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

[kaz]

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been done with PA laws...the Supreme Court has declared them Constitutional....work on the state level to get such laws repealed....or go the federal route and get an Amendment passed and ratified stating that businesses everywhere have the right to refuse service for any reason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.

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.

It's like trying to explain calculus to a cockroach, isn't it?

 

[bodecea]

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

I would like to read up on it....where did you answer? Is it in this thread?

 

[kaz]

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?

What about if you go to Starbucks in Florida and we scream at you, does that work?

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

It is as to whether the law remains a law.

Do you think it would be unjust to have a law that protects....say, a christer employee from being harassed over their religion by an employer?

 

[Coyote]

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?

What about if you go to Starbucks in Florida and we scream at you, does that work?

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

 

[kaz]

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

I would like to read up on it....where did you answer? Is it in this thread?

Well, it doesn't matter since you have no long term memory, does it?

 

[kaz]

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?

What about if you go to Starbucks in Florida and we scream at you, does that work?

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

What about if you go to Starbucks in Florida and we scream at you, does that work?

 

[Centinel]

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.

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.

It is as to whether the law remains a law.

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

 

[bodecea]

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?

What about if you go to Starbucks in Florida and we scream at you, does that work?

You have this thing about Starbucks.....and Florida....and screaming.




Odd.

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

It is as to whether the law remains a law.

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

Do you consider a law unjust if it protects a Christer employee from an employer that harasses them over their religion?

 

[bodecea]

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

I would like to read up on it....where did you answer? Is it in this thread?

Well, it doesn't matter since you have no long term memory, does it?

So...you really didn't answer the question, did you? Again....quelle surprise.

 

[Centinel]

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.

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.

It is as to whether the law remains a law.

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

Do you consider a law unjust if it protects a Christer employee from an employer that harasses them over their religion?

If you provide more detail about the law you're talking about, I can give you an answer.

 

[saveliberty]

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

No, but he can make you bake him a cake with all that, if you own a bakery

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Try running a business that serves only white people and see how you make out.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What force?

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's quite telling you and your liberal friends won't apply the your oh so tolerant standards to Muslim bakers that you would to Christians. Why?

 

[Coyote]

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

No, but he can make you bake him a cake with all that, if you own a bakery

I like cake!

 

[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...

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?

You're fucking retarded. I linked to my own posts taking the side of the government when Muslims wanted to discriminate against certain people.


Wake the fuck up.

 

[saveliberty]

Its a cake people, there lots of bakeries. Find one that wants to make it, pay for it and eat it already.

 

[The Irish Ram]

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?

What about if you go to Starbucks in Florida and we scream at you, does that work?

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

What about if you go to Starbucks in Florida and we scream at you, does that work?

You can scream at me all you want, in what ever state you want, as long as the owner doesn't mind you disturbing the peace. You can yell at me on the sidewalk, you can yell at me in the street. What you can't make me do is bake a cake if it is against my religion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

..

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.

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?

It has to do with equal protection under the law. States can't have discriminatory laws that violate the Constitution.