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

[Seawytch]

We agree that all public accommodation laws should be repealed.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?

Just who else do you think doesn't have equal rights that I should be fighting to be included in Public Accommodation laws? What recognized minority, other than gays, is not already protected by them?

What it seems more like is why fight so hard against gays having equal rights? Seems like those are the people in the "I've got mine" club that don't want anyone else to have the protections they have.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

These "challenges" and "news stories" aren't about getting rid of Public Accommodation laws, you incredibly nasty CU Next Tuesday, they are about religious exemptions to just the gay ones.

No one, anywhere is trying to get rid of the PA laws that protect race, religion, gender, country of origin or disability...they just bitch and moan in the places that gays are ALSO protected by them.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

No, gays do not have the "same rights as anyone else"...but we're getting there.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

No...I just don't want to seem mean and spiteful like the people wanting to end these laws before the gays get in. See, if I fight to end PA laws without gays, it just looks like I'm having a sour grapes moment..."if I can't have it, you can't either" kind of thing. Once I'm on the inside, however, I can be much more effective in fighting to end ALL Public Accommodation laws.

 

[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.

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?

Just who else do you think doesn't have equal rights that I should be fighting to be included in Public Accommodation laws? What recognized minority, other than gays, is not already protected by them?

All of them, also, the un'recognized' ones.

What it seems more like is why fight so hard against gays having equal rights? Seems like those are the people in the "I've got mine" club that don't want anyone else to have the protections they have.

Sure, there's definitely an element of that. Which I'm trying to point out as well. But I'd like both sides to recognize that this isn't about equal rights, it's about special rights, reserved for specific groups.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Just who else do you think doesn't have equal rights that I should be fighting to be included in Public Accommodation laws? What recognized minority, other than gays, is not already protected by them?

All of them, also, the un'recognized' ones.

For example? Who are these "unrecognized minorities"' that are being subject to discrimination?

What it seems more like is why fight so hard against gays having equal rights? Seems like those are the people in the "I've got mine" club that don't want anyone else to have the protections they have.

Sure, there's definitely an element of that. Which I'm trying to point out as well. But I'd like both sides to recognize that this isn't about equal rights, it's about special rights, reserved for specific groups.

When interracial couples fought for the right to marry each other, were they asking for equal rights or special rights?

 

[dblack]

Just who else do you think doesn't have equal rights that I should be fighting to be included in Public Accommodation laws? What recognized minority, other than gays, is not already protected by them?

All of them, also, the un'recognized' ones.

For example? Who are these "unrecognized minorities"' that are being subject to discrimination?

Anybody who's ever discriminated against. I could make a list [fat people, skinny people, people with as 'southern' accent', people with a north eastern accent, smart people, dumb people, ugly people, attractive people, short people, tall people, smelly people, dirty people, etc, etc, ...] but that's missing the point: it's an endless list.

What it seems more like is why fight so hard against gays having equal rights? Seems like those are the people in the "I've got mine" club that don't want anyone else to have the protections they have.

Sure, there's definitely an element of that. Which I'm trying to point out as well. But I'd like both sides to recognize that this isn't about equal rights, it's about special rights, reserved for specific groups.

When interracial couples fought for the right to marry each other, were they asking for equal rights or special rights?

That's not what this is about. The baker isn't denying gays the right to marry. He's refusing to bake a cake for them. This is about the baker's right to judge and ostracize people based on his own personal views.

 

[Seawytch]

All of them, also, the un'recognized' ones.

For example? Who are these "unrecognized minorities"' that are being subject to discrimination?

Anybody who's ever discriminated against. I could make a list [fat people, skinny people, people with as 'southern' accent', people with a north eastern accent, smart people, dumb people, ugly people, attractive people, short people, tall people, smelly people, dirty people, etc, etc, ...] but that's missing the point: it's an endless list.

A lot of which are covered under Public Accommodation laws.

I get the Libertarian position, really I do, it's a great fantasy.

Sure, there's definitely an element of that. Which I'm trying to point out as well. But I'd like both sides to recognize that this isn't about equal rights, it's about special rights, reserved for specific groups.

When interracial couples fought for the right to marry each other, were they asking for equal rights or special rights?

That's not what this is about. The baker isn't denying gays the right to marry. He's refusing to bake a cake for them. This is about the baker's right to judge and ostracize people based on his own personal views.

And he still has that right. There is no right to operate a business in the public sphere. Churches get to ostracize people, business don't...until you get rid of all public accommodation laws.

And we know that's not happening anytime soon...and I mean really really not anytime soon so in the mean time, while Libertarians are talking about it on internet message boards, I'll continue to push legislators to pass actual legislation protecting gays and lesbians alongside other minorities...like Jews.

Get some legislation going, not just bullshit religious exemptions for the homophobic assholes, but getting rid of ALL public accommodation laws and then we can talk about support.

 

[dblack]

For example? Who are these "unrecognized minorities"' that are being subject to discrimination?

A lot of which are covered under Public Accommodation laws.

I get the Libertarian position, really I do, it's a great fantasy.

How is it a fantasy? Do you deny people get discriminated against for reasons other than the 'protected classes'? If so, why are you w

That's not what this is about. The baker isn't denying gays the right to marry. He's refusing to bake a cake for them. This is about the baker's right to judge and ostracize people based on his own personal views.

And he still has that right. There is no right to operate a business in the public sphere. Churches get to ostracize people, business don't...

Sure they do. Just not for the reasons on the special list. Anything else goes.

...until you get rid of all public accommodation laws.

And we know that's not happening anytime soon...and I mean really really not anytime soon so in the mean time, while Libertarians are talking about it on internet message boards, I'll continue to push legislators to pass actual legislation protecting gays and lesbians alongside other minorities...like Jews.

Get some legislation going, not just bullshit religious exemptions for the homophobic assholes, but getting rid of ALL public accommodation laws and then we can talk about support.

It will require support to get that legislation going. And, as you've correctly recognized, it would be dead in the water at this point. Personally, in the meantime I'm ok with your approach. It could be seen as nihilist of me, but the more we 'pile on' with protected classes, the more people will begin to realize what a dead end PA laws really are.

But I'm not entirely sure you are genuine in your agreement that it is a dead end, as your arguments seem to indicate that you think such a view is a 'fantasy'.

The thing is, if I might speak more broadly, what we're trying to do here is co-opt the power to enforce social norms, to place it under centralized democratic control via government rather than with the people. And I find that very dangerous. Not only does it invite tyranny, it strips society of its most important tool for promoting morality.

 

[kaz]

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?

I already addressed this point

 

[kaz]

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...

I already addressed this point

 

[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?

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.

So no, you don't want the Christians to make money off you, but yes, you want them to make money off you. You really need to read your posts before you click enter. Then again, unless you read them better than you read mine, there isn't any point to that. Never mind.

 

[Gadawg73]

I support gay rights and gay marriage but a few things stand out:
Baker is in no way giving away any of his religious beliefs, caving into them or not standing by them by baking them a damn cake.
Why would anyone want to do business with someone that does not like them? The gay couple could have found another baker to accommodate their wishes
The informative requirements placed on employers to inform their employees of the statute are ridiculous after the fact.
It is bad business practice to turn law abiding customers away because of religious beliefs. Respect for all people is what Christianity is all about. Bake them the cake and love thy neighbor.

 

[kaz]

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.

Yes. She wants validation that she's gay and she's OK before she'll do the right thing.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Yes. She wants validation that she's gay and she's OK before she'll do the right thing.

What is wrong with validating everyone as equal to each other?

 

[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.

Yes. She wants validation that she's gay and she's OK before she'll do the right thing.

I don't see it that way. It's just a matter of wanting to give sexual orientation the same protection that religious affiliation enjoys.

 

[bodecea]

Just who else do you think doesn't have equal rights that I should be fighting to be included in Public Accommodation laws? What recognized minority, other than gays, is not already protected by them?

All of them, also, the un'recognized' ones.

For example? Who are these "unrecognized minorities"' that are being subject to discrimination?

What it seems more like is why fight so hard against gays having equal rights? Seems like those are the people in the "I've got mine" club that don't want anyone else to have the protections they have.

Sure, there's definitely an element of that. Which I'm trying to point out as well. But I'd like both sides to recognize that this isn't about equal rights, it's about special rights, reserved for specific groups.

When interracial couples fought for the right to marry each other, were they asking for equal rights or special rights?

Here's where they jump in with the "sexual preference is not a race" which shows they believe civil rights are ONLY based on race....which would totally surprise those who fought for civil rights for women (gender), handicapped, religions, etc.

 

[kaz]

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

Yes. She wants validation that she's gay and she's OK before she'll do the right thing.

I don't see it that way. It's just a matter of wanting to give sexual orientation the same protection that religious affiliation enjoys.

Hmm..so you're a libertarian who thinks that PA is "protection?" Government is protecting someone FROM free markets, you understand she wants that? Seriously? And you're a libertarian. Just so you know, free markets ARE protection and government is oppression, government does not protect people from freedom, they take freedom, and free markets are freedom.

Also, you understand someone wanting something from government because someone else has it? They got it, I want it to!

You're missing something.

 

[kaz]

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

Yes. She wants validation that she's gay and she's OK before she'll do the right thing.

What is wrong with validating everyone as equal to each other?

In general? Nothing. From government? Everything. Government does not create freedom, it takes it. Government validation comes with a price, it always does. Funny I have to explain that to a Republican.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Rastafarian's disagree.