Leftists harassing Christian baker AGAIN

[MindWars]

Actually, a pink cake, maybe strawberry with blue icing just isn't that big a deal. This time. Bake the cake. Next time it might be white cake with chocolate frosting. That would be real trouble.

LMFAO!! , the shit you come out with and those who don't know you literally don't even know what to make of some of the shit you say bahahha, some even take it wrong including me those few times , when I didn't get your sarcastic ring in some of the comments bahahah.

 

[Lysistrata]

So you agree with discrimination in commerce. You agree with segregation. Nope. Can't agree. Not all people live in urban areas in which there are lots of choices. If you accept a business license and advertise that you provide services or goods to the public, then do it. Don't get into false advertising. "We have the best burgers in town, but we won't serve one to you!" Bullshit. Are you open to the public or not?

We are one nation, or aren't we?

So you believe that government can force people to go against their moral code for any reason?

So the rights of the LGBT person to get a cake from THAT baker overrides their free exercise of religion?

Please note that he does not refuse service to gay people altogether, only custom cakes for Same sex weddings. He also doesn't do halloween cakes, and other cakes that go against his religion.

Also, see below for another article on the topic. Also note what other cakes were asked for (and refused)

The State Of Colorado Is Still Trying To Destroy Jack Phillips

In one call, Scardina allegedly asked for “an image of Satan smoking marijuana.” In another, members of “the Church of Satan” asked for “a three-tiered white cake” with a “large figure of Satan, licking a nine inch black Dildo.” “I would like the dildo to be an actual working model that can be turned on before we unveil the cake,” went the request. You can just sense the sanctimonious smugness of people who think this sort of thing is edgy.

So all of us Americans have to bow down to anyone's and everyone's "moral code." There are many. The "free exercise of religion" is secondary to the rule of law and does not trump the rights of others. Each and every one of us has to abide by the law.

Incidentally, what this phillips jerk is doing has absolutely nothing to do with the Christian faith, which he is out to shit all over. Why are these nuts trying to destroy the Christian faith? They are pigs.

How is having to go to another baker "bowing down" to their moral code?

Why does he have to "bow down" to either the couple in question or the government? It's not like he denies service completely to gay people, just in this one specific instance.

If they asked for a generic birthday cake, he would make it. As my link shows, when asked by a Church of Satan idiot to make a cake with Satan sucking off a real dildo, he refused that as well.

A business person who is delivering the goods or services he or she has openly advertised is "bowing down" to his or her customers??? This jackass chooses a business license. If he doesn't want it, he can surrender it and stop advertising, or just sell cupcakes, brownies, cookies, and sandwich rolls.

Anyway, if his business is incorporated, the business is legally an "it," not a human individual capable of holding religious beliefs, and there is no reason to give him the benefit of being shielded from personal liability while also allowing him to have it both ways.

Making a cake for a customer when one openly advertises the business makes cakes does not involve any "moral code."

Phillips is just another dumb piece of trash seeking fame.

Why does he have to be the one to bow down? Why does his right to free exercise in this specific case get outweighed by the gay couples right to commerce?

And the whole business is an "it" thing is a cop out, its a person still doing the work, and in this case the owner doing the work.

Typical progressive, anyone that doesn't share your worldview is "trash"

It must make you feel like a big person to support the government's right to ruin someone over a fucking cake.

What a tough guy.

He is trash. Sorry, but he chooses to be so. He chooses to ruin himself. Crap like him doesn't get to run society. He can move to Saudi Arabia, or Guyana if he wants to drop out of society.

 

[martybegan]

So you believe that government can force people to go against their moral code for any reason?

So the rights of the LGBT person to get a cake from THAT baker overrides their free exercise of religion?

Please note that he does not refuse service to gay people altogether, only custom cakes for Same sex weddings. He also doesn't do halloween cakes, and other cakes that go against his religion.

Also, see below for another article on the topic. Also note what other cakes were asked for (and refused)

The State Of Colorado Is Still Trying To Destroy Jack Phillips

So all of us Americans have to bow down to anyone's and everyone's "moral code." There are many. The "free exercise of religion" is secondary to the rule of law and does not trump the rights of others. Each and every one of us has to abide by the law.

Incidentally, what this phillips jerk is doing has absolutely nothing to do with the Christian faith, which he is out to shit all over. Why are these nuts trying to destroy the Christian faith? They are pigs.

How is having to go to another baker "bowing down" to their moral code?

Why does he have to "bow down" to either the couple in question or the government? It's not like he denies service completely to gay people, just in this one specific instance.

If they asked for a generic birthday cake, he would make it. As my link shows, when asked by a Church of Satan idiot to make a cake with Satan sucking off a real dildo, he refused that as well.

A business person who is delivering the goods or services he or she has openly advertised is "bowing down" to his or her customers??? This jackass chooses a business license. If he doesn't want it, he can surrender it and stop advertising, or just sell cupcakes, brownies, cookies, and sandwich rolls.

Anyway, if his business is incorporated, the business is legally an "it," not a human individual capable of holding religious beliefs, and there is no reason to give him the benefit of being shielded from personal liability while also allowing him to have it both ways.

Making a cake for a customer when one openly advertises the business makes cakes does not involve any "moral code."

Phillips is just another dumb piece of trash seeking fame.

Why does he have to be the one to bow down? Why does his right to free exercise in this specific case get outweighed by the gay couples right to commerce?

And the whole business is an "it" thing is a cop out, its a person still doing the work, and in this case the owner doing the work.

Typical progressive, anyone that doesn't share your worldview is "trash"

It must make you feel like a big person to support the government's right to ruin someone over a fucking cake.

What a tough guy.

He is trash. Sorry, but he chooses to be so. He chooses to ruin himself. Crap like him doesn't get to run society. He can move to Saudi Arabia, or Guyana if he wants to drop out of society.

Ah, the "stop hitting yourself" argument.

In the US we have the right to free exercise of religion, and that right is not automatically trumped by another person's right to commerce.

In this specific case, he is in the right, and your side are a bunch of government dick sucking thugs.

 

[DandyDonovan]

You think business owners deciding whom they wish to do business with will kill commerce in America? I sure as hell don't. I think the government should butt out and let the consumers decide if such practices are worthy of their money or not.

So you agree with discrimination in commerce. You agree with segregation. Nope. Can't agree. Not all people live in urban areas in which there are lots of choices. If you accept a business license and advertise that you provide services or goods to the public, then do it. Don't get into false advertising. "We have the best burgers in town, but we won't serve one to you!" Bullshit. Are you open to the public or not?

We are one nation, or aren't we?

So you believe that government can force people to go against their moral code for any reason?

So the rights of the LGBT person to get a cake from THAT baker overrides their free exercise of religion?

Please note that he does not refuse service to gay people altogether, only custom cakes for Same sex weddings. He also doesn't do halloween cakes, and other cakes that go against his religion.

Also, see below for another article on the topic. Also note what other cakes were asked for (and refused)

The State Of Colorado Is Still Trying To Destroy Jack Phillips

In one call, Scardina allegedly asked for “an image of Satan smoking marijuana.” In another, members of “the Church of Satan” asked for “a three-tiered white cake” with a “large figure of Satan, licking a nine inch black Dildo.” “I would like the dildo to be an actual working model that can be turned on before we unveil the cake,” went the request. You can just sense the sanctimonious smugness of people who think this sort of thing is edgy.

So all of us Americans have to bow down to anyone's and everyone's "moral code." There are many. The "free exercise of religion" is secondary to the rule of law and does not trump the rights of others. Each and every one of us has to abide by the law.

Incidentally, what this phillips jerk is doing has absolutely nothing to do with the Christian faith, which he is out to shit all over. Why are these nuts trying to destroy the Christian faith? They are pigs.

How is having to go to another baker "bowing down" to their moral code?

Why does he have to "bow down" to either the couple in question or the government? It's not like he denies service completely to gay people, just in this one specific instance.

If they asked for a generic birthday cake, he would make it. As my link shows, when asked by a Church of Satan idiot to make a cake with Satan sucking off a real dildo, he refused that as well.

A business person who is delivering the goods or services he or she has openly advertised is "bowing down" to his or her customers??? This jackass chooses a business license. If he doesn't want it, he can surrender it and stop advertising, or just sell cupcakes, brownies, cookies, and sandwich rolls.

Anyway, if his business is incorporated, the business is legally an "it," not a human individual capable of holding religious beliefs, and there is no reason to give him the benefit of being shielded from personal liability while also allowing him to have it both ways.

Making a cake for a customer when one openly advertises the business makes cakes does not involve any "moral code."

Phillips is just another dumb piece of trash seeking fame.

Hey stupid. Simple question for you

Does , let's Use Google as an example, have free speech rights?

 

[Lysistrata]

So all of us Americans have to bow down to anyone's and everyone's "moral code." There are many. The "free exercise of religion" is secondary to the rule of law and does not trump the rights of others. Each and every one of us has to abide by the law.

Incidentally, what this phillips jerk is doing has absolutely nothing to do with the Christian faith, which he is out to shit all over. Why are these nuts trying to destroy the Christian faith? They are pigs.

How is having to go to another baker "bowing down" to their moral code?

Why does he have to "bow down" to either the couple in question or the government? It's not like he denies service completely to gay people, just in this one specific instance.

If they asked for a generic birthday cake, he would make it. As my link shows, when asked by a Church of Satan idiot to make a cake with Satan sucking off a real dildo, he refused that as well.

A business person who is delivering the goods or services he or she has openly advertised is "bowing down" to his or her customers??? This jackass chooses a business license. If he doesn't want it, he can surrender it and stop advertising, or just sell cupcakes, brownies, cookies, and sandwich rolls.

Anyway, if his business is incorporated, the business is legally an "it," not a human individual capable of holding religious beliefs, and there is no reason to give him the benefit of being shielded from personal liability while also allowing him to have it both ways.

Making a cake for a customer when one openly advertises the business makes cakes does not involve any "moral code."

Phillips is just another dumb piece of trash seeking fame.

Why does he have to be the one to bow down? Why does his right to free exercise in this specific case get outweighed by the gay couples right to commerce?

And the whole business is an "it" thing is a cop out, its a person still doing the work, and in this case the owner doing the work.

Typical progressive, anyone that doesn't share your worldview is "trash"

It must make you feel like a big person to support the government's right to ruin someone over a fucking cake.

What a tough guy.

He is trash. Sorry, but he chooses to be so. He chooses to ruin himself. Crap like him doesn't get to run society. He can move to Saudi Arabia, or Guyana if he wants to drop out of society.

Ah, the "stop hitting yourself" argument.

In the US we have the right to free exercise of religion, and that right is not automatically trumped by another person's right to commerce.

In this specific case, he is in the right, and your side are a bunch of government dick sucking thugs.

dick sucking? (1) if you voted for trump you have demonstrated your willingness to do so. By using the term, you know that use of this term demonstrates the failure of the user's parents to provide a proper upbringing.

This idea that everyone from any religion can do anything they want to and thumb their noses at larger society is absurd. All it would do is create chaos. We are not all members of whatever cult.

 

[Silhouette]

Ah, the "stop hitting yourself" argument.

In the US we have the right to free exercise of religion, and that right is not automatically trumped by another person's right to commerce.

In this specific case, he is in the right, and your side are a bunch of government dick sucking thugs.

In this case it's a bit more complicated than that. This is one cult using PA laws to selectively target those with morals opposed to their dogma, using economic sabotage as a whip. This isn't a "class" of people being discriminated against. It's a deviant sexual VALUE SYSTEM. So properly it's like two religions facing off. One gets to use PA laws to subjugate the other. The other doesn't. And this is how Colorado fucked up. And the Court told them so when Colorado refused to punish gay bakers for refusing to print messages on baked goods or other items that went against LGBT values.

The Court said, when two behavioral value systems square off, you can't favor one over the other. So, until Colorado starts punishing, say, gay graphic artists for refusing to print billboards that say "Homosexuality is a sin unto God", no Christian baker can be punished for saying "no" to a tranny asking him to help celebrate his deviant sex rituals by baking a cake for them.

Again, if the tranny walked in and just said "I want a pink cake with blue frosting", there would have been no problem. Instead he made sure to tell the person with morals he knew in advance that were opposed to his deviant sex rituals that the cake was to assist in that deviant sex ritual celebration. So informed, the baker said "no". And that is his right since it's one VALUE SYSTEM vs another.

 

[martybegan]

How is having to go to another baker "bowing down" to their moral code?

Why does he have to "bow down" to either the couple in question or the government? It's not like he denies service completely to gay people, just in this one specific instance.

If they asked for a generic birthday cake, he would make it. As my link shows, when asked by a Church of Satan idiot to make a cake with Satan sucking off a real dildo, he refused that as well.

A business person who is delivering the goods or services he or she has openly advertised is "bowing down" to his or her customers??? This jackass chooses a business license. If he doesn't want it, he can surrender it and stop advertising, or just sell cupcakes, brownies, cookies, and sandwich rolls.

Anyway, if his business is incorporated, the business is legally an "it," not a human individual capable of holding religious beliefs, and there is no reason to give him the benefit of being shielded from personal liability while also allowing him to have it both ways.

Making a cake for a customer when one openly advertises the business makes cakes does not involve any "moral code."

Phillips is just another dumb piece of trash seeking fame.

Why does he have to be the one to bow down? Why does his right to free exercise in this specific case get outweighed by the gay couples right to commerce?

And the whole business is an "it" thing is a cop out, its a person still doing the work, and in this case the owner doing the work.

Typical progressive, anyone that doesn't share your worldview is "trash"

It must make you feel like a big person to support the government's right to ruin someone over a fucking cake.

What a tough guy.

He is trash. Sorry, but he chooses to be so. He chooses to ruin himself. Crap like him doesn't get to run society. He can move to Saudi Arabia, or Guyana if he wants to drop out of society.

Ah, the "stop hitting yourself" argument.

In the US we have the right to free exercise of religion, and that right is not automatically trumped by another person's right to commerce.

In this specific case, he is in the right, and your side are a bunch of government dick sucking thugs.

dick sucking? (1) if you voted for trump you have demonstrated your willingness to do so. By using the term, you know that use of this term demonstrates the failure of the user's parents to provide a proper upbringing.

This idea that everyone from any religion can do anything they want to and thumb their noses at larger society is absurd. All it would do is create chaos. We are not all members of whatever cult.

Who said anything about being "able to do anything"? He serves anyone when it comes to either point of sale items, or items that do not impact his moral code.

I'm sorry, but having to spend 15 minutes finding and going to another baker for a wedding cake will not "create chaos."

And if you can't stand the heat, bitch, may I suggest the Hello Kitty message board as being more your speed?

 

[Lysistrata]

A business person who is delivering the goods or services he or she has openly advertised is "bowing down" to his or her customers??? This jackass chooses a business license. If he doesn't want it, he can surrender it and stop advertising, or just sell cupcakes, brownies, cookies, and sandwich rolls.

Anyway, if his business is incorporated, the business is legally an "it," not a human individual capable of holding religious beliefs, and there is no reason to give him the benefit of being shielded from personal liability while also allowing him to have it both ways.

Making a cake for a customer when one openly advertises the business makes cakes does not involve any "moral code."

Phillips is just another dumb piece of trash seeking fame.

Why does he have to be the one to bow down? Why does his right to free exercise in this specific case get outweighed by the gay couples right to commerce?

And the whole business is an "it" thing is a cop out, its a person still doing the work, and in this case the owner doing the work.

Typical progressive, anyone that doesn't share your worldview is "trash"

It must make you feel like a big person to support the government's right to ruin someone over a fucking cake.

What a tough guy.

He is trash. Sorry, but he chooses to be so. He chooses to ruin himself. Crap like him doesn't get to run society. He can move to Saudi Arabia, or Guyana if he wants to drop out of society.

Ah, the "stop hitting yourself" argument.

In the US we have the right to free exercise of religion, and that right is not automatically trumped by another person's right to commerce.

In this specific case, he is in the right, and your side are a bunch of government dick sucking thugs.

dick sucking? (1) if you voted for trump you have demonstrated your willingness to do so. By using the term, you know that use of this term demonstrates the failure of the user's parents to provide a proper upbringing.

This idea that everyone from any religion can do anything they want to and thumb their noses at larger society is absurd. All it would do is create chaos. We are not all members of whatever cult.

Who said anything about being "able to do anything"? He serves anyone when it comes to either point of sale items, or items that do not impact his moral code.

I'm sorry, but having to spend 15 minutes finding and going to another baker for a wedding cake will not "create chaos."

And if you can't stand the heat, bitch, may I suggest the Hello Kitty message board as being more your speed?

You stupid little boy, this is not just about cakes, it's about consumer goods and services in general. You are trying to transfer the responsibility onto consumers because some business people are liars. It is not the responsibility of the American consumer to go chasing around town or county over some little creep's "beliefs." A "belief" can be anything an individual, however addled, says it is.

Go join Hello Kitty. It's more your speed, since you never grew up.

BTW: this incident involves a birthday cake that this little bitch-boy refused to bake, not a wedding cake. When are you little boys in short pants going to grow up. There still is the prospect of becoming a man.

 

[martybegan]

Why does he have to be the one to bow down? Why does his right to free exercise in this specific case get outweighed by the gay couples right to commerce?

And the whole business is an "it" thing is a cop out, its a person still doing the work, and in this case the owner doing the work.

Typical progressive, anyone that doesn't share your worldview is "trash"

It must make you feel like a big person to support the government's right to ruin someone over a fucking cake.

What a tough guy.

He is trash. Sorry, but he chooses to be so. He chooses to ruin himself. Crap like him doesn't get to run society. He can move to Saudi Arabia, or Guyana if he wants to drop out of society.

Ah, the "stop hitting yourself" argument.

In the US we have the right to free exercise of religion, and that right is not automatically trumped by another person's right to commerce.

In this specific case, he is in the right, and your side are a bunch of government dick sucking thugs.

dick sucking? (1) if you voted for trump you have demonstrated your willingness to do so. By using the term, you know that use of this term demonstrates the failure of the user's parents to provide a proper upbringing.

This idea that everyone from any religion can do anything they want to and thumb their noses at larger society is absurd. All it would do is create chaos. We are not all members of whatever cult.

Who said anything about being "able to do anything"? He serves anyone when it comes to either point of sale items, or items that do not impact his moral code.

I'm sorry, but having to spend 15 minutes finding and going to another baker for a wedding cake will not "create chaos."

And if you can't stand the heat, bitch, may I suggest the Hello Kitty message board as being more your speed?

You stupid little boy, this is not just about cakes, it's about consumer goods and services in general. You are trying to transfer the responsibility onto consumers because some business people are liars. It is not the responsibility of the American consumer to go chasing around town or county over some little creep's "beliefs." A "belief" can be anything an individual, however addled, says it is.

Go join Hello Kitty. It's more your speed, since you never grew up.

BTW: this incident involves a birthday cake that this little bitch-boy refused to bake, not a wedding cake. When are you little boys in short pants going to grow up. There still is the prospect of becoming a man.

It is not the requirement of an american citizen to ignore their own morals and their own right to free exercise without a compelling government interest. Even in those cases government has to use the least restrictive method of resolving the issue.

This incident was a trap, because the person in question could have just asked for the cake, but went on to explain why the cake was to be made as such. And when the baker denied the cake requested by the Church of Satan people, (Satan blowing a dildo) he showed his consistency on the matter of his beliefs.

Again, non-timely, non-nessasary, contracted services do not meet the requirement of a compelling government interest.

But for people like you it isn't about tolerance, it's about forced acceptance via government fiat.

What small miserable people you must be.

 

[Lysistrata]

He is trash. Sorry, but he chooses to be so. He chooses to ruin himself. Crap like him doesn't get to run society. He can move to Saudi Arabia, or Guyana if he wants to drop out of society.

Ah, the "stop hitting yourself" argument.

In the US we have the right to free exercise of religion, and that right is not automatically trumped by another person's right to commerce.

In this specific case, he is in the right, and your side are a bunch of government dick sucking thugs.

dick sucking? (1) if you voted for trump you have demonstrated your willingness to do so. By using the term, you know that use of this term demonstrates the failure of the user's parents to provide a proper upbringing.

This idea that everyone from any religion can do anything they want to and thumb their noses at larger society is absurd. All it would do is create chaos. We are not all members of whatever cult.

Who said anything about being "able to do anything"? He serves anyone when it comes to either point of sale items, or items that do not impact his moral code.

I'm sorry, but having to spend 15 minutes finding and going to another baker for a wedding cake will not "create chaos."

And if you can't stand the heat, bitch, may I suggest the Hello Kitty message board as being more your speed?

You stupid little boy, this is not just about cakes, it's about consumer goods and services in general. You are trying to transfer the responsibility onto consumers because some business people are liars. It is not the responsibility of the American consumer to go chasing around town or county over some little creep's "beliefs." A "belief" can be anything an individual, however addled, says it is.

Go join Hello Kitty. It's more your speed, since you never grew up.

BTW: this incident involves a birthday cake that this little bitch-boy refused to bake, not a wedding cake. When are you little boys in short pants going to grow up. There still is the prospect of becoming a man.

It is not the requirement of an american citizen to ignore their own morals and their own right to free exercise without a compelling government interest. Even in those cases government has to use the least restrictive method of resolving the issue.

This incident was a trap, because the person in question could have just asked for the cake, but went on to explain why the cake was to be made as such. And when the baker denied the cake requested by the Church of Satan people, (Satan blowing a dildo) he showed his consistency on the matter of his beliefs.

Again, non-timely, non-nessasary, contracted services do not meet the requirement of a compelling government interest.

But for people like you it isn't about tolerance, it's about forced acceptance via government fiat.

What small miserable people you must be.

There are compelling state interests in facilitating commerce and in eradicating discrimination. Everybody is "forced" to do something by a government entity. There are no exceptions.
I, taxpayer, was forced to pay for providing services to people who accepted tax exemptions, even though they were de facto political parties, to pay for "abstinence education," including obscenely telling young people that sex made them dirty like used chewing gum on the floor, the invasion of Iraq, etc. Who do you think was forced to pay for that moron jeffress to go to Jerusalem to shame the American people at the opening of the unnecessary embassy? Who do you think is forced to pay salaries to trump and his troop of whores like sanders, devos, huber?

Now the orange whore wants us taxpayers to pay for his wall, even though the 'ho said that the Mexicans would pay for it.

Moreover, we don't know how many Americans were forced to give birth by government fiat.

We, The People, have always lived under government fiat. Throughout history. Even when the government denied the People, including such Americans as women and African-descended people, the rights and responsibilities of self-government that we call "democracy."

 

[martybegan]

Ah, the "stop hitting yourself" argument.

In the US we have the right to free exercise of religion, and that right is not automatically trumped by another person's right to commerce.

In this specific case, he is in the right, and your side are a bunch of government dick sucking thugs.

dick sucking? (1) if you voted for trump you have demonstrated your willingness to do so. By using the term, you know that use of this term demonstrates the failure of the user's parents to provide a proper upbringing.

This idea that everyone from any religion can do anything they want to and thumb their noses at larger society is absurd. All it would do is create chaos. We are not all members of whatever cult.

Who said anything about being "able to do anything"? He serves anyone when it comes to either point of sale items, or items that do not impact his moral code.

I'm sorry, but having to spend 15 minutes finding and going to another baker for a wedding cake will not "create chaos."

And if you can't stand the heat, bitch, may I suggest the Hello Kitty message board as being more your speed?

You stupid little boy, this is not just about cakes, it's about consumer goods and services in general. You are trying to transfer the responsibility onto consumers because some business people are liars. It is not the responsibility of the American consumer to go chasing around town or county over some little creep's "beliefs." A "belief" can be anything an individual, however addled, says it is.

Go join Hello Kitty. It's more your speed, since you never grew up.

BTW: this incident involves a birthday cake that this little bitch-boy refused to bake, not a wedding cake. When are you little boys in short pants going to grow up. There still is the prospect of becoming a man.

It is not the requirement of an american citizen to ignore their own morals and their own right to free exercise without a compelling government interest. Even in those cases government has to use the least restrictive method of resolving the issue.

This incident was a trap, because the person in question could have just asked for the cake, but went on to explain why the cake was to be made as such. And when the baker denied the cake requested by the Church of Satan people, (Satan blowing a dildo) he showed his consistency on the matter of his beliefs.

Again, non-timely, non-nessasary, contracted services do not meet the requirement of a compelling government interest.

But for people like you it isn't about tolerance, it's about forced acceptance via government fiat.

What small miserable people you must be.

There are compelling state interests in facilitating commerce and in eradicating discrimination. Everybody is "forced" to do something by a government entity. There are no exceptions.
I, taxpayer, was forced to pay for providing services to people who accepted tax exemptions, even though they were de facto political parties, to pay for "abstinence education," including obscenely telling young people that sex made them dirty like used chewing gum on the floor, the invasion of Iraq, etc. Who do you think was forced to pay for that moron jeffress to go to Jerusalem to shame the American people at the opening of the unnecessary embassy? Who do you think is forced to pay salaries to trump and his troop of whores like sanders, devos, huber?

Now the orange whore wants us taxpayers to pay for his wall, even though the 'ho said that the Mexicans would pay for it.

Moreover, we don't know how many Americans were forced to give birth by government fiat.

We, The People, have always lived under government fiat.

There is no compelling interest when a single baker doesn't want to do a single type of transaction. If they were the only baker for 100 miles, or if all the bakers in an area decided to do the same thing, then government would probably have an interest. Even then what the government should do is require the cake to be baked without anything that would indicate the position the baker found offensive.

And that you have to go beyond the crux of this argument to rant "ORANGE MAN BAD" shows you have no real argument.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Why does he have to be the one to bow down? Why does his right to free exercise in this specific case get outweighed by the gay couples right to commerce?

And the whole business is an "it" thing is a cop out, its a person still doing the work, and in this case the owner doing the work.

Typical progressive, anyone that doesn't share your worldview is "trash"

It must make you feel like a big person to support the government's right to ruin someone over a fucking cake.

What a tough guy.

He is trash. Sorry, but he chooses to be so. He chooses to ruin himself. Crap like him doesn't get to run society. He can move to Saudi Arabia, or Guyana if he wants to drop out of society.

Ah, the "stop hitting yourself" argument.

In the US we have the right to free exercise of religion, and that right is not automatically trumped by another person's right to commerce.

In this specific case, he is in the right, and your side are a bunch of government dick sucking thugs.

dick sucking? (1) if you voted for trump you have demonstrated your willingness to do so. By using the term, you know that use of this term demonstrates the failure of the user's parents to provide a proper upbringing.

This idea that everyone from any religion can do anything they want to and thumb their noses at larger society is absurd. All it would do is create chaos. We are not all members of whatever cult.

Who said anything about being "able to do anything"? He serves anyone when it comes to either point of sale items, or items that do not impact his moral code.

I'm sorry, but having to spend 15 minutes finding and going to another baker for a wedding cake will not "create chaos."

And if you can't stand the heat, bitch, may I suggest the Hello Kitty message board as being more your speed?

You stupid little boy, this is not just about cakes, it's about consumer goods and services in general. You are trying to transfer the responsibility onto consumers because some business people are liars. It is not the responsibility of the American consumer to go chasing around town or county over some little creep's "beliefs." A "belief" can be anything an individual, however addled, says it is.

Go join Hello Kitty. It's more your speed, since you never grew up.

BTW: this incident involves a birthday cake that this little bitch-boy refused to bake, not a wedding cake. When are you little boys in short pants going to grow up. There still is the prospect of becoming a man.

How did you feel about that restaurant that refused to serve Sarah Sanders?

Simple question that you refuse to answer because well we know why. Moron.

 

[Lysistrata]

dick sucking? (1) if you voted for trump you have demonstrated your willingness to do so. By using the term, you know that use of this term demonstrates the failure of the user's parents to provide a proper upbringing.

This idea that everyone from any religion can do anything they want to and thumb their noses at larger society is absurd. All it would do is create chaos. We are not all members of whatever cult.

Who said anything about being "able to do anything"? He serves anyone when it comes to either point of sale items, or items that do not impact his moral code.

I'm sorry, but having to spend 15 minutes finding and going to another baker for a wedding cake will not "create chaos."

And if you can't stand the heat, bitch, may I suggest the Hello Kitty message board as being more your speed?

You stupid little boy, this is not just about cakes, it's about consumer goods and services in general. You are trying to transfer the responsibility onto consumers because some business people are liars. It is not the responsibility of the American consumer to go chasing around town or county over some little creep's "beliefs." A "belief" can be anything an individual, however addled, says it is.

Go join Hello Kitty. It's more your speed, since you never grew up.

BTW: this incident involves a birthday cake that this little bitch-boy refused to bake, not a wedding cake. When are you little boys in short pants going to grow up. There still is the prospect of becoming a man.

It is not the requirement of an american citizen to ignore their own morals and their own right to free exercise without a compelling government interest. Even in those cases government has to use the least restrictive method of resolving the issue.

This incident was a trap, because the person in question could have just asked for the cake, but went on to explain why the cake was to be made as such. And when the baker denied the cake requested by the Church of Satan people, (Satan blowing a dildo) he showed his consistency on the matter of his beliefs.

Again, non-timely, non-nessasary, contracted services do not meet the requirement of a compelling government interest.

But for people like you it isn't about tolerance, it's about forced acceptance via government fiat.

What small miserable people you must be.

There are compelling state interests in facilitating commerce and in eradicating discrimination. Everybody is "forced" to do something by a government entity. There are no exceptions.
I, taxpayer, was forced to pay for providing services to people who accepted tax exemptions, even though they were de facto political parties, to pay for "abstinence education," including obscenely telling young people that sex made them dirty like used chewing gum on the floor, the invasion of Iraq, etc. Who do you think was forced to pay for that moron jeffress to go to Jerusalem to shame the American people at the opening of the unnecessary embassy? Who do you think is forced to pay salaries to trump and his troop of whores like sanders, devos, huber?

Now the orange whore wants us taxpayers to pay for his wall, even though the 'ho said that the Mexicans would pay for it.

Moreover, we don't know how many Americans were forced to give birth by government fiat.

We, The People, have always lived under government fiat.

There is no compelling interest when a single baker doesn't want to do a single type of transaction. If they were the only baker for 100 miles, or if all the bakers in an area decided to do the same thing, then government would probably have an interest. Even then what the government should do is require the cake to be baked without anything that would indicate the position the baker found offensive.

And that you have to go beyond the crux of this argument to rant "ORANGE MAN BAD" shows you have no real argument.

You still are trying to transfer responsibility onto unsuspecting consumers from licensed and incorporated business people who know, or should know, the rules for doing business in this country. Why should the consumers waste their time and gas driving around?

Some people have to go to local government agencies, like people seeking marriage licenses. Some of them met up with that bitch who refused to do her job and sent them driving around. There is no evidence that the state ever reimbursed these people for their time, effort, and gas.

For consumer goods, like cakes, I have done some searching around, too. I have not seen one advertisement by bakers that mentioned on their websites that there were some restrictions on what they offered. They lied on their websites. One said that their "romantic" location was the perfect place to hold a special occasion, then refused to book a same-sex occasion, proving that their advertisement was a lie.

 

[martybegan]

Who said anything about being "able to do anything"? He serves anyone when it comes to either point of sale items, or items that do not impact his moral code.

I'm sorry, but having to spend 15 minutes finding and going to another baker for a wedding cake will not "create chaos."

And if you can't stand the heat, bitch, may I suggest the Hello Kitty message board as being more your speed?

You stupid little boy, this is not just about cakes, it's about consumer goods and services in general. You are trying to transfer the responsibility onto consumers because some business people are liars. It is not the responsibility of the American consumer to go chasing around town or county over some little creep's "beliefs." A "belief" can be anything an individual, however addled, says it is.

Go join Hello Kitty. It's more your speed, since you never grew up.

BTW: this incident involves a birthday cake that this little bitch-boy refused to bake, not a wedding cake. When are you little boys in short pants going to grow up. There still is the prospect of becoming a man.

It is not the requirement of an american citizen to ignore their own morals and their own right to free exercise without a compelling government interest. Even in those cases government has to use the least restrictive method of resolving the issue.

This incident was a trap, because the person in question could have just asked for the cake, but went on to explain why the cake was to be made as such. And when the baker denied the cake requested by the Church of Satan people, (Satan blowing a dildo) he showed his consistency on the matter of his beliefs.

Again, non-timely, non-nessasary, contracted services do not meet the requirement of a compelling government interest.

But for people like you it isn't about tolerance, it's about forced acceptance via government fiat.

What small miserable people you must be.

There are compelling state interests in facilitating commerce and in eradicating discrimination. Everybody is "forced" to do something by a government entity. There are no exceptions.
I, taxpayer, was forced to pay for providing services to people who accepted tax exemptions, even though they were de facto political parties, to pay for "abstinence education," including obscenely telling young people that sex made them dirty like used chewing gum on the floor, the invasion of Iraq, etc. Who do you think was forced to pay for that moron jeffress to go to Jerusalem to shame the American people at the opening of the unnecessary embassy? Who do you think is forced to pay salaries to trump and his troop of whores like sanders, devos, huber?

Now the orange whore wants us taxpayers to pay for his wall, even though the 'ho said that the Mexicans would pay for it.

Moreover, we don't know how many Americans were forced to give birth by government fiat.

We, The People, have always lived under government fiat.

There is no compelling interest when a single baker doesn't want to do a single type of transaction. If they were the only baker for 100 miles, or if all the bakers in an area decided to do the same thing, then government would probably have an interest. Even then what the government should do is require the cake to be baked without anything that would indicate the position the baker found offensive.

And that you have to go beyond the crux of this argument to rant "ORANGE MAN BAD" shows you have no real argument.

You still are trying to transfer responsibility onto unsuspecting consumers from licensed and incorporated business people who know, or should know, the rules for doing business in this country. Why should the consumers waste their time and gas driving around?

Some people have to go to local government agencies, like people seeking marriage licenses. Some of them met up with that bitch who refused to do her job and sent them driving around. There is no evidence that the state ever reimbursed these people for their time, effort, and gas.

For consumer goods, like cakes, I have done some searching around, too. I have not seen one advertisement by bakers that mentioned on their websites that there were some restrictions on what they offered. They lied on their websites. One said that their "romantic" location was the perfect place to hold a special occasion, then refused to book a same-sex occasion, proving that their advertisement was a lie.

Again, any rules that violate the constitution are not viable.

And I don't see in the constitution where people are guaranteed what they want from other citizens.

And government is a different story, not relevant to this discussion.

Your issue is you probably think religious people are crazy, and since you can't empathize with them, they can go fuck themselves.

LIke most progressives, it's all about "me me me"

 

[DandyDonovan]

Who said anything about being "able to do anything"? He serves anyone when it comes to either point of sale items, or items that do not impact his moral code.

I'm sorry, but having to spend 15 minutes finding and going to another baker for a wedding cake will not "create chaos."

And if you can't stand the heat, bitch, may I suggest the Hello Kitty message board as being more your speed?

You stupid little boy, this is not just about cakes, it's about consumer goods and services in general. You are trying to transfer the responsibility onto consumers because some business people are liars. It is not the responsibility of the American consumer to go chasing around town or county over some little creep's "beliefs." A "belief" can be anything an individual, however addled, says it is.

Go join Hello Kitty. It's more your speed, since you never grew up.

BTW: this incident involves a birthday cake that this little bitch-boy refused to bake, not a wedding cake. When are you little boys in short pants going to grow up. There still is the prospect of becoming a man.

It is not the requirement of an american citizen to ignore their own morals and their own right to free exercise without a compelling government interest. Even in those cases government has to use the least restrictive method of resolving the issue.

This incident was a trap, because the person in question could have just asked for the cake, but went on to explain why the cake was to be made as such. And when the baker denied the cake requested by the Church of Satan people, (Satan blowing a dildo) he showed his consistency on the matter of his beliefs.

Again, non-timely, non-nessasary, contracted services do not meet the requirement of a compelling government interest.

But for people like you it isn't about tolerance, it's about forced acceptance via government fiat.

What small miserable people you must be.

There are compelling state interests in facilitating commerce and in eradicating discrimination. Everybody is "forced" to do something by a government entity. There are no exceptions.
I, taxpayer, was forced to pay for providing services to people who accepted tax exemptions, even though they were de facto political parties, to pay for "abstinence education," including obscenely telling young people that sex made them dirty like used chewing gum on the floor, the invasion of Iraq, etc. Who do you think was forced to pay for that moron jeffress to go to Jerusalem to shame the American people at the opening of the unnecessary embassy? Who do you think is forced to pay salaries to trump and his troop of whores like sanders, devos, huber?

Now the orange whore wants us taxpayers to pay for his wall, even though the 'ho said that the Mexicans would pay for it.

Moreover, we don't know how many Americans were forced to give birth by government fiat.

We, The People, have always lived under government fiat.

There is no compelling interest when a single baker doesn't want to do a single type of transaction. If they were the only baker for 100 miles, or if all the bakers in an area decided to do the same thing, then government would probably have an interest. Even then what the government should do is require the cake to be baked without anything that would indicate the position the baker found offensive.

And that you have to go beyond the crux of this argument to rant "ORANGE MAN BAD" shows you have no real argument.

You still are trying to transfer responsibility onto unsuspecting consumers from licensed and incorporated business people who know, or should know, the rules for doing business in this country. Why should the consumers waste their time and gas driving around?

Some people have to go to local government agencies, like people seeking marriage licenses. Some of them met up with that bitch who refused to do her job and sent them driving around. There is no evidence that the state ever reimbursed these people for their time, effort, and gas.

For consumer goods, like cakes, I have done some searching around, too. I have not seen one advertisement by bakers that mentioned on their websites that there were some restrictions on what they offered. They lied on their websites. One said that their "romantic" location was the perfect place to hold a special occasion, then refused to book a same-sex occasion, proving that their advertisement was a lie.

^ this person is a perfect example of why I believe conservatives are wrong when they oppose abortion. This person's parents should have been forced to abort this person.

 

[DandyDonovan]

You stupid little boy, this is not just about cakes, it's about consumer goods and services in general. You are trying to transfer the responsibility onto consumers because some business people are liars. It is not the responsibility of the American consumer to go chasing around town or county over some little creep's "beliefs." A "belief" can be anything an individual, however addled, says it is.

Go join Hello Kitty. It's more your speed, since you never grew up.

BTW: this incident involves a birthday cake that this little bitch-boy refused to bake, not a wedding cake. When are you little boys in short pants going to grow up. There still is the prospect of becoming a man.

It is not the requirement of an american citizen to ignore their own morals and their own right to free exercise without a compelling government interest. Even in those cases government has to use the least restrictive method of resolving the issue.

This incident was a trap, because the person in question could have just asked for the cake, but went on to explain why the cake was to be made as such. And when the baker denied the cake requested by the Church of Satan people, (Satan blowing a dildo) he showed his consistency on the matter of his beliefs.

Again, non-timely, non-nessasary, contracted services do not meet the requirement of a compelling government interest.

But for people like you it isn't about tolerance, it's about forced acceptance via government fiat.

What small miserable people you must be.

There are compelling state interests in facilitating commerce and in eradicating discrimination. Everybody is "forced" to do something by a government entity. There are no exceptions.
I, taxpayer, was forced to pay for providing services to people who accepted tax exemptions, even though they were de facto political parties, to pay for "abstinence education," including obscenely telling young people that sex made them dirty like used chewing gum on the floor, the invasion of Iraq, etc. Who do you think was forced to pay for that moron jeffress to go to Jerusalem to shame the American people at the opening of the unnecessary embassy? Who do you think is forced to pay salaries to trump and his troop of whores like sanders, devos, huber?

Now the orange whore wants us taxpayers to pay for his wall, even though the 'ho said that the Mexicans would pay for it.

Moreover, we don't know how many Americans were forced to give birth by government fiat.

We, The People, have always lived under government fiat.

There is no compelling interest when a single baker doesn't want to do a single type of transaction. If they were the only baker for 100 miles, or if all the bakers in an area decided to do the same thing, then government would probably have an interest. Even then what the government should do is require the cake to be baked without anything that would indicate the position the baker found offensive.

And that you have to go beyond the crux of this argument to rant "ORANGE MAN BAD" shows you have no real argument.

You still are trying to transfer responsibility onto unsuspecting consumers from licensed and incorporated business people who know, or should know, the rules for doing business in this country. Why should the consumers waste their time and gas driving around?

Some people have to go to local government agencies, like people seeking marriage licenses. Some of them met up with that bitch who refused to do her job and sent them driving around. There is no evidence that the state ever reimbursed these people for their time, effort, and gas.

For consumer goods, like cakes, I have done some searching around, too. I have not seen one advertisement by bakers that mentioned on their websites that there were some restrictions on what they offered. They lied on their websites. One said that their "romantic" location was the perfect place to hold a special occasion, then refused to book a same-sex occasion, proving that their advertisement was a lie.

Again, any rules that violate the constitution are not viable.

And I don't see in the constitution where people are guaranteed what they want from other citizens.

And government is a different story, not relevant to this discussion.

Your issue is you probably think religious people are crazy, and since you can't empathize with them, they can go fuck themselves.

LIke most progressives, it's all about "me me me"

You notice that person will not respond to the question of it felt about the restaurant that refused to serve Sarah Sanders.......

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Jack Phillips, Christian baker, hit with new complaint over transgender birthday cake

These pieces of shit never learn do they!? Its time to get this back to the supreme court with 2 new justices!

Phillips should just charge more for transgender cakes because of all of the secret ingredients

 

[Lysistrata]

He is trash. Sorry, but he chooses to be so. He chooses to ruin himself. Crap like him doesn't get to run society. He can move to Saudi Arabia, or Guyana if he wants to drop out of society.

Ah, the "stop hitting yourself" argument.

In the US we have the right to free exercise of religion, and that right is not automatically trumped by another person's right to commerce.

In this specific case, he is in the right, and your side are a bunch of government dick sucking thugs.

dick sucking? (1) if you voted for trump you have demonstrated your willingness to do so. By using the term, you know that use of this term demonstrates the failure of the user's parents to provide a proper upbringing.

This idea that everyone from any religion can do anything they want to and thumb their noses at larger society is absurd. All it would do is create chaos. We are not all members of whatever cult.

Who said anything about being "able to do anything"? He serves anyone when it comes to either point of sale items, or items that do not impact his moral code.

I'm sorry, but having to spend 15 minutes finding and going to another baker for a wedding cake will not "create chaos."

And if you can't stand the heat, bitch, may I suggest the Hello Kitty message board as being more your speed?

You stupid little boy, this is not just about cakes, it's about consumer goods and services in general. You are trying to transfer the responsibility onto consumers because some business people are liars. It is not the responsibility of the American consumer to go chasing around town or county over some little creep's "beliefs." A "belief" can be anything an individual, however addled, says it is.

Go join Hello Kitty. It's more your speed, since you never grew up.

BTW: this incident involves a birthday cake that this little bitch-boy refused to bake, not a wedding cake. When are you little boys in short pants going to grow up. There still is the prospect of becoming a man.

How did you feel about that restaurant that refused to serve Sarah Sanders?

Simple question that you refuse to answer because well we know why. Moron.

No. I don't refuse to answer. There is no evidence that the restaurant refused to serve white, heterosexual, Christian women. She was refused service only because of the political deals, contracts, and contacts that she chose to make. She freely chose her associates, whether the mafia or trump.

I bet that there were white, heterosexual, Christian women in the same dining room who were served and enjoying their dinners.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Ah, the "stop hitting yourself" argument.

In the US we have the right to free exercise of religion, and that right is not automatically trumped by another person's right to commerce.

In this specific case, he is in the right, and your side are a bunch of government dick sucking thugs.

dick sucking? (1) if you voted for trump you have demonstrated your willingness to do so. By using the term, you know that use of this term demonstrates the failure of the user's parents to provide a proper upbringing.

This idea that everyone from any religion can do anything they want to and thumb their noses at larger society is absurd. All it would do is create chaos. We are not all members of whatever cult.

Who said anything about being "able to do anything"? He serves anyone when it comes to either point of sale items, or items that do not impact his moral code.

I'm sorry, but having to spend 15 minutes finding and going to another baker for a wedding cake will not "create chaos."

And if you can't stand the heat, bitch, may I suggest the Hello Kitty message board as being more your speed?

You stupid little boy, this is not just about cakes, it's about consumer goods and services in general. You are trying to transfer the responsibility onto consumers because some business people are liars. It is not the responsibility of the American consumer to go chasing around town or county over some little creep's "beliefs." A "belief" can be anything an individual, however addled, says it is.

Go join Hello Kitty. It's more your speed, since you never grew up.

BTW: this incident involves a birthday cake that this little bitch-boy refused to bake, not a wedding cake. When are you little boys in short pants going to grow up. There still is the prospect of becoming a man.

How did you feel about that restaurant that refused to serve Sarah Sanders?

Simple question that you refuse to answer because well we know why. Moron.

No. I don't refuse to answer. There is no evidence that the restaurant refused to serve white, heterosexual, Christian women. She was refused service only because of the political deals, contracts, and contacts that she chose to make. She freely chose her associates, whether the mafia or trump.

I bet that there were white, heterosexual, Christian women in the same dining room who were served and enjoying their dinners.

So you stupidly acknowledge that you are okay with SOME discrimination, but not others...... That is a DIRECT violation of the 14th Amendment ALL Americans are guaranteed EQUAL protection of the law, meaning in truth ALL discrimination should be illegal or none should be.

You are just stupid and don't understand this.

 

[Lysistrata]

You stupid little boy, this is not just about cakes, it's about consumer goods and services in general. You are trying to transfer the responsibility onto consumers because some business people are liars. It is not the responsibility of the American consumer to go chasing around town or county over some little creep's "beliefs." A "belief" can be anything an individual, however addled, says it is.

Go join Hello Kitty. It's more your speed, since you never grew up.

BTW: this incident involves a birthday cake that this little bitch-boy refused to bake, not a wedding cake. When are you little boys in short pants going to grow up. There still is the prospect of becoming a man.

It is not the requirement of an american citizen to ignore their own morals and their own right to free exercise without a compelling government interest. Even in those cases government has to use the least restrictive method of resolving the issue.

This incident was a trap, because the person in question could have just asked for the cake, but went on to explain why the cake was to be made as such. And when the baker denied the cake requested by the Church of Satan people, (Satan blowing a dildo) he showed his consistency on the matter of his beliefs.

Again, non-timely, non-nessasary, contracted services do not meet the requirement of a compelling government interest.

But for people like you it isn't about tolerance, it's about forced acceptance via government fiat.

What small miserable people you must be.

There are compelling state interests in facilitating commerce and in eradicating discrimination. Everybody is "forced" to do something by a government entity. There are no exceptions.
I, taxpayer, was forced to pay for providing services to people who accepted tax exemptions, even though they were de facto political parties, to pay for "abstinence education," including obscenely telling young people that sex made them dirty like used chewing gum on the floor, the invasion of Iraq, etc. Who do you think was forced to pay for that moron jeffress to go to Jerusalem to shame the American people at the opening of the unnecessary embassy? Who do you think is forced to pay salaries to trump and his troop of whores like sanders, devos, huber?

Now the orange whore wants us taxpayers to pay for his wall, even though the 'ho said that the Mexicans would pay for it.

Moreover, we don't know how many Americans were forced to give birth by government fiat.

We, The People, have always lived under government fiat.

There is no compelling interest when a single baker doesn't want to do a single type of transaction. If they were the only baker for 100 miles, or if all the bakers in an area decided to do the same thing, then government would probably have an interest. Even then what the government should do is require the cake to be baked without anything that would indicate the position the baker found offensive.

And that you have to go beyond the crux of this argument to rant "ORANGE MAN BAD" shows you have no real argument.

You still are trying to transfer responsibility onto unsuspecting consumers from licensed and incorporated business people who know, or should know, the rules for doing business in this country. Why should the consumers waste their time and gas driving around?

Some people have to go to local government agencies, like people seeking marriage licenses. Some of them met up with that bitch who refused to do her job and sent them driving around. There is no evidence that the state ever reimbursed these people for their time, effort, and gas.

For consumer goods, like cakes, I have done some searching around, too. I have not seen one advertisement by bakers that mentioned on their websites that there were some restrictions on what they offered. They lied on their websites. One said that their "romantic" location was the perfect place to hold a special occasion, then refused to book a same-sex occasion, proving that their advertisement was a lie.

Again, any rules that violate the constitution are not viable.

And I don't see in the constitution where people are guaranteed what they want from other citizens.

And government is a different story, not relevant to this discussion.

Your issue is you probably think religious people are crazy, and since you can't empathize with them, they can go fuck themselves.

LIke most progressives, it's all about "me me me"

Your issue is you probably think religious people are crazy, and since you can't empathize with them, they can go fuck themselves.

Nope. Not in 66 years, until these crazy bitches showed up trying to be "religious" with some "religion" that they make up all the time and feel some bizarre need to spread all over general society. Before this time, religious people had dignity, and each religion let everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof, alone.

Apparently, you think that I should support ISIS. I don't.