Dear Abby is a bigot

[Quantum Windbag]

As long as the cake-baker refuses to make camo-cakes for both hunters and non-hunters, there's no bigotry involved.

It's the consistency. Those who have no consistency have trouble understanding the concept of it.

You wouldn't know consistency if you tripped over it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually there's no commercial question here; the letter writer is being asked to bake a cake for her nephew. It's a family favor. That's why she's writing to Abby; it's a question about family protocol. She doesn't even say she has a business.

That's what makes this thread such a head scratcher.

Well, that, the "Abby is a bigot" non sequitur, and the gay hunter thing...

I never said it was a commercial question, I pointed out that it is bigotry. It just happens to be bigotry you support, like forcing people to subsume your beliefs.

 

[justonemorevoice]

Actually there's no commercial question here; the letter writer is being asked to bake a cake for her nephew. It's a family favor. That's why she's writing to Abby; it's a question about family protocol. She doesn't even say she has a business.

That's what makes this thread such a head scratcher.

Well, that, the "Abby is a bigot" non sequitur, and the gay hunter thing...

I never said it was a commercial question, I pointed out that it is bigotry. It just happens to be bigotry you support, like forcing people to subsume your beliefs.

umm, *raises hand tentatively*, can you tell me where "abby's" bigotry comes in?

 

[Pogo]

Actually there's no commercial question here; the letter writer is being asked to bake a cake for her nephew. It's a family favor. That's why she's writing to Abby; it's a question about family protocol. She doesn't even say she has a business.

That's what makes this thread such a head scratcher.

Well, that, the "Abby is a bigot" non sequitur, and the gay hunter thing...

I never said it was a commercial question, I pointed out that it is bigotry. It just happens to be bigotry you support, like forcing people to subsume your beliefs.

Uhhh.. huh.

And the link to this "bigotry I support" is ... where again?

Not to mention the "bigotry" itself...

The definition:
big·ot[ bíggət ]
intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views

What the columnist wrote:

Feeling as strongly as you do about not attending, write the happy couple a warm letter wishing them a lifetime of happiness together and include a nice wedding gift -- I'm sure there will be no hurt feelings.

"Write the happy couple a warm letter". Oh the bigotry. Oh the intolerance. Oh the refusal to accept the letter writer's views.

I think the word you want here is "diggitry".

Reading comprehension: it's not just for breakfast any more.

 

[justonemorevoice]

Actually there's no commercial question here; the letter writer is being asked to bake a cake for her nephew. It's a family favor. That's why she's writing to Abby; it's a question about family protocol. She doesn't even say she has a business.

That's what makes this thread such a head scratcher.

Well, that, the "Abby is a bigot" non sequitur, and the gay hunter thing...

I never said it was a commercial question, I pointed out that it is bigotry. It just happens to be bigotry you support, like forcing people to subsume your beliefs.

Uhhh.. huh.

And the link to this "bigotry I support" is ... where again?

Not to mention the "bigotry" itself...

The definition:
big·ot[ bíggət ]
intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views

What the columnist wrote:

Feeling as strongly as you do about not attending, write the happy couple a warm letter wishing them a lifetime of happiness together and include a nice wedding gift -- I'm sure there will be no hurt feelings.

"Write the happy couple a warm letter". Oh the bigotry. Oh the intolerance. Oh the refusal to accept the letter writer's views.

I think the word you want here is "diggitry".

Reading comprehension: it's not just for breakfast any more.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHlrJWqjO4E]Larry the Cable Guy at the IP Casino, Resort & Spa - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mertex]

As long as the cake-baker refuses to make camo-cakes for both hunters and non-hunters, there's no bigotry involved.

It's the consistency. Those who have no consistency have trouble understanding the concept of it.

Exactly.....but try and get the dumbos to understand that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually there's no commercial question here; the letter writer is being asked to bake a cake for her nephew. It's a family favor. That's why she's writing to Abby; it's a question about family protocol. She doesn't even say she has a business.

That's what makes this thread such a head scratcher.

Well, that, the "Abby is a bigot" non sequitur, and the gay hunter thing...

It’s more than just a head scratcher, the premise of the thread is comprehensively ignorant and wrong.

As already correctly noted, public accommodations laws apply only to commerce, the woman writing the letter is not a business, as the primary focus of her livelihood is not baking and selling cakes.

Public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination against gay patrons are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence where to allow such discrimination will have an adverse effect on local markets and all interrelated markets; these laws are appropriate and Constitutional because they seek a proper legislative end: maintaining the integrity of the markets (Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005)).

Moreover, should public accommodations laws also have the effect of combating discrimination, they would remain Constitutional pursuant to this legitimate goal (Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. US (1964)).

The OP attempts –and fails – to make some sort of comparison between someone refusing to bake a cake because she is opposed to hunting and someone who refuses to sell a cake to a gay patron because he ‘opposes’ homosexuality. The OP does succeed, however, in exhibiting his ignorance of the fallacy that results when one seeks to compare two completely different, unrelated things.

 

[Mertex]

Actually there's no commercial question here; the letter writer is being asked to bake a cake for her nephew. It's a family favor. That's why she's writing to Abby; it's a question about family protocol. She doesn't even say she has a business.

That's what makes this thread such a head scratcher.

Well, that, the "Abby is a bigot" non sequitur, and the gay hunter thing...

I never said it was a commercial question, I pointed out that it is bigotry. It just happens to be bigotry you support, like forcing people to subsume your beliefs.

umm, *raises hand tentatively*, can you tell me where "abby's" bigotry comes in?

I guess it's bigotry because "he" says it is bigotry....he, who doesn't understand the entire concept of why the bill in Ariz was struck down.....no wonder the right keeps coming up with the most absurd policies......they're not all there.

 

[justonemorevoice]

Actually there's no commercial question here; the letter writer is being asked to bake a cake for her nephew. It's a family favor. That's why she's writing to Abby; it's a question about family protocol. She doesn't even say she has a business.

That's what makes this thread such a head scratcher.

Well, that, the "Abby is a bigot" non sequitur, and the gay hunter thing...

It’s more than just a head scratcher, the premise of the thread is comprehensively ignorant and wrong.

As already correctly noted, public accommodations laws apply only to commerce, the woman writing the letter is not a business, as the primary focus of her livelihood is not baking and selling cakes.

Public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination against gay patrons are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence where to allow such discrimination will have an adverse effect on local markets and all interrelated markets; these laws are appropriate and Constitutional because they seek a proper legislative end: maintaining the integrity of the markets (Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005)).

Moreover, should public accommodations laws also have the effect of combating discrimination, they would remain Constitutional pursuant to this legitimate goal (Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. US (1964)).

The OP attempts –and fails – to make some sort of comparison between someone refusing to bake a cake because she is opposed to hunting and someone who refuses to sell a cake to a gay patron because he ‘opposes’ homosexuality. The OP does succeed, however, in exhibiting his ignorance of the fallacy that results when one seeks to compare two completely different, unrelated things.

im still scratching my head trying to figure why abby's ghost/writer is a bigot also.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually there's no commercial question here; the letter writer is being asked to bake a cake for her nephew. It's a family favor. That's why she's writing to Abby; it's a question about family protocol. She doesn't even say she has a business.

That's what makes this thread such a head scratcher.

Well, that, the "Abby is a bigot" non sequitur, and the gay hunter thing...

I never said it was a commercial question, I pointed out that it is bigotry. It just happens to be bigotry you support, like forcing people to subsume your beliefs.

umm, *raises hand tentatively*, can you tell me where "abby's" bigotry comes in?

The same place mine comes in when I support the rights of bakers not to bake a wedding cake they object to in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually there's no commercial question here; the letter writer is being asked to bake a cake for her nephew. It's a family favor. That's why she's writing to Abby; it's a question about family protocol. She doesn't even say she has a business.

That's what makes this thread such a head scratcher.

Well, that, the "Abby is a bigot" non sequitur, and the gay hunter thing...

I never said it was a commercial question, I pointed out that it is bigotry. It just happens to be bigotry you support, like forcing people to subsume your beliefs.

Uhhh.. huh.

And the link to this "bigotry I support" is ... where again?

Not to mention the "bigotry" itself...

The definition:
big·ot[ bíggət ]
intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views

What the columnist wrote:

Feeling as strongly as you do about not attending, write the happy couple a warm letter wishing them a lifetime of happiness together and include a nice wedding gift -- I'm sure there will be no hurt feelings.

"Write the happy couple a warm letter". Oh the bigotry. Oh the intolerance. Oh the refusal to accept the letter writer's views.

I think the word you want here is "diggitry".

Reading comprehension: it's not just for breakfast any more.

Did you suddenly stop supporting laws that require bakers to bake cakes for everyone that walks through their doors? Is this another example of you not being responsible for the words that appear in your posts?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As long as the cake-baker refuses to make camo-cakes for both hunters and non-hunters, there's no bigotry involved.

It's the consistency. Those who have no consistency have trouble understanding the concept of it.

Exactly.....but try and get the dumbos to understand that.

She bakes wedding cakes for PETA nuts, but not for hunters, what did I miss?

 

[Mertex]

I never said it was a commercial question, I pointed out that it is bigotry. It just happens to be bigotry you support, like forcing people to subsume your beliefs.

umm, *raises hand tentatively*, can you tell me where "abby's" bigotry comes in?

The same place mine comes in when I support the rights of bakers not to bake a wedding cake they object to in any way, shape, or form.

Not if there is a law saying they can't discriminate. I thought you were a supporter of the Constitution? Or, State Rights?

Hahaha, I guess you're not....just when it suits your fancy?

What a bunch of dishonest people we have....they claim to love the Constitution but get their panties all in a wad when it tells them they have to do something they don't want to do, or that they can't do something they want to do....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually there's no commercial question here; the letter writer is being asked to bake a cake for her nephew. It's a family favor. That's why she's writing to Abby; it's a question about family protocol. She doesn't even say she has a business.

That's what makes this thread such a head scratcher.

Well, that, the "Abby is a bigot" non sequitur, and the gay hunter thing...

It’s more than just a head scratcher, the premise of the thread is comprehensively ignorant and wrong.

As already correctly noted, public accommodations laws apply only to commerce, the woman writing the letter is not a business, as the primary focus of her livelihood is not baking and selling cakes.

Public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination against gay patrons are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence where to allow such discrimination will have an adverse effect on local markets and all interrelated markets; these laws are appropriate and Constitutional because they seek a proper legislative end: maintaining the integrity of the markets (Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005)).

Moreover, should public accommodations laws also have the effect of combating discrimination, they would remain Constitutional pursuant to this legitimate goal (Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. US (1964)).

The OP attempts –and fails – to make some sort of comparison between someone refusing to bake a cake because she is opposed to hunting and someone who refuses to sell a cake to a gay patron because he ‘opposes’ homosexuality. The OP does succeed, however, in exhibiting his ignorance of the fallacy that results when one seeks to compare two completely different, unrelated things.

Feel free to point out where I said anything about the law in the OP.

Don't scratch out all your hair while you are looking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

umm, *raises hand tentatively*, can you tell me where "abby's" bigotry comes in?

The same place mine comes in when I support the rights of bakers not to bake a wedding cake they object to in any way, shape, or form.

Not if there is a law saying they can't discriminate. I thought you were a supporter of the Constitution? Or, State Rights?

Hahaha, I guess you're not....just when it suits your fancy?

What a bunch of dishonest people we have....they claim to love the Constitution but get their panties all in a wad when it tells them they have to do something they don't want to do, or that they can't do something they want to do....

Why the **** do people keep deflecting this to the law? This thread is about bigotry, not the law. If the only way you can know if something is right or wrong is by reading the law, you have a serious problem.

 

[Mertex]

As long as the cake-baker refuses to make camo-cakes for both hunters and non-hunters, there's no bigotry involved.

It's the consistency. Those who have no consistency have trouble understanding the concept of it.

Exactly.....but try and get the dumbos to understand that.

She bakes wedding cakes for PETA nuts, but not for hunters, what did I miss?

Show me where there is a law that says she can't bake a wedding cake for PETA unless she bakes one for the hunter?

On the other hand, many states (Ariz is not one of them) have laws that do not allow businesses to discriminate against gays.....get it? (No, I'm sure you won't because it has been explained to you gadzillions of times and you are still not understanding it....

 

[Mertex]

Actually there's no commercial question here; the letter writer is being asked to bake a cake for her nephew. It's a family favor. That's why she's writing to Abby; it's a question about family protocol. She doesn't even say she has a business.

That's what makes this thread such a head scratcher.

Well, that, the "Abby is a bigot" non sequitur, and the gay hunter thing...

It’s more than just a head scratcher, the premise of the thread is comprehensively ignorant and wrong.

As already correctly noted, public accommodations laws apply only to commerce, the woman writing the letter is not a business, as the primary focus of her livelihood is not baking and selling cakes.

Public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination against gay patrons are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence where to allow such discrimination will have an adverse effect on local markets and all interrelated markets; these laws are appropriate and Constitutional because they seek a proper legislative end: maintaining the integrity of the markets (Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005)).

Moreover, should public accommodations laws also have the effect of combating discrimination, they would remain Constitutional pursuant to this legitimate goal (Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. US (1964)).

The OP attempts –and fails – to make some sort of comparison between someone refusing to bake a cake because she is opposed to hunting and someone who refuses to sell a cake to a gay patron because he ‘opposes’ homosexuality. The OP does succeed, however, in exhibiting his ignorance of the fallacy that results when one seeks to compare two completely different, unrelated things.

Feel free to point out where I said anything about the law in the OP.

Don't scratch out all your hair while you are looking.

That's the whole point.....it's the "law" that dictates that you can't discriminate against gays....in some states. The fact that you're not saying anything about the law just proves that you're not understanding it. If the State says you cannot discriminate against gays, you can't, if you are a business owner (actually you can, but you can't state that as the reason) - but, I don't know of any state that has a law that says you have to bake a cake for anyone that comes into your bakery as long as the reason isn't because they are black, hispanic, Asian, white, or if the State has a law referencing gays, because they are gay).....any other reason is OK.

Geez, this is something a 3rd grader would understand.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Exactly.....but try and get the dumbos to understand that.

She bakes wedding cakes for PETA nuts, but not for hunters, what did I miss?

Show me where there is a law that says she can't bake a wedding cake for PETA unless she bakes one for the hunter?

On the other hand, many states (Ariz is not one of them) have laws that do not allow businesses to discriminate against gays.....get it? (No, I'm sure you won't because it has been explained to you gadzillions of times and you are still not understanding it....

This is not about the law, but thanks for playing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It’s more than just a head scratcher, the premise of the thread is comprehensively ignorant and wrong.

As already correctly noted, public accommodations laws apply only to commerce, the woman writing the letter is not a business, as the primary focus of her livelihood is not baking and selling cakes.

Public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination against gay patrons are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence where to allow such discrimination will have an adverse effect on local markets and all interrelated markets; these laws are appropriate and Constitutional because they seek a proper legislative end: maintaining the integrity of the markets (Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005)).

Moreover, should public accommodations laws also have the effect of combating discrimination, they would remain Constitutional pursuant to this legitimate goal (Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. US (1964)).

The OP attempts –and fails – to make some sort of comparison between someone refusing to bake a cake because she is opposed to hunting and someone who refuses to sell a cake to a gay patron because he ‘opposes’ homosexuality. The OP does succeed, however, in exhibiting his ignorance of the fallacy that results when one seeks to compare two completely different, unrelated things.

Feel free to point out where I said anything about the law in the OP.

Don't scratch out all your hair while you are looking.

That's the whole point.....it's the "law" that dictates that you can't discriminate against gays....in some states. The fact that you're not saying anything about the law just proves that you're not understanding it. If the State says you cannot discriminate against gays, you can't, if you are a business owner (actually you can, but you can't state that as the reason) - but, I don't know of any state that has a law that says you have to bake a cake for anyone that comes into your bakery as long as the reason isn't because they are black, hispanic, Asian, white, or if the State has a law referencing gays, because they are gay).....any other reason is OK.

Geez, this is something a 3rd grader would understand.

If that is the point you wouldn't have a problem with any business in Arizona putting up a sign saying "No Homosexuals." Since I know you would scream to high heaven if that happened, it cannot possibly be thepoint, and the only possible reason to bring it up is that you know you look stupid.

 

[Big Black Dog]

When will people who bake cakes learn learn that they don't have any rights at all and that their personal principles do not trump trump the absolute right of other people to enslave them?

My nephew is getting married next year. I was very excited because I love him and I'm a baker. I had planned on making the groom's cake as I did for his brother's and sister's weddings. The problem is, they have decided on a hunting theme for their wedding -- including a camouflage wedding dress for the bride.
Abby, I am an animal-rights activist. I'm against any form of hunting. I am also involved with several animal-protection groups. My nephew and his fiancee know how hard I work for animal rights -- just the thought of a hunting theme for a wedding makes me ill.
I don't even want to attend, let alone make a cake. What can I do so there will be no hurt feelings if I don't want to attend or participate? -- BAKER IN THE MIDWEST

Animal-Lover Is Appalled By Camouflage Wedding

Get the point?

Well, if you don't go, family members will think you're a *****. If you go, and make an ass of yourself, everybody will think you're a *****. My advice would be to go, smile a lot, keep your thoughts to yourself, be charming, and duck out as soon as your absence would be tolerated. This is how I behave when I have to be within a large group of Democrats. This plan has worked well for me for a long time.