Bakers fined for not working homosexual "wedding" continue fighting for their freedoms

[rightwinger]

We don't serve colored here boy
Head on over to the colored part of town and they will serve you

This is not America

Well Bake or Die isn't america either.

I honestly think people like you get a hard on watching government **** over people you don't like.

It is the bakery ******* over people

The Government is telling them they can't

When making a person butt hurt is fined over $100k, it is the government telling them they can't. Stop trying to hide that fact from yourself.

And thank you for making my point that this is nothing more than one person's butt hurt over another's, nothing more.

I think the fine is excessive for the violation

But they were aware of the consequences and chose to violate the law anyway. That is the way things are with martyrs

It has nothing to do with "butt hurt" and everything to do with the right to not be discriminated against

Which is countered by the right to free exercise of religion. and if you go by strict constitutional rights, only the government is really banned from discriminating, not private people.

You guys use commerce as an end run to implement the Thought Police.

People are allowed to discriminate to their hearts content

Businesses are not

 

[rightwinger]

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone....is no longer allowed in this country

That's exactly the problem. It's a bad precedent. That right should be restored. No one should be forced by law to serve someone else.

Thank you Jim Crow

 

[martybegan]

Well Bake or Die isn't america either.

I honestly think people like you get a hard on watching government **** over people you don't like.

It is the bakery ******* over people

The Government is telling them they can't

When making a person butt hurt is fined over $100k, it is the government telling them they can't. Stop trying to hide that fact from yourself.

And thank you for making my point that this is nothing more than one person's butt hurt over another's, nothing more.

I think the fine is excessive for the violation

But they were aware of the consequences and chose to violate the law anyway. That is the way things are with martyrs

It has nothing to do with "butt hurt" and everything to do with the right to not be discriminated against

Which is countered by the right to free exercise of religion. and if you go by strict constitutional rights, only the government is really banned from discriminating, not private people.

You guys use commerce as an end run to implement the Thought Police.

They are free to exercise their religion...their business is not

Religions contain all kinds of bizarre requirements and doctrines. Just because you adhere to one of those religions does not mean you can push it on the public

Why? Why does the right of gay people to not be butt hurt automatically tump the right of the bakers to not be butt hurt?

And pushing it on the public is a stretch here. They are not out there forcing you to tithe, or going out to stop said wedding from occurring.

 

[martybegan]

Render unto Caesar is fine when it came to things everyone can agree on

If everyone had been agreeing, Jesus would have not had any need to teach such a lesson.

The point is that when you get into punishing crap that a lot of people don't think should be punished, especially when the only outcome is hurt feelings, you have to re-think why you are doing this in the first place.

That is contradictory to Jesus' teachings.

According to you. Fortunately, you don't get to decide how others interpret that, and in cases of butt hurt on butt hurt, government shouldn't either.

 

[martybegan]

Well Bake or Die isn't america either.

I honestly think people like you get a hard on watching government **** over people you don't like.

It is the bakery ******* over people

The Government is telling them they can't

When making a person butt hurt is fined over $100k, it is the government telling them they can't. Stop trying to hide that fact from yourself.

And thank you for making my point that this is nothing more than one person's butt hurt over another's, nothing more.

I think the fine is excessive for the violation

But they were aware of the consequences and chose to violate the law anyway. That is the way things are with martyrs

It has nothing to do with "butt hurt" and everything to do with the right to not be discriminated against

Which is countered by the right to free exercise of religion. and if you go by strict constitutional rights, only the government is really banned from discriminating, not private people.

You guys use commerce as an end run to implement the Thought Police.

People are allowed to discriminate to their hearts content

Businesses are not

Why not? Why is the right of commerce absolute, but the exercise or free religion is not?

That is what you are arguing, now back it up.

 

[Rustic]

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone....is no longer allowed in this country

That's exactly the problem. It's a bad precedent. That right should be restored. No one should be forced by law to serve someone else.

Thank you Jim Crow

Control freaks are never happy, until they control what you think.

 

[dblack]

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone....is no longer allowed in this country

That's exactly the problem. It's a bad precedent. That right should be restored. No one should be forced by law to serve someone else.

Thank you Jim Crow

Jim Crow refers to using laws to force people to act against their preferences (eg. PA laws). I'm arguing for the opposite.

 

[SwimExpert]

Render unto Caesar is fine when it came to things everyone can agree on

If everyone had been agreeing, Jesus would have not had any need to teach such a lesson.

The point is that when you get into punishing crap that a lot of people don't think should be punished, especially when the only outcome is hurt feelings, you have to re-think why you are doing this in the first place.

That is contradictory to Jesus' teachings.

According to you. Fortunately, you don't get to decide how others interpret that, and in cases of butt hurt on butt hurt, government shouldn't either.

So what is the limit? If "I have a religious belief" is such a powerful shield from compliance with inherently nonreligious laws, how far is it allowed to go? And who gets to decide what is too far? Because at the end of the day, your position boils down to nothing more than you having a personal disapproval with a law. You want this to be an acceptable time when "religious belief" can nullify a law.

 

[owebo]

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone....is no longer allowed in this country

That's exactly the problem. It's a bad precedent. That right should be restored. No one should be forced by law to serve someone else.

Thank you Jim Crow

Control freaks are never happy, until they control what you think.

Or in this case, bake.....

 

[martybegan]

Render unto Caesar is fine when it came to things everyone can agree on

If everyone had been agreeing, Jesus would have not had any need to teach such a lesson.

The point is that when you get into punishing crap that a lot of people don't think should be punished, especially when the only outcome is hurt feelings, you have to re-think why you are doing this in the first place.

That is contradictory to Jesus' teachings.

According to you. Fortunately, you don't get to decide how others interpret that, and in cases of butt hurt on butt hurt, government shouldn't either.

So what is the limit? If "I have a religious belief" is such a powerful shield from compliance with inherently nonreligious laws, how far is it allowed to go? And who gets to decide what is too far? Because at the end of the day, your position boils down to nothing more than you having a personal disapproval with a law. You want this to be an acceptable time when "religious belief" can nullify a law.

It has to be handled on a case by case basis. Where is the actual harm? If there is harm, then it has to be taken into account.

A good example is a travel hotel that also hosts weddings. I would say the hotel should not be able to deny a room overnight for anyone, as forcing them to find another hotel at that moment is an actual harm. However, if the hotel doesn't want to host a gay wedding due to religious reasons, it should be able to do so as long as it doesn't book the wedding first than change its mind later.

There is a difference between point of service transactions, needed transactions, time sensitive transactions, and contracted transactions.

 

[owebo]

Render unto Caesar is fine when it came to things everyone can agree on

If everyone had been agreeing, Jesus would have not had any need to teach such a lesson.

The point is that when you get into punishing crap that a lot of people don't think should be punished, especially when the only outcome is hurt feelings, you have to re-think why you are doing this in the first place.

That is contradictory to Jesus' teachings.

According to you. Fortunately, you don't get to decide how others interpret that, and in cases of butt hurt on butt hurt, government shouldn't either.

So what is the limit? If "I have a religious belief" is such a powerful shield from compliance with inherently nonreligious laws, how far is it allowed to go? And who gets to decide what is too far? Because at the end of the day, your position boils down to nothing more than you having a personal disapproval with a law. You want this to be an acceptable time when "religious belief" can nullify a law.

Indeed, what is the limit....where do you fascist liberals stop on telling what the person must make?

 

[SwimExpert]

If everyone had been agreeing, Jesus would have not had any need to teach such a lesson.

The point is that when you get into punishing crap that a lot of people don't think should be punished, especially when the only outcome is hurt feelings, you have to re-think why you are doing this in the first place.

That is contradictory to Jesus' teachings.

According to you. Fortunately, you don't get to decide how others interpret that, and in cases of butt hurt on butt hurt, government shouldn't either.

So what is the limit? If "I have a religious belief" is such a powerful shield from compliance with inherently nonreligious laws, how far is it allowed to go? And who gets to decide what is too far? Because at the end of the day, your position boils down to nothing more than you having a personal disapproval with a law. You want this to be an acceptable time when "religious belief" can nullify a law.

It has to be handled on a case by case basis. Where is the actual harm? If there is harm, then it has to be taken into account.

A good example is a travel hotel that also hosts weddings. I would say the hotel should not be able to deny a room overnight for anyone, as forcing them to find another hotel at that moment is an actual harm. However, if the hotel doesn't want to host a gay wedding due to religious reasons, it should be able to do so as long as it doesn't book the wedding first than change its mind later.

There is a difference between point of service transactions, needed transactions, time sensitive transactions, and contracted transactions.

That doesn't actually answer the question I posed. In fact, it ignores it entirely.

 

[SwimExpert]

Indeed, what is the limit....where do you fascist liberals stop on telling what the person must make?

If you bothered to pay attention Donald, you'd know that think refusing service should be legal.

 

[owebo]

The point is that when you get into punishing crap that a lot of people don't think should be punished, especially when the only outcome is hurt feelings, you have to re-think why you are doing this in the first place.

That is contradictory to Jesus' teachings.

According to you. Fortunately, you don't get to decide how others interpret that, and in cases of butt hurt on butt hurt, government shouldn't either.

So what is the limit? If "I have a religious belief" is such a powerful shield from compliance with inherently nonreligious laws, how far is it allowed to go? And who gets to decide what is too far? Because at the end of the day, your position boils down to nothing more than you having a personal disapproval with a law. You want this to be an acceptable time when "religious belief" can nullify a law.

It has to be handled on a case by case basis. Where is the actual harm? If there is harm, then it has to be taken into account.

A good example is a travel hotel that also hosts weddings. I would say the hotel should not be able to deny a room overnight for anyone, as forcing them to find another hotel at that moment is an actual harm. However, if the hotel doesn't want to host a gay wedding due to religious reasons, it should be able to do so as long as it doesn't book the wedding first than change its mind later.

There is a difference between point of service transactions, needed transactions, time sensitive transactions, and contracted transactions.

That doesn't actually answer the question I posed. In fact, it ignores it entirely.

You didn't actually ask a question...you just went off on an anti-freedom liberal rant....

 

[martybegan]

The point is that when you get into punishing crap that a lot of people don't think should be punished, especially when the only outcome is hurt feelings, you have to re-think why you are doing this in the first place.

That is contradictory to Jesus' teachings.

According to you. Fortunately, you don't get to decide how others interpret that, and in cases of butt hurt on butt hurt, government shouldn't either.

So what is the limit? If "I have a religious belief" is such a powerful shield from compliance with inherently nonreligious laws, how far is it allowed to go? And who gets to decide what is too far? Because at the end of the day, your position boils down to nothing more than you having a personal disapproval with a law. You want this to be an acceptable time when "religious belief" can nullify a law.

It has to be handled on a case by case basis. Where is the actual harm? If there is harm, then it has to be taken into account.

A good example is a travel hotel that also hosts weddings. I would say the hotel should not be able to deny a room overnight for anyone, as forcing them to find another hotel at that moment is an actual harm. However, if the hotel doesn't want to host a gay wedding due to religious reasons, it should be able to do so as long as it doesn't book the wedding first than change its mind later.

There is a difference between point of service transactions, needed transactions, time sensitive transactions, and contracted transactions.

That doesn't actually answer the question I posed. In fact, it ignores it entirely.

it does answer it. pretty explicitly. The key is "what is the actual harm"?

And hurt feelings are not harm.

 

[SwimExpert]

That is contradictory to Jesus' teachings.

According to you. Fortunately, you don't get to decide how others interpret that, and in cases of butt hurt on butt hurt, government shouldn't either.

So what is the limit? If "I have a religious belief" is such a powerful shield from compliance with inherently nonreligious laws, how far is it allowed to go? And who gets to decide what is too far? Because at the end of the day, your position boils down to nothing more than you having a personal disapproval with a law. You want this to be an acceptable time when "religious belief" can nullify a law.

It has to be handled on a case by case basis. Where is the actual harm? If there is harm, then it has to be taken into account.

A good example is a travel hotel that also hosts weddings. I would say the hotel should not be able to deny a room overnight for anyone, as forcing them to find another hotel at that moment is an actual harm. However, if the hotel doesn't want to host a gay wedding due to religious reasons, it should be able to do so as long as it doesn't book the wedding first than change its mind later.

There is a difference between point of service transactions, needed transactions, time sensitive transactions, and contracted transactions.

That doesn't actually answer the question I posed. In fact, it ignores it entirely.

it does answer it. pretty explicitly. The key is "what is the actual harm"?

And hurt feelings are not harm.

Right. So, instead of addressing my question, you ignore it and pose an alternate question. And that is what you think suffices for an answer. Okay then. Clearly, you can't answer the question.

 

[rightwinger]

It is the bakery ******* over people

The Government is telling them they can't

When making a person butt hurt is fined over $100k, it is the government telling them they can't. Stop trying to hide that fact from yourself.

And thank you for making my point that this is nothing more than one person's butt hurt over another's, nothing more.

I think the fine is excessive for the violation

But they were aware of the consequences and chose to violate the law anyway. That is the way things are with martyrs

It has nothing to do with "butt hurt" and everything to do with the right to not be discriminated against

Which is countered by the right to free exercise of religion. and if you go by strict constitutional rights, only the government is really banned from discriminating, not private people.

You guys use commerce as an end run to implement the Thought Police.

They are free to exercise their religion...their business is not

Religions contain all kinds of bizarre requirements and doctrines. Just because you adhere to one of those religions does not mean you can push it on the public

Why? Why does the right of gay people to not be butt hurt automatically tump the right of the bakers to not be butt hurt?

And pushing it on the public is a stretch here. They are not out there forcing you to tithe, or going out to stop said wedding from occurring.

Because gays have a right to not be discriminated against and business cannot use religion as a justification to discriminate

 

[rightwinger]

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone....is no longer allowed in this country

That's exactly the problem. It's a bad precedent. That right should be restored. No one should be forced by law to serve someone else.

Thank you Jim Crow

Jim Crow refers to using laws to force people to act against their preferences (eg. PA laws). I'm arguing for the opposite.

Actually, you are advocating returning to Jim Crow social norms

We don't serve n*ggers here

 

[rightwinger]

If everyone had been agreeing, Jesus would have not had any need to teach such a lesson.

The point is that when you get into punishing crap that a lot of people don't think should be punished, especially when the only outcome is hurt feelings, you have to re-think why you are doing this in the first place.

That is contradictory to Jesus' teachings.

According to you. Fortunately, you don't get to decide how others interpret that, and in cases of butt hurt on butt hurt, government shouldn't either.

So what is the limit? If "I have a religious belief" is such a powerful shield from compliance with inherently nonreligious laws, how far is it allowed to go? And who gets to decide what is too far? Because at the end of the day, your position boils down to nothing more than you having a personal disapproval with a law. You want this to be an acceptable time when "religious belief" can nullify a law.

It has to be handled on a case by case basis. Where is the actual harm? If there is harm, then it has to be taken into account.

A good example is a travel hotel that also hosts weddings. I would say the hotel should not be able to deny a room overnight for anyone, as forcing them to find another hotel at that moment is an actual harm. However, if the hotel doesn't want to host a gay wedding due to religious reasons, it should be able to do so as long as it doesn't book the wedding first than change its mind later.

There is a difference between point of service transactions, needed transactions, time sensitive transactions, and contracted transactions.

So a town has two hotels

One has a renowned wedding facility, excellent chefs, first rate accommodations and a beautiful view of the water at sunset

The other is on the interstate and is next to a truck stop

No harm as long as another hotel is available. What is wrong with a gay couple expecting the best for their wedding? Why should they have to settle for less?

 

[martybegan]

According to you. Fortunately, you don't get to decide how others interpret that, and in cases of butt hurt on butt hurt, government shouldn't either.

So what is the limit? If "I have a religious belief" is such a powerful shield from compliance with inherently nonreligious laws, how far is it allowed to go? And who gets to decide what is too far? Because at the end of the day, your position boils down to nothing more than you having a personal disapproval with a law. You want this to be an acceptable time when "religious belief" can nullify a law.

It has to be handled on a case by case basis. Where is the actual harm? If there is harm, then it has to be taken into account.

A good example is a travel hotel that also hosts weddings. I would say the hotel should not be able to deny a room overnight for anyone, as forcing them to find another hotel at that moment is an actual harm. However, if the hotel doesn't want to host a gay wedding due to religious reasons, it should be able to do so as long as it doesn't book the wedding first than change its mind later.

There is a difference between point of service transactions, needed transactions, time sensitive transactions, and contracted transactions.

That doesn't actually answer the question I posed. In fact, it ignores it entirely.

it does answer it. pretty explicitly. The key is "what is the actual harm"?

And hurt feelings are not harm.

Right. So, instead of addressing my question, you ignore it and pose an alternate question. And that is what you think suffices for an answer. Okay then. Clearly, you can't answer the question.

I gave you a concrete response with regards to the "limit" with the hotel example. Are you dense?