No Cake for You

[Pop23]

Ross Parks would be like.......


Dude, it's a cake!

Exactly, so bake the damn dumb thing. People have lives to get on with.

Exactly, don't waste government resources and bake your own damn cake.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ross Parks would be like.......


Dude, it's a cake!

Exactly, so bake the damn dumb thing. People have lives to get on with.

Exactly, don't waste government resources and bake your own damn cake.

When everyone does, problem solved, but hardly a win for the baker eh?

 

[Seawytch]

Either stupid or people deciding to exercise their rights under the laws of the land.

In the court of law it isn't about the cake. It's about constitutional protections we all hope the government would protect with force if necessary

Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to force someone to bake you a cake? I can't find that part.

The Supreme Court obviously found it since PA laws have been on the books since 1964, have been challenged and, lo and behold, we still have them.

On the Federal level they protect race, religion, country of origin, gender, disability...and some on a local level protect gays. But which ones to folks attack? Not the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the PA laws found there at the FEDERAL level...Nope, just want to get rid of the ones at the local level. So much for "states rights" eh?

So you don't know where it says that, you just know who thinks it does say that. The Supremes find lots of things that aren't there, like the right to an abortion, the right to force citizens into a contract with a corporation. If it's there, why is the best argument you have that they found it when you can't? The document is not that long.

You are playing coy and it's not even cute. PA laws were challenged and found constitutional under Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

So there are basically two choices if you want to get rid of Public Accommodation Laws. One, Congress can do it. Congress can get rid of Title II of the CRA and get rid of all the "special protections" for race, color, religion, or national origin. They can also take care of that pesky Americans with Disabilities Act that requires businesses to cater to the disabled. Then you'd have to chip away at each state law that has expanded these protections to include things like gender, marital status, political affiliation, weight, etc.

Your second choice is of course to challenge these cases in court. Would you be allowed to do that after whining about gays taking their grievances to court? Of course, a similar case did appeal to the Supreme Court recently...and they chose not to hear it, leaving the ruling of the New Mexico Supreme Court in place. Better luck next time.

 

[kaz]

My VP of sales would probably object to that too since she's gay. I'm in favor of my competitors discriminating, more sales for me.

No business promises to do business with anyone. That's just stupid. We all have customers we do and don't want.

true enough. But when that customer has the money and they ask for something you promise to do, you really don't have a leg to stand on discriminating against them.

seriously, fuck these Christian Bakers. I'm glad they're losing their livelihoods.

Again, opening a door isn't promising to do anything. What is that strawman you keep floating based on? We never promised anyone to provide our services to them.

 

[kaz]

Sure. It's an absolute point. Making the bakers bake the cake is showing them that homophobia is no longer acceptable, even if you dress it up in vestments and call it religion.

And it's a great thing. We should all be happy.

And government using it's power to force it's citizens to do your will gives you a nice big happy woody, doesn't it?

What gives me wood is when people know the difference between its and it's.

Actually I do know the difference, but I only edit my posts so far. The rare rate I get your internet censor pen pointed at me is a testament to that. Personally I think spelling trolling is about the lamest post possible, but you are the standard in lame.

If you knew the difference then you would have corrected your post, which you have yet to do.

Guy gets wood from grammar and punctuation.

Party on dude!

Yes. Content does nothing for him though...

 

[kaz]

You are playing coy and it's not even cute. PA laws were challenged and found constitutional under Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Exactly, you need to Google what the word "interstate" means. So do the courts.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

It's interesting that some posters repeated work at sucking other posters into a discussion of interstate commerce and Federal Public Accommodation laws, which of course have nothing to do with the cases involved in the OP.

Those cases are based on STATE Public Accommodation laws not Federal.

Sweetcakes by Melissa - Oregon Public Accommodation law

Masterpiece Cakes - Colorado Public Accommodation law

Elane Photography - New Mexico Public Accommodation law​

>>>>

 

[kaz]

>

It's interesting that some posters repeated work at sucking other posters into a discussion of interstate commerce and Federal Public Accommodation laws, which of course have nothing to do with the cases involved in the OP.

Those cases are based on STATE Public Accommodation laws not Federal.

Sweetcakes by Melissa - Oregon Public Accommodation law

Masterpiece Cakes - Colorado Public Accommodation law

Elane Photography - New Mexico Public Accommodation law​

>>>>

My responding to Seawytch's point on interstate commerce is me sucking her into a discussion about interstate commerce. Gotcha.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

It's interesting that some posters repeated work at sucking other posters into a discussion of interstate commerce and Federal Public Accommodation laws, which of course have nothing to do with the cases involved in the OP.

Those cases are based on STATE Public Accommodation laws not Federal.

Sweetcakes by Melissa - Oregon Public Accommodation law

Masterpiece Cakes - Colorado Public Accommodation law

Elane Photography - New Mexico Public Accommodation law​

>>>>

My responding to Seawytch's point on interstate commerce is me sucking her into a discussion about interstate commerce. Gotcha.

I said: "It's interesting that some posters repeated work at sucking other posters into a discussion of interstate commerce and Federal Public Accommodation laws, which of course have nothing to do with the cases involved in the OP."

Could you point out where I said you were the first to mention the Federal government?


>>>>

 

[kaz]

>

It's interesting that some posters repeated work at sucking other posters into a discussion of interstate commerce and Federal Public Accommodation laws, which of course have nothing to do with the cases involved in the OP.

Those cases are based on STATE Public Accommodation laws not Federal.

Sweetcakes by Melissa - Oregon Public Accommodation law

Masterpiece Cakes - Colorado Public Accommodation law

Elane Photography - New Mexico Public Accommodation law​

>>>>

My responding to Seawytch's point on interstate commerce is me sucking her into a discussion about interstate commerce. Gotcha.

I said: "It's interesting that some posters repeated work at sucking other posters into a discussion of interstate commerce and Federal Public Accommodation laws, which of course have nothing to do with the cases involved in the OP."

Could you point out where I said you were the first to mention the Federal government?


>>>>

It immediately followed my post responding to Seawytch making that point to me. That is the clear implication. Instead of being an ass about it you could have just said my bad, it does look like that but I didn't mean it that way.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

It's interesting that some posters repeated work at sucking other posters into a discussion of interstate commerce and Federal Public Accommodation laws, which of course have nothing to do with the cases involved in the OP.

Those cases are based on STATE Public Accommodation laws not Federal.

Sweetcakes by Melissa - Oregon Public Accommodation law

Masterpiece Cakes - Colorado Public Accommodation law

Elane Photography - New Mexico Public Accommodation law​

>>>>

My responding to Seawytch's point on interstate commerce is me sucking her into a discussion about interstate commerce. Gotcha.

I said: "It's interesting that some posters repeated work at sucking other posters into a discussion of interstate commerce and Federal Public Accommodation laws, which of course have nothing to do with the cases involved in the OP."

Could you point out where I said you were the first to mention the Federal government?


>>>>

It immediately followed my post responding to Seawytch making that point to me. That is the clear implication. Instead of being an ass about it you could have just said my bad, it does look like that but I didn't mean it that way.

Actually I have a very good reputation for issuing apologizes or corrections when I'm wrong.

However, in this case the point is quite valid, In threads about State Public Accommodation laws there are those that attempt to turn the discussion to Federal Public Accommodation law.


In my first post nor in this post do I name you, I was commenting in a general nature about posters missing the source of these specific laws.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

Man, posters who can't just admit when they do a boner are pretty sad

 

[WorldWatcher]

Man, posters who can't just admit when they do a boner are pretty sad

I agree. (Glad I'm not one.)

However what I said was true. There are some poster that attempt to change the discussion from STATE Public Accommodation law to interstate commerce and Federal Public Accommodation laws.

That is a true statement.


>>>>

 

[Ravi]

>

It's interesting that some posters repeated work at sucking other posters into a discussion of interstate commerce and Federal Public Accommodation laws, which of course have nothing to do with the cases involved in the OP.

Those cases are based on STATE Public Accommodation laws not Federal.

Sweetcakes by Melissa - Oregon Public Accommodation law

Masterpiece Cakes - Colorado Public Accommodation law

Elane Photography - New Mexico Public Accommodation law​

>>>>

I sort of got lost in that discussion but I think the point about Public Accommodation laws is not that the federal ones cover these bakery cases but that local Public Accommodation laws have been challenged and ruled as constitutional.

And yes, these cases have nothing to do with federal PA or commerce law.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, opening a door isn't promising to do anything. What is that strawman you keep floating based on? We never promised anyone to provide our services to them.

Who's we?

WHen you say, "Wedding Cakes for Sale" , you have to provide wedding cakes. Period. Not just wedding cakes to people who are following your selective reading of the Big Book of Judean Fairy Tales.

 

[kaz]

Again, opening a door isn't promising to do anything. What is that strawman you keep floating based on? We never promised anyone to provide our services to them.

Who's we?

WHen you say, "Wedding Cakes for Sale" , you have to provide wedding cakes. Period. Not just wedding cakes to people who are following your selective reading of the Big Book of Judean Fairy Tales.

Right, they are selling wedding cakes. Where did they say they would sell them to anyone?

 

[JoeB131]

Right, they are selling wedding cakes. Where did they say they would sell them to anyone?

when they opened a store and took out an ad. Sorry, guy, you just aren't going to win this argument.

 

[kaz]

Right, they are selling wedding cakes. Where did they say they would sell them to anyone?

when they opened a store and took out an ad. Sorry, guy, you just aren't going to win this argument.

Good advice, never argue with an imbecile. You haven't answered the question. How does "opening a door" mean you will sell to anyone? Does opening the door to your home mean you will let "anyone" in?

You are giving zero answer as to how that standard appeared. I will definitely not sell to "anyone" in my business. We clearly know who our customers are and they are clearly not "anyone." No one has a business to sell to "anyone."

All you are doing is begging the question, you're right because you say you are right so you just keep repeating it as fact.

 

[JoeB131]

Good advice, never argue with an imbecile. You haven't answered the question. How does "opening a door" mean you will sell to anyone? Does opening the door to your home mean you will let "anyone" in?

You are giving zero answer as to how that standard appeared. I will definitely not sell to "anyone" in my business. We clearly know who our customers are and they are clearly not "anyone." No one has a business to sell to "anyone."

All you are doing is begging the question, you're right because you say you are right so you just keep repeating it as fact.

Guy, I don't know enough about your business (probably imaginary) to know what it is you do.

You open a store that sells wedding cakes. That's the business you started, you have to sell to anyone who has the money and a wedding to bring a cake to. That's pretty simple. YOu guys haven't won one of these cases yet and you never will.

And frankly, I'm good with that.

 

[kaz]

Guy, I don't know enough about your business (probably imaginary) to know what it is you do.

My real life is greater than your imagination. That is actually sad.

You open a store that sells wedding cakes. That's the business you started, you have to sell to anyone who has the money and a wedding to bring a cake to. That's pretty simple. YOu guys haven't won one of these cases yet and you never will.

And frankly, I'm good with that.

You're still providing no basis for your standard. When you open the door to your home to let people in, does that mean you are allowing anyone in?