No Cake for You

[Kosh]

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

Oh Gawd, not this again. So they don't get to use their religion to discriminate.....boo fucking hoo!

Coming from a neo-liberal who cries racism at the drop of a hat, thats hilarious!

This thread isn't about racism, it's about discrimination.

Of course the far left drones would says such things, but then again the far left drones only see the keywords, but not understand their meaning out side their far left programming..

 

[TemplarKormac]

Don't be a dumbass. Why should I have a rebuttal to a non sequitur?

Why the excuses? You've already shown you don't take my original point seriously.

Not to mention, I'm a little hurt that you think I'm one of those "dumb people".

See, I never said anything about you being dumb, or you personally. Before lecturing me about paying attention, make sure you do likewise. You took that as an attack on you where non such existed. I respect you enough not to engage in petty name calling.

And I'm the one with a persecution complex?

So you agree that people should be able to refuse service to black people by claiming that it's their religion.

Like I said to someone else, the precedent has been set in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case. If you don't like it, file an Amicus Curiae brief with the Supreme court if you'd like.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Oh Gawd, not this again. So they don't get to use their religion to discriminate.....boo fucking hoo!

Coming from a neo-liberal who cries racism at the drop of a hat, thats hilarious!

This thread isn't about racism, it's about discrimination.

What exactly is racism? A form of discrimination, you dolt.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Don't be a dumbass. Why should I have a rebuttal to a non sequitur?

Why the excuses? You've already shown you don't take my original point seriously.

Not to mention, I'm a little hurt that you think I'm one of those "dumb people".

See, I never said anything about you being dumb, or you personally. Before lecturing me about paying attention, make sure you do likewise. You took that as an attack on you where non such existed. I respect you enough not to engage in petty name calling.

And I'm the one with a persecution complex?

So you agree that people should be able to refuse service to black people by claiming that it's their religion.

Like I said to someone else, the precedent has been set in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case. If you don't like it, file an Amicus Curiae brief with the Supreme court if you'd like.

Dude, I give up. This is getting tedious. You're either not understanding my posts at all, or willfully misunderstanding them due to some bizarre idea that that's how you "win".

If you want to continue the discussion, go back and re-read my posts with an honest attempt to understand what I'm saying, rather than looking for "gotcha" sentences that you can respond to out of context.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Don't be a dumbass. Why should I have a rebuttal to a non sequitur?

Why the excuses? You've already shown you don't take my original point seriously.

Not to mention, I'm a little hurt that you think I'm one of those "dumb people".

See, I never said anything about you being dumb, or you personally. Before lecturing me about paying attention, make sure you do likewise. You took that as an attack on you where non such existed. I respect you enough not to engage in petty name calling.

And I'm the one with a persecution complex?

So you agree that people should be able to refuse service to black people by claiming that it's their religion.

Like I said to someone else, the precedent has been set in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case. If you don't like it, file an Amicus Curiae brief with the Supreme court if you'd like.

Dude, I give up. This is getting tedious. You're either not understanding my posts at all, or willfully misunderstanding them due to some bizarre idea that that's how you "win".

If you want to continue the discussion, go back and re-read my posts with an honest attempt to understand what I'm saying, rather than looking for "gotcha" sentences that you can respond to out of context.

I did read your posts. You must understand that disagreeing does not constitute me not reading your posts.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Don't be a dumbass. Why should I have a rebuttal to a non sequitur?

Why the excuses? You've already shown you don't take my original point seriously.

Not to mention, I'm a little hurt that you think I'm one of those "dumb people".

See, I never said anything about you being dumb, or you personally. Before lecturing me about paying attention, make sure you do likewise. You took that as an attack on you where non such existed. I respect you enough not to engage in petty name calling.

And I'm the one with a persecution complex?

So you agree that people should be able to refuse service to black people by claiming that it's their religion.

Like I said to someone else, the precedent has been set in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case. If you don't like it, file an Amicus Curiae brief with the Supreme court if you'd like.

Dude, I give up. This is getting tedious. You're either not understanding my posts at all, or willfully misunderstanding them due to some bizarre idea that that's how you "win".

If you want to continue the discussion, go back and re-read my posts with an honest attempt to understand what I'm saying, rather than looking for "gotcha" sentences that you can respond to out of context.

I did read your posts. You must understand that disagreeing does not constitute me not reading your posts.

I believe that you read them, but your responses have made it very clear that you didn't understand them.

Whether that was willful or accidental, I'm not sure.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you think that people should be able to claim a religious exemption to discriminate based on race?

Once more, my advocacy and/or opposition to this practice is irrelevant. The courts have just now set precedent that a business can exempt themselves from a law on religious ground. I've read the Burwell decision a million times.

You decided to ignore what I actually said, and translate it in your head as an attack on Christianity itself

To be honest, yes I did. Why? Because I hear of no cases involving other members of other religions caught up in this stuff. This entire case involves two Christians. Islam is worse that Christianity when it comes to gays, but hey, you prosecute one of them and risk a fatwa. No joke. I see a lot of hostility towards Christianity in this country, whether you see it, or not, disagree or agree with it is your business.

Well, no. It doesn't. That's actually the point of this entire thread - the courts have repeatedly ruled that "religious expression" does not trump discrimination laws.

For the second time, Burwell reversed that notion. How many times must I say it?

You brought up something entirely irrelevant to the conversation to attack "Democrats" because you didn't have an actual response to my post.

Isn't that what you did earlier? Referring to my points as "nonsense" with no other cogent argument on hand? I engage people lack of seriousness with that of my own. We can cease this gamesmanship at your leisure.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But the bakery is obligated to do as the customer asks if the customer has the money to pay for it. Your logic is flawed. If it applies to the Christian bakery, it applies to the gay one as well. Sorry.

No, a bakery is not "obligated" to do as a customer asks. Where do you get this shit from?

Baking the cake was not denied to the Christian man, but the HATE SPEECH that he wanted the Bakery to write, was denied.....the Baker, assured everyone that she would love to have her bakeries get a big order from a Christian prayer group for a cake or cupcakes and would gladly serve them....

See the previous response.

The "previous response" is nonsense.

Here's some context to what I called "nonsense".

I responded directly to your point the first time you made it in that post.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Oh Gawd, not this again. So they don't get to use their religion to discriminate.....boo fucking hoo!

Coming from a neo-liberal who cries racism at the drop of a hat, thats hilarious!

This thread isn't about racism, it's about discrimination.

This thread is about the OP once again exhibiting his ignorance of the Constitution and its case law, ignorance common to many on the right.

Whether their ignorance is willful or not only they can say.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I believe that you read them, but your responses have made it very clear that you didn't understand them.

I have come to learn that my disagreement would also come across as a lack of understanding to the one positing an alternative viewpoint to my own. If I didn't understand what people posted, I wouldn't be wasting my time here and would be taking remedial literacy courses, for that matter I wouldn't be out of grade school.

I understand just fine. I know you are trying to pin a position on me that I never once agreed with. I keep telling you to see judicial precedent but you continue trying to attribute a position to me I never took. In some of your posts there is a certain air of condescension, but just so.

Whether that was willful or accidental, I'm not sure.

Now you know.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So you think that people should be able to claim a religious exemption to discriminate based on race?

Once more, my advocacy and/or opposition to this practice is irrelevant. The courts have just now set precedent that a business can exempt themselves from a law on religious ground. I've read the Burwell decision a million times.

You decided to ignore what I actually said, and translate it in your head as an attack on Christianity itself

To be honest, yes I did. Why? Because I hear of no cases involving other members of other religions caught up in this stuff. This entire case involves two Christians. Islam is worse that Christianity when it comes to gays, but hey, you prosecute one of them and risk a fatwa. No joke. I see a lot of hostility towards Christianity in this country, whether you see it, or not, disagree or agree with it is your business.

Well, no. It doesn't. That's actually the point of this entire thread - the courts have repeatedly ruled that "religious expression" does not trump discrimination laws.

For the second time, Burwell reversed that notion. How many times must I say it?

Burwell did not reverse public accommodation laws. The decision was specific to the ACA's religious exemption clause, not an overall decision rendering all laws null and void with a claim of "religious freedom".

Have you seen any of the various "cake" lawsuits being overturned?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let's use Islam as an example. Do you support legalizing honor killings in the US?

How about some Old Testament Justice. Should I be allowed to murder my neighbor for wearing a cotton/polyester blend?

How dare those laws get in the way of my religious beliefs!!!

And this is when I stopped taking your argument seriously. I don't like sarcasm, I appreciate well made points. It defeats the entire purpose of an intelligent debate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you think that people should be able to claim a religious exemption to discriminate based on race?

Once more, my advocacy and/or opposition to this practice is irrelevant. The courts have just now set precedent that a business can exempt themselves from a law on religious ground. I've read the Burwell decision a million times.

You decided to ignore what I actually said, and translate it in your head as an attack on Christianity itself

To be honest, yes I did. Why? Because I hear of no cases involving other members of other religions caught up in this stuff. This entire case involves two Christians. Islam is worse that Christianity when it comes to gays, but hey, you prosecute one of them and risk a fatwa. No joke. I see a lot of hostility towards Christianity in this country, whether you see it, or not, disagree or agree with it is your business.

Well, no. It doesn't. That's actually the point of this entire thread - the courts have repeatedly ruled that "religious expression" does not trump discrimination laws.

For the second time, Burwell reversed that notion. How many times must I say it?

Burwell did not reverse public accommodation laws. The decision was specific to the ACA's religious exemption clause, not an overall decision rendering all laws null and void with a claim of "religious freedom".

Have you seen any of the various "cake" lawsuits being overturned?

Did you know that Burwell didn't just apply to the ACA's abortion mandate? The whole broader scope of the ruling implied that this action can be taken against any federal or state law, not just the contraception mandate. Like I said, I've read it. Surely you know what legal precedent is, right?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I believe that you read them, but your responses have made it very clear that you didn't understand them.

I have come to learn that my disagreement would also come across as a lack of understanding to the one positing an alternative viewpoint to my own. If I didn't understand what people posted, I wouldn't be wasting my time here would be taking remedial literacy courses, for that matter I wouldn't be out of grade school.

I understand just fine. I know you are trying to pin a position on me that I never once agreed with. I keep telling you to see judicial precedent but you continue trying to attribute a position to me I never took. In some of your posts there is a certain air of condescension, but just so.

Whether that was willful or accidental, I'm not sure.

Now you know.

I'm not trying to pin you into anything, and I haven't tried to attribute any positions to you, either. But it's not out of the question that I can be guilty of being condescending - and for that I apologize.

What you are interpreting as me attacking you and attempting to pin a position on you has been me trying to explain my position via comparisons, both legitimate ones and some more hyperbolic.

I was not trying to trick you into agreeing with those positions, I was responding to statements you made with comparisons so ridiculous and over the top that no one could agree with them.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Let's use Islam as an example. Do you support legalizing honor killings in the US?

How about some Old Testament Justice. Should I be allowed to murder my neighbor for wearing a cotton/polyester blend?

How dare those laws get in the way of my religious beliefs!!!

And this is when I stopped taking your argument seriously. I don't like sarcasm, I appreciate well made points. It defeats the entire purpose of an intelligent debate.

Well, I'm sorry if you don't like sarcasm, but I use it a lot. I always have.

I come from a Jewish family, that's just how it goes.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So you think that people should be able to claim a religious exemption to discriminate based on race?

Once more, my advocacy and/or opposition to this practice is irrelevant. The courts have just now set precedent that a business can exempt themselves from a law on religious ground. I've read the Burwell decision a million times.

You decided to ignore what I actually said, and translate it in your head as an attack on Christianity itself

To be honest, yes I did. Why? Because I hear of no cases involving other members of other religions caught up in this stuff. This entire case involves two Christians. Islam is worse that Christianity when it comes to gays, but hey, you prosecute one of them and risk a fatwa. No joke. I see a lot of hostility towards Christianity in this country, whether you see it, or not, disagree or agree with it is your business.

Well, no. It doesn't. That's actually the point of this entire thread - the courts have repeatedly ruled that "religious expression" does not trump discrimination laws.

For the second time, Burwell reversed that notion. How many times must I say it?

Burwell did not reverse public accommodation laws. The decision was specific to the ACA's religious exemption clause, not an overall decision rendering all laws null and void with a claim of "religious freedom".

Have you seen any of the various "cake" lawsuits being overturned?

Did you know that Burwell didn't just apply to the ACA's abortion mandate? The whole broader scope of the ruling implied that this action can be taken against any federal or state law, not just the contraception mandate. Like I said, I've read it. Surely you know what legal precedent is, right?

I do know what legal precedent is, and I've read the Burwell decision. The "broader scope" won't exist until someone actually tries it in court. Lawyers can argue precedent, but that doesn't mean the judge will accept it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm not trying to pin you into anything, and I haven't tried to attribute any positions to you, either.

Perhaps I took this question the wrong way, then, and I quote:

"So you agree that people should be able to refuse service to black people by claiming that it's their religion[?]"

I never once answered yes or no to the question. I simply deferred to Federal jurisprudence on the matter.

But it's not out of the question that I can be guilty of being condescending - and for that I apologize.

Please, think nothing of it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I come from a Jewish family, that's just how it goes.

Oh I know, I've been around them, I have two Jews as friends. But I didn't know you were Jewish, and I like that you're Jewish. I learn new things all the time.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The "broader scope" won't exist until someone actually tries it in court.

The broader scope already exists, Doc. And it isn't too late for the owners of that bakery to file an appeal on those grounds.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The "broader scope" won't exist until someone actually tries it in court.

The broader scope already exists, Doc. And it isn't too late for the owners of that bakery to file an appeal on those grounds.

You're right, it's not too late - and if they do, we'll have an answer to this debate.

But until then, nothing has been decided.