Texas SC rules state does NOT have to give benefits to homosexual "couples"

[martybegan]

Again, I am fully aware of the abuse of asset forfeiture by various law enforcement agencies. I am also aware of the abuse done by human rights councils that forget freedom of religion is also a human right. Trying to say one is worse than the other is not helping anything.

A fine usually means you were found guilty of something.

Yes, guilty of not baking a cake. Again, you don't have to play "which is worse" here.

Bakers who are in it for profit are not in it for morals. It really is that simple. They should be legally required to be not-for-profit if they "want to engage in the socialism of morals over the pursuit of capital profit in public accommodations."

bullshit. Where in the constitution does it say you give up your rights if you want to make money?

Profit seeking is a requirement. The only bullshitter here is you.

Can't answer the question. Figures.

 

[danielpalos]

A fine usually means you were found guilty of something.

Yes, guilty of not baking a cake. Again, you don't have to play "which is worse" here.

Bakers who are in it for profit are not in it for morals. It really is that simple. They should be legally required to be not-for-profit if they "want to engage in the socialism of morals over the pursuit of capital profit in public accommodations."

bullshit. Where in the constitution does it say you give up your rights if you want to make money?

Profit seeking is a requirement. The only bullshitter here is you.

Can't answer the question. Figures.

Where is the drug war in our Constitution, right winger? See how easy and simple it is to play that game.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, guilty of not baking a cake. Again, you don't have to play "which is worse" here.

Bakers who are in it for profit are not in it for morals. It really is that simple. They should be legally required to be not-for-profit if they "want to engage in the socialism of morals over the pursuit of capital profit in public accommodations."

bullshit. Where in the constitution does it say you give up your rights if you want to make money?

Profit seeking is a requirement. The only bullshitter here is you.

Can't answer the question. Figures.

Where is the drug war in our Constitution, right winger? See how easy and simple it is to play that game.

it's not there, and actually should be given to the States to regulate like alcohol for pot.

There is federal law covering drug laws, and there is no right to drugs in the constittuion.

 

[danielpalos]

Bakers who are in it for profit are not in it for morals. It really is that simple. They should be legally required to be not-for-profit if they "want to engage in the socialism of morals over the pursuit of capital profit in public accommodations."

bullshit. Where in the constitution does it say you give up your rights if you want to make money?

Profit seeking is a requirement. The only bullshitter here is you.

Can't answer the question. Figures.

Where is the drug war in our Constitution, right winger? See how easy and simple it is to play that game.

it's not there, and actually should be given to the States to regulate like alcohol for pot.

There is federal law covering drug laws, and there is no right to drugs in the constittuion.

States have laws regarding public accommodations.

 

[martybegan]

bullshit. Where in the constitution does it say you give up your rights if you want to make money?

Profit seeking is a requirement. The only bullshitter here is you.

Can't answer the question. Figures.

Where is the drug war in our Constitution, right winger? See how easy and simple it is to play that game.

it's not there, and actually should be given to the States to regulate like alcohol for pot.

There is federal law covering drug laws, and there is no right to drugs in the constittuion.

States have laws regarding public accommodations.

But there is a right to free expression of religion, and that is where PA laws don't win out over something as insignificant as a wedding cake.

 

[danielpalos]

Profit seeking is a requirement. The only bullshitter here is you.

Can't answer the question. Figures.

Where is the drug war in our Constitution, right winger? See how easy and simple it is to play that game.

it's not there, and actually should be given to the States to regulate like alcohol for pot.

There is federal law covering drug laws, and there is no right to drugs in the constittuion.

States have laws regarding public accommodations.

But there is a right to free expression of religion, and that is where PA laws don't win out over something as insignificant as a wedding cake.

Bakers who are in it for profit are not in it for morals. It really is that simple. They should be legally required to be not-for-profit if they "want to engage in the socialism of morals over the pursuit of capital profit in public accommodations."

 

[martybegan]

Can't answer the question. Figures.

Where is the drug war in our Constitution, right winger? See how easy and simple it is to play that game.

it's not there, and actually should be given to the States to regulate like alcohol for pot.

There is federal law covering drug laws, and there is no right to drugs in the constittuion.

States have laws regarding public accommodations.

But there is a right to free expression of religion, and that is where PA laws don't win out over something as insignificant as a wedding cake.

Bakers who are in it for profit are not in it for morals. It really is that simple. They should be legally required to be not-for-profit if they "want to engage in the socialism of morals over the pursuit of capital profit in public accommodations."

you don't give up your right to free expression to be in a business. Again, why do they have to be not for profit? They want to make a profit, they are part of a non essential industry, one that has many other participants, and their product is not time sensitive.

Unless the government can come up with a compelling reason to make them sell the cake, they should be able to run their business how they see fit.

 

[danielpalos]

Where is the drug war in our Constitution, right winger? See how easy and simple it is to play that game.

it's not there, and actually should be given to the States to regulate like alcohol for pot.

There is federal law covering drug laws, and there is no right to drugs in the constittuion.

States have laws regarding public accommodations.

But there is a right to free expression of religion, and that is where PA laws don't win out over something as insignificant as a wedding cake.

Bakers who are in it for profit are not in it for morals. It really is that simple. They should be legally required to be not-for-profit if they "want to engage in the socialism of morals over the pursuit of capital profit in public accommodations."

you don't give up your right to free expression to be in a business. Again, why do they have to be not for profit? They want to make a profit, they are part of a non essential industry, one that has many other participants, and their product is not time sensitive.

Unless the government can come up with a compelling reason to make them sell the cake, they should be able to run their business how they see fit.

Profit seeking is a requirement on a for-profit basis. The same is not true of not-for-profit ventures.

It is a simple distinction, if capitalists want to avoid this type of litigation.

 

[martybegan]

it's not there, and actually should be given to the States to regulate like alcohol for pot.

There is federal law covering drug laws, and there is no right to drugs in the constittuion.

States have laws regarding public accommodations.

But there is a right to free expression of religion, and that is where PA laws don't win out over something as insignificant as a wedding cake.

Bakers who are in it for profit are not in it for morals. It really is that simple. They should be legally required to be not-for-profit if they "want to engage in the socialism of morals over the pursuit of capital profit in public accommodations."

you don't give up your right to free expression to be in a business. Again, why do they have to be not for profit? They want to make a profit, they are part of a non essential industry, one that has many other participants, and their product is not time sensitive.

Unless the government can come up with a compelling reason to make them sell the cake, they should be able to run their business how they see fit.

Profit seeking is a requirement on a for-profit basis. The same is not true of not-for-profit ventures.

It is a simple distinction, if capitalists want to avoid this type of litigation.

Neither has anything to do with exercise of one's First Amendment Rights.

 

[danielpalos]

States have laws regarding public accommodations.

But there is a right to free expression of religion, and that is where PA laws don't win out over something as insignificant as a wedding cake.

Bakers who are in it for profit are not in it for morals. It really is that simple. They should be legally required to be not-for-profit if they "want to engage in the socialism of morals over the pursuit of capital profit in public accommodations."

you don't give up your right to free expression to be in a business. Again, why do they have to be not for profit? They want to make a profit, they are part of a non essential industry, one that has many other participants, and their product is not time sensitive.

Unless the government can come up with a compelling reason to make them sell the cake, they should be able to run their business how they see fit.

Profit seeking is a requirement on a for-profit basis. The same is not true of not-for-profit ventures.

It is a simple distinction, if capitalists want to avoid this type of litigation.

Neither has anything to do with exercise of one's First Amendment Rights.

Being immoral on a for-profit basis, is not a right.

 

[bodecea]

I think you need to become more well informed:

About what? Oh wait, I made a statement you can't refute, so you go all vague, and will now probably slink away from the thread.

You just have lousy reading comprehension. Why not read some anecdotes on the web?

Punishment Without Crime

Again, I am fully aware of the abuse of asset forfeiture by various law enforcement agencies. I am also aware of the abuse done by human rights councils that forget freedom of religion is also a human right. Trying to say one is worse than the other is not helping anything.

A fine usually means you were found guilty of something.

Yes, guilty of not baking a cake. Again, you don't have to play "which is worse" here.

Those who have business licenses who don't follow business law intentionally should have their license pulled. Simple. And if one doesn't like a certain business law....WORK to get it repealed. WORKING doesn't include just whining online.

 

[martybegan]

But there is a right to free expression of religion, and that is where PA laws don't win out over something as insignificant as a wedding cake.

Bakers who are in it for profit are not in it for morals. It really is that simple. They should be legally required to be not-for-profit if they "want to engage in the socialism of morals over the pursuit of capital profit in public accommodations."

you don't give up your right to free expression to be in a business. Again, why do they have to be not for profit? They want to make a profit, they are part of a non essential industry, one that has many other participants, and their product is not time sensitive.

Unless the government can come up with a compelling reason to make them sell the cake, they should be able to run their business how they see fit.

Profit seeking is a requirement on a for-profit basis. The same is not true of not-for-profit ventures.

It is a simple distinction, if capitalists want to avoid this type of litigation.

Neither has anything to do with exercise of one's First Amendment Rights.

Being immoral on a for-profit basis, is not a right.

Government doesn't get to decide on morality.

 

[martybegan]

About what? Oh wait, I made a statement you can't refute, so you go all vague, and will now probably slink away from the thread.

You just have lousy reading comprehension. Why not read some anecdotes on the web?

Punishment Without Crime

Again, I am fully aware of the abuse of asset forfeiture by various law enforcement agencies. I am also aware of the abuse done by human rights councils that forget freedom of religion is also a human right. Trying to say one is worse than the other is not helping anything.

A fine usually means you were found guilty of something.

Yes, guilty of not baking a cake. Again, you don't have to play "which is worse" here.

Those who have business licenses who don't follow business law intentionally should have their license pulled. Simple. And if one doesn't like a certain business law....WORK to get it repealed. WORKING doesn't include just whining online.

And our usual government thug apologist comes to the thread arguing process instead of purpose.

You love discrimination when it's against people you don't like.

 

[danielpalos]

Bakers who are in it for profit are not in it for morals. It really is that simple. They should be legally required to be not-for-profit if they "want to engage in the socialism of morals over the pursuit of capital profit in public accommodations."

you don't give up your right to free expression to be in a business. Again, why do they have to be not for profit? They want to make a profit, they are part of a non essential industry, one that has many other participants, and their product is not time sensitive.

Unless the government can come up with a compelling reason to make them sell the cake, they should be able to run their business how they see fit.

Profit seeking is a requirement on a for-profit basis. The same is not true of not-for-profit ventures.

It is a simple distinction, if capitalists want to avoid this type of litigation.

Neither has anything to do with exercise of one's First Amendment Rights.

Being immoral on a for-profit basis, is not a right.

Government doesn't get to decide on morality.

It has to do with Standards, not morals.

 

[danielpalos]

You just have lousy reading comprehension. Why not read some anecdotes on the web?

Punishment Without Crime

Again, I am fully aware of the abuse of asset forfeiture by various law enforcement agencies. I am also aware of the abuse done by human rights councils that forget freedom of religion is also a human right. Trying to say one is worse than the other is not helping anything.

A fine usually means you were found guilty of something.

Yes, guilty of not baking a cake. Again, you don't have to play "which is worse" here.

Those who have business licenses who don't follow business law intentionally should have their license pulled. Simple. And if one doesn't like a certain business law....WORK to get it repealed. WORKING doesn't include just whining online.

And our usual government thug apologist comes to the thread arguing process instead of purpose.

You love discrimination when it's against people you don't like.

Y'all have a solution. It is called, going not-for-the-profit-lucre-over-morals.

 

[bodecea]

Profit seeking is a requirement. The only bullshitter here is you.

Can't answer the question. Figures.

Where is the drug war in our Constitution, right winger? See how easy and simple it is to play that game.

it's not there, and actually should be given to the States to regulate like alcohol for pot.

There is federal law covering drug laws, and there is no right to drugs in the constittuion.

States have laws regarding public accommodations.

But there is a right to free expression of religion, and that is where PA laws don't win out over something as insignificant as a wedding cake.

Making a cake is "free expression of religion"? Why not not following health laws or safety laws too if someone wants to make up more religious "expressions"?

 

[danielpalos]

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

 

[bodecea]

Bakers who are in it for profit are not in it for morals. It really is that simple. They should be legally required to be not-for-profit if they "want to engage in the socialism of morals over the pursuit of capital profit in public accommodations."

you don't give up your right to free expression to be in a business. Again, why do they have to be not for profit? They want to make a profit, they are part of a non essential industry, one that has many other participants, and their product is not time sensitive.

Unless the government can come up with a compelling reason to make them sell the cake, they should be able to run their business how they see fit.

Profit seeking is a requirement on a for-profit basis. The same is not true of not-for-profit ventures.

It is a simple distinction, if capitalists want to avoid this type of litigation.

Neither has anything to do with exercise of one's First Amendment Rights.

Being immoral on a for-profit basis, is not a right.

Government doesn't get to decide on morality.

But government does get to decide religion exemptions from government rules/laws.

 

[martybegan]

you don't give up your right to free expression to be in a business. Again, why do they have to be not for profit? They want to make a profit, they are part of a non essential industry, one that has many other participants, and their product is not time sensitive.

Unless the government can come up with a compelling reason to make them sell the cake, they should be able to run their business how they see fit.

Profit seeking is a requirement on a for-profit basis. The same is not true of not-for-profit ventures.

It is a simple distinction, if capitalists want to avoid this type of litigation.

Neither has anything to do with exercise of one's First Amendment Rights.

Being immoral on a for-profit basis, is not a right.

Government doesn't get to decide on morality.

It has to do with Standards, not morals.

Standards don't outweigh Rights, and free exercise is one of them.

 

[martybegan]

Again, I am fully aware of the abuse of asset forfeiture by various law enforcement agencies. I am also aware of the abuse done by human rights councils that forget freedom of religion is also a human right. Trying to say one is worse than the other is not helping anything.

A fine usually means you were found guilty of something.

Yes, guilty of not baking a cake. Again, you don't have to play "which is worse" here.

Those who have business licenses who don't follow business law intentionally should have their license pulled. Simple. And if one doesn't like a certain business law....WORK to get it repealed. WORKING doesn't include just whining online.

And our usual government thug apologist comes to the thread arguing process instead of purpose.

You love discrimination when it's against people you don't like.

Y'all have a solution. It is called, going not-for-the-profit-lucre-over-morals.

That isn't a choice, its a cop-out.