garde.

Once again, a baker does not have to provide a product he doesn't offer.

We can assume that the Muslim baker is a 'cafeteria' Muslim - picking and choosing the degree to which he practices and observes the precepts of his faith...

He routinely decorates cakes with imagery,

But he draw the line at images of Muhammed on a cake... that's over-the-line for him.... just too much... and he refuses.

Then he gets sued.

And the court, finding that he already DOES offer such products (cake-tops with imagery on them), orders him to bake a cake with an image of Muhammed on it.

He is obliged to do so, at law.

The REAL question is, is it FAIR that he should be forced to do so?

And, if it is not fair, then should not the law be changed so that it IS fair?

He doesn't offer Mo cakes to anyone, therefore he isn't discriminating under Public Accommodation law.

We have moved past the simple-simon mantra of how the law is presently configured, and into a new realm, one which examines the Rightness or Fairness of a given law, and whether that law needs to be changed or re-interpreted, in order to be fair to all, under similar circumstances - such as cases involving the violation of one's broadly-recognized and historically established religious beliefs.

In any discussion of ethics and rightness and fairness, a simplistic falling back upon the current configuration of the law is entirely inadequate.

Then you should start a different thread as you are off topic.

 

[Kondor3]

...In any discussion of ethics and rightness and fairness, a simplistic falling back upon the current configuration of the law is entirely inadequate.

Then you should start a different thread as you are off topic.

Hardly.

An examination of the Rightness or Fairness of the law is ENTIRELY on-topic and a natural progression and evolution of this very discussion.

It is part-and-parcel of this very same subject matter, and dead on target.

Your discomfort with that integrated and holistic approach is noted.

 

[manifold]

Pork festival would likely have to be allowed. I doubt the cake would have to be made. You can see the difference, right?

What is the difference between...

A Muslim being offended or inhibited from fashioning a cake with an image of Muhammed upon it, utilizing his religion's bans on representation of the human form, or the Prophet, as the basis for his refusal...

...versus...

A Christian being offended or inhibited from fashioning a cake with an image of a homosexual couple upon it, utilizing his religion's bans upon homosexuality as the basis for his refusal?

There is no difference. No one was asked to put an image of a homosexual couple on a cake. A bakery does not have to provide a product it doesn't offer.

So, if a bakery only offered straight wedding cakes, you would say "well sorry gays, that bakery doesn't offer gay wedding cakes? I think not , you dishonest piece of shit

Cakes don't have a sexual orientation you stupid douchewagon.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Pork festival would likely have to be allowed. I doubt the cake would have to be made. You can see the difference, right?

What is the difference between...

A Muslim being offended or inhibited from fashioning a cake with an image of Muhammed upon it, utilizing his religion's bans on representation of the human form, or the Prophet, as the basis for his refusal...

...versus...

A Christian being offended or inhibited from fashioning a cake with an image of a homosexual couple upon it, utilizing his religion's bans upon homosexuality as the basis for his refusal?

There is no difference. No one was asked to put an image of a homosexual couple on a cake. A bakery does not have to provide a product it doesn't offer.

So, if a bakery only offered straight wedding cakes, you would say "well sorry gays, that bakery doesn't offer gay wedding cakes? I think not , you dishonest piece of shit

Cakes don't have a sexual orientation you stupid douchewagon.

Who said they did you dumb fuck? The weddings those cakes are served in certainly have a sexual orientation.

The gay ones are the better catered ones.

 

[High_Gravity]

Where is this pork festival? sounds fun!

 

[AceRothstein]

Does the Muslim baker make Mohammed cakes for Muslims?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Where is this pork festival? sounds fun!

I would love to be the mayor of Pork Town. I swear that is why the Muslims are so angry, they aren't allowed to eat bacon.

Tell them fuckers to eat a a bacon sandwich and chill out.

 

[pinqy]

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

You're a ridiculous, ignorant idiot.

Why?

It's a legitimate question.

And, given that Muslims are the darlings of the Liberals-Wanna-Protect-Everybody-Even-if-the-Others-Don't-Reciprocate crowd, well, the use of Muslims in the example is a perfect way to 'get the goat' of Liberals, and to get them to examine what they are doing, in both a Legal sense, and, more importantly, in an Ethical sense.

And, of course, if the Ethics of the thing - if the equal treatment (or lack thereof) - or the Fairness of the thing (or lack thereof) - pertains to the very real perception that Christian businessmen must do things that violate their religious beliefs or consciences - yet Muslim businessmen can get away with avoiding identical or similar things that violate their beliefs or consciences...

You're wrong: Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs
Muslim cab drivers were forced to take passengers with dogs or carrying alcolhol. ACLU was against the cab drivers.

 

[AceRothstein]

Where is this pork festival? sounds fun!

I would love to be the mayor of Pork Town. I swear that is why the Muslims are so angry, they aren't allowed to eat bacon.

Tell them fuckers to eat a a bacon sandwich and chill out.

They are really missing out on bacon and ribs, don't forget the ribs.

 

[High_Gravity]

Whats a Mohammad cake?

 

[High_Gravity]

Where is this pork festival? sounds fun!

I would love to be the mayor of Pork Town. I swear that is why the Muslims are so angry, they aren't allowed to eat bacon.

Tell them fuckers to eat a a bacon sandwich and chill out.

And have a ice cold beer to wash it down!

 

[bucs90]

Does the Muslim baker make Mohammed cakes for Muslims?

Hes never had to. Muslims religion forbids any image of Mohammed. ..so no Muslim would've ever attempted to get a cake with the prophet decorated on it.

I'll be the first to request it. For my religious diversity and pork eating festival. And...if necessary...ill decide im gay.

So a Muslim baker will face a gay man...requesting a Mohammed cake and catering for my pork festival.

 

[Ravi]

Does the Muslim baker make Mohammed cakes for Muslims?

Hes never had to. Muslims religion forbids any image of Mohammed. ..so no Muslim would've ever attempted to get a cake with the prophet decorated on it.

I'll be the first to request it. For my religious diversity and pork eating festival. And...if necessary...ill decide im gay.

So a Muslim baker will face a gay man...requesting a Mohammed cake and catering for my pork festival.

What are you waiting for? You've been going on and on about it but you are too chicken to do it.