The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends: bakers must pay 135 K

[Uncensored2008]

No, the government is not persecuting you for your religious beliefs. That is your own paranoia.

I understand that the Ad Hominem fallacy you base your position on requires you to personalize the issue. I do not own "Hollies Sweet Cakes," so your fallacy fails.

What I am is an advocate of civil rights, when laws are passed which crush those rights, as happened in this case, I argue against those laws using written statute and precedent as the basis of said arguments.

The issue here is that you are advocating the use of the implied violence of the state to force people to serve against their will in a way that offends and infringes the religious beliefs of others. You advocate for the violation and by extension, the destruction of the 1st Amendment.

 

[Faun]

No, they are still free to practice their religion.

But if they refuse to commit sacrilege, they lose their business.

"...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

They were not forced to commit sacrilege. Your hallucinations are not reality. Though I'm certain they feel real to you.

Like your idiocy that you can and will break the law -- you're not. You're an idiot.

No, they were PUNISHED for REFUSING to participate in sacrilege.

Again. Look these words up. I'm tired of dumbing it down for you. I don't think I can dumb it down any more.

And for everybody else..see, this is their problem. faun knows he doesn't know these words, and he is so retarded he doesn't even look them up out of curiosity. He isn't even smart enough to come back with the definition after LOOKING IT UP and apply it correctly. He just continues blindly with this idiocy. I mean, it's obvious he has no idea what constitutes a sacrament, or sacrilege. And he's so stupid he doesn't even look it up. I can't say it enough times, what a fucking retard.

There's nothing to look up. You're a retard who thinks baking a cake is a sacrilege. Show me where the Bible says that and I'll look it up. You can't because it doesn't exist. And the law does not allow for people to invent sacrileges in order to circumvent the law. Again, the Coptics Church tried that and failed.

Yawn. You're too dumb for this discussion. Thank you for admitting you're willfully ignorant, that you don't understand what the words mean but still won't look them up, because you're just too stupid to learn things.

Your surrender is noted and accepted.

 

[ChrisL]

No, the government is not persecuting you for your religious beliefs. That is your own paranoia.

I understand that the Ad Hominem fallacy you base your position on requires you to personalize the issue. I do not own "Hollies Sweet Cakes," so your fallacy fails.

What I am is an advocate of civil rights, when laws are passed which crush those rights, as happened in this case, I argue against those laws using written statute and precedent as the basis of said arguments.

The issue here is that you are advocating the use of the implied violence of the state to force people to serve against their will in a way that offends and infringes the religious beliefs of others. You advocate for the violation and by extension, the destruction of the 1st Amendment.

There is no fallacy. That's the law, bozo.

 

[Faun]

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

If you're going to use the Bible as an authority, you might want to check what it has to say about marriage and fornication.

You can't have it both ways, bub.

I'm not the one using the Bible as an authority. Sweet Cakes was. I'm merely pointing out their authoritative source doesn't defend their actions.

 

[Statistikhengst]

"Here's your cake"..."oh you are a gay couple? well then here's a $135,000 wedding gift!"

"Why thank you sir".

But you are not getting our cake. And we will not serve you. You didn't get that $135K from us. You got it from an unjust government. As long as it's not our doing, then we are following our faith.

By the way... what happens if we refuse to pay? What are you going to do about that?

"our cake".


Wow, that's some fine business acumen, there.

And actually, nothing belongs to us homo sapiens. All belongs to Adoshem.

 

[boedicca]

I see your point, the Constitution is silent regarding protection of religion...

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

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

 

[boedicca]

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

If you're going to use the Bible as an authority, you might want to check what it has to say about marriage and fornication.

You can't have it both ways, bub.

I'm not the one using the Bible as an authority. Sweet Cakes was. I'm merely pointing out their authoritative source doesn't defend their actions.

Translation: you are a hypocrite who got caught.

 

[ChrisL]

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

Sorry, but no it is not. The government nor this law prevents you from living your life according to your book. You just cannot discriminate when it comes to your business dealings. If you think that hurts you in some way, then you are delusional. Thankfully, our government does not recognize delusional religious beliefs as a basis for our laws.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's not a bible-compliant bakery. If you have divorced a few times, and are getting married for the fourth or fifth time, you can still get a cake.

It's a STRAIGHT ONLY bakery.

It has nothing to do with religion.

And what about all those masturbators out there. They absolutely CANNOT get a cake of any type!!!

 

[ChrisL]

It's not a bible-compliant bakery. If you have divorced a few times, and are getting married for the fourth or fifth time, you can still get a cake.

It's a STRAIGHT ONLY bakery.

It has nothing to do with religion.

And what about all those masturbators out there. They absolutely CANNOT get a cake of any type!!!

Neither can smokers. Thine body is thy temple.

 

[ChrisL]

Are you fat? Gluttony. Get the fuck out of town.

 

[boedicca]

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

Sorry, but no it is not. The government nor this law prevents you from living your life according to your book. You just cannot discriminate when it comes to your business dealings. If you think that hurts you in some way, then you are delusional. Thankfully, our government does not recognize delusional religious beliefs as a basis for our laws.

^^^ Sophistry. Pure and utter sophistry. ^^^

And btw, I'm not Christian. But I will vociferously defend Christians' freedom of religion.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No, the moral is "you can be a dick as long as you're a member of a favored minority."
135k for a cake? Who is anyone kidding? The dykes could have gone to the bakery down the street and end of story. Instead they whined to the authoriies like little bitches and insisted on this massive, company ending fine. If that isnt a dick move I dont know what is.

Yepp, yer a Conservative and definitely a Republican. Thanks for reminding us of your war on women.

 

[paperview]

Waaa???

You said: "No, it was the reversal of a law very similar to that which you celebrate."
When asked: Was Brown v Board of Education the Defiance of Segregation by the SCOTUS?

You think the Court cited Title II of the Civil Rights act as their foundation for Brown v Board of Education???

OMG, that's hilarious.BvB was in 1954 - before the CRA of 64. It had nothing to do with Public Accommodation, either.

And she calls *me* a moron.

lol

I don't know if you are just astoundingly stupid, or you think you're being clever. The SCOTUS based their federalizing of marriage law on Title II of the Civil Rights act. That was law created in 2015 - moron.

That was tried as it regards to upholding the CRA PA laws.

Heart of Atlanta v US.

Look it up. That silly claim lost - with SCOTUS ruling 9-0 against the dude who claimed him having the accommodate black people was "involuntary servitude."

I'm aware of this, and I am aware that Dred Scott was denied relief in arguing that living in a state where slavery was illegal rendered himself and his family free. A decision that crushes rights eventually falls, as will the PA laws. Extending "Inn Keepers" duties to bakers is an extreme stretch.

"I don't know if you are just astoundingly stupid, or you think you're being clever. The SCOTUS based their federalizing of marriage law on Title II of the Civil Rights act. That was law created in 2015 - moron."

I made exception that you *may* been referring to the recent same sex marriage ruling, then I said - naw, that can't be it - because, no dumbo - the Obergefell v. Hodges case was not decided by SCOTUS using Title II of the Civil Rights Act. So you fail on both counts.

Title II has to do with public accommodations. Geezez. The ruling didn't even address any part of the CRA64. You are so lost, it's pathetic.

The fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples based on both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.


Obviously, Uncensored is one little brainless clump of skin.

 

[ChrisL]

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

Sorry, but no it is not. The government nor this law prevents you from living your life according to your book. You just cannot discriminate when it comes to your business dealings. If you think that hurts you in some way, then you are delusional. Thankfully, our government does not recognize delusional religious beliefs as a basis for our laws.

^^^ Sophistry. Pure and utter sophistry. ^^^

And btw, I'm not Christian. But I will vociferously defend Christians' freedom of religion.

Well I feel that I shouldn't have to bake a cake for fat people. They are fat, and it goes against my strong ideals of physical fitness and healthy living. If they can't consume my cakes in moderation, then no cake for them.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This means Chinese restaurants have to make lasagna.

No, pastahead.

It doesn't.

Why are some cons so stoopid when it comes to using basic logic?

The answer to your question is in the fourth word of the last sentence you wrote....

 

[boedicca]

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

Sorry, but no it is not. The government nor this law prevents you from living your life according to your book. You just cannot discriminate when it comes to your business dealings. If you think that hurts you in some way, then you are delusional. Thankfully, our government does not recognize delusional religious beliefs as a basis for our laws.

^^^ Sophistry. Pure and utter sophistry. ^^^

And btw, I'm not Christian. But I will vociferously defend Christians' freedom of religion.

Well I feel that I shouldn't have to bake a cake for fat people. They are fat, and it goes against my strong ideals of physical fitness and healthy living. If they can't consume my cakes in moderation, then no cake for them.

You are a moron, but I congratulate you for your consistency.

 

[Statistikhengst]

But starting a business is subject to the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction it falls under. And those laws and regulations cannot be ignored due to one's particular religious belief.

Actually why not? Government has to show a compelling interest when they deny any right to someone, and free exercise of a religion is a right.

How about Halal meat? If a government agency decides to ban halal slaughter, doesn't the religious rights of the Muslims in question override the government desire to regulate, unless a compelling interest is found?

The compelling interest you seek is that they are infringing upon the Civil rights of others. In the case of Sweet Cakes, they infringed upon the civil rights of the lesbians by discriminating against them due to their sexual orientation. Imagine, if that were permissible, all bakeries could refuse selling wedding cakes to Muslims. Or to any group, for that matter.

Bullshit. They didn't infringe upon anybody's rights. They opted out of participating in sacrilege. They provided a list of bakers who would happily serve the customer.

They broke the law by discriminating against them. Neither a wedding nor baking a cake for one is sacreligious.

The state doesn't dictate to me what is sacrilegious. It doesn't and never has had that authority. So fuck off and die, authoritarian scumbag.

Ahhhh, more fine Christian behavior.

Now I know why the shortest verse in the NT exists:

"Jesus wept".

 

[ChrisL]

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

Sorry, but no it is not. The government nor this law prevents you from living your life according to your book. You just cannot discriminate when it comes to your business dealings. If you think that hurts you in some way, then you are delusional. Thankfully, our government does not recognize delusional religious beliefs as a basis for our laws.

^^^ Sophistry. Pure and utter sophistry. ^^^

And btw, I'm not Christian. But I will vociferously defend Christians' freedom of religion.

Well I feel that I shouldn't have to bake a cake for fat people. They are fat, and it goes against my strong ideals of physical fitness and healthy living. If they can't consume my cakes in moderation, then no cake for them.

You are a moron, but I congratulate you for your consistency.

No, while I find fat people an "abomination," I would still sell them the damn cake. YOU are the one with the problem here. Not me.

 

[Faun]

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

Baking a cake does not equal homosexuality.