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

[bodecea]

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

They want christer sharia....it's quite evident.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

..

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.

Correct.

Although our rights are inalienable, they are not absolute, they are in fact subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including the rights enshrined in the First Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

..
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.

Wrong.

See Employment Division v. Smith, ibid

 

[koshergrl]

..

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.

The public accommodation laws do nkt require business owners to violate the tenets of their faith, as long as they are not preventing people from getting the service elsewhere, and as long as people do not have to leave the state to get what they want. In this case...a.cake.
Public Accommodations and Private Discrimination

 

[koshergrl]

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.

No, you sad, deluded thing.. The people and the government are not.one and the same.

 

[bripat9643]

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

If a Muslim bakery refused to accommodate a gay patron in a jurisdiction whose public accommodations law has a provision for sexual orientation, liberals would support a lawsuit seeking relief from the bakery’s discrimination pursuant to that jurisdiction’s public accommodations law.

And if no such provision existed, a lawsuit would be neither warranted nor forthcoming.

Unlike most on the right, liberals know the law, understand the law, and respect the rule of law in an appropriate and consistent manner.

Left-wingers "know the law, understand the law, and respect the rule of law?" Like when Obama says he's going to use his pen and his phone?

 

[The Irish Ram]

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.

There was religion in every aspect their lives. They did not consider it an interference. It was where they got the moral structure that guided their daily lives. Those people were anti-government, not anti-religion. That is why we have so many rights. We didn't have men making a career of imposing laws nonstop on the citizens. Our representatives had businesses and jobs. They only showed up in Washington a few times a year to see if anything needed their attention. They'd shit if they saw the reams and reams and stacks of papers with law after law being set against us.

 

[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.

The public accommodation laws do nkt require business owners to violate the tenets of their faith, as long as they are not preventing people from getting the service elsewhere, and as long as people do not have to leave the state to get what they want. In this case...a.cake.
Public Accommodations and Private Discrimination

Really good article. However I fail to see how it supports your point.

​

 

[koshergrl]

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

Now you are making no sense whatever. You're just gabbling in circles. But I did predict that your next move would be to decry the constitution itself...as you are here when you claim freedom of religion is 'letting religion into government'. You sound like the welfare educated moron you are.

 

[Coyote]

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.

No, you sad, deluded thing.. The people and the government are not.one and the same.

The government is the elected representative of the people.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

There was religion in every aspect their lives. They did not consider it an interference. It was where they got the moral structure that guided their daily lives. Those people were anti-government, not anti-religion. That is why we have so many rights. We didn't have men making a career of imposing laws nonstop on the citizens. Our representatives had businesses and jobs. They only showed up in Washington a few times a year to see if anything needed their attention. They'd shit if they saw the reams and reams and stacks of papers with law after law being set against us.

And if they saw the lazy stupidity of today's 'voters'.

 

[Kat]

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.

No, you sad, deluded thing.. The people and the government are not.one and the same.

The government is the elected representative of the people.

For sure it is supposed to be. Doesn't seem to be the case so much the last several years.

 

[Coyote]

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

Now you are making no sense whatever. You're just gabbling in circles. But I did predict that your next move would be to decry the constitution itself...as you are here when you claim freedom of religion is 'letting religion into government'. You sound like the welfare educated moron you are.

Speaking of not making any sense...wtf are your talking about?

I'm perfectly fine with the constitution. It's what prevents religious chauvinists like yourself from imposing your religious values on the rest of us or forcing us to live under your religious laws.

You seem to think "freedom of religion" means involving religion in government and law - an ironic sentiment since I doubt you would be going for that if the dominant religion was Islam.

Keep religion out of the government and we'll all be just fine thank you.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

No, you sad, deluded thing.. The people and the government are not.one and the same.

The government is the elected representative of the people.

For sure it is supposed to be. Doesn't seem to be the case so much the last several years.

Nope it certainly does not.

 

[Coyote]

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.

No, you sad, deluded thing.. The people and the government are not.one and the same.

The government is the elected representative of the people.

For sure it is supposed to be. Doesn't seem to be the case so much the last several years.

There is that....

 

[koshergrl]

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

Now you are making no sense whatever. You're just gabbling in circles. But I did predict that your next move would be to decry the constitution itself...as you are here when you claim freedom of religion is 'letting religion into government'. You sound like the welfare educated moron you are.

Speaking of not making any sense...wtf are your talking about?

I'm perfectly fine with the constitution. It's what prevents religious chauvinists like yourself from imposing your religious values on the rest of us or forcing us to live under your religious laws.

You seem to think "freedom of religion" means involving religion in government and law - an ironic sentiment since I doubt you would be going for that if the dominant religion was Islam.

Keep religion out of the government and we'll all be just fine thank you.

What a pathetic display. So you agree that the muslims must be fined and prosecuted for not baking gay cakes. Because the.government's job is to force people to treat everybody the same, and to protect us from our faith, and no religion in gubmint !!! A-a-and..THE CRUSAAAADDEEESSSSS! Otay!!

 

[The Irish Ram]

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..

Nor does it have to be, for the owner to exercise his religious beliefs.
You don't leave your faith at the door of the church when you leave. You try to live it. Free exercise means a LACK of restriction. Not, confined to a specific arena. Exercise implies action. Infringe means to restrict, limit, curb, or check. < None of those are permitted under the constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting the free exercise of one's religion.

 

[Centinel]

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

Congress certainly has no legislative power to do so. State and local is a different matter, to be taken up with one's state and local governments.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I would think that if gays really wanted the same rights as everyone else then they would demand muslim bakeries bake them a cake. Nope...nothing...

They had the same rights with respect to marriage already. Marriage was always defined as between a man and a woman. They wanted, and the got the definition changed.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The left is still all over the map....funny