Baker Who Won’t Make Cakes for Same-Sex Weddings Appeals Mandatory Re-Education Order

[kaz]

Again Kaz is arguing where he wants the world to be, not where it is. PA laws exist. If I can't discriminate against Christians in private business, they shouldn't be able to discriminate against me.

So you want bigoted Christians to make money on you after they tell you what they are? You didn't think this one through, did you?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Those examples aren't the point. I've never been forced to labor against my will or forced to attend indoctrination classes. Do you understand the difference?

Those indoctrination classes...what do you think they are composed of?

Pure crap. What do you think they are composed of?

How can the question be pure crap when you turn around and ask the same question?

Premature ajerkulation.

 

[kaz]

I'm doing it right now

What action are you taking?

Bitching.

OMG, what's that smell? It's ... hypocrisy. Can you let us know before you fire one of those off? Maybe go outside? It reeks too, what did you eat for lunch?

 

[Redfish]

So you know for a fact that your boss is not gay? That you've never had a gay customer in whatever your business is?

It's hard to tell what behaviors people practice in their bedrooms until they try to call it married and insist that you play along.

That's why "gay" isn't recognizable as an innate race. It is a behavior. And behaviors are regulated state by state according to majority rules. If you don't like it, move to some country where gay fascism already rules. Like one of the scandinavian countries..

Gay marriage affects you in no way.
If you allow it to then your marriage is not a strong one.
YOU and you alone control your emotions.
Gay marriage affects no one and it has no affect on you whatsoever.
How does swingers' parties for heterosexuals affect you? I find them to be disgusting but they also AFFECT ME IN NO WAY.
Quit being a busy body mother hen and mind your own business. Start believing in freedom of religion and supporting it as many preachers in many churches are DENIED being able to marry gay couples that THEY WANT TO MARRY.

You are either naive or biased. Gay "marriage" would affect all of us because it sets a legal precedent for all forms of "marriage". When gay marriage is permitted on the grounds of discrimination or equality, then there is absolutely no legal defence that can be brought to prevent polygamy, bigamy, and every other combination that humans can come up with.

No one wants gays to be discriminated against, How about a law that allows two homosexuals of the same sex to enter into a binding legal contract that gives them 100% of the rights as a man/woman married couple? Calling it a marriage is what opens the door for all of the perverted forms of multiple coupling.

Hurl whatever insults at me that you want, but I am right from a legal standpoint.

 

[Redfish]

Again Kaz is arguing where he wants the world to be, not where it is. PA laws exist. If I can't discriminate against Christians in private business, they shouldn't be able to discriminate against me.

So you want bigoted Christians to make money on you after they tell you what they are? You didn't think this one through, did you?

She never does. Her agenda blocks rational thinking.

 

[manifold]

Those indoctrination classes...what do you think they are composed of?

Pure crap. What do you think they are composed of?

How can the question be pure crap when you turn around and ask the same question?

Premature ajerkulation.

I interpreted that as saying the classes are comprised of pure crap. Not the question.

 

[dblack]

Virtually no one if anyone arguing the baker should not be forced to bake the cake is arguing that the gay photographer should be forced to work for the baker, and anyone who tried arguing that would be viewed the same as you arguing it's a legitimate use of government force to compel a citizen to bake a cake. This is a vacuous argument.

But religion does enjoy the special protection many here are unwilling to grant sexual orientation. It would be illegal, and I suspect we would see lawsuits, if a photographer (regardless of whether they are gay or not) refused to photograph weddings for fundamentalists because of their religion. All the gays want is to get in on the same action.

It think either everyone should be on the list, or no one should. Since it would be patently insane to outlaw all discrimination, the only choice that makes sense to me is repeal, or better yet, strike down, the PA laws.

So you think society acts in favor of fundamentalists and against gays?



Government forcing any citizen to do anything for another citizen is an abomination, a flagrant abuse of power. Doing it for one even if it is done for another is a case of two wrongs don't make a right. I can't believe a libertarian would think that it would.

I don't think it does, and as I said, I think PA laws should be ruled unconstitutional. It's just that I see a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of this debate, and I suspect a lot of the people here arguing against extending anti-discrimination protection for gays, would be irate if religion were removed from the protected classes list.

 

[Redfish]

But religion does enjoy the special protection many here are unwilling to grant sexual orientation. It would be illegal, and I suspect we would see lawsuits, if a photographer (regardless of whether they are gay or not) refused to photograph weddings for fundamentalists because of their religion. All the gays want is to get in on the same action.

It think either everyone should be on the list, or no one should. Since it would be patently insane to outlaw all discrimination, the only choice that makes sense to me is repeal, or better yet, strike down, the PA laws.

So you think society acts in favor of fundamentalists and against gays?



Government forcing any citizen to do anything for another citizen is an abomination, a flagrant abuse of power. Doing it for one even if it is done for another is a case of two wrongs don't make a right. I can't believe a libertarian would think that it would.

I don't think it does, and as I said, I think PA laws should be ruled unconstitutional. It's just that I see a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of this debate, and I suspect a lot of the people here arguing against extending anti-discrimination protection for gays, would be irate if religion were removed from the protected classes list.

I have not seen anyone arguing that gays should not have PA protections. The issue is whether gays should be allowed to enter into a man/man or woman/woman union and call it a marriage.

The gay agenda is hung up on the word marriage because their real goal is govt mandated societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal. See Orwell and Rand. They predicted thought control by government, and now we are seeing the beginnings of it.

 

[dblack]

Really you should try that again in English...



But if I got it correctly...





So we agree, Public Accommodation laws should be repealed right?



That if the baker can refuse to serve gays because they are gay that gays can refuse Christians because of their specific religious stance?



That one can discriminate but the other can't (under the law), is readily apparent unequal treatment under the law.







The remedy then is:

(a) require each to provide equal service to the other, or



(b) neither is required to provide service to the other.​

As it is now one gets to discriminate but the other is barred.



>>>>

We agree that all public accommodation laws should be repealed. We do not agree that until they are then we should add more legislation which is unnecessary and therefore simply an excuse for government to exert power. Why would I possibly agree that more unnecessary government legislation is good? Why would you think that?



Seawytch wants it for validation. She obviously has no problem getting a cake baked. She is just saying if they have it, she wants it too.



The true oppressed minority in this country are achievers who fund the government and provide the jobs. If you want to make a difference, focus on that real problem, not contrived ones.

Again Kaz is arguing where he wants the world to be, not where it is. PA laws exist. If I can't discriminate against Christians in private business, they shouldn't be able to discriminate against me.

I understand what you're getting at here, but don't you believe in equal rights? Shouldn't everyone enjoy the same protection of the law? Why are you arguing only for gay rights? Is this just a petition to join the "I've got mine" club?

 

[Ibentoken]

Pastors who are not allowed to marry gay couples in their church is a completely different matter. Denominations have the right to define their sacraments as they choose. IMHO THAT is religious freedom.

The Constitution says govt cannot prohibit the free exercise thereof. It's not talking about church. That's why the baker was targeted.

I wasn't responding to you. Gadawg WAS taking about churches. I was responding to him. Sorry for any confusion.

Those indoctrination classes...what do you think they are composed of?

Pure crap. What do you think they are composed of?

How can the question be pure crap when you turn around and ask the same question?

Premature ajerkulation.

Read it again. I was asked what I thought the classes were composed of. I said pure crap. That means that the classes are pure crap, not the question.

 

[kaz]

So you think society acts in favor of fundamentalists and against gays?



Government forcing any citizen to do anything for another citizen is an abomination, a flagrant abuse of power. Doing it for one even if it is done for another is a case of two wrongs don't make a right. I can't believe a libertarian would think that it would.

I don't think it does, and as I said, I think PA laws should be ruled unconstitutional. It's just that I see a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of this debate, and I suspect a lot of the people here arguing against extending anti-discrimination protection for gays, would be irate if religion were removed from the protected classes list.

I have not seen anyone arguing that gays should not have PA protections. The issue is whether gays should be allowed to enter into a man/man or woman/woman union and call it a marriage.

The gay agenda is hung up on the word marriage because their real goal is govt mandated societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal. See Orwell and Rand. They predicted thought control by government, and now we are seeing the beginnings of it.

I am I'm arguing gays should not have government PA protections, but I'm also arguing no one should have government PA protections, they should not exist. Free markets are far more effective.

I'm also arguing there should be no gay government marriage, but I'm also arguing there should be no such thing as government marriage.

There is a pattern emerging...

 

[Gadawg73]

It's hard to tell what behaviors people practice in their bedrooms until they try to call it married and insist that you play along.

That's why "gay" isn't recognizable as an innate race. It is a behavior. And behaviors are regulated state by state according to majority rules. If you don't like it, move to some country where gay fascism already rules. Like one of the scandinavian countries..

Gay marriage affects you in no way.
If you allow it to then your marriage is not a strong one.
YOU and you alone control your emotions.
Gay marriage affects no one and it has no affect on you whatsoever.
How does swingers' parties for heterosexuals affect you? I find them to be disgusting but they also AFFECT ME IN NO WAY.
Quit being a busy body mother hen and mind your own business. Start believing in freedom of religion and supporting it as many preachers in many churches are DENIED being able to marry gay couples that THEY WANT TO MARRY.

You are either naive or biased. Gay "marriage" would affect all of us because it sets a legal precedent for all forms of "marriage". When gay marriage is permitted on the grounds of discrimination or equality, then there is absolutely no legal defence that can be brought to prevent polygamy, bigamy, and every other combination that humans can come up with.

No one wants gays to be discriminated against, How about a law that allows two homosexuals of the same sex to enter into a binding legal contract that gives them 100% of the rights as a man/woman married couple? Calling it a marriage is what opens the door for all of the perverted forms of multiple coupling.

Hurl whatever insults at me that you want, but I am right from a legal standpoint.

Funny, how many courts have shot down all of your arguments lately?
From a legal standpoint you are 100% wrong.
If that is hurling insults at you then so be it.
Your claim that "no one wants gays to be discriminated against" is absurd and I do not see you as the classic homophobe and believe you when you say do not want to actively discriminate against gays.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have not seen anyone arguing that gays should not have PA protections. The issue is whether gays should be allowed to enter into a man/man or woman/woman union and call it a marriage.

You realise this thread is about a baker that disagrees with Public Accommodation laws and that he should get special treatment because he disagrees with making a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, right?

BTW - Colorado doesn't have Civil Marriage.



>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

They called my Dad naive when he fought for blacks to be able to take the SAT in the mid 60s in the south. They said it would open up the door for forced testing on whites.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Your claim that "no one wants gays to be discriminated against" is absurd.

I want to discriminate against everyone, principally because when totalitarian liberals tell me that they get to pick and choose who I shall form associations with in MY LIFE I want to tell them to fuck off and tend to their own knitting and not manage my life, and so, to exercise my right I'm going to discriminate any damn time I feel like it. You're a homo? I want to discriminate against you. Is it Thursday today, well them it's Hetero Discrimination Day. You have freckles, well I don't want to associate with you today, just to spite liberal totalitarianism.

 

[Seawytch]

What action are you taking?

Bitching.

OMG, what's that smell? It's ... hypocrisy. Can you let us know before you fire one of those off? Maybe go outside? It reeks too, what did you eat for lunch?

Ah, but I do much more for ideals I believe in than bitching on a message board. I call my legislators regularly to support legislation...like ENDA for example. You know, actual drafted and passed (by the Senate) legislation. Where's any legislator proposing your fantasy? Oh, there aren't any?

 

[Seawytch]

I don't think it does, and as I said, I think PA laws should be ruled unconstitutional. It's just that I see a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of this debate, and I suspect a lot of the people here arguing against extending anti-discrimination protection for gays, would be irate if religion were removed from the protected classes list.

I have not seen anyone arguing that gays should not have PA protections. The issue is whether gays should be allowed to enter into a man/man or woman/woman union and call it a marriage.



The gay agenda is hung up on the word marriage because their real goal is govt mandated societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal. See Orwell and Rand. They predicted thought control by government, and now we are seeing the beginnings of it.

I am I'm arguing gays should not have government PA protections, but I'm also arguing no one should have government PA protections, they should not exist. Free markets are far more effective.



I'm also arguing there should be no gay government marriage, but I'm also arguing there should be no such thing as government marriage.



There is a pattern emerging...

But they do exist and as long as they do, gays should be "in there" don't ya think? One is much more likely than the other...

 

[Seawytch]

So you think society acts in favor of fundamentalists and against gays?







Government forcing any citizen to do anything for another citizen is an abomination, a flagrant abuse of power. Doing it for one even if it is done for another is a case of two wrongs don't make a right. I can't believe a libertarian would think that it would.

I don't think it does, and as I said, I think PA laws should be ruled unconstitutional. It's just that I see a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of this debate, and I suspect a lot of the people here arguing against extending anti-discrimination protection for gays, would be irate if religion were removed from the protected classes list.

I have not seen anyone arguing that gays should not have PA protections. The issue is whether gays should be allowed to enter into a man/man or woman/woman union and call it a marriage.



The gay agenda is hung up on the word marriage because their real goal is govt mandated societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal. See Orwell and Rand. They predicted thought control by government, and now we are seeing the beginnings of it.

Then you have paid zero attention to the thread.

 

[Seawytch]

Again Kaz is arguing where he wants the world to be, not where it is. PA laws exist. If I can't discriminate against Christians in private business, they shouldn't be able to discriminate against me.

So you want bigoted Christians to make money on you after they tell you what they are? You didn't think this one through, did you?

No, I want to be able to throw all Christians out of my establishment, but Federal Law prohibits me from doing so. Since that is the case, they should not be able to do the same to me. I thought it through plenty.

Add gays then I'll help you repeal them all. I'd be 100% on board, but I won't fight to get off a boat I'm not allowed on.

 

[Ibentoken]

I have not seen anyone arguing that gays should not have PA protections. The issue is whether gays should be allowed to enter into a man/man or woman/woman union and call it a marriage.



The gay agenda is hung up on the word marriage because their real goal is govt mandated societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal. See Orwell and Rand. They predicted thought control by government, and now we are seeing the beginnings of it.

I am I'm arguing gays should not have government PA protections, but I'm also arguing no one should have government PA protections, they should not exist. Free markets are far more effective.



I'm also arguing there should be no gay government marriage, but I'm also arguing there should be no such thing as government marriage.



There is a pattern emerging...

But they do exist and as long as they do, gays should be "in there" don't ya think? One is much more likely than the other...

Queers have always existed and have the same rights as anyone else. If you choose to be a queer, that's your business, but that doesn't make you a more special citizen than others. I have the right to ignore you. Piss on you statist leftist trash.