Bakery Owners Refuse to Pay Gay Extortionists

[martybegan]

That's why its a mental exercise. And I'm sure it could happen, people can be assholes.

But it is nice to see you admit the whole exercise of all this is to "make people not a bigot" i.e. make government compel them to follow the morality of the people in charge, not the silly "fairness" you keep rambling on about.

bullshit the odds of that happening are less than zero.
I do agree people can be assholes...like the evangelicals that hang out in front of Halloween shops this time of year and scream it's devil worship and you're going to hell.
for me it just adds to ambiance...

But you want government to punish certain assholes, and that makes you an even bigger asshole.

false! you wish that's what I wanted , that not only makes you a gargantuan asshole but a mental one to boot!

Deny it all you want, but it's true. Now kindly go play in traffic.

Who's dening anything , you are a gargantuan asshole .

Awww, Daws has a sadz? Being called out for the chickenshit you are?
You want to **** people over, but you lack the balls to do it yourself, so you get government to do it for you, and you sit there and smile as people are crushed.

*******. Asshole. ****.

 

[daws101]

the only part of that yammering that's fact is , you're mental.

it's clear you just can handle the discussion. I suggest the Hello Kitty message board. It's more to your level.

what discussion? you are desperately trying to force a completely unrealistic scenario in to a real world situation.
religious beliefs are superseded by PA laws.

It's the same concept, but since you can't answer it without being seen as an oppressive ****, you have to ignore it.

You WANT PA laws to override religious beliefs, the idea that they should is what is up for debate.

Considering the only "harm" that is occurring here is hurt feelings, what you want is oppression of people who hold beliefs other than yours.

No it's not reality and fantasy are two separate things.
I have answered you aren't getting the results you want and whining like a ***** because of it.

You are dodging because you know the answer you want to give makes you look like a fascist thug.

False I've dodged nothing .
Being called a fascist by a true fascist is an oximoron.

 

[daws101]

bullshit the odds of that happening are less than zero.
I do agree people can be assholes...like the evangelicals that hang out in front of Halloween shops this time of year and scream it's devil worship and you're going to hell.
for me it just adds to ambiance...

But you want government to punish certain assholes, and that makes you an even bigger asshole.

false! you wish that's what I wanted , that not only makes you a gargantuan asshole but a mental one to boot!

Deny it all you want, but it's true. Now kindly go play in traffic.

Who's dening anything , you are a gargantuan asshole .

Awww, Daws has a sadz? Being called out for the chickenshit you are?
You want to **** people over, but you lack the balls to do it yourself, so you get government to do it for you, and you sit there and smile as people are crushed.

*******. Asshole. ****.

Happy to disappoint you ,
***** slapping you is a pleasure and a community service .

 

[Mac1958]

There are always going to be people we don't care for, people who don't care for us.

The only thing that punishing people like this will do is make them even more of whatever the hell it is they already are.

I'd rather work with someone who wants to work with me. I'm not going to force someone to do something. To hell with 'em.

No pun intended.
.

those people should be in another line of work.

there should never be signs saying "no blacks, no jews and no gays". I know you know that's right.

and while they have the right to choose who they have in their home, no matter how bigoted and ignorant they may be, they do not have the right to discriminate against people in the operation of their business.

the reality is that you can deny service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all, but not an illegal one.

Sure, and I've never argued against that, although I very much doubt that they considered this when they decided to open the business.

But the choice regarding what happens after they refuse service is up to the customers. They can go to someone who wants to work with them or they can use the force of law to make the business owner do so.

I'm happy to let bigots stew in their own juices. I have no reason to want to punish them, especially when I know it will only make them worse.
.
.

where you and I disagree is that I don't believe anyone needs to be a victim. by the same token, rosa parks could have given up her seat.... and black people could have continued to tolerate jim crow.

I don't think tolerating bigotry is admirable though I do understand it makes them more palatable.

Race and sexual orientation issues are flat-lining on their own through the culture. Most kids nowadays really don't give a crap about either. Some of these people are going to lighten up and change their minds through the culture, the rest will just have to fade away. There will always be people out there who piss us off.

As for those whose minds may be changed, I'd rather do it with patience and reason and logic than with force. The change is here already.
.

in part... certainly in urban environments. but I promise you, and you know from reading the posts on this board, that if people in the same places jim crow existed could vote on segregation, they would support it.

we're going to have to disagree on this one. civil rights aren't up for a vote...or popular sentiment. sometimes people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into reality... like when the army was desegregated

do you think for a second that the federal government would not have to use force to desegregate schools if the issue were under consideration today?

It's a balancing act, freedoms vs. civil rights.

What it would require is some humility and a willingness to not always have things our way, whatever that may be.

There just isn't much of that anywhere right now. However, the gay rights issue has grown so quickly that there's definitely going to be some pushback from the Right and some over-zealousness from the Left for while. Maybe we'll see things cool off.

As with everything else, it would be helpful if some brave "leaders" would step forward to convince their "side" to give in now and then.

I very much appreciate the calm disagreement!
.

 

[jillian]

the only part of that yammering that's fact is , you're mental.

it's clear you just can handle the discussion. I suggest the Hello Kitty message board. It's more to your level.

what discussion? you are desperately trying to force a completely unrealistic scenario in to a real world situation.
religious beliefs are superseded by PA laws.

It's the same concept, but since you can't answer it without being seen as an oppressive ****, you have to ignore it.

You WANT PA laws to override religious beliefs, the idea that they should is what is up for debate.

Considering the only "harm" that is occurring here is hurt feelings, what you want is oppression of people who hold beliefs other than yours.

No it's not reality and fantasy are two separate things.
I have answered you aren't getting the results you want and whining like a ***** because of it.

You are dodging because you know the answer you want to give makes you look like a fascist thug.

no one is dodging. but no one is going to respond to a fantasy.

 

[jillian]

those people should be in another line of work.

there should never be signs saying "no blacks, no jews and no gays". I know you know that's right.

and while they have the right to choose who they have in their home, no matter how bigoted and ignorant they may be, they do not have the right to discriminate against people in the operation of their business.

the reality is that you can deny service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all, but not an illegal one.

Sure, and I've never argued against that, although I very much doubt that they considered this when they decided to open the business.

But the choice regarding what happens after they refuse service is up to the customers. They can go to someone who wants to work with them or they can use the force of law to make the business owner do so.

I'm happy to let bigots stew in their own juices. I have no reason to want to punish them, especially when I know it will only make them worse.
.
.

where you and I disagree is that I don't believe anyone needs to be a victim. by the same token, rosa parks could have given up her seat.... and black people could have continued to tolerate jim crow.

I don't think tolerating bigotry is admirable though I do understand it makes them more palatable.

Race and sexual orientation issues are flat-lining on their own through the culture. Most kids nowadays really don't give a crap about either. Some of these people are going to lighten up and change their minds through the culture, the rest will just have to fade away. There will always be people out there who piss us off.

As for those whose minds may be changed, I'd rather do it with patience and reason and logic than with force. The change is here already.
.

in part... certainly in urban environments. but I promise you, and you know from reading the posts on this board, that if people in the same places jim crow existed could vote on segregation, they would support it.

we're going to have to disagree on this one. civil rights aren't up for a vote...or popular sentiment. sometimes people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into reality... like when the army was desegregated

do you think for a second that the federal government would not have to use force to desegregate schools if the issue were under consideration today?

It's a balancing act, freedoms vs. civil rights.

What it would require is some humility and a willingness to not always have things our way, whatever that may be.

There just isn't much of that anywhere right now. However, the gay rights issue has grown so quickly that there's definitely going to be some pushback from the Right and some over-zealousness from the Left for while. Maybe we'll see things cool off.

As with everything else, it would be helpful if some brave "leaders" would step forward to convince their "side" to give in now and then.

I very much appreciate the calm disagreement!
.

i don't think accepting indignity and discrimination is representative of humility. to be fair, i also have many friends who are gay and i don't think they should be unhappy, marginalized or discriminated against. so perhaps i don't see this the same way as you do. so i would never convince those friends that they should "give up". if that makes me wrong, maybe i'd rather err on the side of giving everyone the dignity they're entitled to.

you're not one of the loony rabid righties. i enjoy disagreeing with genuine conservatives. it's kind of the reason i started posting in the first place. if everyone agreed with me, it would be boring, but i also have no patience for people who are insulting and ignorant. you're not that, so it's cool. cheers.

 

[Mac1958]

you're not one of the loony rabid righties. i enjoy disagreeing with genuine conservatives.

And by the way, just for record, this is a test that I've taken a couple of times now on ideological standing, and I think it's pretty accurate for me. But you will notice that I lean more libertarian than authoritarian, so I'm more "live and let live"....

 

[Silhouette]

Good for them!!

The owners of an Oregon bakery are refusing to pay $135,000 in state-ordered damages to a same-sex couple who were denied service.

Melissa and Aaron Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, cited religious beliefs when they refused to bake a wedding cake for Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer more than two years ago.

The couple were awarded the damages in July by Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian for emotional suffering, saying the owners had violated the women’s civil rights by discriminating on the basis of their sexual orientation. They were also slapped with a gag order that prohibited them from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages.

Oregon bakery owners refuse to pay damages in gay wedding cake case
​

YES!!

 

[martybegan]

it's clear you just can handle the discussion. I suggest the Hello Kitty message board. It's more to your level.

what discussion? you are desperately trying to force a completely unrealistic scenario in to a real world situation.
religious beliefs are superseded by PA laws.

It's the same concept, but since you can't answer it without being seen as an oppressive ****, you have to ignore it.

You WANT PA laws to override religious beliefs, the idea that they should is what is up for debate.

Considering the only "harm" that is occurring here is hurt feelings, what you want is oppression of people who hold beliefs other than yours.

No it's not reality and fantasy are two separate things.
I have answered you aren't getting the results you want and whining like a ***** because of it.

You are dodging because you know the answer you want to give makes you look like a fascist thug.

False I've dodged nothing .
Being called a fascist by a true fascist is an oximoron.

I'm not the one supporting government punishment of people for their beliefs, you are.

And all you have been doing is dodging.

 

[martybegan]

But you want government to punish certain assholes, and that makes you an even bigger asshole.

false! you wish that's what I wanted , that not only makes you a gargantuan asshole but a mental one to boot!

Deny it all you want, but it's true. Now kindly go play in traffic.

Who's dening anything , you are a gargantuan asshole .

Awww, Daws has a sadz? Being called out for the chickenshit you are?
You want to **** people over, but you lack the balls to do it yourself, so you get government to do it for you, and you sit there and smile as people are crushed.

*******. Asshole. ****.

Happy to disappoint you ,
***** slapping you is a pleasure and a community service .

The only thing getting slapped down is your ego. You lost, you dodged, get over it, wanker.

 

[martybegan]

it's clear you just can handle the discussion. I suggest the Hello Kitty message board. It's more to your level.

what discussion? you are desperately trying to force a completely unrealistic scenario in to a real world situation.
religious beliefs are superseded by PA laws.

It's the same concept, but since you can't answer it without being seen as an oppressive ****, you have to ignore it.

You WANT PA laws to override religious beliefs, the idea that they should is what is up for debate.

Considering the only "harm" that is occurring here is hurt feelings, what you want is oppression of people who hold beliefs other than yours.

No it's not reality and fantasy are two separate things.
I have answered you aren't getting the results you want and whining like a ***** because of it.

You are dodging because you know the answer you want to give makes you look like a fascist thug.

no one is dodging. but no one is going to respond to a fantasy.

It's a thought exercise that mirrors the current discussion. That your side refuses to answer it is telling in more ways than one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty has once again revealed his regressive personality.

"and while they have the right to choose who they have in their home, no matter how bigoted and ignorant they may be, they do not have the right to discriminate against people in the operation of their business" is overcoming the twaddle of the libertarian and far right freaks.

 

[martybegan]

Marty has once again revealed his regressive personality.

"and while they have the right to choose who they have in their home, no matter how bigoted and ignorant they may be, they do not have the right to discriminate against people in the operation of their business" is overcoming the twaddle of the libertarian and far right freaks.

your opinion is noted, and as usually, just as quickly dismissed as the rantings of a government suck-up. Enjoy letting others think for you.

 

[jillian]

the only part of that yammering that's fact is , you're mental.

it's clear you just can handle the discussion. I suggest the Hello Kitty message board. It's more to your level.

what discussion? you are desperately trying to force a completely unrealistic scenario in to a real world situation.
religious beliefs are superseded by PA laws.

It's the same concept, but since you can't answer it without being seen as an oppressive ****, you have to ignore it.

You WANT PA laws to override religious beliefs, the idea that they should is what is up for debate.

Considering the only "harm" that is occurring here is hurt feelings, what you want is oppression of people who hold beliefs other than yours.

No it's not reality and fantasy are two separate things.
I have answered you aren't getting the results you want and whining like a ***** because of it.

You are dodging because you know the answer you want to give makes you look like a fascist thug.

no, marty, it's because the example is absurd and no one is going to entertain that silliness.

 

[martybegan]

it's clear you just can handle the discussion. I suggest the Hello Kitty message board. It's more to your level.

what discussion? you are desperately trying to force a completely unrealistic scenario in to a real world situation.
religious beliefs are superseded by PA laws.

It's the same concept, but since you can't answer it without being seen as an oppressive ****, you have to ignore it.

You WANT PA laws to override religious beliefs, the idea that they should is what is up for debate.

Considering the only "harm" that is occurring here is hurt feelings, what you want is oppression of people who hold beliefs other than yours.

No it's not reality and fantasy are two separate things.
I have answered you aren't getting the results you want and whining like a ***** because of it.

You are dodging because you know the answer you want to give makes you look like a fascist thug.

no, marty, it's because the example is absurd and no one is going to entertain that silliness.

It's not an absurd example, you just don't like the answer you want to give.

"sell that damn statue or else" is the same as "bake that damn cake or else".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Religious belief has no constitutional authority in public commerce if the PA laws say otherwise, as they should.

A country clerk has no constitutional shield religiously in the performance of her duties: she must serve the public.

A business owner who offers his or her services or wares publicly to attract customers must serve customers. There is no religious shield.

The libertarians like Marty just twaddle on, nothing of merit whatsoever do they offer.

 

[martybegan]

Religious belief has no constitutional authority in public commerce if the PA laws say otherwise, as they should.

A country clerk has no constitutional shield religiously in the performance of her duties: she must serve the public.

A business owner who offers his or her services or wares publicly to attract customers must serve customers. There is no religious shield.

The libertarians like Marty just twaddle on, nothing of merit whatsoever do they offer.

The county clerk doesn't, because government must be neutral.

The business owner can have it, as long as the discrimination is not systemic and does not impact necessary services. One baker refusing to provide a cake is not systemic, and a wedding cake is not a necessary service.

Authoritarians such as yourself run to government to fix hurt feelings, using laws that were designed to root out systemic discrimination which led to economic inequality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The business owner can have it, as long as the discrimination is not systemic and does not impact necessary services. One baker refusing to provide a cake is not systemic, and a wedding cake is not a necessary service." That is a false defense. Show that systemic discrimination based against a class of persons should be permitted and show why a necessary service has anything to do with it.

"Authoritarians such as yourself run to government to fix hurt feelings, using laws that were designed to root out systemic discrimination which led to economic inequality." Your personal definition of "Authoritarians" is laughable.

 

[martybegan]

"The business owner can have it, as long as the discrimination is not systemic and does not impact necessary services. One baker refusing to provide a cake is not systemic, and a wedding cake is not a necessary service." That is a false defense. Show that systemic discrimination based against a class of persons should be permitted and show why a necessary service has anything to do with it.

"Authoritarians such as yourself run to government to fix hurt feelings, using laws that were designed to root out systemic discrimination which led to economic inequality." Your personal definition of "Authoritarians" is laughable.

Once again, you seem unable to use the quote function properly.

And it is not a false defense, it is reading of the laws as they were intended, not a sop to people who faint at the thought of people not approving of their lifestyle.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The business owner can have it, as long as the discrimination is not systemic and does not impact necessary services. One baker refusing to provide a cake is not systemic, and a wedding cake is not a necessary service." That is a false defense. Show that systemic discrimination based against a class of persons should be permitted and show why a necessary service has anything to do with it.

"Authoritarians such as yourself run to government to fix hurt feelings, using laws that were designed to root out systemic discrimination which led to economic inequality." Your personal definition of "Authoritarians" is laughable.

Once again, you seem unable to use the quote function properly.

And it is not a false defense, it is reading of the laws as they were intended, not a sop to people who faint at the thought of people not approving of their lifestyle.

You are such an authoritarian about "quote feature."

I am responding to the meat of a quote, not to the poster. You are not qualified to read and interpret them "as they were intended", for your libertarianism disqualifies you pre-emptively.