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

[bripat9643]

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?

He's rude because you're a dingbat who refuses to give a straight answer to a straight question. Dodging, dancing and weaseling and running away are your stock in trade.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

"engate"?

It's all over this thread, including coming from you.

Instead of acknowledging your double standards when applying your tolerance standards to both Christians and Muslims, you dodge the prospect entirely. Your response proves my case. You instead of acknowledging something like this does occur, you deny it.

When a Muslim blows up a cafe, the standard retort is "well, not all Muslims are like that!"

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You mean your version of the Constitution. Involuntary servitude violates the Constitution also.

So...your version of the Constitution doesn't have the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment only controls what government can do, not private businesses.

 

[OKTexas]

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

I can sympathize with being rebuffed. A wedding is a huge deal and it's an emotional deal. It's an even huger deal when it's something that's been long denied to you. You should be able to have a reasonable expectation of being treated like any other customer looking for the same product. Now if the person went looking for a refusal, I'd have no sympathy but that isn't the case in the Oregon case.

Making a purchase in a retail store is different than having someone cater an event. It was the event the baker objected to.

 

[saveliberty]

You can speed and not get a ticket, even if pulled over.

You can do almost anything and if the prosecuting attorney doesn't bring charges, nothing happens.

 

[Coyote]

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

Will you say that to a Muslim?

Of course. And to a Buddhist. And to a Jew. And to a Hindu. And to a Christian.

What if I told you that it isn't freedom of speech for either I, to force my religious values on someone else, or for a homosexual to force their way of life on my religious values? Something has to give here, right?

What is a homosexual forcing on you?

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

So, to that measure, does that include groups like Black Lives Matter?

It depends on their actions and even then, is it the entire organization or the behavior of particular individuals inciting something? You can't blame the entire group for the actions of some.

Do you think they should be unlimited?

Let me put it this way. I don't want them as limited as you do.

How limited do you think I want them?

 

[NYcarbineer]

..
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.

You mean your version of the Constitution. Involuntary servitude violates the Constitution also.

What involuntary servitude?

 

[Coyote]

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

I can sympathize with being rebuffed. A wedding is a huge deal and it's an emotional deal. It's an even huger deal when it's something that's been long denied to you. You should be able to have a reasonable expectation of being treated like any other customer looking for the same product. Now if the person went looking for a refusal, I'd have no sympathy but that isn't the case in the Oregon case.

Making a purchase in a retail store is different than having someone cater an event. It was the event the baker objected to.

No, it's the same.

 

[OKTexas]

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

It's just religion people. You want to have a religion that's unconstitutional, move to another country. lol

There is no religion that is unconstitutional. Neither is the FREE EXERCISE OF YOUR RELIGION in any circumstance.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

No. Because when people legislate bans on gay marriage in their states, the government isn't obliged to carry them out. When the NC governor signed the so-called "anti-LGBT" bill into law, people pressured him not to enforce it. PayPal canceled their deal with the state, and government officials, like Kasim Reed here in Atlanta, barred all non essential travel to the State.

This was a law passed by the state legislature, yet we have various liberals wanting it to be repealed. So, that calls into question what people like yourself call "just law" if there is such a thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

I can sympathize with being rebuffed. A wedding is a huge deal and it's an emotional deal. It's an even huger deal when it's something that's been long denied to you. You should be able to have a reasonable expectation of being treated like any other customer looking for the same product. Now if the person went looking for a refusal, I'd have no sympathy but that isn't the case in the Oregon case.

Making a purchase in a retail store is different than having someone cater an event. It was the event the baker objected to.

No, it's not. Catering an event is like putting a roof on someone's house, or mowing their lawn.

You can't discriminate.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

The question isn't whether it's "unjust." The question is whether anyone's rights are violated. And the answer is that when the government does it, then rights are violated, but private citizens have a right to discriminate. To say they don't is to say the have no right of association.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Why are Muslims not obligated to follow the law in this regard either? Why the sole focus on Christians?

 

[saveliberty]

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

I can sympathize with being rebuffed. A wedding is a huge deal and it's an emotional deal. It's an even huger deal when it's something that's been long denied to you. You should be able to have a reasonable expectation of being treated like any other customer looking for the same product. Now if the person went looking for a refusal, I'd have no sympathy but that isn't the case in the Oregon case.

Making a purchase in a retail store is different than having someone cater an event. It was the event the baker objected to.

No, it's not. Catering an event is like putting a roof on someone's house, or mowing their lawn.

You can't discriminate.

I do not have to mow everyone's lawn that comes asking.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

It's just religion people. You want to have a religion that's unconstitutional, move to another country. lol

There is no religion that is unconstitutional. Neither is the FREE EXERCISE OF YOUR RELIGION in any circumstance.

Really? So the Aztec religion that at its core involved human sacrifice can come back?

 

[Coyote]

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?

"engate"?

It's all over this thread, including coming from you.

Link please. Back up your claims or admit your a liar.

Instead of acknowledging your double standards when applying your tolerance standards to both Christians and Muslims, you dodge the prospect entirely. Your response proves my case. You instead of acknowledging something like this does occur, you deny it.

What double standards? Specificly - provide a link.

When a Muslim blows up a cafe, the standard retort is "well, not all Muslims are like that!"

Sure. They aren't. Are all Christians like the abortion clinic bombers?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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?

What the fuck is a "christer?" Do you often use words that only you know the meaning of?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Why are Muslims not obligated to follow the law in this regard either? Why the sole focus on Christians?

They are. Shut the fuck up.

 

[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.

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?

He's rude because you're a dingbat who refuses to give a straight answer to a straight question. Dodging, dancing and weaseling and running away are your stock in trade.

I see that you insult instead of debate civilly too. Speaking of dodging...notice how Kaz claims to have answered my question about what she is doing to get rid of PA laws in her state....and yet cannot show me where she made that answer. Perhaps you've seen it and can point it out to me? Be a pal and point it out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

I can sympathize with being rebuffed. A wedding is a huge deal and it's an emotional deal. It's an even huger deal when it's something that's been long denied to you. You should be able to have a reasonable expectation of being treated like any other customer looking for the same product. Now if the person went looking for a refusal, I'd have no sympathy but that isn't the case in the Oregon case.

Making a purchase in a retail store is different than having someone cater an event. It was the event the baker objected to.

No, it's not. Catering an event is like putting a roof on someone's house, or mowing their lawn.

You can't discriminate.

I do not have to mow everyone's lawn that comes asking.

You cannot refuse to mow a lawn owned by a black person because he is black. You will be breaking the law.

Maybe you can circumvent the law, but that is irrelevant.