What's Christian About Denying Service To Any Individual?

[Nosmo King]

Freedom, it seems, is the exclusive province of the merchant class and does not extend to the consumer. If the customer wanted a cake similar to one they saw at another wedding, I guess their freedom to have the exact same cake is blunted. Freedom? Hardly.

Can we call discrimination "freedom" now? What a dilution of the word.

You don't have the freedom to force people to work for you. We a small conflict in the 1860s over that. And we also have a Constitutional amendment that specifically prohibits forcing others to work for you.

If you have a particular cake you want, you are quite free to ask whomever you want to make it and find someone who will. Perhaps someone will take you up on your offer. Or you can simply make it yourself. You do not have the freedom to compel someone to work for you. Period.

It just goes to show that the left still wants slaves.

A poor rationalization on your part. If you perform professional services like a bakery and a customer wants the services you provide for the exact same fee, e.g., baking and decorating a wedding cake, you cannot hide behind some interpretation of religion in order to refuse service to that individual. No one is compelling work, unless you consider all those other customers as engaging in slavery whenever a cake is ordered.

Whenever the Rabid Right resorts to hyperbole, like calling a cake order a compulsion to work and therefore equivalent to slavery, the Rabid Right commits two grievous sins. First, the use of such irrational hyperbole is the final refuge of a weak argument. But more dire, they dilute slavery. Slavery, the immorality of it. Slavery, the dehumanizing aspects of it. Slavery, the shear cruelty of it are watered down to make the point of a bigot.

 

[Nosmo King]

No one has refused service to anyone. What has been refused is the labor of one individual in service to another individual when they object to performing that service.

Let's talk about those objections. Is it the cake itself? Does the baker object to baking other wedding cakes? Is the cake in question essentially different than any other wedding cake?

If the cake has erotic and adult themes and décor, then I can understand the objection. But if the cake is of similar design and style with the small exception of two brides atop it, I wonder if it's the cake or the customer that is so terribly offensive.

If it's the customer, then the baker is discriminating and that is against the law.

 

[Avatar4321]

Freedom, it seems, is the exclusive province of the merchant class and does not extend to the consumer. If the customer wanted a cake similar to one they saw at another wedding, I guess their freedom to have the exact same cake is blunted. Freedom? Hardly.

Can we call discrimination "freedom" now? What a dilution of the word.

You don't have the freedom to force people to work for you. We a small conflict in the 1860s over that. And we also have a Constitutional amendment that specifically prohibits forcing others to work for you.

If you have a particular cake you want, you are quite free to ask whomever you want to make it and find someone who will. Perhaps someone will take you up on your offer. Or you can simply make it yourself. You do not have the freedom to compel someone to work for you. Period.

It just goes to show that the left still wants slaves.

A poor rationalization on your part. If you perform professional services like a bakery and a customer wants the services you provide for the exact same fee, e.g., baking and decorating a wedding cake, you cannot hide behind some interpretation of religion in order to refuse service to that individual. No one is compelling work, unless you consider all those other customers as engaging in slavery whenever a cake is ordered.

Whenever the Rabid Right resorts to hyperbole, like calling a cake order a compulsion to work and therefore equivalent to slavery, the Rabid Right commits two grievous sins. First, the use of such irrational hyperbole is the final refuge of a weak argument. But more dire, they dilute slavery. Slavery, the immorality of it. Slavery, the dehumanizing aspects of it. Slavery, the shear cruelty of it are watered down to make the point of a bigot.

No hyperbole involved. If you can force someone to labor for you, you are making them your slave.

Just because you don't like the fact that you support slavery, doesn't change the fact that is the truth.

 

[Nosmo King]

You don't have the freedom to force people to work for you. We a small conflict in the 1860s over that. And we also have a Constitutional amendment that specifically prohibits forcing others to work for you.

If you have a particular cake you want, you are quite free to ask whomever you want to make it and find someone who will. Perhaps someone will take you up on your offer. Or you can simply make it yourself. You do not have the freedom to compel someone to work for you. Period.

It just goes to show that the left still wants slaves.

A poor rationalization on your part. If you perform professional services like a bakery and a customer wants the services you provide for the exact same fee, e.g., baking and decorating a wedding cake, you cannot hide behind some interpretation of religion in order to refuse service to that individual. No one is compelling work, unless you consider all those other customers as engaging in slavery whenever a cake is ordered.

Whenever the Rabid Right resorts to hyperbole, like calling a cake order a compulsion to work and therefore equivalent to slavery, the Rabid Right commits two grievous sins. First, the use of such irrational hyperbole is the final refuge of a weak argument. But more dire, they dilute slavery. Slavery, the immorality of it. Slavery, the dehumanizing aspects of it. Slavery, the shear cruelty of it are watered down to make the point of a bigot.

No hyperbole involved. If you can force someone to labor for you, you are making them your slave.

Just because you don't like the fact that you support slavery, doesn't change the fact that is the truth.

Let us assume that there is a bakery, open to the public, that makes, decorates and delivers wedding cakes as a part of their business. My fiancée goes into that bakery to order her wedding cake. She asks for a three tiered cake with white frosting and silver bells and beads. Atop the cake, she asks for a traditional figurine of a bride and groom. Is she compelling that baker to fill the order? Is she enslaving that baker? I'm gonna swim in your end of the pool and use the hyperbole you cite in your posts.

Next, let's assume that a Lesbian goes to the bake shop and asks for a three tiered wedding cake with white frosting and silver bells and beads. For the cake top, she asks for figurines of two brides. This is the precise cake my fiancée ordered in the morning.

The baker objects to the Lesbian and refuses service.

Is it the cake itself that is such a burden? Such a compulsion to slavery? The baking time is the same. The ingredients are the same, the effort to stack and decorate the cakes are exactly the same.

Can we then guess what the objection is? Certainly not the cake itself because baking such cakes are why the baker is in business.

It must then be the customer.

Isn't this discrimination? Isn't this why public accommodation laws are on the books? Is this an unfair and undue burden to the baker's right to PRACTICE RELIGION?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one has refused service to anyone. What has been refused is the labor of one individual in service to another individual when they object to performing that service.

Let's talk about those objections. Is it the cake itself? Does the baker object to baking other wedding cakes? Is the cake in question essentially different than any other wedding cake?

If the cake has erotic and adult themes and décor, then I can understand the objection. But if the cake is of similar design and style with the small exception of two brides atop it, I wonder if it's the cake or the customer that is so terribly offensive.

If it's the customer, then the baker is discriminating and that is against the law.

The fact that you are incapable of understanding something is not evidence that you are right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A poor rationalization on your part. If you perform professional services like a bakery and a customer wants the services you provide for the exact same fee, e.g., baking and decorating a wedding cake, you cannot hide behind some interpretation of religion in order to refuse service to that individual. No one is compelling work, unless you consider all those other customers as engaging in slavery whenever a cake is ordered.

Whenever the Rabid Right resorts to hyperbole, like calling a cake order a compulsion to work and therefore equivalent to slavery, the Rabid Right commits two grievous sins. First, the use of such irrational hyperbole is the final refuge of a weak argument. But more dire, they dilute slavery. Slavery, the immorality of it. Slavery, the dehumanizing aspects of it. Slavery, the shear cruelty of it are watered down to make the point of a bigot.

No hyperbole involved. If you can force someone to labor for you, you are making them your slave.

Just because you don't like the fact that you support slavery, doesn't change the fact that is the truth.

Let us assume that there is a bakery, open to the public, that makes, decorates and delivers wedding cakes as a part of their business. My fiancée goes into that bakery to order her wedding cake. She asks for a three tiered cake with white frosting and silver bells and beads. Atop the cake, she asks for a traditional figurine of a bride and groom. Is she compelling that baker to fill the order? Is she enslaving that baker? I'm gonna swim in your end of the pool and use the hyperbole you cite in your posts.

Next, let's assume that a Lesbian goes to the bake shop and asks for a three tiered wedding cake with white frosting and silver bells and beads. For the cake top, she asks for figurines of two brides. This is the precise cake my fiancée ordered in the morning.

The baker objects to the Lesbian and refuses service.

Is it the cake itself that is such a burden? Such a compulsion to slavery? The baking time is the same. The ingredients are the same, the effort to stack and decorate the cakes are exactly the same.

Can we then guess what the objection is? Certainly not the cake itself because baking such cakes are why the baker is in business.

It must then be the customer.

Isn't this discrimination? Isn't this why public accommodation laws are on the books? Is this an unfair and undue burden to the baker's right to PRACTICE RELIGION?

Slavery by any other name is still stinks.

 

[daws101]

No hyperbole involved. If you can force someone to labor for you, you are making them your slave.

Just because you don't like the fact that you support slavery, doesn't change the fact that is the truth.

Let us assume that there is a bakery, open to the public, that makes, decorates and delivers wedding cakes as a part of their business. My fiancée goes into that bakery to order her wedding cake. She asks for a three tiered cake with white frosting and silver bells and beads. Atop the cake, she asks for a traditional figurine of a bride and groom. Is she compelling that baker to fill the order? Is she enslaving that baker? I'm gonna swim in your end of the pool and use the hyperbole you cite in your posts.

Next, let's assume that a Lesbian goes to the bake shop and asks for a three tiered wedding cake with white frosting and silver bells and beads. For the cake top, she asks for figurines of two brides. This is the precise cake my fiancée ordered in the morning.

The baker objects to the Lesbian and refuses service.

Is it the cake itself that is such a burden? Such a compulsion to slavery? The baking time is the same. The ingredients are the same, the effort to stack and decorate the cakes are exactly the same.

Can we then guess what the objection is? Certainly not the cake itself because baking such cakes are why the baker is in business.

It must then be the customer.

Isn't this discrimination? Isn't this why public accommodation laws are on the books? Is this an unfair and undue burden to the baker's right to PRACTICE RELIGION?

Slavery by any other name is still stinks.

slavery to a religious belief being the worst..

 

[Nosmo King]

No hyperbole involved. If you can force someone to labor for you, you are making them your slave.

Just because you don't like the fact that you support slavery, doesn't change the fact that is the truth.

Let us assume that there is a bakery, open to the public, that makes, decorates and delivers wedding cakes as a part of their business. My fiancée goes into that bakery to order her wedding cake. She asks for a three tiered cake with white frosting and silver bells and beads. Atop the cake, she asks for a traditional figurine of a bride and groom. Is she compelling that baker to fill the order? Is she enslaving that baker? I'm gonna swim in your end of the pool and use the hyperbole you cite in your posts.

Next, let's assume that a Lesbian goes to the bake shop and asks for a three tiered wedding cake with white frosting and silver bells and beads. For the cake top, she asks for figurines of two brides. This is the precise cake my fiancée ordered in the morning.

The baker objects to the Lesbian and refuses service.

Is it the cake itself that is such a burden? Such a compulsion to slavery? The baking time is the same. The ingredients are the same, the effort to stack and decorate the cakes are exactly the same.

Can we then guess what the objection is? Certainly not the cake itself because baking such cakes are why the baker is in business.

It must then be the customer.

Isn't this discrimination? Isn't this why public accommodation laws are on the books? Is this an unfair and undue burden to the baker's right to PRACTICE RELIGION?

Slavery by any other name is still stinks.

That's the sum total of your response? You must have realized what a weak and repressive argument you made.

Once again, Conservatives find themselves on the wrong side of freedom, the wrong side of the American way, the wrong side of history.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let us assume that there is a bakery, open to the public, that makes, decorates and delivers wedding cakes as a part of their business. My fiancée goes into that bakery to order her wedding cake. She asks for a three tiered cake with white frosting and silver bells and beads. Atop the cake, she asks for a traditional figurine of a bride and groom. Is she compelling that baker to fill the order? Is she enslaving that baker? I'm gonna swim in your end of the pool and use the hyperbole you cite in your posts.

Next, let's assume that a Lesbian goes to the bake shop and asks for a three tiered wedding cake with white frosting and silver bells and beads. For the cake top, she asks for figurines of two brides. This is the precise cake my fiancée ordered in the morning.

The baker objects to the Lesbian and refuses service.

Is it the cake itself that is such a burden? Such a compulsion to slavery? The baking time is the same. The ingredients are the same, the effort to stack and decorate the cakes are exactly the same.

Can we then guess what the objection is? Certainly not the cake itself because baking such cakes are why the baker is in business.

It must then be the customer.

Isn't this discrimination? Isn't this why public accommodation laws are on the books? Is this an unfair and undue burden to the baker's right to PRACTICE RELIGION?

Slavery by any other name is still stinks.

slavery to a religious belief being the worst..

Yes, it is, which is why your life is so pathetic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let us assume that there is a bakery, open to the public, that makes, decorates and delivers wedding cakes as a part of their business. My fiancée goes into that bakery to order her wedding cake. She asks for a three tiered cake with white frosting and silver bells and beads. Atop the cake, she asks for a traditional figurine of a bride and groom. Is she compelling that baker to fill the order? Is she enslaving that baker? I'm gonna swim in your end of the pool and use the hyperbole you cite in your posts.

Next, let's assume that a Lesbian goes to the bake shop and asks for a three tiered wedding cake with white frosting and silver bells and beads. For the cake top, she asks for figurines of two brides. This is the precise cake my fiancée ordered in the morning.

The baker objects to the Lesbian and refuses service.

Is it the cake itself that is such a burden? Such a compulsion to slavery? The baking time is the same. The ingredients are the same, the effort to stack and decorate the cakes are exactly the same.

Can we then guess what the objection is? Certainly not the cake itself because baking such cakes are why the baker is in business.

It must then be the customer.

Isn't this discrimination? Isn't this why public accommodation laws are on the books? Is this an unfair and undue burden to the baker's right to PRACTICE RELIGION?

Slavery by any other name is still stinks.

That's the sum total of your response? You must have realized what a weak and repressive argument you made.

Once again, Conservatives find themselves on the wrong side of freedom, the wrong side of the American way, the wrong side of history.

Is this better?

Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call slavery
By any other name would smell as rotten;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.​

 

[Nosmo King]

If the Lesbian in my example is enslaving the baker, is my fiancée enslaving him as well? Shakespeare does not answer that question. And neither have you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the Lesbian in my example is enslaving the baker, is my fiancée enslaving him as well? Shakespeare does not answer that question. And neither have you.

Sigh

Why is this so hard for you to understand? If your fiancee uses force of any kind, whether is is pointing a gun at the head of the baker, threatening her family, or using the government to force the baker to do something she doesn't want to do, it is slavery, even if you call it civil rights.

I oppose slavery, you support it, that is the fundamental difference between us.

 

[Nosmo King]

If the Lesbian in my example is enslaving the baker, is my fiancée enslaving him as well? Shakespeare does not answer that question. And neither have you.

Sigh

Why is this so hard for you to understand? If your fiancee uses force of any kind, whether is is pointing a gun at the head of the baker, threatening her family, or using the government to force the baker to do something she doesn't want to do, it is slavery, even if you call it civil rights.

I oppose slavery, you support it, that is the fundamental difference between us.

Sorry, but the blame the victim defense is wrong in so many ways. I do not support slavery, but you use the term slavery so inappropriately as to dilute it of its meaning. If the baker is running a business that is open to the public, that baker must accommodate the public. The public is not enslaving the baker, they are the baker's customers.

If the baker does not want to make a cake for the Lesbian client, even though it is the exact same cake he would make for a heterosexual client, the baker is illegally discriminating. Just as the bigoted lunch counter servers would not provide the exact same lunch to Black customers during the darkest days of the evil Jim Crow south.

Those Black customers would look askance at anyone telling them that they were enslaving the lunch counter workers. Hyperbole makes for a weak argument. The baker objecting to the customer, not the cake, is discriminatory. Insisting that the discriminated customer is enslaving the baker is a cheap, slimy rationalization. Not understanding the meaning of both 'discrimination' and 'enslavement' betrays a poor mind grasping for an answer to justify hatred.

 

[MarcATL]

When one has to resort to using slavery in an argument, where there is no slavery, one knows that one has lost the argument.

 

[Nosmo King]

I suppose some feeble minded folks see compliance with the law through the hyperbolic lens of 'slavery'. Some bigots shaking their clinched fists at equality might resort to blaming those who are discriminated against. Those societal dinosaurs believe that their rights, the 'right' to discriminate are being eroded while those who are discriminated against are requesting 'special' rights.

We've heard their weak, poorly formed rationalizations before. And they have always failed. Forever.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the Lesbian in my example is enslaving the baker, is my fiancée enslaving him as well? Shakespeare does not answer that question. And neither have you.

Sigh

Why is this so hard for you to understand? If your fiancee uses force of any kind, whether is is pointing a gun at the head of the baker, threatening her family, or using the government to force the baker to do something she doesn't want to do, it is slavery, even if you call it civil rights.

I oppose slavery, you support it, that is the fundamental difference between us.

Sorry, but the blame the victim defense is wrong in so many ways. I do not support slavery, but you use the term slavery so inappropriately as to dilute it of its meaning. If the baker is running a business that is open to the public, that baker must accommodate the public. The public is not enslaving the baker, they are the baker's customers.

If the baker does not want to make a cake for the Lesbian client, even though it is the exact same cake he would make for a heterosexual client, the baker is illegally discriminating. Just as the bigoted lunch counter servers would not provide the exact same lunch to Black customers during the darkest days of the evil Jim Crow south.

Those Black customers would look askance at anyone telling them that they were enslaving the lunch counter workers. Hyperbole makes for a weak argument. The baker objecting to the customer, not the cake, is discriminatory. Insisting that the discriminated customer is enslaving the baker is a cheap, slimy rationalization. Not understanding the meaning of both 'discrimination' and 'enslavement' betrays a poor mind grasping for an answer to justify hatred.

Blame the victim? How the fuck is the person holding a gun the fucking victim?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When one has to resort to using slavery in an argument, where there is no slavery, one knows that one has lost the argument.

Because it isn't slavery unless they are black, right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I suppose some feeble minded folks see compliance with the law through the hyperbolic lens of 'slavery'. Some bigots shaking their clinched fists at equality might resort to blaming those who are discriminated against. Those societal dinosaurs believe that their rights, the 'right' to discriminate are being eroded while those who are discriminated against are requesting 'special' rights.

We've heard their weak, poorly formed rationalizations before. And they have always failed. Forever.

Because not speeding is exactly the same as being forced to attend a wedding by the government.

 

[Nosmo King]

I suppose some feeble minded folks see compliance with the law through the hyperbolic lens of 'slavery'. Some bigots shaking their clinched fists at equality might resort to blaming those who are discriminated against. Those societal dinosaurs believe that their rights, the 'right' to discriminate are being eroded while those who are discriminated against are requesting 'special' rights.

We've heard their weak, poorly formed rationalizations before. And they have always failed. Forever.

Because not speeding is exactly the same as being forced to attend a wedding by the government.

Here's a little hint: YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOT, NOR HAVE WE EVER BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT "FORCING" ANYONE TO GO TO A WEDDING AGAINST THEIR WILL!

There is no sense debating something that is off topic and only in your imagination.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I suppose some feeble minded folks see compliance with the law through the hyperbolic lens of 'slavery'. Some bigots shaking their clinched fists at equality might resort to blaming those who are discriminated against. Those societal dinosaurs believe that their rights, the 'right' to discriminate are being eroded while those who are discriminated against are requesting 'special' rights.

We've heard their weak, poorly formed rationalizations before. And they have always failed. Forever.

Because not speeding is exactly the same as being forced to attend a wedding by the government.

Here's a little hint: YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOT, NOR HAVE WE EVER BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT "FORCING" ANYONE TO GO TO A WEDDING AGAINST THEIR WILL!

There is no sense debating something that is off topic and only in your imagination.

Explain the photographer in New Mexico under that fucking theory, asshole. Here's the reality, that is exactly what you are talking about. You fucking support slavery, stop acting offended when I point it out.