SCOTUS: states cannot ban same sex marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

[Q UOTE="TheProgressivePatriot, post: 11807737, member: 54822"]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There was a reference in there to Saudi Arabia alluding to some hypocrisy on the part of the Administration with regards to gay rights. More proof that this Shapiro kid has no clue and no credibility. Consider this:


Gay Rights and International Relations by Progressive Patriot 5.15.15

I will be the first to say that we are often too forgiving and accepting of the human rights violations of all sorts that are perpetrated by other nations. But I must also say that foreign policy is complicated and to simply say that we should not tolerate any abuses what so ever, and take whatever action we can, without regards to other considerations is naïve and simplistic. In a world where economic partners and strategic allies are needed to survive, we might find ourselves with few friends. In addition, we have to be realistic about how much influence even the United States can effectively apply-regardless of what sacrifices we are willing to make- in countries run by ultra-religious fanatics and heavy handed dictators.

I don’t believe that we can, or should try to hold other countries to our standards by force and coercion when it comes to human rights. To do so is just another form of nation building doomed to failure in countries that do not have a history of democracy, human rights, and the separation of religion from government.

What we could and should be doing is to claim the moral high ground by teaching and leading by example. Unfortunately, we could be doing a much better job of that than we are. True, gay people are not treated nearly as badly or with the brutality of these countries. We don’t kill them and jail them. However, in many cases they continue to be vilified, marginalized and discriminated against. While the overt behavior is not as harsh as in many other places, the underlying attitude is the same and many of those who wish to continue to deny gays full participation in our society would, in fact, do much more harm if allowed to. The attitudes and values that underlie discriminatory policies are not distinct from those that advocate the death penalty for gays. They just occupy a different place on a continuum- a continuum of violence and oppression. All oppression and genocide starts with scapegoating and fear mongering which we see much too much of in this country. That is why Indianan matters and that is why we have to clean up our own act in this country before criticizing others. Know too, that while Indiana may have represented an inconvenience or a humiliation to these people, gays have been suffering in far more significant ways-ways that a measurably and observably harmful for a long time.

And let’s not forget that American fanatics have been responsible for promoting the anti-gay laws and policies in some of those countries. Just because we are the United States of America, it does not mean that we can just say that we are better than others and leave it at that. If we accept complacency, we will never be better. We must actually be better in thought, word and deed. Those who consider themselves patriots should understand that.

Here are some examples dangerous and hateful rhetoric coming out of this county by little know fringe lunatics, prominent politicians, various organizations and others which calls into question our ability to present ourselves as a shining light of equality and human rights or to shame anyone else into reform:

‘Death Penalty For Gays’ Ballot Initiative May Be Allowed To Proceed Under California Law http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/03/20/death-penalty-for-gays-ballot-initiative-mclaughlin-harris-california-capital-punishment-sodomy/


Hateful Bigot Mike Huckabee Totally Fails At Basic Civics In, Idiotic, Anti-Gay Rant http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04...anti-gay-rant/

“I want to say that across the country there are numerous cases, whether it’s the chaplains in the military being told to put their bibles away, no longer pray in Jesus’ name, not to counsel people who are in a homosexual lifestyle, not to counsel them to try to seek assistance for that, but rather to affirm that lifestyle as being normal and appropriate, we’re continually seeing the courts overturn marriage amendments in states, which is very disturbing, because a lot of times, elected officials are capitulating immediately when a court makes a decision.”

Ted Cruz Shows Signs Of Gay Marriage Panic Ahead Of SCOTUS Hearing
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement...o%2FfgYdWNmtb6

It is sometimes hard to discern a Ted Cruz Town Hall gathering from a Christian revival meeting. His audience members often interject encouraging "alleluias" and "amens" when he talks about his policy positions, and they frequently end with a group prayer. The religious extremists who used to flock to Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum are now enthralled by Senator Cruz and his radical opposition to marriage equality. The Texas senator has gone where even those two renown homophobes have dared not venture; Cruz has said if the Supreme Court rules states' marriage bans are unconstitutional, he would lead an effort to pass a law taking away the power of the judicial branch to decide that issue.


James Dobson: Gay Marriage Signals 'The Fall Of Western Civilization' http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/james-dobson-gay-marriage-signals-fall-western-civilization

After warning that a Supreme Court decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage could lead to a civil war, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson took to WorldNetDaily yesterday to warn that “barring a miracle, the family that has existed since antiquity will likely crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself.”

Dobson wrote that the “homosexual activist movement” is bent on “overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia” and turning the U.S. into Sodom and Gomorrah.

End Times Pundit: Gay Marriage Linked To California Drought, Imminent Financial Collapse http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/end-times-pundit-gay-marriage-linked-california-drought-imminent-financial-collapse

After hosting a two-part series with ex-Rep. Michele Bachmann about the approaching Rapture and related natural disasters, Jan Markell spoke last week with "White House correspondent Bill Koenig about America’s collision course with God.”

When co-host Larry Kutzler asked if poor political leadership is a form of God’s judgment, Koenig responded that the election of President Obama was a sign of divine judgment because of his support for LGBT rights, adding that further judgment could come in a financial collapse at the end of 2015.


Barber: 'Revolution Is At Hand' If SCOTUS Legalizes Gay Marriage http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/barber-revolution-hand-if-scotus-legalizes-gay-marriage

"Same-sex marriage and the free exercise of religion, particularly biblical Christianity, cannot coexist in harmony," Barber warned, saying that Christians are already being "forced to call evil good and good evil."

Texas Senate testimony: It’s a ‘hate crime’ to make people not discriminate against gays

\ http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/texas-senate-testimony-its-a-hate-crime-to-make-people-not-discriminate-against-gays/

Texas church member testified to a state Senate committee on Monday that the government would be guilty of a “hate crime” if he was forced to recognize that LGBT people had an equal right to marriage.

On Monday, the Senate committee on State Affairs heard testimony in favor of Senate Bill 2065, which would allow religious organizations and their employees to refuse to provide services related to same-sex marriages if it violated their “sincerely held” beliefs.

w are gay people marginalized or discriminated against in america? They have representatives everywhere in movies, tv shows like Ellen. I mean come on lol



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aside from that not being the point....it appears that you, like Shapiro, don't have a clue. I suspect that you just happened upon that video clip and posted it without thinking that you would be called on it. Am I right?

Not at all I expect someone will reply to anyone of my posts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect that you were looking for a different kind of reply. NOW you have to defend the indefensible

Indefensible? Someone's on a crusade gay people (whom I don't hate so you can't use that old shtick against me-then again you probably will) have more people in every area of entertainment, and there not like black people in the 50's etc... There's a BIIIIIG difference in not serving a gay couple cause there gay (which is wrong) and not wanting to cater a gay EVENT.
If your logic follows:
Force Muslims to make a muhammad cake. Force Jews to make a Nazi cake. Force blacks to make a Segregation cake. Unless you just want to target Christians


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

No I would not want to force Muslims to make a Muhammad cake. Force Jews to make a Nazi cake, blacks to make a Segregation cake. Nor would I want to force a Christian to make a Satan cake ( maybe devils food though) These that you describe are all inherently offensive. All that any business would have to do is have a policy that states that they will not include any symbols or language that a reasonable person would find objectionable. A reasonable person is not going to find a wedding cake offensive,

This whole thing about targeting Christians is paranoid lunacy. Laws against discrimination apply to all faiths equally . The Muslim or anyone else who has a business is equally obligated to serve the public when offering goods and services. I presented my take on what religious freedom means and does not mean and I stand by it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Texas, with a couple of minor exceptions, is happily issuing licenses to everyone. So is every other state. This is over.

The far right loonies, like Vigilante, have conceded.

 

[danielpalos]

Just the Right being frivolous with the People's time and money under our form of Capitalism.

 

[JFish123]

[Q UOTE="TheProgressivePatriot, post: 11807737, member: 54822"]There was a reference in there to Saudi Arabia alluding to some hypocrisy on the part of the Administration with regards to gay rights. More proof that this Shapiro kid has no clue and no credibility. Consider this:


Gay Rights and International Relations by Progressive Patriot 5.15.15

I will be the first to say that we are often too forgiving and accepting of the human rights violations of all sorts that are perpetrated by other nations. But I must also say that foreign policy is complicated and to simply say that we should not tolerate any abuses what so ever, and take whatever action we can, without regards to other considerations is naïve and simplistic. In a world where economic partners and strategic allies are needed to survive, we might find ourselves with few friends. In addition, we have to be realistic about how much influence even the United States can effectively apply-regardless of what sacrifices we are willing to make- in countries run by ultra-religious fanatics and heavy handed dictators.

I don’t believe that we can, or should try to hold other countries to our standards by force and coercion when it comes to human rights. To do so is just another form of nation building doomed to failure in countries that do not have a history of democracy, human rights, and the separation of religion from government.

What we could and should be doing is to claim the moral high ground by teaching and leading by example. Unfortunately, we could be doing a much better job of that than we are. True, gay people are not treated nearly as badly or with the brutality of these countries. We don’t kill them and jail them. However, in many cases they continue to be vilified, marginalized and discriminated against. While the overt behavior is not as harsh as in many other places, the underlying attitude is the same and many of those who wish to continue to deny gays full participation in our society would, in fact, do much more harm if allowed to. The attitudes and values that underlie discriminatory policies are not distinct from those that advocate the death penalty for gays. They just occupy a different place on a continuum- a continuum of violence and oppression. All oppression and genocide starts with scapegoating and fear mongering which we see much too much of in this country. That is why Indianan matters and that is why we have to clean up our own act in this country before criticizing others. Know too, that while Indiana may have represented an inconvenience or a humiliation to these people, gays have been suffering in far more significant ways-ways that a measurably and observably harmful for a long time.

And let’s not forget that American fanatics have been responsible for promoting the anti-gay laws and policies in some of those countries. Just because we are the United States of America, it does not mean that we can just say that we are better than others and leave it at that. If we accept complacency, we will never be better. We must actually be better in thought, word and deed. Those who consider themselves patriots should understand that.

Here are some examples dangerous and hateful rhetoric coming out of this county by little know fringe lunatics, prominent politicians, various organizations and others which calls into question our ability to present ourselves as a shining light of equality and human rights or to shame anyone else into reform:

w are gay people marginalized or discriminated against in america? They have representatives everywhere in movies, tv shows like Ellen. I mean come on lol



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aside from that not being the point....it appears that you, like Shapiro, don't have a clue. I suspect that you just happened upon that video clip and posted it without thinking that you would be called on it. Am I right?

Not at all I expect someone will reply to anyone of my posts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect that you were looking for a different kind of reply. NOW you have to defend the indefensible

Indefensible? Someone's on a crusade gay people (whom I don't hate so you can't use that old shtick against me-then again you probably will) have more people in every area of entertainment, and there not like black people in the 50's etc... There's a BIIIIIG difference in not serving a gay couple cause there gay (which is wrong) and not wanting to cater a gay EVENT.
If your logic follows:
Force Muslims to make a muhammad cake. Force Jews to make a Nazi cake. Force blacks to make a Segregation cake. Unless you just want to target Christians


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I would not want to force Muslims to make a Muhammad cake. Force Jews to make a Nazi cake, blacks to make a Segregation cake. Nor would I want to force a Christian to make a Satan cake ( maybe devils food though) These that you describe are all inherently offensive. All that any business would have to do is have a policy that states that they will not include any symbols or language that a reasonable person would find objectionable. A reasonable person is not going to find a wedding cake offensive,

This whole thing about targeting Christians is paranoid lunacy. Laws against discrimination apply to all faiths equally . The Muslim or anyone else who has a business is equally obligated to serve the public when offering goods and services. I presented my take on what religious freedom means and does not mean and I stand by it.[/QUOTE]


So you'd force a muslim to make a gay wedding cake too? People don't make cakes for a variety of reasons that can offend them. Many don't make cakes with genetalia on them or sexual scenes, they don't make cakes for a KKK wedding or gathering. They don't as a matter of conscience make cakes that would go against there beliefs.
Now you said "they would not include any symbol or language that a REASONABLE person would find objectionable." But everyone has their own beliefs and what they find reasonable. A muslim wouldn't want to make a Muhammad cake because even though I don't think it's bad. Why? Because I'm not a muslim. It's a belief they have, like the belief gay marriage is wrong that most Christians have. You can't say you'll force one group to go against there "belief" and not another group the same. Because both are set on beliefs. It's illogical and hypocritical to do so and shows your bias against one group.
Also, a Jehovahs Witness might not want to make a "Jesus is God" or a "God is a Trinity" as they find them as abominable sins from the devil even though I do not as I believe the opposite. So what people consider "reasonable" is all relative. I mean heck, someone could find the word "fat" offensive on a cake if Political Correctness went off the rails
The point is any cake could be offensive to anyone. And should anyone be FORCED to make a cake that goes against there conscience or strongly held beliefs? No, they shouldn't. To make a cake for people who are gay is one thing (and anyone SHOULD make that cake), but that's not the issue.
The issue is, whether someone should be forced to make a PARTICULAR cake for any EVENT or celebration they believe is wrong. You see, making a cake is one thing, but making a cake AND writing or decorating it for something you find wrong is another issue entirely but people like to confuse the two. And those who disagree are labeled bigots. It's a sad confused world out there my friend.

 

[JFish123]

So you'd force a muslim to make a gay wedding cake too? People don't make cakes for a variety of reasons that can offend them. Many don't make cakes with genetalia on them or sexual scenes, they don't make cakes for a KKK wedding or gathering. They don't as a matter of conscience make cakes that would go against there beliefs.
Now you said "they would not include any symbol or language that a REASONABLE person would find objectionable." But everyone has their own beliefs and what they find reasonable. A muslim wouldn't want to make a Muhammad cake because even though I don't think it's bad. Why? Because I'm not a muslim. It's a belief they have, like the belief gay marriage is wrong that most Christians have. You can't say you'll force one group to go against there "belief" and not another group the same. Because both are set on beliefs. It's illogical and hypocritical to do so and shows your bias against one group.
Also, a Jehovahs Witness might not want to make a "Jesus is God" or a "God is a Trinity" as they find them as abominable sins from the devil even though I do not as I believe the opposite. So what people consider "reasonable" is all relative. I mean heck, someone could find the word "fat" offensive on a cake if Political Correctness went off the rails
The point is any cake could be offensive to anyone. And should anyone be FORCED to make a cake that goes against there conscience or strongly held beliefs? No, they shouldn't. To make a cake for people who are gay is one thing (and anyone SHOULD make that cake), but that's not the issue.
The issue is, whether someone should be forced to make a PARTICULAR cake for any EVENT or celebration they believe is wrong. You see, making a cake is one thing, but making a cake AND writing or decorating it for something you find wrong is another issue entirely but people like to confuse the two. And those who disagree are labeled bigots. It's a sad confused world out there my friend.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JakeStarkey]

JFish123 creates these long, rambling and inaccurate posts.

Good grief.

PA laws will guide these issues.

 

[JFish123]

JFish123 creates these long, rambling and inaccurate posts.

Good grief.

PA laws will guide these issues.

Rambling? You mean explaining common sense and Truth? Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JakeStarkey]

JFish123 creates these long, rambling and inaccurate posts.

Good grief.

PA laws will guide these issues.

Rambling? You mean explaining common sense and Truth? Lol

You are rambling. PA laws will guide businesses on dealing with such issues. If there are no PA laws, then a business can post a clear sign in an easily visible place what it will and won't do within the limits of common community standards.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So you'd force a muslim to make a gay wedding cake too? People don't make cakes for a variety of reasons that can offend them. Many don't make cakes with genetalia on them or sexual scenes, they don't make cakes for a KKK wedding or gathering. They don't as a matter of conscience make cakes that would go against there beliefs.
Now you said "they would not include any symbol or language that a REASONABLE person would find objectionable." But everyone has their own beliefs and what they find reasonable. A muslim wouldn't want to make a Muhammad cake because even though I don't think it's bad. Why? Because I'm not a muslim. It's a belief they have, like the belief gay marriage is wrong that most Christians have. You can't say you'll force one group to go against there "belief" and not another group the same. Because both are set on beliefs. It's illogical and hypocritical to do so and shows your bias against one group.
Also, a Jehovahs Witness might not want to make a "Jesus is God" or a "God is a Trinity" as they find them as abominable sins from the devil even though I do not as I believe the opposite. So what people consider "reasonable" is all relative. I mean heck, someone could find the word "fat" offensive on a cake if Political Correctness went off the rails
The point is any cake could be offensive to anyone. And should anyone be FORCED to make a cake that goes against there conscience or strongly held beliefs? No, they shouldn't. To make a cake for people who are gay is one thing (and anyone SHOULD make that cake), but that's not the issue.
The issue is, whether someone should be forced to make a PARTICULAR cake for any EVENT or celebration they believe is wrong. You see, making a cake is one thing, but making a cake AND writing or decorating it for something you find wrong is another issue entirely but people like to confuse the two. And those who disagree are labeled bigots. It's a sad confused world out there my friend.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look, I will admit that this is a difficult and touchy area. I really don’t want anyone to be in a position where they have to do something or participate in something that they find offensive and contrary to their religion. I feel sorry for those who have been brainwashed into believing that their religion requires them to treat others badly

I actually do respect religious freedom but to me that includes the freedom from religion-the idea that not only is every person free to practice their faith and live as they wish-but that no one else is forced to adhere to the tenants of another faith. That is what a service provider who, in the name of religious freedom does when they inconvenience, or worse humiliate someone.

If you have a bakery or any business you have to serve everyone equally. It was only since the civil rights era that religious freedom was reinterpreted to mean the right to discriminate in the name of religion and now it’s happening again. I’m willing to bet that half or more of these people who don’t want to bake a “gay wedding cake” are full of shit when they invoke religion. They would cheerfully bake a cake for someone who had a child outside of marriage or who had been previously married. Religious freedom is easily abused and used as a cover for bigotry. And as I said before, if we allow people to discriminate against gays for religious purposes, then where does it end. They then have license to discriminate against anyone who they don’t approve of.

You said that any cake should be offensive to someone. Well, sorry, but no one has a right to not be offended. They have a right to practice their faith and live accordingly. If they can’t do their job because of those beliefs, they need to find another job. They need to just get over it.

And lastly, your invoking the specter of someone being forced to bake a Nazi or KKK cake is just fear mongering hyperbole. That is not going to happen. No one will be forced to provide symbols that universally recognized as offensive, nor will they be required to do anything pornographic as you alluded to. Racists and Fascists are not protected classes .

 

[ChrisL]

[Q UOTE="TheProgressivePatriot, post: 11807737, member: 54822"]There was a reference in there to Saudi Arabia alluding to some hypocrisy on the part of the Administration with regards to gay rights. More proof that this Shapiro kid has no clue and no credibility. Consider this:


Gay Rights and International Relations by Progressive Patriot 5.15.15

I will be the first to say that we are often too forgiving and accepting of the human rights violations of all sorts that are perpetrated by other nations. But I must also say that foreign policy is complicated and to simply say that we should not tolerate any abuses what so ever, and take whatever action we can, without regards to other considerations is naïve and simplistic. In a world where economic partners and strategic allies are needed to survive, we might find ourselves with few friends. In addition, we have to be realistic about how much influence even the United States can effectively apply-regardless of what sacrifices we are willing to make- in countries run by ultra-religious fanatics and heavy handed dictators.

I don’t believe that we can, or should try to hold other countries to our standards by force and coercion when it comes to human rights. To do so is just another form of nation building doomed to failure in countries that do not have a history of democracy, human rights, and the separation of religion from government.

What we could and should be doing is to claim the moral high ground by teaching and leading by example. Unfortunately, we could be doing a much better job of that than we are. True, gay people are not treated nearly as badly or with the brutality of these countries. We don’t kill them and jail them. However, in many cases they continue to be vilified, marginalized and discriminated against. While the overt behavior is not as harsh as in many other places, the underlying attitude is the same and many of those who wish to continue to deny gays full participation in our society would, in fact, do much more harm if allowed to. The attitudes and values that underlie discriminatory policies are not distinct from those that advocate the death penalty for gays. They just occupy a different place on a continuum- a continuum of violence and oppression. All oppression and genocide starts with scapegoating and fear mongering which we see much too much of in this country. That is why Indianan matters and that is why we have to clean up our own act in this country before criticizing others. Know too, that while Indiana may have represented an inconvenience or a humiliation to these people, gays have been suffering in far more significant ways-ways that a measurably and observably harmful for a long time.

And let’s not forget that American fanatics have been responsible for promoting the anti-gay laws and policies in some of those countries. Just because we are the United States of America, it does not mean that we can just say that we are better than others and leave it at that. If we accept complacency, we will never be better. We must actually be better in thought, word and deed. Those who consider themselves patriots should understand that.

Here are some examples dangerous and hateful rhetoric coming out of this county by little know fringe lunatics, prominent politicians, various organizations and others which calls into question our ability to present ourselves as a shining light of equality and human rights or to shame anyone else into reform:

w are gay people marginalized or discriminated against in america? They have representatives everywhere in movies, tv shows like Ellen. I mean come on lol



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aside from that not being the point....it appears that you, like Shapiro, don't have a clue. I suspect that you just happened upon that video clip and posted it without thinking that you would be called on it. Am I right?

Not at all I expect someone will reply to anyone of my posts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect that you were looking for a different kind of reply. NOW you have to defend the indefensible

Indefensible? Someone's on a crusade gay people (whom I don't hate so you can't use that old shtick against me-then again you probably will) have more people in every area of entertainment, and there not like black people in the 50's etc... There's a BIIIIIG difference in not serving a gay couple cause there gay (which is wrong) and not wanting to cater a gay EVENT.
If your logic follows:
Force Muslims to make a muhammad cake. Force Jews to make a Nazi cake. Force blacks to make a Segregation cake. Unless you just want to target Christians


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I would not want to force Muslims to make a Muhammad cake. Force Jews to make a Nazi cake, blacks to make a Segregation cake. Nor would I want to force a Christian to make a Satan cake ( maybe devils food though) These that you describe are all inherently offensive. All that any business would have to do is have a policy that states that they will not include any symbols or language that a reasonable person would find objectionable. A reasonable person is not going to find a wedding cake offensive,

This whole thing about targeting Christians is paranoid lunacy. Laws against discrimination apply to all faiths equally . The Muslim or anyone else who has a business is equally obligated to serve the public when offering goods and services. I presented my take on what religious freedom means and does not mean and I stand by it.[/QUOTE]

I see people are STILL completely misinterpreting the law here. One more time for them? It's not about your product, it is about access to your product. You cannot go into business to serve the public and then refuse to serve one or more portions of the public. The government doesn't recognize discrimination as a religious belief, custom or practice. Think MAYBE they will get it this time? Doubtful. Lol!

 

[ChrisL]

So you'd force a muslim to make a gay wedding cake too? People don't make cakes for a variety of reasons that can offend them. Many don't make cakes with genetalia on them or sexual scenes, they don't make cakes for a KKK wedding or gathering. They don't as a matter of conscience make cakes that would go against there beliefs.
Now you said "they would not include any symbol or language that a REASONABLE person would find objectionable." But everyone has their own beliefs and what they find reasonable. A muslim wouldn't want to make a Muhammad cake because even though I don't think it's bad. Why? Because I'm not a muslim. It's a belief they have, like the belief gay marriage is wrong that most Christians have. You can't say you'll force one group to go against there "belief" and not another group the same. Because both are set on beliefs. It's illogical and hypocritical to do so and shows your bias against one group.
Also, a Jehovahs Witness might not want to make a "Jesus is God" or a "God is a Trinity" as they find them as abominable sins from the devil even though I do not as I believe the opposite. So what people consider "reasonable" is all relative. I mean heck, someone could find the word "fat" offensive on a cake if Political Correctness went off the rails
The point is any cake could be offensive to anyone. And should anyone be FORCED to make a cake that goes against there conscience or strongly held beliefs? No, they shouldn't. To make a cake for people who are gay is one thing (and anyone SHOULD make that cake), but that's not the issue.
The issue is, whether someone should be forced to make a PARTICULAR cake for any EVENT or celebration they believe is wrong. You see, making a cake is one thing, but making a cake AND writing or decorating it for something you find wrong is another issue entirely but people like to confuse the two. And those who disagree are labeled bigots. It's a sad confused world out there my friend.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not about your product. It is about public accommodation laws and anti discrimination laws and civil rights laws that were broken when this couple refused to sell to a portion of the public. The government does not recognize discrimination as a religious practice.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course states can refuse to marry queers.... what can happen to them?... Lose Federal aid, they can simply have all citizens send the state the TAX owed the Fed. Send in troops? Governor can activate state troopers and city police, and ask for the MILITIA from other states to help, as they did with Bundy! In actually IF the people of the state VOTE to deny queer marriage, there isn't much the Federal government can do...but I'll listen to your replies!

Of course individuals can refuse to pay income tax? What can happen to them?

As soon as one public official is threatened with fines for contempt of court, the whole house of cards will crumble.

 

[Syriusly]

w are gay people marginalized or discriminated against in america? They have representatives everywhere in movies, tv shows like Ellen. I mean come on lol



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aside from that not being the point....it appears that you, like Shapiro, don't have a clue. I suspect that you just happened upon that video clip and posted it without thinking that you would be called on it. Am I right?

Not at all I expect someone will reply to anyone of my posts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect that you were looking for a different kind of reply. NOW you have to defend the indefensible

Indefensible? Someone's on a crusade gay people (whom I don't hate so you can't use that old shtick against me-then again you probably will) have more people in every area of entertainment, and there not like black people in the 50's etc... There's a BIIIIIG difference in not serving a gay couple cause there gay (which is wrong) and not wanting to cater a gay EVENT.
If your logic follows:
Force Muslims to make a muhammad cake. Force Jews to make a Nazi cake. Force blacks to make a Segregation cake. Unless you just want to target Christians


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I would not want to force Muslims to make a Muhammad cake. Force Jews to make a Nazi cake, blacks to make a Segregation cake. Nor would I want to force a Christian to make a Satan cake ( maybe devils food though) These that you describe are all inherently offensive. All that any business would have to do is have a policy that states that they will not include any symbols or language that a reasonable person would find objectionable. A reasonable person is not going to find a wedding cake offensive,

This whole thing about targeting Christians is paranoid lunacy. Laws against discrimination apply to all faiths equally . The Muslim or anyone else who has a business is equally obligated to serve the public when offering goods and services. I presented my take on what religious freedom means and does not mean and I stand by it.

So you'd force a muslim to make a gay wedding cake too?.[/QUOTE]

I would insist that a Muslim business comply with the law just like any other business.

No special exemptions for Christians or Muslims or Atheists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you are offering a service in public association, then the government will recognize your discrimination to customers as a religious right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Did the Governor of Arizona ask for militia from other states to come to the defense of Bundy?

 

[Geaux4it]

Another good time for me to send my friend Sheriff Joe a check

-Geaux

 

[Skylar]

Another good time for me to send my friend Sheriff Joe a check

-Geaux

You may need to. He lost again in court yesterday.

It doesn't help when you try to intimate the judge in your case by having his wife stalked and investigated. But that kind of thuggery is just the kind of guy sheriff Joe is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

JFISH123 SAID:

“No I would not want to force Muslims to make a Muhammad cake.”

Nonsense.

No one is being ‘forced’ to do anything.

Businesses are subject to all manner of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy, public accommodations laws are no different, just as business owners aren’t being ‘forced’ to pay a minimum wage and aren’t being ‘forced’ to ensure safe working conditions for employees.

 

[thanatos144]

JFISH123 SAID:

“No I would not want to force Muslims to make a Muhammad cake.”

Nonsense.

No one is being ‘forced’ to do anything.

Businesses are subject to all manner of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy, public accommodations laws are no different, just as business owners aren’t being ‘forced’ to pay a minimum wage and aren’t being ‘forced’ to ensure safe working conditions for employees.

The first amendment is there to protect us from a government ran by tyrannical assholes like you

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[ChrisL]

If you are offering a service in public association, then the government will recognize your discrimination to customers as a religious right.

Will not, you mean?