Bakers...they won't stop if you just bake the cake...they want you to like it....

[rightwinger]

The difference is that when these laws were put in place, refusing to serve black PEOPLE had a significant economic impact on black people. Plus, it was the GOVERNMENT mandating such service differences/refusals.

So discrimination has to be significant before you'll say it shouldn't happen? Okay, please give us a number....how many cases of discrimination does it take before ol' Marty will admit that these Americans should be treated equally?

When it as a substantial economic impact.

Again, define "substantial"....

According to you at some point, discrimination becomes "not okay". That, in and of itself, is an indefensible stance but while you're dishing out the crazy, why not just go a bit further and tell us how many gays must be discriminated against before it becomes "significant" in your book?

Baking a cake for a gay wedding is not substantial
Requiring a baker to do so....is

In only one case (your side's) is government action required, and THAT is what the issue becomes. Government should not be involved in things as trivial as this, and it 100% shouldn't decide it can ruin someone over it.

Nobody is being ruined....she is being stubborn over something as inconsequential as a cake

 

[martybegan]

That is wrongheaded, and petty. Your side is the Moral Majority clowns for the new century.

How is business serving all people regardless of their individual hatred and biases wrongheaded and petty?

Is a business unwilling to serve a severely retarded person wrongheaded and petty?
Even if they find him icky?

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

Echoes from the 60's....or the 2011 in Missisippi:

Poll 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage - The Wire

Again, mixed race marriages and same sex marriages are not even remotely the same, despite your efforts to the contrary. The courts overturning miscegenation laws did not require a fundamental re-write of the marriage contract.

Seems it did require a substantial rewrite of the marriage contract in many states.

No, because it was still one man, one woman. It just required removing race form the equation, which was only added later on. Changing from one man and one woman to anything else is a major re-write.

 

[candycorn]

"we have a right to refuse service to anyone" and "we don't serve negroes" has been found to be illegal regardless of how trivial the service

Open for business? You are open to all

That is wrongheaded, and petty. Your side is the Moral Majority clowns for the new century.

How is business serving all people regardless of their individual hatred and biases wrongheaded and petty?

Is a business unwilling to serve a severely retarded person wrongheaded and petty?
Even if they find him icky?

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

Echoes from the 60's....or the 2011 in Missisippi:

Poll 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage - The Wire

Again, mixed race marriages and same sex marriages are not even remotely the same, despite your efforts to the contrary.
The courts overturning miscegenation laws did not require a fundamental re-write of the marriage contract.

Marriage contract? What is a marriage contract? Are you talking about a pre-nup?

 

[martybegan]

So discrimination has to be significant before you'll say it shouldn't happen? Okay, please give us a number....how many cases of discrimination does it take before ol' Marty will admit that these Americans should be treated equally?

When it as a substantial economic impact.

Again, define "substantial"....

According to you at some point, discrimination becomes "not okay". That, in and of itself, is an indefensible stance but while you're dishing out the crazy, why not just go a bit further and tell us how many gays must be discriminated against before it becomes "significant" in your book?

Baking a cake for a gay wedding is not substantial
Requiring a baker to do so....is

In only one case (your side's) is government action required, and THAT is what the issue becomes. Government should not be involved in things as trivial as this, and it 100% shouldn't decide it can ruin someone over it.

Nobody is being ruined....she is being stubborn over something as inconsequential as a cake

We all have a right to be stubborn. What you shouldn't have is the right to have government fight your fights for you over something this trivial.

 

[martybegan]

That is wrongheaded, and petty. Your side is the Moral Majority clowns for the new century.

How is business serving all people regardless of their individual hatred and biases wrongheaded and petty?

Is a business unwilling to serve a severely retarded person wrongheaded and petty?
Even if they find him icky?

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

Echoes from the 60's....or the 2011 in Missisippi:

Poll 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage - The Wire

Again, mixed race marriages and same sex marriages are not even remotely the same, despite your efforts to the contrary.
The courts overturning miscegenation laws did not require a fundamental re-write of the marriage contract.

Marriage contract? What is a marriage contract? Are you talking about a pre-nup?

You really need this explained to you? From the wiki article

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

 

[Carla_Danger]

The rings were never made and the jeweler gave them a refund on their deposit for the unfinished rings.

Canadian Jewelry Store Displays Anti-Gay Marriage Sign After Selling Lesbian Brides-To-Be An Engagement Ring

Jewelry store to refund engagement ring deposit to same-sex couple - Newfoundland Labrador - CBC News

So the OP is not only a liar, he/she is a dumbass. Thanks for the links!

 

[candycorn]

How is business serving all people regardless of their individual hatred and biases wrongheaded and petty?

Is a business unwilling to serve a severely retarded person wrongheaded and petty?
Even if they find him icky?

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

Echoes from the 60's....or the 2011 in Missisippi:

Poll 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage - The Wire

Again, mixed race marriages and same sex marriages are not even remotely the same, despite your efforts to the contrary. The courts overturning miscegenation laws did not require a fundamental re-write of the marriage contract.

Seems it did require a substantial rewrite of the marriage contract in many states.

No, because it was still one man, one woman. It just required removing race form the equation, which was only added later on. Changing from one man and one woman to anything else is a major re-write.

Well, according to you, you removed "race" from some "equation". Removing "sex" seems to be just as trivial.

 

[martybegan]

One has to wonder if the discrimination impact is not "substantial" why not just go ahead and bake the cake? Will Jesus really punish you for providing a cake to a gay person? If so...should you be worshiping someone who takes such umbrage at something so insignificant (i.e. not substantial)?

The substantial burden is for the government action, not on the action of the individual. I don't care why a person doesn't want to do it, or how consistent they are in their other beliefs, My concern is the use of government force over something that has zero economic impact, and does not adversely affect anyone except a bruised ego and hurt feelings.

 

[candycorn]

How is business serving all people regardless of their individual hatred and biases wrongheaded and petty?

Is a business unwilling to serve a severely retarded person wrongheaded and petty?
Even if they find him icky?

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

Echoes from the 60's....or the 2011 in Missisippi:

Poll 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage - The Wire

Again, mixed race marriages and same sex marriages are not even remotely the same, despite your efforts to the contrary.
The courts overturning miscegenation laws did not require a fundamental re-write of the marriage contract.

Marriage contract? What is a marriage contract? Are you talking about a pre-nup?

You really need this explained to you? From the wiki article

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

I don't see any mention of persons having to be of different sexes in the "contract"

Time to move the goalposts. Lift with your knees.

 

[martybegan]

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

Echoes from the 60's....or the 2011 in Missisippi:

Poll 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage - The Wire

Again, mixed race marriages and same sex marriages are not even remotely the same, despite your efforts to the contrary. The courts overturning miscegenation laws did not require a fundamental re-write of the marriage contract.

Seems it did require a substantial rewrite of the marriage contract in many states.

No, because it was still one man, one woman. It just required removing race form the equation, which was only added later on. Changing from one man and one woman to anything else is a major re-write.

Well, according to you, you removed "race" from some "equation". Removing "sex" seems to be just as trivial.

Not even close.

 

[martybegan]

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

Echoes from the 60's....or the 2011 in Missisippi:

Poll 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage - The Wire

Again, mixed race marriages and same sex marriages are not even remotely the same, despite your efforts to the contrary.
The courts overturning miscegenation laws did not require a fundamental re-write of the marriage contract.

Marriage contract? What is a marriage contract? Are you talking about a pre-nup?

You really need this explained to you? From the wiki article

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

I don't see any mention of persons having to be of different sexes in the "contract"

Time to move the goalposts. Lift with your knees.

Of course you don't its a Wiki article, and thus conforms to the progressive viewpoint due to editing. You were the one denying it was a contract, and I have shown your ignorance on this.

It has been always been one man and one woman in this country, its only in the first 2 decades of the 2000's that that has changed.

And if you guys want it changed the right way, by changing the law State by State by legislative action, I am all for it, I am just against forcing it judicially, and more so, forcing people to accept it privately on pain of ruin.

 

[candycorn]

Echoes from the 60's....or the 2011 in Missisippi:

Poll 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage - The Wire

Again, mixed race marriages and same sex marriages are not even remotely the same, despite your efforts to the contrary. The courts overturning miscegenation laws did not require a fundamental re-write of the marriage contract.

Seems it did require a substantial rewrite of the marriage contract in many states.

No, because it was still one man, one woman. It just required removing race form the equation, which was only added later on. Changing from one man and one woman to anything else is a major re-write.

Well, according to you, you removed "race" from some "equation". Removing "sex" seems to be just as trivial.

Not even close.

Explain how removing one barrier is much harder than moving another barrier.

 

[bripat9643]

Another self-identifying moron who thinks the government creates your rights.

The government is US

We established our rights through government

The government is not us, and even if it was, that still doesn't mean it creates rights. I have rights regardless of what you think about them. According to you, that isn't true. According to you if the majority says queers don't have the right to marry, then they don't.

We the people create rights. We also created government

The first sentence is obviously false. If that was the case, then why were all the queers crying about the right to marry before it was on the books in any state? You turds don't even believe you position on rights.

That is how we create rights......public assembly and the right to petition
Worked for women, worked for blacks.....now it is working for gays

You don't create rights, numskull. You're born with them. You don't even know what rights are.

 

[candycorn]

Echoes from the 60's....or the 2011 in Missisippi:

Poll 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage - The Wire

Again, mixed race marriages and same sex marriages are not even remotely the same, despite your efforts to the contrary.
The courts overturning miscegenation laws did not require a fundamental re-write of the marriage contract.

Marriage contract? What is a marriage contract? Are you talking about a pre-nup?

You really need this explained to you? From the wiki article

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

I don't see any mention of persons having to be of different sexes in the "contract"

Time to move the goalposts. Lift with your knees.

Of course you don't its a Wiki article, and thus conforms to the progressive viewpoint due to editing. You were the one denying it was a contract, and I have shown your ignorance on this.

AND THERE GO THE GOALPOSTS!!!​

No, you showed me what the basis for your reasoning is and I showed you how flawed it was that this supposed "contract" doesn't include one thing about sex or race for that matter.

It has been always been one man and one woman in this country, its only in the first 2 decades of the 2000's that that has changed.

It used to be all whites married other whites, blacks married other blacks, etc... That changed and the ship of State has continued to sail just fine despite morons who try to row the boat in the other direction.

And if you guys want it changed the right way, by changing the law State by State by legislative action, I am all for it, I am just against forcing it judicially, and more so, forcing people to accept it privately on pain of ruin.

Marriages need to be recognized by all 50 states. Can you imagine a flight from California to Florida...for half the time when you're over the deep South, you and your partner won't be married.

 

[martybegan]

Again, mixed race marriages and same sex marriages are not even remotely the same, despite your efforts to the contrary. The courts overturning miscegenation laws did not require a fundamental re-write of the marriage contract.

Seems it did require a substantial rewrite of the marriage contract in many states.

No, because it was still one man, one woman. It just required removing race form the equation, which was only added later on. Changing from one man and one woman to anything else is a major re-write.

Well, according to you, you removed "race" from some "equation". Removing "sex" seems to be just as trivial.

Not even close.

Explain how removing one barrier is much harder than moving another barrier.

Because race doesn't impact the original concept of a marriage, while allowing two people of the same sex does. If you want to do that, do it legislatively by State.

 

[martybegan]

Again, mixed race marriages and same sex marriages are not even remotely the same, despite your efforts to the contrary.
The courts overturning miscegenation laws did not require a fundamental re-write of the marriage contract.

Marriage contract? What is a marriage contract? Are you talking about a pre-nup?

You really need this explained to you? From the wiki article

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

I don't see any mention of persons having to be of different sexes in the "contract"

Time to move the goalposts. Lift with your knees.

Of course you don't its a Wiki article, and thus conforms to the progressive viewpoint due to editing. You were the one denying it was a contract, and I have shown your ignorance on this.

AND THERE GO THE GOALPOSTS!!!​

No, you showed me what the basis for your reasoning is and I showed you how flawed it was that this supposed "contract" doesn't include one thing about sex or race for that matter.

It has been always been one man and one woman in this country, its only in the first 2 decades of the 2000's that that has changed.

It used to be all whites married other whites, blacks married other blacks, etc... That changed and the ship of State has continued to sail just fine despite morons who try to row the boat in the other direction.

And if you guys want it changed the right way, by changing the law State by State by legislative action, I am all for it, I am just against forcing it judicially, and more so, forcing people to accept it privately on pain of ruin.

Marriages need to be recognized by all 50 states. Can you imagine a flight from California to Florida...for half the time when you're over the deep South, you and your partner won't be married.

No goalposts moved. You stated marriage was not a contract, and I proved you wrong. I used a wiki article that clearly defines it as a contract. Nice attempted gotcha, but only in your mind.

Again, race does not equal orientation.

Finally, the Court can decide FF&C applies, and force States to RECOGNIZE other marriages from other States regardless of orientation, and I would have zero issue with it, as there is precedent for that with regards to things like age requirements, and first cousin marriage. What the Court SHOULDN'T do is force a State to ISSUE marriages it doesn't want to with regards to SSM.

 

[candycorn]

Marriage contract? What is a marriage contract? Are you talking about a pre-nup?

You really need this explained to you? From the wiki article

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

I don't see any mention of persons having to be of different sexes in the "contract"

Time to move the goalposts. Lift with your knees.

Of course you don't its a Wiki article, and thus conforms to the progressive viewpoint due to editing. You were the one denying it was a contract, and I have shown your ignorance on this.

AND THERE GO THE GOALPOSTS!!!​

No, you showed me what the basis for your reasoning is and I showed you how flawed it was that this supposed "contract" doesn't include one thing about sex or race for that matter.

It has been always been one man and one woman in this country, its only in the first 2 decades of the 2000's that that has changed.

It used to be all whites married other whites, blacks married other blacks, etc... That changed and the ship of State has continued to sail just fine despite morons who try to row the boat in the other direction.

And if you guys want it changed the right way, by changing the law State by State by legislative action, I am all for it, I am just against forcing it judicially, and more so, forcing people to accept it privately on pain of ruin.

Marriages need to be recognized by all 50 states. Can you imagine a flight from California to Florida...for half the time when you're over the deep South, you and your partner won't be married.

No goalposts moved. You stated marriage was not a contract, and I proved you wrong. I used a wiki article that clearly defines it as a contract. Nice attempted gotcha, but only in your mind.

Pure BS.

Never made such a statement--quote me if you can.
And for "proof" you reached some wiki source that you didn't provide a link for.
Try again.

Again, race does not equal orientation.

The "contract" didn't mention sex or race must be the same or different.

Should people have to obey imaginary street signs as well? Maybe the ones that limit water fountains to whites only should say "heterosexual only" in your book?

Finally, the Court can decide FF&C applies, and force States to RECOGNIZE other marriages from other States regardless of orientation, and I would have zero issue with it, as there is precedent for that with regards to things like age requirements, and first cousin marriage. What the Court SHOULDN'T do is force a State to ISSUE marriages it doesn't want to with regards to SSM.

Gee, for someone so interested in making sure a baker who opens a public business isn't traumatized by baking a cake...you sure seem more than happy to erect artificial barrier after artificial barrier so other Americans can have equal rights.

 

[martybegan]

You really need this explained to you? From the wiki article

I don't see any mention of persons having to be of different sexes in the "contract"

Time to move the goalposts. Lift with your knees.

Of course you don't its a Wiki article, and thus conforms to the progressive viewpoint due to editing. You were the one denying it was a contract, and I have shown your ignorance on this.

AND THERE GO THE GOALPOSTS!!!​

No, you showed me what the basis for your reasoning is and I showed you how flawed it was that this supposed "contract" doesn't include one thing about sex or race for that matter.

It has been always been one man and one woman in this country, its only in the first 2 decades of the 2000's that that has changed.

It used to be all whites married other whites, blacks married other blacks, etc... That changed and the ship of State has continued to sail just fine despite morons who try to row the boat in the other direction.

And if you guys want it changed the right way, by changing the law State by State by legislative action, I am all for it, I am just against forcing it judicially, and more so, forcing people to accept it privately on pain of ruin.

Marriages need to be recognized by all 50 states. Can you imagine a flight from California to Florida...for half the time when you're over the deep South, you and your partner won't be married.

No goalposts moved. You stated marriage was not a contract, and I proved you wrong. I used a wiki article that clearly defines it as a contract. Nice attempted gotcha, but only in your mind.

Pure BS.

Never made such a statement--quote me if you can.
And for "proof" you reached some wiki source that you didn't provide a link for.
Try again.

Again, race does not equal orientation.

The "contract" didn't mention sex or race must be the same or different.

Should people have to obey imaginary street signs as well? Maybe the ones that limit water fountains to whites only should say "heterosexual only" in your book?

Finally, the Court can decide FF&C applies, and force States to RECOGNIZE other marriages from other States regardless of orientation, and I would have zero issue with it, as there is precedent for that with regards to things like age requirements, and first cousin marriage. What the Court SHOULDN'T do is force a State to ISSUE marriages it doesn't want to with regards to SSM.

Gee, for someone so interested in making sure a baker who opens a public business isn't traumatized by baking a cake...you sure seem more than happy to erect artificial barrier after artificial barrier so other Americans can have equal rights.

Your statement was clear, you were trying to be snarky, got caught on it, and now refuse to admit it. Typical progressive.

And again, going back to 1960's governmental and institutional racism, and trying to equate it to the current situation. Just repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

Equal rights apply to government making sure it treats people equally, you are talking about one citizen interacting with another, two different concepts.

 

[candycorn]

I don't see any mention of persons having to be of different sexes in the "contract"

Time to move the goalposts. Lift with your knees.

Of course you don't its a Wiki article, and thus conforms to the progressive viewpoint due to editing. You were the one denying it was a contract, and I have shown your ignorance on this.

AND THERE GO THE GOALPOSTS!!!​

No, you showed me what the basis for your reasoning is and I showed you how flawed it was that this supposed "contract" doesn't include one thing about sex or race for that matter.

It has been always been one man and one woman in this country, its only in the first 2 decades of the 2000's that that has changed.

It used to be all whites married other whites, blacks married other blacks, etc... That changed and the ship of State has continued to sail just fine despite morons who try to row the boat in the other direction.

And if you guys want it changed the right way, by changing the law State by State by legislative action, I am all for it, I am just against forcing it judicially, and more so, forcing people to accept it privately on pain of ruin.

Marriages need to be recognized by all 50 states. Can you imagine a flight from California to Florida...for half the time when you're over the deep South, you and your partner won't be married.

No goalposts moved. You stated marriage was not a contract, and I proved you wrong. I used a wiki article that clearly defines it as a contract. Nice attempted gotcha, but only in your mind.

Pure BS.

Never made such a statement--quote me if you can.
And for "proof" you reached some wiki source that you didn't provide a link for.
Try again.

Again, race does not equal orientation.

The "contract" didn't mention sex or race must be the same or different.

Should people have to obey imaginary street signs as well? Maybe the ones that limit water fountains to whites only should say "heterosexual only" in your book?

Finally, the Court can decide FF&C applies, and force States to RECOGNIZE other marriages from other States regardless of orientation, and I would have zero issue with it, as there is precedent for that with regards to things like age requirements, and first cousin marriage. What the Court SHOULDN'T do is force a State to ISSUE marriages it doesn't want to with regards to SSM.

Gee, for someone so interested in making sure a baker who opens a public business isn't traumatized by baking a cake...you sure seem more than happy to erect artificial barrier after artificial barrier so other Americans can have equal rights.

Your statement was clear, you were trying to be snarky, got caught on it, and now refuse to admit it. Typical progressive.

Gee, and if you could quote me saying what you said I did, you'd man-up and do it. Since you can't...what does it say about your "manhood"?

And again, going back to 1960's governmental and institutional racism, and trying to equate it to the current situation. Just repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

Legalized discrimination was blown away by federal action. Your attempt to hold on to the last vestiges of a sad yesterday in America will be just as successful.

Equal rights apply to government making sure it treats people equally, you are talking about one citizen interacting with another, two different concepts.

So if they didn't want to bake a cake for a black person...they could do that and you'd be happy about it since that is what they are doing now..."interacting"....right?

 

[2aguy]

There is no right to be served, period.

Nor a right to remain in business

Actually that is more of a right than to be served, as a person has a right to make a living.

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

Again, what is the difference between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to serve a black person?

Nothing, and both should be legal.....a Nation of Islam bakery should be able to also refuse to serve white people.....if it is your business it is your property and you should be able to do with it what you want.....if you discriminate against one or more groups your business will suffer...and that is on you...but it is your right to run your business the way you want....