Why Must We Abandon Our Religious Beliefs to Operate A Business?

[Skull Pilot]

So...you don't like PA laws at all...what are you actively doing to get them repealed in your state?

I ignore them. Leftist activists want a law for everything. I just ignore the idiots.

If you want an exemption from any law then it is you that has to provide proof that the exemption is justified. If I kill in self defense it is up to me to prove it was self defense so exemption from the murder laws an be applied

So if you don't want to build a house for a gay couple it is up to you to prove that doing so violates your religious bent by providing proof from your religious manual whatever it may be.

Or you could make your business a club where customers have to pay a fee to be a member and you only provide services to your members. I'm sure you can find enough bigots to join you.

Yeah, but we don't want "an exemption" from the law. We want there not to BE laws that violate the Constitution in the first place. We want to not be legally required to give other people a vote in our private lives and decisions. WHY is that so hard for you to comprehend unless it involves agreeing with you? I KNOW you, at least, don't have this problem on other subjects, so I'm foxed as to why you have it now.

You do want an exemption from public accommodation laws.
You want that exemption based on religious grounds but you have yet to provide evidence that your religion or any religion states that doing business with a sinner is a sin in itself

No, wanting an exemption would still validate your erroneous belief that you are entitled to decide whose beliefs are and are not worthy. I don't want to have to ASK you for anything, or explain anything to you, or give evidence to prove anything to you, because - say it with me, now - it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Stop trying to legislate people's beliefs and morality, and we wouldn't have to discuss it at all.

I'm not they can believe whatever the fuck they want.

But that has nothing to do with the fact that baking a cake is not a fucking sin in any religion

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

From a legal perspective just calling yourself a "private club" does not cut the mustard as to being exempt from Public Accommodation law. COSTCO and Sam's Club are both private clubs in that you have to be a member to shop there, that doesn't exempt them from PA laws.

If the business is for profit? Nope, not an excepted. If the "private club" status is an attempt to evade PA laws? Not, not excepted.

Here are a few things that are looked at:

The "public" versus "distinctly private" accommodation distinction makes critical an understanding of what factors courts will consider to determine if a club is public or private for purposes of the PHRA. Courts interpreting similar statutes have considered the following factors in making that determination:

1. the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
2. the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
3. the history of the organization;
4. the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
5. the purpose of the club's existence;
6. whether the club advertises for members;
7. whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
8. the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.).

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not? - FindLaw


>>>>

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.

But I don't care if people sin so I will do business with anyone who will pay.

Your friends the bigot bakers are the ones who don't want to serve sinners in their shop and there is a legal way for them to do that.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Please give me a cogent argument why baking a cake (or providing ant service)for a gay couple is a worse sin than baking a cake (or providing any service) for a murderer, a rapist, a pederast, or an adulterer.

And FYI "Because I said so." is not a cogent argument

The Baker was operating on a for-profit basis. That means the bottom line over morals, every time this issue comes up, if there is no domestic intranquility involved.

The Baker has more standing regarding the subjective value of morals, on a not-for-the-profit-of-lucre, basis.

 

[Lysistrata]

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!"

#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.

Your capacity for one-sided, dogmatic victimhood is staggering.

Customers have to inquire into shit before shopping all the time. That's one of the things business websites are FOR. If you're a vegan, do you just drive around to restaurants at random, demanding meat-free meals and getting pissed off and suing Bacon Palace because they refuse to accommodate you, or do you effing research the vegan possibilities online before you leave the house? It's a frigging WEDDING. Are you seriously trying to tell me that they are putting less thought and effort into planning their WEDDING than I would put into having dinner?!

I am so unbelievably tired of leftists telling me how outrageous it is that they should in any way be responsible for the course of their lives, instead of just having the entire world rearrange itself on a whim to give them smooth, stress-free sailing. Almost as tired as I am of people telling me that the laws should be the way they are because they already are that way.

Furthermore, most cities of any size have an LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce, or something of that sort, not to mention any number of resource groups for that community, assuming you are the 1 in a million gay person who literally does not know a single other gay person to ask.

While we're remembering things, I certainly have not forgotten and WILL not forget that my religious beliefs are "just bigotry" to YOU, and that I'm supposed to hang MY head and get my ass back to work doing your bidding. I also won't forget that your snowflake ass considers the "horrifying" consequence of finding another baker MUCH worse than the mere nothing of losing my livelihood.

You owe Mr. Phillips nothing? Well, HE owes YOU exactly as much as you owe him, but like I said, your worldview is aaaallll one-sided.

You are too stupid to notice that what I am saying is NOT TO BE A VICTIM. Fight back.
Philips put absolutely NOTHING in his advertising that would suggest his bias. It's trash like him that think that the world is going to rearrange itself to accommodate their whims.
So this little bitch phillips got reported. This is his responsibility.
It is not up to the LGBT community to kowtow to you monkeys. Do it yourselves. If this little shit lost his livelihood, it is his doing. If you lose your livelihood, it is your own doing. How is anyone else responsible for knowing your whims?
Actually, I am not LGBT. I know that this fact doesn't fit into your fantasy. The rest of us just don't exist to serve what is in your head.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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!"

#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.

Oh, and can I just point out that THEY HAD TO GO SOMEPLACE ELSE ANYWAY, and just doing so is a hell of a lot less trouble than doing so AND filing a fucking court case? So I'm gonna have to guess that speed and convenience PROBABLY was not a motivating factor in the decision process here.

I keep telling you, first, that they did not file a court case. phillips did. They merely filed a discrimination complaint with the state, which was entirely within their rights to do. Secondly, phillips himself is solely responsible for creating the situation. The couple only had to go someplace else because of his conduct. If he got into trouble, it was his own fault. The couple had no responsibility whatsoever to hide his misconduct and shield him, or got elsewhere. Why can't you understand that phillips himself is responsible for the entire thing? PEOPLE CANNOT TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR MISCONDUCT ON THE PUBLIC.

Do NOT try to split hairs with me, you myopic, self-absorbed, mewling snowflake. Your heroes run to the ACLU and the Colorado Civil Rights Division, get a judge's decision against Mr. Phillips, and you want to play like HE started it because he appealed the decision.

There is not enough "fuck you" in the world for your little semantic games and sense of entitlement. "Merely", my ass.

Secondly, Phillips is only "solely responsible for the situation" if you assume that you have a right to the labors of others, regardless of their wishes, and he is somehow outrageous for thinking he has any choice in the matter. While I'm aware that you DO assume that, I'm still going to have to maintain that you're full of shit, and you and the gay couple need to get over yourselves.

No one said anything about "hiding his misconduct and shielding him". The couple DOES have an obligation to act like rational, civilized adults, no matter how much leftist twits like you want to scream and stamp your feet while demanding the right to never be either of those things. Believe it or not, gay people are not living in some special little victim bubble where they are the only people who ever experience annoyance, frustration, and unpleasantness. It's just that most of us don't get our panties in a ruffle and carry on like our lives have been unalterably ruined because of it.

Why can't YOU understand that the responsibility lies with the people who react to minor annoyances as though it were just shy of the Pearl Harbor attack? PEOPLE CANNOT TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN SELFISHNESS ONTO THE PUBLIC.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your religion beliefs are bullshit if they make you be unkind towards others.

Which is the problem with religion.

No, that's the problem with ANY belief: there's always someone who thinks your beliefs are bullshit. Aaaaand that's why we have the First Amendment. Like I've said before, no legal protection is needed for beliefs that the majority approves of; it's only needed for beliefs that go against the majority.

Where does it say that religious beliefs of the majority are the only ones protected?

It doesn't, shitforbrains. Would you please get someone to read this to you and explain it so I don't have to waste my effing time explaining that the entire point of what I said is the exact effing opposite of what you thought it was with that tapioca pudding between your ears that you call a brain?

LOL, you said "no legal protection is needed for beliefs that the majority approves of", and of course that is wrong, all beliefs need protection.

No, they don't. Legal protection is not necessary for something no one is ever going to dispute or attack. Uh, duhhhh. Sorry if I introduced a concept that required thought, instead of a kneejerk meme.

 

[Lysistrata]

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!"

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.

Oh, and can I just point out that THEY HAD TO GO SOMEPLACE ELSE ANYWAY, and just doing so is a hell of a lot less trouble than doing so AND filing a fucking court case? So I'm gonna have to guess that speed and convenience PROBABLY was not a motivating factor in the decision process here.

I keep telling you, first, that they did not file a court case. phillips did. They merely filed a discrimination complaint with the state, which was entirely within their rights to do. Secondly, phillips himself is solely responsible for creating the situation. The couple only had to go someplace else because of his conduct. If he got into trouble, it was his own fault. The couple had no responsibility whatsoever to hide his misconduct and shield him, or got elsewhere. Why can't you understand that phillips himself is responsible for the entire thing? PEOPLE CANNOT TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR MISCONDUCT ON THE PUBLIC.

Do NOT try to split hairs with me, you myopic, self-absorbed, mewling snowflake. Your heroes run to the ACLU and the Colorado Civil Rights Division, get a judge's decision against Mr. Phillips, and you want to play like HE started it because he appealed the decision.

There is not enough "fuck you" in the world for your little semantic games and sense of entitlement. "Merely", my ass.

Secondly, Phillips is only "solely responsible for the situation" if you assume that you have a right to the labors of others, regardless of their wishes, and he is somehow outrageous for thinking he has any choice in the matter. While I'm aware that you DO assume that, I'm still going to have to maintain that you're full of shit, and you and the gay couple need to get over yourselves.

No one said anything about "hiding his misconduct and shielding him". The couple DOES have an obligation to act like rational, civilized adults, no matter how much leftist twits like you want to scream and stamp your feet while demanding the right to never be either of those things. Believe it or not, gay people are not living in some special little victim bubble where they are the only people who ever experience annoyance, frustration, and unpleasantness. It's just that most of us don't get our panties in a ruffle and carry on like our lives have been unalterably ruined because of it.

Why can't YOU understand that the responsibility lies with the people who react to minor annoyances as though it were just shy of the Pearl Harbor attack? PEOPLE CANNOT TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN SELFISHNESS ONTO THE PUBLIC.

It is people like phillips who try to transfer responsibility for their own selfishness onto the general public. THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SELFISHNESS OF PEOPLE LIKE PHILLIPS. Go solve it within your cult and leave everyone else alone. Nobody in the general public exists to serve your cult.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think what WW is saying is that he hopes our nation has progressed so much that people don't need the law to force them to serve all equally, that the court of public opinion would take care of the bigots of all sorts. I don't know if he's being naive tho.

I went and dug up something I wrote awhile ago. Here are my thoughts...

Three generations ago there were...

1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.

2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.

3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.

4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.

5. Even segregation in the military.​

In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatization" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:

1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.


2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts it self in term so taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. In addition I fully support the ability to community having access to information about businesses and their discriminatory practices. News media (TV, Radio, Newspapers) and social media (email, texting, Facebook, etc.) should all be free to report and have customers report on discriminatory business practices so that the public can make an informed choice.


3. The "corporatization" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.​

**************************************************


So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I think of myself as a Goldwater Conservative quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.

But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that's the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other individuals.



>>>>

Now see if you can sell this to that black guy who had to walk across the street after being publicly humiliated. Isolated instances of discrimination are as much of a slap in the face for a whole minority group as institutionalized discrimination was. Maybe more so, because that black guy was blind sided, not expecting that sort of treatment

Do you even KNOW any black people, or any minorities at all? Any personal acquaintances who've experienced bigotry directed at them? I'd bet money that you don't, although I would also bet money that you will claim you have.

I actually have. I said this before: racists hate me WORSE than they hate minorities, if that's possible, because they view me as a race traitor. I have not only been called names and had vitriol spit at me (figuratively on the spit, thank goodness, because I'd be in jail now if it had been literal), I've had to defend my mixed-race children from it. I got to fight my older son's high school over trying to expel him because a classmate kept up a running stream of racial insults and epithets at him, the teacher refused to do anything about it, and my son finally decked the little shit.

So don't lecture me about the "slap in the face" and "humiliation" of racism, and for SURE do not try to equate this ridiculous "they ruined our whole wedding!" bullshit with racism and think it's going to get an ounce of traction around me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But there is a fine line. Can you think of a situation where someone obscene is pushing a private business into refusing service?

Someone obscene?? Please rephrase the question

The example I like is does the Jewish tattoo artist have to give a guy a nazi tattoo?

I would say no because public accommodation laws and laws against discrimination do not cover political affiliation or ideology. Just as an aside , 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

Oh my God, WHY do you imbeciles insist on thinking "this should be the law, because this is what the law is now" is somehow a sensible, valid argument?

At the point where you said, "He does have to . . ." you became wrong, immoral, and a fascist. Congratulations.

The fact is that it is the law. Deal with it. A fascist ? Really?

You can say, "That's the law. Deal with it", and you're surprised that I find that fascistic? Really?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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!"

#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.

Oh, and can I just point out that THEY HAD TO GO SOMEPLACE ELSE ANYWAY, and just doing so is a hell of a lot less trouble than doing so AND filing a fucking court case? So I'm gonna have to guess that speed and convenience PROBABLY was not a motivating factor in the decision process here.

Great idea, lets go backwards with discrimination.What could go wrong.
They arent being forced to perform the ceremony.

Ah, yes, too much of the freedom bullshit will OBVIOUSLY lead to widespread discrimination, because people are too stupid and evil to behave decently without Mommy Government leading them by the hand.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Please give me a cogent argument why baking a cake (or providing ant service)for a gay couple is a worse sin than baking a cake (or providing any service) for a murderer, a rapist, a pederast, or an adulterer.

And FYI "Because I said so." is not a cogent argument

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

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.

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.

Still not an answer to what is a very simple question

And it happens to be a relevant question because that is the argument used by the bakers as a reason why they refuse to serve gay sinners but will serve any other sinners willing to pay for their wares.

Why is the gay sin so much worse than all the other sins committed by their customers?

No, and it's not GOING to be an answer to your question, because you're not entitled to one. It's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. "What color panties are you wearing?" is also a simple question, but I wouldn't answer THAT, either, because it's personal and it assumes that it is okay for you to ask things that are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Speaking of simple things, why can't YOU understand a simple concept like minding your own business?

If the baker wants to engage in this conversation, then feel free to go ask him. THIS particular debate, however, is with ME, and MY position is that the First Amendment guarantees me the right to exercise my religious beliefs without any need whatsoever to explain, justify, or ask approval for them.

Decide who you want to talk to, and make it so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I ignore them. Leftist activists want a law for everything. I just ignore the idiots.

If you want an exemption from any law then it is you that has to provide proof that the exemption is justified. If I kill in self defense it is up to me to prove it was self defense so exemption from the murder laws an be applied

So if you don't want to build a house for a gay couple it is up to you to prove that doing so violates your religious bent by providing proof from your religious manual whatever it may be.

Or you could make your business a club where customers have to pay a fee to be a member and you only provide services to your members. I'm sure you can find enough bigots to join you.

Yeah, but we don't want "an exemption" from the law. We want there not to BE laws that violate the Constitution in the first place. We want to not be legally required to give other people a vote in our private lives and decisions. WHY is that so hard for you to comprehend unless it involves agreeing with you? I KNOW you, at least, don't have this problem on other subjects, so I'm foxed as to why you have it now.

You do want an exemption from public accommodation laws.
You want that exemption based on religious grounds but you have yet to provide evidence that your religion or any religion states that doing business with a sinner is a sin in itself

No, wanting an exemption would still validate your erroneous belief that you are entitled to decide whose beliefs are and are not worthy. I don't want to have to ASK you for anything, or explain anything to you, or give evidence to prove anything to you, because - say it with me, now - it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Stop trying to legislate people's beliefs and morality, and we wouldn't have to discuss it at all.

I'm not they can believe whatever the fuck they want.

But that has nothing to do with the fact that baking a cake is not a fucking sin in any religion

"They can believe whatever they want . . . unless I've decided that they're wrong."

Clearly, Einstein, it's a sin in THEIR religion, because they said it was. Why? NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

From a legal perspective just calling yourself a "private club" does not cut the mustard as to being exempt from Public Accommodation law. COSTCO and Sam's Club are both private clubs in that you have to be a member to shop there, that doesn't exempt them from PA laws.

If the business is for profit? Nope, not an excepted. If the "private club" status is an attempt to evade PA laws? Not, not excepted.

Here are a few things that are looked at:

The "public" versus "distinctly private" accommodation distinction makes critical an understanding of what factors courts will consider to determine if a club is public or private for purposes of the PHRA. Courts interpreting similar statutes have considered the following factors in making that determination:

1. the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
2. the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
3. the history of the organization;
4. the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
5. the purpose of the club's existence;
6. whether the club advertises for members;
7. whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
8. the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.).

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not? - FindLaw


>>>>

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.

But I don't care if people sin so I will do business with anyone who will pay.

Your friends the bigot bakers are the ones who don't want to serve sinners in their shop and there is a legal way for them to do that.

I didn't ask, so I have no idea why you're sharing. Your beliefs and concerns are your business, and of no interest to me.

See how easy that is? And it doesn't lead to court cases and national upheaval. Try it sometime.

There IS a legal way for them to do that. It's called "put a stop to fascistic violations of the First Amendment". It's a pain in the ass, but it has to be done.

 

[Lastamender]

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?

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.

Christianity let freedom thrive, Sharia not so much, in fact, not at all. Your comparison is stupid and so are you.

And yet we have self-proclaimed christians here wanting their version of law to apply .
... 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.

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?

Elections are fine.....but the Constitution is the law of the land that overrides ANY kind of sharia.

Then what are you worried about? All this crap for nothing? You just like to hear yourself talk.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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!"

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.

Your capacity for one-sided, dogmatic victimhood is staggering.

Customers have to inquire into shit before shopping all the time. That's one of the things business websites are FOR. If you're a vegan, do you just drive around to restaurants at random, demanding meat-free meals and getting pissed off and suing Bacon Palace because they refuse to accommodate you, or do you effing research the vegan possibilities online before you leave the house? It's a frigging WEDDING. Are you seriously trying to tell me that they are putting less thought and effort into planning their WEDDING than I would put into having dinner?!

I am so unbelievably tired of leftists telling me how outrageous it is that they should in any way be responsible for the course of their lives, instead of just having the entire world rearrange itself on a whim to give them smooth, stress-free sailing. Almost as tired as I am of people telling me that the laws should be the way they are because they already are that way.

Furthermore, most cities of any size have an LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce, or something of that sort, not to mention any number of resource groups for that community, assuming you are the 1 in a million gay person who literally does not know a single other gay person to ask.

While we're remembering things, I certainly have not forgotten and WILL not forget that my religious beliefs are "just bigotry" to YOU, and that I'm supposed to hang MY head and get my ass back to work doing your bidding. I also won't forget that your snowflake ass considers the "horrifying" consequence of finding another baker MUCH worse than the mere nothing of losing my livelihood.

You owe Mr. Phillips nothing? Well, HE owes YOU exactly as much as you owe him, but like I said, your worldview is aaaallll one-sided.

You are too stupid to notice that what I am saying is NOT TO BE A VICTIM. Fight back.
Philips put absolutely NOTHING in his advertising that would suggest his bias. It's trash like him that think that the world is going to rearrange itself to accommodate their whims.
So this little bitch phillips got reported. This is his responsibility.
It is not up to the LGBT community to kowtow to you monkeys. Do it yourselves. If this little shit lost his livelihood, it is his doing. If you lose your livelihood, it is your own doing. How is anyone else responsible for knowing your whims?
Actually, I am not LGBT. I know that this fact doesn't fit into your fantasy. The rest of us just don't exist to serve what is in your head.

YOU are too stupid to realize that what you think of as "fighting back" is really just whining to authority about your victimhood.

Phillips is not required to advertise his personal beliefs. I don't recall that the First Amendment says anything about "free exercise thereof, so long as you advertise it". Was that in the latest emanation from the penumbra, or whatever asinine formulation you leftists worship?

Phillips also didn't ask the world to rearrange itself to suit him, and the irony inherent in this idea is just mind-blowing.

It is not up to Christians to kowtow to YOU monkeys. Do it yourselves. If these selfish little twats feel abused, that's THEIR choice. No one asked them to "know his whims". He told them. All anyone is asking is that they give the same respect to HIS desires that they're in court demanding for their own. Oh, but that would be REAL equality, rather than the ersatz "kiss my ass because I'm so abused" type you leftists peddle.

Actually, I neither know nor care about your sexuality, and I would consider it a great favor if you, and every other leftist psychotic in this country, could refrain from feeling the need to tell me at the drop of a hat. This is the real world, not your group therapy session. Far from expecting you to "exist to serve what is in my head", you should contemplate the reality that you don't exist in my head AT ALL. And that's what really galls you leftists, isn't it? That the fondest wish of most people is to be allowed to forget you entirely.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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!"
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.

Oh, and can I just point out that THEY HAD TO GO SOMEPLACE ELSE ANYWAY, and just doing so is a hell of a lot less trouble than doing so AND filing a fucking court case? So I'm gonna have to guess that speed and convenience PROBABLY was not a motivating factor in the decision process here.

I keep telling you, first, that they did not file a court case. phillips did. They merely filed a discrimination complaint with the state, which was entirely within their rights to do. Secondly, phillips himself is solely responsible for creating the situation. The couple only had to go someplace else because of his conduct. If he got into trouble, it was his own fault. The couple had no responsibility whatsoever to hide his misconduct and shield him, or got elsewhere. Why can't you understand that phillips himself is responsible for the entire thing? PEOPLE CANNOT TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR MISCONDUCT ON THE PUBLIC.

Do NOT try to split hairs with me, you myopic, self-absorbed, mewling snowflake. Your heroes run to the ACLU and the Colorado Civil Rights Division, get a judge's decision against Mr. Phillips, and you want to play like HE started it because he appealed the decision.

There is not enough "fuck you" in the world for your little semantic games and sense of entitlement. "Merely", my ass.

Secondly, Phillips is only "solely responsible for the situation" if you assume that you have a right to the labors of others, regardless of their wishes, and he is somehow outrageous for thinking he has any choice in the matter. While I'm aware that you DO assume that, I'm still going to have to maintain that you're full of shit, and you and the gay couple need to get over yourselves.

No one said anything about "hiding his misconduct and shielding him". The couple DOES have an obligation to act like rational, civilized adults, no matter how much leftist twits like you want to scream and stamp your feet while demanding the right to never be either of those things. Believe it or not, gay people are not living in some special little victim bubble where they are the only people who ever experience annoyance, frustration, and unpleasantness. It's just that most of us don't get our panties in a ruffle and carry on like our lives have been unalterably ruined because of it.

Why can't YOU understand that the responsibility lies with the people who react to minor annoyances as though it were just shy of the Pearl Harbor attack? PEOPLE CANNOT TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN SELFISHNESS ONTO THE PUBLIC.

It is people like phillips who try to transfer responsibility for their own selfishness onto the general public. THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SELFISHNESS OF PEOPLE LIKE PHILLIPS. Go solve it within your cult and leave everyone else alone. Nobody in the general public exists to serve your cult.

Yada yada "Thinking you get to make your own choices in life instead of toting the barge and lifting the bale that your leftist masters tell you is selfish and irresponsible".

How are we supposed to "leave everyone else alone" when you dumbasses make a point of seeking us out so you can throw your little hissy fits of outraged snowflakery?

I would be sorry that demanding real equality and rights without first joining the leftist plantation bothers you so much, except I'm not. Watching you screeching, overgrown children shoot yourselves in the foot while thinking you're winning tickles my schadenfreude too much.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Christianity let freedom thrive, Sharia not so much, in fact, not at all. Your comparison is stupid and so are you.

And yet we have self-proclaimed christians here wanting their version of law to apply .
... 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.

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?

Elections are fine.....but the Constitution is the law of the land that overrides ANY kind of sharia.

Then what are you worried about? All this crap for nothing? You just like to hear yourself talk.

Now you simply are whimpering for no reason?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Oh, and can I just point out that THEY HAD TO GO SOMEPLACE ELSE ANYWAY, and just doing so is a hell of a lot less trouble than doing so AND filing a fucking court case? So I'm gonna have to guess that speed and convenience PROBABLY was not a motivating factor in the decision process here.

I keep telling you, first, that they did not file a court case. phillips did. They merely filed a discrimination complaint with the state, which was entirely within their rights to do. Secondly, phillips himself is solely responsible for creating the situation. The couple only had to go someplace else because of his conduct. If he got into trouble, it was his own fault. The couple had no responsibility whatsoever to hide his misconduct and shield him, or got elsewhere. Why can't you understand that phillips himself is responsible for the entire thing? PEOPLE CANNOT TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR MISCONDUCT ON THE PUBLIC.

Do NOT try to split hairs with me, you myopic, self-absorbed, mewling snowflake. Your heroes run to the ACLU and the Colorado Civil Rights Division, get a judge's decision against Mr. Phillips, and you want to play like HE started it because he appealed the decision.

There is not enough "fuck you" in the world for your little semantic games and sense of entitlement. "Merely", my ass.

Secondly, Phillips is only "solely responsible for the situation" if you assume that you have a right to the labors of others, regardless of their wishes, and he is somehow outrageous for thinking he has any choice in the matter. While I'm aware that you DO assume that, I'm still going to have to maintain that you're full of shit, and you and the gay couple need to get over yourselves.

No one said anything about "hiding his misconduct and shielding him". The couple DOES have an obligation to act like rational, civilized adults, no matter how much leftist twits like you want to scream and stamp your feet while demanding the right to never be either of those things. Believe it or not, gay people are not living in some special little victim bubble where they are the only people who ever experience annoyance, frustration, and unpleasantness. It's just that most of us don't get our panties in a ruffle and carry on like our lives have been unalterably ruined because of it.

Why can't YOU understand that the responsibility lies with the people who react to minor annoyances as though it were just shy of the Pearl Harbor attack? PEOPLE CANNOT TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN SELFISHNESS ONTO THE PUBLIC.

It is people like phillips who try to transfer responsibility for their own selfishness onto the general public. THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SELFISHNESS OF PEOPLE LIKE PHILLIPS. Go solve it within your cult and leave everyone else alone. Nobody in the general public exists to serve your cult.

Yada yada "Thinking you get to make your own choices in life instead of toting the barge and lifting the bale that your leftist masters tell you is selfish and irresponsible".

How are we supposed to "leave everyone else alone" when you dumbasses make a point of seeking us out so you can throw your little hissy fits of outraged snowflakery?

I would be sorry that demanding real equality and rights without first joining the leftist plantation bothers you so much, except I'm not. Watching you screeching, overgrown children shoot yourselves in the foot while thinking you're winning tickles my schadenfreude too much.

Checking in....did you not see me ask what you are actively doing to end PA laws in your state?

 

[Lysistrata]

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!"

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.

Oh, and can I just point out that THEY HAD TO GO SOMEPLACE ELSE ANYWAY, and just doing so is a hell of a lot less trouble than doing so AND filing a fucking court case? So I'm gonna have to guess that speed and convenience PROBABLY was not a motivating factor in the decision process here.

I keep telling you, first, that they did not file a court case. phillips did. They merely filed a discrimination complaint with the state, which was entirely within their rights to do. Secondly, phillips himself is solely responsible for creating the situation. The couple only had to go someplace else because of his conduct. If he got into trouble, it was his own fault. The couple had no responsibility whatsoever to hide his misconduct and shield him, or got elsewhere. Why can't you understand that phillips himself is responsible for the entire thing? PEOPLE CANNOT TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR MISCONDUCT ON THE PUBLIC.

Do NOT try to split hairs with me, you myopic, self-absorbed, mewling snowflake. Your heroes run to the ACLU and the Colorado Civil Rights Division, get a judge's decision against Mr. Phillips, and you want to play like HE started it because he appealed the decision.

There is not enough "fuck you" in the world for your little semantic games and sense of entitlement. "Merely", my ass.

Secondly, Phillips is only "solely responsible for the situation" if you assume that you have a right to the labors of others, regardless of their wishes, and he is somehow outrageous for thinking he has any choice in the matter. While I'm aware that you DO assume that, I'm still going to have to maintain that you're full of shit, and you and the gay couple need to get over yourselves.

No one said anything about "hiding his misconduct and shielding him". The couple DOES have an obligation to act like rational, civilized adults, no matter how much leftist twits like you want to scream and stamp your feet while demanding the right to never be either of those things. Believe it or not, gay people are not living in some special little victim bubble where they are the only people who ever experience annoyance, frustration, and unpleasantness. It's just that most of us don't get our panties in a ruffle and carry on like our lives have been unalterably ruined because of it.

Why can't YOU understand that the responsibility lies with the people who react to minor annoyances as though it were just shy of the Pearl Harbor attack? PEOPLE CANNOT TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN SELFISHNESS ONTO THE PUBLIC.

You continue to act as if the rest of us bear some responsibility to support your cult and whatever whimsies it comes up with. phillips signed on with his business license. He did this of his own free will. I know that you cultheads think that the general public should kiss your ass, but this is not how it works. Settle this within your cult. If you folks get your panties in a wad, think it out. Yeah, you might experience annoyance, frustration, or unpleasantness as a result of your own actions, not the actions of others. What goes on in your cult should have no bearing on the rest of us. Stop expecting to be mollycoddled. Nobody owes you anything.