No Cake for You

[Dante]

I agree I'd move along in the cake-gate situation, but then I'm not a gay activist looking to make things right.

You are a gay activist out to seek and destroy. Thanks for making the point of my thread.

Idiot! If it were me, i would have left the baker alone. Who gives a **** what bigoted people like you think or do. I'd destroy your business if you pissed me off. Oh wait -- did the law suit destroy the asshole's business?

never mind

 

[TemplarKormac]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial.

Intent of a law? Would you free all the criminals sent to jail because laws used against them violated the intent of the law? start with gangs and mafias and the RICO act.

you're parading your ignorance around is getting to be boring. The embarrassment felt for you has worn it's way...

Stating irrelevant laws is boring too. We aren't discussing criminals or the RICO act. We are talking about religious freedom and/or gay rights. Get with the program.

No...
You...

went to the INTENT of the law. You opened up that door. If you are going to argue a greater principle and then get challenged on that principle, you must not whine like a little *****

Did I? Because the paragraph you quoted says nothing about "intent of the law." You're the one who's getting angry. Perhaps you should squelch your anger and read the entire post before whining like a little *****. Oops.

 

[Dante]

All the baker had to do was say they couldn't handle the order. Who made being gay a divisive issue?

Both of them. The baker was being an ass by saying that, no doubt. But the couple by not walking out of the bakery, saying what a dick, and walking across the street to another baker who doesn't give a shit who they sleep with clearly were doing it for divisive politics, they wanted to force the prick to bake a cake. That's just stupid.

If the couple targeted the bakery, that is no crime. It's political. Is KAZ saying there isn't political issues in America surrounding people being gay?

No, how does oppose government using force to compel it's citizens to bake each other cakes remotely imply that?

Either stupid or people deciding to exercise their rights under the laws of the land.

In the court of law it isn't about the cake. It's about constitutional protections we all hope the government would protect with force if necessary

That's just stupid. Protection is preventing other people from doing things like mugging you. To call forcing someone to bake a cake for you "protection" is just retarded.

You are in serious need of protection

 

[TemplarKormac]

I agree I'd move along in the cake-gate situation, but then I'm not a gay activist looking to make things right.

You are a gay activist out to seek and destroy. Thanks for making the point of my thread.

Idiot! If it were me, i would have left the baker alone. Who gives a **** what bigoted people like you think or do. I'd destroy your business if you pissed me off. Oh wait -- did the law suit destroy the asshole's business?

never mind

Never mind is right. Your argument fell flat. Spare me your righteous indignation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

All the baker had to do was say they couldn't handle the order. Who made being gay a divisive issue?

Both of them. The baker was being an ass by saying that, no doubt. But the couple by not walking out of the bakery, saying what a dick, and walking across the street to another baker who doesn't give a shit who they sleep with clearly were doing it for divisive politics, they wanted to force the prick to bake a cake. That's just stupid.

If the couple targeted the bakery, that is no crime. It's political. Is KAZ saying there isn't political issues in America surrounding people being gay?

No, how does oppose government using force to compel it's citizens to bake each other cakes remotely imply that?

Either stupid or people deciding to exercise their rights under the laws of the land.

In the court of law it isn't about the cake. It's about constitutional protections we all hope the government would protect with force if necessary

That's just stupid. Protection is preventing other people from doing things like mugging you. To call forcing someone to bake a cake for you "protection" is just retarded.

You are in serious need of protection

Uh oh, the Italian Mafia is getting desperate, the Don hired this guy.

 

[Dante]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial.

Intent of a law? Would you free all the criminals sent to jail because laws used against them violated the intent of the law? start with gangs and mafias and the RICO act.

you're parading your ignorance around is getting to be boring. The embarrassment felt for you has worn it's way...

Stating irrelevant laws is boring too. We aren't discussing criminals or the RICO act. We are talking about religious freedom and/or gay rights. Get with the program.

No...
You...

went to the INTENT of the law. You opened up that door. If you are going to argue a greater principle and then get challenged on that principle, you must not whine like a little *****

Did I? Because the paragraph you quoted says nothing about "intent of the law." You're the one who's getting angry. Perhaps you should squelch your anger and read the entire post before whining like a little *****. Oops.

Angry? Nope. and if you follow the links back, it started out when Dante challenged you on the intentyou brought into the discussion:

The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I disagree that this passage means what you seem to think it does.

Of course, it means what you want it to mean, not what it actually means.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial.

Intent of a law? Would you free all the criminals sent to jail because laws used against them violated the intent of the law? start with gangs and mafias and the RICO act.

you're parading your ignorance around is getting to be boring. The embarrassment felt for you has worn it's way...

Stating irrelevant laws is boring too. We aren't discussing criminals or the RICO act. We are talking about religious freedom and/or gay rights. Get with the program.

No...
You...

went to the INTENT of the law. You opened up that door. If you are going to argue a greater principle and then get challenged on that principle, you must not whine like a little *****

Did I? Because the paragraph you quoted says nothing about "intent of the law." You're the one who's getting angry. Perhaps you should squelch your anger and read the entire post before whining like a little *****. Oops.

Angry? Nope. and if you follow the links back, it started out when Dante challenged you on the intentyou brought into the discussion:

The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial.

Ah, so you misread the sentence. The law is clear as it relates to discrimination, which I acknowledged. But the intent of the couple was not commercial in nature They were there to pick a fight and target a Christian bakery to destroy them, an ulterior motive.

Please, turn in that liberal education of yours and learn how to read common GRE words correctly.

 

[Dante]

Homosexual bakers should have every right to not bake a cake for heterosexual weddings.

Failing to find someone to bake your cake for you does not destroy your life nor your beliefs.

If it does, it says more about you and less about the baker.

Really? They ask the state for a license to operate, to sell cakes to the public. Bakers could refuse orders. Bakers cannot discriminate in public the way you would want...

We are a nation of laws. If you follow the link below, you will be educated on what you are talking about

What is a Public Accommodation?

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered "public accommodations." The definition of a "public accommodation" may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:

• Government-owned/operated facilities, services, and buildings
• Privately-owned/operated businesses, services, and buildings

- See more at: Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw​

The answer to my post is the first word of yours.

Really

really? Wow!

If someone doesn't want to make you a cake.....

Life goes on just the same

Or, you're a loser who can't make do.

Again, says more about the person wanting a cake than the one not wishing to provide the cake

This isn't about cakes, it's about intimidation and punishment.

It's not about laws, it's about intimidation and punishment.

.

and here we all thought it was about the law and guaranteed protections under constitutions.

Poor criminals feel intimidated and demand not to be punished? Go tell it to the judge.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Really? They ask the state for a license to operate, to sell cakes to the public. Bakers could refuse orders. Bakers cannot discriminate in public the way you would want...

We are a nation of laws. If you follow the link below, you will be educated on what you are talking about

What is a Public Accommodation?

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered "public accommodations." The definition of a "public accommodation" may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:

• Government-owned/operated facilities, services, and buildings
• Privately-owned/operated businesses, services, and buildings

- See more at: Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw​

The answer to my post is the first word of yours.

Really

really? Wow!

If someone doesn't want to make you a cake.....

Life goes on just the same

Or, you're a loser who can't make do.

Again, says more about the person wanting a cake than the one not wishing to provide the cake

This isn't about cakes, it's about intimidation and punishment.

It's not about laws, it's about intimidation and punishment.

.

and here we all thought it was about the law and guaranteed protections under constitutions.

Poor criminals feel intimidated and demand not to be punished? Go tell it to the judge.

Uh oh, do I smell a cover for a failed argument? You seized on something that wasn't even there. Dante just got blasted into prehistory for his lack of reading skills.

Anyhow, I don't know how you got off my ignore list, but back you go. Oh and Carla too. I can't stand trolls.

 

[Dante]

Intent of a law? Would you free all the criminals sent to jail because laws used against them violated the intent of the law? start with gangs and mafias and the RICO act.

you're parading your ignorance around is getting to be boring. The embarrassment felt for you has worn it's way...

Stating irrelevant laws is boring too. We aren't discussing criminals or the RICO act. We are talking about religious freedom and/or gay rights. Get with the program.

No...
You...

went to the INTENT of the law. You opened up that door. If you are going to argue a greater principle and then get challenged on that principle, you must not whine like a little *****

Did I? Because the paragraph you quoted says nothing about "intent of the law." You're the one who's getting angry. Perhaps you should squelch your anger and read the entire post before whining like a little *****. Oops.

Angry? Nope. and if you follow the links back, it started out when Dante challenged you on the intentyou brought into the discussion:

The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial.

Ah, so you misread the sentence. The law is clear as it relates to discrimination, which I acknowledged. But the intent of the couple was not commercial in nature They were there to pick a fight and target a Christian bakery to destroy them, an ulterior motive.​

Please, turn in that liberal education of yours and learn how to read common GRE words correctly.

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial.​

 

[Mac1958]

Really? They ask the state for a license to operate, to sell cakes to the public. Bakers could refuse orders. Bakers cannot discriminate in public the way you would want...

We are a nation of laws. If you follow the link below, you will be educated on what you are talking about

What is a Public Accommodation?

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered "public accommodations." The definition of a "public accommodation" may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:

• Government-owned/operated facilities, services, and buildings
• Privately-owned/operated businesses, services, and buildings

- See more at: Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw​

The answer to my post is the first word of yours.

Really

really? Wow!

If someone doesn't want to make you a cake.....

Life goes on just the same

Or, you're a loser who can't make do.

Again, says more about the person wanting a cake than the one not wishing to provide the cake

This isn't about cakes, it's about intimidation and punishment.

It's not about laws, it's about intimidation and punishment.

.

and here we all thought it was about the law and guaranteed protections under constitutions.

Poor criminals feel intimidated and demand not to be punished? Go tell it to the judge.

As I said, and as you know, this isn't about laws.

"Offend us and pay the price".

It was said to Charlie Hebdo too. By your partners in spirit.

How proud you must be.

.

 

[Dante]

The answer to my post is the first word of yours.

Really

really? Wow!

If someone doesn't want to make you a cake.....

Life goes on just the same

Or, you're a loser who can't make do.

Again, says more about the person wanting a cake than the one not wishing to provide the cake

This isn't about cakes, it's about intimidation and punishment.

It's not about laws, it's about intimidation and punishment.

.

and here we all thought it was about the law and guaranteed protections under constitutions.

Poor criminals feel intimidated and demand not to be punished? Go tell it to the judge.

Uh oh, do I smell a cover for a failed argument? You seized on something that wasn't even there. Dante just got blasted into prehistory for his lack of reading skills.

Anyhow, I don't know how you got off my ignore list, but back you go. Oh and Carla too. I can't stand trolls.

Crazy as a loon you are

 

[Dante]

The answer to my post is the first word of yours.

Really

really? Wow!

If someone doesn't want to make you a cake.....

Life goes on just the same

Or, you're a loser who can't make do.

Again, says more about the person wanting a cake than the one not wishing to provide the cake

This isn't about cakes, it's about intimidation and punishment.

It's not about laws, it's about intimidation and punishment.

.

and here we all thought it was about the law and guaranteed protections under constitutions.

Poor criminals feel intimidated and demand not to be punished? Go tell it to the judge.

As I said, and as you know, this isn't about laws.

"Offend us and pay the price".

It was said to Charlie Hebdo too. By your partners in spirit.

How proud you must be.

.

Charlie Hebdo was breaking the laws?


who knew?

 

[Mac1958]

.

"Offend us a pay the price."

Je suis Charlie.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The answer to my post is the first word of yours.

Really

really? Wow!

If someone doesn't want to make you a cake.....

Life goes on just the same

Or, you're a loser who can't make do.

Again, says more about the person wanting a cake than the one not wishing to provide the cake

This isn't about cakes, it's about intimidation and punishment.

It's not about laws, it's about intimidation and punishment.

.

and here we all thought it was about the law and guaranteed protections under constitutions.

Poor criminals feel intimidated and demand not to be punished? Go tell it to the judge.

As I said, and as you know, this isn't about laws.

"Offend us and pay the price".

It was said to Charlie Hebdo too. By your partners in spirit.

How proud you must be.

.

What? Partners in spirit? What does that mean? Is that one of your "mature adult" comments?

Dickhead.

 

[Dante]

MAC is demented

 

[Mac1958]

MAC is demented

Hey, I'm impressed by your passionate defense of The Law.

I'm sure you would demand that an illegal alien should be immediately arrested and deported, and some kid smoking a joint in his house be detained, too.

'Cause you're so into The Law now 'n stuff.

Oh, I'm just kidding. I know you're lying.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

personal beliefs do not get religious protections.

Actually they do, that is what the free exercise clause in about. The supreme court upheld that clause in the Hobby Lobby decision.

So we have a Supreme Court that's misinterpreting the Constitution. Not the first time.

Huh? Depends on where one stands and when.

Hobby Lobby was decided by a 5 - 4 vote. If by chance some judge had left the court by death or whatever a few years earlier or later than he did, a Democrat instead of a Republican President could have replaced him and the Hobby Lobby decision might have easily been 4 -5. Would that magically mean the the right decision had been reached,

in either case?

You are wrong in your assumption that a Justice appointed by a Democrat or a Republican can be pigeon holed so easily. Anyway, I'd have to read any concurring opinions along with the dissent in order to make the type of assumptions you are making

If only life were as black and white as you pretend it is

I said 'might easily have been' for a reason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am still waiting for someone to present a cogent argument as to how baking a cake somehow is forcing the baker to betray his faith.

It doesn't. Baking the cake wasn't the problem. They were asked to bring the cake to the wedding these two were having. Personally, I would have made the cake and said, "Get someone else to take it to your wedding, you got what you paid for."

They would have fulfilled their end by making the cake, and fulfilled their religious convictions by not taking it to the wedding.

And I will posit this:

If you ask a devout Christian to betray his beliefs, he will not. If you ask a gay person to stop being gay, they will not. Understand now?

anyone who knows anything about wedding cakes knows the delivery is to the reception hall well in advance of the event. And most wedding cakes are disassembled for transport and most bakers do set them up for their customers

I know this because my mother used to bake cakes and I delivered and set up many wedding cakes with her.

So it is a stretch to say walking into an empty reception hall to delver a cake is a betrayal of faith

No it isn't. You do realize that weddings have to be coordinated right? Hence why the baker has to be in contact with the couple to deliver. Meaning they are involved in the events leading up wedding.

They did business with sinners every day.