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

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Can you cite the cases of American Muslim cake bakers throwing gays off buildings?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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...

A little late to the party here. I've noticed that one thing liberals cannot deny--yet profusely deny--is that Muslim store owners engage in the same "discriminatory" behavior they accuse Christians of engaging in. When it's pointed out, they cannot wrap their minds around it.

So, to any liberal still on this thread, would you condemn a Muslim for not serving gays in his store? Why do you focus on "discrimination" here at home, but fail to see the full on murderous hatred of gays perpetrated in Islam?

 

[bodecea]

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...

A little late to the party here. I've noticed that one thing liberals cannot deny--yet profusely deny--is that Muslim store owners engage in the same "discriminatory" behavior they accuse Christians of engaging in. When it's pointed out, they cannot wrap their minds around it.

So, to any liberal still on this thread, would you condemn a Muslim for not serving gays in his store?

I can wrap my mind about it just fine....if it's illegal, report them as was done in Oregon....in Michigan it is NOT illegal. Can you wrap your mind around that?

 

[Centinel]

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?

No. Like having force being initiated against you for not engaging in trade with another person.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So what right does refusing to bake a cake affect?

 

[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.

So what right does refusing to bake a cake affect?

The same right to refuse business to anyone based on their race, their gender, their religion, or in the case of Oregon, sexual orientation. The right to be treated equally in the business venue.

Here:

Public accommodations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

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?

I belong to a lot of groups that are fighting to overturn all the unconstitutional anti-American laws that you and your ilk have passed. I even started a few of them.

What is your point?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So what right does refusing to bake a cake affect?

The same right to refuse business to anyone based on their race, their gender, their religion, or in the case of Oregon, sexual orientation. The right to be treated equally in the business venue.

Here:

Public accommodations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one has such a right.

 

[bodecea]

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?

No. Like having force being initiated against you for not engaging in trade with another person.

What force?

 

[Centinel]

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?

No. Like having force being initiated against you for not engaging in trade with another person.

What force?

Government force.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

No. Like having force being initiated against you for not engaging in trade with another person.

What force?

You mean you believe force wasn't used against the bakers who didn't want to bake a cake for the queers?

 

[bodecea]

I am curious as to what is really bugging people about PA laws....they've been around for decades. What is it now that suddenly makes some people upset?

 

[bodecea]

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?

No. Like having force being initiated against you for not engaging in trade with another person.

What force?

Government force.

So, you don't like government force to require businesses that have a business license to follow the rules and laws pursuant to having that business license?

 

[bodecea]

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?

No. Like having force being initiated against you for not engaging in trade with another person.

What force?

You mean you believe force wasn't used against the bakers who didn't want to bake a cake for the queers?

Just as much force as if they didn't follow any other business laws they agreed to follow upon being granted a business license.

 

[kaz]

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?

I think we're saying the same thing

 

[bripat9643]

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?

No. Like having force being initiated against you for not engaging in trade with another person.

What force?

Government force.

So, you don't like government force to require businesses that have a business license to follow the rules and laws pursuant to having that business license?

Why should a business require permission from the government to do business?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

No. Like having force being initiated against you for not engaging in trade with another person.

What force?

You mean you believe force wasn't used against the bakers who didn't want to bake a cake for the queers?

Just as much force as if they didn't follow any other business laws they agreed to follow upon being granted a business license.

They didn't have a choice about following the rules, so how did they "agree" to it?

 

[kaz]

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.

You totally do. If we don't scream like the bitch in Florida that you aspire to then we aren't doing what needs to be done. You're full of shit, that doesn't persuade anyone, other than to be afraid of you. Your goal, not mine.

And stop whining bitch and just have a conversation

 

[bodecea]

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

No. Like having force being initiated against you for not engaging in trade with another person.

What force?

Government force.

So, you don't like government force to require businesses that have a business license to follow the rules and laws pursuant to having that business license?

Why should a business require permission from the government to do business?

You want a business license?

 

[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.

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?

You and the screaming bitch in Florida aren't doing anything but jerking yourselves off