Muslim Bakeries Refuse To Make Gay Wedding Cake...& No Rabid Protests From Liberals?

[Coyote]

Which has nothing to do with public accomkodation laws.

I notice a few of the loons keep harping about Michigan having no PA laws....that's great so any state that doesn't have PA laws can tell the homos to pound sand and when they do we don't want to hear one fucking syllable of whines...oh wait Indiana doesn't have PA laws and they lost their minds over the pizza place refusing an accommodation. Perhaps they should just shut their pie holes and cease digging the hole they are

I've also noticed they haven't condemned the Muslims for refusing...this thread didn't bode well for the Islamapologists

You might want to reread the thread or get new glasses.

You've been all over the map defending Muslims.....no glasses needed. You're a tad transparent...just saying

Post a link where I've defended Muslim bakers for refusing services. Seems I keep asking for that and no one can supply one.

I posted several times my condemnation (as have others).

Bullshit. You said it was different because it wasn't evidence of systematic targeting or some such nonsense. You defend them by downplaying what they do. It's what all muslim apologists do.

Link?

 

[bodecea]

And still those cases lost in court.

Why are anti gay photographers any different than racist ones that are repulsed by interracial couples?

They aren't, no photographer should be forced to work an interracial wedding either or any other wedding for any other reason they want. We are citizens, not subjects. Find a photographer who wants to work the wedding, most people do. And you know that's my view, which is why I'm insulting you and your dyke buddy at this point. You keep ignoring my view you know well and asking your same stupid questions again.

Last thing I'd have wanted at my interracial wedding 27 years ago was a photographer who didn't want to be there. Yeah, I'm going to get their best work. That you do want someone who doesn't want to be there is just your authoritarian leftism, it's about power, not right.

And seriously, baking the cake? Gee, I spilled the flour on the floor, better get the broom and dustpan and sweep that up. Looks OK to me though, don't want to waste it. Hmmm...maybe we can put in half the sugar, that would taste great. Ooops, I made too much icing, better lick off the extra.

Yeah, you eat that cake ...

So you should concentrate your efforts on the CRA not little state and local laws.

Where are all the threads about how "unfair" PA laws are to racist Christians instead of just anti gay ones?

PA laws are unjust to everyone who is punished with the force of the state for doing nothing to anyone else.

Then I wish you luck in your attempt to get PA laws repealed.

BTW...did you ever answer my question? Let me pose it again. Do you think a PA law is unjust that protects a Christer employee from being harassed by their Employer based on their religion?

As I posted here (Muslim Bakeries Refuse To Make Gay Wedding Cake...& No Rabid Protests From Liberals?), I don't yet have enough information about your hypothetical go properly answer.

What do you mean by "protect"? Does that mean make the act you described a crime or allow the employee to sue the employer?

What do you mean by "harrass"? Do you mean assault, battery, sexual assault? Or do you mean some other act?

Would the law only apply when the alleged victim is a Christer, or would any victim be equally protected by the law?

Protect as in keep the Employer from firing the Christer employee AND to fine said employer for previous harassment.
Harass as in taunt the employee for their religious beliefs and not let them have time off for religious celebrations when asked for.
The law would apply for all people of religion being harassed by their employer based on their religion.

Is that enough information now?

Yes or No...is that law unfair?

 

[bodecea]

Anyone else notice that we get called "muslim apologists" with no evidence provided (even tho we ask for it) that we are apologizing for muslims?

Doubly Ironic when the same people calling us "muslim apologists" actively support the same thing the muslims allegedly did which is refuse service to gays.

 

[Centinel]

They aren't, no photographer should be forced to work an interracial wedding either or any other wedding for any other reason they want. We are citizens, not subjects. Find a photographer who wants to work the wedding, most people do. And you know that's my view, which is why I'm insulting you and your dyke buddy at this point. You keep ignoring my view you know well and asking your same stupid questions again.

Last thing I'd have wanted at my interracial wedding 27 years ago was a photographer who didn't want to be there. Yeah, I'm going to get their best work. That you do want someone who doesn't want to be there is just your authoritarian leftism, it's about power, not right.

And seriously, baking the cake? Gee, I spilled the flour on the floor, better get the broom and dustpan and sweep that up. Looks OK to me though, don't want to waste it. Hmmm...maybe we can put in half the sugar, that would taste great. Ooops, I made too much icing, better lick off the extra.

Yeah, you eat that cake ...

So you should concentrate your efforts on the CRA not little state and local laws.

Where are all the threads about how "unfair" PA laws are to racist Christians instead of just anti gay ones?

PA laws are unjust to everyone who is punished with the force of the state for doing nothing to anyone else.

But it's ok for the state to enforce their bigotry?

Enforce whose bigotry, and how?

Well who gets rid of the gays who refuse to leave your restaurant counter ? The police come and arrest them . They are charged by the state .

You mean enforce laws against trespassing. Yes, I want the state to enforce laws against trespass. In fact I want the state to enforce all laws against property violations: assault, batter, trespass, theft, fraud. Remember, the reason we have a state is to protect our property rights, both in our bodies and in our possessions.

 

[koshergrl]

I notice a few of the loons keep harping about Michigan having no PA laws....that's great so any state that doesn't have PA laws can tell the homos to pound sand and when they do we don't want to hear one fucking syllable of whines...oh wait Indiana doesn't have PA laws and they lost their minds over the pizza place refusing an accommodation. Perhaps they should just shut their pie holes and cease digging the hole they are

I've also noticed they haven't condemned the Muslims for refusing...this thread didn't bode well for the Islamapologists

You might want to reread the thread or get new glasses.

You've been all over the map defending Muslims.....no glasses needed. You're a tad transparent...just saying

Post a link where I've defended Muslim bakers for refusing services. Seems I keep asking for that and no one can supply one.

I posted several times my condemnation (as have others).

Bullshit. You said it was different because it wasn't evidence of systematic targeting or some such nonsense. You defend them by downplaying what they do. It's what all muslim apologists do.

Link?

Gads you're as stupid as bode...

"Kind of looks like a "set up" situation doesn't it?

"Someone deliberately for a baker of a specific religion in order to be refused?

"Muslim bakers are most likely a tiny minority in this country, the vast majority are Christian. That's likely why less fuss is heard. The Muslim community is also much more conservative - I doubt a gay couple would look to a Muslim baker for their cake. Did this person SUE them? Has anyone sued a Muslim baker?"

All I had to do was go to your first post. Where you defended them and downplayed the heinous nature of them refusing to bake cakes for queers.

This is a great post because you carefully explain why it's only bad when Christians do it:

"there has also been a rash of cases of couples supposedly getting married and deliberately seeking out vendors they KNOW will be hostile to same-sex arrangements. I think that is wrong - maybe not legally wrong, but ethically wrong. In the original case, the couple sought out a baker they had used many times before and had good arrangements with, so they had the expectation their service would similarly be welcomed..."

You're a lying, perverted hypocrite...and as is the case with most freaks these days, you defend criminals while you accuse the people they victimize of the guilt of the crime.

Muslim Bakeries Refuse To Make Gay Wedding Cake...& No Rabid Protests From Liberals?

 

[bodecea]

You might want to reread the thread or get new glasses.

You've been all over the map defending Muslims.....no glasses needed. You're a tad transparent...just saying

Post a link where I've defended Muslim bakers for refusing services. Seems I keep asking for that and no one can supply one.

I posted several times my condemnation (as have others).

Bullshit. You said it was different because it wasn't evidence of systematic targeting or some such nonsense. You defend them by downplaying what they do. It's what all muslim apologists do.

Link?

Gads you're as stupid as bode...

"Kind of looks like a "set up" situation doesn't it?

"Someone deliberately for a baker of a specific religion in order to be refused?

"Muslim bakers are most likely a tiny minority in this country, the vast majority are Christian. That's likely why less fuss is heard. The Muslim community is also much more conservative - I doubt a gay couple would look to a Muslim baker for their cake. Did this person SUE them? Has anyone sued a Muslim baker?"

All I had to do was go to your first post. Where you defended them and downplayed the heinous nature of them refusing to bake cakes for queers.

This is a great post because you carefully explain why it's only bad when Christians do it:

"there has also been a rash of cases of couples supposedly getting married and deliberately seeking out vendors they KNOW will be hostile to same-sex arrangements. I think that is wrong - maybe not legally wrong, but ethically wrong. In the original case, the couple sought out a baker they had used many times before and had good arrangements with, so they had the expectation their service would similarly be welcomed..."

You're a lying, perverted hypocrite...and as is the case with most freaks these days, you defend criminals while you accuse the people they victimize of the guilt of the crime.

Muslim Bakeries Refuse To Make Gay Wedding Cake...& No Rabid Protests From Liberals?

What "criminals" are we defending, Allie?

I wonder if you'll actually answer me or try to hide again.

 

[Centinel]

They aren't, no photographer should be forced to work an interracial wedding either or any other wedding for any other reason they want. We are citizens, not subjects. Find a photographer who wants to work the wedding, most people do. And you know that's my view, which is why I'm insulting you and your dyke buddy at this point. You keep ignoring my view you know well and asking your same stupid questions again.

Last thing I'd have wanted at my interracial wedding 27 years ago was a photographer who didn't want to be there. Yeah, I'm going to get their best work. That you do want someone who doesn't want to be there is just your authoritarian leftism, it's about power, not right.

And seriously, baking the cake? Gee, I spilled the flour on the floor, better get the broom and dustpan and sweep that up. Looks OK to me though, don't want to waste it. Hmmm...maybe we can put in half the sugar, that would taste great. Ooops, I made too much icing, better lick off the extra.

Yeah, you eat that cake ...

So you should concentrate your efforts on the CRA not little state and local laws.

Where are all the threads about how "unfair" PA laws are to racist Christians instead of just anti gay ones?

PA laws are unjust to everyone who is punished with the force of the state for doing nothing to anyone else.

Then I wish you luck in your attempt to get PA laws repealed.

BTW...did you ever answer my question? Let me pose it again. Do you think a PA law is unjust that protects a Christer employee from being harassed by their Employer based on their religion?

As I posted here (Muslim Bakeries Refuse To Make Gay Wedding Cake...& No Rabid Protests From Liberals?), I don't yet have enough information about your hypothetical go properly answer.

What do you mean by "protect"? Does that mean make the act you described a crime or allow the employee to sue the employer?

What do you mean by "harrass"? Do you mean assault, battery, sexual assault? Or do you mean some other act?

Would the law only apply when the alleged victim is a Christer, or would any victim be equally protected by the law?

Protect as in keep the Employer from firing the Christer employee AND to fine said employer for previous harassment.
Harass as in taunt the employee for their religious beliefs and not let them have time off for religious celebrations when asked for.
The law would apply for all people of religion being harassed by their employer based on their religion.

Is that enough information now?

Yes or No...is that law unfair?

Without knowing the contents of the contract between the two parties, I can't say definititely. However, if it is a typical at-will arrangement, then I would consider it unjust, as it interferes with the contract. Firing someone should not be a crime. Nor is taunting, unless it could be proven to actually constitute assault (to place the person in fear of a battery).

 

[bodecea]

So you should concentrate your efforts on the CRA not little state and local laws.

Where are all the threads about how "unfair" PA laws are to racist Christians instead of just anti gay ones?

PA laws are unjust to everyone who is punished with the force of the state for doing nothing to anyone else.

Then I wish you luck in your attempt to get PA laws repealed.

BTW...did you ever answer my question? Let me pose it again. Do you think a PA law is unjust that protects a Christer employee from being harassed by their Employer based on their religion?

As I posted here (Muslim Bakeries Refuse To Make Gay Wedding Cake...& No Rabid Protests From Liberals?), I don't yet have enough information about your hypothetical go properly answer.

What do you mean by "protect"? Does that mean make the act you described a crime or allow the employee to sue the employer?

What do you mean by "harrass"? Do you mean assault, battery, sexual assault? Or do you mean some other act?

Would the law only apply when the alleged victim is a Christer, or would any victim be equally protected by the law?

Protect as in keep the Employer from firing the Christer employee AND to fine said employer for previous harassment.
Harass as in taunt the employee for their religious beliefs and not let them have time off for religious celebrations when asked for.
The law would apply for all people of religion being harassed by their employer based on their religion.

Is that enough information now?

Yes or No...is that law unfair?

Without knowing the contents of the contract between the two parties, I can't say definititely. However, if it is a typical at-will arrangement, then I would consider it unjust, as it interferes with the contract. Firing someone should not be a crime. Nor is taunting, unless it could be proven to actually constitute assault (to place the person in fear of a battery).

Ok, looks like you are against ALL PA laws. Good luck in your endeavor.

 

[koshergrl]

So you should concentrate your efforts on the CRA not little state and local laws.

Where are all the threads about how "unfair" PA laws are to racist Christians instead of just anti gay ones?

PA laws are unjust to everyone who is punished with the force of the state for doing nothing to anyone else.

You are doing something. You're discriminating against them.

I said, "...for doing nothing to anyone else."

Choosing not to engage in trade with a person is not doing anything to them. In fact, it is leaving them completely alone.

I can see no ethical justification for bringing government force against someone who leaves other people alone.

Is it "leaving other people alone" to lecture them about going to hell then posting their personal data on social media?

Exactly. The Sweet Cakes case is not a good case for them to be using as an example as the defendent was pretty abusive.

No, it wasn't. Abuse is the one accusation that was never made against them. And in fact, it was the homos who went public with it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Anyone else notice that we get called "muslim apologists" with no evidence provided (even tho we ask for it) that we are apologizing for muslims?

Doubly Ironic when the same people calling us "muslim apologists" actively support the same thing the muslims allegedly did which is refuse service to gays.

Thats the point. They are pointing at this as if they disagree with what they did when they support it.

Seems like they have an ally in this fight of confections

 

[koshergrl]

You've been all over the map defending Muslims.....no glasses needed. You're a tad transparent...just saying

Post a link where I've defended Muslim bakers for refusing services. Seems I keep asking for that and no one can supply one.

I posted several times my condemnation (as have others).

Bullshit. You said it was different because it wasn't evidence of systematic targeting or some such nonsense. You defend them by downplaying what they do. It's what all muslim apologists do.

Link?

Gads you're as stupid as bode...

"Kind of looks like a "set up" situation doesn't it?

"Someone deliberately for a baker of a specific religion in order to be refused?

"Muslim bakers are most likely a tiny minority in this country, the vast majority are Christian. That's likely why less fuss is heard. The Muslim community is also much more conservative - I doubt a gay couple would look to a Muslim baker for their cake. Did this person SUE them? Has anyone sued a Muslim baker?"

All I had to do was go to your first post. Where you defended them and downplayed the heinous nature of them refusing to bake cakes for queers.

This is a great post because you carefully explain why it's only bad when Christians do it:

"there has also been a rash of cases of couples supposedly getting married and deliberately seeking out vendors they KNOW will be hostile to same-sex arrangements. I think that is wrong - maybe not legally wrong, but ethically wrong. In the original case, the couple sought out a baker they had used many times before and had good arrangements with, so they had the expectation their service would similarly be welcomed..."

You're a lying, perverted hypocrite...and as is the case with most freaks these days, you defend criminals while you accuse the people they victimize of the guilt of the crime.

Muslim Bakeries Refuse To Make Gay Wedding Cake...& No Rabid Protests From Liberals?

What "criminals" are we defending, Allie?

I wonder if you'll actually answer me or try to hide again.

Are you and coyote the same person???

Or are you just both stupid dykes?

 

[Centinel]

PA laws are unjust to everyone who is punished with the force of the state for doing nothing to anyone else.

Then I wish you luck in your attempt to get PA laws repealed.

BTW...did you ever answer my question? Let me pose it again. Do you think a PA law is unjust that protects a Christer employee from being harassed by their Employer based on their religion?

As I posted here (Muslim Bakeries Refuse To Make Gay Wedding Cake...& No Rabid Protests From Liberals?), I don't yet have enough information about your hypothetical go properly answer.

What do you mean by "protect"? Does that mean make the act you described a crime or allow the employee to sue the employer?

What do you mean by "harrass"? Do you mean assault, battery, sexual assault? Or do you mean some other act?

Would the law only apply when the alleged victim is a Christer, or would any victim be equally protected by the law?

Protect as in keep the Employer from firing the Christer employee AND to fine said employer for previous harassment.
Harass as in taunt the employee for their religious beliefs and not let them have time off for religious celebrations when asked for.
The law would apply for all people of religion being harassed by their employer based on their religion.

Is that enough information now?

Yes or No...is that law unfair?

Without knowing the contents of the contract between the two parties, I can't say definititely. However, if it is a typical at-will arrangement, then I would consider it unjust, as it interferes with the contract. Firing someone should not be a crime. Nor is taunting, unless it could be proven to actually constitute assault (to place the person in fear of a battery).

Ok, looks like you are against ALL PA laws.

Yes, because they are unjust. They initiate force against someone who hasn't violated the property rights of anyone else. Thus, they are an unethical initiation of aggression.

Good luck in your endeavor.

I haven't told you that I am endeavoring to do anything.

 

[koshergrl]

...

Why would there be protests? You know that it's not against the law there....Right?

Which is why the left should be on the march. NC recently said people had religious freedom and the left is having a shit fit. All because they say men go to men's restrooms and women use the women's restroom. Many places have had restrooms that allow family members to use when they need to help members of the opposite sex.

The transgenders need to give up the bathroom fight. When choosing between men's and women's restroom, choose by how you look. I don't want to share a restroom or locker room with some burly guy and I damn sure don't want my daughter having to deal with that.

NC is stretching the definition of "religious" freedom beyond reasonable bounds - gays can be fired for being gay, refused service in stores, restaurants, and refused housing. That is a faux religious freedom act.

Oh brother.

Wait till your buddies the Muslims are in charge.

 

[Seawytch]

I have yet to go to a wedding where the cake baker was an integral part of the wedding ceremony....have you? Usually the cake gets delivered to the reception and that's that.

Irrelevant, but the biggest crime against your fellow citizens are the cases where photographers were forced to witness and photograph fag weddings and kisses, that is sick

And still those cases lost in court.

Why are anti gay photographers any different than racist ones that are repulsed by interracial couples?

They aren't, no photographer should be forced to work an interracial wedding either or any other wedding for any other reason they want. We are citizens, not subjects. Find a photographer who wants to work the wedding, most people do. And you know that's my view, which is why I'm insulting you and your dyke buddy at this point. You keep ignoring my view you know well and asking your same stupid questions again.

Last thing I'd have wanted at my interracial wedding 27 years ago was a photographer who didn't want to be there. Yeah, I'm going to get their best work. That you do want someone who doesn't want to be there is just your authoritarian leftism, it's about power, not right.

And seriously, baking the cake? Gee, I spilled the flour on the floor, better get the broom and dustpan and sweep that up. Looks OK to me though, don't want to waste it. Hmmm...maybe we can put in half the sugar, that would taste great. Ooops, I made too much icing, better lick off the extra.

Yeah, you eat that cake ...

So you should concentrate your efforts on the CRA not little state and local laws.

Where are all the threads about how "unfair" PA laws are to racist Christians instead of just anti gay ones?

Who did you write that post to? My position has consistently been that anyone can discriminate to any other citizen for any reason they choose. "Christian" makes no difference to me. I'm not a Christian. You'd know that if you had a long term memory, I've told you that many times.

Again, wouldn't arguing my actual views be more interesting? You just have one set of talking points and that's all you want to use? When the only tool in your belt is a hammer, everything looks like a nail

Yes, we know by your whining...not by your actions.

Good luck with your whining, it's so effective.

 

[koshergrl]

Anyone else notice that we get called "muslim apologists" with no evidence provided (even tho we ask for it) that we are apologizing for muslims?

Doubly Ironic when the same people calling us "muslim apologists" actively support the same thing the muslims allegedly did which is refuse service to gays.

Thats the point. They are pointing at this as if they disagree with what they did when they support it.

Seems like they have an ally in this fight of confections

YOu keep saying that. What is "this"? And who are "they"..and what did "they" support? What is "it"?

 

[Syriusly]

Post a link where I've defended Muslim bakers for refusing services. Seems I keep asking for that and no one can supply one.

I posted several times my condemnation (as have others).

Bullshit. You said it was different because it wasn't evidence of systematic targeting or some such nonsense. You defend them by downplaying what they do. It's what all muslim apologists do.

Link?

Gads you're as stupid as bode...

"Kind of looks like a "set up" situation doesn't it?

"Someone deliberately for a baker of a specific religion in order to be refused?

"Muslim bakers are most likely a tiny minority in this country, the vast majority are Christian. That's likely why less fuss is heard. The Muslim community is also much more conservative - I doubt a gay couple would look to a Muslim baker for their cake. Did this person SUE them? Has anyone sued a Muslim baker?"

All I had to do was go to your first post. Where you defended them and downplayed the heinous nature of them refusing to bake cakes for queers.

This is a great post because you carefully explain why it's only bad when Christians do it:

"there has also been a rash of cases of couples supposedly getting married and deliberately seeking out vendors they KNOW will be hostile to same-sex arrangements. I think that is wrong - maybe not legally wrong, but ethically wrong. In the original case, the couple sought out a baker they had used many times before and had good arrangements with, so they had the expectation their service would similarly be welcomed..."

You're a lying, perverted hypocrite...and as is the case with most freaks these days, you defend criminals while you accuse the people they victimize of the guilt of the crime.

Muslim Bakeries Refuse To Make Gay Wedding Cake...& No Rabid Protests From Liberals?

What "criminals" are we defending, Allie?

I wonder if you'll actually answer me or try to hide again.

Are you and coyote the same person???

Or are you just both stupid dykes?

Are you and Steve McGarret the same person?

Or are you both just stupid racists?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Because *you* seem to have this misguided idea that rights are unlimited

So, if I'm to extrapolate from your assertion...

That means you have the idea that rights should be regulated? Please by all means correct me if I'm wrong.

Regulated? If that is what you call placing limitations on rights, then yes.

I do not believe the right of free speech means you can slander, libel or create public panic.

I do not believe the right to freedom of religion should include forcing those religious values on anyone else.

I do not believe the right to assembly includes leading lynch mob.

All of our rights have limitations.

Do you think they should be unlimited?

Forcing beliefs on another. That is what many groups and even the government has been doing. Religion is nothing but a belief system, we all follow a religion of some sort.

Definition of religion
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

So forcing beliefs on another is wrong and this is my issue with many of the government laws forcing people to accept others beliefs.

It's the religious people trying to force others to accept their beliefs. They are using religion to try to write themselves their own set of laws without regard to the constitution.

Really? Examples?

 

[koshergrl]

Bullshit. You said it was different because it wasn't evidence of systematic targeting or some such nonsense. You defend them by downplaying what they do. It's what all muslim apologists do.

Link?

Gads you're as stupid as bode...

"Kind of looks like a "set up" situation doesn't it?

"Someone deliberately for a baker of a specific religion in order to be refused?

"Muslim bakers are most likely a tiny minority in this country, the vast majority are Christian. That's likely why less fuss is heard. The Muslim community is also much more conservative - I doubt a gay couple would look to a Muslim baker for their cake. Did this person SUE them? Has anyone sued a Muslim baker?"

All I had to do was go to your first post. Where you defended them and downplayed the heinous nature of them refusing to bake cakes for queers.

This is a great post because you carefully explain why it's only bad when Christians do it:

"there has also been a rash of cases of couples supposedly getting married and deliberately seeking out vendors they KNOW will be hostile to same-sex arrangements. I think that is wrong - maybe not legally wrong, but ethically wrong. In the original case, the couple sought out a baker they had used many times before and had good arrangements with, so they had the expectation their service would similarly be welcomed..."

You're a lying, perverted hypocrite...and as is the case with most freaks these days, you defend criminals while you accuse the people they victimize of the guilt of the crime.

Muslim Bakeries Refuse To Make Gay Wedding Cake...& No Rabid Protests From Liberals?

What "criminals" are we defending, Allie?

I wonder if you'll actually answer me or try to hide again.

Are you and coyote the same person???

Or are you just both stupid dykes?

Are you and Steve McGarret the same person?

Or are you both just stupid racists?

I don't interject myself into his conversations and assume the royal "we" when I answer for him, I know that much.

 

[bodecea]

Post a link where I've defended Muslim bakers for refusing services. Seems I keep asking for that and no one can supply one.

I posted several times my condemnation (as have others).

Bullshit. You said it was different because it wasn't evidence of systematic targeting or some such nonsense. You defend them by downplaying what they do. It's what all muslim apologists do.

Link?

Gads you're as stupid as bode...

"Kind of looks like a "set up" situation doesn't it?

"Someone deliberately for a baker of a specific religion in order to be refused?

"Muslim bakers are most likely a tiny minority in this country, the vast majority are Christian. That's likely why less fuss is heard. The Muslim community is also much more conservative - I doubt a gay couple would look to a Muslim baker for their cake. Did this person SUE them? Has anyone sued a Muslim baker?"

All I had to do was go to your first post. Where you defended them and downplayed the heinous nature of them refusing to bake cakes for queers.

This is a great post because you carefully explain why it's only bad when Christians do it:

"there has also been a rash of cases of couples supposedly getting married and deliberately seeking out vendors they KNOW will be hostile to same-sex arrangements. I think that is wrong - maybe not legally wrong, but ethically wrong. In the original case, the couple sought out a baker they had used many times before and had good arrangements with, so they had the expectation their service would similarly be welcomed..."

You're a lying, perverted hypocrite...and as is the case with most freaks these days, you defend criminals while you accuse the people they victimize of the guilt of the crime.

Muslim Bakeries Refuse To Make Gay Wedding Cake...& No Rabid Protests From Liberals?

What "criminals" are we defending, Allie?

I wonder if you'll actually answer me or try to hide again.

Are you and coyote the same person???

Or are you just both stupid dykes?

You said we are "defending criminals"...what criminals are we defending, Allie?

 

[bodecea]

...

Why would there be protests? You know that it's not against the law there....Right?

Which is why the left should be on the march. NC recently said people had religious freedom and the left is having a shit fit. All because they say men go to men's restrooms and women use the women's restroom. Many places have had restrooms that allow family members to use when they need to help members of the opposite sex.

The transgenders need to give up the bathroom fight. When choosing between men's and women's restroom, choose by how you look. I don't want to share a restroom or locker room with some burly guy and I damn sure don't want my daughter having to deal with that.

NC is stretching the definition of "religious" freedom beyond reasonable bounds - gays can be fired for being gay, refused service in stores, restaurants, and refused housing. That is a faux religious freedom act.

Oh brother.

Wait till your buddies the Muslims are in charge.

The muslims are not our buddies....but they sure are in the same conservative crazy camp with you.