Colorado is after this guy.

[SassyIrishLass]

Oh BS it was no "birthday" cake. What a bunch of ******* nonsense

Take your PA and politically correct shit and stick it. Leave the man alone

Except he had no problem with a pink frosting on a blue cake when he was told it was a birthday cake. When he was told, "Oh yeah, and I'm ALSO celebrating my transition to being a woman", Bible boy freaked.

You're a Christian hating bigot.

And never to be taken serious on any religious matter due to that little fact

 

[JoeB131]

No, he is denying a cake to "celebrate coming out at transgender". Had Scardina simply asked for a birthday cake of that design, without mentioning being transgender (which frankly wasn't information Mr. Phillips needed), he would have made the cake. But THEN it wouldn't have worked as entrapment and harassment, which is all Scardina REALLY wanted.

But that was the point. The minute he found out it was for a Trans person, he didn't want to provide the cake. That's discrimination.

And one who never gets censored despite shitting all over the clean debate forum time and time again.

Any thinking individual would ask why that is so.

I actually rarely post in the CDZ. I also rarely post in the Flame Zone. I do find it funny that you guys complain about kids who don't want Nazis on their campuses need a "safe space" from people who disagree with you.

 

[JoeB131]

You're a Christian hating bigot.

And never to be taken serious on any religious matter due to that little fact

But here's the thing.

I won't refuse service to Christians, and any Christian who comes to me for a service will get my very best effort.

because that's the law.
because it's the right thing to do
and it's good business.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In CO, if you publicly offer a service, you cannot privately contract the same service and discriminate.

 

[martybegan]

For that level of "discrimination" the result shouldn't be "bake or die"

Sorry, guy, I wasn't paying attention... when did someone threaten to kill the Homophobic baker? It was more like, "Follow the law or pay a fine just like anyone else who breaks the law would pay a fine."

He's a sad little man. A person who upon his departure from this life will make the rest of our lives better.

And yet you are the one losing your shit... speaking of things that make you lose your shit.

B-b-b-but it's a PRIVATE business!!!! You know, like Facebook?

Tell me guys, with no consistent principles, how do you keep track of which side you're on in any given argument? I guess it just depends on which party is pushing which argument that day. Or maybe which way the wind is blowing?

Private businesses have to comply with the law.

Look the argument here isn't that PA laws are wrong. If he refused to bake a cake just because he hates gays or blacks, there would be no issue here. He'd be in violation of the law, period. Fine paid.

The argument he is making here is that the law we all agreed was perfectly sensible should have an exemption because of a supposedly sincere religious belief.

It would be as ridiculous as claiming that the murder laws shouldn't apply to me if I claim to be a worshiper of Quetzalcoatl and I should be able to cut out the hearts of my enemies as long as I use a traditional obsidian knife.

View attachment 211925

This has nothing to do with Facebook deciding that they no longer want to be a party to Alex Jones' libelous claims.

More bullshit from the biggest bullshitter on this board.

 

[martybegan]

So, a muslim baker can be forced to make Matzo for a Jew? Just wondering....

If they already sold Matzo cakes, um... yeah. Wouldn't be an issue.

The funny thing is they don't realize they are being the assholes here. They have to win 100%, no compromise.

Again, I've known gays who have been fired for being gay, I've known gays who've been beaten up for being gay. Gay folks have "compromised" quite enough with the haters.

So do I. PA laws highlight the hypocrisy and authoritarianism inherent in 'social democracy'.

Quite the contrary, they are law and order.

You see, the Anarchist view (not Libertarians, who just play at being anarchists) would be, the Homophobic baker can refuse to bake the cake, but the gays can burn down his shop if he doesn't. That would be bad.

The liberal view is, the gays should be able to get a cake, but if the homophobic baker doesn't like it, he can find something else to do for a living. But if someone tries to burn down his shop, they'll be arrested.

What you want is a law that protects only the rights of one side. Of course, it's the side with money and property.

Stop being a lazy prick and reply to each person in turn.

 

[martybegan]

The people in question don't discriminate when it comes to point of sale items, only for custom items for specific events.

And this guy won't even make halloween cakes due to his religious beliefs.

No person in his store is turned away from point of sale items, i.e. the Public Accommodation portion of his business.

Oh, please society, please can I have this little corner where I'm allowed to hate people who are different than me in peace? Pretty please?

Um.. no.

If your religious beliefs are such that you hate gay people so much you can't provide services for them, FIND SOMETHING ELSE to do for a living.

Hey, here's a funny thing. You only want this to provide these special rights to business owners, not workers. If some Clerk said, "I'm not serving this Mormon because Joseph Smith was a con man!" his ass would be fired so fast, his head would spin, and you'd have no problem with it.

He doesn't hate them, he still serves them point of sale, he just doesn't want to participate in a SSM wedding.

A worker isn't a business owner. A worker's right to do certain things is different.

 

[martybegan]

What is the benefit to society of forcing this guy out of business or to go against his morals?

Besides the micro-boner you get from being a statist ****, of course.

It serves as a warning to all the other haters, "um, yeah, that would be a bad idea, let's not do that."

Kind of the benefit of society of ALL punishment, isn't it?

Once again for the brain dead a wedding is a PRIVATE event, the baker sells all of his publicly sold goods to everybody. Let me know the next time a wedding is a public event that everyone can come too, m'kay...

But he sells the cakes publicly, so this isn't an issue.

In this case, BTW, the Homophobic Baker refused to sell a birthday cake, which was pink with blue frosting, which he had no problem with until he found out the guy who wanted it was a tranny.

In short, he was all cool with it until he found out WHO it was for.

Was he being set up? Probably. Sucks to be him, doesn't it?

The only benefit is people like you get to cum in your pants every time someone you don't like gets fucked over.

 

[martybegan]

And for point of sale items he doesn't refuse anyone.

Only for specific contracted specialty items does he say what he wants to do, and what he doesn't want to do.

But he can't break the law in those contracts, that's the point, buddy.

Plus this guy is far more consistent than most. No Halloween special cakes, not bachelor party special cakes.

Meh, not really. frankly, if he were consistent, he wouldn't make ANY wedding cakes. Wedding cakes are mentioned nowhere in the bible. It is in fact a Pagan Roman tradition that carried into Christianity.

If he were "consistent', he would also refuse service to couples who line in cohabitation, women who wear pants, women who wear braids, women who wear jewelry, any dude with a tattoo, chicks who aren't virgins on their wedding nights (that'd be a hard one to check).

again, this isn't about a wedding cake, this is about a cake with special coloring he had no problem making until he was informed about the significance of the colors.

It doesn't matter. It is a PRIVATE CONTRACTED SERVICE. How plain does it have to be made to you? PA laws do NOT EVER APPLY to private contracted services. EVER!

Except the law has found they can.

There's actually a pretty simple solution. Take the money, and then subcontract out the work to someone who isn't a bigot.

The law cannot override 1st amendment protections.

Nice attempt at argumentum ad abusrdum there. You don't get to decide how the guy free exercises, and in this case neither should government.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You're a Christian hating bigot.

And never to be taken serious on any religious matter due to that little fact

But here's the thing.

I won't refuse service to Christians, and any Christian who comes to me for a service will get my very best effort.

because that's the law.
because it's the right thing to do
and it's good business.

You being a bigot disqualfies you...not to mention your own posts on this rhread reveals you're clueless on Christianity.

You'll change no Christian's mind...we see right through you

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And neither is the use of another person's labor or resources, even if you're willing to pay for them.

Except when you promise your labor or resources for sale, you have to provide them if someone has the money.

That would constitute involuntary servitude, which is explicitly prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.

 

[dblack]

This has nothing to do with Facebook deciding that they no longer want to be a party to Alex Jones' libelous claims.

It's the same principle. But I know that word is foreign to you. Party allegiance is all that matters. If a business is discriminating against someone you don't like you cheer. If they're picking on a friend, you pass a law. It's the political philosophy of an arbitrary bully.

 

[dblack]

The law cannot override 1st amendment protections.

That's the entire purpose of these laws. That's all they do. They don't stop discrimination. They merely suppress the expression of opinions that the law has targeted for extinction.

 

[martybegan]

The law cannot override 1st amendment protections.

That's their entire purpose of these laws. That's all they do. They don't stop discrimination. They merely suppress the expression of opinions that the law has targeted for extinction.

and yet when you accuse the left of prosecuting ThoughCrime they always try so say "we are not punishing thought, we are punishing action"

It's a standard excuse for them.

 

[dblack]

and yet when you accuse the left of prosecuting ThoughCrime they always try so say "we are not punishing thought, we are punishing action"

It's a standard excuse for them.

And that's clearly not the case. The baker would have been in the clear if they'd just declined service for no reason. They were punished because they turned it into a statement of protest.

 

[martybegan]

and yet when you accuse the left of prosecuting ThoughCrime they always try so say "we are not punishing thought, we are punishing action"

It's a standard excuse for them.

And that's clearly not the case. The baker would have been in the clear if they'd just declined service for no reason. They were punished because they turned it into a statement of protest.

I doubt it. The Commission would have still taken the complaint and I'm sure would have implied the denial of service was due to it being for a SSM wedding.

 

[dblack]

and yet when you accuse the left of prosecuting ThoughCrime they always try so say "we are not punishing thought, we are punishing action"

It's a standard excuse for them.

And that's clearly not the case. The baker would have been in the clear if they'd just declined service for no reason. They were punished because they turned it into a statement of protest.

I doubt it. The Commission would have still taken the complaint and I'm sure would have implied the denial of service was due to it being for a SSM wedding.

But in order to make a case, they'd have to have other examples of the baker's bias - some other expression of the banned opinion. If the baker had expressed no such bias in the past, short of extracting a confession, they'd have no case.

I think people take this argument as a 'technicality', but it really is the point of these laws. When they're sober, and not engaged in partisan debate, you can even get liberals to admit this. It's not that controversial. These laws aren't about individual justice. They're about social engineering - controlling public opinion via the law.

 

[martybegan]

and yet when you accuse the left of prosecuting ThoughCrime they always try so say "we are not punishing thought, we are punishing action"

It's a standard excuse for them.

And that's clearly not the case. The baker would have been in the clear if they'd just declined service for no reason. They were punished because they turned it into a statement of protest.

I doubt it. The Commission would have still taken the complaint and I'm sure would have implied the denial of service was due to it being for a SSM wedding.

But in order to make a case, they'd have to have other examples of the baker's bias - some other expression of the banned opinion. If the baker had expressed no such bias in the past, short of extracting a confession, they'd have no case.

I think people take this argument as a 'technicality', but it really is the point of these laws. When they're sober, and not engaged in partisan debate, you can even get liberals to admit this. It's not that controversial. These laws aren't about individual justice. They're about social engineering - controlling public opinion via the law.

They were originally about stopping whole towns or counties from banning certain people from certain commerce.

Their application in individual cases of limited refusal to serve is a new concept.

They would have had evidence of him not doing other cakes based on his religion, evidence of him doing wedding cakes, and then him not wanting to do this specific wedding cake.

Based on the inherent bias seen in the Commission that even the liberal SC justices pointed out, they would have reached the same conclusion.

 

[dblack]

and yet when you accuse the left of prosecuting ThoughCrime they always try so say "we are not punishing thought, we are punishing action"

It's a standard excuse for them.

And that's clearly not the case. The baker would have been in the clear if they'd just declined service for no reason. They were punished because they turned it into a statement of protest.

I doubt it. The Commission would have still taken the complaint and I'm sure would have implied the denial of service was due to it being for a SSM wedding.

But in order to make a case, they'd have to have other examples of the baker's bias - some other expression of the banned opinion. If the baker had expressed no such bias in the past, short of extracting a confession, they'd have no case.

I think people take this argument as a 'technicality', but it really is the point of these laws. When they're sober, and not engaged in partisan debate, you can even get liberals to admit this. It's not that controversial. These laws aren't about individual justice. They're about social engineering - controlling public opinion via the law.

They were originally about stopping whole towns or counties from banning certain people from certain commerce.

Their application in individual cases of limited refusal to serve is a new concept.

They would have had evidence of him not doing other cakes based on his religion, evidence of him doing wedding cakes, and then him not wanting to do this specific wedding cake.

Based on the inherent bias seen in the Commission that even the liberal SC justices pointed out, they would have reached the same conclusion.

It's still the expression of that bias that is the target. Without that, or a history of that, there's no crime. These laws aren't about protecting individuals from personal discrimination. The target is public bias. The goal isn't to force businesses to treat people equally. The goal is to prohibit them from putting up signs saying "We don't serve xxx".

 

[martybegan]

and yet when you accuse the left of prosecuting ThoughCrime they always try so say "we are not punishing thought, we are punishing action"

It's a standard excuse for them.

And that's clearly not the case. The baker would have been in the clear if they'd just declined service for no reason. They were punished because they turned it into a statement of protest.

I doubt it. The Commission would have still taken the complaint and I'm sure would have implied the denial of service was due to it being for a SSM wedding.

But in order to make a case, they'd have to have other examples of the baker's bias - some other expression of the banned opinion. If the baker had expressed no such bias in the past, short of extracting a confession, they'd have no case.

I think people take this argument as a 'technicality', but it really is the point of these laws. When they're sober, and not engaged in partisan debate, you can even get liberals to admit this. It's not that controversial. These laws aren't about individual justice. They're about social engineering - controlling public opinion via the law.

They were originally about stopping whole towns or counties from banning certain people from certain commerce.

Their application in individual cases of limited refusal to serve is a new concept.

They would have had evidence of him not doing other cakes based on his religion, evidence of him doing wedding cakes, and then him not wanting to do this specific wedding cake.

Based on the inherent bias seen in the Commission that even the liberal SC justices pointed out, they would have reached the same conclusion.

It's still the expression of that bias that is the target. Without that, or a history of that, there's no crime. These laws aren't about protecting individuals from personal discrimination. The target is public bias. The goal isn't to force businesses to treat people equally. The goal is to prohibit them from putting up signs saying "We don't serve xxx".

I don't read into it that deeply. The original goal and the current goal of PA laws is very different.

Before it was to keep public spaces civil and make sure point of sale items were not limited to a person because of race.

It was never meant to go into individual contracted transactions.

Why do I feel we are arguing about a faucet leak while on a sinking Titanic?