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

[WorldWatcher]

1st protects freedom of an individual's religion/deeply held beliefs, association (& in the Klein's case, the right NOT to associate), and speech.

How'd that work out for Piggie Park Enterprise?


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Race can be objectively tested. If a Black male claims to be black, there are ways to prove they are.

National Origin: ancestry.com commercial simply proved they, and your relative didn't have the complete story, that's what affairs do. That affair could have happened generations ago, and no one might ever know

Unlikely... I know my side of the family got off the boat from Germany, and my Bro in Law got off the boat from Poland. But no German or Polish in this crackpot test.

Your examples of Religion are laughable, but that's what delusional thinkers do, don't they?, in your expert opinion.

Not at all... religion is a matter of self definition more than anything else. First 20 years of my life, I was Catholic. Last 30+ I've been an atheist. I made those determinations, not anyone else. But the law says I can't be denied service, even if I walk into a bakery with a "Jesus Never Existed" T-Shirt.

Reading problems. Affairs can change the family tree. Not too many people record them, aye?

If you were Catholic, you had documents. If you renounced it, I doubt you'd sue as though you were one, aye?

 

[Pop23]

No, you are definitely deflecting. And I have shown how membership in a religious organization can be objectively determined.

Belonging to a religious organization is not objective proof about someones religious beliefs and you don't have to be associated with a religouis organization to have religious beliefs.

Therefore belonging to a religious organization is not an objective test of religious beliefs.



>>>>

It is proof that one believes.

Sorry bloke, it would work as an objective test for most.

Got any for sexual orientation yet?

It is the $100,000 cake question.

 

[Pop23]

Belonging to a religious organization is not objective proof about someones religious beliefs and you don't have to be associated with a religouis organization to have religious beliefs.

Therefore belonging to a religious organization is not an objective test of religious beliefs.



>>>>

1st protects freedom of an individual's religion/deeply held beliefs, association (& in the Klein's case, the right NOT to associate), and speech.

Isn't this what this is all about? Control of belief?

 

[Frank'sRules]

When there is no actual harm.

The issue is they didn't want these people to BE customers. and no, the customer is not always right.

When you scream Bible shit at one's mother, that's actual harm, which is what Mr. Wifebeater did.

But good news, everyone... They finally closed and gave up!

Family Bakery Closes After Left-Wing Bullies Finally Get Their Pound Of Cake

I love a happy ending.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Belonging to a religious organization is not objective proof about someones religious beliefs and you don't have to be associated with a religouis organization to have religious beliefs.

Therefore belonging to a religious organization is not an objective test of religious beliefs.



>>>>

1st protects freedom of an individual's religion/deeply held beliefs, association (& in the Klein's case, the right NOT to associate), and speech.

Isn't this what this is all about? Control of belief?

It's about equality before the law and in business transactions.

 

[Pop23]

When there is no actual harm.

The issue is they didn't want these people to BE customers. and no, the customer is not always right.

When you scream Bible shit at one's mother, that's actual harm, which is what Mr. Wifebeater did.

But good news, everyone... They finally closed and gave up!

Family Bakery Closes After Left-Wing Bullies Finally Get Their Pound Of Cake

I love a happy ending.

Unemployment and food stamps, heaven to a lib!

 

[Frank'sRules]

When there is no actual harm.

The issue is they didn't want these people to BE customers. and no, the customer is not always right.

When you scream Bible shit at one's mother, that's actual harm, which is what Mr. Wifebeater did.

But good news, everyone... They finally closed and gave up!

Family Bakery Closes After Left-Wing Bullies Finally Get Their Pound Of Cake

I love a happy ending.

Unemployment and food stamps, heaven to a lib!

Their fag-hating Go Fund Me will get them by for a time. And may they never run a business open to the public ever again as they are unworthy.

 

[JoeB131]

1st protects freedom of an individual's religion/deeply held beliefs, association (& in the Klein's case, the right NOT to associate), and speech.

And if they don't want to associate, then they shouldn't own a business where that might come up.

People have 'Rights". Businesses do not. They aren't people.

 

[JoeB131]

Reading problems. Affairs can change the family tree. Not too many people record them, aye?

If you were Catholic, you had documents. If you renounced it, I doubt you'd sue as though you were one, aye?

Yeah, but you see, my German ancestors might have been fucking around.. but they were still fucking other Germans... That's the point. It's a scam. So national origin is essentially subjective, more subjective than sexual orientation.

If someone told me, "We don't serve Catholics here", damned right I'd sue the fuckers.

 

[Pop23]

Reading problems. Affairs can change the family tree. Not too many people record them, aye?

If you were Catholic, you had documents. If you renounced it, I doubt you'd sue as though you were one, aye?

Yeah, but you see, my German ancestors might have been fucking around.. but they were still fucking other Germans... That's the point. It's a scam. So national origin is essentially subjective, more subjective than sexual orientation.

If someone told me, "We don't serve Catholics here", damned right I'd sue the fuckers.

Of course they would Joe, they would only fuck a superior race, right?

And you were there taking notes perhaps?

 

[JoeB131]

Of course they would Joe, they would only fuck a superior race, right?

And you were there taking notes perhaps?

are you just babbling here? You do realize that until 1925, my family was in Germany and there was nothing but Germans for hundreds of miles in any direction. In fact, the only divide they worried about was they didn't get along with the Lutherans on the other side of the Lahn River.

Now, this might come as a surprise to an American that we all have to kind of get along with other races, religions, ethnicities, and so on. It's why you need a public accommodation law to protect everyone's right and access to goods and services and to maintain civil society.

The Kleins were being assholes. That's why they don't have a business anymore. Now, you might say, "Well you have a right to be an asshole." Quite right. You do. Your business does not.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It is proof that one believes.

Sorry bloke, it would work as an objective test for most.

Got any for sexual orientation yet?

It is the $100,000 cake question.

1. Sorry, nope. Not a test of beliefs.

2. How'd that claim of religious belief work out for Piggie Park?

3. No need for a test of sexual orientation, the violation of the law is based on the reason business owner refused service. Not whether the customers was actually in that class. If I'm a Christian and the business owner thinks I'm Jewish and refuses service based on being Jewish - he (or she) is in violation of the law even though I'm not Jewish. I don't have to prove my "Jewishness".


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Of course they would Joe, they would only fuck a superior race, right?

And you were there taking notes perhaps?

are you just babbling here? You do realize that until 1925, my family was in Germany and there was nothing but Germans for hundreds of miles in any direction. In fact, the only divide they worried about was they didn't get along with the Lutherans on the other side of the Lahn River.

Now, this might come as a surprise to an American that we all have to kind of get along with other races, religions, ethnicities, and so on. It's why you need a public accommodation law to protect everyone's right and access to goods and services and to maintain civil society.

The Kleins were being assholes. That's why they don't have a business anymore. Now, you might say, "Well you have a right to be an asshole." Quite right. You do. Your business does not.

Joe, you're simply just providing evidence of your delusions. COUNTRIES WERE INVADED, TRADE EXISTED BETWEEN COUNTRIES, MISSIONARIES TRAVELED PAST BORDERS.

An OBJECTIVE TEST PROVED IT. But, just like I said before, we must believe in the theory that a sexual orientation exists, why?

BECAUSE YOU SAY SO WITHOUT AN OBJECTIVE TEST!

Case closed

 

[Pop23]

It is proof that one believes.

Sorry bloke, it would work as an objective test for most.

Got any for sexual orientation yet?

It is the $100,000 cake question.

1. Sorry, nope. Not a test of beliefs.

2. How'd that claim of religious belief work out for Piggie Park?

3. No need for a test of sexual orientation, the violation of the law is based on the reason business owner refused service. Not whether the customers was actually in that class. If I'm a Christian and the business owner thinks I'm Jewish and refuses service based on being Jewish - he (or she) is in violation of the law even though I'm not Jewish. I don't have to prove my "Jewishness".


>>>>

All your stating is that a law exists, whether it is just or not is simply insane. As stated before it will be challenged and, in my opinion be tossed out.

The theory that the ends justifies the means is delusional and rarely turns out well.

And yes, someone claiming that he was discriminated against, based on his religion can, most often produce evidence that can be examined on a objective basis and pass the test.

 

[martybegan]

When there is no actual harm.

The issue is they didn't want these people to BE customers. and no, the customer is not always right.

When you scream Bible shit at one's mother, that's actual harm, which is what Mr. Wifebeater did.

But good news, everyone... They finally closed and gave up!

Family Bakery Closes After Left-Wing Bullies Finally Get Their Pound Of Cake

Being yelled at is harm? Boo fucking hoo.

Figures you would root for the bullies.

 

[martybegan]

When there is no actual harm.

The issue is they didn't want these people to BE customers. and no, the customer is not always right.

When you scream Bible shit at one's mother, that's actual harm, which is what Mr. Wifebeater did.

But good news, everyone... They finally closed and gave up!

Family Bakery Closes After Left-Wing Bullies Finally Get Their Pound Of Cake

I love a happy ending.

miserable asshole.

 

[martybegan]

When there is no actual harm.

The issue is they didn't want these people to BE customers. and no, the customer is not always right.

When you scream Bible shit at one's mother, that's actual harm, which is what Mr. Wifebeater did.

But good news, everyone... They finally closed and gave up!

Family Bakery Closes After Left-Wing Bullies Finally Get Their Pound Of Cake

I love a happy ending.

Unemployment and food stamps, heaven to a lib!

Their fag-hating Go Fund Me will get them by for a time. And may they never run a business open to the public ever again as they are unworthy.

And who the fuck are you to judge that, bitch-tits?

 

[Silhouette]

It is proof that one believes.

Sorry bloke, it would work as an objective test for most.

Got any for sexual orientation yet?

It is the $100,000 cake question.

1. Sorry, nope. Not a test of beliefs.



>>>>

Let's say it's a test of behaviors then. What do we call a woman who craves mannish behavior in her sexual partner and even desires regular intercourse with a phallus object? A lesbian? What do we call a man who craves a submissive "femme" accessing a hole in the business end of said person? A gay man?

I'm not sure Pop has yet caught on to this problem of yours; but maybe he has and it's why he's hammering you for your answer. If the words "gay" or "lesbian" are muddy, murky, jumbled and confused, how the hell do these behaviors suddenly gain cohesion and "class status" where none is enumerated in the Constitution?

I mean, you DO realize this will come down to a Constitutional test where non-enumerated murky behaviors will square off with the 1st Amendment's enumerated protections for freedom of religion, association and speech, right?

 

[WorldWatcher]

All your stating is that a law exists, whether it is just or not is simply insane. As stated before it will be challenged and, in my opinion be tossed out.

The theory that the ends justifies the means is delusional and rarely turns out well.

Of course I'm stating that a law exists and have discussed how the function of the law works.

If you would like to have a discussion about IF A LAW should exist, that is a different discussion all together.

Public Accommodation law exist - that is a fact. My opinion is that Public Accommodation laws, as applied to private business should be repealed. A private business owner should be free to discriminate against whomever they wish, even if it is based on race, religion, national origin, sex, age, sexual orientation, military service or marital status. My belief is that the free market should be allowed to either approve or disapprove with their actions. Those who feel they are discriminated against should be free - in this age of mass communication, social media, twitter, and online reviews be able to show their approval or disapproval of such actions as a function of free speech. Public Accommodation laws should ONLY apply to government entities as to the goods and services they provide and limit their ability to purchase goods/services or enter into contracts with private entities that have been shown to conduct discriminatory business practices. But that is a limitation on government, not on the private business.

And yes, someone claiming that he was discriminated against, based on his religion can, most often produce evidence that can be examined on a objective basis and pass the test.

Which is irrelevant because an individual does not have a burden of proof in such cases to prove their religious beliefs all that has to be shown is that the business discriminated because they believed a protected characteristic applied to the customer and that was then the basis for the refusal of service (i.e. unlawful discrimination).


>>>>