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

[Centinel]

Um ... government guns? So you're saying if we refuse to obey government then there is no consequence? My God, you are an idiot

Oh, this is interesting. What government guns were pulled on the cake bakers in Oregon? Was it a SWAT team?

I don't think I would be calling other people idiots if I were you after hysterically crying about government guns in this case.

(government guns.....*snicker)

What do you think would happen to the bakers if they told the government to take its $100,000 fine and stick it where the sun don't shine?

What has happened...the fine goes up. Just like if you refuse to pay any kind of fine, like for illegal parking, or safety/health violations of your business (more rules/laws you must follow to have a business license), etc.

And when the baker doesn't pay the new higher fine?

It goes up just like it would go up if they refuse to pay a safety/health fine. Just like the IRS does if you don't pay your taxes/late penalties.

This is not something new.

And if the baker continues to ignore it despite it going up?

 

[bripat9643]

So what if the bakers have been refusing to pay for 30 years. Then what?
This thread wasn't about the PA laws. It's about Muslim bakers refusing to serve queers.

Probably the same thing that happens to someone who refuses to pay any fine for 30 years.

And what is that?

You should try it....nothing like OJT.

Quit weaseling. Tell us what happens.

I'm sorry to hear that you are not from the US....perhaps some day you can come and join us and find about about all our wonderful laws.

In other words, you're running away with your tail between your legs.

You're a coward.

 

[kaz]

What has happened...the fine goes up. Just like if you refuse to pay any kind of fine, like for illegal parking, or safety/health violations of your business (more rules/laws you must follow to have a business license), etc.

And when the baker doesn't pay the new higher fine?

It's so sad that these leftwing douche bags never think things beyond this point.

We get it...you don't think this business should have to follow the laws they promised to follow when getting their business license. They should get a pass because....................?

So we just say you don't have gay sex, we don't prosecute you for being a sexual deviant. Your standard is that works

So it IS about gay sex with you. Quelle surprise.

Nothing about fair business laws at all.

You are one stupid kunt

 

[bripat9643]

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?

You mean because we only have those liberties that government decides to give us?

Nope...you don't have to open a business in a state if you feel that you cannot follow their business rules. No one is making you do so.

It's unjust to establish a "business rule" that results in government force being initiated against someone who hasn't done anything to anyone. The initiation of force isn't ethically justified.

It's a business law that's been around since the mid 60s. Why the sudden interest in how unfair this law is (without doing anything about it except whine)?

Merely because it's been around for a while doesn't make it just. It's not ethically justified to initiate force against someone who hasn't done anything to anyone.

She doesn't have a clue what makes a law just.

 

[bripat9643]

And when the baker doesn't pay the new higher fine?

It's so sad that these leftwing douche bags never think things beyond this point.

We get it...you don't think this business should have to follow the laws they promised to follow when getting their business license. They should get a pass because....................?

So we just say you don't have gay sex, we don't prosecute you for being a sexual deviant. Your standard is that works

So it IS about gay sex with you. Quelle surprise.

Nothing about fair business laws at all.

You are one stupid kunt

Agreed.

 

[Geaux4it]

And when the baker doesn't pay the new higher fine?

It's so sad that these leftwing douche bags never think things beyond this point.

We get it...you don't think this business should have to follow the laws they promised to follow when getting their business license. They should get a pass because....................?

So we just say you don't have gay sex, we don't prosecute you for being a sexual deviant. Your standard is that works

So it IS about gay sex with you. Quelle surprise.

Nothing about fair business laws at all.

You are one stupid kunt

Pay no attention to dykedecea her opinion lacks substance or credibility

-Geaux

 

[Coyote]

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.

Regulated? If that is what you call placing limitations on rights, then yes.

I do not believe the right of free speech means you can slander, libel or create public panic.

I do not believe the right to freedom of religion should include forcing those religious values on anyone else.

I do not believe the right to assembly includes leading lynch mob.

All of our rights have limitations.

Do you think they should be unlimited?

 

[Syriusly]

You are confusing political parties with ideologies. The south, though democrat, was heavily conservative and heavily Christian - conservative Christian. When the Democrats took up civil rights, they fled the party.

The north was more liberal, and it's Christians were more liberal. And yes - Christians played a big role in abolition, as did northern Jews in Civil Rights. Christians also played a big role in protecting and promoting slavery.

Keep on spinning your fantasies

I'm not confusing anything at all. As you show every day when you argue for killing babies, or targeting Christians, you are the one who is confused. Or lying. Or drugged...if drugged, you're probably all three.

Poor persecuted christers.....poor, poor persecuted christers. If only there were more of them in this country, maybe they wouldn't be persecuted so much.......poor, poor persecuted christers.

OMG, I can't make a baker bake me a cage for a fag wedding shaped like a penis, this is like Stalinist Russia! I have no freedom!

Yeah, you have a sense of perspective, thanks ...

You can't force a baker to bake something unreasonable - for either a hetero or homosexual wedding. No penis cake. No penis in vagina cake either. That's not an issue of same sex wedding.

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

Baking a cake is not sacrilege.

However, not following the law is sacrilege.

 

[kaz]

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?

You mean because we only have those liberties that government decides to give us?

Nope...you don't have to open a business in a state if you feel that you cannot follow their business rules. No one is making you do so.

It's unjust to establish a "business rule" that results in government force being initiated against someone who hasn't done anything to anyone. The initiation of force isn't ethically justified.

It's a business law that's been around since the mid 60s. Why the sudden interest in how unfair this law is (without doing anything about it except whine)?

Merely because it's been around for a while doesn't make it just. It's not ethically justified to initiate force against someone who hasn't done anything to anyone.

Democrats think that because positive rights sound good they are justified. Positive rights actually means that someone else loses their rights

 

[Centinel]

You mean because we only have those liberties that government decides to give us?

Nope...you don't have to open a business in a state if you feel that you cannot follow their business rules. No one is making you do so.

It's unjust to establish a "business rule" that results in government force being initiated against someone who hasn't done anything to anyone. The initiation of force isn't ethically justified.

It's a business law that's been around since the mid 60s. Why the sudden interest in how unfair this law is (without doing anything about it except whine)?

Merely because it's been around for a while doesn't make it just. It's not ethically justified to initiate force against someone who hasn't done anything to anyone.

Democrats think that because positive rights sound good they are justified. Positive rights actually means that someone else loses their rights

A right can only be a right if everyone can exercise it without violating the body or property of others.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

You mean because we only have those liberties that government decides to give us?

Nope...you don't have to open a business in a state if you feel that you cannot follow their business rules. No one is making you do so.

So ... according to you ... we can pass laws to make it a death sentence to be a fag. We just need to define it to be to have homo sex rather than caring what your orientation is ... You don't get it, do you? I mean you being stupid and all ...

So....according to you Conservatives are all racists.....

I am just using Kaz speak as an example where a person says "X" and Kaz then says "so you said "Y"

 

[Coyote]

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.

Oh...this is good. Please tell us where is denying that Muslim store owners engate in the same discriminatory behavior? Perhaps you can provide a link of said denial?

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?

That has already been done in this thread. Perhaps you should read the thread before making assumptions.

 

[saveliberty]

Did it go down like this?

 

[Syriusly]

And when the baker doesn't pay the new higher fine?

It's so sad that these leftwing douche bags never think things beyond this point.

We get it...you don't think this business should have to follow the laws they promised to follow when getting their business license. They should get a pass because....................?

So we just say you don't have gay sex, we don't prosecute you for being a sexual deviant. Your standard is that works

So it IS about gay sex with you. Quelle surprise.

Nothing about fair business laws at all.

You are one stupid kunt

Kaz- to him everyone he disagrees with are either f*gs, c*nts, n*ggers, k*kes or sp*cs......

 

[kaz]

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.

Regulated? If that is what you call placing limitations on rights, then yes.

I do not believe the right of free speech means you can slander, libel or create public panic.

I do not believe the right to freedom of religion should include forcing those religious values on anyone else.

I do not believe the right to assembly includes leading lynch mob.

All of our rights have limitations.

Do you think they should be unlimited?

None of those are equivalent to government forcing you to bake a cake for a fag who could go to your competitor down the street if they weren't running to a criminal government who thinks they have the right to compel it's subjects to do what they want

 

[Coyote]

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?

Why are they exempt from the law when the rest of us have to follow it?

 

[Geaux4it]

Nope...you don't have to open a business in a state if you feel that you cannot follow their business rules. No one is making you do so.

It's unjust to establish a "business rule" that results in government force being initiated against someone who hasn't done anything to anyone. The initiation of force isn't ethically justified.

It's a business law that's been around since the mid 60s. Why the sudden interest in how unfair this law is (without doing anything about it except whine)?

Merely because it's been around for a while doesn't make it just. It's not ethically justified to initiate force against someone who hasn't done anything to anyone.

Democrats think that because positive rights sound good they are justified. Positive rights actually means that someone else loses their rights

A right can only be a right if everyone can exercise it without violating the body or property of others.

Obama picks and chooses which right of your's he wants to violate

-Geaux

 

[saveliberty]

Okay, they do make cakes, but the spelling is terrible.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Regulated? If that is what you call placing limitations on rights, then yes.

I do not believe the right of free speech means you can slander, libel or create public panic.

I do not believe the right to freedom of religion should include forcing those religious values on anyone else.

I do not believe the right to assembly includes leading lynch mob.

All of our rights have limitations.

Do you think they should be unlimited?

None of those are equivalent to government forcing you to bake a cake for a fag who could go to your competitor down the street if they weren't running to a criminal government who thinks they have the right to compel it's subjects to do what they want

So the government shouldn't enforce the laws that the people's elected representatives legislated?

 

[kaz]

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?

Why are they exempt from the law when the rest of us have to follow it?

Get off your lazy leftist ass if someone doesn't want to do business with you and go to their competitor across the street.

Note why I keep calling you "authoritarian"