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.
My real life is greater than your imagination. That is actually sad.
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?
My real life is greater than your imagination. That is actually sad.
No, sad is watching LIbertarians pretend they can function in the real world.
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?
No one was talking about your "home", dude. We were talking about a BUSINESS which falls under PUBLIC ACCOMEDATION laws...
You see, this is where you guys are kind of sad, you all go on these weird tangents.
The obvious is so far beyond your grasp
The obvious is so far beyond your grasp
No, guy, it really isn't.
We have business laws in this country. It means I can't take product from my vendors without paying for it, and my vendors have to produce what they promised. And I deal with these kinds of contracts every day.
You open a store that says, "We Sell Wedding Cakes", you've opened the door to anyone who can buy a wedding cake. This is black letter law.
Vendors didn't promise us anything and no, they do not have to produce anything for us. We have to reach an agreement with them. Again you are begging the question, you just keep repeating your baseless assertion that a promise was made. All I said when I put up a sign is what I do. Customers are who those I want to deal with and reach an agreement with. I am a free man, I don't have to bake anyone a cake. That I decide to start selling cakes and put up a sign to say that doesn't change that. You are saying it does, yet you have provided no basis for that magical transformation that I just became a slave of government when I put up a sign that says I bake cakes.
Vendors didn't promise us anything and no, they do not have to produce anything for us. We have to reach an agreement with them. Again you are begging the question, you just keep repeating your baseless assertion that a promise was made. All I said when I put up a sign is what I do. Customers are who those I want to deal with and reach an agreement with. I am a free man, I don't have to bake anyone a cake. That I decide to start selling cakes and put up a sign to say that doesn't change that. You are saying it does, yet you have provided no basis for that magical transformation that I just became a slave of government when I put up a sign that says I bake cakes.
The law says you have to. You can't refuse the blacks and you can't refuse the gays.
Again, once you offered that service, you became a public accommedation. The law is really fucking clear on this and has been for 50 years.
You are perfectly "Free" to pay that $100,000 fine for not obeying the law. Suck it, bitches.
Vendors didn't promise us anything and no, they do not have to produce anything for us. We have to reach an agreement with them. Again you are begging the question, you just keep repeating your baseless assertion that a promise was made. All I said when I put up a sign is what I do. Customers are who those I want to deal with and reach an agreement with. I am a free man, I don't have to bake anyone a cake. That I decide to start selling cakes and put up a sign to say that doesn't change that. You are saying it does, yet you have provided no basis for that magical transformation that I just became a slave of government when I put up a sign that says I bake cakes.
The law says you have to. You can't refuse the blacks and you can't refuse the gays.
Again, once you offered that service, you became a public accommedation. The law is really fucking clear on this and has been for 50 years.
You are perfectly "Free" to pay that $100,000 fine for not obeying the law. Suck it, bitches.
Vendors didn't promise us anything and no, they do not have to produce anything for us. We have to reach an agreement with them. Again you are begging the question, you just keep repeating your baseless assertion that a promise was made. All I said when I put up a sign is what I do. Customers are who those I want to deal with and reach an agreement with. I am a free man, I don't have to bake anyone a cake. That I decide to start selling cakes and put up a sign to say that doesn't change that. You are saying it does, yet you have provided no basis for that magical transformation that I just became a slave of government when I put up a sign that says I bake cakes.
The law says you have to. You can't refuse the blacks and you can't refuse the gays.
Again, once you offered that service, you became a public accommedation. The law is really fucking clear on this and has been for 50 years.
You are perfectly "Free" to pay that $100,000 fine for not obeying the law. Suck it, bitches.
Either get rid of all Public Accommodation laws or stop whining because in some places they also protect gays from discrimination.
Personally I think we still need these laws in rural areas. Sure, in metropolitan areas you CAN just go to another store, florist, gas station, hotel, etc...but tell me how that Muslim family in rural TN is going to be able to get by when nobody will sell them anything?
I know how this guy thinks the gays can get by...
Gay People Should 'Just Grow Their Own Food' To Deal With Discrimination
Vendors didn't promise us anything and no, they do not have to produce anything for us. We have to reach an agreement with them. Again you are begging the question, you just keep repeating your baseless assertion that a promise was made. All I said when I put up a sign is what I do. Customers are who those I want to deal with and reach an agreement with. I am a free man, I don't have to bake anyone a cake. That I decide to start selling cakes and put up a sign to say that doesn't change that. You are saying it does, yet you have provided no basis for that magical transformation that I just became a slave of government when I put up a sign that says I bake cakes.
The law says you have to. You can't refuse the blacks and you can't refuse the gays.
Again, once you offered that service, you became a public accommedation. The law is really fucking clear on this and has been for 50 years.
You are perfectly "Free" to pay that $100,000 fine for not obeying the law. Suck it, bitches.
Begging the question. I asked for the basis for the Constitutionality of that law. There is none, it is an abomination of freedom.
Vendors didn't promise us anything and no, they do not have to produce anything for us. We have to reach an agreement with them. Again you are begging the question, you just keep repeating your baseless assertion that a promise was made. All I said when I put up a sign is what I do. Customers are who those I want to deal with and reach an agreement with. I am a free man, I don't have to bake anyone a cake. That I decide to start selling cakes and put up a sign to say that doesn't change that. You are saying it does, yet you have provided no basis for that magical transformation that I just became a slave of government when I put up a sign that says I bake cakes.
The law says you have to. You can't refuse the blacks and you can't refuse the gays.
Again, once you offered that service, you became a public accommedation. The law is really fucking clear on this and has been for 50 years.
You are perfectly "Free" to pay that $100,000 fine for not obeying the law. Suck it, bitches.
Begging the question. I asked for the basis for the Constitutionality of that law. There is none, it is an abomination of freedom.
The Supreme Court provided it in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung.
Vendors didn't promise us anything and no, they do not have to produce anything for us. We have to reach an agreement with them. Again you are begging the question, you just keep repeating your baseless assertion that a promise was made. All I said when I put up a sign is what I do. Customers are who those I want to deal with and reach an agreement with. I am a free man, I don't have to bake anyone a cake. That I decide to start selling cakes and put up a sign to say that doesn't change that. You are saying it does, yet you have provided no basis for that magical transformation that I just became a slave of government when I put up a sign that says I bake cakes.
The law says you have to. You can't refuse the blacks and you can't refuse the gays.
Again, once you offered that service, you became a public accommedation. The law is really fucking clear on this and has been for 50 years.
You are perfectly "Free" to pay that $100,000 fine for not obeying the law. Suck it, bitches.
Begging the question. I asked for the basis for the Constitutionality of that law. There is none, it is an abomination of freedom.
The Supreme Court provided it in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung.
Those have to do with Federal Public Accommodation laws.
The basis for State Public Accommodation laws is the 10th Amendment and the States ability to regulate intrastate commerce.
Both bakers cases and the photographer are cases under State Public Accommodation laws, not federal.
>>>>
Vendors didn't promise us anything and no, they do not have to produce anything for us. We have to reach an agreement with them. Again you are begging the question, you just keep repeating your baseless assertion that a promise was made. All I said when I put up a sign is what I do. Customers are who those I want to deal with and reach an agreement with. I am a free man, I don't have to bake anyone a cake. That I decide to start selling cakes and put up a sign to say that doesn't change that. You are saying it does, yet you have provided no basis for that magical transformation that I just became a slave of government when I put up a sign that says I bake cakes.
The law says you have to. You can't refuse the blacks and you can't refuse the gays.
Again, once you offered that service, you became a public accommedation. The law is really fucking clear on this and has been for 50 years.
You are perfectly "Free" to pay that $100,000 fine for not obeying the law. Suck it, bitches.
Begging the question. I asked for the basis for the Constitutionality of that law. There is none, it is an abomination of freedom.
The Supreme Court provided it in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung.
Those have to do with Federal Public Accommodation laws.
The basis for State Public Accommodation laws is the 10th Amendment and the States ability to regulate intrastate commerce.
Both bakers cases and the photographer are cases under State Public Accommodation laws, not federal.
>>>>
Joe mentioned race. That is Federal. Either way, PA laws are Constitutional until proven otherwise.
Lets see Gays are a minority, a race, a creed, a color (rainbow) a religion (church of the posioned mind) and now disabled. THEY MUST BE PROTECTED.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.
Ahh I see the next Gay agenda...Gays are disabled so we all got to cater to them.
If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."
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.
But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.
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.
No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple
The law says you have to. You can't refuse the blacks and you can't refuse the gays.
Again, once you offered that service, you became a public accommedation. The law is really fucking clear on this and has been for 50 years.
You are perfectly "Free" to pay that $100,000 fine for not obeying the law. Suck it, bitches.
Begging the question. I asked for the basis for the Constitutionality of that law. There is none, it is an abomination of freedom.
The Supreme Court provided it in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung.
Those have to do with Federal Public Accommodation laws.
The basis for State Public Accommodation laws is the 10th Amendment and the States ability to regulate intrastate commerce.
Both bakers cases and the photographer are cases under State Public Accommodation laws, not federal.
>>>>
Joe mentioned race. That is Federal. Either way, PA laws are Constitutional until proven otherwise.
And in the same sentence he said "you can't refuse the gays", both of which are covered under the applicable State laws but only race is covered under Federal laws.
Therefore the applicability is the State law which is Constitutional under the 10th Amendments power to regulate intrastate commerce.
>>>>
If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."
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.
But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.
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.
No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple
My entire problem with this is the size of the fine.
A cake is not an essential part of life. Food..... Yes, cake..... No.
The fine is draconian for a cake.
Housing, employment and other things ARE essential. One can't go out and easily build a rental home. One can easily bake a cake.
The business did not stop this couple from marrying. They did not stop this couple from a ceremony, they didn't even stop them from having cake at the ceremony.
Fine the business 10 times the retail value of the cake, make future business decisions one with impact. But 150k?
Good lord
Next, death penalty for parking tickets?
Yep just like a faggot can say "Fuck you straight person"So only certain kinds of businesses get to be anti gay bigots in your book? If you're anti gay and own a grocery store, suck it up, but a baker...now a baker should be able to say, "fuck you f word for gay man". Is that it?
If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."
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.
But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.
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.
No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple
My entire problem with this is the size of the fine.
A cake is not an essential part of life. Food..... Yes, cake..... No.
The fine is draconian for a cake.
Housing, employment and other things ARE essential. One can't go out and easily build a rental home. One can easily bake a cake.
The business did not stop this couple from marrying. They did not stop this couple from a ceremony, they didn't even stop them from having cake at the ceremony.
Fine the business 10 times the retail value of the cake, make future business decisions one with impact. But 150k?
Good lord
Next, death penalty for parking tickets?
So only certain kinds of businesses get to be anti gay bigots in your book? If you're anti gay and own a grocery store, suck it up, but a baker...now a baker should be able to say, "fuck you f word for gay man". Is that it?
If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."
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.
But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.
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.
No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple
My entire problem with this is the size of the fine.
A cake is not an essential part of life. Food..... Yes, cake..... No.
The fine is draconian for a cake.
Housing, employment and other things ARE essential. One can't go out and easily build a rental home. One can easily bake a cake.
The business did not stop this couple from marrying. They did not stop this couple from a ceremony, they didn't even stop them from having cake at the ceremony.
Fine the business 10 times the retail value of the cake, make future business decisions one with impact. But 150k?
Good lord
Next, death penalty for parking tickets?
So only certain kinds of businesses get to be anti gay bigots in your book? If you're anti gay and own a grocery store, suck it up, but a baker...now a baker should be able to say, "fuck you f word for gay man". Is that it?
Huh?, where the hell did you get that from my post?
The punishment, and perhaps there needs to be punishment, for the crime should be a fine, not a life sentence.
If the fine is stiff enough to have impact on the business decision, that's enough with non essential products......
SUCH AS CAKE
how many innocent employees will suffer from this. Absolutely not necessary.
If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."
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.
But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.
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.
No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple
My entire problem with this is the size of the fine.
A cake is not an essential part of life. Food..... Yes, cake..... No.
The fine is draconian for a cake.
Housing, employment and other things ARE essential. One can't go out and easily build a rental home. One can easily bake a cake.
The business did not stop this couple from marrying. They did not stop this couple from a ceremony, they didn't even stop them from having cake at the ceremony.
Fine the business 10 times the retail value of the cake, make future business decisions one with impact. But 150k?
Good lord
Next, death penalty for parking tickets?
So only certain kinds of businesses get to be anti gay bigots in your book? If you're anti gay and own a grocery store, suck it up, but a baker...now a baker should be able to say, "fuck you f word for gay man". Is that it?
Huh?, where the hell did you get that from my post?
The punishment, and perhaps there needs to be punishment, for the crime should be a fine, not a life sentence.
If the fine is stiff enough to have impact on the business decision, that's enough with non essential products......
SUCH AS CAKE
how many innocent employees will suffer from this. Absolutely not necessary.
