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

[kaz]

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.

The lefty who wants to be recognized as an individual shows again her bigotry to groups ...

 

[Syriusly]

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...

People started pointing out the disparity as soon as Christian bakeries became targets. It went unnoticed because baking has nothing to do with this. It is a Christian bashing agenda that is at work here.

It is a Christian bashing agenda that is at work here.

Muslims don't bash gays?

Gays don't bash Muslims. Just Christians.

And by 'bash' you mean asking that business's follow the law.

When does someone that wants to start a business have to be at the mercy of whom ever walks in the door? Was the business there before the gay Law was established?

There is no 'gay law'.

The granddaddy of them all is the 1965 Civil Rights Act which forbids places of public accommodation from denying service to people because of their race, national origin, religion or gender.

That has been in effect for 50 years now. You might want to read up on it.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

It's been reported homos deliberately sought out Christians. The fact remains the Muslims refused, you cannot condemn the Christians and not condemn the Muslims.

That is what I said - it's wrong to deliberately seek out someone in order to have them refuse you. IT DOESN"T MATTER WHAT RELIGION THEY ARE.

So condemn the Muslims.....waiting

I'm waiting for them to call Muslims homophobes like they do Christians.

I am ready to call anyone who wants to discriminate against homosexuals a homophobe- you- a Muslim- or a Christian.

There are both Muslims and Christians who excuse their bigotry based upon their 'religious beliefs'- but it is still bigotry.

Meanwhile- the claims in the OP remain false.

 

[kaz]

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........

There is nothing "liberal" about you ...

 

[Syriusly]

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.

We have protected religious behavior for 50 years.

Of course homosexuality is not a behavior- it is an attraction.

Unless of course a person insists on having sex in front of a baker- now that would be a behavior.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

What does that have to do with this thread- which is about another homophobe complaining about n*ggers.....oh wait- I mean 'queers'....

 

[kaz]

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.

OMG, I can't make a baker bake me a cage for a fag wedding shaped like a penis, this is like Stalinist Russia! I have no freedom!

Yeah, you have a sense of perspective, thanks ...

 

[Syriusly]

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 .

In 1965 Koshergrl was saying "No harm was done to the n*ggers' when they were refused service.

And she complained bitterly when business's were told they couldn't refuse service to Jews or Blacks

 

[Syriusly]

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.

OMG, I can't make a baker bake me a cage for a fag wedding shaped like a penis, this is like Stalinist Russia! I have no freedom!

Yeah, you have a sense of perspective, thanks ...

Poor persecutive christer- no longer able to pass laws imprisoning homosexuals- now all you are left to whine about is when Christians are told they have to follow the same law as everyone else.

 

[Syriusly]

[
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.
.

In all 50 states if a baker refuses to bake a cake for a couple of Christians- it is a violation of the law.
In 20 odd states if a baker refuses to bake a cake for a couple of homosexuals- it is a violation of the law.

The Conservo fascists think that Christians should be exempt from the very law that protects them in all 50 states.

 

[kaz]

What I'm saying is the south was, and still is a very conservative region. Do we agree on that?

Yes, but the majority of southerners did not want the violence or intimidation against blacks. That's why the FBI had it so easy to destroy the clan when they went after them. They had informants coming out of the woodwork. So to conclude that the ones who drove it were politically conservative is a clear fallacy. There's no real connection between the clan and either party's political views. Can I assume that ANY group based in California is driven by liberals? I'm thinking you'd not agree to 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?

Again with the world are two groups liberals/Democrats and conservatives/Republicans. I saw no connection between the racists in the south's demonstrations and the ideology of either party. So why do we have to assume they were one or the other?

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.

I'm not sure what that means, but today it's the left who is fueling race, sex, religious and ethic bigotry. Obama has been the greatest race divider in modern history. Leftists are constantly pushing minorities into anger and hate

 

[Coyote]

What I'm saying is the south was, and still is a very conservative region. Do we agree on that?

Yes, but the majority of southerners did not want the violence or intimidation against blacks. That's why the FBI had it so easy to destroy the clan when they went after them. They had informants coming out of the woodwork. So to conclude that the ones who drove it were politically conservative is a clear fallacy. There's no real connection between the clan and either party's political views. Can I assume that ANY group based in California is driven by liberals? I'm thinking you'd not agree to that ...

I'm not so sure about that - the KKK had pretty strong support - in fact, it was not until Schwermer, Goodman and Chaney were murdered that the entire country woke up to what was happening - Schwermer and Goodman were white. Even then - justice for many of those murders never came about or was years later....people protected each other.

Saying there is no real connection between the clan and either party's political views, I agree with - parties change ideologies. But to deny a connection between the clan and rightwing ideology is like denying a connection between communism and leftwing ideology.

You can't assume ANY group based in California is driven by liberals, but you can assume that if it's an eco-terrorist group, it's a leftwing ideology. Right?

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?

Again with the world are two groups liberals/Democrats and conservatives/Republicans. I saw no connection between the racists in the south's demonstrations and the ideology of either party. So why do we have to assume they were one or the other?

I disagree. There are political parties - Democrats and Republicans. Their ideologies change. Southern democrats were conservative for example. Many fled to the Republican party over civil rights, and were accepted them because it gave the Republicans the south. You can't always conflate party and ideology.

Was the south conservative in the 1950's, 60's?
Is the south conservative now?

Where did the push for and support for Jim Crowe, and the push back against desegregation come from? Let's set aside parties and look at ideologies.

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.

I'm not sure what that means, but today it's the left who is fueling race, sex, religious and ethic bigotry. Obama has been the greatest race divider in modern history. Leftists are constantly pushing minorities into anger and hate

What I meant was this. Conservatives seek to exclude and protect the status quo and liberals seek to include and broaden the status quo. Neither is bad - one protects and conserves, the other adds to what should be protected and conserved. When one or the other gets out of balance, things break down and there is a backlash. If liberals seek change to quickly for example. Most conservatives today would have no hesitation in condemning the evils of segregation or Jim Crowe or the right of blacks and women to vote, hold any job they are qualified for. It's now part of the status quo.

I don't think Obama has been a race divider what so ever - at least not by his actions.

 

[Coyote]

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.

OMG, I can't make a baker bake me a cage for a fag wedding shaped like a penis, this is like Stalinist Russia! I have no freedom!

Yeah, you have a sense of perspective, thanks ...

You can't force a baker to bake something unreasonable - for either a hetero or homosexual wedding. No penis cake. No penis in vagina cake either. That's not an issue of same sex wedding.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

OMG, I can't make a baker bake me a cage for a fag wedding shaped like a penis, this is like Stalinist Russia! I have no freedom!

Yeah, you have a sense of perspective, thanks ...

You can't force a baker to bake something unreasonable - for either a hetero or homosexual wedding. No penis cake. No penis in vagina cake either. That's not an issue of same sex wedding.

It's unreasonable to expect a baker to commit sacrilege.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Not enough Muslims live here for us to have that experience in this country.

Here is what we can expect:

As Muslim population grows, what can happen to a society?

 

[kaz]

to deny a connection between the clan and rightwing ideology is like denying a connection between communism and leftwing ideology

No, it's completely not like that. Communism IS a political ideology. The Clan were racists, not a political group. They did not as a group support political objectives other than for their one issue. What you said is ridiculous and why you are missing the point. The Clan is not conservative or liberal, they aren't a political group. If your kid's soccer coach is a Republican, that doesn't make the soccer team a Republican organization.

The biggest racist I know where I live in North Carolina has an Obama bumber sticker on his car. He's a Democrat to the bone. I think he's an ass. I only tolerate him because he's a friend of a friend, and I avoid him then as much as possible. My friend knows I despise the guy and tries to keep his friend away from me. So the clan are Democrats, right? Because I know a Democrat who's a flaming racist? I personally think he's a racist because he's a loser and he needs some way to feel superior to someone. He's sure not going to be able to do that on intelligence.

I don't think Obama has been a race divider what so ever - at least not by his actions.

You have eyes, yet you do not see. Every time he runs to a microphone to denounce cops for shootings while there is zero evidence, he shows how clueless you are not to see what he is. Not to mention his endless race baiting comments every time he talks about blacks.

Here is a great thing he could have done for his country. He could have said wow, a black President, this country has come a long way. Let's finish the job by stopping obsessing about the past. Sure, let's deal with racism when it does occur, it is never tolerable. But let's move forward as a country now and recognize how far we have come.

He says the opposite

 

[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

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.

OMG, I can't make a baker bake me a cage for a fag wedding shaped like a penis, this is like Stalinist Russia! I have no freedom!

Yeah, you have a sense of perspective, thanks ...

You can't force a baker to bake something unreasonable - for either a hetero or homosexual wedding. No penis cake. No penis in vagina cake either. That's not an issue of same sex wedding.

It's unreasonable to expect a baker to commit sacrilege.

Not according to the laws in some states.

 

[Coyote]

I don't think Obama has been a race divider what so ever - at least not by his actions.

You have eyes, yet you do not see. Every time he runs to a microphone to denounce cops for shootings while there is zero evidence, he shows how clueless you are not to see what he is

Oh...wait...we're supposed to ignore police shootings?

 

[kaz]

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.

OMG, I can't make a baker bake me a cage for a fag wedding shaped like a penis, this is like Stalinist Russia! I have no freedom!

Yeah, you have a sense of perspective, thanks ...

You can't force a baker to bake something unreasonable - for either a hetero or homosexual wedding. No penis cake. No penis in vagina cake either. That's not an issue of same sex wedding.

Based on what?

And forcing one citizen to bake any cake for another is unreasonable

 

[kaz]

I don't think Obama has been a race divider what so ever - at least not by his actions.

You have eyes, yet you do not see. Every time he runs to a microphone to denounce cops for shootings while there is zero evidence, he shows how clueless you are not to see what he is

Oh...wait...we're supposed to ignore police shootings?

Let me help you: "You have eyes, yet you do not see. Every time he runs to a microphone to denounce cops for shootings while there is zero evidence, he shows how clueless you are not to see what he is"