Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How would you know a bakery is 'gay.'BS it has all ready happened. They cant have their cake and eat it too. If I want to target a gay bakery that makes any kind of cake and have a Christian message on it, they must bake it for me or get sued.It depends, did they offer 'We will Print your Homophobic Cake" as a service that they offer? then probably not.
these bakers said they provide wedding cakes. It's a very specific service. Not "We'll provide Wedding Cakes, just not to you because we are selectively reading a bible".
And a 'gay baker' is likely Christian as well, and would have no problem writing a 'Christian message' on a cake.
It's amusing and telling that you and many other rightists perceive gay Americans as being 'anti-Christian,' when in fact the vast majority of gay Americans are Christian. This fact also calls into question the validity that to accommodate gay patrons is a 'sin' when so many gay Americans are in fact Christian.
Consequently, for a Christian baker to refuse to accommodate a gay patron has nothing to do with 'religious liberty' and everything to do with an unwarranted fear and hatred of gays and a desire to discriminate against gay Americans motivated solely by that ignorance and hate, rendering public accommodations laws prohibiting such discrimination necessary and proper.
What a crock of crap, you pretend to know the hearts of people you've never met, your opinions are not facts, just your opinions.
You say you're all about case law, yet when the supreme court says closely held companies can't be required to abandon their religious beliefs you ignore it. Hypocrite much?
Why don't you idiots ever read the link in the OP?
Sweet Cakes Bakery agreed to make an out of wedlock baby cake, a stem-cell success cake, and a "divorce party" cake, which is a violation of their stated religious beliefs. Hypocrite much?
Irrelevant, personal beliefs are exactly that, personal. You don't get to chose for others any more than they get to chose for you. The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, not the freedom to exercise the religion of others you disagree with.
Homosexual bakers should have every right to not bake a cake for heterosexual weddings.
Failing to find someone to bake your cake for you does not destroy your life nor your beliefs.
If it does, it says more about you and less about the baker.
It has to be in there somewhere!!!Their religion states they cannot make cakes for gay weddings?How would you know a bakery is 'gay.'BS it has all ready happened. They cant have their cake and eat it too. If I want to target a gay bakery that makes any kind of cake and have a Christian message on it, they must bake it for me or get sued.
And a 'gay baker' is likely Christian as well, and would have no problem writing a 'Christian message' on a cake.
It's amusing and telling that you and many other rightists perceive gay Americans as being 'anti-Christian,' when in fact the vast majority of gay Americans are Christian. This fact also calls into question the validity that to accommodate gay patrons is a 'sin' when so many gay Americans are in fact Christian.
Consequently, for a Christian baker to refuse to accommodate a gay patron has nothing to do with 'religious liberty' and everything to do with an unwarranted fear and hatred of gays and a desire to discriminate against gay Americans motivated solely by that ignorance and hate, rendering public accommodations laws prohibiting such discrimination necessary and proper.
What a crock of crap, you pretend to know the hearts of people you've never met, your opinions are not facts, just your opinions.
You say you're all about case law, yet when the supreme court says closely held companies can't be required to abandon their religious beliefs you ignore it. Hypocrite much?
I won't pretend to know their beliefs, unlike some.
Then maybe you could point out where in "any" Christian Bible it says it's a sin to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
"Businessmen and Americans in general have to pay the taxes to support wars which they do not support." ????I
Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.
Liberals and conservatives love to impose.
Businessmen and Americans in general have to pay the taxes to support wars which they do not support.
Americans are subjected to TSA abuse because of a crazy foreign policy which has radicalized a segment of our population .
Judicial review has been destroyed by stupid judges who love to bend backwards to defend and support the welfare/warfare state.
.
How would you know a bakery is 'gay.'BS it has all ready happened. They cant have their cake and eat it too. If I want to target a gay bakery that makes any kind of cake and have a Christian message on it, they must bake it for me or get sued.It depends, did they offer 'We will Print your Homophobic Cake" as a service that they offer? then probably not.
these bakers said they provide wedding cakes. It's a very specific service. Not "We'll provide Wedding Cakes, just not to you because we are selectively reading a bible".
And a 'gay baker' is likely Christian as well, and would have no problem writing a 'Christian message' on a cake.
It's amusing and telling that you and many other rightists perceive gay Americans as being 'anti-Christian,' when in fact the vast majority of gay Americans are Christian. This fact also calls into question the validity that to accommodate gay patrons is a 'sin' when so many gay Americans are in fact Christian.
Consequently, for a Christian baker to refuse to accommodate a gay patron has nothing to do with 'religious liberty' and everything to do with an unwarranted fear and hatred of gays and a desire to discriminate against gay Americans motivated solely by that ignorance and hate, rendering public accommodations laws prohibiting such discrimination necessary and proper.
What a crock of crap, you pretend to know the hearts of people you've never met, your opinions are not facts, just your opinions.
You say you're all about case law, yet when the supreme court says closely held companies can't be required to abandon their religious beliefs you ignore it. Hypocrite much?
Why don't you idiots ever read the link in the OP?
Sweet Cakes Bakery agreed to make an out of wedlock baby cake, a stem-cell success cake, and a "divorce party" cake, which is a violation of their stated religious beliefs. Hypocrite much?
Irrelevant, personal beliefs are exactly that, personal. You don't get to chose for others any more than they get to chose for you. The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, not the freedom to exercise the religion of others you disagree with.
How would you know a bakery is 'gay.'BS it has all ready happened. They cant have their cake and eat it too. If I want to target a gay bakery that makes any kind of cake and have a Christian message on it, they must bake it for me or get sued.
And a 'gay baker' is likely Christian as well, and would have no problem writing a 'Christian message' on a cake.
It's amusing and telling that you and many other rightists perceive gay Americans as being 'anti-Christian,' when in fact the vast majority of gay Americans are Christian. This fact also calls into question the validity that to accommodate gay patrons is a 'sin' when so many gay Americans are in fact Christian.
Consequently, for a Christian baker to refuse to accommodate a gay patron has nothing to do with 'religious liberty' and everything to do with an unwarranted fear and hatred of gays and a desire to discriminate against gay Americans motivated solely by that ignorance and hate, rendering public accommodations laws prohibiting such discrimination necessary and proper.
What a crock of crap, you pretend to know the hearts of people you've never met, your opinions are not facts, just your opinions.
You say you're all about case law, yet when the supreme court says closely held companies can't be required to abandon their religious beliefs you ignore it. Hypocrite much?
Why don't you idiots ever read the link in the OP?
Sweet Cakes Bakery agreed to make an out of wedlock baby cake, a stem-cell success cake, and a "divorce party" cake, which is a violation of their stated religious beliefs. Hypocrite much?
Irrelevant, personal beliefs are exactly that, personal. You don't get to chose for others any more than they get to chose for you. The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, not the freedom to exercise the religion of others you disagree with.
They're just typical hypocritical Christians who like to pick and choose. If they can't handle baking a damn cake, they don't need to have a bakery. Melissa "sweet cakes" needs to keep baking her cakes in the privacy of her own home.
How would you know a bakery is 'gay.'
And a 'gay baker' is likely Christian as well, and would have no problem writing a 'Christian message' on a cake.
It's amusing and telling that you and many other rightists perceive gay Americans as being 'anti-Christian,' when in fact the vast majority of gay Americans are Christian. This fact also calls into question the validity that to accommodate gay patrons is a 'sin' when so many gay Americans are in fact Christian.
Consequently, for a Christian baker to refuse to accommodate a gay patron has nothing to do with 'religious liberty' and everything to do with an unwarranted fear and hatred of gays and a desire to discriminate against gay Americans motivated solely by that ignorance and hate, rendering public accommodations laws prohibiting such discrimination necessary and proper.
What a crock of crap, you pretend to know the hearts of people you've never met, your opinions are not facts, just your opinions.
You say you're all about case law, yet when the supreme court says closely held companies can't be required to abandon their religious beliefs you ignore it. Hypocrite much?
Why don't you idiots ever read the link in the OP?
Sweet Cakes Bakery agreed to make an out of wedlock baby cake, a stem-cell success cake, and a "divorce party" cake, which is a violation of their stated religious beliefs. Hypocrite much?
Irrelevant, personal beliefs are exactly that, personal. You don't get to chose for others any more than they get to chose for you. The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, not the freedom to exercise the religion of others you disagree with.
They're just typical hypocritical Christians who like to pick and choose. If they can't handle baking a damn cake, they don't need to have a bakery. Melissa "sweet cakes" needs to keep baking her cakes in the privacy of her own home.
In a free country ...
...their customers would decide if they remain in business, not heavy handed government, but you folks aren't about freedom unless it conforms to your ideas and beliefs, how pathetic are you.
How would you know a bakery is 'gay.'BS it has all ready happened. They cant have their cake and eat it too. If I want to target a gay bakery that makes any kind of cake and have a Christian message on it, they must bake it for me or get sued.
And a 'gay baker' is likely Christian as well, and would have no problem writing a 'Christian message' on a cake.
It's amusing and telling that you and many other rightists perceive gay Americans as being 'anti-Christian,' when in fact the vast majority of gay Americans are Christian. This fact also calls into question the validity that to accommodate gay patrons is a 'sin' when so many gay Americans are in fact Christian.
Consequently, for a Christian baker to refuse to accommodate a gay patron has nothing to do with 'religious liberty' and everything to do with an unwarranted fear and hatred of gays and a desire to discriminate against gay Americans motivated solely by that ignorance and hate, rendering public accommodations laws prohibiting such discrimination necessary and proper.
What a crock of crap, you pretend to know the hearts of people you've never met, your opinions are not facts, just your opinions.
You say you're all about case law, yet when the supreme court says closely held companies can't be required to abandon their religious beliefs you ignore it. Hypocrite much?
Why don't you idiots ever read the link in the OP?
Sweet Cakes Bakery agreed to make an out of wedlock baby cake, a stem-cell success cake, and a "divorce party" cake, which is a violation of their stated religious beliefs. Hypocrite much?
Irrelevant, personal beliefs are exactly that, personal. You don't get to chose for others any more than they get to chose for you. The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, not the freedom to exercise the religion of others you disagree with.
personal beliefs do not get religious protections.
What a crock of crap, you pretend to know the hearts of people you've never met, your opinions are not facts, just your opinions.
You say you're all about case law, yet when the supreme court says closely held companies can't be required to abandon their religious beliefs you ignore it. Hypocrite much?
Why don't you idiots ever read the link in the OP?
Sweet Cakes Bakery agreed to make an out of wedlock baby cake, a stem-cell success cake, and a "divorce party" cake, which is a violation of their stated religious beliefs. Hypocrite much?
Irrelevant, personal beliefs are exactly that, personal. You don't get to chose for others any more than they get to chose for you. The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, not the freedom to exercise the religion of others you disagree with.
They're just typical hypocritical Christians who like to pick and choose. If they can't handle baking a damn cake, they don't need to have a bakery. Melissa "sweet cakes" needs to keep baking her cakes in the privacy of her own home.
In a free country ...
...their customers would decide if they remain in business, not heavy handed government, but you folks aren't about freedom unless it conforms to your ideas and beliefs, how pathetic are you.
you are confusing a free country with an economic system without government regulation
Your reading of the Court decision is faulty. That case was about the Religious Freedom Act and how it applied in that specific instance only.How would you know a bakery is 'gay.'
And a 'gay baker' is likely Christian as well, and would have no problem writing a 'Christian message' on a cake.
It's amusing and telling that you and many other rightists perceive gay Americans as being 'anti-Christian,' when in fact the vast majority of gay Americans are Christian. This fact also calls into question the validity that to accommodate gay patrons is a 'sin' when so many gay Americans are in fact Christian.
Consequently, for a Christian baker to refuse to accommodate a gay patron has nothing to do with 'religious liberty' and everything to do with an unwarranted fear and hatred of gays and a desire to discriminate against gay Americans motivated solely by that ignorance and hate, rendering public accommodations laws prohibiting such discrimination necessary and proper.
What a crock of crap, you pretend to know the hearts of people you've never met, your opinions are not facts, just your opinions.
You say you're all about case law, yet when the supreme court says closely held companies can't be required to abandon their religious beliefs you ignore it. Hypocrite much?
Why don't you idiots ever read the link in the OP?
Sweet Cakes Bakery agreed to make an out of wedlock baby cake, a stem-cell success cake, and a "divorce party" cake, which is a violation of their stated religious beliefs. Hypocrite much?
Irrelevant, personal beliefs are exactly that, personal. You don't get to chose for others any more than they get to chose for you. The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, not the freedom to exercise the religion of others you disagree with.
personal beliefs do not get religious protections.
Actually they do, that is what the free exercise clause in about. The supreme court upheld that clause in the Hobby Lobby decision.
still, you are confusing a free country with an economic system without government regulationWhy don't you idiots ever read the link in the OP?
Sweet Cakes Bakery agreed to make an out of wedlock baby cake, a stem-cell success cake, and a "divorce party" cake, which is a violation of their stated religious beliefs. Hypocrite much?
Irrelevant, personal beliefs are exactly that, personal. You don't get to chose for others any more than they get to chose for you. The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, not the freedom to exercise the religion of others you disagree with.
They're just typical hypocritical Christians who like to pick and choose. If they can't handle baking a damn cake, they don't need to have a bakery. Melissa "sweet cakes" needs to keep baking her cakes in the privacy of her own home.
In a free country ...
...their customers would decide if they remain in business, not heavy handed government, but you folks aren't about freedom unless it conforms to your ideas and beliefs, how pathetic are you.
you are confusing a free country with an economic system without government regulation
See my last post.
So If I am a Christian and go to a gay bakery, do they have to bake and deliver a cake to my church?
How would you know a bakery is 'gay.'
And a 'gay baker' is likely Christian as well, and would have no problem writing a 'Christian message' on a cake.
It's amusing and telling that you and many other rightists perceive gay Americans as being 'anti-Christian,' when in fact the vast majority of gay Americans are Christian. This fact also calls into question the validity that to accommodate gay patrons is a 'sin' when so many gay Americans are in fact Christian.
Consequently, for a Christian baker to refuse to accommodate a gay patron has nothing to do with 'religious liberty' and everything to do with an unwarranted fear and hatred of gays and a desire to discriminate against gay Americans motivated solely by that ignorance and hate, rendering public accommodations laws prohibiting such discrimination necessary and proper.
What a crock of crap, you pretend to know the hearts of people you've never met, your opinions are not facts, just your opinions.
You say you're all about case law, yet when the supreme court says closely held companies can't be required to abandon their religious beliefs you ignore it. Hypocrite much?
Why don't you idiots ever read the link in the OP?
Sweet Cakes Bakery agreed to make an out of wedlock baby cake, a stem-cell success cake, and a "divorce party" cake, which is a violation of their stated religious beliefs. Hypocrite much?
Irrelevant, personal beliefs are exactly that, personal. You don't get to chose for others any more than they get to chose for you. The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, not the freedom to exercise the religion of others you disagree with.
personal beliefs do not get religious protections.
Actually they do, that is what the free exercise clause in about. The supreme court upheld that clause in the Hobby Lobby decision.
How would you know a bakery is 'gay.'
And a 'gay baker' is likely Christian as well, and would have no problem writing a 'Christian message' on a cake.
It's amusing and telling that you and many other rightists perceive gay Americans as being 'anti-Christian,' when in fact the vast majority of gay Americans are Christian. This fact also calls into question the validity that to accommodate gay patrons is a 'sin' when so many gay Americans are in fact Christian.
Consequently, for a Christian baker to refuse to accommodate a gay patron has nothing to do with 'religious liberty' and everything to do with an unwarranted fear and hatred of gays and a desire to discriminate against gay Americans motivated solely by that ignorance and hate, rendering public accommodations laws prohibiting such discrimination necessary and proper.
What a crock of crap, you pretend to know the hearts of people you've never met, your opinions are not facts, just your opinions.
You say you're all about case law, yet when the supreme court says closely held companies can't be required to abandon their religious beliefs you ignore it. Hypocrite much?
Why don't you idiots ever read the link in the OP?
Sweet Cakes Bakery agreed to make an out of wedlock baby cake, a stem-cell success cake, and a "divorce party" cake, which is a violation of their stated religious beliefs. Hypocrite much?
Irrelevant, personal beliefs are exactly that, personal. You don't get to chose for others any more than they get to chose for you. The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, not the freedom to exercise the religion of others you disagree with.
They're just typical hypocritical Christians who like to pick and choose. If they can't handle baking a damn cake, they don't need to have a bakery. Melissa "sweet cakes" needs to keep baking her cakes in the privacy of her own home.
In a free country their customers would decide if they remain in business, not heavy handed government, but you folks aren't about freedom unless it conforms to your ideas and beliefs, how pathetic are you.
Huh? Depends on where one stands and when.What a crock of crap, you pretend to know the hearts of people you've never met, your opinions are not facts, just your opinions.
You say you're all about case law, yet when the supreme court says closely held companies can't be required to abandon their religious beliefs you ignore it. Hypocrite much?
Why don't you idiots ever read the link in the OP?
Sweet Cakes Bakery agreed to make an out of wedlock baby cake, a stem-cell success cake, and a "divorce party" cake, which is a violation of their stated religious beliefs. Hypocrite much?
Irrelevant, personal beliefs are exactly that, personal. You don't get to chose for others any more than they get to chose for you. The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, not the freedom to exercise the religion of others you disagree with.
personal beliefs do not get religious protections.
Actually they do, that is what the free exercise clause in about. The supreme court upheld that clause in the Hobby Lobby decision.
So we have a Supreme Court that's misinterpreting the Constitution. Not the first time.
Huh? Depends on where one stands and when.Why don't you idiots ever read the link in the OP?
Sweet Cakes Bakery agreed to make an out of wedlock baby cake, a stem-cell success cake, and a "divorce party" cake, which is a violation of their stated religious beliefs. Hypocrite much?
Irrelevant, personal beliefs are exactly that, personal. You don't get to chose for others any more than they get to chose for you. The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, not the freedom to exercise the religion of others you disagree with.
personal beliefs do not get religious protections.
Actually they do, that is what the free exercise clause in about. The supreme court upheld that clause in the Hobby Lobby decision.
So we have a Supreme Court that's misinterpreting the Constitution. Not the first time.
really? Wow!Really? They ask the state for a license to operate, to sell cakes to the public. Bakers could refuse orders. Bakers cannot discriminate in public the way you would want...Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic.I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.
So says Junior who would indeed force his lifestyle and religion on others.
No kidding. This is incredibly ignorant and hypocritical, even for Junior.
IMO, all groups of people should have equal protection under the law. Further, businesses should not forced to serve one group but be allowed to discriminate against another.
Homosexual bakers should have every right to not bake a cake for heterosexual weddings.
Failing to find someone to bake your cake for you does not destroy your life nor your beliefs.
If it does, it says more about you and less about the baker.
We are a nation of laws. If you follow the link below, you will be educated on what you are talking about
What is a Public Accommodation?
Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered "public accommodations." The definition of a "public accommodation" may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:
- See more at: Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw
- Government-owned/operated facilities, services, and buildings
- Privately-owned/operated businesses, services, and buildings
The answer to my post is the first word of yours.
Really
Homosexual bakers should have every right to not bake a cake for heterosexual weddings.
Failing to find someone to bake your cake for you does not destroy your life nor your beliefs.
If it does, it says more about you and less about the baker.
No, they shouldn't have the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation either.
Neither is marriage, but if we're going to have it then it's going to be equal, whether you approve of a such a thing or not.Homosexual bakers should have every right to not bake a cake for heterosexual weddings.
Failing to find someone to bake your cake for you does not destroy your life nor your beliefs.
If it does, it says more about you and less about the baker.
No, they shouldn't have the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation either.
No, they should based on anything.
Cake is not essential to survival.
