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

[SassyIrishLass]

Regressive is typically associated with "rightwing".

By leftists ...

BTW, you're the establishment now, you won. You're the ones who don't want change now. You aren't "progressive" anymore

Eventually what is new and revolutionary becomes the status quo - it happened with Civil Rights, with over turning prohibitions on mixed race marriage, with barring discrimmination based on race, gender, ethnicity and religion. And now it is happening with equal rights for the LGBT community which ultimately amounts to nothing more than simple human dignity - the kind you already enjoy.

Call it what you want, but it's liberals that made it the excepted norm. I don't think any of the above is a bad thing. Why do you?

Except it was the republicans that expanded and voted for civil rights. You all really should learn this, where in the hell did you people go to school?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

The Oregon case was more complex than simply refusing service. The bakery owners also published the name and address of the couple they refused in FB, leading to harrassment and threats. They also published court documents, revealing personal information. There was a lot more to it then simply refusing service.

Lol you wish, what horseshit. You keep changing the scenario.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Regressive is typically associated with "rightwing".

By leftists ...

BTW, you're the establishment now, you won. You're the ones who don't want change now. You aren't "progressive" anymore

They were never progressive, they are Fascist regressive. They figured out they could use the government to create their little utopia where everyone is equal, create a level playing field....it's a fantasy,nothing more and nothing less. Eventually they will push too far, it's inevitable

I agree, that's why I quoted "progressive," it's what they call themselves, but I don't think they are progressive anything either

I have zero use for anyone calling themselves a "progressive/liberal"....none. They annoy the hell out of me

Yes, I usually call them leftists. I do call them liberal sometimes even though they are not because they call themselves that. I never use it though in discussions other than to name a side, never to describe them. There is nothing "liberal" about the left. It's like North Korea calling itself a people's democratic republic

Use "left loons"...it covers each and every one of them

 

[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.​

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

The Oregon case was more complex than simply refusing service. The bakery owners also published the name and address of the couple they refused in FB, leading to harrassment and threats. They also published court documents, revealing personal information. There was a lot more to it then simply refusing service.

And let's not forget one other little tidbit...the Oregon case's fine was based on another Oregon case where a Christer was awarded even more money because her boss discriminated against her.

Christers want to be protected...but no one else is to be protected from them?

I agree, we need to learn tolerance for others and their ideas and morals. We don't need to accept, we need to tolerate.

In this I agree, and that is also why I don't like "entrapment" - people deliberately seeking out a bakery in order to be refused, so they can then make a case of it or publicize it and ruin them.

 

[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.​

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

The Oregon case was more complex than simply refusing service. The bakery owners also published the name and address of the couple they refused in FB, leading to harrassment and threats. They also published court documents, revealing personal information. There was a lot more to it then simply refusing service.

Lol you wish, what horseshit. You keep changing the scenario.

Look it up.

 

[kaz]

Regressive is typically associated with "rightwing".

By leftists ...

BTW, you're the establishment now, you won. You're the ones who don't want change now. You aren't "progressive" anymore

Eventually what is new and revolutionary becomes the status quo - it happened with Civil Rights, with over turning prohibitions on mixed race marriage, with barring discrimmination based on race, gender, ethnicity and religion. And now it is happening with equal rights for the LGBT community which ultimately amounts to nothing more than simple human dignity - the kind you already enjoy.

Call it what you want, but it's liberals that made it the excepted norm. I don't think any of the above is a bad thing. Why do you?

If leftists could read, you'd realize what you said is what I said until your last inane question. I didn't say anything about good or bad, I said you're not.

My point was regarding your point that leftists call the right "regressive"

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

The Oregon case was more complex than simply refusing service. The bakery owners also published the name and address of the couple they refused in FB, leading to harrassment and threats. They also published court documents, revealing personal information. There was a lot more to it then simply refusing service.

And let's not forget one other little tidbit...the Oregon case's fine was based on another Oregon case where a Christer was awarded even more money because her boss discriminated against her.

Christers want to be protected...but no one else is to be protected from them?

I agree, we need to learn tolerance for others and their ideas and morals. We don't need to accept, we need to tolerate.

In this I agree, and that is also why I don't like "entrapment" - people deliberately seeking out a bakery in order to be refused, so they can then make a case of it or publicize it and ruin them.

What you don't like is the entrapment snared the Muslims. Quite effective

 

[bodecea]

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

How's that "strategy" going? Gotten rid of civil marriage yet?

What have you personally overturned with your strategy?

Moron

Our strategy? Legalized gay marriage. Haven't you paid any attention?

That's not the question. Seawytch's standard, which you agreed with, is that you have to personally change laws. I didn't ask you two simpletons what you agree with, I asked you what you have done to meet your stated standard. So, what laws have you changed with your strategy? Seawytch is just hiding from her standard completely

We do personally change laws...do you think if we didn't personally get involved, organize, donate time and money, lobby, protest, come out,etc.....do you think things would have changed?

I'm sorry that you are too lazy to invest the time and effort yourself. You must be of the generation that is spoiled to instant gratification and won't work for things.

 

[koshergrl]

Regressive is typically associated with "rightwing".

By leftists ...

BTW, you're the establishment now, you won. You're the ones who don't want change now. You aren't "progressive" anymore

Eventually what is new and revolutionary becomes the status quo - it happened with Civil Rights, with over turning prohibitions on mixed race marriage, with barring discrimmination based on race, gender, ethnicity and religion. And now it is happening with equal rights for the LGBT community which ultimately amounts to nothing more than simple human dignity - the kind you already enjoy.

Call it what you want, but it's liberals that made it the excepted norm. I don't think any of the above is a bad thing. Why do you?

Er, no. It has always been leftists who defend segregation, totalitarianism, authoritarianism...by class, by color, by sex, by religion, by geography. And it has always been the right, CHRISTIANS..who fight against it. As we are now. Queers don't get special powers and privileges, and bigotry against Christians will not go unanswered. Opposition makes us stronger. The church is growing exponentially in China, Iraq, Syria and India. Chew on that, fascist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Regressive is typically associated with "rightwing".

By leftists ...

BTW, you're the establishment now, you won. You're the ones who don't want change now. You aren't "progressive" anymore

Eventually what is new and revolutionary becomes the status quo - it happened with Civil Rights, with over turning prohibitions on mixed race marriage, with barring discrimmination based on race, gender, ethnicity and religion. And now it is happening with equal rights for the LGBT community which ultimately amounts to nothing more than simple human dignity - the kind you already enjoy.

Call it what you want, but it's liberals that made it the excepted norm. I don't think any of the above is a bad thing. Why do you?

Except it was the republicans that expanded and voted for civil rights. You all really should learn this, where in the hell did you people go to school?

Not true. More Democrats voted for the civil rights act than Republicans. And a Democratic president signed it.

 

[Coyote]

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.

They are demanding a special cake, created specifically for a particular event. An artistic creation. Have you ever planned a wedding?? I have. One of the things you do is meet with the baker to see if they can create what you want..and to see if they are willing to do it. I am so si k of lazy ass, stupid entitlement whores going to the mat to force people to serve them.

Sounds like we are in agreement here. They are purchasing a WEDDING CAKE - something that company is know to provide. They're asking for the same sort of service a heterosexual couple asks for. They're not asking for a wedding pie, or a crown roast.

You people are so inutterably lazy and stupid it makes me despair. You use the feds as your personal bank and your goon squad...apparently completely oblivious to the fact that when they have enough authority, they will come for you first. Once the feeder class has served its purpose, it is slaughtered. This has happened time and time again with fas ist regimes....and you're still too stupid to see it. If you spent even half the time you spend on this site actually researching history (and not history from ideologues), you would know this. If you spent any time researching our COUNTRY'S history, you would know this.

But you're so stupid, lazy, and brainwashed that you can't. Which pisses me off because it puts me in the uncomfortable position of wishing the feds would just go ahead and start culling. You're such a moron you will (and have) defend the rightness of such action.

sheep.

No, they want a special weddi g cake, made specifically for this event.

You're so stupid it gives me a headache.

They want a service routinely provided to weddings by that company. You're trying very hard to split hairs on this aren't you?

 

[bodecea]

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

The Oregon case was more complex than simply refusing service. The bakery owners also published the name and address of the couple they refused in FB, leading to harrassment and threats. They also published court documents, revealing personal information. There was a lot more to it then simply refusing service.

And let's not forget one other little tidbit...the Oregon case's fine was based on another Oregon case where a Christer was awarded even more money because her boss discriminated against her.

Christers want to be protected...but no one else is to be protected from them?

I agree, we need to learn tolerance for others and their ideas and morals. We don't need to accept, we need to tolerate.

In this I agree, and that is also why I don't like "entrapment" - people deliberately seeking out a bakery in order to be refused, so they can then make a case of it or publicize it and ruin them.

What you don't like is the entrapment snared the Muslims. Quite effective

Bi-Catfish doesn't seem to get that there was nothing to snare. Michigan doesn't have sexual orientation listed in their PA law.

 

[Centinel]

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.

I will continue to ignore any questions about my personal life. What I do is none of your business. So stop asking me or I'll report you to the mods, asshole.

So if you don't want me assuming, I'll ask you. Do you support laws that punish a person for choosing not to engage in trade with someone?

Report me to the mods for what you pussy?

I support Public Accommodation laws. I also support you calling your elected representatives and ask them to repeal them. Something you obviously have not, pussy.

Given that you support such laws, what is your ethical justification for a law that uses the force of the state against a person who has done nothing to anyone else?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

They are demanding a special cake, created specifically for a particular event. An artistic creation. Have you ever planned a wedding?? I have. One of the things you do is meet with the baker to see if they can create what you want..and to see if they are willing to do it. I am so si k of lazy ass, stupid entitlement whores going to the mat to force people to serve them.

Sounds like we are in agreement here. They are purchasing a WEDDING CAKE - something that company is know to provide. They're asking for the same sort of service a heterosexual couple asks for. They're not asking for a wedding pie, or a crown roast.

You people are so inutterably lazy and stupid it makes me despair. You use the feds as your personal bank and your goon squad...apparently completely oblivious to the fact that when they have enough authority, they will come for you first. Once the feeder class has served its purpose, it is slaughtered. This has happened time and time again with fas ist regimes....and you're still too stupid to see it. If you spent even half the time you spend on this site actually researching history (and not history from ideologues), you would know this. If you spent any time researching our COUNTRY'S history, you would know this.

But you're so stupid, lazy, and brainwashed that you can't. Which pisses me off because it puts me in the uncomfortable position of wishing the feds would just go ahead and start culling. You're such a moron you will (and have) defend the rightness of such action.

sheep.

No, they want a special weddi g cake, made specifically for this event.

You're so stupid it gives me a headache.

That's why they went to a place that makes special wedding cakes.

 

[kaz]

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

How's that "strategy" going? Gotten rid of civil marriage yet?

What have you personally overturned with your strategy?

Moron

Our strategy? Legalized gay marriage. Haven't you paid any attention?

That's not the question. Seawytch's standard, which you agreed with, is that you have to personally change laws. I didn't ask you two simpletons what you agree with, I asked you what you have done to meet your stated standard. So, what laws have you changed with your strategy? Seawytch is just hiding from her standard completely

We do personally change laws...do you think if we didn't personally get involved, organize, donate time and money, lobby, protest, come out,etc.....do you think things would have changed?

I'm sorry that you are too lazy to invest the time and effort yourself. You must be of the generation that is spoiled to instant gratification and won't work for things.

We should not support causes that don't win, that is a personal failure. On the other had, if we just support causes that would win without our personal support, that is a personal victory.

Make that you are two stupid dykes

 

[Coyote]

Regressive is typically associated with "rightwing".

By leftists ...

BTW, you're the establishment now, you won. You're the ones who don't want change now. You aren't "progressive" anymore

Eventually what is new and revolutionary becomes the status quo - it happened with Civil Rights, with over turning prohibitions on mixed race marriage, with barring discrimmination based on race, gender, ethnicity and religion. And now it is happening with equal rights for the LGBT community which ultimately amounts to nothing more than simple human dignity - the kind you already enjoy.

Call it what you want, but it's liberals that made it the excepted norm. I don't think any of the above is a bad thing. Why do you?

Er, no. It has always been leftists who defend segregation...by class, by color, by sex, by religion, by geography. And it has always been the right, CHRISTIANS..who fight against it. As we are now.

You are confusing political parties with ideologies. The south, though democrat, was heavily conservative and heavily Christian - conservative Christian. When the Democrats took up civil rights, they fled the party.

The north was more liberal, and it's Christians were more liberal. And yes - Christians played a big role in abolition, as did northern Jews in Civil Rights. Christians also played a big role in protecting and promoting slavery.

Keep on spinning your fantasies

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Who is defending Muslims having a special right to discriminate?

 

[kaz]

Regressive is typically associated with "rightwing".

By leftists ...

BTW, you're the establishment now, you won. You're the ones who don't want change now. You aren't "progressive" anymore

Eventually what is new and revolutionary becomes the status quo - it happened with Civil Rights, with over turning prohibitions on mixed race marriage, with barring discrimmination based on race, gender, ethnicity and religion. And now it is happening with equal rights for the LGBT community which ultimately amounts to nothing more than simple human dignity - the kind you already enjoy.

Call it what you want, but it's liberals that made it the excepted norm. I don't think any of the above is a bad thing. Why do you?

Er, no. It has always been leftists who defend segregation...by class, by color, by sex, by religion, by geography. And it has always been the right, CHRISTIANS..who fight against it. As we are now.

It's leftists who are keeping blacks effectively segregated now with race baiting that whites hate them and want them discriminated against. Leftists are trying to do the same with women, gays, Latinos and any other group we can.

Democrats are still deeply segregationists. Divide and control. The last thing they want is the country moving away from bigotry, it takes the chief weapon out of their belt

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Regressive is typically associated with "rightwing".

By leftists ...

BTW, you're the establishment now, you won. You're the ones who don't want change now. You aren't "progressive" anymore

Eventually what is new and revolutionary becomes the status quo - it happened with Civil Rights, with over turning prohibitions on mixed race marriage, with barring discrimmination based on race, gender, ethnicity and religion. And now it is happening with equal rights for the LGBT community which ultimately amounts to nothing more than simple human dignity - the kind you already enjoy.

Call it what you want, but it's liberals that made it the excepted norm. I don't think any of the above is a bad thing. Why do you?

Er, no. It has always been leftists who defend segregation...by class, by color, by sex, by religion, by geography. And it has always been the right, CHRISTIANS..who fight against it. As we are now.

You are confusing political parties with ideologies. The south, though democrat, was heavily conservative and heavily Christian - conservative Christian. When the Democrats took up civil rights, they fled the party.

The north was more liberal, and it's Christians were more liberal. And yes - Christians played a big role in abolition, as did northern Jews in Civil Rights. Christians also played a big role in protecting and promoting slavery.

Keep on spinning your fantasies

The hogwash has been debunked numerous times....it's so Huffpo

 

[Coyote]

Regressive is typically associated with "rightwing".

By leftists ...

BTW, you're the establishment now, you won. You're the ones who don't want change now. You aren't "progressive" anymore

Eventually what is new and revolutionary becomes the status quo - it happened with Civil Rights, with over turning prohibitions on mixed race marriage, with barring discrimmination based on race, gender, ethnicity and religion. And now it is happening with equal rights for the LGBT community which ultimately amounts to nothing more than simple human dignity - the kind you already enjoy.

Call it what you want, but it's liberals that made it the excepted norm. I don't think any of the above is a bad thing. Why do you?

If leftists could read, you'd realize what you said is what I said until your last inane question. I didn't say anything about good or bad, I said you're not.

My point was regarding your point that leftists call the right "regressive"

Why are you assuming we don't want further change?