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.
Why would I want to go to a country where a patriarchal religion actually enforced sharia law as opposed to the U.S where our secular Constitution protects us from any partriarchal religion forcing their sharia law on us."Christians are being persecuted by overturning THEIR laws".......oh, you mean christian sharia laws? Well, we aren't having any of that here in the good ole' U.S. of A. Take your theocratic laws somewhere else.
Sure. Get back to me after you visit Iran. The fact is only in Christian countries can you run your head...and still keep it. And you abuse the privilege. It is a sign of cowardice and little gratitude.
I said "perhaps struck down as unConstitutional"....is English a 2ndary language for you?Do you know what repealing a law requires? Convincing your fellow citizens/legislative branch to REPEAL a law. What are YOU actively doing to get your state to repeal PA laws.....besides name-calling?No....if you'd been paying attention to how our government works, then you would know that if you feel a law is unjust you can work to have it judicially reviewed and perhaps struck down as unConstititional. And even if a law, such as PA laws are deemed Constitutional, you can still get your state to repeal them. So.....what have you actively been doing to make that happen in your state?
LOL. Not one word about convincing your fellow citizens or legislative branch to pass laws! Typical. Rule by the fiat of lifetime appointed judges...and if you dont like it see if you can get a judge in your own pocket.
Not what you said. You said "struck down as unconstitutional". The way you have been taught. You are a loser when it comes to repealing laws.
Yes, it does. Any false witness bearer can claim anything.do they advertise as Bakers of Faith?Why would a christian wanting a wedding cake have to go find another baker if they were refused service based on being christian?That's the point the religious people would have to be selective and only allow people who aren't sinners to join their private cake club
Yes, that all sounds a LOT simpler and more logical than you just going and finding another fucking baker.
because a particular Christian PROFESSIONAL cake baker may not want to meet the specifications of that particular
Christian's desired cake
does not matter. A professional does not have to
compromise his principles in the commission of his
art
Why the Pope? Who is he to American state PA laws?Yes, it does. Any false witness bearer can claim anything.do they advertise as Bakers of Faith?Why would a christian wanting a wedding cake have to go find another baker if they were refused service based on being christian?Yes, that all sounds a LOT simpler and more logical than you just going and finding another fucking baker.
because a particular Christian PROFESSIONAL cake baker may not want to meet the specifications of that particular
Christian's desired cake
does not matter. A professional does not have to
compromise his principles in the commission of his
art
We should ask a Pope for a Contingent of subject matter specialists to Inquire into the moral rectitude of Persons alleging True Faith.
This is Masterpiece Cakeshop's advertising:
Are Black People Cursed? The Curse of Ham - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries
"Select from one of our galleries or order a custom design. Call or come in. We look forward to serving you!"
Discrimination, from a legal standpoint, means discriminating against a person based on that person's identity. If you're willing to do business with the person in question and offer them exactly the same product that you're offering everyone else, you're not discriminating between customers, you're discriminating between different types of products that you're willing or not willing to produce.
When you conflate these two concepts in order to "win" the argument, you're the one being obtuse.
#1 There was never any discussion of design (so saying things about requiring two grooms is false). This is agreed to in court documents in the Statement of Facts. To say different means you think Mr. Phillips (the baker) is a liar.
#2 The bakers (both Masterpiece Cakeshop and Sweetcakes by Melissa) both admit in court documents that the provided the product in question "i.e. wedding cakes".
#3 When you refuse to sell the exact same product based on who the people are, than yea you are discriminating between customers.
Below is one of the wedding cakes in the Masterpiece Cakeshop catalog (Wedding | MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP). Mr. Phillips would sell the cake to a different-sex couple, but would refuse to sell it to a same-sex couple. Same cake different people, basis then is the customers.
Don't. Give. A. Fuck.
They don't want to bake you a cake. Doesn't matter why. Go find another baker. Give them a shitty review on Yelp and Facebook. But hauling them into court and closing down their livelihood because your feewings are hurt? Get the fuck over yourself.
You are blaming the wrong people. Don't try to shove the responsibility on the would-be customers, who were legitimately there and who properly reported their experience to the state human-rights commission. Why do you think that people should shoulder the burden for people like phillips, drive all over the place, and possibly be subjected to more mistreatment, and keep silent to protect his conduct?They are not responsible for phillip's thoughts. He is. The onus is on him. If he wants to stay in business, he needs to get his personal shit together. It's not the responsibility of the general public to mollycoddle him.
And, actually, the case ended up in court when this guy challenged the decision of the state commission. The couple did not haul him into court. He hauled the state commission into court. He is entirely responsible for being in court and for his livelihood.
Whoa up there, Dobbins. "Drive all over the place"? What is this, 1980? Do we not have Internet and telephones and all manner of devices to find this shit out without "driving all over the place"? If you can't find a listing of gay-friendly, or even GAY-OWNED, bakeries and other wedding service providers, on the Internet within five minutes, you're more tech-clueless than my 80-year-old mother, or you're just not trying.
And can we please dispense with the quaint, and utterly dishonest, fiction that this couple didn't know prior to asking what this baker's beliefs were, and that they didn't ask SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of getting their feewings hurt so they could pitch a hissy fit about it? Puh-frigging-leeze.
You are still trying to transfer responsibility to the customer and away from the phillips and his ilk. No customer needs to inquire into anyone's beliefs before going shopping. How would this couple know about this guy's idiosyncrasies? You are being very dishonest. The couple just went in to order a cake. It was this phillips who turned them down, and they just left. You just can't get it through your head that other people are not responsible for the behavior of people like him. He is entirely responsible for his actions, which were totally inconsistent with his advertising. If he suffered, it was suffering of his own making.
Yes, people who are subjected to discrimination and violations of PA laws have the right to report it to the appropriate authorities. The next time I report someone's misconduct, I'll remember that you think that this is a "hissy fit" and I just should hang my head and "move along," and be silent to protect the imbecile who mistreated me. Oh, puleezzze!
Neither the LGBT community, nor the rest of us, owe people like phillips anything whatsoever.
So....are you saying that christians can turn their "christianity" on and off like a switch? How convenient is THAT?Another christian response, right?Hmmmmm....is that a christian responseHave I thanked you yet for showing up and dropping the IQ of the entire discussion by 10 points just by your presence?
Hmmmmm....is that a christian response
Better than an Islamic one , your head would be on one side of the room and your keyboard on the other. Count your blessings, you dumb fuck.
What makes you think it was a Christian response, desperation or stupidity, or both?
So....are you saying that christians can turn their "christianity" on and off like a switch? How convenient is THAT?
I am not a fan of any patriarchal religion that tries to foist their version of sharia law on the rest of us. If your so-called version of christianity does that....then I'm not a fan.So....are you saying that christians can turn their "christianity" on and off like a switch? How convenient is THAT?Another christian response, right?Better than an Islamic one , your head would be on one side of the room and your keyboard on the other. Count your blessings, you dumb fuck.
What makes you think it was a Christian response, desperation or stupidity, or both?
Your hatred for Christianity exists no matter what Christians do. You take an inordinate interest in them it seems. Whats it to you how they practice their religion?
He was claiming a First Amendment exemption.Why the Pope? Who is he to American state PA laws?Yes, it does. Any false witness bearer can claim anything.do they advertise as Bakers of Faith?Why would a christian wanting a wedding cake have to go find another baker if they were refused service based on being christian?
because a particular Christian PROFESSIONAL cake baker may not want to meet the specifications of that particular
Christian's desired cake
does not matter. A professional does not have to
compromise his principles in the commission of his
art
We should ask a Pope for a Contingent of subject matter specialists to Inquire into the moral rectitude of Persons alleging True Faith.
, I would bet that the baker could refuse to inscribe a cake with "God Loves Gays" because now we are getting into the area of free speech and artistic expression....but he does have to bake and sell the damned cake
Never give a (((liberal))) an inch.
View attachment 183680
And yet we have self-proclaimed christians here wanting their version of law to apply .... that's sharia....christian sharia.I am not a fan of any patriarchal religion that tries to foist their version of sharia law on the rest of us. If your so-called version of christianity does that....then I'm not a fan.So....are you saying that christians can turn their "christianity" on and off like a switch? How convenient is THAT?Another christian response, right?
What makes you think it was a Christian response, desperation or stupidity, or both?
Your hatred for Christianity exists no matter what Christians do. You take an inordinate interest in them it seems. Whats it to you how they practice their religion?
Christianity let freedom thrive, Sharia not so much, in fact, not at all. Your comparison is stupid and so are you.
I am not a fan of any patriarchal religion that tries to foist their version of sharia law on the rest of us. If your so-called version of christianity does that....then I'm not a fan.So....are you saying that christians can turn their "christianity" on and off like a switch? How convenient is THAT?Another christian response, right?
What makes you think it was a Christian response, desperation or stupidity, or both?
Your hatred for Christianity exists no matter what Christians do. You take an inordinate interest in them it seems. Whats it to you how they practice their religion?
Christianity let freedom thrive, Sharia not so much, in fact, not at all. Your comparison is stupid and so are you.
The Pope? He's not even American.He was claiming a First Amendment exemption.Why the Pope? Who is he to American state PA laws?Yes, it does. Any false witness bearer can claim anything.do they advertise as Bakers of Faith?because a particular Christian PROFESSIONAL cake baker may not want to meet the specifications of that particular
Christian's desired cake
does not matter. A professional does not have to
compromise his principles in the commission of his
art
We should ask a Pope for a Contingent of subject matter specialists to Inquire into the moral rectitude of Persons alleging True Faith.
Should he, "set up shop", in Cuba?The Pope? He's not even American.He was claiming a First Amendment exemption.Why the Pope? Who is he to American state PA laws?Yes, it does. Any false witness bearer can claim anything.do they advertise as Bakers of Faith?
does not matter. A professional does not have to
compromise his principles in the commission of his
art
We should ask a Pope for a Contingent of subject matter specialists to Inquire into the moral rectitude of Persons alleging True Faith.
And yet we have self-proclaimed christians here wanting their version of law to apply .I am not a fan of any patriarchal religion that tries to foist their version of sharia law on the rest of us. If your so-called version of christianity does that....then I'm not a fan.So....are you saying that christians can turn their "christianity" on and off like a switch? How convenient is THAT?What makes you think it was a Christian response, desperation or stupidity, or both?
Your hatred for Christianity exists no matter what Christians do. You take an inordinate interest in them it seems. Whats it to you how they practice their religion?
Christianity let freedom thrive, Sharia not so much, in fact, not at all. Your comparison is stupid and so are you.
... that's sharia....christian sharia.
And yet we have self-proclaimed christians here wanting their version of law to apply .
I am not a fan of any patriarchal religion that tries to foist their version of sharia law on the rest of us. If your so-called version of christianity does that....then I'm not a fan.So....are you saying that christians can turn their "christianity" on and off like a switch? How convenient is THAT?What makes you think it was a Christian response, desperation or stupidity, or both?
Your hatred for Christianity exists no matter what Christians do. You take an inordinate interest in them it seems. Whats it to you how they practice their religion?
Christianity let freedom thrive, Sharia not so much, in fact, not at all. Your comparison is stupid and so are you.
:rorl:
I'm pretty sure that gays, and jews and muslims have felt that "freedom".
you mean freedom for other Christians. this country, at least, doesn't work that way.
thank G-d
I'm pretty sure
I could care less, actually......not quite sure how the Pope was brought into this in the first place.Should he, "set up shop", in Cuba?The Pope? He's not even American.He was claiming a First Amendment exemption.Why the Pope? Who is he to American state PA laws?Yes, it does. Any false witness bearer can claim anything.does not matter. A professional does not have to
compromise his principles in the commission of his
art
We should ask a Pope for a Contingent of subject matter specialists to Inquire into the moral rectitude of Persons alleging True Faith.
Elections are fine.....but the Constitution is the law of the land that overrides ANY kind of sharia. If you have 80% of a state vote to make everyone go to church on Sunday.....how long do you think that law will apply?And yet we have self-proclaimed christians here wanting their version of law to apply .I am not a fan of any patriarchal religion that tries to foist their version of sharia law on the rest of us. If your so-called version of christianity does that....then I'm not a fan.So....are you saying that christians can turn their "christianity" on and off like a switch? How convenient is THAT?
Your hatred for Christianity exists no matter what Christians do. You take an inordinate interest in them it seems. Whats it to you how they practice their religion?
Christianity let freedom thrive, Sharia not so much, in fact, not at all. Your comparison is stupid and so are you.
... that's sharia....christian sharia.
And yet we have self-proclaimed christians here wanting their version of law to apply .
And we also have idiots who do not respect the consequences of elections. If they(Christians) can achieve their goals politically there really is not much you can do about it.
the first amendment has nothing to do with public accommodation laws
The first amendment only mentions the free exercise of religion. Baking a cake is not exercising a religion it is baking a cake to be sold in a business that is government by public accommodation laws.
If the baker believes that all Back people should be served from the back alley entrance and be charged 3 times more for everything he would be just as wrong as the guy claiming that the very act of conducting his business for "certain people" violates his religion
Now show me where in any written religious scripture that says it is a sin to conduct any business with a sinner.
I know there's nothing about baking cakes being a sin written in any scripture
The First Amendment has EVERYTHING to do with public accommodation laws, when you insist that public accommodation laws require people to act against their beliefs and that you have a right to define their beliefs because you personally don't think they should believe something that conflicts with your public accommodation ideas.
Oh my freaking God, what IS it with people and running to the blacks? You know how I can tell an idea is left-think bullshit? Because the triumphant "Aha!" argument will always involve using black people as human shields.
Understand the difference between believing "This is bad behavior" versus "Therefore, the government must force people to behave otherwise." SOME bad behavior, like killing people or robbing them, needs to be stopped by the government. Other behavior, like racism, not so much, at least not in this day and age. So no, your "Aha!" moment of being supremely convinced that I'm ALL in favor of the government forcing racists to serve black people has fallen flat. I would much prefer that they be openly repugnant in their racism, so that I and virtually everyone else in the country can avoid giving them our money. I have no desire to be funding people who secretly hold such nasty views because the government forces them to pretend otherwise.
I don't have to "show you where" anything. I'm not trying to convert you, or convince you to agree on the subject of sin, and for me to try to "prove" to you that it's a sin would invalidate my entire argument, which is that IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Asking me to justify the baker's beliefs to support the argument that you're not entitled to a justification is nonsensical.
I don't give a shit what you "know" or don't "know" about the Scripture, because again, YOU DON'T GET A VOTE. PLEASE stop wasting my time with your constant "Yes, but his beliefs are wrong" posts. They are empty air, because AT NO POINT IN TIME has this ever been about whether or his beliefs can be proven "right" to other people's standards; it's about the fact that HE HAS A RIGHT TO BELIEVE THEM WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT. The fact that people DON'T agree on beliefs is exactly why they're protected.
So please, when you start firing out your next post, just save us all some time like this (the parts in all caps should be shouted loudly:
"It's not a sin . . ."
NONE OF MY BUSINESS!
"The scriptures don't say . . ."
NONE OF MY BUSINESS!
"Show me where . . ."
NONE OF MY BUSINESS!
"No religion says . . ."
NONE OF MY BUSINESS!
Because the only answer you are EVER going to get to your attempts to debate whether or not the baker SHOULD believe something is exactly that: NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
Public accommodation laws are not about beliefs they are about equal treatment of the public in businesses open to the public.
And they can believe whatever the fuck they want what they can't do is violate the law with no consequences. The whole baking a cake for certain people is a sin thing is the purest most unadulterated bullshit I have ever seen outside of a political campaign
Hey I can believe that I should only do business with blondes with blue eyes and big tits but that doesn't mean I am justified in declining service to everyone else
In that they are forcing through government power private individuals to do things they do not want to do because other private individuals want them to do it, they very much touch on any number of rights held by private individuals. I have a right to choose not to associate with other people; they do NOT have a right to force others to associate with them. Because of this, public accommodation laws, in and of themselves, violate the Constitution. It is one thing to say that public sector entities, such as government agencies, must service everyone. It is entirely another to say that private sector entities must do so.
Furthermore, to say, "They can believe what they want; they just can't practice it" is to say "They cannot believe it". A major problem with left-think on this subject is that it conflates "belief" with "thought", and assumes that one's beliefs are merely thoughts in one's head, divorced from one's actions. The exact opposite is the truth: one's beliefs are NOT what one thinks, or even what one says. What a person DOES is the truest measure of what he believes, particularly when circumstances are most difficult. The First Amendment recognizes this by guaranteeing not only "freedom of religion" but also "the free exercise thereof".
You are still arrogating to yourself the right to approve the beliefs of others. You are saying, "They have the right to believe what they want, so long as it is acceptable to most people." The First Amendment doesn't exist to protect belief that is generally acceptable to society at large; if it's acceptable to most people, it doesn't NEED protection, because it won't be attacked. The First Amendment exists precisely to protect belief that most people find repugnant.
And yeah, I actually think you should be free to restrict your business only to well-endowed blondes, if that's what you want to do. Of course, I also think you should be free to avail yourself of bankruptcy court when your business closes two months later. What I DON'T think is that you should be legally required to pretend that you like skinny brunettes if you don't choose to.
They chose to open a business open to the public therefore they are held to public accommodation laws just like every other business.
If they do not want to operate according to the law of the land then they can close up shop or structure their business as a private membership only club and that way they can only do business with the people whose sins are acceptable to them and who choose to pay the membership fees
Until then the whole its a sin to bake a cake for sinners is still a feeble excuse for disobeying the law
Yes, yes, I'm well aware that you've passed a law, and you somehow think "the law is" equals "the law should be". But there actually is a difference, and the argument isn't what laws exist, but what laws SHOULD exist.
And "Violate your beliefs or don't work!" is a feeble excuse for morality from someone who presumes to dictate morality for everyone.
No, because being a black person isn't a sin in the bible. Homosexuality is an abomination to God in the bible. You're an ignorant idiot.Firstly, there's nothing in the Bible that says "thou shalt not put two grooms on the wedding game."
What it says in the Bible has to do with STONING. Now, these people have managed to take stoning in the Bible and ignore it because they don't stone gay people or Blasphemous people or the like.
But the Bible gives the SAME punishment, whether you want to carry out the punishment in the name of your religion or not, to Blasphemy, gay sex, rebellious sons and those who work on the Sabbath.
Now, do these religious people treat ALL of these people the same? No, they don't. They do NOT refuse to serve blasphemous people (they might if they did it in their shop, but the gay people aren't fucking in their shop, so the comparable is that they're blasphemous outside of the shop), they do not refuse to serve rebellious sons, they do not refuse to serve those who work on the Sabbath, but they DO refuse to serve gay people.
Why?
My only thought can be that they're using the Bible to protect their bigoted views, rather than having a consistent view of the Bible.
Yes, sure, how you define equality and rights is important.
I mean, there are people on here who think that black people shouldn't have rights. I think that if black people don't have rights, then there aren't any rights, only privileges.
Equality is equality under the law. Laws are equal for all, who you are makes no difference to how the law plays out for you.
Your problem is that you're trying to say that everyone can operate their business as they see fit.
You could ban black people, or have a separate room for black people. You could demand that women cover their faces. You could do a lot of really shitty things, and people would. We know this. They did it under segregation.
If 69% of the population is Christian, and Christians choose to not serve gay people, and then say this is equal, then they're fucking idiots. I'm sorry. I don't like insulting people, but really, it pisses me off immensely.
For me to call them idiots is far less than what they want to do. The same for those people who had black people using separate services. It's just plain wrong and there's no way around that.
The problem is, you want some businesses to have public accommodation laws, and other business to not.
Essential services. "Hey there n*gger, I'll sell your slimy jumped up ass a loaf of bread, because I'm the only seller of bread for 20 miles around here, but you'll have to crawl all the way up here."
You think that would be acceptable?
No, you either have public accommodation laws that are EQUAL FOR ALL PEOPLE based on how they were born, or you don't and you live in a backwards "shithole" as Trump would call it.
If you advertise that you do a particular service, then this service MUST BE OPEN to all people, unless of course they've done something to prove that you don't have to serve them that has nothing to do with how they were born.
You don't have to advertise certain services.
"Hey, I want Garfield on my cake" "I'm sorry sir, but we don't do putting things on cakes."
Who's hurt.
"Hey, I want two grooms on my cake for my wedding" "I'm sorry sir, but I'm a bigot and we won't be serving you"
THIS HURTS PEOPLE. It makes people feel like they're SECOND CLASS CITIZENS in their own country. Unacceptable.
You can stop interpreting Christianity. Your interpretation has no bearing on peoples' freedom to practice their religion. The entire idea of that freedom was that people shouldn't be told what is or isn't a valid interpretation of their own faith, so all of your opinions about what is or isn't valid Christianity are utterly meaningless to this conversation. Whether they ignore half or all of the bible and call it Christianity, that's up to them, not you.
Next up, I actually don't want some businesses to have public accommodations laws. As a principal, I don't like the idea of telling people how they have to operate their own property. I'm willing to concede that point in cases where actual injury or death might occur from discrimination.
I specify "actual" because -FEELING- like a 2nd class citizen isn't an actual injury. -BEING- a 2nd class citizen would mean that the law itself explicitly favors some other class of human being more than it favors you, so someone not making you the cake you want doesn't -actually- make you a 2nd class citizen. Therefore, if you -feel- like a 2nd class citizen as a result of the baker turning down your request, that's an errant emotion, and I don't see why some 3rd party should be responsible for anyone's errant emotions.
If 69 percent of the population and they all, to a person, decided they wouldn't serve gay people, that would be quite a fucking turn of events. You know what wouldn't protect people in that situation? The law. Why, you ask? Because if 69 percent of the country didn't want to serve gay people, that law wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of staying on the books in a nation with a democratic process.
This also means that the very fact that the public accommodations laws have never been upturned implies that this worry that allowing bakers to do business only with whom they wish would result in gay people not being able to get cake is extremely hyperbolic. The majority of business owners in general are more concerned with profiting than they are with avoiding certain identity types.
So, I can say I'm a Christian and say that God hates black people and then I can hide behind the Bible as I go around segregating?
Seriously?
but if you're not committing the gay sin how is baking a cake for someone who is gay a sin?
None. Of. Your. Business.
Maybe you should write this down, because you absolutely SUCK at remembering to quit being a nosy, controlling busybody.
