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

[bodecea]

Why do you assume I'm not?

She's assigning you the task of protesting, that's the only acceptable dissent, according to her. I'm guessing you don't give a shit what she assigns us to do to express our views any more than I do ...

We protested, we lobbied, we WORKED at gaining our equal civil rights. We did not sit at a keyboard and whine, doing nothing else. Political action takes time and........action.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about other people.

I make assumptions of what it takes to affect political change.....true assumptions. If you want to get rid of PA laws you must be willing to to the work to affect political change like we did...like women did to get the vote...like other people have done in the history of this great nation. PA laws have been found to be constitutional so you only option to eliminate them is to push for your state legislatures to repeal them. Now......do you think that you can get enough people to agree?

Yes.

Then...if you truly want to affect change, you know what to do.

 

[Centinel]

She's assigning you the task of protesting, that's the only acceptable dissent, according to her. I'm guessing you don't give a shit what she assigns us to do to express our views any more than I do ...

We protested, we lobbied, we WORKED at gaining our equal civil rights. We did not sit at a keyboard and whine, doing nothing else. Political action takes time and........action.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about other people.

I make assumptions of what it takes to affect political change.....true assumptions. If you want to get rid of PA laws you must be willing to to the work to affect political change like we did...like women did to get the vote...like other people have done in the history of this great nation. PA laws have been found to be constitutional so you only option to eliminate them is to push for your state legislatures to repeal them. Now......do you think that you can get enough people to agree?

Yes.

Then...if you truly want to affect change, you know what to do.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions.

However, there are very few ethically sound justifications for the initiation of violence. One person refusing to engage in trade with another is definitely not one of them.

 

[kaz]

..
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.

What does going to the baker down the street have to do with interstate commerce?

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.

Good point.

Let's change the scenario. Does your right to free speech allow you to incite a mob to violence?

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.

I disagree. Rights are limited.

Your rights do not trump public safety, for example. They can not enroach on the rights of another. They can not damage national security.

How would any right conflict with public safety? No right does encroach on the rights of others. How would a right damage national security?

The right to free speech could conflict with public safety - example, the often used "yelling fire (when there is not) in a crowded theatre."

The right of a free press or free speech could damage national security if classified information was publicly released or if treason was commited.

Why are you mindlessly citing stuff that everybody already knows...and which isn't the slightest bit relevant to baking cakes???

Because *you* seem to have this misguided idea that rights are unlimited.

*you* seem to have this misguided idea that government power is unlimited

 

[bripat9643]

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?

She's assigning you the task of protesting, that's the only acceptable dissent, according to her. I'm guessing you don't give a shit what she assigns us to do to express our views any more than I do ...

We protested, we lobbied, we WORKED at gaining our equal civil rights. We did not sit at a keyboard and whine, doing nothing else. Political action takes time and........action.

Why do you assume that's all she's doing? I've been fighting you and the rest of the Stalinists since I was 20 years old.

 

[bripat9643]

We protested, we lobbied, we WORKED at gaining our equal civil rights. We did not sit at a keyboard and whine, doing nothing else. Political action takes time and........action.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about other people.

I make assumptions of what it takes to affect political change.....true assumptions. If you want to get rid of PA laws you must be willing to to the work to affect political change like we did...like women did to get the vote...like other people have done in the history of this great nation. PA laws have been found to be constitutional so you only option to eliminate them is to push for your state legislatures to repeal them. Now......do you think that you can get enough people to agree?

Yes.

Then...if you truly want to affect change, you know what to do.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions.

However, there are very few ethically sound justifications for the initiation of violence. One person refusing to engage in trade with another is definitely not one of them.

There are no sound justifications for it.

 

[kaz]

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?

She's assigning you the task of protesting, that's the only acceptable dissent, according to her. I'm guessing you don't give a shit what she assigns us to do to express our views any more than I do ...

We protested, we lobbied, we WORKED at gaining our equal civil rights. We did not sit at a keyboard and whine, doing nothing else. Political action takes time and........action.

And without you personally, your side would have won anyway. Yet you agree with your dyke honey that:

1) I'm personally responsible for not changing the law to say what I believe while you personally changed zero

2) Your way is the ONLY way to protest

So you hags go out and scream at people like the bitch in Florida, that doesn't help your cause. You won because authoritarian leftism is winning in this country. I have no interest in being the obnoxious dicks you strive to be. Many people have PM'd me and said I have made them think of things they never thought of before and questioned things that they always just assumed. That's happened to you, never. You just parrot Democrats, you think of nothing new

 

[bripat9643]

Idiotic. How would the doctor even know what your lifestyle is? Furthermore, hospitals set policies on who will be treated, not the doctor.

 

[kaz]

"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?

She's assigning you the task of protesting, that's the only acceptable dissent, according to her. I'm guessing you don't give a shit what she assigns us to do to express our views any more than I do ...

We protested, we lobbied, we WORKED at gaining our equal civil rights. We did not sit at a keyboard and whine, doing nothing else. Political action takes time and........action.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about other people.

And she'll whine like a bitch if you do that to her ...

 

[Centinel]

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about other people.

I make assumptions of what it takes to affect political change.....true assumptions. If you want to get rid of PA laws you must be willing to to the work to affect political change like we did...like women did to get the vote...like other people have done in the history of this great nation. PA laws have been found to be constitutional so you only option to eliminate them is to push for your state legislatures to repeal them. Now......do you think that you can get enough people to agree?

Yes.

Then...if you truly want to affect change, you know what to do.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions.

However, there are very few ethically sound justifications for the initiation of violence. One person refusing to engage in trade with another is definitely not one of them.

There are no sound justifications for it.

That's true. I misspoke. I should have simply said that there are very few ethically sound justifications for violence. Self-defense would be one.

However, you're right. And I take the same position. There are no ethically sound justifications for the initiation of violence.

 

[kaz]

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?

She's assigning you the task of protesting, that's the only acceptable dissent, according to her. I'm guessing you don't give a shit what she assigns us to do to express our views any more than I do ...

We protested, we lobbied, we WORKED at gaining our equal civil rights. We did not sit at a keyboard and whine, doing nothing else. Political action takes time and........action.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about other people.

I make assumptions of what it takes to affect political change.....true assumptions. If you want to get rid of PA laws you must be willing to to the work to affect political change like we did...like women did to get the vote...like other people have done in the history of this great nation. PA laws have been found to be constitutional so you only option to eliminate them is to push for your state legislatures to repeal them. Now......do you think that you can get enough people to agree?

Trust me, no one gives a shit what task you assign us to support our views. And you acting like the Florida bitch doesn't change anyone's view

 

[kaz]

"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?

She's assigning you the task of protesting, that's the only acceptable dissent, according to her. I'm guessing you don't give a shit what she assigns us to do to express our views any more than I do ...

We protested, we lobbied, we WORKED at gaining our equal civil rights. We did not sit at a keyboard and whine, doing nothing else. Political action takes time and........action.

Why do you assume that's all she's doing? I've been fighting you and the rest of the Stalinists since I was 20 years old.

When she saw the tape of the bitch screaming at the Florida Governor, she masturbated on the spot. True story

 

[kaz]

I make assumptions of what it takes to affect political change.....true assumptions. If you want to get rid of PA laws you must be willing to to the work to affect political change like we did...like women did to get the vote...like other people have done in the history of this great nation. PA laws have been found to be constitutional so you only option to eliminate them is to push for your state legislatures to repeal them. Now......do you think that you can get enough people to agree?

Yes.

Then...if you truly want to affect change, you know what to do.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions.

However, there are very few ethically sound justifications for the initiation of violence. One person refusing to engage in trade with another is definitely not one of them.

There are no sound justifications for it.

That's true. I misspoke. I should have simply said that there are very few ethically sound justifications for violence. Self-defense would be one.

However, you're right. And I take the same position. There are no ethically sound justifications for the initiation of violence.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think you both meant it in different ways. I think bripat meant there is no justification for government to initiate violence against it's citizens. I think you meant in general

 

[Centinel]

Yes.

Then...if you truly want to affect change, you know what to do.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions.

However, there are very few ethically sound justifications for the initiation of violence. One person refusing to engage in trade with another is definitely not one of them.

There are no sound justifications for it.

That's true. I misspoke. I should have simply said that there are very few ethically sound justifications for violence. Self-defense would be one.

However, you're right. And I take the same position. There are no ethically sound justifications for the initiation of violence.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think you both meant it in different ways. I think bripat meant there is no justification for government to initiate violence against it's citizens. I think you meant in general

I think bripat9643 and I are talking about the same thing. Not to put words in his mouth, but I think that we both consider it unjustified for anyone (including people in the government) to initiate force against the person or property of another. I'm not opposed to self-defense or force used in response to an initiation.

Does that clarify?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Hippocratic oath...

 

[bodecea]

Why do you assume I'm not?

She's assigning you the task of protesting, that's the only acceptable dissent, according to her. I'm guessing you don't give a shit what she assigns us to do to express our views any more than I do ...

We protested, we lobbied, we WORKED at gaining our equal civil rights. We did not sit at a keyboard and whine, doing nothing else. Political action takes time and........action.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about other people.

I make assumptions of what it takes to affect political change.....true assumptions. If you want to get rid of PA laws you must be willing to to the work to affect political change like we did...like women did to get the vote...like other people have done in the history of this great nation. PA laws have been found to be constitutional so you only option to eliminate them is to push for your state legislatures to repeal them. Now......do you think that you can get enough people to agree?

Trust me, no one gives a shit what task you assign us to support our views. And you acting like the Florida bitch doesn't change anyone's view

I don't assign any task...but don't expect people to take your whining as more serious than direct action to affect change. You want to whine about PA laws. Fine....be a whiner....that gets you places.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Because *you* seem to have this misguided idea that rights are unlimited

So, if I'm to extrapolate from your assertion...

That means you have the idea that rights should be regulated? Please by all means correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[bodecea]

Because *you* seem to have this misguided idea that rights are unlimited

So, if I'm to extrapolate from your assertion...

That means you have the idea that rights should be regulated? Please by all means correct me if I'm wrong.

Rights are restricted if they affect the rights of others.

 

[Spare_change]

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...

How many cases of Muslim cake bakers beheading gays can you list?

They don't behead them ... they throw them off buildings.

 

[bodecea]

"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?

She's assigning you the task of protesting, that's the only acceptable dissent, according to her. I'm guessing you don't give a shit what she assigns us to do to express our views any more than I do ...

We protested, we lobbied, we WORKED at gaining our equal civil rights. We did not sit at a keyboard and whine, doing nothing else. Political action takes time and........action.

Why do you assume that's all she's doing? I've been fighting you and the rest of the Stalinists since I was 20 years old.

How's that "good fight" been working out for you? Do you have a group working to change the laws you don't feel are Constitutional? Or do you just snivel about them?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then...if you truly want to affect change, you know what to do.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions.

However, there are very few ethically sound justifications for the initiation of violence. One person refusing to engage in trade with another is definitely not one of them.

There are no sound justifications for it.

That's true. I misspoke. I should have simply said that there are very few ethically sound justifications for violence. Self-defense would be one.

However, you're right. And I take the same position. There are no ethically sound justifications for the initiation of violence.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think you both meant it in different ways. I think bripat meant there is no justification for government to initiate violence against it's citizens. I think you meant in general

I think bripat9643 and I are talking about the same thing. Not to put words in his mouth, but I think that we both consider it unjustified for anyone (including people in the government) to initiate force against the person or property of another. I'm not opposed to self-defense or force used in response to an initiation.

Does that clarify?

Force? Like being 'forced' to pay taxes, or 'forced' to stop when you come up on a stop sign?