Constitution???? What Constitution?

[Ernie S.]

1. "In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to“cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs."


.

You've repeated this lie 10 times now. 100 times more won't make it the truth.

Another one that thinks this is discrimination based on the fact that the women were lesbians.

They would have gotten a birthday cake, no problem.

Why did the Kleins refuse to bake the cake?

Because they could not participate in a wedding their religion views as an abomination.

They could have bought a birthday cake regardless of their sexual preference. The Klein's religion does not forbid participation in birthday parties.

Is it discrimination to refuse to sell condoms to a gay man, because you don't want to participate in gay sex?

Why would I decide a man buying condoms was gay?
You may be able to identify a potential boyfriend, but if someone comes into my bar, I can't tell who he likes to fuck. I suppose most pharmacists are the same

 

[Ernie S.]

1. "In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to“cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs."


.

You've repeated this lie 10 times now. 100 times more won't make it the truth.

Another one that thinks this is discrimination based on the fact that the women were lesbians.

They would have gotten a birthday cake, no problem.

Why did the Kleins refuse to bake the cake?

Because they could not participate in a wedding their religion views as an abomination.

They could have bought a birthday cake regardless of their sexual preference. The Klein's religion does not forbid participation in birthday parties.

They chose the wrong business to be in. There are many ways for bakers to make a living. They are trying to participate in one small but profitable facet of the baking business. The Oregon law says you can not discriminate. All they have to do is stop making wedding cakes for anyone and specialize in some other aspect of baking.

How many more ways can I explain it to you? They were not refused a cake because they are lesbians.

 

[PoliticalChic]

^ look at the super girl with super delusions!

I used the word 'simple,' and you show up!

You must be used to being called by that appellation, huh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no 'explaining' required.

Anyone reading the thread can see that some folks believe that Americans should be allowed to say and think whatever they choose. I serve as such an example.

Others, like you, favor criminalizing thoughts or words.



Now....if you control the courts and government, I would be punished.
If I controlled the courts and government, we could each go on our merry way.

It's as simple as that.

Is threatening to kill someone free speech?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You've repeated this lie 10 times now. 100 times more won't make it the truth.

Another one that thinks this is discrimination based on the fact that the women were lesbians.

They would have gotten a birthday cake, no problem.

Why did the Kleins refuse to bake the cake?

Because they could not participate in a wedding their religion views as an abomination.

They could have bought a birthday cake regardless of their sexual preference. The Klein's religion does not forbid participation in birthday parties.

They chose the wrong business to be in. There are many ways for bakers to make a living. They are trying to participate in one small but profitable facet of the baking business. The Oregon law says you can not discriminate. All they have to do is stop making wedding cakes for anyone and specialize in some other aspect of baking.

How many more ways can I explain it to you? They were not refused a cake because they are lesbians.

Yes they were. The bakers profess a religious objection to homosexuality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You've repeated this lie 10 times now. 100 times more won't make it the truth.

Another one that thinks this is discrimination based on the fact that the women were lesbians.

They would have gotten a birthday cake, no problem.

Why did the Kleins refuse to bake the cake?

Because they could not participate in a wedding their religion views as an abomination.

They could have bought a birthday cake regardless of their sexual preference. The Klein's religion does not forbid participation in birthday parties.

Is it discrimination to refuse to sell condoms to a gay man, because you don't want to participate in gay sex?

Why would I decide a man buying condoms was gay?
You may be able to identify a potential boyfriend, but if someone comes into my bar, I can't tell who he likes to fuck. I suppose most pharmacists are the same

That didn't answer the question.

Must I make it more plain?

Is it discrimation to refuse to sell condoms to a gay male couple who tell you they are buying them for their wedding night?

 

[Camp]

You've repeated this lie 10 times now. 100 times more won't make it the truth.

Another one that thinks this is discrimination based on the fact that the women were lesbians.

They would have gotten a birthday cake, no problem.

Why did the Kleins refuse to bake the cake?

Because they could not participate in a wedding their religion views as an abomination.

They could have bought a birthday cake regardless of their sexual preference. The Klein's religion does not forbid participation in birthday parties.

They chose the wrong business to be in. There are many ways for bakers to make a living. They are trying to participate in one small but profitable facet of the baking business. The Oregon law says you can not discriminate. All they have to do is stop making wedding cakes for anyone and specialize in some other aspect of baking.

How many more ways can I explain it to you? They were not refused a cake because they are lesbians.

I missed your explanation. What post # can I find it, or could you give it again. I thought this case was about refusing to make a gay wedding cake.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no 'explaining' required.

Anyone reading the thread can see that some folks believe that Americans should be allowed to say and think whatever they choose. I serve as such an example.

Others, like you, favor criminalizing thoughts or words.



Now....if you control the courts and government, I would be punished.
If I controlled the courts and government, we could each go on our merry way.

It's as simple as that.

Were the Kleins warned not to think about how much they hate gays?

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no 'explaining' required.

Anyone reading the thread can see that some folks believe that Americans should be allowed to say and think whatever they choose. I serve as such an example.

Others, like you, favor criminalizing thoughts or words.



Now....if you control the courts and government, I would be punished.
If I controlled the courts and government, we could each go on our merry way.

It's as simple as that.

Is threatening to kill someone free speech?

Oops!

I didn't mean for you to hear me!

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no 'explaining' required.

Anyone reading the thread can see that some folks believe that Americans should be allowed to say and think whatever they choose. I serve as such an example.

Others, like you, favor criminalizing thoughts or words.



Now....if you control the courts and government, I would be punished.
If I controlled the courts and government, we could each go on our merry way.

It's as simple as that.

Were the Kleins warned not to think about how much they hate gays?

It's none of your business who they hate or how much they hate.


Let's add an historical perspective to this:
.....you wish America to have the same perspective about disagreement that Nazi Germany had, and Soviet Russia, among others, had. The result of such was 100 million slaughtered.

You are what the American philosopher George Santayana warned about.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is illegal for businesses to discriminate. That discrimination is most likely to be done in the form of communication,

as in, sorry, but we don't serve black people in this diner, or, sorry, but we don't make wedding cakes for gays.

Or, that same communication could occur in the form of a sign in a business window, or a note on an advertisement in a paper, or even as a statement made on a website.

None of that is protected free speech. All are acts of illegal discrimination.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I was wondering if you would verify the rumor that you produce your own makeup from recycled medical wastes, mostly blood and bile.

Is that what you consider an argument? And you call me names! What gall you have!

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

SPOT ON!!!

The only spots are you and the one on the blue dress.

And you are free to express yourself in any manner you choose, I have no desire to censor you, though the International Order of Trolls may someday revoke your membership.

That said, this link is worth ten thousand of your ad hominems:

The Free Expression Policy Project

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no 'explaining' required.

Anyone reading the thread can see that some folks believe that Americans should be allowed to say and think whatever they choose. I serve as such an example.

Others, like you, favor criminalizing thoughts or words.



Now....if you control the courts and government, I would be punished.
If I controlled the courts and government, we could each go on our merry way.

It's as simple as that.

Is threatening to kill someone free speech?

Oops!

I didn't mean for you to hear me!

So you agree the answer is no. You can't tell someone you're going to kill them as a free speech exercise.

Nor can you tell them your bakery won't bake them a gay wedding cake.

Same thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no 'explaining' required.

Anyone reading the thread can see that some folks believe that Americans should be allowed to say and think whatever they choose. I serve as such an example.

Others, like you, favor criminalizing thoughts or words.



Now....if you control the courts and government, I would be punished.
If I controlled the courts and government, we could each go on our merry way.

It's as simple as that.

Were the Kleins warned not to think about how much they hate gays?

It's none of your business who they hate or how much they hate.


Let's add an historical perspective to this:
.....you wish America to have the same perspective about disagreement that Nazi Germany had, and Soviet Russia, among others, had. The result of such was 100 million slaughtered.

You are what the American philosopher George Santayana warned about.

So the answer is no they were not ordered not to think about how much they hate gays.

So you lied.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is illegal for businesses to discriminate. That discrimination is most likely to be done in the form of communication,

as in, sorry, but we don't serve black people in this diner, or, sorry, but we don't make wedding cakes for gays.

Or, that same communication could occur in the form of a sign in a business window, or a note on an advertisement in a paper, or even as a statement made on a website.

None of that is protected free speech. All are acts of illegal discrimination.

Changing the subject....because you lost the argument?

This is about what folks say....not what they do.

Gag orders refers to speech.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no 'explaining' required.

Anyone reading the thread can see that some folks believe that Americans should be allowed to say and think whatever they choose. I serve as such an example.

Others, like you, favor criminalizing thoughts or words.



Now....if you control the courts and government, I would be punished.
If I controlled the courts and government, we could each go on our merry way.

It's as simple as that.

Were the Kleins warned not to think about how much they hate gays?

It's none of your business who they hate or how much they hate.


Let's add an historical perspective to this:
.....you wish America to have the same perspective about disagreement that Nazi Germany had, and Soviet Russia, among others, had. The result of such was 100 million slaughtered.

You are what the American philosopher George Santayana warned about.

Nazi Germany allowed businesses to discriminate against Jews.

Is that really what you want here?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is that what you consider an argument? And you call me names! What gall you have!

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

SPOT ON!!!

The only spots are you and the one on the blue dress.

And you are free to express yourself in any manner you choose, I have no desire to censor you, though the International Order of Trolls may someday revoke your membership.

That said, this link is worth ten thousand of your ad hominems:

The Free Expression Policy Project

This is worth more:

. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is illegal for businesses to discriminate. That discrimination is most likely to be done in the form of communication,

as in, sorry, but we don't serve black people in this diner, or, sorry, but we don't make wedding cakes for gays.

Or, that same communication could occur in the form of a sign in a business window, or a note on an advertisement in a paper, or even as a statement made on a website.

None of that is protected free speech. All are acts of illegal discrimination.

Changing the subject....because you lost the argument?

This is about what folks say....not what they do.

Gag orders refers to speech.

Threatening to kill someone is speech. Telling someone we don't serve blacks here is speech. But it's not protected free speech.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no 'explaining' required.

Anyone reading the thread can see that some folks believe that Americans should be allowed to say and think whatever they choose. I serve as such an example.

Others, like you, favor criminalizing thoughts or words.



Now....if you control the courts and government, I would be punished.
If I controlled the courts and government, we could each go on our merry way.

It's as simple as that.

Were the Kleins warned not to think about how much they hate gays?

It's none of your business who they hate or how much they hate.


Let's add an historical perspective to this:
.....you wish America to have the same perspective about disagreement that Nazi Germany had, and Soviet Russia, among others, had. The result of such was 100 million slaughtered.

You are what the American philosopher George Santayana warned about.

So the answer is no they were not ordered not to think about how much they hate gays.

So you lied.

I never lie.

That's what bothers you most, isn't it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

SPOT ON!!!

The only spots are you and the one on the blue dress.

And you are free to express yourself in any manner you choose, I have no desire to censor you, though the International Order of Trolls may someday revoke your membership.

That said, this link is worth ten thousand of your ad hominems:

The Free Expression Policy Project

This is worth more:

. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Why is it illegal to publish child pornography if freedom of the press can't be abridged?

I'll help you. Because freedom of the press CAN be abridged, if the circumstances warrant it,

as can freedom of speech.

Again, threatening to kill someone is speech. You claim it can't be abridged. You believe the law is in error to prohibit or criminalize such speech.

Why?