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

[kaz]

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?

As I just said ...

This is beginning to sound like you think some people should be specially exempt from the laws that others obey.

I think government should not compel any citizen to do business with another citizen. Explain what's "exempt" about that standard.

Stop being an idiot

Then work to get rid of PA laws.

I am you stupid dyke, how many times do I need to explain that to you? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Did I ask you that question before? No?

 

[The Irish Ram]

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?

The Muslim and the Christian are equally protected from infringement on the government's part, if they are both American citizens.
Civil behavior and religious conscience aren't the same thing. We don't have the right to physically cause harm to another. We do have the right to stand behind our religious convictions. You are legally protected from being physically harmed. You are not protected from being insulted by another's beliefs, no matter how repugnant you may find them.

 

[saveliberty]

Somebody might order a cake once...

 

[Geaux4it]

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?

The government turns its back on enforcing immigration laws. Just ask Sheriff Joe. They also don't enforce federal laws relative to marijuana. So which laws are followed and which are not? The states can make the call on weed, but not marriage?

-Geaux

Weed is not a right.

Neither is marriage

Next?

-Geaux

It isn't?

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Is Marriage a Civil Right?

Marriage is a privilege

-Geaux

 

[kaz]

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"

Why would a black person have to "get off their lazy ass" and go across the street?
Why would a christer have to "get off their lazy ass" and go across the street?
Why would a handicapped person have to "get off their lazy ass" and go across the street?
Why would a foreign national have to "get off their lazy ass" and go across the street?

Because the extremely rare occurrences any of those happen, your supposed solution is far, far better than the alternative

So, what are you doing to get rid of PA laws if they are so abhorrent to you?

Asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered ... Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? I've never asked you that before, have I?

 

[Coyote]

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

The government turns its back on enforcing immigration laws. Just ask Sheriff Joe. They also don't enforce federal laws relative to marijuana. So which laws are followed and which are not? The states can make the call on weed, but not marriage?

-Geaux

Weed is not a right.

Neither is marriage

Next?

-Geaux

It isn't?

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Is Marriage a Civil Right?

Marriage is a privilege

-Geaux

Nope.

 

[Centinel]

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?

Nope. The government shouldn't enact unjust laws. It's unjust to create a law that results in government force being initiated against someone who's done nothing to anyone.

 

[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.

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?

The Muslim and the Christian are equally protected from infringement on the government's part, if they are both American citizens.
Civil behavior and religious conscience aren't the same thing. We don't have the right to physically cause harm to another. We do have the right to stand behind our religious convictions. You are legally protected from being physically harmed. You are not protected from being insulted by another's beliefs, no matter how repugnant you may find them.

Just physical harm?

 

[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?

Nope. The government shouldn't enact unjust laws. It's unjust to create a law that results in government force being initiated against someone who's done nothing to anyone.

Who decides something is unjust? Is it unjust to be the victim of discrimmination?

 

[bodecea]

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

As I just said ...

This is beginning to sound like you think some people should be specially exempt from the laws that others obey.

I think government should not compel any citizen to do business with another citizen. Explain what's "exempt" about that standard.

Stop being an idiot

Then work to get rid of PA laws.

I am you stupid dyke, how many times do I need to explain that to you? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Did I ask you that question before? No?

And why do you have to be rude? What is it exactly you are doing to get rid of PA laws in your state? Tell us.

Oh, and I do apologize if you have told us in the past....I've missed it....could you link or point out where you did so?

 

[Centinel]

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?

Nope. The government shouldn't enact unjust laws. It's unjust to create a law that results in government force being initiated against someone who's done nothing to anyone.

Who decides something is unjust? Is it unjust to be the victim of discrimmination?

It's unjust to initiate aggression against the person or property of others. A law that initiates aggression against someone for not doing anything to anyone is unjust.

 

[Coyote]

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?

Nope. The government shouldn't enact unjust laws. It's unjust to create a law that results in government force being initiated against someone who's done nothing to anyone.

Who decides something is unjust? Is it unjust to be the victim of discrimmination?

It's unjust to initiate aggression against the person or property of others. A law that initiates aggression against someone for not doing anything to anyone is unjust.

Is it just or unjust to discrimminate against a person on the basis of inherent characteristics?

 

[saveliberty]

View attachment 70903

Bob bakes his first burning cross wedding cake.

And why would he not. (Keeping in mind that his state must have a PA law that protects people based on their political stances...which is what we see with KKKrs)

Syrious poster is syrious. me, not so much. I think Bob should have the final say though.

 

[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.

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?

Nope. The government shouldn't enact unjust laws. It's unjust to create a law that results in government force being initiated against someone who's done nothing to anyone.

If the government enacts an unjust law there are at least three options....file a law suit to have that law reviewed for Constitutionality....that has been done with PA laws...the Supreme Court has declared them Constitutional....work on the state level to get such laws repealed....or go the federal route and get an Amendment passed and ratified stating that businesses everywhere have the right to refuse service for any reason including discrimination based on race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

 

[kaz]

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?

Nope. The government shouldn't enact unjust laws. It's unjust to create a law that results in government force being initiated against someone who's done nothing to anyone.

Who decides something is unjust? Is it unjust to be the victim of discrimmination?

The Constitution lays it out pretty well

 

[kaz]

As I just said ...

This is beginning to sound like you think some people should be specially exempt from the laws that others obey.

I think government should not compel any citizen to do business with another citizen. Explain what's "exempt" about that standard.

Stop being an idiot

Then work to get rid of PA laws.

I am you stupid dyke, how many times do I need to explain that to you? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Did I ask you that question before? No?

And why do you have to be rude? What is it exactly you are doing to get rid of PA laws in your state? Tell us.

Asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered

At this point, your inability to absorb information is pure stupidity

 

[The Irish Ram]

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?

The Muslim and the Christian are equally protected from infringement on the government's part, if they are both American citizens.
Civil behavior and religious conscience aren't the same thing. We don't have the right to physically cause harm to another. We do have the right to stand behind our religious convictions. You are legally protected from being physically harmed. You are not protected from being insulted by another's beliefs, no matter how repugnant you may find them.

Just physical harm?

Yes. I can't hit you with sticks and stones, but I can call you names...

 

[kaz]

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?

Nope. The government shouldn't enact unjust laws. It's unjust to create a law that results in government force being initiated against someone who's done nothing to anyone.

If the government enacts an unjust law there are at least three options....file a law suit to have that law reviewed for Constitutionality....that has been done with PA laws...the Supreme Court has declared them Constitutional....work on the state level to get such laws repealed....or go the federal route and get an Amendment passed and ratified stating that businesses everywhere have the right to refuse service for any reason including discrimination based on race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

What's funny is how much you sound like the anti-fag crowd you hate so much ...

 

[Centinel]

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?

Nope. The government shouldn't enact unjust laws. It's unjust to create a law that results in government force being initiated against someone who's done nothing to anyone.

If the government enacts an unjust law there are at least three options....file a law suit to have that law reviewed for Constitutionality....that has been done with PA laws...the Supreme Court has declared them Constitutional....work on the state level to get such laws repealed....or go the federal route and get an Amendment passed and ratified stating that businesses everywhere have the right to refuse service for any reason including discrimination based on race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

Which has no bearing on whether the law is unjust or not.

 

[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.

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?

The Muslim and the Christian are equally protected from infringement on the government's part, if they are both American citizens.
Civil behavior and religious conscience aren't the same thing. We don't have the right to physically cause harm to another. We do have the right to stand behind our religious convictions. You are legally protected from being physically harmed. You are not protected from being insulted by another's beliefs, no matter how repugnant you may find them.

Just physical harm?

Yes. I can't hit you with sticks and stones, but I can call you names...

Can you threaten me with burning crosses on my lawn, graffitti on my house, and death threats?