Whatever ever happened to the little sign ‘We have a right to refuse service’?

[kaz]

They did not ask for a special item you moron, they ordered a wedding cake. The baker made wedding cakes, they ordered a wedding cake. It was not a special order item, it was a fucking cake, likely from a catalog.

COUPLE: We'd like a wedding cake
BAKER: Here's what we have
COUPLE: We'll take #4
BAKER: $500
COUPLE: We will pick it up Friday
BAKER: Thank you, have a nice day
COUPLE: You too

Here's an alternative:

COUPLE: We'd like a wedding cake for our wedding
BAKER: For your wedding? I don't bake cakes for gays.
COUPLE: See ya

Outside
COUPLE: What a prick, let's go to the baker down the street who wants our money
[/QUOTE]

 

[kaz]

They did not ask for a special item you moron, they ordered a wedding cake. The baker made wedding cakes, they ordered a wedding cake. It was not a special order item, it was a fucking cake, likely from a catalog.

COUPLE: We'd like a wedding cake
BAKER: Here's what we have
COUPLE: We'll take #4
BAKER: $500
COUPLE: We will pick it up Friday
BAKER: Thank you, have a nice day
COUPLE: You too

Here's an alternative:

COUPLE: We'd like a wedding cake for our wedding
BAKER: For your wedding? I don't bake cakes for gays.
COUPLE: See ya

Outside
COUPLE: What a prick, let's go to the baker down the street who wants our money


BTW, unless this is a different case than the one discussed before, they did actually want a cake shaped like a penis.

 

[Mac1958]

I find it amusing that liberals always assume that to support the right of businesses to not discriminate against gays means I want to discriminate against gays. The assumption in that shows their philosophy that all should be forced to do what they think, they can't even conceive of the idea that I would not want to force m will on others. Again, they are not liberals who are tolerant of others, they are authoritarian leftists who are intolerant of others.

.

 

[Seawytch]

.

So the "public accommodation law" meme is still playing, huh?

I'll take that tactic a little more seriously when I see those same folks vociferously backing gun laws and demanding that illegal aliens are arrested with the same passion. Otherwise, this is just cherry-picking.

This isn't about "public accommodation" laws, it's about conformity and control.

.

Yes, you keep saying that...I do back common sense gun laws and I support changing our immigration policy. I support strengthening our border at the same time as creating a better path to citizenship, especially for those people who are integrated into our communities. I don't think we should deport kids who are Americans (went to US schools, speak English) but just didn't happen to be born here, brought here as kids ya know?

I do not support sanctuary cities, do you?

Translation - "I support the law except when I do not support the law"

For instance, there are no "common sense gun laws". The 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to keep and bear arms (notice that it does not say muskets or handguns). There is no limitation on my right, but that doesn't stop you from trying to create one.

Furthermore, your position that you support our immigration laws while at the same time saying that kids who are illegal aliens should get to stay here is equally insane.

Basically, you just admitted you don't support any of our laws. Like all liberals, you support your view of America and you think that entitles you to violate our existing laws while creating your own.

Yes, there are limitations on your rights to "keep and bear" arms because that isn't the only part of that amendment. "Well Regulated" is right in the text. You can't pretend that's not there either.

And no, my position on immigration isn't insane and it is supported by a majority of Americans.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If you do not oppose discrimination against gays....you support it. Simple.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I find it amusing that liberals always assume that to support the right of businesses to not discriminate against gays means I want to discriminate against gays. The assumption in that shows their philosophy that all should be forced to do what they think, they can't even conceive of the idea that I would not want to force m will on others. Again, they are not liberals who are tolerant of others, they are authoritarian leftists who are intolerant of others.

.

Tolerance, like most things, has limits. It stops at intolerance generally.

 

[Seawytch]

I find it amusing that liberals always assume that to support the right of businesses to not discriminate against gays means I want to discriminate against gays. The assumption in that shows their philosophy that all should be forced to do what they think, they can't even conceive of the idea that I would not want to force m will on others. Again, they are not liberals who are tolerant of others, they are authoritarian leftists who are intolerant of others.

.

Mac, do you support sanctuary cities?

 

[Mac1958]

I find it amusing that liberals always assume that to support the right of businesses to not discriminate against gays means I want to discriminate against gays. The assumption in that shows their philosophy that all should be forced to do what they think, they can't even conceive of the idea that I would not want to force m will on others. Again, they are not liberals who are tolerant of others, they are authoritarian leftists who are intolerant of others.

.

Mac, do you support sanctuary cities?

Nope!

.

 

[kaz]

I find it amusing that liberals always assume that to support the right of businesses to not discriminate against gays means I want to discriminate against gays. The assumption in that shows their philosophy that all should be forced to do what they think, they can't even conceive of the idea that I would not want to force m will on others. Again, they are not liberals who are tolerant of others, they are authoritarian leftists who are intolerant of others.

.

Tolerance, like most things, has limits. It stops at intolerance generally.

You're so intolerant you want government to use the force of guns to force people to bake cakes. For you, tolerance has limits, intolerance has none

 

[P@triot]

A private citizen on private property has the right to refuse anything for any reason. Period.

Where exactly did you learn this lie? It is a lie BTW. You've been lied to.

I learned it in the U.S. Constitution. You would have too had you ever read it. Here, let me help you....

IX Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Allow me to interpret for you liberals: enumeration means a list of something (in this case, rights). The 9th Amendment is stating that my rights are not limited to the specific rights listed in the amendments (ie my 1st amendment rights to speech, religion, etc., my 2d Amendment right to arms, and so on). Those were specifically cited to further secure them and prevent the type of perversion of interpretation we see by anti-constitutional libtards on a daily basis.

In short, a private citizen on private property has the inalienable right to deny anything they want to deny. It is indisputable. And you just got owned with facts. Now tell us again junior how the Constitution is a "lie"

 

[PaintMyHouse]

.

Tolerance, like most things, has limits. It stops at intolerance generally.

You're so intolerant you want government to use the force of guns to force people to bake cakes. For you, tolerance has limits, intolerance has none

That's just nonsense and the force is called "the law", no guns required. And there are plenty of laws I'd like not to deal with but owning a business requires that you do. If you bake cakes, do that, for any and all. It's good business and allows everyone the ability to get on with their lives.

 

[Seawytch]

They did not ask for a special item you moron, they ordered a wedding cake. The baker made wedding cakes, they ordered a wedding cake. It was not a special order item, it was a fucking cake, likely from a catalog.

COUPLE: We'd like a wedding cake
BAKER: Here's what we have
COUPLE: We'll take #4
BAKER: $500
COUPLE: We will pick it up Friday
BAKER: Thank you, have a nice day
COUPLE: You too

Here's an alternative:

COUPLE: We'd like a wedding cake for our wedding
BAKER: For your wedding? I don't bake cakes for gays.
COUPLE: See ya

Outside
COUPLE: What a prick, let's go to the baker down the street who wants our money


BTW, unless this is a different case than the one discussed before, they did actually want a cake shaped like a penis.

I have no idea what case Rotty was blathering about. In the recently ruled Masterpiece case, the couple ordered a wedding cake, not a penis cake. Unless the baker advertises that they make penis cakes, and there are plenty that do, there would be no lawsuit.

Interracial Couple: We'd like a wedding cake for our wedding
Baker: We don't bake for n words or n word lovers
Couple: See ya?

Muslim Couple: We'd like gas for our car please
Gas Station: We don't serve your kind
Couple: See ya?

I've not seen a single piece of legislation introduced anywhere that would repeal ALL public accommodation laws...I just see people bitching because in some places "the gheys" are included in them. Odd isn't it?

 

[bripat9643]

Life being Fair isn't but Equality is. It wasn't true at first but we're gettin' there now.

Where does forcing a private citizen to conduct private business transactions equate to "equality".

You have a problem understanding something very basic. There is Private, like a club, there is Private open to the Public, like a restaurant, and there is Public, as well as a few other things Government and restricted, like a military base, weapons compound, the White House, etc.

The rules vary depending upon how the property is used and who uses it. While Denny's Club for Crackers can post its No ******* sign, Denny's cannot. They are both Privately owned but they serve different purposes and therefore follow different rules.

And BTW, Denny's Club for Crackers better not rent its facilities to the Public. As soon as it does, in come the *******. See how that works?

The distinctions you make are totally arbitrary government created distinctions. They have no basis in relation to justice. A business is private property and therefor not "public." It's not owned by the government. Unless the government owns it, government has no moral authority to tell the owners who they can serve and who they don't have to serve. You have no more right to be served in my restaurant than you have to be served in my dinning room.

 

[Seawytch]

.

Mac, do you support sanctuary cities?

Nope!

.

Then how do you point that out as supposed hypocrisy by "the left"? You support religious exemptions from public accommodation laws, but not from immigration laws? I'm confused as to why you keep bringing them up.

 

[P@triot]

Yes, you keep saying that...I do back common sense gun laws and I support changing our immigration policy. I support strengthening our border at the same time as creating a better path to citizenship, especially for those people who are integrated into our communities. I don't think we should deport kids who are Americans (went to US schools, speak English) but just didn't happen to be born here, brought here as kids ya know?

I do not support sanctuary cities, do you?

Translation - "I support the law except when I do not support the law"

For instance, there are no "common sense gun laws". The 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to keep and bear arms (notice that it does not say muskets or handguns). There is no limitation on my right, but that doesn't stop you from trying to create one.

Furthermore, your position that you support our immigration laws while at the same time saying that kids who are illegal aliens should get to stay here is equally insane.

Basically, you just admitted you don't support any of our laws. Like all liberals, you support your view of America and you think that entitles you to violate our existing laws while creating your own.

Yes, there are limitations on your rights to "keep and bear" arms because that isn't the only part of that amendment. "Well Regulated" is right in the text. You can't pretend that's not there either.

And no, my position on immigration isn't insane and it is supported by a majority of Americans.

Nice try sweetie, but "well regulated" is not in the text. That is one of the reasons given for the necessity. It is the why, not the what. Why they gave me the right largely doesn't matter (especially in this context of the debate). What the right is, is what matters. And it clearly states:

the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It does not say "the right of the WELL REGULATED MILITIA to keep and bear arms...". Would you like to try again?

 

[bripat9643]

They did not ask for a special item you moron, they ordered a wedding cake. The baker made wedding cakes, they ordered a wedding cake. It was not a special order item, it was a fucking cake, likely from a catalog.

COUPLE: We'd like a wedding cake
BAKER: Here's what we have
COUPLE: We'll take #4
BAKER: $500
COUPLE: We will pick it up Friday
BAKER: Thank you, have a nice day
COUPLE: You too

Here's an alternative:

COUPLE: We'd like a wedding cake for our wedding
BAKER: For your wedding? I don't bake cakes for gays.
COUPLE: See ya

Outside
COUPLE: What a prick, let's go to the baker down the street who wants our money


BTW, unless this is a different case than the one discussed before, they did actually want a cake shaped like a penis.

I have no idea what case Rotty was blathering about. In the recently ruled Masterpiece case, the couple ordered a wedding cake, not a penis cake. Unless the baker advertises that they make penis cakes, and there are plenty that do, there would be no lawsuit.

Interracial Couple: We'd like a wedding cake for our wedding
Baker: We don't bake for n words or n word lovers
Couple: See ya?

Muslim Couple: We'd like gas for our car please
Gas Station: We don't serve your kind
Couple: See ya?

I've not seen a single piece of legislation introduced anywhere that would repeal ALL public accommodation laws...I just see people bitching because in some places "the gheys" are included in them. Odd isn't it?

That's because few people have a problem with serving Jews, Hispanics or blacks. They do have a legitimate objection to serving gays. For instance, if you own a bar and gays start showing up there, it won't be long before the clientele is 100% gay. I doubt there are many bar owners who would be thrilled about their bar becoming a gay hangout. I know that in the past a lot of bar owners would kick anyone out they suspected of being gay. Quite frankly, I don't have a problem with that.

 

[Bfgrn]

So do you say Gore defeated Bush? That handgun bans are unconstitutional? That Dred Scott is property and should be returned to his owner?

Or is the Supreme Court just set and match when you agree with them?

The law of the land is what the SC signs off on. That's all.

You wish junior. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch. Laws are made by the judicial branch. Thanks for illustrating your complete lack of knowledge about your own government and how it operates.

Folks - you can officially place PMH on ignore as he has illustrated he has ZERO credibility in even the most basic capacity.

Laws are made by the LEGISLATIVE branch.

 

[P@triot]

Even before gays have been added to some state or local public accommodation laws, you never fully had the right to refuse service for any reason. The Right to Refuse Service

If you want to discriminate against the gays, learn the laws of your locality.

Maps of State Laws & Policies

This one may be especially helpful:

Public Accommodation Laws

Public accommodations refers to both governmental entities and private businesses that provide services to the general public such as restaurants, movie theaters, libraries and shops. It does not encompasses private clubs that have a membership or dues process.


States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (17 states and D.C.):California (2005, 2011), Colorado (2008), Connecticut (1991, 2011), Delaware (2009, 2013), District of Columbia (1977, 2006), Hawaii (2006), Illinois (2006), Iowa (2007), Maine (2005), Maryland (2009, 2014) Minnesota (1993), Nevada (2009, 2011), New Jersey (1992, 2006), New Mexico (2004), Oregon (2007), Rhode Island (1995),
Vermont (1992, 2007) and Washington (2006).

States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation only (4 states): Massachusetts (1989), New Hampshire (1998), New York (2002) and Wisconsin (2009).

A private citizen on private property has the right to refuse anything for any reason. Period. It cannot be debated (though that doesn't stop the unhinged from trying).

Furthermore, even those unconstitutional absurd liberal laws cited above, passed by unhinged liberal politicians do not apply as these people did not attempt to walk in and purchase things available to other people (such as the pies in the display case, the cupcakes on the counter, etc.). They asked for a special item made specifically for them. They asked for a custom item that was not available to anyone else. Therefore, the baker had even further grounds to deny service.

Game. Set. Match.

You're just blathering. Don't like the law, change it, but you can't close your eyes, plug your ears and go "nah, nah, nah", I don't see you.

They did not ask for a special item you moron, they ordered a wedding cake. The baker made wedding cakes, they ordered a wedding cake. It was not a special order item, it was a fucking cake, likely from a catalog.

COUPLE: We'd like a wedding cake
BAKER: Here's what we have
COUPLE: We'll take #4
BAKER: $500
COUPLE: We will pick it up Friday
BAKER: Thank you, have a nice day
COUPLE: You too

You're crying that I'm "blathering" because you can't dispute anything I've said. The cake was not sitting on the counter, available for anyone to purchase. It was a custom order for a specific occasion. You're "cake from a catalog" simply doesn't exist (at least for 99.9999% of the population). Last time I checked, every wedding cake I encountered and custom design for the couple in question - at the very least, the couples names.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In short, a private citizen on private property has the inalienable right to deny anything they want to deny.

The Constitution isn't a lie, that's not where you learned it, and that's also not what is says, and even less so what it means.

And you're in kind of a bind here since the People made these laws, and the Court decided they were Constitutional. Now what?

And tell us, is the law against yelling fire in a crowded theater when there isn't one Constitutional?

 

[Mac1958]

Mac, do you support sanctuary cities?

Nope!

.

Then how do you point that out as supposed hypocrisy by "the left"? You support religious exemptions from public accommodation laws, but not from immigration laws? I'm confused as to why you keep bringing them up.

I support religious exemptions from public accommodation laws? Huh?

As I've said multiple times, maybe a hundred times by now, this is not about public accommodations laws as the Left claims. This is about conformity, control, political correctness, intimidation. You are not required to issue "consequences" to those who disagree with you. You choose to. The public accommodation law -- and indeed, it is a law -- only comes into this because the guys sued. They did not have to sue, but they see an opportunity and they're running with it.

The hypocrisy is this passionate defense of laws, while turning a blind eye to other laws being broken that match an agenda.

I'll bet you know this, but I'll also bet you won't admit it.

.