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

[Coyote]

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?

You're a left wing talking head and you go out of the way to defend Muslims.....things that make one go hmmmm?

What specifically have I defended? (link please)

What party did Wallace belong to? Robert Byrd? Which party was the party of the KKK? When exactly did this miraculous change of party and ideals happen?You can't change history....so stop trying to do so. Also realize people know history and spewing Huffpo BS is just that, spewing Huffpo BS

You are still confusing ideology with political parties.

You're dancing and I'm laughing...you've danced all over this thread trying to protect the Muslims. You just don't realize we realize you're dancing

I stated I don't like entrapment and I apply that equally across the board regardless of religion.

 

[koshergrl]

Just a reminder...in our constitutional republic, the people side with Sweetcakes...

Sweet Cakes by Melissa breaks record on crowdfunding site

You realize that at one time "the people" sided with a flat earth, Jim Crowe, the internment of the Japanese and they voted in Jimmy Carter, Dubya Bush and Obama (not that I have any problem with Obama).

You retard, the flat earthers were the progressives of the time. The Bible maintained the earth was a sphere. The flat earth theorythe junk science of the time, touted by the "civilized" and most "scientific" of the population at the time.

And although you may accept that you and yours are brain dead retards (and it certainly is true) most of us do not share the opinion that WE need the government to dictate our morality, our business, or anything else to us. We are constrained by our religion, which is a HUMAN RIGHT to hold, and we have a constitutional republic form of government whose one and only purpose is to PROTECT that right. That means if a baker doesn't want to make a special cake for a homo fest, she doesn't have to. It means if a homo wants to stage a parody of a religious sacrament and invite all his friends, he can. What neither one of them can do is demand that nobody ELSE talk about their faith, or command other people to endorse and serve them. Forcing people to denounce their god, to hide their faith, and to deny them the ability to conduct business unless they AGREE to commit sacrilege, is the definition of slavery.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

You mean by the rightwing talking heads?

You're a left wing talking head and you go out of the way to defend Muslims.....things that make one go hmmmm?

What specifically have I defended? (link please)

What party did Wallace belong to? Robert Byrd? Which party was the party of the KKK? When exactly did this miraculous change of party and ideals happen?You can't change history....so stop trying to do so. Also realize people know history and spewing Huffpo BS is just that, spewing Huffpo BS

You are still confusing ideology with political parties.

You're dancing and I'm laughing...you've danced all over this thread trying to protect the Muslims. You just don't realize we realize you're dancing

I stated I don't like entrapment and I apply that equally across the board regardless of religion.

Save the entrapment angle...I saw through that the first post you made on it. The fact remains the Muslims refused, when the Christians did the left lost their collective minds....with the Muslims? You attack the means and not the result

 

[bodecea]

Just a reminder...in our constitutional republic, the people side with Sweetcakes and with Chik fil A.

Sweet Cakes by Melissa breaks record on crowdfunding site
Chick-Fil-A Sales Soar In 2012 Despite Bad PR

Just a reminder, in our Constitutional Republic, the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, where public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, and those who violate public accommodations laws are solely responsible the consequences they sustain.

Do you consider it it proper, from an ethical point of view, to establish a law that results in the initiation of government force against a person who has done nothing to anyone else?

So...you are against speeding and parking laws then.

 

[bodecea]

Just a reminder...in our constitutional republic, the people side with Sweetcakes...

Sweet Cakes by Melissa breaks record on crowdfunding site

You realize that at one time "the people" sided with a flat earth, Jim Crowe, the internment of the Japanese and they voted in Jimmy Carter, Dubya Bush and Obama (not that I have any problem with Obama).

You retard, the flat earthers were the progressives of the time. The Bible maintained the earth was a sphere. The flat earth theorythe junk science of the time, touted by the "civilized" and most "scientific" of the population at the time.

And although you may accept that you and yours are brain dead retards (and it certainly is true) most of us do not share the opinion that WE need the government to dictate our morality, our business, or anything else to us. We are constrained by our religion, which is a HUMAN RIGHT to hold, and we have a constitutional republic form of government whose one and only purpose is to PROTECT that right. That means if a baker doesn't want to make a special cake for a homo fest, she doesn't have to. It means if a homo wants to stage a parody of a religious sacrament and invite all his friends, he can. What neither one of them can do is demand that nobody ELSE talk about their faith, or command other people to endorse and serve them. Forcing people to denounce their god, to hide their faith, and to deny them the ability to conduct business unless they AGREE to commit sacrilege, is the definition of slavery.

 

[Centinel]

Just a reminder...in our constitutional republic, the people side with Sweetcakes and with Chik fil A.

Sweet Cakes by Melissa breaks record on crowdfunding site
Chick-Fil-A Sales Soar In 2012 Despite Bad PR

Just a reminder, in our Constitutional Republic, the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, where public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, and those who violate public accommodations laws are solely responsible the consequences they sustain.

Do you consider it it proper, from an ethical point of view, to establish a law that results in the initiation of government force against a person who has done nothing to anyone else?

So...you are against speeding and parking laws then.

Yes, on my own property.

However, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about one person being offered to engage in exchange and opting not to agree. We have a law that would result in the initiation of state force against this person who has harmed no one. Do you consider the initiation of force against people who have harmed no one to be justified?

 

[bodecea]

Just a reminder...in our constitutional republic, the people side with Sweetcakes and with Chik fil A.

Sweet Cakes by Melissa breaks record on crowdfunding site
Chick-Fil-A Sales Soar In 2012 Despite Bad PR

Just a reminder, in our Constitutional Republic, the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, where public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, and those who violate public accommodations laws are solely responsible the consequences they sustain.

Do you consider it it proper, from an ethical point of view, to establish a law that results in the initiation of government force against a person who has done nothing to anyone else?

So...you are against speeding and parking laws then.

Yes, on my own property.

However, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about one person being offered to engage in exchange and opting not to agree. We have a law that would result in the initiation of state force against this person who has harmed no one. Do you consider the initiation of force against people who have harmed no one to be justified?

So are you against PA laws in general or only if they protect people based on sexual orientation?

 

[koshergrl]

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?

You're a left wing talking head and you go out of the way to defend Muslims.....things that make one go hmmmm?

What specifically have I defended? (link please)

What party did Wallace belong to? Robert Byrd? Which party was the party of the KKK? When exactly did this miraculous change of party and ideals happen?You can't change history....so stop trying to do so. Also realize people know history and spewing Huffpo BS is just that, spewing Huffpo BS

You are still confusing ideology with political parties.

You're dancing and I'm laughing...you've danced all over this thread trying to protect the Muslims. You just don't realize we realize you're dancing

She always defends muslims. So we an deduce that she's a fan of sharia.It's apparent in the way she attacks Christians and Israel, and any sort of independent thinking or action by any except a chosen few.

Because that's what this is all about out..her absolute commitment to the idea that certain groups of people have "special" authority.And I'm sure she sees herself as one of those special groups...or she wishes she was.

The peon class of this country, the entitlement pigs, have become a disgusting heap of garbage. They grovel and abase themselves so that they do not have to be accountable for their own failures. They're always looking for a scapegoat. Coyote admires criminals and the most disgusting elements of our society. If you have spent any time on here at all, will see...she defends any policy that will support and establish human rights violations. The only groups she will defend are those who violate human rights, or seek to violate them. The only government policies she will defend are the ones that erode liberty. And she will lie, and say that only by violating human rights and decreasing liberty, an we assure human rights for all, and increase the liberty of all.

It's a fucking scary ideology, and it's totally 100 percent globalist, which is to say authoritarian/fascist. She creams herself every time someone mentions Obama's most revolting policies. Because she's a complete entitlement whore. She thinks she's getting something from it.

 

[Centinel]

Just a reminder...in our constitutional republic, the people side with Sweetcakes and with Chik fil A.

Sweet Cakes by Melissa breaks record on crowdfunding site
Chick-Fil-A Sales Soar In 2012 Despite Bad PR

Just a reminder, in our Constitutional Republic, the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, where public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, and those who violate public accommodations laws are solely responsible the consequences they sustain.

Do you consider it it proper, from an ethical point of view, to establish a law that results in the initiation of government force against a person who has done nothing to anyone else?

So...you are against speeding and parking laws then.

Yes, on my own property.

However, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about one person being offered to engage in exchange and opting not to agree. We have a law that would result in the initiation of state force against this person who has harmed no one. Do you consider the initiation of force against people who have harmed no one to be justified?

So are you against PA laws in general or only if they protect people based on sexual orientation?

In general.

I can see no justification for establishing laws that punish people who have done nothing to anyone.

 

[jknowgood]

That is the purpose and technique of a sting type operation.

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

Kind of looks to me like you "don't want to get along" and you want to be "a pain in the ass".

Just think if queers didn't start the trouble to begin with none of that would've happened. Now they want to demand that grown men share the bathrooms with little girls.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

If they did it after the lawsuit was filed, then good for them. That's standard operating procedure for leftwing douchebags.

 

[Silhouette]

So are you against PA laws in general or only if they protect people based on sexual orientation?

I personally am against giving any special protections to BEHAVIORS. Race, gender, country of origin are other matters altogether. Banging some guy in the ass as your kink is not a "protected right" anymore than bulimia is. Bulimia is just another eating-orientation. If we aren't required by law to place vomit urns on tables to accommodate bulimics, then we aren't required to bake gays wedding cakes.

And if you want to talk about religion being a behavior, fine. But remember, their protected rights do not mean they can force others to abdicate their beliefs and subscribe to theirs instead....like what you're cult is trying to do to Christians..

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

Pure horseshit. The purpose of the Constitution isn't to resolve social problems.

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.’

Segregation was legally enforced discrimination, and therefore a violation of the 14th Amendment. When a baker refuses to bake a cake for a couple of queers, there's no violation of the Constitution. so you claim is irrelevant.

The fact is that people are required to pursue social change through persuasion and not by legislation, at least not at the federal level.

 

[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.

If they did it after the lawsuit was filed, then good for them. That's standard operating procedure for leftwing douchebags.

It seems to be standard operating procedure for rightwing scumwaffles as well.

You think this is a good thing?

 

[Coyote]

Just a reminder...in our constitutional republic, the people side with Sweetcakes...

Sweet Cakes by Melissa breaks record on crowdfunding site

You realize that at one time "the people" sided with a flat earth, Jim Crowe, the internment of the Japanese and they voted in Jimmy Carter, Dubya Bush and Obama (not that I have any problem with Obama).

You retard, the flat earthers were the progressives of the time. The Bible maintained the earth was a sphere. The flat earth theorythe junk science of the time, touted by the "civilized" and most "scientific" of the population at the time.

I love how you revisionists handle history....the flat earthers were the same anti-science conservatives that believed the sun revolved around the earth, and that today attack evolution or think that if you swallow a camera you can see into a woman's uterus.

And although you may accept that you and yours are brain dead retards (and it certainly is true) most of us do not share the opinion that WE need the government to dictate our morality, our business, or anything else to us. We are constrained by our religion, which is a HUMAN RIGHT to hold, and we have a constitutional republic form of government whose one and only purpose is to PROTECT that right. That means if a baker doesn't want to make a special cake for a homo fest, she doesn't have to. It means if a homo wants to stage a parody of a religious sacrament and invite all his friends, he can. What neither one of them can do is demand that nobody ELSE talk about their faith, or command other people to endorse and serve them. Forcing people to denounce their god, to hide their faith, and to deny them the ability to conduct business unless they AGREE to commit sacrilege, is the definition of slavery.

AGAIN - none of the constitutional rights are unlimited. The same people screaming about a bakers right to refuse service would be supporting religious discrimmination (like building a mosque, wearing a headscarf etc) if it involved a muslim defendent.

 

[koshergrl]

Just a reminder...in our constitutional republic, the people side with Sweetcakes...

Sweet Cakes by Melissa breaks record on crowdfunding site

You realize that at one time "the people" sided with a flat earth, Jim Crowe, the internment of the Japanese and they voted in Jimmy Carter, Dubya Bush and Obama (not that I have any problem with Obama).

You retard, the flat earthers were the progressives of the time. The Bible maintained the earth was a sphere. The flat earth theorythe junk science of the time, touted by the "civilized" and most "scientific" of the population at the time.

I love how you revisionists handle history....the flat earthers were the same anti-science conservatives that believed the sun revolved around the earth, and that today attack evolution or think that if you swallow a camera you can see into a woman's uterus.

And although you may accept that you and yours are brain dead retards (and it certainly is true) most of us do not share the opinion that WE need the government to dictate our morality, our business, or anything else to us. We are constrained by our religion, which is a HUMAN RIGHT to hold, and we have a constitutional republic form of government whose one and only purpose is to PROTECT that right. That means if a baker doesn't want to make a special cake for a homo fest, she doesn't have to. It means if a homo wants to stage a parody of a religious sacrament and invite all his friends, he can. What neither one of them can do is demand that nobody ELSE talk about their faith, or command other people to endorse and serve them. Forcing people to denounce their god, to hide their faith, and to deny them the ability to conduct business unless they AGREE to commit sacrilege, is the definition of slavery.

AGAIN - none of the constitutional rights are unlimited. The same people screaming about a bakers right to refuse service would be supporting religious discrimmination (like building a mosque, wearing a headscarf etc) if it involved a muslim defendent.

Per the constitution, they are only limited to the extent that they do harm.

No harm was done to the fags because an ARTIST didn't want to make a work of ART for them to take away from the grounds. Nobody in this country HAS to create. Nobody in this country is obliged to endorse sacrilege, if by refusing to do so nobody is harmed. You keep trying to pretend that declining to participate in a wedding is the same as barring black people from a restaurant. It's not. And you're an idiot.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

You're so stupid it gives me a headache.

Here is one of the wedding cakes in the portfolio for Masterpiece Cakes in Colorado. If a different-sex couple came in to order the cake they would sell it to them. If a same-sex couple came into order the cake they would refuse to sell it to them.

Since it's the same cake, then no it's not a "special cake".


>>>>>

 

[koshergrl]

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

You're so stupid it gives me a headache.

Here is one of the wedding cakes in the portfolio for Masterpiece Cakes in Colorado. If a different-sex couple came in to order the cake they would sell it to them. If a same-sex couple came into order the cake they would refuse to sell it to them.

Since it's the same cake, then no it's not a "special cake".


>>>>>

If they put those cakes in the case, then anybody can buy it. If they are making it at the request.of.somebody..it.is your human and constitutional right to refuse.

Slaves don't understand that.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

And this is an example of the fear, ignorance, bigotry, and stupidity common to most on the right, proving yet again that public accommodations laws are in fact just, proper and very much necessary.

What does that have to do with the fact that I'm sick of queers complaining?

 

[Timmy]

So are you against PA laws in general or only if they protect people based on sexual orientation?

I personally am against giving any special protections to BEHAVIORS. Race, gender, country of origin are other matters altogether. Banging some guy in the ass as your kink is not a "protected right" anymore than bulimia is. Bulimia is just another eating-orientation. If we aren't required by law to place vomit urns on tables to accommodate bulimics, then we aren't required to bake gays wedding cakes.

And if you want to talk about religion being a behavior, fine. But remember, their protected rights do not mean they can force others to abdicate their beliefs and subscribe to theirs instead....like what you're cult is trying to do to Christians..

Nice how u are against things that make America great.

We suffer already from Christian -Shiara law .

Just last week I was shut out of buying beer on Sunday because it was "Easter "! Damn Christian oppression.