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

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Disney is a hot mess with their attempts to pacify everyone on the planet...I have little use for them

 

[Coyote]

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?

Did they break a law?

 

[Centinel]

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?

Did they break a law?

As I said earlier in this thread, I am calling into question the justness of the law itself.

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

 

[Norman]

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.

The point was mostly that the regressives don't care if other people besides white evil men do it, not that muslims are homophobic (even though they are). Wanna bet that muslim bakers refuse the service overwhelmingly more than bakers of other religions?

Liberals and their never ending false equivalencies regarding Islam. I really feel bad, especially for the atheists who are brainwashed to stand as apologists of the most gruesome major religion on the planet.

 

[kaz]

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?

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 .

No, it doesn't, it says we can regulate interstate commerce. We aren't talking about interstate commerce, we're talking about baking cakes. So where does it say we can regulate business?

 

[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?

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?

That is what it says when child labor laws went into effect. If this is such an important principle, why cherry pick? When is it ok for the government to intrude and when is it not - and why?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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?

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?

That is what it says when child labor laws went into effect. If this is such an important principle, why cherry pick? When is it ok for the government to intrude and when is it not - and why?

Trying to connect child labor laws to this is a real stretch. The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion, that is the heart of the matter. Does the Constitution override a state law?

 

[bodecea]

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

Hilarious watching the Right try to play gotcha and have it blow up in their face.

 

[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 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.

They demand that they endorse their fake weddings by creating special cakes.for them. That is unconstitutional. If the fags want a cake from Christians, they can pick one from the case. Just like satanists can. Or NAMBLA. Or any of the other freaks.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Wanna bet that muslim bakers refuse the service overwhelmingly more than bakers of other religions?

Liberals and their never ending false equivalencies regarding Islam. I really feel bad, especially for the atheists who are brainwashed to stand as apologists of the most gruesome major religion on the planet.

Do you have anything that shows Muslim bakers refuse the service overwhelmingly more than bakers of other religions? Has an actual study been done? How about Jewish bakers? How about Hindu bakers?

The more I read about Crowder...the funnier it gets. Some of the Muslim bakers he talked to - don't even bake wedding cakes period and they count among the refusals? You can not force someone to provide something he does not ordinarily make.

Rush Limbaugh, Dearborn and the Muslim Baker Bigotry Myth

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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?

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?

That is what it says when child labor laws went into effect. If this is such an important principle, why cherry pick? When is it ok for the government to intrude and when is it not - and why?

Trying to connect child labor laws to this is a real stretch. The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion, that is the heart of the matter. Does the Constitution override a state law?

I thought I smelled an ignorant old dyke lurking, morning ankle snapper. Will you be following me around the forum again today hitting funny? Retard

 

[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?

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?

That is what it says when child labor laws went into effect. If this is such an important principle, why cherry pick? When is it ok for the government to intrude and when is it not - and why?

Trying to connect child labor laws to this is a real stretch. The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion, that is the heart of the matter. Does the Constitution override a state law?

True, but no rights are unlimited and that's the key. For example, freedom of religion can force employers to allow "reasonable accommodation" in order to accommodate the person's faith - but the key term is "reasonable".

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Wow...you're "opposed". Good golly miss Molly, stop the presses, you "oppose" them. What form does that "opposition" take? Are you calling your congressman and demanding the repeal of Title II of the Civil Rights Act or are you just bitching about state and local laws on a message board?

Yes, I oppose them. I'm assuming you support them, then? What is your justification for why a person should not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever reason they choose?

You can assume nothing. I'm asking you, and you keep ignoring the question, what YOU are personally doing to get rid of PA laws beyond bitching about state and local laws on a message board. You oppose PA laws, but have you called your Senator and Congresscritter and demanded they repeal Title II of the CRA? That's the law that requires that I, a gay person, serve a Christian in all 50 states.

 

[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 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.

They demand that they endorse their fake weddings by creatjng special cakes.for them. That is unconstitutional. If the fags want a cake from Christians, they can pick one from the case. Nust like satanists can. Or NAMBLA. Or any of the other freaks.

They aren't demanding special cakes - they are only demanding a wedding cake, something that the bakery is known for providing.

 

[rdean]

Ok, everyone knows the story of the Christian-owned bakery whose owners refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. They argued businesses should / do have the right to refuse to support certain events when those events are against their religious or moral beliefs.

Liberals saw things differently, people lost their minds, Christians were demonized, the govt got involved, and they wanted to force the owners to make the cake or be punished.

So, did / are they getting fair and equal treatment?

Didja hear about the Muslim bakarieS (yes, plural) that refuse to make same-Sex wedding cakes? Of course you didn't! My phone won't allow me to post the specific link, but - if you aren't lazy - go to LouderwithCrowder.com and watch the video of this guy going into numerous Muslim bakeries and getting rejected everytime he asked them to make a same-sex wedding cake.

Funny, you would think this would be all over the news and that Obama & his DOJ would be all over this, right?

The libs & govt aren't all over this because they believe in appeasing Muslims while targeting Christians unfairly. Why? Maybe 1 reason is they know, unlike with Christians, Muslims (Islamic Extremists) will cut your head off or blow your ass up if you mess with them

This isn't a major problem anyway because hardly any homosexuals go into Muslim bakeries. Why? Because they know these same people burn, behead, and hang gays in their country where they came from. So if they don't want to serve gays, no problem - just stay the hell away from them, leave them alone, and 'pick' on the Christians. They are easier targets...

Who goes to a Muslim bakery? Do they even have wedding cakes?

Besides, Republicans should be proud that once again, they are on the same side as radical Muslims.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.​

And the vast majority of Christian bakers agree to make the cakes. It seems Oregon showcased the one that did not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

You don’t understand.

The Commerce Clause authorizes state and local governments to, among other things, regulate local markets, as well as all other interrelated markets.

To allow businesses to discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation would be disruptive to the local market, where government regulation is warranted to prohibit such discrimination to maintain the integrity of the market.

Consequently, no one is being ‘punished’ for ‘doing nothing’; rather, business owners, subject to necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policies, are being subject to fines for having violated those policies.

Public accommodations laws are no different than any other regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, in that a business owner might be fined for not paying a minimum wage, exposing workers to unsafe working conditions, or violating environmental protection policies by polluting the air or water.

Moreover, business owners should be aware of all the regulatory measures their state and local jurisdictions require them to follow, and they should understand that following those laws and measures are conditions upon which they must conduct business, including public accommodations laws.

Last, as residents of their respective states and local jurisdictions, business owners are at liberty to seek through the political process to have any regulatory measures they oppose amended or repealed.

 

[kaz]

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?

Wow...you're "opposed". Good golly miss Molly, stop the presses, you "oppose" them. What form does that "opposition" take? Are you calling your congressman and demanding the repeal of Title II of the Civil Rights Act or are you just bitching about state and local laws on a message board?

Yes, I oppose them. I'm assuming you support them, then? What is your justification for why a person should not be allowed to decline engaging in trade for whatever reason they choose?

You can assume nothing. I'm asking you, and you keep ignoring the question, what YOU are personally doing to get rid of PA laws beyond bitching about state and local laws on a message board. You oppose PA laws, but have you called your Senator and Congresscritter and demanded they repeal Title II of the CRA? That's the law that requires that I, a gay person, serve a Christian in all 50 states.

That stupid canard again. A question you ask liberals not at all ever. We can't post unless we can tell you what our actions are according to your standards to back them up. Got it.

And as for me, I keep telling you that my strategy is to change minds. And you keep informing me that isn't your strategy so it doesn't count, I have to satisfy you. LOL, yeah

 

[Weatherman2020]

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 .

Yeah, right. That's why this topic will soon have a thousand posts, because everyone agrees.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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?

That is what it says when child labor laws went into effect. If this is such an important principle, why cherry pick? When is it ok for the government to intrude and when is it not - and why?

Trying to connect child labor laws to this is a real stretch. The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion, that is the heart of the matter. Does the Constitution override a state law?

True, but no rights are unlimited and that's the key. For example, freedom of religion can force employers to allow "reasonable accommodation" in order to accommodate the person's faith - but the key term is "reasonable".

There are plenty of bakers out there that will gladly bake a gay wedding cake, be reasonable and use them.