Gay wedding cakes at Muslim bakeries.

[Slade3200]

Who wants to eat something that another person was forced to prepare for them against that person's will or religion or whatever. You don't know what they may put in the food out of revenge.

A gay cake sounds so silly. I mean, how can a cake be gay?

I actually think all cakes are gay

 

[TheDude]

If you'd rather not bake a gay wedding cake, then cake instructions are:

Unless you're really too busy, don't say you won't bake the cake. Just don't say you will. Things like "I don't know, I'm kinda of busy, and I may be unable to make THIS cake".

If they seem like trouble makers, imply the idea for "special ingredients", cough and sniff, blow your nose on your apron, scratch your asshole........Wait, don't scratch your asshole, that might be code for something.................Stick your finger in your ear and moan. If they still insist then demand payment on the front end. Take the pride out of it and bake something marginal. Nothing they can sue for. Add special ingredients to your heart's content.

 

[Votto]

And it wouldn't matter.

Muslims should also make the fucking cake.

Religion no matter the god is just bs reason to discriminate.

Yes, but gays don't want to die, they just want to get rich, so they stick to targeting Christians.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Anyone should be allowed to choose who they serve and what they serve. Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional as they give one group more protection than another


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Just how does this idiotic position square with the free follow of capital in a capitalistic society?

I am not really sure what you are asking.

The free flow of capital in a capitalistic society is best served by as few rules and regulations restricting that flow.

So having laws based on religious objections that allow discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation and religion in the capitalistic society would be a negative then.

No law is needed to allow a person to discriminate, it is something people do freely.

Laws are only needed to stop it from happening. In the case of this country that constitution tells the government they are not allowed to discriminate. The government, outside of the constitution, has chosen to place that same restriction on private individuals.

So laws that allow religious based discrimination are okay with you?

Why is this so complicated for you. I do not think there should be any anti-discrimination laws applied to private citizens. Religious based bigots are no different than secular bigots to me, both are assholes but I do not think it should be illegal.

 

[Seawytch]

And it wouldn't matter.

Muslims should also make the fucking cake.

Religion no matter the god is just bs reason to discriminate.

Yes, but gays don't want to die, they just want to get rich, so they stick to targeting Christians.

Targeting them how exactly?

GAY COUPLE: "Good afternoon. I understand you make wedding cakes. We'd like to spend buttloads of cash in your establishment."

How is that "targeting"?

 

[miketx]

Ever wonder what would happen if someone asked a Muslim bakery to make a gay wedding cake? Wonder no more.

We need to call things what they are -- stop allowing homophobes to hide behind misused biblical scripture.

These sick people who still think God commands no penis in anus need to be told: YOU ARE NOT CHRISTIAN AT ALL.

Why won't you answer the question about muslims baking gay cakes, instead of deflecting away from it? Can't can you? It exposes your hypocrisy. lol

 

[miketx]

Supreme Court supports the baker

 

[miketx]

S

And it wouldn't matter.

Muslims should also make the fucking cake.

Religion no matter the god is just bs reason to discriminate.

The freedom of religion is just as much of a freedom as is gays marrying. Both should have rights and freedoms and should not diminish other's freedoms.

This isn't about freedom of religion.

It's about hate. Nothing else.

These assholes hate gays, and want to be able to discriminate against them, PERIOD.

It has NOTHING to do with religion. At all.

If it was about being bible-compliant, they would be turning away adulterers, too.

Fucking lying asshole hypocrites.

Thanks Goebbels. How come none of you liars can ever respond honestly to why muslim bakers wont bake gay cakes? Hmmmmm? Cat got your tongue?

 

[bodecea]

"why muslime bakers wont bake gay cakes" has been responded to at least three times in this thread....the last time just before miketx's post.....because this happened in Michigan where PA laws do not include sexual orientation. That means, since I have to spell it out, that it isn't against any business laws to refuse service to anyone based on sexual orientation in Michigan.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Ever wonder what would happen if someone asked a Muslim bakery to make a gay wedding cake? Wonder no more.

We need to call things what they are -- stop allowing homophobes to hide behind misused biblical scripture.

These sick people who still think God commands no penis in anus need to be told: YOU ARE NOT CHRISTIAN AT ALL.

Why won't you answer the question about muslims baking gay cakes, instead of deflecting away from it? Can't can you? It exposes your hypocrisy. lol

What the hell is a gay cake. How can a cake be gay you freaking moron


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[miketx]

Ever wonder what would happen if someone asked a Muslim bakery to make a gay wedding cake? Wonder no more.

We need to call things what they are -- stop allowing homophobes to hide behind misused biblical scripture.

These sick people who still think God commands no penis in anus need to be told: YOU ARE NOT CHRISTIAN AT ALL.

Why won't you answer the question about muslims baking gay cakes, instead of deflecting away from it? Can't can you? It exposes your hypocrisy. lol

What the hell is a gay cake. How can a cake be gay you freaking moron


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What, still no response to Muslims refusing to bake cakes for gays? Why is that? Cat got your tongue?

 

[miketx]

"why muslime bakers wont bake gay cakes" has been responded to at least three times in this thread....the last time just before miketx's post.....because this happened in Michigan where PA laws do not include sexual orientation. That means, since I have to spell it out, that it isn't against any business laws to refuse service to anyone based on sexual orientation in Michigan.

Then why do you put the other non muslim bakeries out of business when they refuse?

 

[bodecea]

"why muslime bakers wont bake gay cakes" has been responded to at least three times in this thread....the last time just before miketx's post.....because this happened in Michigan where PA laws do not include sexual orientation. That means, since I have to spell it out, that it isn't against any business laws to refuse service to anyone based on sexual orientation in Michigan.

Then why do you put the other non muslim bakeries out of business when they refuse?

Interesting when someone doesn't get that it's against business law in Oregon and Colorado to discriminate in business against people due to sexual orientation....but it's not against the law in Michigan to do the same thing.

Spelling it out again. Break business law and you get fined OR (in my opinion) have your business license taken away. It's quite simple. (maybe not simple enough for some)

 

[Slade3200]

Just how does this idiotic position square with the free follow of capital in a capitalistic society?

I am not really sure what you are asking.

The free flow of capital in a capitalistic society is best served by as few rules and regulations restricting that flow.

So having laws based on religious objections that allow discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation and religion in the capitalistic society would be a negative then.

No law is needed to allow a person to discriminate, it is something people do freely.

Laws are only needed to stop it from happening. In the case of this country that constitution tells the government they are not allowed to discriminate. The government, outside of the constitution, has chosen to place that same restriction on private individuals.

So laws that allow religious based discrimination are okay with you?

Why is this so complicated for you. I do not think there should be any anti-discrimination laws applied to private citizens. Religious based bigots are no different than secular bigots to me, both are assholes but I do not think it should be illegal.

Do you think the civil rights act was a bad thing for this country?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Do you think the civil rights act was a bad thing for this country?

Federal public accommodation laws were only a small part of the overall Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A more well defined question would be "Do you think the public accommodation provisions of the civil rights act was a bad thing for this country?"


Hope this helps.


>>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

The Commerce clause grants the federal government the right to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes' - Irrelevant cat in the hat.

The Constitutional Commerce Clause is about regulating interstate commerce.

However, under the 10th Amendment States can regulate intrastate commerce.

The bakers ran afoul of a State Public Accommodation Law (not a Federal one) regarding the States regulation of intrastate commerce.



Simply put it was a Colorado Statute, not a Federal one.


>>>>

Hence- it becomes a State's rights issue.

Does a State have the right to regulate business?

Yes it does.

 

[Syriusly]

And it wouldn't matter.

Muslims should also make the fucking cake.

Religion no matter the god is just bs reason to discriminate.

Anyone should be allowed to choose who they serve and what they serve. Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional as they give one group more protection than another


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

If you don’t want to serve certain classes of people, don’t go into business. If you open a business offering service to the public, you don’t get to discriminate against those you don’t like.

And need I remind you that Jesus absolutely told his followers to obeys the secular laws under which they are governed.

As long as secular law doesn't contradict God's laws and commands.

You forgot that part.

Romans 13 left that out

Only distortions of the faith are negative.

Romans 13New International Version (NIV)
Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

Why are those bakers choosing to rebel against god?

Acts didn't. Nice try. Lame brain

Romans is pretty clear- and very explicit- when a Christian chooses to disobey the law:

Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted,

Nice try- faux Christian.

Romans 13New International Version (NIV)
Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

 

[Syriusly]

Neither the Commerce Clause nor intrastate commerce laws give the government the constitutional right to tell a private business whom they must serve and what they must serve.
I understand why the courts ruled the way they did, it was not about the constitution but about forcing a change. None of that makes it even remotely constitutional.
The Constitution is supposed to limit the power of the government, not the freedoms of the citizens.

Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't make them unconstitutional. There is actually a process to determine their constitutionality. The Congress (or State Legislature) passes a law. The law can then be challenged on constitutional grounds up through the SCOTUS. That action has already occurred and they have been found constitutional.

The case was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US.



>>>>

Yes, I know the process. It was the same process that said killing the baby in the womb was a matter of privacy and protected by the constitution. The SCOTUS rules often on what they see as for the "good" of the nation vice what is actually constitutional.

Actually the Supreme Court always rules on the constitutionality- just some like yourself disagree with them.

That is what they supposed to do, true enough. But they have a long history of ignoring the constitution for what they see as the "greater good". Anti-discrimination, abortion, ObamaCare and more.

Well you are entitled to your opinion- but every single one of those decisions explains how it does apply to the law and the Constitution. "Greater good" is never a justification by the Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

And it wouldn't matter.

Muslims should also make the fucking cake.

Religion no matter the god is just bs reason to discriminate.

Anyone should be allowed to choose who they serve and what they serve. Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional as they give one group more protection than another


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

If you don’t want to serve certain classes of people, don’t go into business. If you open a business offering service to the public, you don’t get to discriminate against those you don’t like.

And need I remind you that Jesus absolutely told his followers to obey the secular laws under which they are governed.

I understand that is the law of the land, but it is not supported by the constitution.

As pointed out- the law in question is a State law.

Why are you against State's rights?

 

[Syriusly]

Anyone should be allowed to choose who they serve and what they serve. Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional as they give one group more protection than another


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

If you don’t want to serve certain classes of people, don’t go into business. If you open a business offering service to the public, you don’t get to discriminate against those you don’t like.

And need I remind you that Jesus absolutely told his followers to obeys the secular laws under which they are governed.

As long as secular law doesn't contradict God's laws and commands.

You forgot that part.

And that then would be Christian Sharia.

Anyone should be allowed to choose who they serve and what they serve. Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional as they give one group more protection than another


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

If you don’t want to serve certain classes of people, don’t go into business. If you open a business offering service to the public, you don’t get to discriminate against those you don’t like.

And need I remind you that Jesus absolutely told his followers to obeys the secular laws under which they are governed.

As long as secular law doesn't contradict God's laws and commands.

You forgot that part.

And that then would be Christian Sharia.

There is no such thing as Christian Sharia you stupid cow.

Your loon from Canada wanted to cherry pick and got burnt...much like you do endlessly

Ever wonder what would happen if someone asked a Muslim bakery to make a gay wedding cake? Wonder no more.

Old.

Nobody cares

Christianity is this nation's oppressive religion.

Troll alert! Question for you, laughing loon. Does it hurt to be that stupid? Perhaps you should take a couple of aspirin.