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

[koshergrl]

..

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.

Unconstitutional laws constitute lawlessness. Now you're just chasing your tail, peon.

What is "unconstitutional about it"? I can't find any examples where those laws have faced a constitutional challenge and been shot down. It seems that the "religious liberty" laws are a bit more problematic.

What a supremely stupid comment...and what a fascinating, if distressing, insight into your 'research' method. Anyway, the unconstitutionality of forcing people to act contrary to their faith for no reason has already been explained to you. Maybe you should research the constitution itself, instead of relying only on the outcome of violations of it. Because sometimes...quite often, laws are created in violation of the constitution. Congress is supposed to intervene and prevent that. When they refuse to, you end up with bad law (lawlessness). And it is cause for revolution.

 

[The Irish Ram]

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.

Am well aware. But what came before it was the separation of church and state. Which was not intended to keep religion out of government, as we now pretend, but government out of religion. The government does not have the authority to determine which tenents of my faith I can exercise and which I cannot.

It was intended for BOTH.

No, it was not. After reciting the Lord's Prayer, scripture was used to teach reading, writing, and memorization in American schools well into the 50's.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Bottom line, the les

..

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.

Unconstitutional laws constitute lawlessness. Now you're just chasing your tail, peon.

What is "unconstitutional about it"? I can't find any examples where those laws have faced a constitutional challenge and been shot down. It seems that the "religious liberty" laws are a bit more problematic.

What a supremely stupid comment...and what a fascinating, if distressing, insight into your 'research' method. Anyway, the unconstitutionality of forcing people to act contrary to their faith for no reason has already been explained to you. Maybe you should research the constitution itself, instead of relying only on the outcome of violations of it. Because sometimes...quite often, laws are created in violation of the constitution. Congress is supposed to intervene and prevent that. When they refuse to, you end up with bad law (lawlessness). And it is cause for revolution.

I suspect the Founding Fathers would be horrified the government can force someone to go against their religious convictions....much like they would be horrified at the thought of the government forcing someone to purchase....oh....healthcare......or be fined.

Anyone that says or thinks otherwise isn't being honest with themselves

 

[Coyote]

..

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.

Unconstitutional laws constitute lawlessness. Now you're just chasing your tail, peon.

What is "unconstitutional about it"? I can't find any examples where those laws have faced a constitutional challenge and been shot down. It seems that the "religious liberty" laws are a bit more problematic.

What a supremely stupid comment...and what a fascinating, if distressing, insight into your 'research' method. Anyway, the unconstitutionality of forcing people to act contrary to their faith for no reason has already been explained to you. Maybe you should research the constitution itself, instead of relying only on the outcome of violations of it. Because sometimes...quite often, laws are created in violation of the constitution. Congress is supposed to intervene and prevent that. When they refuse to, you end up with bad law (lawlessness). And it is cause for revolution.

blah blah blah blah....all this to say that public accommodation laws, in all these years, have never faced a constitutional challenge? If they were unconsitutional, I'm sure - by now, some rightiwng group would have gotten it to the Supreme Court.

No right is unlimited and that includes freedom of religion.

 

[Coyote]

Bottom line, the les

..

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

Not according to the laws in some states.

Unconstitutional laws constitute lawlessness. Now you're just chasing your tail, peon.

What is "unconstitutional about it"? I can't find any examples where those laws have faced a constitutional challenge and been shot down. It seems that the "religious liberty" laws are a bit more problematic.

What a supremely stupid comment...and what a fascinating, if distressing, insight into your 'research' method. Anyway, the unconstitutionality of forcing people to act contrary to their faith for no reason has already been explained to you. Maybe you should research the constitution itself, instead of relying only on the outcome of violations of it. Because sometimes...quite often, laws are created in violation of the constitution. Congress is supposed to intervene and prevent that. When they refuse to, you end up with bad law (lawlessness). And it is cause for revolution.

I suspect the Founding Fathers would be horrified the government can force someone to go against their religious convictions....much like they would be horrified at the thought of the government forcing someone to purchase....oh....healthcare......or be fined.

Anyone that says or thinks otherwise isn't being honest with themselves

But they did. For example, stores and business' had to close on Sundays. There are a myriad of laws that forced people of other religions to follow the dictates of the dominant religion even if it meant acting against their own such as having to work on the Jewish sabbath.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Am well aware. But what came before it was the separation of church and state. Which was not intended to keep religion out of government, as we now pretend, but government out of religion. The government does not have the authority to determine which tenents of my faith I can exercise and which I cannot.

It was intended for BOTH.

No, it was not. After reciting the Lord's Prayer, scripture was used to teach reading, writing, and memorization in American schools well into the 50's.

It was intended to protect government from religious control as well as to protect religion from government interference. In most of the countries those people came from there was a state religion, and it was directly involved in governance.

 

[koshergrl]

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

Not under public accommodation laws.

The public accommodation law maintains that artists must create on demand, even if they believe they are committing sacrilege in doing so?

No, it means that they must serve all customers the same and not discrimminate on the basis of race, religion, gender etc. That means if their religion prohibits interracial marriage - they still have to provide a cake to an interracial couple.

I take it you approve of Nazis forcing Jews to.play music at the ovens...

How does that even remotely begin to fit within this conversation? Talk about grasping for insults straws.

And no, codes and bad law do not trump the constitution. Not in a constitutional republic.

Next you will claim we have evolved beyond the constitution.

Ok, then show me where this law has faced constitutional challenge and been slapped down.

No, it certainly does not mean they must treat all customers the same, lol. I'd love for you to find the clause, even in bad law, that says they must treat all the same.

 

[koshergrl]

Bottom line, the les

..
Not according to the laws in some states.

Unconstitutional laws constitute lawlessness. Now you're just chasing your tail, peon.

What is "unconstitutional about it"? I can't find any examples where those laws have faced a constitutional challenge and been shot down. It seems that the "religious liberty" laws are a bit more problematic.

What a supremely stupid comment...and what a fascinating, if distressing, insight into your 'research' method. Anyway, the unconstitutionality of forcing people to act contrary to their faith for no reason has already been explained to you. Maybe you should research the constitution itself, instead of relying only on the outcome of violations of it. Because sometimes...quite often, laws are created in violation of the constitution. Congress is supposed to intervene and prevent that. When they refuse to, you end up with bad law (lawlessness). And it is cause for revolution.

I suspect the Founding Fathers would be horrified the government can force someone to go against their religious convictions....much like they would be horrified at the thought of the government forcing someone to purchase....oh....healthcare......or be fined.

Anyone that says or thinks otherwise isn't being honest with themselves

But they did. For example, stores and business' had to close on Sundays. There are a myriad of laws that forced people of other religions to follow the dictates of the dominant religion even if it meant acting against their own such as having to work on the Jewish sabbath.

And it is illegal and unconstitutional to force businesses to close.on Sunday. Nust as itnis illegal and unconstitutional to force businesses to operate contrary to the faith of the owners, just because they are a particular.faith.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Coyote, Pilgrims came here to escape gov. intervention into their faith. It was the tantamount issue for founding this country. If you are correct, there would have been no religion in our schools post Constitution and Bill of Rights. The opposite was the case. The Bible was the only thing used in our early schools.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

..

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.

Unconstitutional laws constitute lawlessness. Now you're just chasing your tail, peon.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

State public accommodations laws are in fact Constitutional:

‘As we have pointed out, 32 States now have [public accommodations laws] and no case has been cited to us where the attack on a state statute has been successful, either in federal or state courts. Indeed, in some cases, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause objections have been specifically discarded in this Court. Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan, 333 U.S. 28, 34 n. 12 (1948). As a result, the constitutionality of such state statutes stands unquestioned. "The authority of the Federal Government over interstate commerce does not differ," it was held in United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., Inc., 307 U.S. 533 (1939), "in extent or character from that retained by the states over intrastate commerce." At 569-570. See also Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 (1944).'

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

And again, as you have demonstrated in post after post exhibiting your bigotry and hate toward gay Americans, such laws are very much necessary and proper.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Am well aware. But what came before it was the separation of church and state. Which was not intended to keep religion out of government, as we now pretend, but government out of religion. The government does not have the authority to determine which tenents of my faith I can exercise and which I cannot.

It was intended for BOTH.

No, it was not. After reciting the Lord's Prayer, scripture was used to teach reading, writing, and memorization in American schools well into the 50's.

It was intended to protect government from religious control as well as to protect religion from government interference. In most of the countries those people came from there was a state religion, and it was directly involved in governance.

NOTHING in our Constitution was conceived to PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT. That is the fundamental stupidity all you traitors have...our government exists ONLY to protect US. We do not exist nor have any part of our structure imply that we exist.to prop.it up. The sole purpose of the us government is to protect us. Any law that is conceived to protect the government is on its face unconstitutional, and any person who says otherwise is a traitor.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Am well aware. But what came before it was the separation of church and state. Which was not intended to keep religion out of government, as we now pretend, but government out of religion. The government does not have the authority to determine which tenents of my faith I can exercise and which I cannot.

It was intended for BOTH.

No, it was not. After reciting the Lord's Prayer, scripture was used to teach reading, writing, and memorization in American schools well into the 50's.

It was intended to protect government from religious control as well as to protect religion from government interference. In most of the countries those people came from there was a state religion, and it was directly involved in governance.

NOTHING in our Constitution was conceived to PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT. That is the fundamental stupidity all you traitors have...our government exists ONLY to protect US. We do not exist nor have any part of our structure imply that we exist.to prop.it up. The sole purpose of the us government is to protect us. Any law that is conceived to protect the government is on its face unconstitutional, and any person who says otherwise is a traitor.

Alright then - designed to protect THE PEOPLE via the government from religious interference.

 

[Coyote]

You realize what happens don't you, when you start letting religion into governance?

 

[The Irish Ram]

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.

Am well aware. But what came before it was the separation of church and state. Which was not intended to keep religion out of government, as we now pretend, but government out of religion. The government does not have the authority to determine which tenents of my faith I can exercise and which I cannot.

It was intended for BOTH.

No, it was not. After reciting the Lord's Prayer, scripture was used to teach reading, writing, and memorization in American schools well into the 50's.

It was intended to protect government from religious control as well as to protect religion from government interference. In most of the countries those people came from there was a state religion, and it was directly involved in governance.

No, it was not. In fact, our government representatives got down on their knees and asked God to guide them while the preacher read from the Good Book. They requested Divine interference. When Washington agreed to become President, he made a short speech, and then they all went to church together to pray over the matter.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Am well aware. But what came before it was the separation of church and state. Which was not intended to keep religion out of government, as we now pretend, but government out of religion. The government does not have the authority to determine which tenents of my faith I can exercise and which I cannot.

It was intended for BOTH.

No, it was not. After reciting the Lord's Prayer, scripture was used to teach reading, writing, and memorization in American schools well into the 50's.

It was intended to protect government from religious control as well as to protect religion from government interference. In most of the countries those people came from there was a state religion, and it was directly involved in governance.

No, it was not. In fact, our government representatives got down on their knees and asked God to guide them while the preacher read from the Good Book. They requested Divine interference. When Washington agreed to become President, he made a short speech, and then they all went to church together to pray over the matter.

There is a lot of dispute about the role of religion in the development of this country - in fact, it would need a thread all on it's own.

If you want religion involved in government, you have a lot of role models out there to choose from. Personally, I think a secular form of government works best and it is what the founders set up. I don't think they intended us to be nit picky about it like when folks protest about mangers in public spaces etc - but overall, religion and government must remain seperated.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Wrong again.

It’s perfectly reasonable and appropriate to expect all citizens to obey just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, which as we have established are indeed Constitutional.

And citizens may not seek to ignore or violate just and proper laws because they perceive compliance as being in conflict with their religious beliefs, or committing ‘sacrilege’:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith

And clearly the states are free to regulate commerce, trade, and the markets, and prohibit activities that might destabilize the markets, such as gay consumers being denied goods and services for no other reason than who they are.

The law is not on your side, the facts are not on your side – all you have is ignorance, fear, and hate concerning gay Americans, and your ‘argument’ fails as a consequence.

 

[The Irish Ram]

..

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

Not according to the laws in some states.

Unconstitutional laws constitute lawlessness. Now you're just chasing your tail, peon.

What is "unconstitutional about it"? I can't find any examples where those laws have faced a constitutional challenge and been shot down. It seems that the "religious liberty" laws are a bit more problematic.

What a supremely stupid comment...and what a fascinating, if distressing, insight into your 'research' method. Anyway, the unconstitutionality of forcing people to act contrary to their faith for no reason has already been explained to you. Maybe you should research the constitution itself, instead of relying only on the outcome of violations of it. Because sometimes...quite often, laws are created in violation of the constitution. Congress is supposed to intervene and prevent that. When they refuse to, you end up with bad law (lawlessness). And it is cause for revolution.

blah blah blah blah....all this to say that public accommodation laws, in all these years, have never faced a constitutional challenge? If they were unconsitutional, I'm sure - by now, some rightiwng group would have gotten it to the Supreme Court.

No right is unlimited and that includes freedom of religion.

Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

shall make NO law...
They have made a law which prohibits the free exercise of the baker's religion. It is an unconstitutional law.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You have maples and you have oaks....guess who is who?

 

[Coyote]

..
Not according to the laws in some states.

Unconstitutional laws constitute lawlessness. Now you're just chasing your tail, peon.

What is "unconstitutional about it"? I can't find any examples where those laws have faced a constitutional challenge and been shot down. It seems that the "religious liberty" laws are a bit more problematic.

What a supremely stupid comment...and what a fascinating, if distressing, insight into your 'research' method. Anyway, the unconstitutionality of forcing people to act contrary to their faith for no reason has already been explained to you. Maybe you should research the constitution itself, instead of relying only on the outcome of violations of it. Because sometimes...quite often, laws are created in violation of the constitution. Congress is supposed to intervene and prevent that. When they refuse to, you end up with bad law (lawlessness). And it is cause for revolution.

blah blah blah blah....all this to say that public accommodation laws, in all these years, have never faced a constitutional challenge? If they were unconsitutional, I'm sure - by now, some rightiwng group would have gotten it to the Supreme Court.

No right is unlimited and that includes freedom of religion.

Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

shall make NO law...

Yet, we have public accommodation laws that have withstood the test of litigation. And we have laws that DO prohibit "the free exercise thereof" and we have laws that DO limit free speech and all those other rights because those rights are not unlimited.

Does freedom of religion mean you can have multiple spouses or animal sacrifices or abuse children in the name of biblical correction or have child marriages?

Does free speech allow you to libel and slander, or yell fire in a crowded theatre?

Does the right to assemble allow a lynch mob to assemble, or people to assemble on private property against that owners wish?

 

[Moonglow]

..
Not according to the laws in some states.

Unconstitutional laws constitute lawlessness. Now you're just chasing your tail, peon.

What is "unconstitutional about it"? I can't find any examples where those laws have faced a constitutional challenge and been shot down. It seems that the "religious liberty" laws are a bit more problematic.

What a supremely stupid comment...and what a fascinating, if distressing, insight into your 'research' method. Anyway, the unconstitutionality of forcing people to act contrary to their faith for no reason has already been explained to you. Maybe you should research the constitution itself, instead of relying only on the outcome of violations of it. Because sometimes...quite often, laws are created in violation of the constitution. Congress is supposed to intervene and prevent that. When they refuse to, you end up with bad law (lawlessness). And it is cause for revolution.

blah blah blah blah....all this to say that public accommodation laws, in all these years, have never faced a constitutional challenge? If they were unconsitutional, I'm sure - by now, some rightiwng group would have gotten it to the Supreme Court.

No right is unlimited and that includes freedom of religion.

Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

shall make NO law...
They have made a law which prohibits the free exercise of the baker's religion. It is an unconstitutional law.

The bakery is not a house of worship..