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

[Seawytch]

Only a pseudo-con could believe the lies from the talking head based on a few second clip compared listening to the entire speech and making up their own minds.....

Can you say intentional dumbing down?

Here's the thing buttercup...I was listening live on XM radio in my office when Obama gave that speech. I heard the entire thing and I nearly fell out of my chair when he said "if you have a business, you didn't build that".

So you're just stupid? Is that it Sweet Pea?

It's not stupidity, it's a filter that doesn't allow him to see or hear the context. Call them Fox goggles.

 

[Seawytch]

Right, because the SC has already set the precedent that the state can protect the LBGT community with PA laws.

You missed the point entirely. They needed the PA laws because it wasn't in the constitution. There isn't anything to prevent them but that isn't the point. Freedom of association and religious freedom is constitutional but political correctness has overridden it. Like they did with abortion.

The issue isn't about Freedom of association or Religion. It's strictly business.

That is the issue. You think you are God and can determine others' values for them. You do so because you are a control freak leftist and those like you had to create laws apart from the Constitution, which does protect association and religion. You would force a Jew to bake a Nazi cake so that makes you the Nazi.

In business we can. We told racists they had to serve blacks and interracial couples despite it being against their religion.

Homosexuality isn't a race. Nobody knows who you diddle unless you make it their business. If you make it their business and it's objectionable then you should leave. You are so fucked up you can't tell the difference between sexual preferences and race.

That is an irrelevant point in the context of my statement.

 

[Silhouette]

Public Accommodation laws have been around since 1964. Restaurant owners were told that they couldn't refuse service to blacks or Jews or Mexicans.

That must really piss you off that those restuarant owners 'rights' were violated for the last 50 years.

Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) says you can no longer equate sexual behaviors with a race or religion or gender. Sorry.

 

[OKTexas]

...because it isn't a constitutional one.

Right, because the SC has already set the precedent that the state can protect the LBGT community with PA laws.

You missed the point entirely. They needed the PA laws because it wasn't in the constitution. There isn't anything to prevent them but that isn't the point. Freedom of association and religious freedom is constitutional but political correctness has overridden it. Like they did with abortion.

The issue isn't about Freedom of association or Religion. It's strictly business.

That is the issue. You think you are God and can determine others' values for them. You do so because you are a control freak leftist and those like you had to create laws apart from the Constitution, which does protect association and religion. You would force a Jew to bake a Nazi cake so that makes you the Nazi.

In business we can. We told racists they had to serve blacks and interracial couples despite it being against their religion.

Inside their establishments, not outside it.

 

[P@triot]

Bottom line is that I believe people should obey the law.

Bingo! Too bad progressives are too stupid to understand that the U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land and protects 1st Amendment rights. The government simply has no authority to force people into business transactions. Period. End of story.[/QUOTE]

You think that Christian's get a special exemption from obeying the law.

Christians are the only one's trying to obey and enforce the law. The law says the government has no authority to force people into transactions. Only idiot submissive progressives believe they do.

 

[Syriusly]

Only a pseudo-con could believe the lies from the talking head based on a few second clip compared listening to the entire speech and making up their own minds.....

Can you say intentional dumbing down?

Here's the thing buttercup...I was listening live on XM radio in my office when Obama gave that speech. I heard the entire thing and I nearly fell out of my chair when he said "if you have a business, you didn't build that".

So you're just stupid? Is that it Sweet Pea?

Trying to back peddle now buttercup? First you proclaimed that the clip was edited down to give a false impression. When I told you that I listened to that entire speech live as it was given - you then have to give up on your previous narrative and go to a personal attack. Weak. Very weak.

Only a pseudo-con could believe the lies from the talking head based on a few second clip compared listening to the entire speech and making up their own minds.....

Can you say intentional dumbing down?

Here's the thing buttercup...I was listening live on XM radio in my office when Obama gave that speech. I heard the entire thing and I nearly fell out of my chair when he said "if you have a business, you didn't build that".

So you're just stupid? Is that it Sweet Pea?

Trying to back peddle now buttercup? First you proclaimed that the clip was edited down to give a false impression. When I told you that I listened to that entire speech live as it was given - you then have to give up on your previous narrative and go to a personal attack. Weak. Very weak.

So what part about this speech do you object to?

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

 

[P@triot]

So telling racists they had to serve blacks wasn't too far but telling anti gay bigots they have to serve gays is?

It was way too far. And that kind of idiocy is what lead you progressives to believe that the government has unlimited power over you and your life.

 

[Seawytch]

Gays can go to the bakery and buy any ******* cake they want. Stick their own figures on top of it and instant wedding cake. No one has ever stopped them.

Do they offer Wedding Cakes to the public? Well, 'did they' I guess is the appropriate term.........

Wedding cakes are offered as part of a separate and private contract. No one has ever prevented or even objected to gays going into any bakery and buying anything they want. The bakers are complaining about being forced into a contract against their will.
.

Public Accommodation laws have been around since 1964. Restaurant owners were told that they couldn't refuse service to blacks or Jews or Mexicans.

That must really piss you off that those restuarant owners 'rights' were violated for the last 50 years.

Their ire over these laws is MUCH more recent than 1965.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well what if cakes for celebrations were part of a Jewish person's lineup? Would he be required to bake a cake with a swastika and "Happy Nazi Pride Day" frosted on top?

Nope, Nazi's are not part of the Oregon Public Accommodation law.

Remember, the 7th circuit found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) that sexual-orientation (a description of behavior) isn't covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So comparisons there aren't allowed.

The ruling regarding the 1964 Civil Rights act has nothing to do with the Klien case as it is not a Fedreal Public Accommodation case under the 1964 Civil Rights act.

It is a State law case under Oregon's Public Accommodation law which specifically notes that sexual orientation is not a valid reason for discrimination in the area of Public Accommodations.


>>>>

 

[P@triot]

If there is one thing you can count on a progressive for - it's being a disgusting hypocrite. Look at these liberals refusing to bake/decorate a cake per the wishes of the customer...

‘That’s completely nuts’: Wal-Mart apologizes after employees refuse to make ‘blue lives matter’ cake

 

[BlindBoo]

Gays can go to the bakery and buy any ******* cake they want. Stick their own figures on top of it and instant wedding cake. No one has ever stopped them.

Do they offer Wedding Cakes to the public? Well, 'did they' I guess is the appropriate term.........

Wedding cakes are offered as part of a separate and private contract. No one has ever prevented or even objected to gays going into any bakery and buying anything they want. The bakers are complaining about being forced into a contract against their will.

This is like the old argument that a prostitute can't be raped. She is compelled to have sex with any man that throws a few bucks her way. He paid for the service. She can't discriminate. It is not rape even if he holds her down and she's screaming.

You mean special order?

Your rape analogy is creepy.

 

[Seawytch]

I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. The bottom line is that you want to force your values onto others. That makes you an authoritarian.

Telling a company which bakes cakes for weddings that they cannot discriminate against gay customers is not "forcing your beliefs on others". That would be forcing the bakers to marry gays. No one is doing that. All they are being required to do is to bake the ******* cake.

Wrong. If it's against your religion or morals to participate in the lie that like gender relationships are equal to opposite gender then the government has gone well beyond the founder's intent. It must be rolled back, the leftists have gone too far.

'well beyond the founder's intent'

Allowing mixed race couples to marry was 'well beyond the founder's intent.

We damn leftists have gone too far.

Liar. First, sexuality isn't a race no matter how many times you stupid deranged assholes make the assertion. The 3/5th rule was to get slave states onboard and wasn't about marriage.

So you think the founders intended blacks to marry whites?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) says that you no longer can make a civil rights comparison between race and sexual behaviors...

No it doesn't. You are imagining things.

The Klien case is an issue under Oregon Public Accommodation law which specifically cites sexual orientation and includes behaviors like religion and marital status.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. The bottom line is that you want to force your values onto others. That makes you an authoritarian.

Telling a company which bakes cakes for weddings that they cannot discriminate against gay customers is not "forcing your beliefs on others". That would be forcing the bakers to marry gays. No one is doing that. All they are being required to do is to bake the ******* cake.

Wrong. If it's against your religion or morals to participate in the lie that like gender relationships are equal to opposite gender then the government has gone well beyond the founder's intent. It must be rolled back, the leftists have gone too far.

So telling racists they had to serve blacks wasn't too far but telling anti gay bigots they have to serve gays is?

I explained that to you at a toddler level numerous times. You have the mental ability of a 5 year old.

No, you just repeated your "gay isn't a race" talking point. It's irrelevant.

 

[Syriusly]

I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. The bottom line is that you want to force your values onto others. That makes you an authoritarian.

Telling a company which bakes cakes for weddings that they cannot discriminate against gay customers is not "forcing your beliefs on others". That would be forcing the bakers to marry gays. No one is doing that. All they are being required to do is to bake the ******* cake.

Wrong. If it's against your religion or morals to participate in the lie that like gender relationships are equal to opposite gender then the government has gone well beyond the founder's intent. It must be rolled back, the leftists have gone too far.

'well beyond the founder's intent'

Allowing mixed race couples to marry was 'well beyond the founder's intent.

We damn leftists have gone too far.

Liar. First, sexuality isn't a race no matter how many times you stupid deranged assholes make the assertion. The 3/5th rule was to get slave states onboard and wasn't about marriage.

Liar- only you right wing nut jobs keep whining that 'sexuality isn't a race'- no one is saying 'sexuality' is a race except you.

You made the asinine claim that we leftists went beyond the 'intent' of the founders- and I correctly pointed out that our Founding Father never intended that a Black Man could marry a Black woman. Or that a Black man would be treated exactly legally with a White man.

If you are going to pretend to use the 'founding fathers' argument- at least try to pretend you have a pair of balls when it is pointed out that our 'founding fathers' would have objected to many of what non-racist Americans today take for granted.

 

[P@triot]

This is like the old argument that a prostitute can't be raped. She is compelled to have sex with any man that throws a few bucks her way. He paid for the service. She can't discriminate. It is not rape even if he holds her down and she's screaming.

You mean special order? Your rape analogy is creepy.

Just as your belief that the federal government has the authority to force people to provide their labor against their will is creepy. Really creepy. Creepy as hell.

 

[Seawytch]

Right, because the SC has already set the precedent that the state can protect the LBGT community with PA laws.

You missed the point entirely. They needed the PA laws because it wasn't in the constitution. There isn't anything to prevent them but that isn't the point. Freedom of association and religious freedom is constitutional but political correctness has overridden it. Like they did with abortion.

The issue isn't about Freedom of association or Religion. It's strictly business.

That is the issue. You think you are God and can determine others' values for them. You do so because you are a control freak leftist and those like you had to create laws apart from the Constitution, which does protect association and religion. You would force a Jew to bake a Nazi cake so that makes you the Nazi.

In business we can. We told racists they had to serve blacks and interracial couples despite it being against their religion.

Inside their establishments, not outside it.

No shit, Sherlock. Got anything else in your bag of obvious?

 

[BlindBoo]

If there is one thing you can count on a progressive for - it's being a disgusting hypocrite. Look at these liberals refusing to bake/decorate a cake per the wishes of the customer...

‘That’s completely nuts’: Wal-Mart apologizes after employees refuse to make ‘blue lives matter’ cake

Obviously Wally made a mistake and the admitted fault, were as the bakery in question refuses to do so. Go figure.

 

[Syriusly]

Bottom line is that I believe people should obey the law.

Bingo! Too bad progressives are too stupid to understand that the U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land and protects 1st Amendment rights. The government simply has no authority to force people into business transactions. Period. End of story.

You think that Christian's get a special exemption from obeying the law.

Christians are the only one's trying to obey and enforce the law. .[/QUOTE]

Ah the poor oppressed Christians being told to obey the very same law which tells business's that they must serve Christians.

 

[OKTexas]

I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. The bottom line is that you want to force your values onto others. That makes you an authoritarian.

Telling a company which bakes cakes for weddings that they cannot discriminate against gay customers is not "forcing your beliefs on others". That would be forcing the bakers to marry gays. No one is doing that. All they are being required to do is to bake the ******* cake.

Wrong. If it's against your religion or morals to participate in the lie that like gender relationships are equal to opposite gender then the government has gone well beyond the founder's intent. It must be rolled back, the leftists have gone too far.

'well beyond the founder's intent'

Allowing mixed race couples to marry was 'well beyond the founder's intent.

We damn leftists have gone too far.

Liar. First, sexuality isn't a race no matter how many times you stupid deranged assholes make the assertion. The 3/5th rule was to get slave states onboard and wasn't about marriage.

Wrong, the 3/5ths rule was to deny slave State representation based on property, which slaves were at the time. Slave States wanted to count them only for representation but not give them the rights of other people. The 3/5ths rule was a compromise.