Or go find yourself some lady who bakes really well and would like some extra cash. Frankly, if I lived in a town that small, the bakery probably isn't the source of the best cakes, anyway.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Colorado is after this guy.
- Thread starter Gracie
- Start date
Or go find yourself some lady who bakes really well and would like some extra cash. Frankly, if I lived in a town that small, the bakery probably isn't the source of the best cakes, anyway.
- Apr 5, 2010
- 81,311
- 32,996
- 2,300
What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?
Then you'd need to face the sad fact that you live on a town full of bigots. And while they can't legally prevent you from getting married, they want nothing to do with it.
And that's when the government has to take an interest in it.
When people collude like that, it is just the same as them passing a law. It's an end run around established rights of commerce.
No, I'm sorry, I don't see "But no one agrees with me!!!!" as a reason that the government suddenly "needs" to step in and tell people what they can and can't believe.
At the point where they "collude" to keep anyone else from stepping up to fill that niche, THEN it becomes a government concern. Not before.
The finer the line being drawn, the more obscure this discussion will get.
Let me clarify. I have a problem with the notion that thoughts and beliefs are things that government, or anyone else, should "allow". If there is anything in the universe that is mine and mine alone and no one else's to control or order, it is my thoughts and beliefs. And if they are NOT mine and mine alone, then nothing is, and there is no such thing as freedom at all.
That's nothing to disagree with. Now as an Engineer let me ask you how we implement that concept among everyone in the particular case of commerce, in PA's or by contract.
Um, you just butt out. Not really sure where you think the complicated "implementation" is there. Some crybaby comes to the government and says, "Waaahh! This guy wouldn't make a cake for my gay wedding! He hates gay people!" The government says, "Sorry. Not our problem. Go to another bake shop. They advertise in gay media, dumbass." End of story.
What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?
Call me when that's actually the case, rather than there being two other bakers within a block of Masterpiece, one of which actually advertises in local gay publications.
Not interested in making broad, sweeping public policy based on the most extreme hypothetical that's never actually happened.
Ok then.
Hey, if you're going to make law based on worst-case scenarios that exist only in the imagination, then you can conceivably come up with a scenario to justify pretty much any government encroachment you want. No. Just no.
Talk to me about actual cases, and we'll talk about how to handle them. In this case, every damned one of these aggressive, vindictive homosexual assholes deliberately sought this guy out, NOT because they wanted a cake, but because they wanted to use the legal system to punish him for not giving them the approbation they wanted. If you check Google maps, you can see that there are two other bakeries within sight of his. And as I have said, one of them actively advertises to the gay community. There was no legitimate reason whatsoever to go to Masterpiece, and certainly not to put Mr. Phillips through this legal ordeal. And there is no reason in the world to think that the unspeakable twat in this current complaint isn't 100% deliberately harassing him, and nothing else.
What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?
Then you'd need to face the sad fact that you live on a town full of bigots. And while they can't legally prevent you from getting married, they want nothing to do with it.
And that's when the government has to take an interest in it.
When people collude like that, it is just the same as them passing a law. It's an end run around established rights of commerce.
No, I'm sorry, I don't see "But no one agrees with me!!!!" as a reason that the government suddenly "needs" to step in and tell people what they can and can't believe.
At the point where they "collude" to keep anyone else from stepping up to fill that niche, THEN it becomes a government concern. Not before.
The finer the line being drawn, the more obscure this discussion will get.
Which is why I don't base policy on hypotheticals.
- Apr 5, 2010
- 81,311
- 32,996
- 2,300
That's nothing to disagree with. Now as an Engineer let me ask you how we implement that concept among everyone in the particular case of commerce, in PA's or by contract.
Um, you just butt out. Not really sure where you think the complicated "implementation" is there. Some crybaby comes to the government and says, "Waaahh! This guy wouldn't make a cake for my gay wedding! He hates gay people!" The government says, "Sorry. Not our problem. Go to another bake shop. They advertise in gay media, dumbass." End of story.
What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?
Call me when that's actually the case, rather than there being two other bakers within a block of Masterpiece, one of which actually advertises in local gay publications.
Not interested in making broad, sweeping public policy based on the most extreme hypothetical that's never actually happened.
Ok then.
Hey, if you're going to make law based on worst-case scenarios that exist only in the imagination, then you can conceivably come up with a scenario to justify pretty much any government encroachment you want. No. Just no.
Talk to me about actual cases, and we'll talk about how to handle them. In this case, every damned one of these aggressive, vindictive homosexual assholes deliberately sought this guy out, NOT because they wanted a cake, but because they wanted to use the legal system to punish him for not giving them the approbation they wanted. If you check Google maps, you can see that there are two other bakeries within sight of his. And as I have said, one of them actively advertises to the gay community. There was no legitimate reason whatsoever to go to Masterpiece, and certainly not to put Mr. Phillips through this legal ordeal. And there is no reason in the world to think that the unspeakable twat in this current complaint isn't 100% deliberately harassing him, and nothing else.
For contracted services we don't disagree, so going over it again and again is pretty pointless.
The original part of this discussion was about point of sale items, which this guy doesn't have an issue selling to anyone.
- Apr 5, 2010
- 81,311
- 32,996
- 2,300
What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?
Then you'd need to face the sad fact that you live on a town full of bigots. And while they can't legally prevent you from getting married, they want nothing to do with it.
And that's when the government has to take an interest in it.
When people collude like that, it is just the same as them passing a law. It's an end run around established rights of commerce.
No, I'm sorry, I don't see "But no one agrees with me!!!!" as a reason that the government suddenly "needs" to step in and tell people what they can and can't believe.
At the point where they "collude" to keep anyone else from stepping up to fill that niche, THEN it becomes a government concern. Not before.
The finer the line being drawn, the more obscure this discussion will get.
Which is why I don't base policy on hypotheticals.
Policy however has to be based on what can actually happen.
While PA laws may be repealed in the future, I don't see it happening. The best we can do is try to restrict them to actual Public Accomodations.
???Now that those laws are unconstitutional, what's the difference in the end if it's just a bunch of people (all of them) in a given locality agreeing to do the same thing?
What's the difference between a town where no one is gay, and a law making homosexuality illegal?
It's more like the difference between a town where everyone agrees no one is gay (or else) and where homosexuality is illegal
No, I'm sorry, I don't see "But no one agrees with me!!!!" as a reason that the government suddenly "needs" to step in and tell people what they can and can't believe.
That's the heart and soul of these laws. Our fearless leader is, as we speak, applying this same logic to social media.
/——/ Nothing custom about cake. Any bakery can make them. And those laws sure as hell don’t protect the Christian bakers rights, now do they?
Oh, if there's nothing "custom" about them, then the guy has no real claim that he's doing artistry to placate his imaginary friend in the sky, which is what his argument was.
They are not invalidated, but the application is modified in the face of the right to free exercise.
Okay. Let's look at that.
"I want to marry multiple women."
"um... no. Bigamy is against the law."
"But I'm a Mormon and my religious beliefs say I can marry multiple women so I can get into the Celestial Heaven."
"um...no, Bigamy is still against the law."
See how that works. Okay, let's do another one.
"I don't want to bake no cakes for no queers!"
"um... no, we have Public Accommodation laws. You offered to bake cakes, you bake the fucking cake."
"But I'm a Christian, and I hate gays just like Jesus!"
"um.. no, We still have Public Accommodation laws."
see how that works?
.This should not be one of those cases. The only reason to force these people to perform or be ruined is spite.
No, it's to show them that their bigotry is no longer tolerated. This is actually a good thing. Just like it was a good thing when they made sure that we put an end to THIS shit.
No, it's not just the same as them passing a law. If they passed a law, people would be put in jail for violating it. It's just them refusing to accommodate something they disagree with. What happened to the right to say "no"?
They have every right to say, "no". They can put up one of these in front of their business and then they have every right to say "No".
But once they decide they want to be in business, they have to follow all those pesky laws that the rest of us have to follow.
This isn't complicated.
Policy however has to be based on what can actually happen.
While PA laws may be repealed in the future, I don't see it happening. The best we can do is try to restrict them to actual Public Accomodations.
You give the bigots one little carve out, they'll just look for another and another... I'm sorry you don't get this.
/——/ I don’t disagree. Yeah, some bakers add a fancy frosting and can decorate the top but it’s not that difficult. I had some wedding cake that was from a so called artistry baker and it tasted Dry and bland. Nothing special./——/ Nothing custom about cake. Any bakery can make them. And those laws sure as hell don’t protect the Christian bakers rights, now do they?
Oh, if there's nothing "custom" about them, then the guy has no real claim that he's doing artistry to placate his imaginary friend in the sky, which is what his argument was.
- Apr 5, 2010
- 81,311
- 32,996
- 2,300
They are not invalidated, but the application is modified in the face of the right to free exercise.
Okay. Let's look at that.
"I want to marry multiple women."
"um... no. Bigamy is against the law."
"But I'm a Mormon and my religious beliefs say I can marry multiple women so I can get into the Celestial Heaven."
"um...no, Bigamy is still against the law."
See how that works. Okay, let's do another one.
"I don't want to bake no cakes for no queers!"
"um... no, we have Public Accommodation laws. You offered to bake cakes, you bake the fucking cake."
"But I'm a Christian, and I hate gays just like Jesus!"
"um.. no, We still have Public Accommodation laws."
see how that works?
.This should not be one of those cases. The only reason to force these people to perform or be ruined is spite.
No, it's to show them that their bigotry is no longer tolerated. This is actually a good thing. Just like it was a good thing when they made sure that we put an end to THIS shit.
View attachment 213559
No, it's not just the same as them passing a law. If they passed a law, people would be put in jail for violating it. It's just them refusing to accommodate something they disagree with. What happened to the right to say "no"?
They have every right to say, "no". They can put up one of these in front of their business and then they have every right to say "No".
View attachment 213560
But once they decide they want to be in business, they have to follow all those pesky laws that the rest of us have to follow.
This isn't complicated.
When they prosecute bigamy it;s usually because one spouse or both don't realize the other person is already married, making it a version of Fraud.
People can say they are married to as many people as they want, but they can only get one license.
And by the logic of allowing SSM, why is the line drawn at stopping plural marriage?
A contracted service is not a Public Accomodation, on the PA point the guy is willing to sell point of sale items to anyone.
- Apr 5, 2010
- 81,311
- 32,996
- 2,300
Policy however has to be based on what can actually happen.
While PA laws may be repealed in the future, I don't see it happening. The best we can do is try to restrict them to actual Public Accomodations.
You give the bigots one little carve out, they'll just look for another and another... I'm sorry you don't get this.
Slippery slope argument?
Sorry, but the 1st amendment promises free exercise, so if the government wants to fix this, they have to use the least intrusive method possible, not "Bake or else"
What a fucking fascist twat you are
karpenter
Gold Member
- Jun 5, 2018
- 3,289
- 440
- 170
Colorado Is Ordering Jack Phillips To Bake A Pro-LGBT Cake, Again
Yep
That's The Leftist Legal Machine For Ya
The United States Supreme Court Can Toss Them On Their Ass
And They Just Dust Themselves Off
And Carry On As If Nothing Happened
It's Their Threat Of 'Legal Action'
That Bends Ordinary People To Their Will
They Think They Are Our Mullas
That Rule By Legal Briefs, Memos
And Of Course:
Decree
Yep
That's The Leftist Legal Machine For Ya
The United States Supreme Court Can Toss Them On Their Ass
And They Just Dust Themselves Off
And Carry On As If Nothing Happened
It's Their Threat Of 'Legal Action'
That Bends Ordinary People To Their Will
They Think They Are Our Mullas
That Rule By Legal Briefs, Memos
And Of Course:
Decree
No, I'm sorry, I don't see "But no one agrees with me!!!!" as a reason that the government suddenly "needs" to step in and tell people what they can and can't believe.
That's the heart and soul of these laws. Our fearless leader is, as we speak, applying this same logic to social media.
I'd be mightily obliged if everyone on either side would lose the notion that their approval or outrage means or should mean a damned thing.
If be content if they gave up on the idea that government is a universal tool to solve social problems.No, I'm sorry, I don't see "But no one agrees with me!!!!" as a reason that the government suddenly "needs" to step in and tell people what they can and can't believe.
That's the heart and soul of these laws. Our fearless leader is, as we speak, applying this same logic to social media.
I'd be mightily obliged if everyone on either side would lose the notion that their approval or outrage means or should mean a damned thing.
/——/ I don’t disagree. Yeah, some bakers add a fancy frosting and can decorate the top but it’s not that difficult. I had some wedding cake that was from a so called artistry baker and it tasted Dry and bland. Nothing special.
Nobody eats a wedding cake for the taste.
When they prosecute bigamy it;s usually because one spouse or both don't realize the other person is already married, making it a version of Fraud.
People can say they are married to as many people as they want, but they can only get one license.
Exactly my point. The government only recognizes one marriage license. The government is more important than the Mormon Sky Pixie, who says you can marry as many women as you want.
Government trumps God. See how simple that was.
Government says bake the fucking cake.
And by the logic of allowing SSM, why is the line drawn at stopping plural marriage?
Because we as a society have decided we don't want plural marriage.
Frankly, I have no issue with it.
A contracted service is not a Public Accomodation, on the PA point the guy is willing to sell point of sale items to anyone.
Sorry, the law doesn't agree with you...
Sorry, but the 1st amendment promises free exercise, so if the government wants to fix this, they have to use the least intrusive method possible, not "Bake or else"
Again, you have the right to grovel in front of an imaginary fairy in the sky, but if the law says you have to serve gays, you have to serve gays.
Let's go back. If an atheist said, "I don't want to serve gays because I think they're icky!" We would not have an argument here. We simply wouldn't.
But what you want is a carve out to say, "If I can rationalize my bigotry with religion, it becomes okay."
So again, why can't I cut out my enemies' hearts with an obsidian dagger if I can claim to be a worshiper of Quetzalcoatl?
/——/ Bwhahahaha Bwhahahaha/——/ I don’t disagree. Yeah, some bakers add a fancy frosting and can decorate the top but it’s not that difficult. I had some wedding cake that was from a so called artistry baker and it tasted Dry and bland. Nothing special.
Nobody eats a wedding cake for the taste.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 87
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 94
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 189
- Replies
- 169
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 59
- Views
- 209
- Replies
- 28
- Views
- 105
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 11
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 34
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8212
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 475
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-