Pain lingers for lesbian couple denied in Sweet Cakes case

[martybegan]

Personally, I am fine with gays and lesbians being able to get married. My objections are to the forced participation of others in their plans.

Everyone has the Right To Be Left Alone.

They do. But not people who run businesses. They've signed up to something.

They do, however, have the choice to not run a business. Or to run a business in a manner that won't conflict with their religious beliefs.

It's like religious people setting up a shop selling devil worshiping things, but then not selling to devil worshipers. Kind of doesn't make sense.

Where in the constitution does it say you give up your rights when you open a business? More importantly, where does it say that public accommodation trumps ANY reason to not provide a service?

It doesn't. However there are things called LAWS. You can't just bypass laws. Also, you want people with businesses to have rights, but not the people who walk into a shop? It makes no sense.

and laws cannot subject a person to oppression if the right is protected constitutionally. The right to free exercise of religion is a constitutional right, thus if government wants to override that, it has to do so under the lightest burden possible, and only in situations that show an overwhelming government interest.

Two people's hurt feelings is not a compelling government interest, and fining the sellers into oblivion is not the lightest burden possible.

The Constitutional protection is that the govt won't interfere in religion. However all rights have limitations.

If you are religions and think that your son is possessed by demons, you cannot kill him, no matter how hard you shout your mouth off about religion, it's not going to save you.

The First Amendment doesn't protect someone who CHOOSES to open a business and make it public to then discriminate. It simply doesn't. They have the right not to sign up to this, there's their freedom for you.

The govt isn't forcing them to open a business. Last I saw I had not been forced to open a business, not forced to sign that I would not discriminate if I want to open my business. Have you?

Yes, they have limitations, but those limits must be only in the case of a compelling government interest, and then have to be limited in the least aggressive means possible.

In the case of trying to kill your son because of demonic possession, that is a criminal act against another person that causes actual physical harm.

Why does a person give up any right when they decide to sell something? Where in the constitution does it say you lose your rights when you want to provide a good or service? Where does it say that if you want to have unpopular opinions, or be forced into working for someone else, that you have to go against your morality or your own choice?

You are saying the right of a gay person to buy a cake, a cake they can get anywhere else, trumps every single constitutionally given right of a person, and if they refuse, the government can crush them and ruin them?

You do realize that you are saying the government gets to take sides in a battle of butt hurt? and gets to ruin one side because the feelings of the other side are more popular with the government and the elites who run it?

 

[martybegan]

So if a Satanist walked into a Catholic Store to buy a cross, said he would use it in a Black Mass, the Catholic Store would be forced to sell the cross to him?

I would hope that the Catholics would sell him a crucifix if for nothing other than their desire to expose him to the passion and love Christ suffered through to bring light, love and forgiveness to the world.

Excellent non-answer.

Dodge,dip,duck,dive,dodge.

You got the answer the question deserved.

You dodged an actual answer because the one answer you want to give makes you look like an asshat.

The question suggested asshatery.

The question is perfectly valid, and you refuse to answer it because you are a gutless coward.

You have now joined the ranks of posters I address as "bitch-tits"

 

[Katzndogz]

Personally, I am fine with gays and lesbians being able to get married. My objections are to the forced participation of others in their plans.

Everyone has the Right To Be Left Alone.

They do. But not people who run businesses. They've signed up to something.

They do, however, have the choice to not run a business. Or to run a business in a manner that won't conflict with their religious beliefs.

It's like religious people setting up a shop selling devil worshiping things, but then not selling to devil worshipers. Kind of doesn't make sense.

Where in the constitution does it say you give up your rights when you open a business? More importantly, where does it say that public accommodation trumps ANY reason to not provide a service?

It doesn't. However there are things called LAWS. You can't just bypass laws. Also, you want people with businesses to have rights, but not the people who walk into a shop? It makes no sense.

and laws cannot subject a person to oppression if the right is protected constitutionally. The right to free exercise of religion is a constitutional right, thus if government wants to override that, it has to do so under the lightest burden possible, and only in situations that show an overwhelming government interest.

Two people's hurt feelings is not a compelling government interest, and fining the sellers into oblivion is not the lightest burden possible.

The Constitutional protection is that the govt won't interfere in religion. However all rights have limitations.

If you are religions and think that your son is possessed by demons, you cannot kill him, no matter how hard you shout your mouth off about religion, it's not going to save you.

The First Amendment doesn't protect someone who CHOOSES to open a business and make it public to then discriminate. It simply doesn't. They have the right not to sign up to this, there's their freedom for you.

The govt isn't forcing them to open a business. Last I saw I had not been forced to open a business, not forced to sign that I would not discriminate if I want to open my business. Have you?

I have had several businesses. The customer's rights stop at the front door. I discriminated with my services all the time.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What if you have an act and if you do it, it's a sin, if you don't do it, it's a sin? Then what?

That is between the individual and God.

So you're basically saying that gay people need to be considerate towards religious people, but religious people can act however they like? So how is a gay person supposed to know what will and won't offend people? Why do they have to walk around as if egg shells are all over the floor to accommodate people who will use their religion as an excuse for anything?

No. Just understand that no means no. Will you use your artistry to make me a cake and set it up at my wedding. No. Simple.

No one has a right to the artistic talent of another, not for any reason. No artist, photographer, cake decorator, florist, no artist should ever be compelled to create against their will.

But we don't live in a society where you can do what you like.

"I don't want to pay taxes, no means no"
"I don't want to keep the noise down on my music, no means no"

Problem is you don't live in a country where anarchy reigns supreme. Sorry.

I said no and meant no. Can someone force you out of your house and into a concert hall where the music is too loud? Paying taxes is an arrangement between a citizen and the government. It does not involve the whims of another citizen.

We are supposed to live in a society where we do whst we like. It's called freedom. Why do you dislike it so much? What makes someone else's judgment on what you do better than your own? How personal does interference need to be before you say no?

But you're picking and choosing where no means no. This is the problem.

Can the govt force you to do things?

Yes, it can force you to go to war, force you to go to prison, force you to pay them money, force you to do quite a number of things, actually.

No, you're not supposed to live in a society where you do whatever you like.

If you didn't notice there is something called the Bill of Rights and the theory behind rights is that you can do what you like AS LONG AS you don't harm or hurt other people. In other words, all rights have LIMITS.

I'm sorry no one managed to tell you this before. But it's there.

 

[StLucieBengal]

When they act the way they did then they deserve all they get. The worst part was that they were repeat customers and decided to put them out of business over a cake.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They do. But not people who run businesses. They've signed up to something.

They do, however, have the choice to not run a business. Or to run a business in a manner that won't conflict with their religious beliefs.

It's like religious people setting up a shop selling devil worshiping things, but then not selling to devil worshipers. Kind of doesn't make sense.

Where in the constitution does it say you give up your rights when you open a business? More importantly, where does it say that public accommodation trumps ANY reason to not provide a service?

It doesn't. However there are things called LAWS. You can't just bypass laws. Also, you want people with businesses to have rights, but not the people who walk into a shop? It makes no sense.

and laws cannot subject a person to oppression if the right is protected constitutionally. The right to free exercise of religion is a constitutional right, thus if government wants to override that, it has to do so under the lightest burden possible, and only in situations that show an overwhelming government interest.

Two people's hurt feelings is not a compelling government interest, and fining the sellers into oblivion is not the lightest burden possible.

The Constitutional protection is that the govt won't interfere in religion. However all rights have limitations.

If you are religions and think that your son is possessed by demons, you cannot kill him, no matter how hard you shout your mouth off about religion, it's not going to save you.

The First Amendment doesn't protect someone who CHOOSES to open a business and make it public to then discriminate. It simply doesn't. They have the right not to sign up to this, there's their freedom for you.

The govt isn't forcing them to open a business. Last I saw I had not been forced to open a business, not forced to sign that I would not discriminate if I want to open my business. Have you?

Yes, they have limitations, but those limits must be only in the case of a compelling government interest, and then have to be limited in the least aggressive means possible.

In the case of trying to kill your son because of demonic possession, that is a criminal act against another person that causes actual physical harm.

Why does a person give up any right when they decide to sell something? Where in the constitution does it say you lose your rights when you want to provide a good or service? Where does it say that if you want to have unpopular opinions, or be forced into working for someone else, that you have to go against your morality or your own choice?

You are saying the right of a gay person to buy a cake, a cake they can get anywhere else, trumps every single constitutionally given right of a person, and if they refuse, the government can crush them and ruin them?

You do realize that you are saying the government gets to take sides in a battle of butt hurt? and gets to ruin one side because the feelings of the other side are more popular with the government and the elites who run it?

Well, one of the things you have a govt for is to be an arbitrator when things go wrong between individuals. When people cause harm to others, either physical or mental then the govt steps in.

Now, I know the right has this lack of feeling thing when it comes to other people, a lack of empathy, but that doesn't mean that people don't feel harm when they're in their own country and yet treated like second class citizens.

All men are created equal was said in 1776, and yet people in 2016 don't want this to be true.

I didn't say people gave up rights. They're still individuals. However they've set up a business. They can choose to walk away from that business if they choose. Therefore they still have their rights and their rights are not being infringed upon. B

There are laws for what individuals can do, and there are laws for what businesses can do.

There are laws on how they can treat employees, there are laws on how they can treat customers, there are laws for a lot of things, and the people who decide to start a business MUST adhere to these laws, don't you think?

 

[frigidweirdo]

When they act the way they did then they deserve all they get. The worst part was that they were repeat customers and decided to put them out of business over a cake.

Who got put out of business? What I saw was they closed down their shop and decided to work from a non-public place so that gay people couldn't find them, yet they're still making cakes.

 

[martybegan]

Where in the constitution does it say you give up your rights when you open a business? More importantly, where does it say that public accommodation trumps ANY reason to not provide a service?

It doesn't. However there are things called LAWS. You can't just bypass laws. Also, you want people with businesses to have rights, but not the people who walk into a shop? It makes no sense.

and laws cannot subject a person to oppression if the right is protected constitutionally. The right to free exercise of religion is a constitutional right, thus if government wants to override that, it has to do so under the lightest burden possible, and only in situations that show an overwhelming government interest.

Two people's hurt feelings is not a compelling government interest, and fining the sellers into oblivion is not the lightest burden possible.

The Constitutional protection is that the govt won't interfere in religion. However all rights have limitations.

If you are religions and think that your son is possessed by demons, you cannot kill him, no matter how hard you shout your mouth off about religion, it's not going to save you.

The First Amendment doesn't protect someone who CHOOSES to open a business and make it public to then discriminate. It simply doesn't. They have the right not to sign up to this, there's their freedom for you.

The govt isn't forcing them to open a business. Last I saw I had not been forced to open a business, not forced to sign that I would not discriminate if I want to open my business. Have you?

Yes, they have limitations, but those limits must be only in the case of a compelling government interest, and then have to be limited in the least aggressive means possible.

In the case of trying to kill your son because of demonic possession, that is a criminal act against another person that causes actual physical harm.

Why does a person give up any right when they decide to sell something? Where in the constitution does it say you lose your rights when you want to provide a good or service? Where does it say that if you want to have unpopular opinions, or be forced into working for someone else, that you have to go against your morality or your own choice?

You are saying the right of a gay person to buy a cake, a cake they can get anywhere else, trumps every single constitutionally given right of a person, and if they refuse, the government can crush them and ruin them?

You do realize that you are saying the government gets to take sides in a battle of butt hurt? and gets to ruin one side because the feelings of the other side are more popular with the government and the elites who run it?

Well, one of the things you have a govt for is to be an arbitrator when things go wrong between individuals. When people cause harm to others, either physical or mental then the govt steps in.

Now, I know the right has this lack of feeling thing when it comes to other people, a lack of empathy, but that doesn't mean that people don't feel harm when they're in their own country and yet treated like second class citizens.

All men are created equal was said in 1776, and yet people in 2016 don't want this to be true.

I didn't say people gave up rights. They're still individuals. However they've set up a business. They can choose to walk away from that business if they choose. Therefore they still have their rights and their rights are not being infringed upon. B

There are laws for what individuals can do, and there are laws for what businesses can do.

There are laws on how they can treat employees, there are laws on how they can treat customers, there are laws for a lot of things, and the people who decide to start a business MUST adhere to these laws, don't you think?

hurt feelings are not "harm". and what about the hurt feelings of the religious people forced to provide a service they don't want to? Why is their butthurt less than the gay couple's butthurt?

You have a lack of empathy for the people being forced to either do something they don't want to do, or give up their way of earning a living. Me doth think you protest too much. You don't care because you don't like their positions or beliefs, so, pffft, fuck em, right?

What we have here is some people being more equal than others. again, why are the gay couples hurt feelings more important than the religious person's hurt feelings?

yes, there are different laws, but in this case you are not forcing some massive corporation to do something some people in it don't want to do, you are forcing a small business owner to 'bake or fuck off".

There are of course laws for the situations you list, but where is the reasonableness in forcing a small business providing a contracted non-necessary, easily replaceable service to go against their nature, or go out of business?

besides, of course, your incorrigible desire to fuck over people who disagree with you.

 

[Katzndogz]

That is between the individual and God.

So you're basically saying that gay people need to be considerate towards religious people, but religious people can act however they like? So how is a gay person supposed to know what will and won't offend people? Why do they have to walk around as if egg shells are all over the floor to accommodate people who will use their religion as an excuse for anything?

No. Just understand that no means no. Will you use your artistry to make me a cake and set it up at my wedding. No. Simple.

No one has a right to the artistic talent of another, not for any reason. No artist, photographer, cake decorator, florist, no artist should ever be compelled to create against their will.

But we don't live in a society where you can do what you like.

"I don't want to pay taxes, no means no"
"I don't want to keep the noise down on my music, no means no"

Problem is you don't live in a country where anarchy reigns supreme. Sorry.

I said no and meant no. Can someone force you out of your house and into a concert hall where the music is too loud? Paying taxes is an arrangement between a citizen and the government. It does not involve the whims of another citizen.

We are supposed to live in a society where we do whst we like. It's called freedom. Why do you dislike it so much? What makes someone else's judgment on what you do better than your own? How personal does interference need to be before you say no?

But you're picking and choosing where no means no. This is the problem.

Can the govt force you to do things?

Yes, it can force you to go to war, force you to go to prison, force you to pay them money, force you to do quite a number of things, actually.

No, you're not supposed to live in a society where you do whatever you like.

If you didn't notice there is something called the Bill of Rights and the theory behind rights is that you can do what you like AS LONG AS you don't harm or hurt other people. In other words, all rights have LIMITS.

I'm sorry no one managed to tell you this before. But it's there.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government not on individuals. This must be the first you are hearing this.

There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not get your feelings hurt. The government can force you to give it money. When an individual forces you to give him money it's theft.

The government cannot force you to be nice. It can not force you to be a friend or a good neighbor. It cannot force a business to provide good customer service. The government cannot stop someone from being nasty, or insulting. It won't stop anyone from hurting your feelings even if you cry for a week.

Where do you get these nonsense ideas?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It doesn't. However there are things called LAWS. You can't just bypass laws. Also, you want people with businesses to have rights, but not the people who walk into a shop? It makes no sense.

and laws cannot subject a person to oppression if the right is protected constitutionally. The right to free exercise of religion is a constitutional right, thus if government wants to override that, it has to do so under the lightest burden possible, and only in situations that show an overwhelming government interest.

Two people's hurt feelings is not a compelling government interest, and fining the sellers into oblivion is not the lightest burden possible.

The Constitutional protection is that the govt won't interfere in religion. However all rights have limitations.

If you are religions and think that your son is possessed by demons, you cannot kill him, no matter how hard you shout your mouth off about religion, it's not going to save you.

The First Amendment doesn't protect someone who CHOOSES to open a business and make it public to then discriminate. It simply doesn't. They have the right not to sign up to this, there's their freedom for you.

The govt isn't forcing them to open a business. Last I saw I had not been forced to open a business, not forced to sign that I would not discriminate if I want to open my business. Have you?

Yes, they have limitations, but those limits must be only in the case of a compelling government interest, and then have to be limited in the least aggressive means possible.

In the case of trying to kill your son because of demonic possession, that is a criminal act against another person that causes actual physical harm.

Why does a person give up any right when they decide to sell something? Where in the constitution does it say you lose your rights when you want to provide a good or service? Where does it say that if you want to have unpopular opinions, or be forced into working for someone else, that you have to go against your morality or your own choice?

You are saying the right of a gay person to buy a cake, a cake they can get anywhere else, trumps every single constitutionally given right of a person, and if they refuse, the government can crush them and ruin them?

You do realize that you are saying the government gets to take sides in a battle of butt hurt? and gets to ruin one side because the feelings of the other side are more popular with the government and the elites who run it?

Well, one of the things you have a govt for is to be an arbitrator when things go wrong between individuals. When people cause harm to others, either physical or mental then the govt steps in.

Now, I know the right has this lack of feeling thing when it comes to other people, a lack of empathy, but that doesn't mean that people don't feel harm when they're in their own country and yet treated like second class citizens.

All men are created equal was said in 1776, and yet people in 2016 don't want this to be true.

I didn't say people gave up rights. They're still individuals. However they've set up a business. They can choose to walk away from that business if they choose. Therefore they still have their rights and their rights are not being infringed upon. B

There are laws for what individuals can do, and there are laws for what businesses can do.

There are laws on how they can treat employees, there are laws on how they can treat customers, there are laws for a lot of things, and the people who decide to start a business MUST adhere to these laws, don't you think?

hurt feelings are not "harm". and what about the hurt feelings of the religious people forced to provide a service they don't want to? Why is their butthurt less than the gay couple's butthurt?

You have a lack of empathy for the people being forced to either do something they don't want to do, or give up their way of earning a living. Me doth think you protest too much. You don't care because you don't like their positions or beliefs, so, pffft, fuck em, right?

What we have here is some people being more equal than others. again, why are the gay couples hurt feelings more important than the religious person's hurt feelings?

yes, there are different laws, but in this case you are not forcing some massive corporation to do something some people in it don't want to do, you are forcing a small business owner to 'bake or fuck off".

There are of course laws for the situations you list, but where is the reasonableness in forcing a small business providing a contracted non-necessary, easily replaceable service to go against their nature, or go out of business?

besides, of course, your incorrigible desire to fuck over people who disagree with you.

See, I said you wouldn't understand. People who think being treated like this is somehow fair and then get all annoyed because then these people go to court.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you're basically saying that gay people need to be considerate towards religious people, but religious people can act however they like? So how is a gay person supposed to know what will and won't offend people? Why do they have to walk around as if egg shells are all over the floor to accommodate people who will use their religion as an excuse for anything?

No. Just understand that no means no. Will you use your artistry to make me a cake and set it up at my wedding. No. Simple.

No one has a right to the artistic talent of another, not for any reason. No artist, photographer, cake decorator, florist, no artist should ever be compelled to create against their will.

But we don't live in a society where you can do what you like.

"I don't want to pay taxes, no means no"
"I don't want to keep the noise down on my music, no means no"

Problem is you don't live in a country where anarchy reigns supreme. Sorry.

I said no and meant no. Can someone force you out of your house and into a concert hall where the music is too loud? Paying taxes is an arrangement between a citizen and the government. It does not involve the whims of another citizen.

We are supposed to live in a society where we do whst we like. It's called freedom. Why do you dislike it so much? What makes someone else's judgment on what you do better than your own? How personal does interference need to be before you say no?

But you're picking and choosing where no means no. This is the problem.

Can the govt force you to do things?

Yes, it can force you to go to war, force you to go to prison, force you to pay them money, force you to do quite a number of things, actually.

No, you're not supposed to live in a society where you do whatever you like.

If you didn't notice there is something called the Bill of Rights and the theory behind rights is that you can do what you like AS LONG AS you don't harm or hurt other people. In other words, all rights have LIMITS.

I'm sorry no one managed to tell you this before. But it's there.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government not on individuals. This must be the first you are hearing this.

There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not get your feelings hurt. The government can force you to give it money. When an individual forces you to give him money it's theft.

The government cannot force you to be nice. It can not force you to be a friend or a good neighbor. It cannot force a business to provide good customer service. The government cannot stop someone from being nasty, or insulting. It won't stop anyone from hurting your feelings even if you cry for a week.

Where do you get these nonsense ideas?

I didn't say the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the people. You just decided I had said that. What I said was that the ideals of the Bill of Rights exist and the US is bound up in this theory whether you like it or not.

I didn't say there was a right to not be offended. However we live in a society and the people have decided how they want society to be, and they make rules and regulations to make sure that happens. And yes, there are laws that say you can't do some things, things that hurt people.

No, government can't force you to be nice. But it CAN force you to respect the laws of the land. And if those laws say a business can't discriminate against someone based on gender, sexual preference, skin color, ethnicity, then YOU CAN'T DO IT.

 

[koshergrl]

So you're basically saying that gay people need to be considerate towards religious people, but religious people can act however they like? So how is a gay person supposed to know what will and won't offend people? Why do they have to walk around as if egg shells are all over the floor to accommodate people who will use their religion as an excuse for anything?

No. Just understand that no means no. Will you use your artistry to make me a cake and set it up at my wedding. No. Simple.

No one has a right to the artistic talent of another, not for any reason. No artist, photographer, cake decorator, florist, no artist should ever be compelled to create against their will.

But we don't live in a society where you can do what you like.

"I don't want to pay taxes, no means no"
"I don't want to keep the noise down on my music, no means no"

Problem is you don't live in a country where anarchy reigns supreme. Sorry.

I said no and meant no. Can someone force you out of your house and into a concert hall where the music is too loud? Paying taxes is an arrangement between a citizen and the government. It does not involve the whims of another citizen.

We are supposed to live in a society where we do whst we like. It's called freedom. Why do you dislike it so much? What makes someone else's judgment on what you do better than your own? How personal does interference need to be before you say no?

But you're picking and choosing where no means no. This is the problem.

Can the govt force you to do things?

Yes, it can force you to go to war, force you to go to prison, force you to pay them money, force you to do quite a number of things, actually.

No, you're not supposed to live in a society where you do whatever you like.

If you didn't notice there is something called the Bill of Rights and the theory behind rights is that you can do what you like AS LONG AS you don't harm or hurt other people. In other words, all rights have LIMITS.

I'm sorry no one managed to tell you this before. But it's there.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government not on individuals. This must be the first you are hearing this.

There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not get your feelings hurt. The government can force you to give it money. When an individual forces you to give him money it's theft.

The government cannot force you to be nice. It can not force you to be a friend or a good neighbor. It cannot force a business to provide good customer service. The government cannot stop someone from being nasty, or insulting. It won't stop anyone from hurting your feelings even if you cry for a week.

Where do you get these nonsense ideas?

From federal educators, whose job it is to make their students stupid.

 

[koshergrl]

No. Just understand that no means no. Will you use your artistry to make me a cake and set it up at my wedding. No. Simple.

No one has a right to the artistic talent of another, not for any reason. No artist, photographer, cake decorator, florist, no artist should ever be compelled to create against their will.

But we don't live in a society where you can do what you like.

"I don't want to pay taxes, no means no"
"I don't want to keep the noise down on my music, no means no"

Problem is you don't live in a country where anarchy reigns supreme. Sorry.

I said no and meant no. Can someone force you out of your house and into a concert hall where the music is too loud? Paying taxes is an arrangement between a citizen and the government. It does not involve the whims of another citizen.

We are supposed to live in a society where we do whst we like. It's called freedom. Why do you dislike it so much? What makes someone else's judgment on what you do better than your own? How personal does interference need to be before you say no?

But you're picking and choosing where no means no. This is the problem.

Can the govt force you to do things?

Yes, it can force you to go to war, force you to go to prison, force you to pay them money, force you to do quite a number of things, actually.

No, you're not supposed to live in a society where you do whatever you like.

If you didn't notice there is something called the Bill of Rights and the theory behind rights is that you can do what you like AS LONG AS you don't harm or hurt other people. In other words, all rights have LIMITS.

I'm sorry no one managed to tell you this before. But it's there.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government not on individuals. This must be the first you are hearing this.

There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not get your feelings hurt. The government can force you to give it money. When an individual forces you to give him money it's theft.

The government cannot force you to be nice. It can not force you to be a friend or a good neighbor. It cannot force a business to provide good customer service. The government cannot stop someone from being nasty, or insulting. It won't stop anyone from hurting your feelings even if you cry for a week.

Where do you get these nonsense ideas?

I didn't say the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the people. You just decided I had said that. What I said was that the ideals of the Bill of Rights exist and the US is bound up in this theory whether you like it or not.

I didn't say there was a right to not be offended. However we live in a society and the people have decided how they want society to be, and they make rules and regulations to make sure that happens. And yes, there are laws that say you can't do some things, things that hurt people.

No, government can't force you to be nice. But it CAN force you to respect the laws of the land. And if those laws say a business can't discriminate against someone based on gender, sexual preference, skin color, ethnicity, then YOU CAN'T DO IT.

If those laws violate the constitution, then we are not obliged to abide by them.

That's provided for in our constitution, and also in the UN human rights treaty, incidentally, which maintains that even when laws are passed that make human rights violations LEGAL, they are NOT legal, and the people who apply them can be prosecuted and judgement passed on them, regardless of the LAW OF THE LAND.

Progressive nutbags don't understand this. They didn't understand it when they embraced Nazism in Germany, and they didn't understand it when they embraced communism in Cambodia and Thailand, either.

 

[martybegan]

and laws cannot subject a person to oppression if the right is protected constitutionally. The right to free exercise of religion is a constitutional right, thus if government wants to override that, it has to do so under the lightest burden possible, and only in situations that show an overwhelming government interest.

Two people's hurt feelings is not a compelling government interest, and fining the sellers into oblivion is not the lightest burden possible.

The Constitutional protection is that the govt won't interfere in religion. However all rights have limitations.

If you are religions and think that your son is possessed by demons, you cannot kill him, no matter how hard you shout your mouth off about religion, it's not going to save you.

The First Amendment doesn't protect someone who CHOOSES to open a business and make it public to then discriminate. It simply doesn't. They have the right not to sign up to this, there's their freedom for you.

The govt isn't forcing them to open a business. Last I saw I had not been forced to open a business, not forced to sign that I would not discriminate if I want to open my business. Have you?

Yes, they have limitations, but those limits must be only in the case of a compelling government interest, and then have to be limited in the least aggressive means possible.

In the case of trying to kill your son because of demonic possession, that is a criminal act against another person that causes actual physical harm.

Why does a person give up any right when they decide to sell something? Where in the constitution does it say you lose your rights when you want to provide a good or service? Where does it say that if you want to have unpopular opinions, or be forced into working for someone else, that you have to go against your morality or your own choice?

You are saying the right of a gay person to buy a cake, a cake they can get anywhere else, trumps every single constitutionally given right of a person, and if they refuse, the government can crush them and ruin them?

You do realize that you are saying the government gets to take sides in a battle of butt hurt? and gets to ruin one side because the feelings of the other side are more popular with the government and the elites who run it?

Well, one of the things you have a govt for is to be an arbitrator when things go wrong between individuals. When people cause harm to others, either physical or mental then the govt steps in.

Now, I know the right has this lack of feeling thing when it comes to other people, a lack of empathy, but that doesn't mean that people don't feel harm when they're in their own country and yet treated like second class citizens.

All men are created equal was said in 1776, and yet people in 2016 don't want this to be true.

I didn't say people gave up rights. They're still individuals. However they've set up a business. They can choose to walk away from that business if they choose. Therefore they still have their rights and their rights are not being infringed upon. B

There are laws for what individuals can do, and there are laws for what businesses can do.

There are laws on how they can treat employees, there are laws on how they can treat customers, there are laws for a lot of things, and the people who decide to start a business MUST adhere to these laws, don't you think?

hurt feelings are not "harm". and what about the hurt feelings of the religious people forced to provide a service they don't want to? Why is their butthurt less than the gay couple's butthurt?

You have a lack of empathy for the people being forced to either do something they don't want to do, or give up their way of earning a living. Me doth think you protest too much. You don't care because you don't like their positions or beliefs, so, pffft, fuck em, right?

What we have here is some people being more equal than others. again, why are the gay couples hurt feelings more important than the religious person's hurt feelings?

yes, there are different laws, but in this case you are not forcing some massive corporation to do something some people in it don't want to do, you are forcing a small business owner to 'bake or fuck off".

There are of course laws for the situations you list, but where is the reasonableness in forcing a small business providing a contracted non-necessary, easily replaceable service to go against their nature, or go out of business?

besides, of course, your incorrigible desire to fuck over people who disagree with you.

See, I said you wouldn't understand. People who think being treated like this is somehow fair and then get all annoyed because then these people go to court.

I understand perfectly. You think government should be the arbiter of who's feelings are more equal than others. You have not answered the question of why the gay couple's butthurt deserves protection, and the religious person's butthurt does not. Well you tried with the whole "you give up your rights when you try to sell something tactic, but I reject that one on its face, especially for small, private owner businesses.

So I would have to assume your views on this are that you think gay butthurt is more important than religious butthurt.

 

[koshergrl]

And requiring people to commit SACRILEGE in order to WORK is a human rights violation, poindexter.

 

[Katzndogz]

and laws cannot subjectu a person to oppression if the right is protected constitutionally. The right to free exercise of religion is a constitutional right, thus if government wants to override that, it has to do so under the lightest burden possible, and only in situations that show an overwhelming government interest.

Two people's hurt feelings is not a compelling government interest, and fining the sellers into oblivion is not the lightest burden possible.

The Constitutional protection is that the govt won't interfere in religion. However all rights have limitations.

If you are religions and think that your son is possessed by demons, you cannot kill him, no matter how hard you shout your mouth off about religion, it's not going to save you.

The First Amendment doesn't protect someone who CHOOSES to open a business and make it public to then discriminate. It simply doesn't. They have the right not to sign up to this, there's their freedom for you.

The govt isn't forcing them to open a business. Last I saw I had not been forced to open a business, not forced to sign that I would not discriminate if I want to open my business. Have you?

Yes, they have limitations, but those limits must be only in the case of a compelling government interest, and then have to be limited in the least aggressive means possible.

In the case of trying to kill your son because of demonic possession, that is a criminal act against another person that causes actual physical harm.

Why does a person give up any right when they decide to sell something? Where in the constitution does it say you lose your rights when you want to provide a good or service? Where does it say that if you want to have unpopular opinions, or be forced into working for someone else, that you have to go against your morality or your own choice?

You are saying the right of a gay person to buy a cake, a cake they can get anywhere else, trumps every single constitutionally given right of a person, and if they refuse, the government can crush them and ruin them?

You do realize that you are saying the government gets to take sides in a battle of butt hurt? and gets to ruin one side because the feelings of the other side are more popular with the government and the elites who run it?

Well, one of the things you have a govt for is to be an arbitrator when things go wrong between individuals. When people cause harm to others, either physical or mental then the govt steps in.

Now, I know the right has this lack of feeling thing when it comes to other people, a lack of empathy, but that doesn't mean that people don't feel harm when they're in their own country and yet treated like second class citizens.

All men are created equal was said in 1776, and yet people in 2016 don't want this to be true.

I didn't say people gave up rights. They're still individuals. However they've set up a business. They can choose to walk away from that business if they choose. Therefore they still have their rights and their rights are not being infringed upon. B

There are laws for what individuals can do, and there are laws for what businesses can do.

There are laws on how they can treat employees, there are laws on how they can treat customers, there are laws for a lot of things, and the people who decide to start a business MUST adhere to these laws, don't you think?

hurt feelings are not "harm". and what about the hurt feelings of the religious people forced to provide a service they don't want to? Why is their butthurt less than the gay couple's butthurt?

You have a lack of empathy for the people being forced to either do something they don't want to do, or give up their way of earning a living. Me doth think you protest too much. You don't care because you don't like their positions or beliefs, so, pffft, fuck em, right?

What we have here is some people being more equal than others. again, why are the gay couples hurt feelings more important than the religious person's hurt feelings?

yes, there are different laws, but in this case you are not forcing some massive corporation to do something some people in it don't want to do, you are forcing a small business owner to 'bake or fuck off".

There are of course laws for the situations you list, but where is the reasonableness in forcing a small business providing a contracted non-necessary, easily replaceable service to go against their nature, or go out of business?

besides, of course, your incorrigible desire to fuck over people who disagree with you.

See, I said you wouldn't understand. People who think being treated like this is somehow fair and then get all annoyed because then these people go to court.

They went to court and now their feelings are being hurt worse than ever. Is that fair? Life is not fair. There are no laws to govern every injurious interaction. I've used all of them. The perv couple now wishes they had done nothing but go to another bakery. They will be paying for trying to force perversion on others for years to come. That's fair. Yes it is.

 

[martybegan]

No. Just understand that no means no. Will you use your artistry to make me a cake and set it up at my wedding. No. Simple.

No one has a right to the artistic talent of another, not for any reason. No artist, photographer, cake decorator, florist, no artist should ever be compelled to create against their will.

But we don't live in a society where you can do what you like.

"I don't want to pay taxes, no means no"
"I don't want to keep the noise down on my music, no means no"

Problem is you don't live in a country where anarchy reigns supreme. Sorry.

I said no and meant no. Can someone force you out of your house and into a concert hall where the music is too loud? Paying taxes is an arrangement between a citizen and the government. It does not involve the whims of another citizen.

We are supposed to live in a society where we do whst we like. It's called freedom. Why do you dislike it so much? What makes someone else's judgment on what you do better than your own? How personal does interference need to be before you say no?

But you're picking and choosing where no means no. This is the problem.

Can the govt force you to do things?

Yes, it can force you to go to war, force you to go to prison, force you to pay them money, force you to do quite a number of things, actually.

No, you're not supposed to live in a society where you do whatever you like.

If you didn't notice there is something called the Bill of Rights and the theory behind rights is that you can do what you like AS LONG AS you don't harm or hurt other people. In other words, all rights have LIMITS.

I'm sorry no one managed to tell you this before. But it's there.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government not on individuals. This must be the first you are hearing this.

There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not get your feelings hurt. The government can force you to give it money. When an individual forces you to give him money it's theft.

The government cannot force you to be nice. It can not force you to be a friend or a good neighbor. It cannot force a business to provide good customer service. The government cannot stop someone from being nasty, or insulting. It won't stop anyone from hurting your feelings even if you cry for a week.

Where do you get these nonsense ideas?

I didn't say the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the people. You just decided I had said that. What I said was that the ideals of the Bill of Rights exist and the US is bound up in this theory whether you like it or not.

I didn't say there was a right to not be offended. However we live in a society and the people have decided how they want society to be, and they make rules and regulations to make sure that happens. And yes, there are laws that say you can't do some things, things that hurt people.

No, government can't force you to be nice. But it CAN force you to respect the laws of the land. And if those laws say a business can't discriminate against someone based on gender, sexual preference, skin color, ethnicity, then YOU CAN'T DO IT.

So hurt feelings of a protected class equates to ruining the livelyhood of people selling cakes?

And government force is government force. One wonders if someone like you supports government overwhelming force in something as trivial as a baker not wanting to bake a cake, what other uses of force you could support against people you don't like.

 

[Katzndogz]

No. Just understand that no means no. Will you use your artistry to make me a cake and set it up at my wedding. No. Simple.

No one has a right to the artistic talent of another, not for any reason. No artist, photographer, cake decorator, florist, no artist should ever be compelled to create against their will.

But we don't live in a society where you can do what you like.

"I don't want to pay taxes, no means no"
"I don't want to keep the noise down on my music, no means no"

Problem is you don't live in a country where anarchy reigns supreme. Sorry.

I said no and meant no. Can someone force you out of your house and into a concert hall where the music is too loud? Paying taxes is an arrangement between a citizen and the government. It does not involve the whims of another citizen.

We are supposed to live in a society where we do whst we like. It's called freedom. Why do you dislike it so much? What makes someone else's judgment on what you do better than your own? How personal does interference need to be before you say no?

But you're picking and choosing where no means no. This is the problem.

Can the govt force you to do things?

Yes, it can force you to go to war, force you to go to prison, force you to pay them money, force you to do quite a number of things, actually.

No, you're not supposed to live in a society where you do whatever you like.

If you didn't notice there is something called the Bill of Rights and the theory behind rights is that you can do what you like AS LONG AS you don't harm or hurt other people. In other words, all rights have LIMITS.

I'm sorry no one managed to tell you this before. But it's there.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government not on individuals. This must be the first you are hearing this.

There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not get your feelings hurt. The government can force you to give it money. When an individual forces you to give him money it's theft.

The government cannot force you to be nice. It can not force you to be a friend or a good neighbor. It cannot force a business to provide good customer service. The government cannot stop someone from being nasty, or insulting. It won't stop anyone from hurting your feelings even if you cry for a week.

Where do you get these nonsense ideas?

I didn't say the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the people. You just decided I had said that. What I said was that the ideals of the Bill of Rights exist and the US is bound up in this theory whether you like it or not.

I didn't say there was a right to not be offended. However we live in a society and the people have decided how they want society to be, and they make rules and regulations to make sure that happens. And yes, there are laws that say you can't do some things, things that hurt people.

No, government can't force you to be nice. But it CAN force you to respect the laws of the land. And if those laws say a business can't discriminate against someone based on gender, sexual preference, skin color, ethnicity, then YOU CAN'T DO IT.

And you can clearly see what happens when perverts win their case. Of course we can do things that hurt people. Surely you can see that being done every day.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberal control freaks really want the government to have total control. Hurting the feelings of a minority should be a punishable offense.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Constitutional protection is that the govt won't interfere in religion. However all rights have limitations.

If you are religions and think that your son is possessed by demons, you cannot kill him, no matter how hard you shout your mouth off about religion, it's not going to save you.

The First Amendment doesn't protect someone who CHOOSES to open a business and make it public to then discriminate. It simply doesn't. They have the right not to sign up to this, there's their freedom for you.

The govt isn't forcing them to open a business. Last I saw I had not been forced to open a business, not forced to sign that I would not discriminate if I want to open my business. Have you?

Yes, they have limitations, but those limits must be only in the case of a compelling government interest, and then have to be limited in the least aggressive means possible.

In the case of trying to kill your son because of demonic possession, that is a criminal act against another person that causes actual physical harm.

Why does a person give up any right when they decide to sell something? Where in the constitution does it say you lose your rights when you want to provide a good or service? Where does it say that if you want to have unpopular opinions, or be forced into working for someone else, that you have to go against your morality or your own choice?

You are saying the right of a gay person to buy a cake, a cake they can get anywhere else, trumps every single constitutionally given right of a person, and if they refuse, the government can crush them and ruin them?

You do realize that you are saying the government gets to take sides in a battle of butt hurt? and gets to ruin one side because the feelings of the other side are more popular with the government and the elites who run it?

Well, one of the things you have a govt for is to be an arbitrator when things go wrong between individuals. When people cause harm to others, either physical or mental then the govt steps in.

Now, I know the right has this lack of feeling thing when it comes to other people, a lack of empathy, but that doesn't mean that people don't feel harm when they're in their own country and yet treated like second class citizens.

All men are created equal was said in 1776, and yet people in 2016 don't want this to be true.

I didn't say people gave up rights. They're still individuals. However they've set up a business. They can choose to walk away from that business if they choose. Therefore they still have their rights and their rights are not being infringed upon. B

There are laws for what individuals can do, and there are laws for what businesses can do.

There are laws on how they can treat employees, there are laws on how they can treat customers, there are laws for a lot of things, and the people who decide to start a business MUST adhere to these laws, don't you think?

hurt feelings are not "harm". and what about the hurt feelings of the religious people forced to provide a service they don't want to? Why is their butthurt less than the gay couple's butthurt?

You have a lack of empathy for the people being forced to either do something they don't want to do, or give up their way of earning a living. Me doth think you protest too much. You don't care because you don't like their positions or beliefs, so, pffft, fuck em, right?

What we have here is some people being more equal than others. again, why are the gay couples hurt feelings more important than the religious person's hurt feelings?

yes, there are different laws, but in this case you are not forcing some massive corporation to do something some people in it don't want to do, you are forcing a small business owner to 'bake or fuck off".

There are of course laws for the situations you list, but where is the reasonableness in forcing a small business providing a contracted non-necessary, easily replaceable service to go against their nature, or go out of business?

besides, of course, your incorrigible desire to fuck over people who disagree with you.

See, I said you wouldn't understand. People who think being treated like this is somehow fair and then get all annoyed because then these people go to court.

I understand perfectly. You think government should be the arbiter of who's feelings are more equal than others. You have not answered the question of why the gay couple's butthurt deserves protection, and the religious person's butthurt does not. Well you tried with the whole "you give up your rights when you try to sell something tactic, but I reject that one on its face, especially for small, private owner businesses.

So I would have to assume your views on this are that you think gay butthurt is more important than religious butthurt.

So, you're saying that people should just be able to go around doing what they like? Bus companies should be allowed to force blacks to sit at the back, diners should be able to force black people to sit on the floor? You want to live in a society like this, then fine, go find a country that allows that.