No Cake for You

[Procrustes Stretched]

MAC is demented

Hey, I'm impressed by your passionate defense of The Law.

I'm sure you would demand that an illegal alien should be immediately arrested and deported, and some kid smoking a joint in his house be detained, too.

'Cause you're so into The Law now 'n stuff.

Oh, I'm just kidding. I know you're lying.

.

jesus, you are dense. Guaranteed rights versus civil crimes, violations of administrative laws, and misdemeanors?

go back to school. preferably one where your relations are not the teachers

 

[Mac1958]

MAC is demented

Hey, I'm impressed by your passionate defense of The Law.

I'm sure you would demand that an illegal alien should be immediately arrested and deported, and some kid smoking a joint in his house be detained, too.

'Cause you're so into The Law now 'n stuff.

Oh, I'm just kidding. I know you're lying.

.

jesus, you are dense. Guaranteed rights versus civil crimes, violations of administrative laws, and misdemeanors?

go back to school. preferably one where your relations are not the teachers

Didn't like that one, huh?

Personal insults are always the giveaway.

Liars are like that. Too bad.

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Hobby Lobby was decided by a 5 - 4 vote. If by chance some judge had left the court by death or whatever a few years earlier or later than he did, a Democrat instead of a Republican President could have replaced him and the Hobby Lobby decision might have easily been 4 -5. Would that magically mean the the right decision had been reached,

in either case?

You are wrong in your assumption that a Justice appointed by a Democrat or a Republican can be pigeon holed so easily. Anyway, I'd have to read any concurring opinions along with the dissent in order to make the type of assumptions you are making

If only life were as black and white as you pretend it is

I said 'might easily have been' for a reason.

And I disagree. Why? Because I have been studying the Court(s) for a while. Gotta love how often and how wrong legal experts and people I admire get it when professing powers of prediction and such

 

[Mac1958]

.

The PC Police (American & Jihadist) only "care" about the laws that support their quest for intimidation and control.

Any laws that don't just aren't good enough, and don't matter.

How transparent.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So we have a Supreme Court that's misinterpreting the Constitution. Not the first time.

Huh? Depends on where one stands and when.

Hobby Lobby was decided by a 5 - 4 vote. If by chance some judge had left the court by death or whatever a few years earlier or later than he did, a Democrat instead of a Republican President could have replaced him and the Hobby Lobby decision might have easily been 4 -5. Would that magically mean the the right decision had been reached,

in either case?

You are wrong in your assumption that a Justice appointed by a Democrat or a Republican can be pigeon holed so easily. Anyway, I'd have to read any concurring opinions along with the dissent in order to make the type of assumptions you are making

If only life were as black and white as you pretend it is

I said 'might easily have been' for a reason.

And I disagree. Why? Because I have been studying the Court(s) for a while. Gotta love how often and how wrong legal experts and people I admire get it when professing powers of prediction and such

I wasn't making a prediction.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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?

Their religion states they cannot make cakes for gay weddings?

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.

Its funny, why is it that you always come back to the bible to justify why people should be forced to do something against their beliefs? Do you know what God did to the Egyptians for enslaving the Israelites? Tell me you aren't that naive and clueless.

It's not their beliefs, it's their religious convictions. Don't they get those from the Bible? Its always been my understanding that a Christian gains knowledge through the Bible. If Christian's are basing their faith on some other book, you let me know.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Hobby Lobby was decided by a 5 - 4 vote. If by chance some judge had left the court by death or whatever a few years earlier or later than he did, a Democrat instead of a Republican President could have replaced him and the Hobby Lobby decision might have easily been 4 -5. Would that magically mean the the right decision had been reached,

in either case?

Why is it you lefties don't get we are supposed to have freedom of association and the free exercise of religion, you don't give up those rights just to make an honest living.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

Sure, being that you aren't a Christian yourself, you don't understand what it is to be one. But it would be good if you didn't, given you like to misuse scripture, just like a Pharisee.

To assume makes an ass of u.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

Hobby Lobby was decided by a 5 - 4 vote. If by chance some judge had left the court by death or whatever a few years earlier or later than he did, a Democrat instead of a Republican President could have replaced him and the Hobby Lobby decision might have easily been 4 -5. Would that magically mean the the right decision had been reached,

in either case?

Why is it you lefties don't get we are supposed to have freedom of association and the free exercise of religion, you don't give up those rights just to make an honest living.

Some people like to use religion in order to justify being bigoted assholes. Apparently the two dip-shits running the bakery were ignorant of the law. Sounds like they're too stupid to run a business.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

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...

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:

• Government-owned/operated facilities, services, and buildings
• Privately-owned/operated businesses, services, and buildings

- See more at: Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw​

The answer to my post is the first word of yours.

Really

really? Wow!

If someone doesn't want to make you a cake.....

Life goes on just the same

Or, you're a loser who can't make do.

Again, says more about the person wanting a cake than the one not wishing to provide the cake

This isn't about cakes, it's about intimidation and punishment.

It's not about laws, it's about intimidation and punishment.

.

Oh, it's about laws and the consequences of breaking the law.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Hobby Lobby was decided by a 5 - 4 vote. If by chance some judge had left the court by death or whatever a few years earlier or later than he did, a Democrat instead of a Republican President could have replaced him and the Hobby Lobby decision might have easily been 4 -5. Would that magically mean the the right decision had been reached,

in either case?

Why is it you lefties don't get we are supposed to have freedom of association and the free exercise of religion, you don't give up those rights just to make an honest living.

Some people like to use religion in order to justify being bigoted assholes. Apparently the two dip-shits running the bakery were ignorant of the law. Sounds like they're too stupid to run a business.

What was it you said about assumptions?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Hobby Lobby was decided by a 5 - 4 vote. If by chance some judge had left the court by death or whatever a few years earlier or later than he did, a Democrat instead of a Republican President could have replaced him and the Hobby Lobby decision might have easily been 4 -5. Would that magically mean the the right decision had been reached,

in either case?

Why is it you lefties don't get we are supposed to have freedom of association and the free exercise of religion, you don't give up those rights just to make an honest living.

Why is it most conservatives don't get that Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizes public accommodations laws that in no why 'interfere' with freedom of association and the free exercise of religion, where no one is compelled to 'give up' those rights just to make an honest living.

Is it ignorance on the part of most conservatives, willful or otherwise – or just outright contempt for the Constitution and its case law and the rule of law driven by an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans.

 

[Pop23]

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...

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:

• Government-owned/operated facilities, services, and buildings
• Privately-owned/operated businesses, services, and buildings

- See more at: Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw​

The answer to my post is the first word of yours.

Really

really? Wow!

If someone doesn't want to make you a cake.....

Life goes on just the same

Or, you're a loser who can't make do.

Again, says more about the person wanting a cake than the one not wishing to provide the cake

This isn't about cakes, it's about intimidation and punishment.

It's not about laws, it's about intimidation and punishment.

.

and here we all thought it was about the law and guaranteed protections under constitutions.

Poor criminals feel intimidated and demand not to be punished? Go tell it to the judge.

Justice should require the baker to pay a fine equal to the cost of the cake. No more, no less

 

[Carla_Danger]

So we have a Supreme Court that's misinterpreting the Constitution. Not the first time.

Huh? Depends on where one stands and when.

Hobby Lobby was decided by a 5 - 4 vote. If by chance some judge had left the court by death or whatever a few years earlier or later than he did, a Democrat instead of a Republican President could have replaced him and the Hobby Lobby decision might have easily been 4 -5. Would that magically mean the the right decision had been reached,

in either case?

Why is it you lefties don't get we are supposed to have freedom of association and the free exercise of religion, you don't give up those rights just to make an honest living.

Some people like to use religion in order to justify being bigoted assholes. Apparently the two dip-shits running the bakery were ignorant of the law. Sounds like they're too stupid to run a business.

What was it you said about assumptions?

The proof is in the pudding. I'm not the one who lost a business or had to pay a $150,000 fine.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Hobby Lobby was decided by a 5 - 4 vote. If by chance some judge had left the court by death or whatever a few years earlier or later than he did, a Democrat instead of a Republican President could have replaced him and the Hobby Lobby decision might have easily been 4 -5. Would that magically mean the the right decision had been reached,

in either case?

Why is it you lefties don't get we are supposed to have freedom of association and the free exercise of religion, you don't give up those rights just to make an honest living.

Why is it most conservatives don't get that Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizes public accommodations laws that in no why 'interfere' with freedom of association and the free exercise of religion, where no one is compelled to 'give up' those rights just to make an honest living.

Is it ignorance on the part of most conservatives, willful or otherwise – or just outright contempt for the Constitution and its case law and the rule of law driven by an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans.

Since when is a local baker selling a cake to a local individual part of interstate commerce, that is all the feds have authority over according to the constitution. The courts have bastardized the commerce clause to include anything that could possibly affect interstate commerce which is not the case here.

 

[OKTexas]

Huh? Depends on where one stands and when.

Hobby Lobby was decided by a 5 - 4 vote. If by chance some judge had left the court by death or whatever a few years earlier or later than he did, a Democrat instead of a Republican President could have replaced him and the Hobby Lobby decision might have easily been 4 -5. Would that magically mean the the right decision had been reached,

in either case?

Why is it you lefties don't get we are supposed to have freedom of association and the free exercise of religion, you don't give up those rights just to make an honest living.

Some people like to use religion in order to justify being bigoted assholes. Apparently the two dip-shits running the bakery were ignorant of the law. Sounds like they're too stupid to run a business.

What was it you said about assumptions?

The proof is in the pudding. I'm not the one who lost a business or had to pay a $150,000 fine.

So you agree that individuals lose their rights if they try to make an honest living, and you still call this a free country? Or should it be only as free as you want it to be?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Hobby Lobby was decided by a 5 - 4 vote. If by chance some judge had left the court by death or whatever a few years earlier or later than he did, a Democrat instead of a Republican President could have replaced him and the Hobby Lobby decision might have easily been 4 -5. Would that magically mean the the right decision had been reached,

in either case?

Why is it you lefties don't get we are supposed to have freedom of association and the free exercise of religion, you don't give up those rights just to make an honest living.

Some people like to use religion in order to justify being bigoted assholes. Apparently the two dip-shits running the bakery were ignorant of the law. Sounds like they're too stupid to run a business.

What was it you said about assumptions?

The proof is in the pudding. I'm not the one who lost a business or had to pay a $150,000 fine.

So you agree that individuals lose their rights if they try to make an honest living, and you still call this a free country? Or should it be only as free as you want it to be?

It's not an honest business when they're breaking the law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The answer to my post is the first word of yours.

Really

really? Wow!

If someone doesn't want to make you a cake.....

Life goes on just the same

Or, you're a loser who can't make do.

Again, says more about the person wanting a cake than the one not wishing to provide the cake

This isn't about cakes, it's about intimidation and punishment.

It's not about laws, it's about intimidation and punishment.

.

and here we all thought it was about the law and guaranteed protections under constitutions.

Poor criminals feel intimidated and demand not to be punished? Go tell it to the judge.

Justice should require the baker to pay a fine equal to the cost of the cake. No more, no less

Really? For violating civil rights? They should be shut down and publicly flogged

 

[OKTexas]

Why is it you lefties don't get we are supposed to have freedom of association and the free exercise of religion, you don't give up those rights just to make an honest living.

Some people like to use religion in order to justify being bigoted assholes. Apparently the two dip-shits running the bakery were ignorant of the law. Sounds like they're too stupid to run a business.

What was it you said about assumptions?

The proof is in the pudding. I'm not the one who lost a business or had to pay a $150,000 fine.

So you agree that individuals lose their rights if they try to make an honest living, and you still call this a free country? Or should it be only as free as you want it to be?

It's not an honest business when they're breaking the law.

So laws can take away your constitutional rights, who knew?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If a business owner feels compelled to shut down his business because he doesn't want to comply with public accommodations laws, that's on the business owner, not the laws enacted in accordance with the Constitution.