Bakers...they won't stop if you just bake the cake...they want you to like it....

[BluesLegend]

There is no right to be served, period.

Nor a right to remain in business

Actually that is more of a right than to be served, as a person has a right to make a living.

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

Again, what is the difference between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to serve a black person?

Gay people are icky and frequently have diseases.

 

[martybegan]

There is no right to be served, period.

Nor a right to remain in business

Actually that is more of a right than to be served, as a person has a right to make a living.

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

Again, what is the difference between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to serve a black person?

The difference is that when these laws were put in place, refusing to serve black PEOPLE had a significant economic impact on black people. Plus, it was the GOVERNMENT mandating such service differences/refusals.

I would think today, we could do without PA laws with exceptions for necessary services, as the market would handle it, and I am not talking about the public lynchings we are seeing, I am talking about a general and long term refusal to do business with someone.

 

[martybegan]

There is no right to be served, period.

Nor a right to remain in business

Actually that is more of a right than to be served, as a person has a right to make a living.

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

"we have a right to refuse service to anyone" and "we don't serve negroes" has been found to be illegal regardless of how trivial the service

Open for business? You are open to all

That is wrongheaded, and petty. Your side is the Moral Majority clowns for the new century.

 

[rightwinger]

Nor a right to remain in business

Actually that is more of a right than to be served, as a person has a right to make a living.

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

"we have a right to refuse service to anyone" and "we don't serve negroes" has been found to be illegal regardless of how trivial the service

Open for business? You are open to all

That is wrongheaded, and petty. Your side is the Moral Majority clowns for the new century.

How is business serving all people regardless of their individual hatred and biases wrongheaded and petty?

Is a business unwilling to serve a severely retarded person wrongheaded and petty?
Even if they find him icky?

 

[candycorn]

Nor a right to remain in business

Actually that is more of a right than to be served, as a person has a right to make a living.

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

Again, what is the difference between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to serve a black person?

Gay people are icky and frequently have diseases.

So do you; it's called profound ignorance. Probably genetic.

 

[candycorn]

Nor a right to remain in business

Actually that is more of a right than to be served, as a person has a right to make a living.

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

Again, what is the difference between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to serve a black person?

The difference is that when these laws were put in place, refusing to serve black PEOPLE had a significant economic impact on black people. Plus, it was the GOVERNMENT mandating such service differences/refusals.

So discrimination has to be significant before you'll say it shouldn't happen? Okay, please give us a number....how many cases of discrimination does it take before ol' Marty will admit that these Americans should be treated equally?

 

[martybegan]

Actually that is more of a right than to be served, as a person has a right to make a living.

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

"we have a right to refuse service to anyone" and "we don't serve negroes" has been found to be illegal regardless of how trivial the service

Open for business? You are open to all

That is wrongheaded, and petty. Your side is the Moral Majority clowns for the new century.

How is business serving all people regardless of their individual hatred and biases wrongheaded and petty?

Is a business unwilling to serve a severely retarded person wrongheaded and petty?
Even if they find him icky?

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

 

[martybegan]

Actually that is more of a right than to be served, as a person has a right to make a living.

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

Again, what is the difference between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to serve a black person?

The difference is that when these laws were put in place, refusing to serve black PEOPLE had a significant economic impact on black people. Plus, it was the GOVERNMENT mandating such service differences/refusals.

So discrimination has to be significant before you'll say it shouldn't happen? Okay, please give us a number....how many cases of discrimination does it take before ol' Marty will admit that these Americans should be treated equally?

When it as a substantial economic impact.

 

[rightwinger]

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

"we have a right to refuse service to anyone" and "we don't serve negroes" has been found to be illegal regardless of how trivial the service

Open for business? You are open to all

That is wrongheaded, and petty. Your side is the Moral Majority clowns for the new century.

How is business serving all people regardless of their individual hatred and biases wrongheaded and petty?

Is a business unwilling to serve a severely retarded person wrongheaded and petty?
Even if they find him icky?

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

Then nobody is being "forced" to bake a cake are they?

 

[candycorn]

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

Again, what is the difference between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to serve a black person?

The difference is that when these laws were put in place, refusing to serve black PEOPLE had a significant economic impact on black people. Plus, it was the GOVERNMENT mandating such service differences/refusals.

So discrimination has to be significant before you'll say it shouldn't happen? Okay, please give us a number....how many cases of discrimination does it take before ol' Marty will admit that these Americans should be treated equally?

When it as a substantial economic impact.

Again, define "substantial"....

According to you at some point, discrimination becomes "not okay". That, in and of itself, is an indefensible stance but while you're dishing out the crazy, why not just go a bit further and tell us how many gays must be discriminated against before it becomes "significant" in your book?

 

[candycorn]

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

"we have a right to refuse service to anyone" and "we don't serve negroes" has been found to be illegal regardless of how trivial the service

Open for business? You are open to all

That is wrongheaded, and petty. Your side is the Moral Majority clowns for the new century.

How is business serving all people regardless of their individual hatred and biases wrongheaded and petty?

Is a business unwilling to serve a severely retarded person wrongheaded and petty?
Even if they find him icky?

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

Echoes from the 60's....or the 2011 in Missisippi:

Poll 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage - The Wire

 

[rightwinger]

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

Again, what is the difference between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to serve a black person?

The difference is that when these laws were put in place, refusing to serve black PEOPLE had a significant economic impact on black people. Plus, it was the GOVERNMENT mandating such service differences/refusals.

So discrimination has to be significant before you'll say it shouldn't happen? Okay, please give us a number....how many cases of discrimination does it take before ol' Marty will admit that these Americans should be treated equally?

When it as a substantial economic impact.

Again, define "substantial"....

According to you at some point, discrimination becomes "not okay". That, in and of itself, is an indefensible stance but while you're dishing out the crazy, why not just go a bit further and tell us how many gays must be discriminated against before it becomes "significant" in your book?

Baking a cake for a gay wedding is not substantial
Requiring a baker to do so....is

 

[martybegan]

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

"we have a right to refuse service to anyone" and "we don't serve negroes" has been found to be illegal regardless of how trivial the service

Open for business? You are open to all

That is wrongheaded, and petty. Your side is the Moral Majority clowns for the new century.

How is business serving all people regardless of their individual hatred and biases wrongheaded and petty?

Is a business unwilling to serve a severely retarded person wrongheaded and petty?
Even if they find him icky?

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

Then nobody is being "forced" to bake a cake are they?

Yes, they are, giving a choice between doing it or facing a fine/going out of business is being forced, no matter how much you want to sugar coat it.

 

[candycorn]

Again, what is the difference between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to serve a black person?

The difference is that when these laws were put in place, refusing to serve black PEOPLE had a significant economic impact on black people. Plus, it was the GOVERNMENT mandating such service differences/refusals.

So discrimination has to be significant before you'll say it shouldn't happen? Okay, please give us a number....how many cases of discrimination does it take before ol' Marty will admit that these Americans should be treated equally?

When it as a substantial economic impact.

Again, define "substantial"....

According to you at some point, discrimination becomes "not okay". That, in and of itself, is an indefensible stance but while you're dishing out the crazy, why not just go a bit further and tell us how many gays must be discriminated against before it becomes "significant" in your book?

Baking a cake for a gay wedding is not substantial
Requiring a baker to do so....is

Its really too bad that the democrats didn't keep the powder dry until the 2016 election. Had they waited a month or so to highlight Indiana's attempt to legalize discrimination, just imagine the duck,dive, and cover the GOP clown car would be doing today vs. earlier in the year.

 

[martybegan]

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

"we have a right to refuse service to anyone" and "we don't serve negroes" has been found to be illegal regardless of how trivial the service

Open for business? You are open to all

That is wrongheaded, and petty. Your side is the Moral Majority clowns for the new century.

How is business serving all people regardless of their individual hatred and biases wrongheaded and petty?

Is a business unwilling to serve a severely retarded person wrongheaded and petty?
Even if they find him icky?

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

Echoes from the 60's....or the 2011 in Missisippi:

Poll 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage - The Wire

Again, mixed race marriages and same sex marriages are not even remotely the same, despite your efforts to the contrary. The courts overturning miscegenation laws did not require a fundamental re-write of the marriage contract.

 

[candycorn]

One has to wonder if the discrimination impact is not "substantial" why not just go ahead and bake the cake? Will Jesus really punish you for providing a cake to a gay person? If so...should you be worshiping someone who takes such umbrage at something so insignificant (i.e. not substantial)?

 

[rightwinger]

"we have a right to refuse service to anyone" and "we don't serve negroes" has been found to be illegal regardless of how trivial the service

Open for business? You are open to all

That is wrongheaded, and petty. Your side is the Moral Majority clowns for the new century.

How is business serving all people regardless of their individual hatred and biases wrongheaded and petty?

Is a business unwilling to serve a severely retarded person wrongheaded and petty?
Even if they find him icky?

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

Then nobody is being "forced" to bake a cake are they?

Yes, they are, giving a choice between doing it or facing a fine/going out of business is being forced, no matter how much you want to sugar coat it.

So they are being "forced" after refusing service

 

[martybegan]

Again, what is the difference between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to serve a black person?

The difference is that when these laws were put in place, refusing to serve black PEOPLE had a significant economic impact on black people. Plus, it was the GOVERNMENT mandating such service differences/refusals.

So discrimination has to be significant before you'll say it shouldn't happen? Okay, please give us a number....how many cases of discrimination does it take before ol' Marty will admit that these Americans should be treated equally?

When it as a substantial economic impact.

Again, define "substantial"....

According to you at some point, discrimination becomes "not okay". That, in and of itself, is an indefensible stance but while you're dishing out the crazy, why not just go a bit further and tell us how many gays must be discriminated against before it becomes "significant" in your book?

Baking a cake for a gay wedding is not substantial
Requiring a baker to do so....is

In only one case (your side's) is government action required, and THAT is what the issue becomes. Government should not be involved in things as trivial as this, and it 100% shouldn't decide it can ruin someone over it.

 

[rightwinger]

"we have a right to refuse service to anyone" and "we don't serve negroes" has been found to be illegal regardless of how trivial the service

Open for business? You are open to all

That is wrongheaded, and petty. Your side is the Moral Majority clowns for the new century.

How is business serving all people regardless of their individual hatred and biases wrongheaded and petty?

Is a business unwilling to serve a severely retarded person wrongheaded and petty?
Even if they find him icky?

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

Echoes from the 60's....or the 2011 in Missisippi:

Poll 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage - The Wire

Again, mixed race marriages and same sex marriages are not even remotely the same, despite your efforts to the contrary. The courts overturning miscegenation laws did not require a fundamental re-write of the marriage contract.

Seems it did require a substantial rewrite of the marriage contract in many states.

 

[martybegan]

That is wrongheaded, and petty. Your side is the Moral Majority clowns for the new century.

How is business serving all people regardless of their individual hatred and biases wrongheaded and petty?

Is a business unwilling to serve a severely retarded person wrongheaded and petty?
Even if they find him icky?

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

Then nobody is being "forced" to bake a cake are they?

Yes, they are, giving a choice between doing it or facing a fine/going out of business is being forced, no matter how much you want to sugar coat it.

So they are being "forced" after refusing service

No, they are being punished, and wrongly so. The force comes before, and the result of someone being ruined (which you ghoulishly cheer on) comes after. Or they have to do something that breaks their moral code, (something you also get a stiffy from)