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.
You just revealed your ignorance. The 14th Amendment dealt with ex slaves. Period. It's been twisted and mangled by people like you that hate the truth and to fulfill their socialist agenda.The 14th amendment was for several things...because if you'd ever read it, you'd notice it has more than one clause.You lefties love to mangle and twist the 14th Amendment. Do you know what the 14th Amendment was for?Marriage is offered by the state with over 1000 rights/privileges that go with it...per the 14th Amendment, the state cannot offer civil marriage to some groups of law abiding citizens and deny it to others.I believe that the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. I don't believe same-sex marriage is a right. Why don't you show me in the Constitution where marriage is a right.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.
Do you think your right to religious freedom is absolute and trumps other rights?
Note this from section 1: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No...we don't...but again, I can understand why you would believe that.....another sign of such.I'm sure you believe what you just posted....it's the sign of a not very bright person.Stand up? You call it standing up when a business whines about being persecuted because they don't want to follow the business laws they promised to when receiving their business license? Standing up? I call it being whiny, lying bigot. If I had my way, it would all be solved by just taking their business licenses away.One is one too many. Don't like it when citizens stand up, do ya.Imagine all those christian businesses destroyed.....what is it? In the 1000s? 100,000s?If I had my way, it would all be solved by just taking their business licenses away.
Oh my, what would you have to complain about then? And what would happen if homos can't bake?If that is the case, we have a lot in common.not very bright person.
And magically you see same-sex marriage in there, huh.The 14th amendment was for several things...because if you'd ever read it, you'd notice it has more than one clause.You lefties love to mangle and twist the 14th Amendment. Do you know what the 14th Amendment was for?Marriage is offered by the state with over 1000 rights/privileges that go with it...per the 14th Amendment, the state cannot offer civil marriage to some groups of law abiding citizens and deny it to others.I believe that the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. I don't believe same-sex marriage is a right. Why don't you show me in the Constitution where marriage is a right.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.
Do you think your right to religious freedom is absolute and trumps other rights?
Note this from section 1: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Nope...let me quote that part of the 14th amendment again: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.You just revealed your ignorance. The 14th Amendment dealt with ex slaves. Period. It's been twisted and mangled by people like you that hate the truth and to fulfill their socialist agenda.The 14th amendment was for several things...because if you'd ever read it, you'd notice it has more than one clause.You lefties love to mangle and twist the 14th Amendment. Do you know what the 14th Amendment was for?Marriage is offered by the state with over 1000 rights/privileges that go with it...per the 14th Amendment, the state cannot offer civil marriage to some groups of law abiding citizens and deny it to others.I believe that the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. I don't believe same-sex marriage is a right. Why don't you show me in the Constitution where marriage is a right.Do you think your right to religious freedom is absolute and trumps other rights?
Note this from section 1: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What I see is if the state offers protection of the law to couples by them legally marrying, the State is required to provide that EQUAL protection to ANY PERSON....doesn't say any straight person....doesn't say any ex-slave person...it says "any person".And magically you see same-sex marriage in there, huh.The 14th amendment was for several things...because if you'd ever read it, you'd notice it has more than one clause.You lefties love to mangle and twist the 14th Amendment. Do you know what the 14th Amendment was for?Marriage is offered by the state with over 1000 rights/privileges that go with it...per the 14th Amendment, the state cannot offer civil marriage to some groups of law abiding citizens and deny it to others.I believe that the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. I don't believe same-sex marriage is a right. Why don't you show me in the Constitution where marriage is a right.Do you think your right to religious freedom is absolute and trumps other rights?
Note this from section 1: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What the fuck do you mean " sort out some for herself?" Are you actually a woman? Do you know that it can be expensive? Do you understand the benefits beyond birth control:She’s so dumb she’ll risk illness or pregnancy rather than sort out some birth control for herself? And you think that’s someone else’s responsibility/fault?Yes it is. It may put that woman at risk of illness or an unwanted pregnancy (How do you feel about abortion?)Not offering birth control as compensation isn't treating others badly.
Medical Uses of the Birth Control Pill | Center for Young Women's Health
We can say the same if you have heart problems or cancer issues....your problem.What the fuck do you mean " sort out some for herself?" Are you actually a woman? Do you know that it can be expensive? Do you understand the benefits beyond birth control:She’s so dumb she’ll risk illness or pregnancy rather than sort out some birth control for herself? And you think that’s someone else’s responsibility/fault?Yes it is. It may put that woman at risk of illness or an unwanted pregnancy (How do you feel about abortion?)Not offering birth control as compensation isn't treating others badly.
Medical Uses of the Birth Control Pill | Center for Young Women's Health
Birth control? Is expensive? Clearly YOU are not a woman.
I don't give a fuck about the benefits beyond birth control if I'M not the one taking it. Do YOU understand that if it's "HER body, HER choice", then it's HER fucking problem?
You ran out of tricks and are going back to how smart you are bullshit? Try again sycophant.No...we don't...but again, I can understand why you would believe that.....another sign of such.I'm sure you believe what you just posted....it's the sign of a not very bright person.Stand up? You call it standing up when a business whines about being persecuted because they don't want to follow the business laws they promised to when receiving their business license? Standing up? I call it being whiny, lying bigot. If I had my way, it would all be solved by just taking their business licenses away.One is one too many. Don't like it when citizens stand up, do ya.If I had my way, it would all be solved by just taking their business licenses away.
Oh my, what would you have to complain about then? And what would happen if homos can't bake?If that is the case, we have a lot in common.not very bright person.
Any answers about the 14th amendment? Shall I expect brilliant rebuttals?You ran out of tricks and are going back to how smart you are bullshit? Try again sycophant.No...we don't...but again, I can understand why you would believe that.....another sign of such.I'm sure you believe what you just posted....it's the sign of a not very bright person.Stand up? You call it standing up when a business whines about being persecuted because they don't want to follow the business laws they promised to when receiving their business license? Standing up? I call it being whiny, lying bigot. If I had my way, it would all be solved by just taking their business licenses away.If I had my way, it would all be solved by just taking their business licenses away.
Oh my, what would you have to complain about then? And what would happen if homos can't bake?If that is the case, we have a lot in common.not very bright person.
Like I said, you see same-sex marriage magically in the 14th Amendment. Tell me, which of the authors of that amendment had same-sex marriage in mind like you do when they drew it up?What I see is if the state offers protection of the law to couples by them legally marrying, the State is required to provide that EQUAL protection to ANY PERSON....doesn't say any straight person....doesn't say any ex-slave person...it says "any person".And magically you see same-sex marriage in there, huh.The 14th amendment was for several things...because if you'd ever read it, you'd notice it has more than one clause.You lefties love to mangle and twist the 14th Amendment. Do you know what the 14th Amendment was for?Marriage is offered by the state with over 1000 rights/privileges that go with it...per the 14th Amendment, the state cannot offer civil marriage to some groups of law abiding citizens and deny it to others.I believe that the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. I don't believe same-sex marriage is a right. Why don't you show me in the Constitution where marriage is a right.
Note this from section 1: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Well, I'm smarter than you are.You ran out of tricks and are going back to how smart you are bullshit? Try again sycophant.No...we don't...but again, I can understand why you would believe that.....another sign of such.I'm sure you believe what you just posted....it's the sign of a not very bright person.Stand up? You call it standing up when a business whines about being persecuted because they don't want to follow the business laws they promised to when receiving their business license? Standing up? I call it being whiny, lying bigot. If I had my way, it would all be solved by just taking their business licenses away.If I had my way, it would all be solved by just taking their business licenses away.
Oh my, what would you have to complain about then? And what would happen if homos can't bake?If that is the case, we have a lot in common.not very bright person.
I expect you to find anything in our Constitution you can use to undermine the Constitution.Any answers about the 14th amendment? Shall I expect brilliant rebuttals?You ran out of tricks and are going back to how smart you are bullshit? Try again sycophant.No...we don't...but again, I can understand why you would believe that.....another sign of such.I'm sure you believe what you just posted....it's the sign of a not very bright person.Oh my, what would you have to complain about then? And what would happen if homos can't bake?If that is the case, we have a lot in common.not very bright person.
Good for you.Well, I'm smarter than you are.You ran out of tricks and are going back to how smart you are bullshit? Try again sycophant.No...we don't...but again, I can understand why you would believe that.....another sign of such.I'm sure you believe what you just posted....it's the sign of a not very bright person.Oh my, what would you have to complain about then? And what would happen if homos can't bake?If that is the case, we have a lot in common.not very bright person.
Our Documents - 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868)
You are too stupid to notice that what I am saying is NOT TO BE A VICTIM. Fight back.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.
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.
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.
Yes I’m a woman, and no one has EVER had to sort out my birth control for me. It’s called being a responsible adult!What the fuck do you mean " sort out some for herself?" Are you actually a woman? Do you know that it can be expensive? Do you understand the benefits beyond birth control:She’s so dumb she’ll risk illness or pregnancy rather than sort out some birth control for herself? And you think that’s someone else’s responsibility/fault?Yes it is. It may put that woman at risk of illness or an unwanted pregnancy (How do you feel about abortion?)Not offering birth control as compensation isn't treating others badly.
Medical Uses of the Birth Control Pill | Center for Young Women's Health
It is discrimination if you're willing to put a bride and a groom on a cake for an opposite sex wedding. It is also a gross distortion of the meaning of religious freedom.
It's actually not discrimination. If you're willing to put a bride and groom on a cake for a gay couple, you've offered them IDENTICAL service to what you gave the straight couple.
Don't be obtuse. Of course it's discrimination. The question is whether government should be in charge of regulating discrimination.
If not the government, then whom, business?
Neither? I guess it's inconceivable to you that discrimination is a deeply personal issue, and not something that should be subject to 'regulation'.
Wrong, it's a legal issue.
The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?
Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.It's actually not discrimination. If you're willing to put a bride and groom on a cake for a gay couple, you've offered them IDENTICAL service to what you gave the straight couple.
Don't be obtuse. Of course it's discrimination. The question is whether government should be in charge of regulating discrimination.
If not the government, then whom, business?
Neither? I guess it's inconceivable to you that discrimination is a deeply personal issue, and not something that should be subject to 'regulation'.
Wrong, it's a legal issue.
The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?
It is discrimination if you're willing to put a bride and a groom on a cake for an opposite sex wedding. It is also a gross distortion of the meaning of religious freedom.
It's actually not discrimination. If you're willing to put a bride and groom on a cake for a gay couple, you've offered them IDENTICAL service to what you gave the straight couple.
Don't be obtuse. Of course it's discrimination. The question is whether government should be in charge of regulating discrimination.
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, Mr. Dufresne.
I don't give a shit about bogus legal distinctions. Discrimination is every person's right - arguably a responsibility. We shouldn't let government tell us how to do it "properly".
The law is bogus?
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.
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:
Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not? - FindLaw
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:
- the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
- the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
- the history of the organization;
- the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
- the purpose of the club's existence;
- whether the club advertises for members;
- whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
- the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.).
>>>>
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.
