Past time for Republicans to pick a side

[martybegan]

They were refusing a gay couple. They refused it specifically because they were gay. They were the wrong kind of people. That’s why they were refused.

No one is trying to make the bakers gay. No one gives a shit that they’re religious. That’s not the problem. No one is trying to change you. You do you.

If the gay couple had asked for a birthday cake, they would have gotten it, if they asked for a plain cake, they would have gotten it. They simply didn't want to make a cake for a ceremony they don't recognize as real. A ceremony that celebrates a union they see as sinful.

Sorry, but government force should not be used in this case. This isn't Jim Crow, where it's a system designed to keep a race down. This is a 1st amendment issue, and forcing these people to "bake or go out of business" is the stupidest application of progressive thought-crime punishment out there.

You don't give a shit probably because you are one of those atheist assholes.

Government force in this situation is unwarranted.

 

[colfax_m]

If the gay couple had asked for a birthday cake, they would have gotten it, if they asked for a plain cake, they would have gotten it. They simply didn't want to make a cake for a ceremony they don't recognize as real. A ceremony that celebrates a union they see as sinful.

Sorry, but government force should not be used in this case. This isn't Jim Crow, where it's a system designed to keep a race down. This is a 1st amendment issue, and forcing these people to "bake or go out of business" is the stupidest application of progressive thought-crime punishment out there.

You don't give a shit probably because you are one of those atheist assholes.

Government force in this situation is unwarranted.

And if they had been a straight couple asking for a cake, they would have gotten it. They weren’t a straight couple. They were a gay couple. The gay part is the problem. They weren’t the right kind of individual so they were rejected. Come back when they’re straight. Then there’s no problems.

So much for individualism. Can’t have that. Gay people aren’t acceptable.

No one wants the bakers to be gay. No one wants them to stop being Christian. We aren’t trying to change anyone.

Just trying to have people be themselves.

 

[martybegan]

And if they had been a straight couple asking for a cake, they would have gotten it. They weren’t a straight couple. They were a gay couple. The gay part is the problem. They weren’t the right kind of individual so they were rejected. Come back when they’re straight. Then there’s no problems.

So much for individualism. Can’t have that. Gay people aren’t acceptable.

No one wants the bakers to be gay. No one wants them to stop being Christian. We aren’t trying to change anyone.

Just trying to have people be themselves.

Sorry, but Same sex marriages are a new construct, and not recognized by many religious people as marriage. The issue is they can easily go to another baker, and everyone can get what they want.

Why would they want a product from people that find their union un-natural and sinful?

It's not about wanting them to be gay, that's a strawman argument. It's about being forced to provide a custom product for a ceremony you don't recognize as real, and a relationship you find sinful.

By making them bake or quit their profession, you ARE trying to change them.

Again, you dodge the question, Should the Catholic Church be forced to perform Same Sex Marriages?

 

[colfax_m]

Sorry, but Same sex marriages are a new construct, and not recognized by many religious people as marriage. The issue is they can easily go to another baker, and everyone can get what they want.

Why would they want a product from people that find their union un-natural and sinful?

It's not about wanting them to be gay, that's a strawman argument. It's about being forced to provide a custom product for a ceremony you don't recognize as real, and a relationship you find sinful.

By making them bake or quit their profession, you ARE trying to change them.

Again, you dodge the question, Should the Catholic Church be forced to perform Same Sex Marriages?

Translation: sorry, you’re not the kind of individual we think matters and we decide because we got here first. It’s a new concept because we’ve spend centuries suppressing gay people, sometimes violently.

Just admit it. Gay people aren’t the kind of individual you support so fuck ‘em. Just admit that you really don’t support individualism. I don’t give a shit if Catholic Churches don’t perform gay marriages. I’m not trying to change the church.

 

[martybegan]

Translation: sorry, you’re not the kind of individual we think matters and we decide because we got here first. It’s a new concept because we’ve spend centuries suppressing gay people, sometimes violently.

Just admit it. Gay people aren’t the kind of individual you support so fuck ‘em. Just admit that you really don’t support individualism. I don’t give a shit if Catholic Churches don’t perform gay marriages. I’m not trying to change the church.

So everyone who thinks being gay is sinful just has to suck it up and shut up and do what YOU want them to do?

I have no issue with gay people, I have issues with government force being used over trivial bullshit like this. I support Gay marriage, just not Obergfell. to me it should be a legislative thing State by State, with the only thing the feds enforcing is recognition of any valid marriage license, regardless of the rules of the issuing State.

Churches aren't the only things that have 1st amendment protections, people get it as well. normal people, even when they try to sell something. The only time is when there is a compelling interest otherwise. And even then the minimal amount of change has to be enforced to correct the situation.

In this case the baker has to plainly state they only do traditional marriages.

 

[bripat9643]

The right constantly talks about collectivism. It’s why they were so opposed to extending rights to people they had a hard time identifying with such as gay people or now transgendered individuals. They’re constantly talking about wanting immigrants to assimilate, to give up their culture so that they can feel more comfortable.

The right is definitely not interested in individualism. They require near total adherence to their mono-culture of guns, religion and whatever Trump demands they believe.

The left is the one that wants to prevent everyone from ownings guns, dumbfuck. They also want to force heteros to allow transgenders in women's bathrooms and women's sports. You've got to be kidding if you believe the left is about individualism.

 

[bripat9643]

Translation: sorry, you’re not the kind of individual we think matters and we decide because we got here first. It’s a new concept because we’ve spend centuries suppressing gay people, sometimes violently.

Just admit it. Gay people aren’t the kind of individual you support so fuck ‘em. Just admit that you really don’t support individualism. I don’t give a shit if Catholic Churches don’t perform gay marriages. I’m not trying to change the church.

How does getting fucked in the ass equate to individualism?

 

[colfax_m]

So everyone who thinks being gay is sinful just has to suck it up and shut up and do what YOU want them to do?

I have no issue with gay people, I have issues with government force being used over trivial bullshit like this. I support Gay marriage, just not Obergfell. to me it should be a legislative thing State by State, with the only thing the feds enforcing is recognition of any valid marriage license, regardless of the rules of the issuing State.

Churches aren't the only things that have 1st amendment protections, people get it as well. normal people, even when they try to sell something. The only time is when there is a compelling interest otherwise. And even then the minimal amount of change has to be enforced to correct the situation.

In this case the baker has to plainly state they only do traditional marriages.

I really don’t want anyone to be way who doesn’t want to be.

That’s the thing about individualism. It is okay to be gay. It’s okay to not be gay. I’m the one supporting individualism here.

 

[martybegan]

I really don’t want anyone to be way who doesn’t want to be.

That’s the thing about individualism. It is okay to be gay. It’s okay to not be gay. I’m the one supporting individualism here.

By telling the bakers either bake or quit their profession? And the choice is being imposed by government force?

You have a strange definition of individualism.

 

[colfax_m]

By telling the bakers either bake or quit their profession? And the choice is being imposed by government force?

You have a strange definition of individualism.

Is the baker supporting individualism?

 

[bripat9643]

I really don’t want anyone to be way who doesn’t want to be.

That’s the thing about individualism. It is okay to be gay. It’s okay to not be gay. I’m the one supporting individualism here.

No one here is saying it's not ok to be gay.

 

[martybegan]

Is the baker supporting individualism?

Their individual rights under the 1st amendment.

Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy.

 

[colfax_m]

Their individual rights under the 1st amendment.

Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy.

You are dodging the question with an answer that isn’t even a complete though.

The bakers aren’t supporting individualism. They don’t accept people who aren’t part of their tribe.

But the bakers have your support. That makes you opposed to individualism.

 

[martybegan]

You are dodging the question with an answer that isn’t even a complete though.

The bakers aren’t supporting individualism. They don’t accept people who aren’t part of their tribe.

But the bakers have your support. That makes you opposed to individualism.

I am not dodging the question, you just don't like the answer.

They don't accept one ceremony, again they never denied point of sale goods to the people in question. You aren't talking individualism, you are talking forced acceptance.

I am supporting the rights of individuals based on the 1st amendment. You are supporting government force over a fucking cake.

 

[bripat9643]

You are dodging the question with an answer that isn’t even a complete though.

The bakers aren’t supporting individualism. They don’t accept people who aren’t part of their tribe.

But the bakers have your support. That makes you opposed to individualism.

No it doesn't, you witless turd.

Individualism doesn't require you to support anyone. It allows you to like or dislike whomever you choose.

You obviously don't know what the term means.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Trump says he wanted Pence to overturn the 2020 election and falsely claims it was vice president's 'right'

Former President Donald Trump in a statement Sunday said he wanted then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 presidential election, repeating the false claim that Pence had the power to do so and slamming recent bipartisan efforts to reform the Electoral Count Act.

www.cnn.com

I love the last sentence of this article made by Adam Kinzinger that Republicans have to pick a side, Trump or the Constitution.

They can't have it both ways much as they want to. Trump carries a lot of tarnish with him and some of it rubs off on anyone who associates with him. With the outstanding work being done by the January 6 Committee, Republicans may realize that sooner rather than later.

Bigly!!!

Does your TDS hurt, give you a constant headache? Are you so scared of Trump that you have to constantly babble about him?
Don't you love Poopeypants, why don't you ever talk about him??

 

[colfax_m]

I am not dodging the question, you just don't like the answer.

They don't accept one ceremony, again they never denied point of sale goods to the people in question. You aren't talking individualism, you are talking forced acceptance.

I am supporting the rights of individuals based on the 1st amendment. You are supporting government force over a fucking cake.

No, you’re dodging the question because you know what the answer is. I didn’t ask if the bakers were individuals with rights. I know they are. That’s not the question. The bakers aren’t in favor of individualism because the gay couple doesn’t conform to their ideology.

So you see, you’re okay with one kind of individualism but not another. You can have any cake you want as long as it’s straight.

That’s not individualism. That’s just bigotry.

 

[martybegan]

No, you’re dodging the question because you know what the answer is. I didn’t ask if the bakers were individuals with rights. I know they are. That’s not the question. The bakers aren’t in favor of individualism because the gay couple doesn’t conform to their ideology.

So you see, you’re okay with one kind of individualism but not another. You can have any cake you want as long as it’s straight.

That’s not individualism. That’s just bigotry.

they don't want to bake a cake for one event, they aren't trying to stop the wedding, or the couple getting a cake from somewhere else. The only force here is coming from your viewpoint, i.e. government force making them choose between their morals and their business.

The rest of your statement is fucking retarded.

 

[colfax_m]

they don't want to bake a cake for one event, they aren't trying to stop the wedding, or the couple getting a cake from somewhere else. The only force here is coming from your viewpoint, i.e. government force making them choose between their morals and their business.

The rest of your statement is fucking retarded.

They don’t want to bake a cake for people because they’re not the right kind of people. They reject their individualism.

That’s why you don’t want to admit that the bakers here are the ones going against individualism. You will do anything to deny this.

 

[martybegan]

They don’t want to bake a cake for people because they’re not the right kind of people. They reject their individualism.

That’s why you don’t want to admit that the bakers here are the ones going against individualism. You will do anything to deny this.

They reject the ceremony being celebrated, again, they had sold them cakes in the past, point of sale non custom items.

You are wrong. Once you get the government involved to force people to do something, any claim of individualism goes out the fucking window.