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

[bripat9643]

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.

We're talking about rights, not the law, moron.

 

[Coyote]

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This was a law passed by the state legislature, yet we have various liberals wanting it to be repealed.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.

None of that has anything to do with enforcement. When a state law is inacted, the state is responsible for enforcing it. People have every right to protest, boycott and demand repeal but it doesn't alter the requirement for enforcing.

 

[bodecea]

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!"

Can you at least acknowledge that the Muslim bakers live in a state where refusing to bake a wedding cake for gay people isn't illegal? Or will you continue to ignore that rather important point?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

How does anyone debate a douche bag like you who never answers a straight question with a straight answer? You don't like being insulted? Then try not being such a douche bag weasel.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

We're talking about rights, not the law, moron.

You're wrong. Shut up.

 

[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.

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!"

Since you're going to do the spelling nazi schpeil - this sentence is a great example of horrible grammar.

 

[bodecea]

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.

We're talking about rights, not the law, moron.

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.

We're talking about rights, not the law, moron.

You're one of those people who cannot converse in a civilized manner, can you?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Up to a point. What if their "right to discrimminate" infringes on someone else's right to a reasonable expectation of service?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I guarantee you, if you're a gay couple in a state with laws against businesses discriminating against gays,

and you go to a Muslim baker who refuses to serve you because you're gay, and you make a complaint...

...you will win.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Not to the guy who wants his lawn mowed. What if he claims I did it due to color, when in fact I said I had no time.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

If not, your examples didn't prove it. The fact that theater owners get to set the rules on how customers have to behave in their theater is not a limitation on your First Amendment rights. It's simply a result of the fact that movie theaters are private property, and the owners get to set the rules.

Good point.

Let's change the scenario. Does your right to free speech allow you to incite a mob to violence?

How would any right conflict with public safety? No right does encroach on the rights of others. How would a right damage national security?

The right to free speech could conflict with public safety - example, the often used "yelling fire (when there is not) in a crowded theatre."

The right of a free press or free speech could damage national security if classified information was publicly released or if treason was commited.

Why are you mindlessly citing stuff that everybody already knows...and which isn't the slightest bit relevant to baking cakes???

Because *you* seem to have this misguided idea that rights are unlimited.

human rights are unlimited, provided your right doesn't violate someone else's.

And there is no right to have a christian bake a fag wedding cake. Doesn't exist. It's neither a human, or a civil, right to be able to force people to commit sacrilege.

It exists by virtue of equal rights. You can't run a business open to the public and then decide that you're going to deny service to a certain part of the public.

That's the law, but it has nothing to do with any valid understanding of rights. There is no right to be served by a business. If you don't want to serve queers, there's no moral principle that says you have to. There are only GAYstapo activists who want to force you.

 

[bodecea]

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 have yet to go to a wedding where the cake baker was an integral part of the wedding ceremony....have you? Usually the cake gets delivered to the reception and that's that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Not to the guy who wants his lawn mowed. What if he claims I did it due to color, when in fact I said I had no time.

Like I said, you can circumvent the law, which is a fancy way of saying you can get away with breaking the law.

That doesn't change the law.

 

[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 not. Catering an event is like putting a roof on someone's house, or mowing their lawn.

You can't discriminate.

I have yet to go to a wedding where the cake baker was an integral part of the wedding ceremony....have you? Usually the cake gets delivered to the reception and that's that.

Ya, that's the way it's been for all weddings I've been to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What does going to the baker down the street have to do with interstate commerce?

Good point.

Let's change the scenario. Does your right to free speech allow you to incite a mob to violence?

The right to free speech could conflict with public safety - example, the often used "yelling fire (when there is not) in a crowded theatre."

The right of a free press or free speech could damage national security if classified information was publicly released or if treason was commited.

Why are you mindlessly citing stuff that everybody already knows...and which isn't the slightest bit relevant to baking cakes???

Because *you* seem to have this misguided idea that rights are unlimited.

human rights are unlimited, provided your right doesn't violate someone else's.

And there is no right to have a christian bake a fag wedding cake. Doesn't exist. It's neither a human, or a civil, right to be able to force people to commit sacrilege.

It exists by virtue of equal rights. You can't run a business open to the public and then decide that you're going to deny service to a certain part of the public.

That's the law, but it has nothing to do with any valid understanding of rights. There is no right to be served by a business. If you don't want to serve queers, there's no moral principle that says you have to. There are only GAYstapo activists who want to force you.

Who appointed you the supreme authority on what is or isn't a right?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Not to the guy who wants his lawn mowed. What if he claims I did it due to color, when in fact I said I had no time.

Then it is on him to prove that you did it because of his race. Same with the couple and the cake baker in Oregon. The thing is...there were witnesses, the husband actually lectured the couple about their "sin" and then proceeded to post their home address and phone numbers on social media to harass them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Denial.

Read the thread. Or be called a liar.

What double standards? Specificly - provide a link.

Denial.

When was the last time you heard of a Muslim baker being sued and fined for discriminating against a gay couple? Because unlike Christianity, there will be serious backlash if a Muslim is forced to violate his faith's teachings.

Let’s Blame Christianity For Everything, And Islam For Nothing

This, calling for "White America" to answer for the Charleston Church Massacre:

Charleston church massacre: The violence white America must answer for

As compared to this, saying Islam isn't responsible for the Tsarnaev brothers, who bombed the Boston Marathon.

I am not the Tsarnaevs

 

[The Irish Ram]

But NY, Religion isn't unconstitutional. It is protected by the Constitution. You don't have to move. That's the nice thing about America.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

If you mean the example in Michigan....you DO know that Michigan doesn't include sexual orientation in their PA laws, right?

Now...if the Muslim bakers in Michigan refused to bake a cake for Christers.....they should be fined (they would have been fined)

If the Muslim bakers were in a state such as Oregon that does include sexual orientation in their PA laws....they should be fined (they would have been fined).

So you have no problem with not having a law forcing a baker to serve queers? Is that what you're saying?

 

[TemplarKormac]

When a state law is enacted, the state is responsible for enforcing it.

Then why can NC enforce theirs? When any law is passed, whether it be one you like or don't, the state is obligated to enforce it, correct?