Gay wedding cakes at Muslim bakeries.

[GreenBean]

That state doesnt have PA laws for gays like some states do. Michigan i believe? That video was bunked a long time ago.
Just to stop the hacks from saying i want trannies pissing beside little girls, i dont. I fully support a business doing whatever they wish.

Saw a good line today. Paraphrasing: If baking a wedding cake for a gay couple says you endorse homosexuality, then voting for Roy Moore says that you endorse pedophilia. So, so true. Bigly.

The diff. being Moore has been accused, although probably guilty, he has only been convicted in the court of public opinion not a court of law.

 

[Syriusly]

Ever wonder what would happen if someone asked a Muslim bakery to make a gay wedding cake? Wonder no more.

Never mind the video, I don't need the video to understand the guy's point.
I already "get" where he is coming from.

Here is where it gets sticky however...
Forget gay wedding cakes, how about an ordinary person shopping at Target, who
comes to the checkout counter, and the Somalian checkout clerk, a Muslim, refuses to ring up the shopper's groceries because they have purchased beer, or vodka, or they see bacon in there somewhere, or dog food.
This has actually happened, in Minneapolis.

Forget gay wedding cakes, how about a Somalian cabbie who refuses to pick up blind passengers because they have seeing-eye dogs. Or they refuse to pick up fares who have pork or alcohol. That also happened in Minneapolis.
In the case of Target, the city didn't have to attempt any government action, Target management stepped in and made it clear that the checkers either accommodate all shoppers or find new jobs.
In the case of the cabbies however, the government DID step in and THEY made it clear to cabbies that they either accommodate ALL passengers or else.
But interestingly, it was the MUSLIMS themselves who demonstrated even more smarts:

"This type of job helps immigrants move to the next level," says Hassan Mouhamud, Imam of the AlTaqwa Mosque in St. Paul, and a scholar of Islamic Law.

"Blocking that," he says, "can cost jobs, it can also cost immigrants and their families the American dream."

Mouhamud says there are schools of Islamic thought that allow for compromise.

He says under the Hanafi School of Islamic law, if Muslims live in a country that does not enforce their religious law, they can defer to the written laws of that country.

"American society has a rule of respecting religions," says Mouhamed. " We hope there is room to accommodate all faiths."

Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs

So, if the Muslim community has demonstrated that there is room for compromise and that it is proper to accommodate people who do not share your religious beliefs, why can't Christians with "deeply held religious beliefs" find it in themselves to accommodate others, too?

My point is that wherever you go, you will find religious fundamentalists who try to rule out accommodation for anyone outside their circle, and feel it is God's work in doing so, but the larger religious community sees it as an unjust expression of intolerance.
And by defending the narrow-minded and intolerant, you are demanding that we, as Americans, tolerate intolerance.
And tolerating intolerance INVARIABLY leads to destruction of the very fabric of democracy itself.
So why not just admit to everyone that you hate democracy, that cuts out all of the nonsense anecdotes and tomfoolery.
I might disagree with your love of theocracy but at least I could respect the fact that you're an unashamed theocrat.

That said, theocracy is wholly incompatible with democracy, yes even representative democracy which is enshrined within a constitutional republic.
That IS what most people generally accept when they SAY the WORD "democracy" because intelligent people understand that there is no practical application of PURE democracy, and that the Founders themselves recognized that democracy can only really exist in its representative form within a constitutional republic.
The fact is, it can also exist within a constitutional monarchy as well but the Founders seemed to eschew the monarchy....for "some strange reason"

And I have never seen any of the Christians who are 'outraged' that a Christian baker is being asked to sell a wedding cake to gay customers- ever be outraged that Muslim cabbies were forced to transport dogs, or sell alcohol as part of their jobs.

 

[GreenBean]

Commerce clause .

The Commerce clause grants the federal government the right to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes' - Irrelevant cat in the hat.

 

[Timmy]

And it wouldn't matter.

Muslims should also make the fucking cake.

Religion no matter the god is just bs reason to discriminate.

Anyone should be allowed to choose who they serve and what they serve. Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional as they give one group more protection than another


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Incorrect.

Show me the part of the Constitution that gives the government the right to tell a private business whom they must serve and what they must serve.

Commerce clause .

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

How does this provide for the government to tell private businesses what they must make and whom they must serve?

Not even close

It’s pretty broad powers.

That aside , where does the con say businesses are the same as citizens ?

 

[TNHarley]

That state doesnt have PA laws for gays like some states do. Michigan i believe? That video was bunked a long time ago.
Just to stop the hacks from saying i want trannies pissing beside little girls, i dont. I fully support a business doing whatever they wish.

Saw a good line today. Paraphrasing: If baking a wedding cake for a gay couple says you endorse homosexuality, then voting for Roy Moore says that you endorse pedophilia. So, so true. Bigly.

Ray isn't accused of pedophilia but I get it.
I'm not looking at it as a feels kind of way though..

 

[Peach]

Incorrect.

Show me the part of the Constitution that gives the government the right to tell a private business whom they must serve and what they must serve.

14th Amendment, s. 1:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.

That prohibits the government from doing those things, that is what the "No State" means. There is not a thing in there about private citizens.

The point of the constitution is to limit the power of the government, not curtail the freedoms of the citizenry.

Businesses open to the public, and using public resources, must serve the public. Since the public pays for roads, emergency services, police protection, etc., if you don't want to deal with overgrown people above 5'8" in height, for example, suck it up, and stay in your home.

Your home uses public resources, so you are going to let me into your home anytime I want?

No, my home is not a public business. Those you describe can start private clubs. Do you want to go all the way back to the Montgomery Bus Line? The Courts ruled they had to allow black passengers despite their "preference". Explain the difference with the public business selling cakes.

 

[Peach]

Anyone should be allowed to choose who they serve and what they serve. Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional as they give one group more protection than another


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Incorrect.

Show me the part of the Constitution that gives the government the right to tell a private business whom they must serve and what they must serve.

Commerce clause .

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

How does this provide for the government to tell private businesses what they must make and whom they must serve?

Not even close

It’s pretty broad powers.

That aside , where does the con say businesses are the same as citizens ?

The phrase used is "Public accommodations":

(a)Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b)Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments.

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Show me the part of the Constitution that gives the government the right to tell a private business whom they must serve and what they must serve.

14th Amendment, s. 1:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.

That prohibits the government from doing those things, that is what the "No State" means. There is not a thing in there about private citizens.

The point of the constitution is to limit the power of the government, not curtail the freedoms of the citizenry.

Businesses open to the public, and using public resources, must serve the public. Since the public pays for roads, emergency services, police protection, etc., if you don't want to deal with overgrown people above 5'8" in height, for example, suck it up, and stay in your home.

Your home uses public resources, so you are going to let me into your home anytime I want?

No, my home is not a public business. Those you describe can start private clubs. Do you want to go all the way back to the Montgomery Bus Line? The Courts ruled they had to allow black passengers despite their "preference". Explain the difference with the public business selling cakes.

I am aware of what the courts ruled, I happen to disagree with it. There are lots of things that SCOTUS has ruled that I think are incorrect.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Incorrect.

Show me the part of the Constitution that gives the government the right to tell a private business whom they must serve and what they must serve.

Commerce clause .

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

How does this provide for the government to tell private businesses what they must make and whom they must serve?

Not even close

It’s pretty broad powers.

That aside , where does the con say businesses are the same as citizens ?

The phrase used is "Public accommodations":

(a)Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b)Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments.

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

Yes, that is the phrase, a phrase no where in the constitution and one made up to justify unconstitutional laws and regulations.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Commerce clause grants the federal government the right to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes' - Irrelevant cat in the hat.

The Constitutional Commerce Clause is about regulating interstate commerce.

However, under the 10th Amendment States can regulate intrastate commerce.

The bakers ran afoul of a State Public Accommodation Law (not a Federal one) regarding the States regulation of intrastate commerce.



Simply put it was a Colorado Statute, not a Federal one.


>>>>

 

[ColonelAngus]

Its all bullshit from the left.

The gay couples can buy cakes from anywhere.

They target religious bakers on purpose for their political purposes.

They are not being denied a cake. They just want to make trouble.

When a business treats me with disrespect, I simply give my money to businesses that treat me with respect.

One would think that gay couples would patronize gay bakers/

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Commerce clause grants the federal government the right to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes' - Irrelevant cat in the hat.

The Constitutional Commerce Clause is about regulating interstate commerce.

However, under the 10th Amendment States can regulate intrastate commerce.

The bakers ran afoul of a State Public Accommodation Law (not a Federal one) regarding the States regulation of intrastate commerce.



Simply put it was a Colorado Statute, not a Federal one.


>>>>

It is just as wrong for a state to do it as for the Fed Govt.

 

[Timmy]

The Commerce clause grants the federal government the right to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes' - Irrelevant cat in the hat.

The Constitutional Commerce Clause is about regulating interstate commerce.

However, under the 10th Amendment States can regulate intrastate commerce.

The bakers ran afoul of a State Public Accommodation Law (not a Federal one) regarding the States regulation of intrastate commerce.



Simply put it was a Colorado Statute, not a Federal one.


>>>>

Right. But IF it was a fed law I think it would be just as legal .

 

[Timmy]

Its all bullshit from the left.

The gay couples can buy cakes from anywhere.

They target religious bakers on purpose for their political purposes.

They are not being denied a cake. They just want to make trouble.

When a business treats me with disrespect, I simply give my money to businesses that treat me with respect.

One would think that gay couples would patronize gay bakers/

The bakers are following religion , so they shouldn’t be able to claim religious protection.

 

[ColonelAngus]

It's political, I get it....it's just disingenuous.

The gay couples are not being prevented from buying cakes.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I am glad we have moved so far along with how perfect our society is that we are on gay wedding cakes.

Good for the gays. They have come a long way, that's for sure.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It is just as wrong for a state to do it as for the Fed Govt.

The question wasn't whether it was "right" or "wrong".

The question was under what Constitutional authority do such laws exist. Federal laws exist as empowered by the Commerce Clause as it pertains to interstate commerce. State level Public Accommodation laws exist under the States power to regulate intrastate commerce.

That isn't a "right or "wrong", that is the source of the authority.



>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

I guess the real question is why some self proclaimed and self righteous Christian feels a need to pass on such "Fake News" in order to attack Muslims? The video is such an obvious edited hit job- where no one ever refuses to bake a wedding cake- the article below by someone who knows the bakeries shows what a con job the gullible contard bigots fall for.

Rush Limbaugh, Dearborn and the Muslim Baker Bigotry Myth | HuffPost

In the video, some conservative Faux News wannabe called Steven Crowder acts out a bunch of flaming-gay stereotypes while asking for offensive and silly titles to be put on a wedding cake. This included asking for “Same Sex 4ever” to be emblazoned on his cake because, you know, someone would actually pay for that.


Amazingly, none of his requests are refused. Heck, I would’ve turned him away just for being such an idiot. What he’s asking for is also fair game for refusal because, uh, the word “sex.” These guys know what kind of game they’re playing.


In one scene, a woman wearing a hijab is handling his order. She asks him, “Wedding?” Crowder replies, “Yeah.”


She asks, “Who’s the wedding for?”


Crowder jumps back in shock from the counter and practically shouts, “It’s for, uh, two people getting married.”


She’s just trying to be conversational, bro. Wallah. You want a gay wedding cake made by Muslims? Dearborn’s gonna bake it for you. Hamdullah.


In another scene, the guy goes to a bread bakery where they’re churning out fresh pita in a brick oven. It’s obvious there are no cakes or sweets in the bakery. The place just makes bread. Despite not being able to take an order for a wedding cake, the men behind the counter still refer him to a place where he can get wedding photographs across the street, inshallah.


The only person who answers negatively to Crowder is a fellow who works at Hallab bakery on Warren road. I’ve gotten Nammoura there before — it’s pretty damn good. Unfortunately, there’s one minor issue: Hallab doesn’t bake wedding cakes. At all. Hallab does cater for weddings if you want a nice assortment of Lebanese sweets — but they don’t bake wedding cakes. You can even look on their website.

 

[ColonelAngus]

This is an ideological issue, no one is ever going to change their minds.

Dems will use it as a political chance to blast WHITE Christians.

Republicans will use is as a political chance to blast lack of religious freedon

 

[Cellblock2429]

Ever wonder what would happen if someone asked a Muslim bakery to make a gay wedding cake? Wonder no more.

/----/ Why would any gaye trust a cake made under duress?