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.
Nothing to do with the unsourced inaccuracies asserted by JimBowie there. But agree, he clearly shouldn’t run a bakery (subject to PA laws) if he bakes wedding cakes but refuses to sell them to gays.Then they shouldn’t run a bakery.No, actually the baker did offer to bake various other things for their wedding, just not the wedding cake.Wrong, he refused to sell two gays a wedding cake. The baking is clearly all irrelevant. Even if he had one freshly baked and all ready for a customer who just called cancelling the order, he would not have sold them that cake! His excuse being, since it's a wedding cake, the Bible tells him he can't "engage" in their ceremony, past, present, or future. Correct? And these are not simply "people", but members of a persecuted minority class attempting to celebrate their recent decision to formally and legally commit to taking care of one another long term. Marriage. So you would not be "hurt" if both you and a partner went to buy a wedding cake and the store owner told you "Sorry, I can't service your kind. The Bible tells me so."? Sure you wouldn't. "not saying bigots should be allowed to hurt people"? Yes, you are.
He was totally willing to sell things to homos.
I didn't say they married, I just said they were a couple.Actually many homosexuals like heterosexuals have a very low sex drive. In fact about 1% are asexual which raises an interesting question. Do Christians that consider homosexuality a sin, consider a gay couple who are asexual and thus do not perform any sex acts sinful?Then they should embrace the similarities and reject that which is of no use or productive or at the very least not either flaunt it publicly nor demand everyone else to provide amenities in support of their sexual business (which is no one elses business so long as the LGBT community keep it among themselves).Their only mode of expression is sexual.How many homosexuals have died of AIDS? How many homosexuals have committed suicide? How many of those who committed suicide also had AIDS? Not all behavior patterns are dignified. And not all behaviors are equally productive. I'm sorry that some find that their only mode of expression is sexual in nature --- I find that rather limited.How utterly ridiculous. You seem to know so little about what you're saying, you can't even articulate what you meant by their lifestyle. Have you ever been to a gay rights parade? Do you know anything about LGBT people other than what you read on the net?
For years, people have express their dissatisfaction with the LGBT community’s propensity for over-the-top parades and flamboyant displays of pride. Admittedly, I too used to be uncomfortable with Pride parades, and even just Pride in general. My own impressions of these events came from stereotypical images shown throughout mainstream media; pictures of half-naked individuals and extravagant drag queens. I knew these parades scared certain people, even some of those trying to be more open-minded, so I thought, why alienate them further with displays of gayness?
I guess what I really never gave much thought to was most LGBT people have spent the majority of their lives hiding their true identities, ashamed and worried about what the public, the family, and friends might think if they knew who they really were. Gay pride is about coming out, expressing yourself, thumbing your noise at traditions that have destroyed million lives over the year.
The media concentrates on the most over the top behavior but what you don't see in the media are tens of thousands of people, gay and straight, adults, kids, and families taking a stance against discrimination and violence toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Many of these marchers have kids, brothers, and sisters, and friends that been victims violence, abuse, and discrimination. These people are marching to promote self-affirmation, dignity and equality, pride as opposed to shame.LBGTs are heavy into art, music, and drama and just as diverse in expressing themselves as heterosexuals.
The fact that sexual preference is what separates homosexuals from heterosexuals causes people to assume that sex is their only interest and activity and it dominates their lives. Studies have show that gays and lesbians are no more or less sexually active than heterosexuals. The fact is there are many homosexuals that are essential asexual with little or no interest in sexual activity. They just prefer those of their own sex.
I am well aware that actors & actresses, comedians, makeup artists, hair dressers, and artists are capable of living heterosexual lifestyles, as well as, one which is homosexual in nature (that is true in all professions)---- that's why it is considered a choice by many. No one needs to be homosexual in order to fulfill their destiny --- and they certainly will not have any children behaving as such. And I find nothing wrong with celibacy. It can be a gift from GOD or a very lonely road if one rejects GOD.
I would think the answer would be yes.
If the couple “joins” to create a family unit. A man shall leave his..... and a woman shall leave her.......
There is an implied reasoning.
The Colorado Accommodations Act and I assume others states are worded about the same, does not favor any protected class within the law.Flopper, you can play word salad & try to muddy what everybody knows is the issue. Or you can accept that the USSC just told the country that states can't side with one ideology/lifestyle over another.
As I said, the most important part of this decision is that the Court let everyone know they no longer consider LGBT innate. If the baker had turned away blacks because of how they were born, the decision would've been different.
Now the Court is left with the sticky problem of how to turn away other lifestyles equally as repugnant as LGBT ones (pride parades hoping kids are watching) without violating the 14th Amendment.
Then Jewish delis and muslim falafel shops will be forced to sell pork.
Maybe you can force the darkies to pick cotton while you're at it.
The Colorado Accommodations Act and I assume others states are worded about the same, does not favor any protected class within the law.
"It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation
Ah, and I can see your cute little sign now too: "Whites only complimentary water-ice with any order over 1 dollar!" Nice touch!
Boy, you must really be the life of the party. Do you never just let it go? I mean after posting such hateful screeds here do you just continue foaming at the mouth to everyone within earshot all day long?Ah, and I can see your cute little sign now too: "Whites only complimentary water-ice with any order over 1 dollar!" Nice touch!
Except you know that if this recent case was about a baker turning down a wedding cake because a black was involved, the decision would've been vastly different. You would have us believe that the USSC would've told Colorado to be "respectful" of a baker refusing to bake for a black couple, wouldn't you?
No, this Decision was pivotal. It demoted your LGBT "special status" from "equal to innate" to merely behavioral/ideological, on par with any other ideology. And that is a DEVASTATING blow to your ilk. Which is why you're so pissed off now on these forums, venting all over the related threads on the topic. You know what happened. You know.
But it gets worse. Because there are ZERO protections for a non-religious behavioral group (that is a minority and unanimously lines up in "pride" at deviant acts of sex hoping kids are watching during high noon parades on main street across the US every year since the 1960s with literally millions of photos as proof), LGBT has no protections at all.
Worse still, no state can legally protect them. And why? Because of the recent decision. It stressed "neutrality". What that means is "equality". All states must now treat any and all minority & repugnant behavioral groups with the same protections and privileges. ALL OF THEM, not just a few pet favorites.
And if you're going to argue that "LGBT" is legal and others aren't...I would argue the opposite. IT IS NOT LEGAL TO IDENTIFY IN 'PRIDE' WITH REGULAR PUBLIC PARADES DEPICTING YOUR GROUP'S IDEOLOGY AS PROMOTIONAL OF DOING DEVIANT SEX ACTS AT HIGH NOON DOWN MAIN STREET SINCE THE 1960S EVERY YEAR HOPING CHILDREN ARE WATCHING OR INVITING THEM TO MARCH ALONG WITH YOU.
So if that utterly disgusting, immoral, wrong and illegal edict of the LGBT ideological dogma is given a special pass, then please tell me what other group wouldn't/shouldn't be? And don't cite "illegal" because again, it's illegal to do lewd acts in front of kids in public or private. If we MUST accept, condone and promote that behavior, where is the line drawn on others and why? (Cite the 14th Amendment in your answer) How many arrests have been made at gay pride parades for lewd and graphic behavior in the presence of children? How many arrests would be done if these same acts were done in front of a school yard at recess on any other day?
That's right. No one group gets a free pass to break the law; especially where child-endangerment is involved.
I still can't tell if you keep saying this with tongue firmly in cheek or you're being serious. If serious, what's your core argument? Like John Stossel, do you just feel "the market" will soon put all those who discriminate out of business? Do you think there's no longer any money to be made in spreading hatred and division?Do you join me in calling for the repeal of Public Accommodation laws?
I didn't say they married, I just said they were a couple.Actually many homosexuals like heterosexuals have a very low sex drive. In fact about 1% are asexual which raises an interesting question. Do Christians that consider homosexuality a sin, consider a gay couple who are asexual and thus do not perform any sex acts sinful?Then they should embrace the similarities and reject that which is of no use or productive or at the very least not either flaunt it publicly nor demand everyone else to provide amenities in support of their sexual business (which is no one elses business so long as the LGBT community keep it among themselves).Their only mode of expression is sexual.How many homosexuals have died of AIDS? How many homosexuals have committed suicide? How many of those who committed suicide also had AIDS? Not all behavior patterns are dignified. And not all behaviors are equally productive. I'm sorry that some find that their only mode of expression is sexual in nature --- I find that rather limited.
The fact that sexual preference is what separates homosexuals from heterosexuals causes people to assume that sex is their only interest and activity and it dominates their lives. Studies have show that gays and lesbians are no more or less sexually active than heterosexuals. The fact is there are many homosexuals that are essential asexual with little or no interest in sexual activity. They just prefer those of their own sex.
I am well aware that actors & actresses, comedians, makeup artists, hair dressers, and artists are capable of living heterosexual lifestyles, as well as, one which is homosexual in nature (that is true in all professions)---- that's why it is considered a choice by many. No one needs to be homosexual in order to fulfill their destiny --- and they certainly will not have any children behaving as such. And I find nothing wrong with celibacy. It can be a gift from GOD or a very lonely road if one rejects GOD.
I would think the answer would be yes.
If the couple “joins” to create a family unit. A man shall leave his..... and a woman shall leave her.......
There is an implied reasoning.
Every verse Christians have quoted to me are condemnations of sexual acts between those of same sex. So if there are no sexual acts, is love between two people of the same sex condemned in the bible?
Ah, and I can see your cute little sign now too: "Whites only complimentary water-ice with any order over 1 dollar!" Nice touch!
Except you know that if this recent case was about a baker turning down a wedding cake because a black was involved, the decision would've been vastly different. You would have us believe that the USSC would've told Colorado to be "respectful" of a baker refusing to bake for a black couple, wouldn't you?
No, this Decision was pivotal. It demoted your LGBT "special status" from "equal to innate" to merely behavioral/ideological, on par with any other ideology. And that is a DEVASTATING blow to your ilk. Which is why you're so pissed off now on these forums, venting all over the related threads on the topic. You know what happened. You know.
But it gets worse. Because there are ZERO protections for a non-religious behavioral group (that is a minority and unanimously lines up in "pride" at deviant acts of sex hoping kids are watching during high noon parades on main street across the US every year since the 1960s with literally millions of photos as proof), LGBT has no protections at all.
Worse still, no state can legally protect them. And why? Because of the recent decision. It stressed "neutrality". What that means is "equality". All states must now treat any and all minority & repugnant behavioral groups with the same protections and privileges. ALL OF THEM, not just a few pet favorites.
And if you're going to argue that "LGBT" is legal and others aren't...I would argue the opposite. IT IS NOT LEGAL TO IDENTIFY IN 'PRIDE' WITH REGULAR PUBLIC PARADES DEPICTING YOUR GROUP'S IDEOLOGY AS PROMOTIONAL OF DOING DEVIANT SEX ACTS AT HIGH NOON DOWN MAIN STREET SINCE THE 1960S EVERY YEAR HOPING CHILDREN ARE WATCHING OR INVITING THEM TO MARCH ALONG WITH YOU.
So if that utterly disgusting, immoral, wrong and illegal edict of the LGBT ideological dogma is given a special pass, then please tell me what other group wouldn't/shouldn't be? And don't cite "illegal" because again, it's illegal to do lewd acts in front of kids in public or private. If we MUST accept, condone and promote that behavior, where is the line drawn on others and why? (Cite the 14th Amendment in your answer) How many arrests have been made at gay pride parades for lewd and graphic behavior in the presence of children? How many arrests would be done if these same acts were done in front of a school yard at recess on any other day?
That's right. No one group gets a free pass to break the law; especially where child-endangerment is involved.
Hetero Couple: We want a gay themed wedding cake.
Baker: Sorry, I don't serve them to anybody.
Except that Mr. Phillips agreed in court documents that there was never any discussion of design. He refused services as soon has it because known who the customers were.
.>>>>
How exactly did he discriminate based on religious belief when he refused to serve something his religion requires he not eat?
Paradox a comin
Clue, if the religion forbids bacon, yet he doesn’t serve the customer bacon he’s not discriminating due to religion.I find it very nice that you keep asking me the same question when I've already supplied an answer. Copy and paste saves so much time.
I get that, he's refusing service base on the religion of his customer.
Clearly a violation of Public Accommodation laws. Now if he didn't offer bacon as a product - not an issue.
If his policy is to discriminate sales based on the religion of the customer, then he is in violation of the law.
.>>>>
So, on what basis is someone, not serving customers a product that they cannot consume, discrimination.
You realize that it’s ok to live a lifestyle in which you can’t participate in the consumption of a product, right?
And if you self declare?
Yes, it is the same question. And you continue to struggle with it.
He is refusing the sale of the normally supplied good or service based on his perception of the religion of the customer.
I'm not struggling at all, I think it's pretty easy.
If his policy is to discriminate sales based on the religion of the customer, then he is in violation of the law.
.>>>>
Ah, and I can see your cute little sign now too: "Whites only complimentary water-ice with any order over 1 dollar!" Nice touch!
Boy, you must really be the life of the party. Do you never just let it go? I mean after posting such hateful screeds here do you just continue foaming at the mouth to everyone within earshot all day long?
I still can't tell if you keep saying this with tongue firmly in cheek or you're being serious. If serious, what's your core argument? Like John Stossel, do you just feel "the market" will soon put all those who discriminate out of business? Do you think there's no longer any money to be made in spreading hatred and division?
Obviously there were discussions on design, WEDDING IS A DESIGN!
Obviously there were discussions on design, WEDDING IS A DESIGN!
Obviously you are wrong. Court documents and the statements of Mr. Phillips are that there was never any discussion of design. As soon as Mr. Phillips was introduced to both grooms he in formed them he wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same sex couple.
You can spin your own theory's, but you don't get to create your own facts.
.>>>>
I still can't tell if you keep saying this with tongue firmly in cheek or you're being serious. If serious, what's your core argument? Like John Stossel, do you just feel "the market" will soon put all those who discriminate out of business? Do you think there's no longer any money to be made in spreading hatred and division?
Here are my thoughts...
Three generations ago there were...
1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.
2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.
3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.
4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.
5. Even segregation in the military.
In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:
1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.
2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts itself in terms of taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. In addition I fully support the ability of a community having access to information about businesses and their discriminatory practices. News media (TV, Radio, Newspapers) and social media (email, texting, Facebook, etc.), and complaints filed with business licensing entities. People should all be free to report and have customers report on discriminatory business practices so that the public can make an informed choice.
3. The "corporatisation" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.
**************************************************
So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I find my position aligned with what were called Goldwater Conservatives quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.
But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that's the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government and who the government can do business with, but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other private individuals.
>>>>
He had a self proclaimed religion. As noted the Owner had asked on previous visits why he didn't want bacon on the BLT because of his faith. And the policy was to not serve bacon to KNOWN Muslims.
Now I also posted another example, but for some reason you never quoted the post that you are referencing.
So, what part of the PA is the Cafe owner violating?
The need is for essential goods and services. Housing, food, etc. What the PA's did were to trivialize what were essential law. Equating the need for Housing to the need for a specific decoration bastardizes the entire idea that created these laws in the first place and become overly political and cumbersome.
