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

[Ibentoken]

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.

You're an obedient subject.

 

[dblack]

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.

At least you're honest. You don't wanna get rid of the the gravy train until you've had your ride.

 

[Rikurzhen]

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.

At least you're honest. You don't wanna get rid of the the gravy train until you've had your ride.

I have absolutely no problem with his statement. If I want to have my Freedom of Association restored to me, then why shouldn't others have the same right restored to them.

If a person wants to discriminate against gays and he's handicapped, then he should be prepared for Asians to discriminate against him, and the Asian should be prepared for women to discriminate against them, etc.

No one said Freedom and Human Rights had to avoid offending people. Liberals offend me all the damn time when they exercise freedom of speech. I have a limit to how much vacuity I can take, but if I want to exercise my freedom of speech I have to tolerate inanities from liberals.

 

[dblack]

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.

At least you're honest. You don't wanna get rid of the the gravy train until you've had your ride.

I have absolutely no problem with his statement. If I want to have my Freedom of Association restored to me, then why shouldn't others have the same right restored to them.

If a person wants to discriminate against gays and he's handicapped, then he should be prepared for Asians to discriminate against him, and the Asian should be prepared for women to discriminate against them, etc.

No one said Freedom and Human Rights had to avoid offending people. Liberals offend me all the damn time when they exercise freedom of speech. I have a limit to how much vacuity I can take, but if I want to exercise my freedom of speech I have to tolerate inanities from liberals.

But that's not what Seawytch wants - not just yet, anyway. First, she wants in on the plunder.

 

[Gadawg73]

True defenders of freedom seek to defend and protect the rights of those they may despise the most.
All others are milk weak sissies and would not want them on the bench much less on the field when it is 4th and long.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When he opens a church, he can do whatever he wants. In a business that is open to the public, you serve the public, period, end of story, vote with your feet if you don't like it.

The Constitution doesn't say that. Tell us what the constitution says in the first amendment.

" or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Doesn't mean you can use religion as an excuse to go beyond societal norms. Those norms change over time. You can't, as part of your religion, sacrifice another human. Now, in some states you can't discriminate against the LGBT community. I'm guessing it wont be long before it's federal too. But not yet.

I must have missed the ". . . within societal norms" clause in the First Amendment. Wouldn't you think someone would have pointed it out in all these years?

I do love how leftists think killing someone and refusing to bake someone a cake are morally equivalent, though. Yeah, that's exactly the same, Einstein. You're brilliant.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The intolerant of you liberals is really something to behold. Quit forcing people to be nice.

Actually we're forcing him to act like a grownup, and a business, not a church.

what gives you the right to force anybody to do anything?

Or to define the words "grown-up", "business", and "church" for other people?

 

[Rikurzhen]

True defenders of freedom seek to defend and protect the rights of those they may despise the most.
All others are milk weak sissies and would not want them on the bench much less on the field when it is 4th and long.

Exactly, you never see liberals championing the rights of those who fight for liberty. Attacks on free speech, attacks on free association, attacks on religious liberty, attacks on equality, attacks on 2nd amendment, etc.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you don't like the law...repeal it. It's really that simple.

That's the idea.

Yeah? Where is it the idea? Is your Congressman introducing legislation to "adjust" the Civil Rights Act, removing all public accommodation laws? It has to be Congress you know, since the Supreme Court already ruled PA laws Constitutional. And we're talking about Federal Law that protects religion, race, gender, country of origin or disability status from discrimination in Public Accommodation so it has to be your Congressman...a "people's initiative" won't cut it.

What do you think these challenges and news stories are about, fuckstain? This is pretty rich, coming from the same American left that loves to brag about how it ended an entire war by way of a bunch of unwashed, dope-smoking hairballs staging "love-ins". Now, all of a sudden, they don't grasp the idea of creating a grass-roots protest movement.

As stupid as I think leftists are, even I don't think they're THIS stupid.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Doesn't matter if you think it's sanctimonious. He believes he is violating his faith by designing a cake to be used in a queer wedding. Why can't you all be tolerant?

When he opens a church, he can do whatever he wants. In a business that is open to the public, you serve the public, period, end of story, vote with your feet if you don't like it.

The Constitution doesn't say that. Tell us what the constitution says in the first amendment.

The issue doesn't have anything to do with the First Amendment, public accommodations laws are Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause:

The exemptions in the NMHRA are ordinary exemptions for religious organizations and for certain limited employment and real-estate transactions. The exemptions do not prefer secular conduct over religious conduct or evince any hostility toward religion. We hold that the NMHRA is a neutral law of general applicability, and as such it does not offend the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Doesn't matter if you think it's sanctimonious. He believes he is violating his faith by designing a cake to be used in a queer wedding. Why can't you all be tolerant?

If he offers wedding cakes as a business to the public, he cannot pick and choose which group he serves or not serves....same applies if he were to say he cannot design a cake for an interracial couple....or he refuses to design a cake for an interfaith couple.

Nope. You can't force an American citizen to violate their religious beliefs. Period. They will change the law.

You keep trying to contrive this as some sort of a Free Exercise Clause issue, when as a fact of Constitutional law it is not.

It's disingenuous on your part to seek to conceal your unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans behind a facade of 'religious liberty.'

 

[Ibentoken]

If he offers wedding cakes as a business to the public, he cannot pick and choose which group he serves or not serves....same applies if he were to say he cannot design a cake for an interracial couple....or he refuses to design a cake for an interfaith couple.

Nope. You can't force an American citizen to violate their religious beliefs. Period. They will change the law.

You keep trying to contrive this as some sort of a Free Exercise Clause issue, when as a fact of Constitutional law it is not.

It's disingenuous on your part to seek to conceal your unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans behind a facade of 'religious liberty.'

What does "or prohibit the free exercise thereof" mean to you?

 

[bodecea]

Nope. You can't force an American citizen to violate their religious beliefs. Period. They will change the law.

You keep trying to contrive this as some sort of a Free Exercise Clause issue, when as a fact of Constitutional law it is not.

It's disingenuous on your part to seek to conceal your unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans behind a facade of 'religious liberty.'

What does "or prohibit the free exercise thereof" mean to you?

All rights are not allowed to take away the rights of others.....It's all the "you have the right to swing your arm until it connects with someone else's nose." deal.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You keep trying to contrive this as some sort of a Free Exercise Clause issue, when as a fact of Constitutional law it is not.

It's disingenuous on your part to seek to conceal your unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans behind a facade of 'religious liberty.'

What does "or prohibit the free exercise thereof" mean to you?

All rights are not allowed to take away the rights of others.....It's all the "you have the right to swing your arm until it connects with someone else's nose." deal.

So we finally broke through with you. Now you understand what is so evil about Civil Rights laws.

 

[bodecea]

What does "or prohibit the free exercise thereof" mean to you?

All rights are not allowed to take away the rights of others.....It's all the "you have the right to swing your arm until it connects with someone else's nose." deal.

So we finally broke through with you. Now you understand what is so evil about Civil Rights laws.

Fascinating. Civil rights laws evil......

 

[Rikurzhen]

All rights are not allowed to take away the rights of others.....It's all the "you have the right to swing your arm until it connects with someone else's nose." deal.

So we finally broke through with you. Now you understand what is so evil about Civil Rights laws.

Fascinating. Civil rights laws evil......

Share with us, let's have a kumbaya moment, when government compels you to act against your human rights, which compelled acts do you find enjoyable? Do you relish the thought of government forcing you to pray? Please share.

 

[bodecea]

So we finally broke through with you. Now you understand what is so evil about Civil Rights laws.

Fascinating. Civil rights laws evil......

Share with us, let's have a kumbaya moment, when government compels you to act against your human rights, which compelled acts do you find enjoyable? Do you relish the thought of government forcing you to pray? Please share.

Tell us how "the government forcing you to pray" equates in any way with "civil rights laws".

 

[Rikurzhen]

Fascinating. Civil rights laws evil......

Share with us, let's have a kumbaya moment, when government compels you to act against your human rights, which compelled acts do you find enjoyable? Do you relish the thought of government forcing you to pray? Please share.

Tell us how "the government forcing you to pray" equates in any way with "civil rights laws".

Civil Rights laws are used by government to compel employers to associate with people they don't want to associate with.

 

[Ibentoken]

You keep trying to contrive this as some sort of a Free Exercise Clause issue, when as a fact of Constitutional law it is not.

It's disingenuous on your part to seek to conceal your unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans behind a facade of 'religious liberty.'

What does "or prohibit the free exercise thereof" mean to you?

All rights are not allowed to take away the rights of others.....It's all the "you have the right to swing your arm until it connects with someone else's nose." deal.

I agree. You took the right of the baker away, though I'm sure you will never be honest enough to admit it because your agenda is all that matters.

 

[Politico]

So, we are told gay conversion therapy is evil, but re-education for a Christian is court ordered.

Crazy times we live in

Exactly.