Denver baker sued for refusing to write anti-gay slogans on cake

[Faun]

Our rights come from nature, but that doesn't stop government from violating them.

No my little infant, they don't. In nature you have no rights, not a single one, and she couldn't care less whether you live or die.

Try taking a bone away from a dog and then tell me he doesn't believe in rights.

Just because he can lick his own balls doesn't mean nature thought he deserved that. The only rights you have are what the government provides, and you can get enforced. Nature and God can't help you out on that in the slightest.

If that's true, then no injustice is done to gays by not allowing them to marry.

Turds like you never think out the logical conclusions of your moron theories.

Pretty ******* retarded. He pointed out the government provides you rights (though protects is more accurate). Leaving the logical conclusion being the government provides the same protection under the law for everyone, not just heterosexuals.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

However, your theory says slavery didn't violate anyone's rights.

Mine is not a theory, mine is reality, and that's not what it says dummy.

 

[bripat9643]

Our rights come from nature, but that doesn't stop government from violating them.

No my little infant, they don't. In nature you have no rights, not a single one, and she couldn't care less whether you live or die.

Try taking a bone away from a dog and then tell me he doesn't believe in rights.

Just because he can lick his own balls doesn't mean nature thought he deserved that. The only rights you have are what the government provides, and you can get enforced. Nature and God can't help you out on that in the slightest.

If that's true, then no injustice is done to gays by not allowing them to marry.

Turds like you never think out the logical conclusions of your moron theories.

Pretty ******* retarded. He pointed out the government provides you rights (though protects is more accurate). Leaving the logical conclusion being the government provides the same protection under the law for everyone, not just heterosexuals.

Where is it written that government must provide the same protection to everyone? If government chooses to give some people more rights than others, how can you claim that is unjust? After all, you deny the proposition that anyone has a natural right to be treated equally.

However, I know I'm wasting my time pointing out the contradiction in your theory of rights because you're just too stupid to get it. The point has already gone over your head once. I know from experience that it you'll respond like a dear caught in the headlights every time I explain it.

 

[bripat9643]

However, your theory says slavery didn't violate anyone's rights.

Mine is not a theory, mine is reality, and that's not what it says dummy.

It's a theory, and that's exactly what it says. The reality is that you have one theory of rights when it's convenient for one situation, and another theory of rights in another situation. I've seen liberals use this brand of "logic" ever since I started posting in forums like this one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Our rights come from nature, but that doesn't stop government from violating them.

No my little infant, they don't. In nature you have no rights, not a single one, and she couldn't care less whether you live or die.

Try taking a bone away from a dog and then tell me he doesn't believe in rights.

That dog will fight the same for that bone if he stole it off your table. Is the right to steal one of those among the God-given?

 

[Faun]

The moron in the OP's 1st Amendment rights cannot be imposed on the baker's 1st Amendment rights.

As a baker she complied by baking the cake. She even offered to help the hatemonger write his bile. But PA laws do not require her to do his dirty work.

When the original baker refused to make a cake for the gay wedding all he needed to do was to bake the cake and let them put whatever topping they wanted on it. He violated PA laws by refusing to even bake them a cake.

In this instance she was in compliance by baking the "bible shaped" cakes.

So I don't see her losing this on PA grounds myself.

Not to mention, a baker exposes themselves to lawsuits if they write hateful, discriminatory messages on a cake. You can't force bakers to be bigots.

That's pure idiocy. Unless they name specific persons, there is no cause for a tort.

Nonsense. For example, if a gay person works for that baker, they could sue for emotional distress in the workplace, even though their name didn't appear on the cake.

 

[JoeB131]

Agreed. All children have equal rights to have a mother and a father incentivized by states to be in their home as parental role models.

Also, all children have equal rights to live in a state where behaviors are regulated by the majority. If anything-goes "marriage equality" happens, let it be state by state after a consensus deliberation, as Windsor 2013 mandates.

All children also have the right to a judicial federal appelate system where judges underneath SCOTUS respect and abide by SCOTUS' Findings on a specific question of law until SCOTUS notifies them otherwise on the merits of any challenge to those current Findings.

Hey, Silly-hoot, Alabama just became the38th state to legalize gay marriage.

Maybe you need to look into grief counselling.

 

[Faun]

No my little infant, they don't. In nature you have no rights, not a single one, and she couldn't care less whether you live or die.

Try taking a bone away from a dog and then tell me he doesn't believe in rights.

Just because he can lick his own balls doesn't mean nature thought he deserved that. The only rights you have are what the government provides, and you can get enforced. Nature and God can't help you out on that in the slightest.

If that's true, then no injustice is done to gays by not allowing them to marry.

Turds like you never think out the logical conclusions of your moron theories.

Pretty ******* retarded. He pointed out the government provides you rights (though protects is more accurate). Leaving the logical conclusion being the government provides the same protection under the law for everyone, not just heterosexuals.

Where is it written that government must provide the same protection to everyone? If government chooses to give some people more rights than others, how can you claim that is unjust? After all, you deny the proposition that anyone has a natural right to be treated equally.

However, I know I'm wasting my time pointing out the contradiction in your theory of rights because you're just too stupid to get it. The point has already gone over your head once. I know from experience that it you'll respond like a dear caught in the headlights every time I explain it.

Holyfuckingshit!

The Constitution is not just a goddamn piece of paper...

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our rights come from nature, but that doesn't stop government from violating them.

No my little infant, they don't. In nature you have no rights, not a single one, and she couldn't care less whether you live or die.

Try taking a bone away from a dog and then tell me he doesn't believe in rights.

Just because he can lick his own balls doesn't mean nature thought he deserved that. The only rights you have are what the government provides, and you can get enforced. Nature and God can't help you out on that in the slightest.

If that's true, then no injustice is done to gays by not allowing them to marry.

Turds like you never think out the logical conclusions of your moron theories.

bripat, who is one of the lowest-order concrete thinkers on USMB, is trying to school this betters.

bripat, it is a difference of kind not degree, you do understand?

 

[Syriusly]

If government passes laws that are not equal, then no injustice is done. That's your theory.

No, that's my theory because that's utterly idiotic. And they don't have a "right" by God or nature to be treated equally but under our laws granting us rights they are supposed to be unless some compelling reason can be found for them being unequal.

So before the 14th Amendment was passed, no injustice was being done to slaves.

You have to be a major loon to believe that. All the morons who defend Lincoln claim the Civil War was justified because slavery was such a heinous violation of human rights. However, your theory says slavery didn't violate anyone's rights.

Well that may be what the moron's claim- but not the rest of us.

Of course the moron's who attack Lincoln say that slavery had nothing to do with the Confederate slave states attempt to secede from the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

So you want to claim you don't hate anyone, but you just hate to see certain types of people have equal rights.

Yes, that's so much nicer...

Who said I hate, I disagree there is a difference. I was wanting to compromise, but you couldn't have that.

No you weren't. Besides, why do we have to 'compromise' when it comes to gay rights?

Are you willing to 'compromise' your own rights?

Well I was forced to, so now we will have kids with blood parents in society as normal. Thanks to liberals.

You have a remarkable capacity for making posts that make no sense.

You perverts are ruining a moral society.

LOL....I would say we are saving society from perverts like you.

 

[bripat9643]

Try taking a bone away from a dog and then tell me he doesn't believe in rights.

Just because he can lick his own balls doesn't mean nature thought he deserved that. The only rights you have are what the government provides, and you can get enforced. Nature and God can't help you out on that in the slightest.

If that's true, then no injustice is done to gays by not allowing them to marry.

Turds like you never think out the logical conclusions of your moron theories.

Pretty ******* retarded. He pointed out the government provides you rights (though protects is more accurate). Leaving the logical conclusion being the government provides the same protection under the law for everyone, not just heterosexuals.

Where is it written that government must provide the same protection to everyone? If government chooses to give some people more rights than others, how can you claim that is unjust? After all, you deny the proposition that anyone has a natural right to be treated equally.

However, I know I'm wasting my time pointing out the contradiction in your theory of rights because you're just too stupid to get it. The point has already gone over your head once. I know from experience that it you'll respond like a dear caught in the headlights every time I explain it.

Holyfuckingshit!

The Constitution is not just a goddamn piece of paper...

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

As I indicted previously, my point went right over your head. Those bright things you're looking at is an oncoming car.

 

[bripat9643]

If government passes laws that are not equal, then no injustice is done. That's your theory.

No, that's my theory because that's utterly idiotic. And they don't have a "right" by God or nature to be treated equally but under our laws granting us rights they are supposed to be unless some compelling reason can be found for them being unequal.

So before the 14th Amendment was passed, no injustice was being done to slaves.

You have to be a major loon to believe that. All the morons who defend Lincoln claim the Civil War was justified because slavery was such a heinous violation of human rights. However, your theory says slavery didn't violate anyone's rights.

Well that may be what the moron's claim- but not the rest of us.

Of course the moron's who attack Lincoln say that slavery had nothing to do with the Confederate slave states attempt to secede from the United States.

No, they say that slavery had nothing to do with Lincoln's decision to invade Virginia. Neither did Ft Sumter, for that matter.

And, yes, the rest of you claim rights are purely a government creation, so you have to concede that slavery didn't violate anyone's rights before 1864.

 

[Skylar]

Baker refuses wedding cake for gay couple = Discrimination.

Baker refuses cake for homophobe = Not discrimination.

The baker didn't refuse to make a cake for a homophobe. He agreed to make any cake the guy wanted. What he refused to do is write what the homophobe wanted written. But provided the frosting bag for the customer to use and write it themselves.

 

[Skylar]

this has become the Homophobes last desperate stand.

We will fight them in the bakeries, we will fight them in the photography studios...

I think gay marriage advocates may be overplaying their hand.

 

[Faun]

Just because he can lick his own balls doesn't mean nature thought he deserved that. The only rights you have are what the government provides, and you can get enforced. Nature and God can't help you out on that in the slightest.

If that's true, then no injustice is done to gays by not allowing them to marry.

Turds like you never think out the logical conclusions of your moron theories.

Pretty ******* retarded. He pointed out the government provides you rights (though protects is more accurate). Leaving the logical conclusion being the government provides the same protection under the law for everyone, not just heterosexuals.

Where is it written that government must provide the same protection to everyone? If government chooses to give some people more rights than others, how can you claim that is unjust? After all, you deny the proposition that anyone has a natural right to be treated equally.

However, I know I'm wasting my time pointing out the contradiction in your theory of rights because you're just too stupid to get it. The point has already gone over your head once. I know from experience that it you'll respond like a dear caught in the headlights every time I explain it.

Holyfuckingshit!

The Constitution is not just a goddamn piece of paper...

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

As I indicted previously, my point went right over your head. Those bright things you're looking at is an oncoming car.

You're a raging imbecile. You asked where it's written the government must provide equal protection to all and I showed you where. Your whiney complaints since only reflect on your inability to learn.

 

[bripat9643]

If that's true, then no injustice is done to gays by not allowing them to marry.

Turds like you never think out the logical conclusions of your moron theories.

Pretty ******* retarded. He pointed out the government provides you rights (though protects is more accurate). Leaving the logical conclusion being the government provides the same protection under the law for everyone, not just heterosexuals.

Where is it written that government must provide the same protection to everyone? If government chooses to give some people more rights than others, how can you claim that is unjust? After all, you deny the proposition that anyone has a natural right to be treated equally.

However, I know I'm wasting my time pointing out the contradiction in your theory of rights because you're just too stupid to get it. The point has already gone over your head once. I know from experience that it you'll respond like a dear caught in the headlights every time I explain it.

Holyfuckingshit!

The Constitution is not just a goddamn piece of paper...

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

As I indicted previously, my point went right over your head. Those bright things you're looking at is an oncoming car.

You're a raging imbecile. You asked where it's written the government must provide equal protection to all and I showed you where. Your whiney complaints since only reflect on your inability to learn.

I referred to government in general, not our government in particular, moron. If another government decides not to allow gays to marry, who are you to say that their rights are being violated?

You should try to get out of the way of that oncoming car.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripatty is getting pity patted around the OP.

The themes are cleare even though bripat does not understand.

 

[Mac1958]

I think gay marriage advocates may be overplaying their hand.

Yep. They're desperate to intimidate and punish, and they just don't need to take it this far.

Gay marriage will ultimately be legalized, that's the main thing, but that's just not enough for them.

They're after complete submission and control.

.

 

[Kosh]

Baker refuses wedding cake for gay couple = Discrimination.

Baker refuses cake for homophobe = Not discrimination.

The baker didn't refuse to make a cake for a homophobe. He agreed to make any cake the guy wanted. What he refused to do is write what the homophobe wanted written. But provided the frosting bag for the customer to use and write it themselves.

So you agree this is hypocritical of the far left to do such things?