Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So, you did not fight the ticket on the basis that it was "involuntary servitude" to force you to take three seconds to buckle up? That is a clear winner, at least based on your understanding of the 13th Amendment.They do. I had a wreck a few years ago. The state trooper told me I would probably be dead if I was wearing it. Got a fuckin 25$ ticket a month or so ago.Seatbelt laws must really drive him crazy.Is forcing a business to follow safety and health laws involuntary servitude?involuntary servitude dumbfuck. By way of compulsory force.Better to have tried to use what is inside your head. The 13 Amendment banned slavery. No being allowed to discriminate in who your perform services for, for which you get paid, is not slavery. Maybe to a dumbass like you, but not to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. "Property rights"? Bet you have no clue what that means.Off the top of my head the 13th amendment and the founding documents and property rights.
What they do is up to them, I really don't care enough about this to object.So...your objection is that the couple actually exercised their right under the law to complain to the authorities.I'm not arguing with either of those points.Clear, but laughably wrong. The "law" not only requires compliance, it provides for damages that serve the dual purpose of compensation and deterrence.Once the complaint has been made, the law has to be enforced.Enforcing the law is wrong then, in your view?Damages to the bakers per state law, once the gay couple pressed the issue: $135,000
Damages to the bakers had the gay couple just told them to go to hell and gone to another baker, one who was happy to work with them: $0
Yep, that's the law. Did the issue have to be pressed? Nope, that was a choice.
Punish, intimidate, control.
.
I made that pretty clear.
.
The point is that the "offended" party has to choose to say something.
They can choose to have the "offender" punished, or they can choose not to.
That's it.
.
The goal is kind of obvious. To deter people from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The few number of cases like this would indicate it is meeting that goal. Did you think that laws banning racial discrimination in public accommodation was to improve relations between the racists and black folks?What they do is up to them, I really don't care enough about this to object.So...your objection is that the couple actually exercised their right under the law to complain to the authorities.I'm not arguing with either of those points.Clear, but laughably wrong. The "law" not only requires compliance, it provides for damages that serve the dual purpose of compensation and deterrence.Once the complaint has been made, the law has to be enforced.Enforcing the law is wrong then, in your view?
I made that pretty clear.
.
The point is that the "offended" party has to choose to say something.
They can choose to have the "offender" punished, or they can choose not to.
That's it.
.
What I'm curious about is what the goal is. If it's to punish, that their call (although it's not what I would do).
If their goal is to improve relations between gays and those have some kind of problem with them, well, that's obviously not the goal.
.
I guess by definition it would be. Wouldn't it?So, you did not fight the ticket on the basis that it was "involuntary servitude" to force you to take three seconds to buckle up? That is a clear winner, at least based on your understanding of the 13th Amendment.They do. I had a wreck a few years ago. The state trooper told me I would probably be dead if I was wearing it. Got a fuckin 25$ ticket a month or so ago.Seatbelt laws must really drive him crazy.Is forcing a business to follow safety and health laws involuntary servitude?involuntary servitude dumbfuck. By way of compulsory force.Better to have tried to use what is inside your head. The 13 Amendment banned slavery. No being allowed to discriminate in who your perform services for, for which you get paid, is not slavery. Maybe to a dumbass like you, but not to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. "Property rights"? Bet you have no clue what that means.
By your definition, based on a completely moronic understanding of the Amendment, sure.I guess by definition it would be. Wouldn't it?So, you did not fight the ticket on the basis that it was "involuntary servitude" to force you to take three seconds to buckle up? That is a clear winner, at least based on your understanding of the 13th Amendment.They do. I had a wreck a few years ago. The state trooper told me I would probably be dead if I was wearing it. Got a fuckin 25$ ticket a month or so ago.Seatbelt laws must really drive him crazy.Is forcing a business to follow safety and health laws involuntary servitude?involuntary servitude dumbfuck. By way of compulsory force.
I've said all along this is about intimidation (or the euphemism "deterrence"), it's not about changing hearts and minds and giving people their space.The goal is kind of obvious. To deter people from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The few number of cases like this would indicate it is meeting that goal.What they do is up to them, I really don't care enough about this to object.So...your objection is that the couple actually exercised their right under the law to complain to the authorities.I'm not arguing with either of those points.Clear, but laughably wrong. The "law" not only requires compliance, it provides for damages that serve the dual purpose of compensation and deterrence.Once the complaint has been made, the law has to be enforced.
I made that pretty clear.
.
The point is that the "offended" party has to choose to say something.
They can choose to have the "offender" punished, or they can choose not to.
That's it.
.
What I'm curious about is what the goal is. If it's to punish, that their call (although it's not what I would do).
If their goal is to improve relations between gays and those have some kind of problem with them, well, that's obviously not the goal.
.
I don't make up definitionsBy your definition, based on a completely moronic understanding of the Amendment, sure.I guess by definition it would be. Wouldn't it?So, you did not fight the ticket on the basis that it was "involuntary servitude" to force you to take three seconds to buckle up? That is a clear winner, at least based on your understanding of the 13th Amendment.They do. I had a wreck a few years ago. The state trooper told me I would probably be dead if I was wearing it. Got a fuckin 25$ ticket a month or so ago.Seatbelt laws must really drive him crazy.Is forcing a business to follow safety and health laws involuntary servitude?
By persecuting you mean make them follow the law? As soon as a Muslim baker denies service to someone on the basis of sexual orientation in a state where such discrimination is illegal and the person discriminated agaisnt decides to sue. Did you really have to have that explained to you?When are they going to start persecuting muslim bakers?
The punishment was not the couple's call.What they do is up to them, I really don't care enough about this to object.So...your objection is that the couple actually exercised their right under the law to complain to the authorities.I'm not arguing with either of those points.Clear, but laughably wrong. The "law" not only requires compliance, it provides for damages that serve the dual purpose of compensation and deterrence.Once the complaint has been made, the law has to be enforced.Enforcing the law is wrong then, in your view?
I made that pretty clear.
.
The point is that the "offended" party has to choose to say something.
They can choose to have the "offender" punished, or they can choose not to.
That's it.
.
What I'm curious about is what the goal is. If it's to punish, that their call (although it's not what I would do).
If their goal is to improve relations between gays and those have some kind of problem with them, well, that's obviously not the goal.
.
When they disobey the law...When are they going to start persecuting muslim bakers?
Just to clarify, I fully support gay marriage and gay EQUALITY. I just don't support AD laws. That isn't EQUALITYI'm gonna ask again...why do anti gay bigots believe they should get exemptions from PA laws we don't give racist bigots?
muslim baker refusing cake service to gays - BingWhen they disobey the law...When are they going to start persecuting muslim bakers?
Kind of like laws that make speeding an offense are about intimidating speeders or zoning laws are about intimidating property owners and food safety laws are about intimidating food producers. Is it surprising to you that people who violate the law are punished?I've said all along this is about intimidation (or the euphemism "deterrence"), it's not about changing hearts and minds and giving people their space.The goal is kind of obvious. To deter people from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The few number of cases like this would indicate it is meeting that goal.What they do is up to them, I really don't care enough about this to object.So...your objection is that the couple actually exercised their right under the law to complain to the authorities.I'm not arguing with either of those points.Clear, but laughably wrong. The "law" not only requires compliance, it provides for damages that serve the dual purpose of compensation and deterrence.
The point is that the "offended" party has to choose to say something.
They can choose to have the "offender" punished, or they can choose not to.
That's it.
.
What I'm curious about is what the goal is. If it's to punish, that their call (although it's not what I would do).
If their goal is to improve relations between gays and those have some kind of problem with them, well, that's obviously not the goal.
.
So we don't really have a disagreement.
.
Oh, so all they wanted was the bakers to get a real stern talking-to, huh?The punishment was not the couple's call.What they do is up to them, I really don't care enough about this to object.So...your objection is that the couple actually exercised their right under the law to complain to the authorities.I'm not arguing with either of those points.Clear, but laughably wrong. The "law" not only requires compliance, it provides for damages that serve the dual purpose of compensation and deterrence.Once the complaint has been made, the law has to be enforced.
I made that pretty clear.
.
The point is that the "offended" party has to choose to say something.
They can choose to have the "offender" punished, or they can choose not to.
That's it.
.
What I'm curious about is what the goal is. If it's to punish, that their call (although it's not what I would do).
If their goal is to improve relations between gays and those have some kind of problem with them, well, that's obviously not the goal.
.
So, you support equality but not any laws that would actually require equality. Gotcha.Just to clarify, I fully support gay marriage and gay EQUALITY. I just don't support AD laws. That isn't EQUALITYI'm gonna ask again...why do anti gay bigots believe they should get exemptions from PA laws we don't give racist bigots?
Just to clarify, I fully support gay marriage and gay EQUALITY. I just don't support AD laws. That isn't EQUALITYI'm gonna ask again...why do anti gay bigots believe they should get exemptions from PA laws we don't give racist bigots?
Ugh, now you're going obtuse.Kind of like laws that make speeding an offense are about intimidating speeders or zoning laws are about intimidating property owners and food safety laws are about intimidating food producers. Is it surprising to you that people who violate the law are punished?I've said all along this is about intimidation (or the euphemism "deterrence"), it's not about changing hearts and minds and giving people their space.The goal is kind of obvious. To deter people from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The few number of cases like this would indicate it is meeting that goal.What they do is up to them, I really don't care enough about this to object.So...your objection is that the couple actually exercised their right under the law to complain to the authorities.I'm not arguing with either of those points.
The point is that the "offended" party has to choose to say something.
They can choose to have the "offender" punished, or they can choose not to.
That's it.
.
What I'm curious about is what the goal is. If it's to punish, that their call (although it's not what I would do).
If their goal is to improve relations between gays and those have some kind of problem with them, well, that's obviously not the goal.
.
So we don't really have a disagreement.
.
So, nail them, if it's the real deal. Sting operations don't count...muslim baker refusing cake service to gays - BingWhen they disobey the law...When are they going to start persecuting muslim bakers?
