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.
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?
But the government does that all the time.
The problem is, of course, is that whenever you Wingnut Liber-retard-ians talk about "freedom", it is usually the ability of those with money and power to abuse those of us without money and power.
When in fact, business law should ALWAYS favor the consumer.
The Homophobic Hater Kleins have an option. If their Angry Imaginary Friend (I.e. Mr. Klein's fetid imagination because most homophobes are latent homosexuals- true story) says the gays are icky, then he has the option of not being in a business where he might encounter gay people.
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?
Again, they have an option. They can not be in that business. If you are the one getting the money, it's on you to suck up and take it. If your business requires you to deal with people you don't like, find something else to do for a living.
What I am saying is you can just be absolutist and say "bake that damn cake, peasant", without taking into account both the situation and the overall impact of a decision on EITHER side of the argument.
Except that was done. The Klein's hatred didn't trump the Cryer-Bowman's right to get good service.
I think she is a closet lesbian.Why, oh why are you so adamant about hating your Gay fellow citizens? Are you afraid of them?Being black is not a behavior.Not if they're treated as second class citizens. A Black man could get a drink of water from another Fontaine. Is he better off?The two lesbians got their cake from somewhere else. The Kleins ended up better off than they were.The Kliens do not enjoy a protected right to discriminate.Yet you believe that the Kliens deserved to be punished for standing up for their rights. Should bigots be crushed or not?
The pervs weren't standing up for their rights. They were standing up for teaching those Christians a lesson. Who got taught the lesson?
All those two women wanted was a wedding cake. If exposing the Kleins as anti-American bigots was what it took, that's too bad for the Kleins
Are the lesbos better off?
You admit that the lesbos are not better off. Good
They deserve everything they get.
Your assuming that businesses will only serve a niche group.
That makes zero sense for any business trying to make money. Besides if a business isn't serving certain people and word gets out most people will move on elsewhere.
Well, isn't this the thing here? We're talking about shop owners being able to exclude. If gay people, black people etc get excluded, then there needs to be other shops. In many areas in the US there isn't enough room for one shop.
So if the only shop in the area that can survive decides to ban gay people, or a religious area like the deep south all the shops decide to ban gay people, then what?
There were multiple other bakers in that area that wanted the gays business. These gays just were interested in one thing .... To make a headline and hurt these Christians.
It's been quite clear that the other bakers who offered were direct competitors with sweet cakes and Their main competitor is the one who ginned up a media firestorm along with these gays.
Maybe there were. This isn't the point.
Firstly there are laws, and they're there for a reason. Some places have multiple bakeries, some places don't. You can't have one law for places with multiple bakeries and one law for places with just one.
So the law is that you can't discriminate on the basis of who you have sex with. That's the law, it's there for many reasons, and these people broke that law and they got their ass handed to them in court.
So I just used this real life example to make my point that these "discrimmination" laws aren't necessary in today's america and you just ignore that point?
There is no need for the government to kill that business. When any business stops taking customers they risk losing their business in the long run. The market will weed out these businesses. Government doesn't need to kill people's livelihoods
Problem is that back in the day this didn't happen, did it? Bus companies didn't go out of business because blacks had to sit at the back. Diners didn't go out of business for discriminating against blacks.
In fact this bakery is probably doing better for the all the free advertising they're getting and all the bigoted Christians in the area are flocking to their hidden away bakery.
That's why govt is needed. To stop this ridiculousness.
Again, where in the constitution does it say you lose all your rights when you decide to sell something?
And again, for me it is not a religious issue, its is an abuse of government power issue.
There is no "right" to get good service, you blathering mouth breathing moron.
Again, where in the constitution does it say you lose all your rights when you decide to sell something?
And again, for me it is not a religious issue, its is an abuse of government power issue.
Yes, that mean old government telling you that you can't cheat people... mean old gummit.
There is no "right" to get good service, you blathering mouth breathing moron.
No, but there is a right to PUBLIC ACCOMMEDATION in the laws of Oregon.
I guess that they could have produced a really bad cake. They'd have had a right to do that.
They didn't have a right to refuse service because a magic sky pixie says the gays are bad.
So....let's get rid of all PA laws....then people can refuse service to anyone based on religion or race again.
Nope...same law......and that employer was fined TWICE as much as that bakery was.The state of Oregon disagrees. And they disagreed a few years ago when a woman was discriminated against by her employer based on her religion. Same law.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?
To me its not about an "excuse for anything", its about being rational about all this. For point of sale items, especially necessities, I can see requiring a business to sell an item. Same thing for timely matters, such as renting a motel room. But for contracted, non-necessary, easily obtainable elsewhere goods or services, a person's religious beliefs should be considered.
When the public accommodation laws were put in place, they originally covered things such as restaurants and hotels, i.e. more immediate needs that weren't easily taken care of on the spot. A wedding being planned in advance doesn't meet this criteria.
Employer discrimination is a different conversation than this.
Nope...same law......and that employer was fined TWICE as much as that bakery was.The state of Oregon disagrees. And they disagreed a few years ago when a woman was discriminated against by her employer based on her religion. Same law.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?
To me its not about an "excuse for anything", its about being rational about all this. For point of sale items, especially necessities, I can see requiring a business to sell an item. Same thing for timely matters, such as renting a motel room. But for contracted, non-necessary, easily obtainable elsewhere goods or services, a person's religious beliefs should be considered.
When the public accommodation laws were put in place, they originally covered things such as restaurants and hotels, i.e. more immediate needs that weren't easily taken care of on the spot. A wedding being planned in advance doesn't meet this criteria.
Employer discrimination is a different conversation than this.
Your assuming that businesses will only serve a niche group.
That makes zero sense for any business trying to make money. Besides if a business isn't serving certain people and word gets out most people will move on elsewhere.
Well, isn't this the thing here? We're talking about shop owners being able to exclude. If gay people, black people etc get excluded, then there needs to be other shops. In many areas in the US there isn't enough room for one shop.
So if the only shop in the area that can survive decides to ban gay people, or a religious area like the deep south all the shops decide to ban gay people, then what?
There were multiple other bakers in that area that wanted the gays business. These gays just were interested in one thing .... To make a headline and hurt these Christians.
It's been quite clear that the other bakers who offered were direct competitors with sweet cakes and Their main competitor is the one who ginned up a media firestorm along with these gays.
Maybe there were. This isn't the point.
Firstly there are laws, and they're there for a reason. Some places have multiple bakeries, some places don't. You can't have one law for places with multiple bakeries and one law for places with just one.
So the law is that you can't discriminate on the basis of who you have sex with. That's the law, it's there for many reasons, and these people broke that law and they got their ass handed to them in court.
So I just used this real life example to make my point that these "discrimmination" laws aren't necessary in today's america and you just ignore that point?
There is no need for the government to kill that business. When any business stops taking customers they risk losing their business in the long run. The market will weed out these businesses. Government doesn't need to kill people's livelihoods
Problem is that back in the day this didn't happen, did it? Bus companies didn't go out of business because blacks had to sit at the back. Diners didn't go out of business for discriminating against blacks.
In fact this bakery is probably doing better for the all the free advertising they're getting and all the bigoted Christians in the area are flocking to their hidden away bakery.
That's why govt is needed. To stop this ridiculousness.
So I just used this real life example to make my point that these "discrimmination" laws aren't necessary in today's america and you just ignore that point?
There is no need for the government to kill that business. When any business stops taking customers they risk losing their business in the long run. The market will weed out these businesses. Government doesn't need to kill people's livelihoods
Ooooh, another one who believes that Magic Market Fairy Dust will beat evil Businesses.
Sorry, don't buy it. Maybe if WalMart goes out of business, I will.
The black man has an absolute right to be served at that diner. What he can't do is compel the waitress to go to his car and give him a blow job. Not even if he saw her give one to someone else. Not even if he pays her.
Not even if she says she doesn't give blow jobs to dirty ni66ers.
So you think not baking a cake after you offered bake a cake is the same as being compelled to give someone a blow job?
once again- Ms. Klein - before her husband slapped her around like Jesus said to - invited Cryer and Bowman to use their shop if they ever got hitched. Then Mr. Klein started howling bible verses at them like a maniac.
Your assuming that businesses will only serve a niche group.
That makes zero sense for any business trying to make money. Besides if a business isn't serving certain people and word gets out most people will move on elsewhere.
Well, isn't this the thing here? We're talking about shop owners being able to exclude. If gay people, black people etc get excluded, then there needs to be other shops. In many areas in the US there isn't enough room for one shop.
So if the only shop in the area that can survive decides to ban gay people, or a religious area like the deep south all the shops decide to ban gay people, then what?
There were multiple other bakers in that area that wanted the gays business. These gays just were interested in one thing .... To make a headline and hurt these Christians.
It's been quite clear that the other bakers who offered were direct competitors with sweet cakes and Their main competitor is the one who ginned up a media firestorm along with these gays.
Maybe there were. This isn't the point.
Firstly there are laws, and they're there for a reason. Some places have multiple bakeries, some places don't. You can't have one law for places with multiple bakeries and one law for places with just one.
So the law is that you can't discriminate on the basis of who you have sex with. That's the law, it's there for many reasons, and these people broke that law and they got their ass handed to them in court.
So I just used this real life example to make my point that these "discrimmination" laws aren't necessary in today's america and you just ignore that point?
There is no need for the government to kill that business. When any business stops taking customers they risk losing their business in the long run. The market will weed out these businesses. Government doesn't need to kill people's livelihoods
Problem is that back in the day this didn't happen, did it? Bus companies didn't go out of business because blacks had to sit at the back. Diners didn't go out of business for discriminating against blacks.
In fact this bakery is probably doing better for the all the free advertising they're getting and all the bigoted Christians in the area are flocking to their hidden away bakery.
That's why govt is needed. To stop this ridiculousness.
If the Kleins cannot pay the fine, how come the funds to pay the fine are in a blocked account?Well, isn't this the thing here? We're talking about shop owners being able to exclude. If gay people, black people etc get excluded, then there needs to be other shops. In many areas in the US there isn't enough room for one shop.
So if the only shop in the area that can survive decides to ban gay people, or a religious area like the deep south all the shops decide to ban gay people, then what?
There were multiple other bakers in that area that wanted the gays business. These gays just were interested in one thing .... To make a headline and hurt these Christians.
It's been quite clear that the other bakers who offered were direct competitors with sweet cakes and Their main competitor is the one who ginned up a media firestorm along with these gays.
Maybe there were. This isn't the point.
Firstly there are laws, and they're there for a reason. Some places have multiple bakeries, some places don't. You can't have one law for places with multiple bakeries and one law for places with just one.
So the law is that you can't discriminate on the basis of who you have sex with. That's the law, it's there for many reasons, and these people broke that law and they got their ass handed to them in court.
So I just used this real life example to make my point that these "discrimmination" laws aren't necessary in today's america and you just ignore that point?
There is no need for the government to kill that business. When any business stops taking customers they risk losing their business in the long run. The market will weed out these businesses. Government doesn't need to kill people's livelihoods
Problem is that back in the day this didn't happen, did it? Bus companies didn't go out of business because blacks had to sit at the back. Diners didn't go out of business for discriminating against blacks.
In fact this bakery is probably doing better for the all the free advertising they're getting and all the bigoted Christians in the area are flocking to their hidden away bakery.
That's why govt is needed. To stop this ridiculousness.
It's amazing you speak on this subject when you have no idea what's going on with sweet cakes. They closed and now the family is apart because the husband had to go back to driving a semi truck long haul to make ends meet and pay the 135k fine.
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.
That is complete poppycock. Opening up a shop does not void one's Constitutional Rights, as much as Progressives would like that to be the case.
A business is not an individual. Therefore a business cannot do certain things. An individual can leave the business.
Also, if you sign up to something, you sign up to it. If you sign up to something that says "we will not discriminate against our customers" and then you discriminate, you can be take to court, and you will lose.
A business should have the right to serve who they wish. There is enough businesses today that we can allow people the freedom to do business whom they choose
Well, maybe you think businesses should have rights.
Maybe you think diners should seat blacks elsewhere, and bus companies should put blacks at the back of the bus too. Well, the US decided, a long time ago, that it didn't want a society like this.
So whatever you think SHOULD happen, doesn't.
There are enough businesses huh? Really? Some people live in places where there aren't. I grew up in a one shop place that was the size of your broom cupboard. That closed down. There's a shop a mile or so away. There's are maybe a dozen a bit further in the opposite direction, one supermarket, one bank, one post office, on flower shop, one of this, one of that. Choice huh?
So, imagine if instead of popping round the corner to get some milk, I have to travel the other side of NY City. Do you think people want to live in a society where they're forced to do that because of discrimination?
If someone opens a business, they should be serving everyone UNLESS that person has done something wrong, like shop lifting etc. A gay person hasn't done anything wrong. Who someone sleeps with is not anyone's business.
Note: Bakers don't prevent divorcees from getting cakes. They don't prevent anyone else from getting cakes, even when the Bible says it's a sin.
Doesn't look like silence here to me!Big silence.
Where is that written in the Bible?Whether gay people have done anything wrong is none of my business. The Bible is quite clear on judgments. Don't.
Christians aren't supposed to use Leviticus to judge others but to judge themselves.
In many places. You might try reading it.Where is that written in the Bible?Whether gay people have done anything wrong is none of my business. The Bible is quite clear on judgments. Don't.
Christians aren't supposed to use Leviticus to judge others but to judge themselves.
I did read it, several times, and you can't support your claim.In many places. You might try reading it.Where is that written in the Bible?Whether gay people have done anything wrong is none of my business. The Bible is quite clear on judgments. Don't.
Christians aren't supposed to use Leviticus to judge others but to judge themselves.
