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

[rdean]

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

No I don't. But I do know whenever a regressive brings up the equivalency card I am not aware of it ever holding up. Plus, the muslim religion is a lot more homophobic than others, I mean they advocate for stoning gay people... If you just stopped and thought the matter for five seconds you would probably reach the same conclusion.

If Muslims and Christians both believe in "kill the gays", does it matter how they want to do it?

WATCH: Ted Cruz Campaign Calls Attending 'Kill the Gays' Conference 'A Mistake' | Advocate.com

 

[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.

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

All you're saying is that you assume any segregationist is "conservative," which proves that segregationists are conservative ...

 

[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"

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

I'm not "assuming" that, failed question

 

[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

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

You mean by the rightwing talking heads?

 

[bodecea]

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?

Yes...I would like the names of those who are defending the mooslims right to discriminate. We already know the christers want to discriminate.....Bi-Catfish for one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Because conservatives are, for the most part, authoritarian reactionaries, frightened of change, diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty.

For most on the right those who are ‘different' are perceived to be a ‘threat,’ and must therefore be compelled to conform – either through the force of law or through forces that manifest in private society, such as gay patrons being subject to discrimination in public accommodations.

And through the force of law and hateful discrimination in private society, gay Americans will ‘get the message’ that they’re unwanted pariahs, that they must return to the shadows of society, and hide themselves away as if they don’t exist, thus assuaging the unwarranted fear and bigotry of conservatives.

But you knew this already.

 

[bodecea]

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

All you're saying is that you assume any segregationist is "conservative," which proves that segregationists are conservative ...

Oh...do tell us that segregationists were liberals........

 

[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...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

I'm not confusing anything at all. As you show every day when you argue for killing babies, or targeting Christians, you are the one who is confused. Or lying. Or drugged...if drugged, you're probably all three.

 

[bodecea]

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

I'm not confusing anything at all. As you show every day when you argue for killing babies, or targeting Christians, you are the one who is confused. Or lying. Or drugged...if drugged, you're probably all three.

Poor persecuted christers.....poor, poor persecuted christers. If only there were more of them in this country, maybe they wouldn't be persecuted so much.......poor, poor persecuted christers.

 

[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

All you're saying is that you assume any segregationist is "conservative," which proves that segregationists are conservative ...

What I'm saying is the south was, and still is a very conservative region. Do we agree on that? It certainly plays out in today's politics. That is not saying any or all segregationists were conservative but I suspect most were. Or do you that the handful of liberals in those regions drove it?

Who were the people who came down to places like Mississippi, in order to register voters, and lost their lives in the process? Who killed them? Liberals? Conservatives?

It's 60 some years later - and we are not those people anymore. What was liberal then is now defended as the accepted values by conservatives. But it was not then.

 

[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

I'm not confusing anything at all. As you show every day when you argue for killing babies, or targeting Christians, you are the one who is confused. Or lying. Or drugged...if drugged, you're probably all three.

Damn...those poor Christians being persecuted through out the U.S.

 

[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?

Because conservatives are, for the most part, authoritarian reactionaries, frightened of change, diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty.

For most on the right those who are ‘different' are perceived to be a ‘threat,’ and must therefore be compelled to conform – either through the force of law or through forces that manifest in private society, such as gay patrons being subject to discrimination in public accommodations.

And through the force of law and hateful discrimination in private society, gay Americans will ‘get the message’ that they’re unwanted pariahs, that they must return to the shadows of society, and hide themselves away as if they don’t exist, thus assuaging the unwarranted fear and bigotry of conservatives.

But you knew this already.

One of the best articles looking at conservatism (as in fundamentalism) and liberalism was written in a Unitarian publication - but I think it gets at the heart of the matter of what those two ideologies are - beyond just politics.

The fundamentalist agenda

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

This is an important point.

The notion that those subject to discrimination should simply ‘wait’ until social, cultural, and political conditions ‘change’ where discriminatory policies are no longer accepted is repugnant to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the fundamental tenets of our Republic.

Just as African-Americans and Hispanic Americans during the 1950s weren’t required to ‘wait’ until segregation and discrimination ‘naturally went away,’ so too are gay Americans not required to ‘wait’ until the unwarranted fear and hate concerning homosexuality ‘naturally goes away.’

The (possibly brain-damaged) memory loss of the RIght includes their forgetting that all change comes with effort AND resistance from Conservatives.

Let 20+ years go by and the (possibly brain-damaged) Conservatives have forgotten their resistance and frequently even take credit for the change.

I remember when Martin Luther King Jr. was alive. He was hated by the Right with the power of a thousand suns. Now they embrace him as if he were one of their own. It's quite funny if it weren't so sad.

In 20+ years, Conservatives will try to take credit for the legalization of Gay Marriage.

Conservatives – masters of revisionist history.

 

[koshergrl]

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

I'm not confusing anything at all. As you show every day when you argue for killing babies, or targeting Christians, you are the one who is confused. Or lying. Or drugged...if drugged, you're probably all three.

Damn...those poor Christians being persecuted through out the U.S.

Changing tactics again, I see.

 

[Tilly]

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

I'm not confusing anything at all. As you show every day when you argue for killing babies, or targeting Christians, you are the one who is confused. Or lying. Or drugged...if drugged, you're probably all three.

Poor persecuted christers.....poor, poor persecuted christers. If only there were more of them in this country, maybe they wouldn't be persecuted so much.......poor, poor persecuted christers.

Why do you refer to Christians as 'christers'?

 

[Theowl32]

Dear God the left wing hypocrites are pathetic.

They are defending their own hypocrisy.

It truly is unbelievable how creepy they are about it too.

 

[Centinel]

And none of the regressive statists have offered any ethical justification for a law that results in the use of government force against a person who has done nothing.

Just a lot of deflection and hand-waving.

"Because we can" and "Because it's the law" is what I've been hearing so far.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

No I don't. But I do know whenever a regressive brings up the equivalency card I am not aware of it ever holding up. Plus, the muslim religion is a lot more homophobic than others, I mean they advocate for stoning gay people... If you just stopped and thought the matter for five seconds you would probably reach the same conclusion.

Regressive is typically associated with "rightwing".

The Muslim religion is more anti-gay, they're a very conservative religion however, in the US I doubt there is much advocacy for stoning homosexuals.

If conservative is a key component of "anti-gay" activity, then should we assume that most conservative Christian bakeries will likewise refuse to create a wedding cake? I suspect most do not refuse - they are intelligent enough to seperate business from faith. Likewise, I would think - Muslim bakers and bakers of other religions which folks here ignore.

No, regressive is left wing. The cessation of industry, the rationing of resources when there is no need, the dumbing down of the schools, the rewarding of unproductive lifestyles, the rejection of religion and a return to the primitive and depraved tribal practices..even to the.fucking promotion of caveman diets and government control of diet. Regression. You're not even smart enough to grasp that simple concept, because your brain has been altered by the years of garbage you've fed it.

Wrong.

Regressive is rightwing, reactionary, to go backwards – seeking to return to an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.

Regressive is conservative – fear and disdain for change and diversity; the right’s desire to ‘turn back the clock’ to the ‘good old days’ when blacks, Hispanics, and gays ‘knew their place,’ and whites were the sole benefactors of the American dream.

regress

verb

1. to move backward; go back.

2. to revert to an earlier or less advanced state or form.

the definition of regress

A definition that perfectly describes conservatism.

 

[koshergrl]

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?

Again.
Routinely provided doesn't mean they must provide. If that were true, then you would be forced to give blow jobs on demand, just because you've provided them up until now to anybody who asks. It's ludicrous.

 

[bodecea]

Dear God the left wing hypocrites are pathetic.

They are defending their own hypocrisy.

It truly is unbelievable how creepy they are about it too.

Explain the hypocrisy, please.