Colorado is after this guy.

[martybegan]

What points? The only point you have is "I like fascism when I get to decide the tenets of it"

Guy, I made the point that the laws that we agree to are not invalidated because your imaginary Sky pixie says otherwise.

I gave you lists and lists of things where the law trumps (no pun intended) religion.

This is one of those cases.

They are not invalidated, but the application is modified in the face of the right to free exercise.

This should not be one of those cases. The only reason to force these people to perform or be ruined is spite.

Something you know all about, you miserly little twat.

 

[martybegan]

Then wouldn't you technically have a problem with bias NOT being allowed?

Let me clarify. I have a problem with the notion that thoughts and beliefs are things that government, or anyone else, should "allow". If there is anything in the universe that is mine and mine alone and no one else's to control or order, it is my thoughts and beliefs. And if they are NOT mine and mine alone, then nothing is, and there is no such thing as freedom at all.

That's nothing to disagree with. Now as an Engineer let me ask you how we implement that concept among everyone in the particular case of commerce, in PA's or by contract.

Um, you just butt out. Not really sure where you think the complicated "implementation" is there. Some crybaby comes to the government and says, "Waaahh! This guy wouldn't make a cake for my gay wedding! He hates gay people!" The government says, "Sorry. Not our problem. Go to another bake shop. They advertise in gay media, dumbass." End of story.

What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?

/——/ But the cake from Costco or BJ bakery. No one asks or cares what it’s used for. But that solution does not advance the libtard agenda.

Good point, actually.

 

[dblack]

What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?

Then you'd need to face the sad fact that you live on a town full of bigots. And while they can't legally prevent you from getting married, they want nothing to do with it.

And that's when the government has to take an interest in it.

When people collude like that, it is just the same as them passing a law. It's an end run around established rights of commerce.

No, it's not just the same as them passing a law. If they passed a law, people would be put in jail for violating it. It's just them refusing to accommodate something they disagree with. What happened to the right to say "no"?

 

[martybegan]

What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?

Then you'd need to face the sad fact that you live on a town full of bigots. And while they can't legally prevent you from getting married, they want nothing to do with it.

And that's when the government has to take an interest in it.

When people collude like that, it is just the same as them passing a law. It's an end run around established rights of commerce.

No, it's not just the same as them passing a law. If they passed a law, people would be put in jail for violating it. It's just them refusing to accommodate something they disagree with. What happened to the right to say "no"?

When you do it as a group in a given location, you are making it the equivalent of a local law. It's the collusion that is the issue (actual collusion in this case, not "Russia Russia Russia! collusion).

It's the same type of end run gun grabbers do when they go after ammunition, or make training requirements onerous.

 

[dblack]

What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?

Then you'd need to face the sad fact that you live on a town full of bigots. And while they can't legally prevent you from getting married, they want nothing to do with it.

And that's when the government has to take an interest in it.

When people collude like that, it is just the same as them passing a law. It's an end run around established rights of commerce.

No, it's not just the same as them passing a law. If they passed a law, people would be put in jail for violating it. It's just them refusing to accommodate something they disagree with. What happened to the right to say "no"?

When you do it as a group in a given location, you are making it the equivalent of a local law. It's the collusion that is the issue (actual collusion in this case, not "Russia Russia Russia! collusion).

Yes. And if they are coercing people to join their cause, we bust them up one side and down the other. But, in your ridiculous what-if scenario, anyone who wanted to is free to defy the "collusion" of the ten bakers and open a shop that does cater to gays. They'd probably do quite well.

It's the same type of end run gun grabbers do when they go after ammunition, or make training requirements onerous.

No, it's not the same. Those are laws. You'll be punished if you defy them. Defying your cabal of bakers would only make you money.

 

[martybegan]

What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?

Then you'd need to face the sad fact that you live on a town full of bigots. And while they can't legally prevent you from getting married, they want nothing to do with it.

And that's when the government has to take an interest in it.

When people collude like that, it is just the same as them passing a law. It's an end run around established rights of commerce.

No, it's not just the same as them passing a law. If they passed a law, people would be put in jail for violating it. It's just them refusing to accommodate something they disagree with. What happened to the right to say "no"?

When you do it as a group in a given location, you are making it the equivalent of a local law. It's the collusion that is the issue (actual collusion in this case, not "Russia Russia Russia! collusion).

Yes. And if they are coercing people to join their cause, we bust them up one side and down the other. But, in your ridiculous what-if scenario, anyone who wanted to is free to defy the "collusion" of the ten bakers and open a shop that does cater to gays. They'd probably do quite well.

It's the same type of end run gun grabbers do when they go after ammunition, or make training requirements onerous.

No, it's not the same. Those are laws. You'll be punished if you defy them. Defying your cabal of bakers would only make you money.

And as long as one does defy it, that breaks the government's interest.

Those are laws that are designed as an end run around a right with the help of willing jurists. Maybe not the same inning, but the same ballpark.

 

[dblack]

Then you'd need to face the sad fact that you live on a town full of bigots. And while they can't legally prevent you from getting married, they want nothing to do with it.

And that's when the government has to take an interest in it.

When people collude like that, it is just the same as them passing a law. It's an end run around established rights of commerce.

No, it's not just the same as them passing a law. If they passed a law, people would be put in jail for violating it. It's just them refusing to accommodate something they disagree with. What happened to the right to say "no"?

When you do it as a group in a given location, you are making it the equivalent of a local law. It's the collusion that is the issue (actual collusion in this case, not "Russia Russia Russia! collusion).

Yes. And if they are coercing people to join their cause, we bust them up one side and down the other. But, in your ridiculous what-if scenario, anyone who wanted to is free to defy the "collusion" of the ten bakers and open a shop that does cater to gays. They'd probably do quite well.

It's the same type of end run gun grabbers do when they go after ammunition, or make training requirements onerous.

No, it's not the same. Those are laws. You'll be punished if you defy them. Defying your cabal of bakers would only make you money.

And as long as one does defy it, that breaks the government's interest.

What interest? Seriously, if you really had a community so uniformly against gay marriage, what "interest" is there in forcing them to support it against their will?

Those are laws that are designed as an end run around a right with the help of willing jurists. Maybe not the same inning, but the same ballpark.

I'm sure what you're saying here.

 

[martybegan]

And that's when the government has to take an interest in it.

When people collude like that, it is just the same as them passing a law. It's an end run around established rights of commerce.

No, it's not just the same as them passing a law. If they passed a law, people would be put in jail for violating it. It's just them refusing to accommodate something they disagree with. What happened to the right to say "no"?

When you do it as a group in a given location, you are making it the equivalent of a local law. It's the collusion that is the issue (actual collusion in this case, not "Russia Russia Russia! collusion).

Yes. And if they are coercing people to join their cause, we bust them up one side and down the other. But, in your ridiculous what-if scenario, anyone who wanted to is free to defy the "collusion" of the ten bakers and open a shop that does cater to gays. They'd probably do quite well.

It's the same type of end run gun grabbers do when they go after ammunition, or make training requirements onerous.

No, it's not the same. Those are laws. You'll be punished if you defy them. Defying your cabal of bakers would only make you money.

And as long as one does defy it, that breaks the government's interest.

What interest? Seriously, if you really had a community so uniformly against gay marriage, what "interest" is there in forcing them to support it against their will?

Those are laws that are designed as an end run around a right with the help of willing jurists. Maybe not the same inning, but the same ballpark.

I'm sure what you're saying here.

That we don't allow private enclaves to extend onto what is mostly public access land.

If you want to form your own exclusive community do it on 100% private land.

 

[dblack]

No, it's not just the same as them passing a law. If they passed a law, people would be put in jail for violating it. It's just them refusing to accommodate something they disagree with. What happened to the right to say "no"?

When you do it as a group in a given location, you are making it the equivalent of a local law. It's the collusion that is the issue (actual collusion in this case, not "Russia Russia Russia! collusion).

Yes. And if they are coercing people to join their cause, we bust them up one side and down the other. But, in your ridiculous what-if scenario, anyone who wanted to is free to defy the "collusion" of the ten bakers and open a shop that does cater to gays. They'd probably do quite well.

It's the same type of end run gun grabbers do when they go after ammunition, or make training requirements onerous.

No, it's not the same. Those are laws. You'll be punished if you defy them. Defying your cabal of bakers would only make you money.

And as long as one does defy it, that breaks the government's interest.

What interest? Seriously, if you really had a community so uniformly against gay marriage, what "interest" is there in forcing them to support it against their will?

Those are laws that are designed as an end run around a right with the help of willing jurists. Maybe not the same inning, but the same ballpark.

I'm sure what you're saying here.

That we don't allow private enclaves to extend onto what is mostly public access land.

If you want to form your own exclusive community do it on 100% private land.

Still not sure what you're getting at. It sounds like it's the commons line again. But it doesn't really answer my question. Do you really think forcing something on people so dead set against it will produce positive results? I mean, your example is ridiculously unlikely. Any city that can support ten bakers is going to have people who will be happy to bake cakes for gays. But if it were for real, if the town in question was really dead set against gay weddings, what good would it do to force them into it? They're not passing laws against gay weddings. They're not lynching anyone. They're just saying, "mm... no thanks, we'll pass".

 

[martybegan]

When you do it as a group in a given location, you are making it the equivalent of a local law. It's the collusion that is the issue (actual collusion in this case, not "Russia Russia Russia! collusion).

Yes. And if they are coercing people to join their cause, we bust them up one side and down the other. But, in your ridiculous what-if scenario, anyone who wanted to is free to defy the "collusion" of the ten bakers and open a shop that does cater to gays. They'd probably do quite well.

It's the same type of end run gun grabbers do when they go after ammunition, or make training requirements onerous.

No, it's not the same. Those are laws. You'll be punished if you defy them. Defying your cabal of bakers would only make you money.

And as long as one does defy it, that breaks the government's interest.

What interest? Seriously, if you really had a community so uniformly against gay marriage, what "interest" is there in forcing them to support it against their will?

Those are laws that are designed as an end run around a right with the help of willing jurists. Maybe not the same inning, but the same ballpark.

I'm sure what you're saying here.

That we don't allow private enclaves to extend onto what is mostly public access land.

If you want to form your own exclusive community do it on 100% private land.

Still not sure what you're getting at. It sounds like it's the commons line again. But it doesn't really answer my question. Do you really think forcing something on people so dead set against it will produce positive results? I mean, your example is ridiculously unlikely. Any city that can support ten bakers is going to have people who will be happy to bake cakes for gays. But if it were for real, if the town in question was really dead set against gay weddings, what good would it do to force them into it? They're not passing laws against gay weddings. They're not lynching anyone. They're just saying, "mm... no thanks, we'll pass".

Yes, that would probably be a situation that would not occur. Just thinking of all the variables here.

And I know the whole "collusion as an end run around laws" thing is complicated, but I think it is a valid issue.

What is the difference between a town where everyone doesn't sell, say to black people, and a town with a law that says you can't sell to black people?

 

[dblack]

Yes. And if they are coercing people to join their cause, we bust them up one side and down the other. But, in your ridiculous what-if scenario, anyone who wanted to is free to defy the "collusion" of the ten bakers and open a shop that does cater to gays. They'd probably do quite well.

No, it's not the same. Those are laws. You'll be punished if you defy them. Defying your cabal of bakers would only make you money.

And as long as one does defy it, that breaks the government's interest.

What interest? Seriously, if you really had a community so uniformly against gay marriage, what "interest" is there in forcing them to support it against their will?

Those are laws that are designed as an end run around a right with the help of willing jurists. Maybe not the same inning, but the same ballpark.

I'm sure what you're saying here.

That we don't allow private enclaves to extend onto what is mostly public access land.

If you want to form your own exclusive community do it on 100% private land.

Still not sure what you're getting at. It sounds like it's the commons line again. But it doesn't really answer my question. Do you really think forcing something on people so dead set against it will produce positive results? I mean, your example is ridiculously unlikely. Any city that can support ten bakers is going to have people who will be happy to bake cakes for gays. But if it were for real, if the town in question was really dead set against gay weddings, what good would it do to force them into it? They're not passing laws against gay weddings. They're not lynching anyone. They're just saying, "mm... no thanks, we'll pass".

Yes, that would probably be a situation that would not occur. Just thinking of all the variables here.

And I know the whole "collusion as an end run around laws" thing is complicated, but I think it is a valid issue.

What is the difference between a town where everyone doesn't sell, say to black people, and a town with a law that says you can't sell to black people?

In the former, anyone in that town can change their mind and sell to black people, and anyone who wants to can move to that town and sell to black people. In the latter, a law prevents that. You really don't see the difference?

 

[martybegan]

And as long as one does defy it, that breaks the government's interest.

What interest? Seriously, if you really had a community so uniformly against gay marriage, what "interest" is there in forcing them to support it against their will?

Those are laws that are designed as an end run around a right with the help of willing jurists. Maybe not the same inning, but the same ballpark.

I'm sure what you're saying here.

That we don't allow private enclaves to extend onto what is mostly public access land.

If you want to form your own exclusive community do it on 100% private land.

Still not sure what you're getting at. It sounds like it's the commons line again. But it doesn't really answer my question. Do you really think forcing something on people so dead set against it will produce positive results? I mean, your example is ridiculously unlikely. Any city that can support ten bakers is going to have people who will be happy to bake cakes for gays. But if it were for real, if the town in question was really dead set against gay weddings, what good would it do to force them into it? They're not passing laws against gay weddings. They're not lynching anyone. They're just saying, "mm... no thanks, we'll pass".

Yes, that would probably be a situation that would not occur. Just thinking of all the variables here.

And I know the whole "collusion as an end run around laws" thing is complicated, but I think it is a valid issue.

What is the difference between a town where everyone doesn't sell, say to black people, and a town with a law that says you can't sell to black people?

In the former, anyone in that town can change their mind and sell to black people, and anyone who wants to can move to that town and sell to black people. In the latter, a law prevents that. You really don't see the difference?

That's assuming everyone follows the law.

At its most basic level all a law is really is a rule agreed upon by a group by however the group decides to agree.

 

[dblack]

What is the difference between a town where everyone doesn't sell, say to black people, and a town with a law that says you can't sell to black people?

In the former, anyone in that town can change their mind and sell to black people, and anyone who wants to can move to that town and sell to black people. In the latter, a law prevents that. You really don't see the difference?

That's assuming everyone follows the law.

At its most basic level all a law is really is a rule agreed upon by a group by however the group decides to agree.

Not sure how that has any bearing, but, OK.

You're equating a bunch of bigots refusing to serve people they don't like with a law saying that no one can serve people the bigots don't like. Those are radically different things and not comparable.

 

[martybegan]

What is the difference between a town where everyone doesn't sell, say to black people, and a town with a law that says you can't sell to black people?

In the former, anyone in that town can change their mind and sell to black people, and anyone who wants to can move to that town and sell to black people. In the latter, a law prevents that. You really don't see the difference?

That's assuming everyone follows the law.

At its most basic level all a law is really is a rule agreed upon by a group by however the group decides to agree.

Not sure how that has any bearing, but, OK.

You're equating a bunch of bigots refusing to serve people they don't like with a law saying that no one can serve people the bigots don't like. Those are radically different things and not comparable.

When the laws were made that said no one can serve certain people most of the locals in the areas in question supported those laws wholeheartedly.

Now that those laws are unconstitutional, what's the difference in the end if it's just a bunch of people (all of them) in a given locality agreeing to do the same thing?

 

[dblack]

Now that those laws are unconstitutional, what's the difference in the end if it's just a bunch of people (all of them) in a given locality agreeing to do the same thing?

What's the difference between a town where no one is gay, and a law making homosexuality illegal?

 

[martybegan]

Now that those laws are unconstitutional, what's the difference in the end if it's just a bunch of people (all of them) in a given locality agreeing to do the same thing?

What's the difference between a town where no one is gay, and a law making homosexuality illegal?

It's more like the difference between a town where everyone agrees no one is gay (or else) and where homosexuality is illegal

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have a problem with bias being "allowed" in the first place. Not a fan of the Thought Police.

Then wouldn't you technically have a problem with bias NOT being allowed?

Let me clarify. I have a problem with the notion that thoughts and beliefs are things that government, or anyone else, should "allow". If there is anything in the universe that is mine and mine alone and no one else's to control or order, it is my thoughts and beliefs. And if they are NOT mine and mine alone, then nothing is, and there is no such thing as freedom at all.

That's nothing to disagree with. Now as an Engineer let me ask you how we implement that concept among everyone in the particular case of commerce, in PA's or by contract.

Um, you just butt out. Not really sure where you think the complicated "implementation" is there. Some crybaby comes to the government and says, "Waaahh! This guy wouldn't make a cake for my gay wedding! He hates gay people!" The government says, "Sorry. Not our problem. Go to another bake shop. They advertise in gay media, dumbass." End of story.

What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?

Call me when that's actually the case, rather than there being two other bakers within a block of Masterpiece, one of which actually advertises in local gay publications.

Not interested in making broad, sweeping public policy based on the most extreme hypothetical that's never actually happened.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?

Then you'd need to face the sad fact that you live on a town full of bigots. And while they can't legally prevent you from getting married, they want nothing to do with it.

Personally, I wouldn't choose to live in a very small, narrow-minded town if I was going to insist on being different from the mainstream, because duuuuuhhh, that's just going to make your life harder than it needs to be. If you choose to go that way, though, YOU get to deal with the consequences of your choice. You don't get to force everyone else to change to suit you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?

Then you'd need to face the sad fact that you live on a town full of bigots. And while they can't legally prevent you from getting married, they want nothing to do with it.

And that's when the government has to take an interest in it.

When people collude like that, it is just the same as them passing a law. It's an end run around established rights of commerce.

No, I'm sorry, I don't see "But no one agrees with me!!!!" as a reason that the government suddenly "needs" to step in and tell people what they can and can't believe.

At the point where they "collude" to keep anyone else from stepping up to fill that niche, THEN it becomes a government concern. Not before.

 

[martybegan]

Then wouldn't you technically have a problem with bias NOT being allowed?

Let me clarify. I have a problem with the notion that thoughts and beliefs are things that government, or anyone else, should "allow". If there is anything in the universe that is mine and mine alone and no one else's to control or order, it is my thoughts and beliefs. And if they are NOT mine and mine alone, then nothing is, and there is no such thing as freedom at all.

That's nothing to disagree with. Now as an Engineer let me ask you how we implement that concept among everyone in the particular case of commerce, in PA's or by contract.

Um, you just butt out. Not really sure where you think the complicated "implementation" is there. Some crybaby comes to the government and says, "Waaahh! This guy wouldn't make a cake for my gay wedding! He hates gay people!" The government says, "Sorry. Not our problem. Go to another bake shop. They advertise in gay media, dumbass." End of story.

What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?

Call me when that's actually the case, rather than there being two other bakers within a block of Masterpiece, one of which actually advertises in local gay publications.

Not interested in making broad, sweeping public policy based on the most extreme hypothetical that's never actually happened.

Ok then.