Remember the outrage over gay wedding cakes? Bakers refused to make pro-Trump birthday cake

[bodecea]

>

To answer the question: "Shouild bakers be forced to sell cakes for issues they don't like?"

The didn't refuse an issue, they refused customers based on who the customers were. Under State law in 21 places of public accommodation (i.e. for profit businesses) cannot refuse service to customers based on a variety of factors including (varies by state) race, religion, sex, age, ethnicity, national origin, marital status, veterans status and sexual orientation.

Before you make any assumptions I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business so that owners can refuse service based on any criteria they choose including race, religion, sex, age, ethnicity, national origin, marital status, veterans status and sexual orientation. Let the market determine if they succeed or fail. Along with that though goes the ability of those discriminated against to make such discrimination public.

*****************************
Per your actical, you would think that the general counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom would know that sexual orienation was covered under state law, political parties are not covered under State Public Accommodation laws.

"Michael P. Farris is president, CEO and general counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian legal group defending Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who was sued by a gay couple for declining to make their same-sex wedding cake.

Mr. Farris wondered why bakers are allowed to decline to make birthday cakes supporting Mr. Trump, but not wedding cakes supporting same-sex marriage."



>>>>

No social events of any kind are covered, that would include birthdays and weddings.


.

So you think that DJ's that do weddings have the right to only do wedding between white people?

Sure, I don't believe in forced association of any kind. If a company doesn't want to provide a good or service to me, I'll find someone who will. The market will decide if the they remain in business, I don't need a nanny government to run my life, no adult should.


.

Since you don't think PA laws are appropriate, what have YOU been actively doing in your state to get those laws repealed?

 

[BULLDOG]

Watching hookers piss on a bed is.

Still not as bad as Obama's fondling of little boys with learning disabilities....
.
.
.
(See, anyone can make random shit up....especially the Left)

Yes, that's how all that goofy crap about a pedophile pizza place got started.

 

[martybegan]

Bakers refused to make pro-Trump birthday cake for 9-year-old boy: Report
Bakers refused to make pro-Trump birthday cake for 9-year-old boy: Report

and?

I'm pretty sure trump freaks aren't a protected class.

Why shouldn't they be?

The protected class concept was born of actual economic and political discrimination due to Jim Crow laws in Southern States after the Redeemers came to power. It was a sledgehammer solution to a specific problem.

What progressives did is take that solution and applied to to any group of people they think are disadvantaged, regardless of the actual economic and political harm being done to them. This is patently wrong and unfair.

You are free to try to have the law changed. I doubt you can do that by sitting behind that keyboard.

As usual deflecting with the "do something" cop out when you don't have an actual point to argue.

Not sure what you expected. You complained that you feel the law is unfair. You can continue to whine about it, or try to have it changed. Whining hasn't worked for you on this so far.

I'm discussing a topic on a message board. You see fit to ignore that concept and spout "fuh fuh fuh, it's the law, fuh fuh fuh change it" because you are a gutless coward and refuse to discuss the reasoning behind the law and its application.

 

[martybegan]

and?

I'm pretty sure trump freaks aren't a protected class.

Why shouldn't they be?

The protected class concept was born of actual economic and political discrimination due to Jim Crow laws in Southern States after the Redeemers came to power. It was a sledgehammer solution to a specific problem.

What progressives did is take that solution and applied to to any group of people they think are disadvantaged, regardless of the actual economic and political harm being done to them. This is patently wrong and unfair.

You are free to try to have the law changed. I doubt you can do that by sitting behind that keyboard.

he's still bitter that gay people can get married and can't be harassed by homophobes

Show me one post where I have said I am against Same Sex Marriage as a concept. My issue is with the how, not the end result.

Don't care what your issue is. You are complaining the law is wrong. Whine or change it. I don't see any other options for you.

It's called a discussion board, if all you can do is deflect, then kindly go waste someone else's time.

 

[Seawytch]

Trump is not a pervert. Same sex couples are.

Watching hookers piss on a bed is.

link please?

Trump Intelligence Allegations

Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified' - BBC News

Huh?


I see nothing about: "Watching hookers piss on a bed"?


fail?

You didn't read the first link then. It's the Steele dossier.

 

[BULLDOG]

and?

I'm pretty sure trump freaks aren't a protected class.

Why shouldn't they be?

The protected class concept was born of actual economic and political discrimination due to Jim Crow laws in Southern States after the Redeemers came to power. It was a sledgehammer solution to a specific problem.

What progressives did is take that solution and applied to to any group of people they think are disadvantaged, regardless of the actual economic and political harm being done to them. This is patently wrong and unfair.

You are free to try to have the law changed. I doubt you can do that by sitting behind that keyboard.

As usual deflecting with the "do something" cop out when you don't have an actual point to argue.

Not sure what you expected. You complained that you feel the law is unfair. You can continue to whine about it, or try to have it changed. Whining hasn't worked for you on this so far.

I'm discussing a topic on a message board. You see fit to ignore that concept and spout "fuh fuh fuh, it's the law, fuh fuh fuh change it" because you are a gutless coward and refuse to discuss the reasoning behind the law and its application.

As always. your thoughts have been noted and laughed at.

 

[martybegan]

Why shouldn't they be?

The protected class concept was born of actual economic and political discrimination due to Jim Crow laws in Southern States after the Redeemers came to power. It was a sledgehammer solution to a specific problem.

What progressives did is take that solution and applied to to any group of people they think are disadvantaged, regardless of the actual economic and political harm being done to them. This is patently wrong and unfair.

You are free to try to have the law changed. I doubt you can do that by sitting behind that keyboard.

As usual deflecting with the "do something" cop out when you don't have an actual point to argue.

Not sure what you expected. You complained that you feel the law is unfair. You can continue to whine about it, or try to have it changed. Whining hasn't worked for you on this so far.

I'm discussing a topic on a message board. You see fit to ignore that concept and spout "fuh fuh fuh, it's the law, fuh fuh fuh change it" because you are a gutless coward and refuse to discuss the reasoning behind the law and its application.

As always. your thoughts have been noted and laughed at.

No, all you do is deflect and ignore. Appeal to authority isn't an argument, it's a cop out.

 

[Seawytch]

So...the mom said she couldn't find ANYONE willing to do it. Can we get that verified, please?

That's not the issue here.
As with the same-sex marriage bakery issue......the plaintiffs knew the bakery was Christian owned and they sued even though they knew of bakeries that would make a cake for them. Instead they chose to force a specific business to go against their religious beliefs.

What a shame. That's just like when all those black people unfairly caused all that trouble for restaurants even though they knew of restaurants that would serve blacks if they would just come to the back door. Instead, they forced specific businesses to go against their deeply held beliefs.

No.... Jim Crow was totally different. By law Blacks were only allowed to use specific bathrooms and go into specific businesses. There is no law that states Trump supporters can be banned from purchasing any goods and services.

Correct. Trump supporters aren't a protected class, even though many of them could qualify under the Americans with Disabilities act. There are certain protections for the mentally challenged.

That makes no sense.
Protected classes are a Democrat fallacy.
No class of people should have an advantage over any other because of their age, sex, race, religion, income, political affiliation, or sexual-orientation.

They don't have an advantage. You are simply prevented from disadvantaging them.

I think this will be a great test case. Challenge it to the SCOTUS. Either you'll finally kill Title II of the CRA or make Trump supporters a protected class.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's almost like the marxists and anti-Christian loons have a different set of standards for themselves.
Go figure.

Oh the stupidity!!

1.The people who refused to bake the wedding cake were in violation of the states law against discrimination.

2.Political affiliation is not included in laws against discrimination.

3. They can simply state that they have a policy of not using any political message at all for anyone

4. I presume that they were willing to sell a cake- just not a Trump cake- so they did not refuse service in a place of public accommodation.

5. Conclusion: Logical fallacy argument in the form of a false equivalency and a Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), fallacy if the conclusion, that those who refused the Trump cake should be subjected to sanctions -is based on the premise -that the ones who refused the wedding cake were sanctioned.

 

[TNHarley]

They can still be harassed.
Just as gays feel they have the right to harass us and sue us in court. Get us fired from our jobs because we say something on Twitter they don't like. It's a two-way street.

Sure, but I suggest you be really careful when harassing a protected class. It could turn bad for you really quick.

"protected class" that terminology just screams discrimination.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear it say that. I heard it say "I'm the law"

lol asshole.
I understand its the law. Sorry, im just not one for institutional discrimination. Maybe thats more your thing.

I'm sorry. Did you think I could change the law? I can't, so the law continues to say you are wrong. You lose.

I seriously doubt you would use that argument consistently..

 

[OKTexas]

>

To answer the question: "Shouild bakers be forced to sell cakes for issues they don't like?"

The didn't refuse an issue, they refused customers based on who the customers were. Under State law in 21 places of public accommodation (i.e. for profit businesses) cannot refuse service to customers based on a variety of factors including (varies by state) race, religion, sex, age, ethnicity, national origin, marital status, veterans status and sexual orientation.

Before you make any assumptions I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business so that owners can refuse service based on any criteria they choose including race, religion, sex, age, ethnicity, national origin, marital status, veterans status and sexual orientation. Let the market determine if they succeed or fail. Along with that though goes the ability of those discriminated against to make such discrimination public.

*****************************
Per your actical, you would think that the general counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom would know that sexual orienation was covered under state law, political parties are not covered under State Public Accommodation laws.

"Michael P. Farris is president, CEO and general counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian legal group defending Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who was sued by a gay couple for declining to make their same-sex wedding cake.

Mr. Farris wondered why bakers are allowed to decline to make birthday cakes supporting Mr. Trump, but not wedding cakes supporting same-sex marriage."



>>>>

No social events of any kind are covered, that would include birthdays and weddings.


.

In neither case were "social events" covered. Both bakers voluntarily choose to include birthday cakes and wedding cakes in their offerings for sale. They then refused to sell them based on the customers or the events. If the bakers didn't want to sell wedding cakes, they were free to not include them on their menu of options.

But they did.

(As a matter of fact to preclude contempt of court charges Jack Phillips (Masterpiece Cakes of Colorado) has stopped selling wedding cakes while his case is on appeal. He's been in no trouble with the courts for that decision.)


>>>>

Then this baker should be required to stop selling birthday cakes and payed equivalent damages to what the faghadist have gotten.


.

Which baker would that be?

Which ever baker refused.


.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Trump is not a pervert. Same sex couples are.

Watching hookers piss on a bed is.

link please?

Trump Intelligence Allegations

Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified' - BBC News

The Final Truth about the “Trump Dossier”

The Trump Dossier Is Fake -- And Here Are The Reasons Why

Christopher Steele admits dossier charge unverified

It was a fake bought and paid for by democrats.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Trump is not a pervert. Same sex couples are.

Watching hookers piss on a bed is.

link please?

Trump Intelligence Allegations

Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified' - BBC News

Huh?


I see nothing about: "Watching hookers piss on a bed"?


fail?

You didn't read the first link then. It's the Steele dossier.

Which has been proven to be fake. It's veracity exists nowhere but on message boards where clueless democrats cling to any straw.

 

[OKTexas]

>

To answer the question: "Shouild bakers be forced to sell cakes for issues they don't like?"

The didn't refuse an issue, they refused customers based on who the customers were. Under State law in 21 places of public accommodation (i.e. for profit businesses) cannot refuse service to customers based on a variety of factors including (varies by state) race, religion, sex, age, ethnicity, national origin, marital status, veterans status and sexual orientation.

Before you make any assumptions I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business so that owners can refuse service based on any criteria they choose including race, religion, sex, age, ethnicity, national origin, marital status, veterans status and sexual orientation. Let the market determine if they succeed or fail. Along with that though goes the ability of those discriminated against to make such discrimination public.

*****************************
Per your actical, you would think that the general counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom would know that sexual orienation was covered under state law, political parties are not covered under State Public Accommodation laws.

"Michael P. Farris is president, CEO and general counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian legal group defending Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who was sued by a gay couple for declining to make their same-sex wedding cake.

Mr. Farris wondered why bakers are allowed to decline to make birthday cakes supporting Mr. Trump, but not wedding cakes supporting same-sex marriage."



>>>>

No social events of any kind are covered, that would include birthdays and weddings.


.

So you think that DJ's that do weddings have the right to only do wedding between white people?

Sure, I don't believe in forced association of any kind. If a company doesn't want to provide a good or service to me, I'll find someone who will. The market will decide if the they remain in business, I don't need a nanny government to run my life, no adult should.


.

Since you don't think PA laws are appropriate, what have YOU been actively doing in your state to get those laws repealed?

I've informed all my elected reps of my opinion. The 13th amendment supposedly abolished forced servitude. The 14th supposedly provide for equal protections under the law. Forcing people to serve any "protected class" violates both.


.

 

[task0778]

The central question is whether a baker has the right to refuse service to someone, based on any discriminatory factor, including race, religion, politics, or anything else. Does it matter if the customer is black, gay, jewish, pro-Trump, whatever? It's hard to believe the customer can't find somebody else to bake the cake or bake one him/herself. So where's the harm? What's the big deal? Go get your cake somewhere else, and eat it too.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

ALL private businesses should have the right to refuse service for any reason.

 

[Clintonista]

Bakers refused to make pro-Trump birthday cake for 9-year-old boy: Report
Bakers refused to make pro-Trump birthday cake for 9-year-old boy: Report

Go to a bakery that does not make gay cakes. I am sure they will make a Trump cake.

 

[JoeB131]

Why shouldn't they be?

The protected class concept was born of actual economic and political discrimination due to Jim Crow laws in Southern States after the Redeemers came to power. It was a sledgehammer solution to a specific problem.

What progressives did is take that solution and applied to to any group of people they think are disadvantaged, regardless of the actual economic and political harm being done to them. This is patently wrong and unfair.

Are you arguing that gays aren't subject to a long history of discrimination? Until fairly recently, the mere gay sex act was considered a crime.

Most reasonable people can tell what is a reasonable use of government power to resolve disputes.

 

[Camp]

>

To answer the question: "Shouild bakers be forced to sell cakes for issues they don't like?"

The didn't refuse an issue, they refused customers based on who the customers were. Under State law in 21 places of public accommodation (i.e. for profit businesses) cannot refuse service to customers based on a variety of factors including (varies by state) race, religion, sex, age, ethnicity, national origin, marital status, veterans status and sexual orientation.

Before you make any assumptions I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business so that owners can refuse service based on any criteria they choose including race, religion, sex, age, ethnicity, national origin, marital status, veterans status and sexual orientation. Let the market determine if they succeed or fail. Along with that though goes the ability of those discriminated against to make such discrimination public.

*****************************
Per your actical, you would think that the general counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom would know that sexual orienation was covered under state law, political parties are not covered under State Public Accommodation laws.

"Michael P. Farris is president, CEO and general counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian legal group defending Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who was sued by a gay couple for declining to make their same-sex wedding cake.

Mr. Farris wondered why bakers are allowed to decline to make birthday cakes supporting Mr. Trump, but not wedding cakes supporting same-sex marriage."



>>>>

No social events of any kind are covered, that would include birthdays and weddings.


.

So you think that DJ's that do weddings have the right to only do wedding between white people?

Sure, I don't believe in forced association of any kind. If a company doesn't want to provide a good or service to me, I'll find someone who will. The market will decide if the they remain in business, I don't need a nanny government to run my life, no adult should.


.

Since you don't think PA laws are appropriate, what have YOU been actively doing in your state to get those laws repealed?

I've informed all my elected reps of my opinion. The 13th amendment supposedly abolished forced servitude. The 14th supposedly provide for equal protections under the law. Forcing people to serve any "protected class" violates both.


.

The Supreme Court has ruled that your theory is ass backward. When the Supreme Court rules, its ruling become Constitutional. The protected class is being provided equal protection under the Supreme Court rulings. In addition, your theory of "forced servitude" in nonsense. No one is forcing the baker to be a baker. If the baker does not like or agree with federal and state laws that regulate that business, they have the option of not being in that business, or at least in that business to the degree that they make the controversial products, personalized cakes in this instance.

 

[JoeB131]

ALL private businesses should have the right to refuse service for any reason.

Again, given the rest of us subsidize businesses through public services and utilities, no, they shouldn't.