Muslim Bakeries Refuse To Make Gay Wedding Cake...& No Rabid Protests From Liberals?

[Coyote]

Righties constantly lie and misrepresent facts.

The "gay cake" was just a plain old wedding cake . Same as the bakery made 1000 times . But they denied the customer simply because they were gay.

And why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever (albeit stupid) reason they choose?

Title II of the Civil Rights Act for one...

I'm aware of the law. By what is the ethical justification for the law? Why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever (albeit stupid) reason they choose?

Then you should really go after that Federal law, not state and local laws that have only added gays to already existing protections.

I can't deny service to a Christian in 50 out of 50 states, but he can deny me in over half. I can't fire someone because I find out they are Jewish in 50 out of 50 states, but that Jewish individual can fire me in over half.

What are you doing to get rid of Title II of the Civil Rights Act that requires gays to serve Christians?

I'm opposed to any law, federal, state, or local, that punishes a person for choosing not to engage in trade with someone. Why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever reason they choose?

Would segregation have ever ended - segregated bathrooms, hotels and restaurants that wouldn't serve blacks? Things didn't change until they had to.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Hilarious watching the left try to spin and defend their Muslim masters.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Hilarious watching the left try to spin and defend their Muslim masters.

it is amazing

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Hilarious watching the left try to spin and defend their Muslim masters.

LOL They are all over the map on this one, priceless

 

[Coyote]

Righties constantly lie and misrepresent facts.

The "gay cake" was just a plain old wedding cake . Same as the bakery made 1000 times . But they denied the customer simply because they were gay.

And why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever (albeit stupid) reason they choose?

Title II of the Civil Rights Act for one...

I'm aware of the law. By what is the ethical justification for the law? Why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever (albeit stupid) reason they choose?

Then you should really go after that Federal law, not state and local laws that have only added gays to already existing protections.

I can't deny service to a Christian in 50 out of 50 states, but he can deny me in over half. I can't fire someone because I find out they are Jewish in 50 out of 50 states, but that Jewish individual can fire me in over half.

What are you doing to get rid of Title II of the Civil Rights Act that requires gays to serve Christians?

I now would avoid a queer owned business, congradulations because before you queers started demanding me to approve of every perverted act you want to do. I never really cared, but you started steering me the other way. Now you can go to hell, where the bible states you are headed anyway.

No one is demanding you "approve" of anything.

 

[Centinel]

And why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever (albeit stupid) reason they choose?

Because we are allowed to regulate business . You can't just have businesses opt out of any rule they don't like . "Child labor laws ? Not for me ! Worker safety regs? No thanks !"

Safety regulations for employees and gay cakes are the same? WTF?

When you say "we" who are you talking about, Timmy! Where in the Constitution does it say that when you go into business, your property goes under the control of government with no due process required?

Commerce clause says you can regulate biz. They ain't taking property by the way .

Does it? I thought it said that congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states.

A bakery isn't a state.

The bakery violated state law .

You're all over the place. First you try the commerce clause. Now it's state law.

What is the ethical justification for punishing a person with the force of the state for doing nothing?

 

[Centinel]

And why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever (albeit stupid) reason they choose?

Title II of the Civil Rights Act for one...

I'm aware of the law. By what is the ethical justification for the law? Why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever (albeit stupid) reason they choose?

Then you should really go after that Federal law, not state and local laws that have only added gays to already existing protections.

I can't deny service to a Christian in 50 out of 50 states, but he can deny me in over half. I can't fire someone because I find out they are Jewish in 50 out of 50 states, but that Jewish individual can fire me in over half.

What are you doing to get rid of Title II of the Civil Rights Act that requires gays to serve Christians?

I'm opposed to any law, federal, state, or local, that punishes a person for choosing not to engage in trade with someone. Why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever reason they choose?

Would segregation have ever ended - segregated bathrooms, hotels and restaurants that wouldn't serve blacks? Things didn't change until they had to.

Yes, it would have. Once laws mandating segregation were eliminated.

 

[Coyote]

The purpose of a sting operation is done by law enforcement to catch someone breaking the law.
Was that the purpose here?

There is what is legally right, and there is what is ethically right - they don't always mesh.

Hmmm . . the law says it's illegal for Muslims to discriminate against queers. So your distinction is irrelevant.

NOT in Michigan where this took place. Stupid OP and the rest of you don't get that.

How about the pizza place your kind tried to put out of business? Or chick fil a ? Your kind don't won't to get along, you want to be a pain in the ass. You have accomplished that, now seek your reward when you are told to fuck off.

Boycots are a legit means of forcing social change - here are some of the boycotts "your kind" have engaged in:

Country Radio Boycotting Little Big Town’s ‘Girl Crush’ for Promoting a Gay Agenda
Franklin Graham: Boycott businesses that promote the gay agenda
Anti-gay groups call for Target boycott over retailer’s support for gay marriage
AFA Boycotts McDonald's For 'Promoting The Homosexual Agenda'
Home Depot tells anti-gay hate group AFA what they can do with their petition
One Million Moms: Boycott Mattel For "Promoting Sin" By Featuring Gay Adoptive Dads In Magazine - Joe.My.God.
SBC to Disney: Cease Gay Days for the boycott to be lifted

Boycotts never work, America has the attention span of a gnat

True dat...but they have been effective, particularly during the civil rights era and I think also against apartheid in South Africa.

 

[Coyote]

Title II of the Civil Rights Act for one...

I'm aware of the law. By what is the ethical justification for the law? Why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever (albeit stupid) reason they choose?

Then you should really go after that Federal law, not state and local laws that have only added gays to already existing protections.

I can't deny service to a Christian in 50 out of 50 states, but he can deny me in over half. I can't fire someone because I find out they are Jewish in 50 out of 50 states, but that Jewish individual can fire me in over half.

What are you doing to get rid of Title II of the Civil Rights Act that requires gays to serve Christians?

I'm opposed to any law, federal, state, or local, that punishes a person for choosing not to engage in trade with someone. Why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever reason they choose?

Would segregation have ever ended - segregated bathrooms, hotels and restaurants that wouldn't serve blacks? Things didn't change until they had to.

Yes, it would have. Once laws mandating segregation were eliminated.

Why would you think that? The laws reflected the culture - even if the laws mandating go poof, the culture is allowed to continue unrestrained.

 

[Timmy]

Hilarious watching the left try to spin and defend their Muslim masters.

no one is defending Muslims . You just make shit up all the time .

 

[Norman]

Hilarious watching the left try to spin and defend their Muslim masters.

no one is defending Muslims . You just make shit up all the time .

Rarely do I see comments so full of ignorance here. You really haven't got a clue do you?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Hmmm . . the law says it's illegal for Muslims to discriminate against queers. So your distinction is irrelevant.

NOT in Michigan where this took place. Stupid OP and the rest of you don't get that.

How about the pizza place your kind tried to put out of business? Or chick fil a ? Your kind don't won't to get along, you want to be a pain in the ass. You have accomplished that, now seek your reward when you are told to fuck off.

Boycots are a legit means of forcing social change - here are some of the boycotts "your kind" have engaged in:

Country Radio Boycotting Little Big Town’s ‘Girl Crush’ for Promoting a Gay Agenda
Franklin Graham: Boycott businesses that promote the gay agenda
Anti-gay groups call for Target boycott over retailer’s support for gay marriage
AFA Boycotts McDonald's For 'Promoting The Homosexual Agenda'
Home Depot tells anti-gay hate group AFA what they can do with their petition
One Million Moms: Boycott Mattel For "Promoting Sin" By Featuring Gay Adoptive Dads In Magazine - Joe.My.God.
SBC to Disney: Cease Gay Days for the boycott to be lifted

Boycotts never work, America has the attention span of a gnat

True dat...but they have been effective, particularly during the civil rights era and I think also against apartheid in South Africa.

The one against Chik Fil La was effective...for Chik Fil La...I've never laughed so hard over something as when we went to support them and the line was stretched around the block. That one blew up in the left's face big time....and should make them realize there is more opposition out there than they realize

 

[Coyote]

HIDDEN CAM: #GayWeddingCakes at Muslim Bakeries?

Kind of looks like a "set up" situation doesn't it?

Someone deliberately looking for a baker of a specific religion in order to be refused?

Muslim bakers are most likely a tiny minority in this country, the vast majority are Christian. That's likely why less fuss is heard. The Muslim community is also much more conservative - I doubt a gay couple would look to a Muslim baker for their cake. Did this person SUE them? Has anyone sued a Muslim baker?

A baker that serves the public, should serve the public - regardless of who the wedding participants are as long as they can pay for the service and the requested item is within their ability to make. I don't think they should be forced to make anything lewd or pornographic.

Aside from that - there has also been a rash of cases of couples supposedly getting married and deliberately seeking out vendors they KNOW will be hostile to same-sex arrangements. I think that is wrong - maybe not legally wrong, but ethically wrong. In the original case, the couple sought out a baker they had used many times before and had good arrangements with, so they had the expectation their service would similarly be welcomed not rebuffed. Some of these other cases smack of set ups.

Conservative 'Comedian' Pretends to Be Gay, Asks Muslim Bakeries for Gay Wedding Cakes

Unfortunately for his thesis, several bakeries agreed to make the cake. At least according to his blog. But showcased are three bakeries that did not.​

It doesn't take away the fact they refused now does it?

In a legal sense - no. But in an ethical sense - is it right to deliberately seek out someone to refuse you? Christian or Muslim?

Muslims bakeries (few as they may be) get a free pass on political correctness when Liberal Gay kids DEMAND capitulation by Christian bakeries to their ideology? That is, in common vernacular, JACKED UP. Why not apply the same standards across the board?

Because the core of the issue isn't cake. It's about anti CHRISTIAN ideology. The queers and the left are waging a war against Christians.

Actually, I think the core of the issue is that it's a "muslim" baker - could have been a Jew, Hindu, etc but they chose Muslim to try and make this a "Muslims get a free pass" argument.

 

[Centinel]

I'm aware of the law. By what is the ethical justification for the law? Why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever (albeit stupid) reason they choose?

Then you should really go after that Federal law, not state and local laws that have only added gays to already existing protections.

I can't deny service to a Christian in 50 out of 50 states, but he can deny me in over half. I can't fire someone because I find out they are Jewish in 50 out of 50 states, but that Jewish individual can fire me in over half.

What are you doing to get rid of Title II of the Civil Rights Act that requires gays to serve Christians?

I'm opposed to any law, federal, state, or local, that punishes a person for choosing not to engage in trade with someone. Why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever reason they choose?

Would segregation have ever ended - segregated bathrooms, hotels and restaurants that wouldn't serve blacks? Things didn't change until they had to.

Yes, it would have. Once laws mandating segregation were eliminated.

Why would you think that? The laws reflected the culture - even if the laws mandating go poof, the culture is allowed to continue unrestrained.

I'd love for McDonald's to refuse to service blacks or gays or any group. As long as, beforehand, I could sell my house and use all the proceeds to short McDonald's stock.

 

[Timmy]

Because we are allowed to regulate business . You can't just have businesses opt out of any rule they don't like . "Child labor laws ? Not for me ! Worker safety regs? No thanks !"

Safety regulations for employees and gay cakes are the same? WTF?

When you say "we" who are you talking about, Timmy! Where in the Constitution does it say that when you go into business, your property goes under the control of government with no due process required?

Commerce clause says you can regulate biz. They ain't taking property by the way .

Does it? I thought it said that congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states.

A bakery isn't a state.

The bakery violated state law .

You're all over the place. First you try the commerce clause. Now it's state law.

What is the ethical justification for punishing a person with the force of the state for doing nothing?

Because we are talking about various issues . Try and keep up.

Government right to intrude on biz
Religious rights
Then I was asked about that one famous bakery that got sued.

You do understand that gay rights aren't the same everywhere and are mainly driven by state law .

 

[rcfieldz]

Did you hear the one where the gay couple went into a Muslim bakery? I thought not.

 

[Coyote]

HIDDEN CAM: #GayWeddingCakes at Muslim Bakeries?

Kind of looks like a "set up" situation doesn't it?

Someone deliberately looking for a baker of a specific religion in order to be refused?

Muslim bakers are most likely a tiny minority in this country, the vast majority are Christian. That's likely why less fuss is heard. The Muslim community is also much more conservative - I doubt a gay couple would look to a Muslim baker for their cake. Did this person SUE them? Has anyone sued a Muslim baker?

A baker that serves the public, should serve the public - regardless of who the wedding participants are as long as they can pay for the service and the requested item is within their ability to make. I don't think they should be forced to make anything lewd or pornographic.

Aside from that - there has also been a rash of cases of couples supposedly getting married and deliberately seeking out vendors they KNOW will be hostile to same-sex arrangements. I think that is wrong - maybe not legally wrong, but ethically wrong. In the original case, the couple sought out a baker they had used many times before and had good arrangements with, so they had the expectation their service would similarly be welcomed not rebuffed. Some of these other cases smack of set ups.

Conservative 'Comedian' Pretends to Be Gay, Asks Muslim Bakeries for Gay Wedding Cakes

Unfortunately for his thesis, several bakeries agreed to make the cake. At least according to his blog. But showcased are three bakeries that did not.​

It doesn't take away the fact they refused now does it?

In a legal sense - no. But in an ethical sense - is it right to deliberately seek out someone to refuse you? Christian or Muslim?

Muslims bakeries (few as they may be) get a free pass on political correctness when Liberal Gay kids DEMAND capitulation by Christian bakeries to their ideology? That is, in common vernacular, JACKED UP. Why not apply the same standards across the board?

Because the core of the issue isn't cake. It's about anti CHRISTIAN ideology. The queers and the left are waging a war against Christians.

Christians...despite representing the vast majority of Americans, despite even having their holy days put down as national and state holidays...seem to think they are "discrimminated" against. What a hoot!

 

[koshergrl]

And why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever (albeit stupid) reason they choose?

Title II of the Civil Rights Act for one...

I'm aware of the law. By what is the ethical justification for the law? Why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever (albeit stupid) reason they choose?

Then you should really go after that Federal law, not state and local laws that have only added gays to already existing protections.

I can't deny service to a Christian in 50 out of 50 states, but he can deny me in over half. I can't fire someone because I find out they are Jewish in 50 out of 50 states, but that Jewish individual can fire me in over half.

What are you doing to get rid of Title II of the Civil Rights Act that requires gays to serve Christians?

I'm opposed to any law, federal, state, or local, that punishes a person for choosing not to engage in trade with someone. Why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever reason they choose?

Would segregation have ever ended - segregated bathrooms, hotels and restaurants that wouldn't serve blacks? Things didn't change until they had to.

Refusing to participate in a wedding is NOT segregation, you pathetic nitwit.

 

[Coyote]

NOT in Michigan where this took place. Stupid OP and the rest of you don't get that.

How about the pizza place your kind tried to put out of business? Or chick fil a ? Your kind don't won't to get along, you want to be a pain in the ass. You have accomplished that, now seek your reward when you are told to fuck off.

Boycots are a legit means of forcing social change - here are some of the boycotts "your kind" have engaged in:

Country Radio Boycotting Little Big Town’s ‘Girl Crush’ for Promoting a Gay Agenda
Franklin Graham: Boycott businesses that promote the gay agenda
Anti-gay groups call for Target boycott over retailer’s support for gay marriage
AFA Boycotts McDonald's For 'Promoting The Homosexual Agenda'
Home Depot tells anti-gay hate group AFA what they can do with their petition
One Million Moms: Boycott Mattel For "Promoting Sin" By Featuring Gay Adoptive Dads In Magazine - Joe.My.God.
SBC to Disney: Cease Gay Days for the boycott to be lifted

Boycotts never work, America has the attention span of a gnat

True dat...but they have been effective, particularly during the civil rights era and I think also against apartheid in South Africa.

The one against Chik Fil La was effective...for Chik Fil La...I've never laughed so hard over something as when we went to support them and the line was stretched around the block. That one blew up in the left's face big time....and should make them realize there is more opposition out there than they realize

The Disney one had the same effect as well. Boycotts can work to garner support for the beleagured company.

 

[Centinel]

Safety regulations for employees and gay cakes are the same? WTF?

When you say "we" who are you talking about, Timmy! Where in the Constitution does it say that when you go into business, your property goes under the control of government with no due process required?

Commerce clause says you can regulate biz. They ain't taking property by the way .

Does it? I thought it said that congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states.

A bakery isn't a state.

The bakery violated state law .

You're all over the place. First you try the commerce clause. Now it's state law.

What is the ethical justification for punishing a person with the force of the state for doing nothing?

Because we are talking about various issues . Try and keep up.

Government right to intrude on biz
Religious rights
Then I was asked about that one famous bakery that got sued.

You do understand that gay rights aren't the same everywhere and are mainly driven by state law .

Yep, I certainly do understand that.

So, what is the ethical justification for punishing a person with the force of the state for doing nothing?

 

[Coyote]

Title II of the Civil Rights Act for one...

I'm aware of the law. By what is the ethical justification for the law? Why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever (albeit stupid) reason they choose?

Then you should really go after that Federal law, not state and local laws that have only added gays to already existing protections.

I can't deny service to a Christian in 50 out of 50 states, but he can deny me in over half. I can't fire someone because I find out they are Jewish in 50 out of 50 states, but that Jewish individual can fire me in over half.

What are you doing to get rid of Title II of the Civil Rights Act that requires gays to serve Christians?

I'm opposed to any law, federal, state, or local, that punishes a person for choosing not to engage in trade with someone. Why should a person not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever reason they choose?

Would segregation have ever ended - segregated bathrooms, hotels and restaurants that wouldn't serve blacks? Things didn't change until they had to.

Refusing to participate in a wedding is NOT segregation, you pathetic nitwit.

Try to keep up - we were discussing civil rights and SERVING customers.