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.
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.
You were implying that the fine should be higher for "essential food". You think the fine is too high for a cake, implying that there should be gradient levels depending on whether you can live without the item? A hotel for instance should be fined higher for discrimination than a florist? That was my perceived implication of your statement
"A cake is not an essential part of life. Food..... Yes, cake..... No. The fine is draconian for a cake"
The fine CAN be up to $75,000 per person that they discriminated against. No way will it be that high. They will merely get a slap on the wrist. If they'd been a hotel that denied accommodations that resulted in someone freezing to death in their car they would get the maximum penalty.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.
You were implying that the fine should be higher for "essential food". You think the fine is too high for a cake, implying that there should be gradient levels depending on whether you can live without the item? A hotel for instance should be fined higher for discrimination than a florist? That was my perceived implication of your statement
"A cake is not an essential part of life. Food..... Yes, cake..... No. The fine is draconian for a cake"
Sleep is essential. Cake is not
Food for sustenance is and is essential. a professionally made cake is not essential. A grocer not allowing a customer to purchase food is FAR different than a baker not supplying a ceremonial cake.
One can bake a cake quite easily, growing a crop or raising a cow is much harder.
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.
You were implying that the fine should be higher for "essential food". You think the fine is too high for a cake, implying that there should be gradient levels depending on whether you can live without the item? A hotel for instance should be fined higher for discrimination than a florist? That was my perceived implication of your statement
"A cake is not an essential part of life. Food..... Yes, cake..... No. The fine is draconian for a cake"
Sleep is essential. Cake is not
Food for sustenance is and is essential. a professionally made cake is not essential. A grocer not allowing a customer to purchase food is FAR different than a baker not supplying a ceremonial cake.
One can bake a cake quite easily, growing a crop or raising a cow is much harder.
So my first assessment was right. You think that there should be graduated fines for bigots depending upon what kind of business they run.
Well Pop, you've made your case, over and over again, and almost no one, but especially the courts, gives a damn. So, now what?
Since you aren't going to get your way, why do you continue?Well Pop, you've made your case, over and over again, and almost no one, but especially the courts, gives a damn. So, now what?
Expressing my opinion offensive?
No one, not even the courts give a damn.
Now what?
Since you aren't going to get your way, why do you continue?Well Pop, you've made your case, over and over again, and almost no one, but especially the courts, gives a damn. So, now what?
Expressing my opinion offensive?
No one, not even the courts give a damn.
Now what?
It's an honest question, why bang your head against the wall? Why not just let it go and move on? You know you aren't going to win so why keep going?Since you aren't going to get your way, why do you continue?Well Pop, you've made your case, over and over again, and almost no one, but especially the courts, gives a damn. So, now what?
Expressing my opinion offensive?
No one, not even the courts give a damn.
Now what?
Thanks for the troll dude. When you become more than a mod wannebee, let me know.
k?
It's an honest question, why bang your head against the wall? Why not just let it go and move on? You know you aren't going to win so why keep going?Since you aren't going to get your way, why do you continue?Well Pop, you've made your case, over and over again, and almost no one, but especially the courts, gives a damn. So, now what?
Expressing my opinion offensive?
No one, not even the courts give a damn.
Now what?
Thanks for the troll dude. When you become more than a mod wannebee, let me know.
k?
So when it turns out they got a modest fine you will be happy?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.
You were implying that the fine should be higher for "essential food". You think the fine is too high for a cake, implying that there should be gradient levels depending on whether you can live without the item? A hotel for instance should be fined higher for discrimination than a florist? That was my perceived implication of your statement
"A cake is not an essential part of life. Food..... Yes, cake..... No. The fine is draconian for a cake"
Sleep is essential. Cake is not
Food for sustenance is and is essential. a professionally made cake is not essential. A grocer not allowing a customer to purchase food is FAR different than a baker not supplying a ceremonial cake.
One can bake a cake quite easily, growing a crop or raising a cow is much harder.
So my first assessment was right. You think that there should be graduated fines for bigots depending upon what kind of business they run.
Ummm, we do that all the time.
A shoplifter is a thief
A bank robber is a thief
Note how the penalty for each is different.
So when it turns out they got a modest fine you will be happy?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.
You were implying that the fine should be higher for "essential food". You think the fine is too high for a cake, implying that there should be gradient levels depending on whether you can live without the item? A hotel for instance should be fined higher for discrimination than a florist? That was my perceived implication of your statement
"A cake is not an essential part of life. Food..... Yes, cake..... No. The fine is draconian for a cake"
Sleep is essential. Cake is not
Food for sustenance is and is essential. a professionally made cake is not essential. A grocer not allowing a customer to purchase food is FAR different than a baker not supplying a ceremonial cake.
One can bake a cake quite easily, growing a crop or raising a cow is much harder.
So my first assessment was right. You think that there should be graduated fines for bigots depending upon what kind of business they run.
Ummm, we do that all the time.
A shoplifter is a thief
A bank robber is a thief
Note how the penalty for each is different.
If they have any brains they will change their business model so their delicate sensibilities do not come into contact with teh ghey.So when it turns out they got a modest fine you will be happy?You were implying that the fine should be higher for "essential food". You think the fine is too high for a cake, implying that there should be gradient levels depending on whether you can live without the item? A hotel for instance should be fined higher for discrimination than a florist? That was my perceived implication of your statement
"A cake is not an essential part of life. Food..... Yes, cake..... No. The fine is draconian for a cake"
Sleep is essential. Cake is not
Food for sustenance is and is essential. a professionally made cake is not essential. A grocer not allowing a customer to purchase food is FAR different than a baker not supplying a ceremonial cake.
One can bake a cake quite easily, growing a crop or raising a cow is much harder.
So my first assessment was right. You think that there should be graduated fines for bigots depending upon what kind of business they run.
Ummm, we do that all the time.
A shoplifter is a thief
A bank robber is a thief
Note how the penalty for each is different.
It has to be large enough to make then think twice before doing it again
If they have any brains they will change their business model so their delicate sensibilities do not come into contact with teh ghey.So when it turns out they got a modest fine you will be happy?Sleep is essential. Cake is not
Food for sustenance is and is essential. a professionally made cake is not essential. A grocer not allowing a customer to purchase food is FAR different than a baker not supplying a ceremonial cake.
One can bake a cake quite easily, growing a crop or raising a cow is much harder.
So my first assessment was right. You think that there should be graduated fines for bigots depending upon what kind of business they run.
Ummm, we do that all the time.
A shoplifter is a thief
A bank robber is a thief
Note how the penalty for each is different.
It has to be large enough to make then think twice before doing it again
I am not really grasping your intent on this thread. You seem to feel they deserve some sort of fine but you also seem to feel they should be allowed to discriminate? Do I have that correct?
Not at all. Which is why I will have no problem if they get slapped with a minor fine. No one died, after all.If they have any brains they will change their business model so their delicate sensibilities do not come into contact with teh ghey.So when it turns out they got a modest fine you will be happy?So my first assessment was right. You think that there should be graduated fines for bigots depending upon what kind of business they run.
Ummm, we do that all the time.
A shoplifter is a thief
A bank robber is a thief
Note how the penalty for each is different.
It has to be large enough to make then think twice before doing it again
I am not really grasping your intent on this thread. You seem to feel they deserve some sort of fine but you also seem to feel they should be allowed to discriminate? Do I have that correct?
First ofence = A
Second = B
Third = C
At that point they may understand that not respecting the law means they may want to seek a new business plan.
I do not feel draconian measures are ever good in this kind of argument. You?
Not at all. Which is why I will have no problem if they get slapped with a minor fine. No one died, after all.If they have any brains they will change their business model so their delicate sensibilities do not come into contact with teh ghey.So when it turns out they got a modest fine you will be happy?Ummm, we do that all the time.
A shoplifter is a thief
A bank robber is a thief
Note how the penalty for each is different.
It has to be large enough to make then think twice before doing it again
I am not really grasping your intent on this thread. You seem to feel they deserve some sort of fine but you also seem to feel they should be allowed to discriminate? Do I have that correct?
First ofence = A
Second = B
Third = C
At that point they may understand that not respecting the law means they may want to seek a new business plan.
I do not feel draconian measures are ever good in this kind of argument. You?
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.
>>>>
Perhaps they should change the name of the business to "The I hate faggots cake shop".If they have any brains they will change their business model so their delicate sensibilities do not come into contact with teh ghey.So when it turns out they got a modest fine you will be happy?Sleep is essential. Cake is not
Food for sustenance is and is essential. a professionally made cake is not essential. A grocer not allowing a customer to purchase food is FAR different than a baker not supplying a ceremonial cake.
One can bake a cake quite easily, growing a crop or raising a cow is much harder.
So my first assessment was right. You think that there should be graduated fines for bigots depending upon what kind of business they run.
Ummm, we do that all the time.
A shoplifter is a thief
A bank robber is a thief
Note how the penalty for each is different.
It has to be large enough to make then think twice before doing it again
I am not really grasping your intent on this thread. You seem to feel they deserve some sort of fine but you also seem to feel they should be allowed to discriminate? Do I have that correct?
That might do the trick but the reasonable thing for them to do is offer a limited style of decorated cakes.Perhaps they should change the name of the business to "The I hate faggots cake shop".If they have any brains they will change their business model so their delicate sensibilities do not come into contact with teh ghey.So when it turns out they got a modest fine you will be happy?So my first assessment was right. You think that there should be graduated fines for bigots depending upon what kind of business they run.
Ummm, we do that all the time.
A shoplifter is a thief
A bank robber is a thief
Note how the penalty for each is different.
It has to be large enough to make then think twice before doing it again
I am not really grasping your intent on this thread. You seem to feel they deserve some sort of fine but you also seem to feel they should be allowed to discriminate? Do I have that correct?
