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

[Centinel]

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.

"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."

They are, however, unjust, since they result in force being initiated against a person who has done nothing to anyone else.

 

[The Irish Ram]

..
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.

I can't find that in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. No is the epitome of absolute. No law, means no law. None. Especially....... restrictions by government. That would fall under the category of infringement.

 

[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.

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!!

When the law is applicable - yes, they should. Why should someone's faith exempt them from following the law?

So you DO think religion should be involved in the government? To what degree? Which religions?

 

[The Irish Ram]

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.

They used to be. Now their allegiance lies with the U.N.

 

[Coyote]

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.

So if exercising one's faith means sacificing live animals that should not be restricted?

Does that mean a person has the right to stand up in a theatre and start yelling proclamations about his faith?

 

[bripat9643]

..
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.

Where does the Constitution say that?

 

[Centinel]

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.

Correct. But that doesn't refute koshergrl's assertion that the government and the people are not one and the same.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So if exercising one's faith means sacificing live animals that should not be restricted?

Is it against the law to kill animals?

Does that mean a person has the right to stand up in a theatre and start yelling proclamations about his faith?

Theater owners get to set the rules for your behavior in their theater. Yelling is one of the things they don't allow. It has nothing to do with restrictions on your First Amendment rights.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't care if.people sacrifice animals...but wtf is the relevance?

Never mind...I know there is.none.

 

[Coyote]

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.

So if exercising one's faith means sacificing live animals that should not be restricted?

Is it against the law to kill animals?

It's against the law in some states to discriminate against homosexuals.

Does that mean a person has the right to stand up in a theatre and start yelling proclamations about his faith?

Theater owners get to set the rules for you behavior in their theater. Yelling is one of the things they don't allow. It has nothing to do with restrictions on your First Amendment rights.

[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Like I said. Rights are not unlimited.

 

[Coyote]

I don't care if.people sacrifice animals...but wtf is the relevance?

Never mind...I know there is.none.

What if your religion required plural marriages?

 

[koshergrl]

I guarantee that coyote has not, once in her life and certainly not.recently, perused the Constitution. She only gets info that is filtered through some other source. Shes not independent enought to read and draw her own conclusions.

 

[bodecea]

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.

"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."

They are, however, unjust, since they result in force being initiated against a person who has done nothing to anyone else.

If Public Accomodation laws are unjust, why are you not actively working to get them repealed in your state?

 

[Centinel]

..
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.

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

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.

So if exercising one's faith means sacificing live animals that should not be restricted?

Is it against the law to kill animals?

It's against the law in some states to discriminate against homosexuals.

Does that mean a person has the right to stand up in a theatre and start yelling proclamations about his faith?

Theater owners get to set the rules for you behavior in their theater. Yelling is one of the things they don't allow. It has nothing to do with restrictions on your First Amendment rights.

Exactly. Like I said. Rights are not unlimited.[/QUOTE]

Rights are unlimited. However, one's lawful actions are not unlimited, since they may violate the rights of others. Standing up in a theatre and yelling violates the property rights of the theatre owner.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't care if.people sacrifice animals...but wtf is the relevance?

Never mind...I know there is.none.

What if your religion required plural marriages?

I don't care..as long as human rights aren't violated. I personally don't think the state should be involved in the marriage business. It's a sacrament, and you know the government isn't supposed to be involved in religion...as you said.

 

[Centinel]

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.

"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."

They are, however, unjust, since they result in force being initiated against a person who has done nothing to anyone else.

If Public Accomodation laws are unjust, why are you not actively working to get them repealed in your state?

Why do you assume I'm not?

 

[bripat9643]

Does that mean a person has the right to stand up in a theatre and start yelling proclamations about his faith?

Theater owners get to set the rules for you behavior in their theater. Yelling is one of the things they don't allow. It has nothing to do with restrictions on your First Amendment rights.

Exactly. Like I said. Rights are not unlimited.

If not, your examples didn't prove it. The fact that theater owners get to set the rules on how customers have to behave in their theater is not a limitation on your First Amendment rights. It's simply a result of the fact that movie theaters are private property, and the owners get to set the rules.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

"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."

They are, however, unjust, since they result in force being initiated against a person who has done nothing to anyone else.

If Public Accomodation laws are unjust, why are you not actively working to get them repealed in your state?

Why do you assume I'm not?

Shes too stupid to read the thread, so she just jumps in with random troll crap. Bode is best ignored. Trust me, you won't even notice.

 

[bodecea]

..
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

So...those black college students should have just gone elsewhere to get their lunches instead of Woolworth's Lunch Counter.

That is what you are advocating.

 

[bripat9643]

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

So...those black college students should have just gone elsewhere to get their lunches instead of Woolworth's Lunch Counter.

That is what you are advocating.

Hmmmmm . . . no, because state law said Woolworths had to serve blacks at a different counter than whites. No one supports such laws.