Trump May Not be a White Supremacist but He is In Fact a Bigot

[martybegan]

ceremony, after party, before party, who cares. It's part of the tradition and celebration.

Well, hold on a second...that's a pretty wide range of parameters you are now establishing. First you said it was for the ceremony, then you said some ceremonies incorporate the cake (!) without providing any proof of course. Now you're saying none of that matters when it mattered quite a bit earlier in your argument. So you've moved the goalposts yet again to give yourself wiggle room in this argument while undermining everything you've said before.

So since your standards seem to change from post-to-post, why the fuck should I or anyone take what you or they say seriously?

So now it's a part of the "tradition" and "celebration"...a standard you now just invented on the spot. Traditions and celebrations run in conflict with religious beliefs? Since when? So now that you've realized your argument that the cake is a part of the ceremony was bullshit, you change your argument in light of your asshole-ery to incorporate celebrations and traditions that fall outside the ceremony you previously and adamantly argued was their reason.

What a fucking tool. You gotta be a real piece of shit to be arguing like that.

Whatever man, you keep yourself warm with your hatred and your flimsy justifications to get government to do your dirty work.

Dandy.

 

[The Derp]

Only if there is an actual economic harm. Having to spend 15 minutes finding another baker is not an economic harm.

Doesn't matter because the act of discrimination is the issue here. What if there are no other bakers in the area? What then? These bakers provide a public accommodation, so they have to abide by anti-discrimination laws. Invoking insincere religious belief isn't enough to persuade me, the customers, or the courts that they can be excused.

The bakers could simply bake the cake and not be subject to any economic harm. Why not just do that? Simple; because they're bigots.

gain, don't care about the logistics, just the overall concept of free exercise.

"Overall concept"...so again, how is baking a cake or not baking a cake a free exercise of religion? It's not. You haven't been able to say how it is. In fact, all you've done is say it is because they say it is. Which is weird because you're so willing to accept their appeal to an authority, yet not mine. The reason why is obvious; you're a bigot and don't want to give me the satisfaction of being right about your hypocrisy and lack of effort.

 

[The Derp]

In this country Free exercise IS a Civil Right.

But not baking a cake isn't an exercise in anything. Literally, nothing.

 

[martybegan]

Only if there is an actual economic harm. Having to spend 15 minutes finding another baker is not an economic harm.

Doesn't matter because the act of discrimination is the issue here. What if there are no other bakers in the area? What then? These bakers provide a public accommodation, so they have to abide by anti-discrimination laws. Invoking insincere religious belief isn't enough to persuade me, the customers, or the courts that they can be excused.

The bakers could simply bake the cake and not be subject to any economic harm. Why not just do that? Simple; because they're bigots.

gain, don't care about the logistics, just the overall concept of free exercise.

"Overall concept"...so again, how is baking a cake or not baking a cake a free exercise of religion? It's not. You haven't been able to say how it is. In fact, all you've done is say it is because they say it is. Which is weird because you're so willing to accept their appeal to an authority, yet not mine. The reason why is obvious; you're a bigot and don't want to give me the satisfaction of being right about your hypocrisy and lack of effort.

if they were the only baker for 100 miles, OR all bakers in the area denied service then that might meet the burden of a compelling interest.

Mind you the bakers rights would still be violated, but it would have potential justification.

And again, your cavalier attitude toward government force when it messes with people you don't like is quite frankly disgusting.

Again, I don't care.

 

[martybegan]

In this country Free exercise IS a Civil Right.

But not baking a cake isn't an exercise in anything. Literally, nothing.

Not the argument at hand.

 

[The Derp]

it makes a huge difference. It's a difference between providing a product or service with no idea how it will be used or who will be using it, and distinctly knowing how ones crafted and created expression is being used for a contracted service at a specific ceremony.

Again, wedding cakes aren't a part of the ceremony. So we are back, once again, to you establishing a false standard for something you know isn't correct. Which means you are a sophist. You are now going back on what you said one post earlier about how it's for the "celebration" and "traditions" (loose and vague terms by design so you can wiggle around them), to now again change the parameters to say it's part of the ceremony. You're all over the fucking place because you haven't given this subject any serious thought. You're just reacting because that's all you know how to do. That's why your standards change from post-to-post. That's why your argument eats itself. That's why you end up talking in circles, digging yourself deeper into a rhetorical hole. You realize you've changed the definition of ceremony to be so broad now that it encompasses the actual ceremony with the party afterwards. So what it really boils down to now, is that you think bakers should be able to invoke insincere religious beliefs in order to avoid baking a cake for a party.

Pathetic. No wonder these losers have lost every court decision thus far, if this shit is their defense.

A plumber coming to your house usually has a degree of expediency, so PA laws apply.

"Usually"? So again, you're establishing standards that simply don't exist, on the fly, in order to lend your argument credibility it doesn't have. Why do I get the impression that you're making this shit up as you go? Because of words like "usually" and "tradition"...these are vague terms designed to give yourself leeway in an argument where you have no clear throughline or thought. It's fucking sad and an embarrassment.

And the bakers make their services available as a public accommodation...it's on their fucking website, for God's sake:

"Masterpiece Cakes are perfect for special occasions, and they taste incredible. Choose from any of our many flavors, frostings, and fillings for your wedding, birthday, or specialty cake."​

So WTF are you talking about? You're just making up this standard because you think I won't do the work of actually checking into it. Just because you're lazy as fuck doesn't mean I am. Looking at their website, they don't even have a retail storefront...they work exclusively on a custom-made basis.

Blah blah blah, I get a hard on watching government screw over people I don't like, blah blah blah.

Oh, you're 100% mistaken about that. It pisses me off that the government has to fine these people because they shouldn't have to, because these people shouldn't be discriminating anyway. I agree this is a gigantic waste of time...only you and I disagree on why it's a waste of time. I'm pissed about it because it has to come to this. Like it's so fucking hard for these Christians to do their fucking jobs. If Kaepernick has to shut up and do his job, then these fuckers should too. Kaep's grievances are legitimate and sincere, the bigots' aren't.

gain, "me don't like them,.screw them". What a narcissist you are.

Eat shit you whiny little bitch. The narcissists are those who presume to know what God does and doesn't forgive, and make their business decisions thusly. That's fucking narcissistic, don't you think? Presuming to know what God does and doesn't forgive is the nest example of narcissism there is. Speaking for God is narcissism.

 

[martybegan]

it makes a huge difference. It's a difference between providing a product or service with no idea how it will be used or who will be using it, and distinctly knowing how ones crafted and created expression is being used for a contracted service at a specific ceremony.

Again, wedding cakes aren't a part of the ceremony. So we are back, once again, to you establishing a false standard for something you know isn't correct. Which means you are a sophist. You are now going back on what you said one post earlier about how it's for the "celebration" and "traditions" (loose and vague terms by design so you can wiggle around them), to now again change the parameters to say it's part of the ceremony. You're all over the fucking place because you haven't given this subject any serious thought. You're just reacting because that's all you know how to do. That's why your standards change from post-to-post. That's why your argument eats itself. That's why you end up talking in circles, digging yourself deeper into a rhetorical hole. You realize you've changed the definition of ceremony to be so broad now that it encompasses the actual ceremony with the party afterwards. So what it really boils down to now, is that you think bakers should be able to invoke insincere religious beliefs in order to avoid baking a cake for a party.

Pathetic. No wonder these losers have lost every court decision thus far, if this shit is their defense.

A plumber coming to your house usually has a degree of expediency, so PA laws apply.

"Usually"? So again, you're establishing standards that simply don't exist, on the fly, in order to lend your argument credibility it doesn't have. Why do I get the impression that you're making this shit up as you go? Because of words like "usually" and "tradition"...these are vague terms designed to give yourself leeway in an argument where you have no clear throughline or thought. It's fucking sad and an embarrassment.

And the bakers make their services available as a public accommodation...it's on their fucking website, for God's sake:

"Masterpiece Cakes are perfect for special occasions, and they taste incredible. Choose from any of our many flavors, frostings, and fillings for your wedding, birthday, or specialty cake."​

So WTF are you talking about? You're just making up this standard because you think I won't do the work of actually checking into it. Just because you're lazy as fuck doesn't mean I am. Looking at their website, they don't even have a retail storefront...they work exclusively on a custom-made basis.

Blah blah blah, I get a hard on watching government screw over people I don't like, blah blah blah.

Oh, you're 100% mistaken about that. It pisses me off that the government has to fine these people because they shouldn't have to, because these people shouldn't be discriminating anyway. I agree this is a gigantic waste of time...only you and I disagree on why it's a waste of time. I'm pissed about it because it has to come to this. Like it's so fucking hard for these Christians to do their fucking jobs. If Kaepernick has to shut up and do his job, then these fuckers should too. Kaep's grievances are legitimate and sincere, the bigots' aren't.

gain, "me don't like them,.screw them". What a narcissist you are.

Eat shit you whiny little bitch. The narcissists are those who presume to know what God does and doesn't forgive, and make their business decisions thusly. That's fucking narcissistic, don't you think? Presuming to know what God does and doesn't forgive is the nest example of narcissism there is. Speaking for God is narcissism.

Don't care. Tl;dr.

Again, it's all situational.

Then PA laws really don't apply to them

Stop trying to make people live how you want them to live over trivial crap and maybe you will be a happier person. Unless you really are a fascist, then oppressing other people you don't like is what gives you a stiffy.

they aren't the ones siccing government on people for doing and thinking things they don't like.

 

[The Derp]

Religious rights ARE civil rights in this country, the 1st amendment sees to that. Again, I don't have to prove squat.

Actually you do. Because you could just say this is what your religion dictates, but who the fuck are you to say that? Seems like you are hiding behind the skirt of religious liberty to me. Like a coward. I want to know how baking a cake is a religious exercise, and none of you have been able to say how. If you're going to establish a standard, stick to it, don't just change it because your argument is failing.

the government has to prove it has a compelling interest to violate their free exercise rights, and even then it has to use the least compulsory method to achieve it's goals.

1. Not baking a cake isn't a free exercise of anything
2. They have proved it has a compelling interest because of the discrimination. That's why every court has upheld the decision, and why SCOTUS will too.

Again, free exercise isn't limited to behind closed doors, despite the sand in your vagina over it.

Oooooh, I love it when you get all saucy like that. Talk dirty to me! You realize you haven't even established what "free exercise" is, or entails. I think you do that purposefully so you can wiggle any justification you want into what appears to be a very broad standard. That's also why these bakers have lost their cases...none of them have been able to establish that public commerce is also an act of religious exercise. It seems to me that you think merely living is an exercise of religion. That's fuckin' bullshit, and you know it. And that's the rub...I know you know these arguments you're making are bullshit -after all, they kinda have to be bullshit arguments if you're continually trying to redefine the parameters of what you meant- what I don't understand is why you're making them? The only reason I can think is that you're a bigot yourself, but are too much of a pussy to admit it.

You have zero right to not be offended, Ms. snowflake. Again, you don't have the right to not be offended.

Exactly, and neither do these bakers. Because it's not even about violating religious beliefs, it's about bakers feeling hatred to gay people...religion has nothing to do with that unless you're saying that bigotry is informed by their religion. Is that what you're saying? Because if their religion is commanding them to discriminate (which they haven't proved and which would be the only way they could make these arguments), that shit ain't covered by the 1A.

I have an image of you as a 19th century dandy having the vapors over seeing a guy wearing a cross around his neck. If's HILARIOUS

And here's what I think of when I picture you. I don't find it hilarious. I find it sad:

 

[martybegan]

Religious rights ARE civil rights in this country, the 1st amendment sees to that. Again, I don't have to prove squat.

Actually you do. Because you could just say this is what your religion dictates, but who the fuck are you to say that? Seems like you are hiding behind the skirt of religious liberty to me. Like a coward. I want to know how baking a cake is a religious exercise, and none of you have been able to say how. If you're going to establish a standard, stick to it, don't just change it because your argument is failing.

the government has to prove it has a compelling interest to violate their free exercise rights, and even then it has to use the least compulsory method to achieve it's goals.

1. Not baking a cake isn't a free exercise of anything
2. They have proved it has a compelling interest because of the discrimination. That's why every court has upheld the decision, and why SCOTUS will too.

Again, free exercise isn't limited to behind closed doors, despite the sand in your vagina over it.

Oooooh, I love it when you get all saucy like that. Talk dirty to me! You realize you haven't even established what "free exercise" is, or entails. I think you do that purposefully so you can wiggle any justification you want into what appears to be a very broad standard. That's also why these bakers have lost their cases...none of them have been able to establish that public commerce is also an act of religious exercise. It seems to me that you think merely living is an exercise of religion. That's fuckin' bullshit, and you know it. And that's the rub...I know you know these arguments you're making are bullshit -after all, they kinda have to be bullshit arguments if you're continually trying to redefine the parameters of what you meant- what I don't understand is why you're making them? The only reason I can think is that you're a bigot yourself, but are too much of a pussy to admit it.

You have zero right to not be offended, Ms. snowflake. Again, you don't have the right to not be offended.

Exactly, and neither do these bakers. Because it's not even about violating religious beliefs, it's about bakers feeling hatred to gay people...religion has nothing to do with that unless you're saying that bigotry is informed by their religion. Is that what you're saying? Because if their religion is commanding them to discriminate (which they haven't proved and which would be the only way they could make these arguments), that shit ain't covered by the 1A.

I have an image of you as a 19th century dandy having the vapors over seeing a guy wearing a cross around his neck. If's HILARIOUS

And here's what I think of when I picture you. I don't find it hilarious. I find it sad:

Don't care.

appeal to authority.

all that typing responding to the wrong point. you are the one that has a fit when you see something religious out in public.

The difference is government is forcing them to do something they don't want to. Until you are forced into a Church at gunpoint by a government agent, your point is moot.

My picture and reference shows much more wit and appropriateness. try harder next time then a pile of doggie doo.

 

[The Derp]

Don't care. Tl;dr.

You should care...you're the one making the argument. And by not taking the time to read what I write, all you're doing is proving to everyone here you're not open to honest debate and you prefer to bully your argument on everyone else, all the while refusing to even support the argument you're making. What a fucking joke!

Again, it's all situational. Then PA laws really don't apply to them

LOL! OK..."situational" is the new standard as of post #747...good to know. I'm sure around post #751 you'll come up with an entirely new standard to argue after this one is shut down. Not sure what you mean about "situational", but the bakers' own website publicly offers services. So....denying service to anyone for any bigoted reason violates anti-discrimination laws, including the one in Colorado that prompted all this.

It's like you don't even bother to read your posts before you hit "Post Reply".

Stop trying to make people live how you want them to live over trivial crapand maybe you will be a happier person. Unless you really are a fascist, then oppressing other people you don't like is what gives you a stiffy.

What's trivial are the excuses you're using to justify your own bigotry. I mean, you invent new standards nearly every time you post. Those new standards are what's trivial as each and every one of your argument crumbles when held to the slightest scrutiny. The rest of this is just whiny little bitch bullshit about how you are feeling victimized because I am not buying your bullshit religious arguments. So because I don't buy them, I'm causing you so much grief and offense that you have to cast yourself as a victim because you recognize you aren't one. But being a victim is all you know how to do because it's all you've been taught your entire life. From your parents giving you participation trophies and coddling your ego, to Donald Trump telling you the problems you have are someone else's fault and you're a perfect person. Your victimhood is artificial and only exists to protect your very fragile ego.

Well, bad news...you're not special. You're not great. You're not entitled to anything. You're not destined for success. Get over yourself and be an adult.

they aren't the ones siccing government on people for doing and thinking things they don't like.

No, they're just imposing their own standards directly outside the rule of law and thinking they're immune to any criticism or penalty because they can just insincerely claim it's "religious". What defines "religious" is a bar that has been constantly moved by you in this thread. You can't even keep your thoughts straight from post-to-post. How come you are always having to go back and correct what you meant? Can't you just write what you mean and stick to it? Yeesh.

 

[Mac1958]

"When MY side makes a statement, it MATTERS. When YOUR side makes a statement, it's irrelevant".

Partisan politics. Yuck.

 

[martybegan]

Don't care. Tl;dr.

You should care...you're the one making the argument. And by not taking the time to read what I write, all you're doing is proving to everyone here you're not open to honest debate and you prefer to bully your argument on everyone else, all the while refusing to even support the argument you're making. What a fucking joke!

Again, it's all situational. Then PA laws really don't apply to them

LOL! OK..."situational" is the new standard as of post #747...good to know. I'm sure around post #751 you'll come up with an entirely new standard to argue after this one is shut down. Not sure what you mean about "situational", but the bakers' own website publicly offers services. So....denying service to anyone for any bigoted reason violates anti-discrimination laws, including the one in Colorado that prompted all this.

It's like you don't even bother to read your posts before you hit "Post Reply".

Stop trying to make people live how you want them to live over trivial crapand maybe you will be a happier person. Unless you really are a fascist, then oppressing other people you don't like is what gives you a stiffy.

What's trivial are the excuses you're using to justify your own bigotry. I mean, you invent new standards nearly every time you post. Those new standards are what's trivial as each and every one of your argument crumbles when held to the slightest scrutiny. The rest of this is just whiny little bitch bullshit about how you are feeling victimized because I am not buying your bullshit religious arguments. So because I don't buy them, I'm causing you so much grief and offense that you have to cast yourself as a victim because you recognize you aren't one. But being a victim is all you know how to do because it's all you've been taught your entire life. From your parents giving you participation trophies and coddling your ego, to Donald Trump telling you the problems you have are someone else's fault and you're a perfect person. Your victimhood is artificial and only exists to protect your very fragile ego.

Well, bad news...you're not special. You're not great. You're not entitled to anything. You're not destined for success. Get over yourself and be an adult.

they aren't the ones siccing government on people for doing and thinking things they don't like.

No, they're just imposing their own standards directly outside the rule of law and thinking they're immune to any criticism or penalty because they can just insincerely claim it's "religious". What defines "religious" is a bar that has been constantly moved by you in this thread. You can't even keep your thoughts straight from post-to-post. How come you are always having to go back and correct what you meant? Can't you just write what you mean and stick to it? Yeesh.

my argument is about the mechanics of free exercise, not the reasons behind people wanting it.

Offering is not accommodating.

I'm far less of a bigot than you are.

Blah blah blah, fascist, blah blah blah.

 

[martybegan]

"When MY side makes a statement, it MATTERS. When YOUR side makes a statement, it's irrelevant".

Partisan politics. Yuck.

This isn't partisan, this is some idiot who goes with the quantity over quality method of response, and does the same thing over and over. At least my repeated responses are only one line.

He also has admitted he gets the vapors when he sees religious garb or actions in public.


It "offends" him.

 

[The Derp]

Don't care.appeal to authority.

So appealing to the authority of our court system is not OK by you, but appealing to the authority of an invisible and imagined God is OK when it comes to not baking cakes.

That self-contradiction in your rhetoric is what unravels your entire argument on these terms.

I think you're just spitting out :appeal to authroity" without even knowing how it relates to what we're talking about. I think you're doing that because even you recognize your argument is bullshit. Why else would you leave your broad side open to the counter-point with regard to an appeal to authority. These bakers are appealing to the authority of God who they say commands them to not bake cakes. So that appeal to authority is OK to use in justification of bigoted acts, yet the appeal to the authority of the courts isn't OK to use in justification of how those people are fucking wrong. Thanks for pointing out the ridiculous argument and standards you're setting for yourself.

So if you remove the appeal to authority in both cases, because it you refuse it for one side you have to refuse it for the other, there goes the bakers' argument that their authority will punish (?) them for baking a gay cake!

So I used your own stupid argument against you to destroy that stupid argument you're making. Man, was that easy.

 

[The Derp]

The difference is government is forcing them to do something they don't want to. Until you are forced into a Church at gunpoint by a government agent, your point is moot.

Just because they don't want to do something doesn't mean they don't have to do it. So it's gone from "this violates their religious liberties" to "they want to do something". So it's not about their religious beliefs, it's about what they want to do and using religious beliefs as justification to do it. Which is exactly what I've been saying this whole time that you've been disagreeing with - the insincerity. That whole thing is insincere, which is why the argument fails.

My picture and reference shows much more wit and appropriateness. try harder next time then a pile of doggie doo.

LOL! No, you just thought, because you're a bigot, that I would take offense to being called a 19th-century dandy when you're the ones who get the vapors over baking cakes and men marrying men.

I don't take offense to that kind of thing, but it's interesting that you think it is an insult. That just proves you're the bigot I've said you are. So fuck off, bigot.

 

[martybegan]

The difference is government is forcing them to do something they don't want to. Until you are forced into a Church at gunpoint by a government agent, your point is moot.

Just because they don't want to do something doesn't mean they don't have to do it. So it's gone from "this violates their religious liberties" to "they want to do something". So it's not about their religious beliefs, it's about what they want to do and using religious beliefs as justification to do it. Which is exactly what I've been saying this whole time that you've been disagreeing with - the insincerity. That whole thing is insincere, which is why the argument fails.

My picture and reference shows much more wit and appropriateness. try harder next time then a pile of doggie doo.

LOL! No, you just thought, because you're a bigot, that I would take offense to being called a 19th-century dandy when you're the ones who get the vapors over baking cakes and men marrying men.

I don't take offense to that kind of thing, but it's interesting that you think it is an insult. That just proves you're the bigot I've said you are. So fuck off, bigot.

Again, don't care about their sincerity, free exercise is free exercise.

No, you get the vapors over a skull cap. much worse.

 

[The Derp]

my argument is about the mechanics of free exercise, not the reasons behind people wanting it.

Ah, the "mechanics". So how is baking a part of the "mechanics" of free exercise of religion? Just so you know, the "mechanics" standard is another new one, so that makes...what...seven, eight redefinitions now?

Offering is not accommodating.

Yes, it is. They are publicly offering services on their website. Hence, a public accommodation. You simply saying it's not an accommodation doesn't make it so. This is the part where you are supposed to support your argument. Clearly, you're not in the frame of mind (or lack the frame of mind) to do so. This argument isn't even one the bakers' own defense is making. It's one you invented and improvised entirely on the spot.

I'm far less of a bigot than you are.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to convince yourself you're not a shit garbage person.

 

[The Derp]

This isn't partisan, this is some idiot who goes with the quantity over quality method of response, and does the same thing over and over. At least my repeated responses are only one line.

Whining about the length of my posts is a whiny little bitch move. I think you're using that as an excuse to not answer to what I write because you know you can't. Then you try to use homophobia to insult me, which only undermines your argument that you're not a bigot. What a joke. You're not serious, are you?

He also has admitted he gets the vapors when he sees religious garb or actions in public.It "offends" him.

It does offend me. And I'm pretty sure if Jesus ever came back to earth, the last thing he'd want to see is a fucking cross.

 

[martybegan]

my argument is about the mechanics of free exercise, not the reasons behind people wanting it.

Ah, the "mechanics". So how is baking a part of the "mechanics" of free exercise of religion? Just so you know, the "mechanics" standard is another new one, so that makes...what...seven, eight redefinitions now?

Offering is not accommodating.

Yes, it is. They are publicly offering services on their website. Hence, a public accommodation. You simply saying it's not an accommodation doesn't make it so. This is the part where you are supposed to support your argument. Clearly, you're not in the frame of mind (or lack the frame of mind) to do so. This argument isn't even one the bakers' own defense is making. It's one you invented and improvised entirely on the spot.

I'm far less of a bigot than you are.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to convince yourself you're not a shit garbage person.

Don't care.

You saying its an accommodation doesn't make it so either.

Says the guy who gets the vapors over skullcaps and wants people to hide in their homes when praying. LOL.

 

[martybegan]

This isn't partisan, this is some idiot who goes with the quantity over quality method of response, and does the same thing over and over. At least my repeated responses are only one line.

Whining about the length of my posts is a whiny little bitch move. I think you're using that as an excuse to not answer to what I write because you know you can't. Then you try to use homophobia to insult me, which only undermines your argument that you're not a bigot. What a joke. You're not serious, are you?

He also has admitted he gets the vapors when he sees religious garb or actions in public.It "offends" him.

It does offend me. And I'm pretty sure if Jesus ever came back to earth, the last thing he'd want to see is a fucking cross.

No its pointing out your attempt and inflating your opinion of yourself.

I'm calling you poofy, not gay.