Refusal over personal beliefs

[pwjohn]

Rebel flags aren't protected by PA laws. So, for example you can't force a flag maker to make a rebel flag. However, if a flag maker makes a rebel flag then he has to sell them to everyone covered by PA laws. Usually race, religion and sexual orientation.

You are annoyingly ignorant.

We entered the SPIN ZONE...........

Splitting hairs there skippy....................................You will deny the Christians their right to refuse to serve something against their beliefs but GO YES BAN A DANG FLAG...........................

You are a HYPOCRITE...............nothing more nothing less...............

Baking a cake is not against a bakers religion. However, you can't force a baker to make a cake with a huge dick on it if it's no on the menu either.

Replace dick with rebel flag in the above sentence, you'll figure it out...or not.

They refused to serve it to the wedding...............Had it been just bake a wedding cake they probably would have done it anyway.........Mr. Dumbass........

Check this out Mr. Hypocrite..

You mean they had to deliver it? If that's part of their service then they need to do just that.

As for your video, not sure what the PA laws are there, if they have to serve customers regardless of sexual orientation and someone decides to sue those bakers if they aren't served per the law then I'd absolutely support the lawsuit. Gee...that was easy.

It's Muslim Bakers refusing to bake cakes for a gay wedding...................

But I don't see you suing them or DEMANDING they bake the cakes.........................Those bakers in the videos REFUSED TO EVEN BAKE THE CAKE.................

But if it's ISLAM RELIGION...they HAVE THE RIGHT TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY................Can't offend them.............now can we..

Offend and attack CHRISTIANS............well that's OK................Islam doing the same thing.............NOT SO MUCH.

If that's what you're looking for, than my recommendation would be for you to take one of your racists pals to a muslim bakery order a gay wedding cake and, see what happens.

 

[hadit]

And, pray tell, what kind of cookie can someone not live without?

Soft Chocolate Chip.



>>>>

I'd rather bake them myself at home. And don't forget the milk.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Public accomodation laws are inherently unjust. They result in government force being used against a person who hasn't trespassed against anyone's person or property. Violence is always ethically unjustified, except in response to trespass or threat of trespass.

How's this for a comprimise. You can totally ignore the PA laws.

But you get no public benefits. At all. No utilities, no police or fire protection, etc.

As long as you business benefits from public support, the government has a right to question it if you are not providing promised services to the public.

The government can't require you to surrender your rights to enjoy government services. Otherwise the government could refuse police service to anyone who posted anything online that they didn't agree with, thereby controlling free speech.

You liberals are truly moronic.

 

[kaz]

Name the "group" that is prevented from attending his concert

So if the baker refused to bake for gays or blacks, that would have worked? Interesting

No Kaz, the baker would have to close shop for it to work. Not refuse to serve some people, they have to not serve all people...by closing. Nobody is prevented from attending a Bruce Springsteen concert. He's denying no one attendence at his event, he's just not having it where you want him to. Nothing says he has to.

NC residents? Nope, they can go to his concert in another state. Who is discriminated against?

Queers can go to another baker. Who is discriminated against?

The people denied entry into the public accommodation. No one has been denied entry into a Bruce Springsteen concert. Argument fail.

If you close your bakery rather than bake me a cake, you've violated no PA law anywhere.

And can I reopen when you leave?

Nope, that would be in violation of the law....which you're free to do if you're willing to be caught and pay a fine.

You just said it was OK to discriminate against multiple groups, now your standard changes again. Blacks and gays discriminated against by Springstein need to sue for millions, class action. The guy hates blacks, fags, women, Hispanics, Muslims, the elderly, youth. He's apparently only OK with white, middle age men. Don't you want to send a message to someone like that, someone who peddles hate?

 

[WorldWatcher]

And, pray tell, what kind of cookie can someone not live without?

Soft Chocolate Chip.



>>>>

I'd rather bake them myself at home. And don't forget the milk.

Milk of course!!!

Or maybe a good cup of coffee either will work.


Those that eat CC Cookies and drink a soda with it are heathens.


>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

My bigotries? What bigotries?

You have no "right" to get good service from anyone. You are not the owner of anyone, nor do you have the right to initiate violence against them simply because they chose to give you or not give you the service that you think you have the right to.

A law that results in the initiation of violence against someone who hasn't violated the person or property of anyone is simply an unjust law.

I'm not sure why you keep babbling about "violence". In fact, let's be honest, it's a trade off. The government makes sure an angry gay mob won't burn down Bigoted Bakers and Bigoted Bakers has to do what they promised to do by advertising services. Seems like a fair and reasonable trade off.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

My bigotries? What bigotries?

You have no "right" to get good service from anyone. You are not the owner of anyone, nor do you have the right to initiate violence against them simply because they chose to give you or not give you the service that you think you have the right to.

A law that results in the initiation of violence against someone who hasn't violated the person or property of anyone is simply an unjust law.

I'm not sure why you keep babbling about "violence". In fact, let's be honest, it's a trade off. The government makes sure an angry gay mob won't burn down Bigoted Bakers and Bigoted Bakers has to do what they promised to do by advertising services. Seems like a fair and reasonable trade off.

How do you feel about drug testing welfare recipients?

Or more to the point, what if a state instituted drug testing in order to receive a DL?

 

[JoeB131]

How do you feel about drug testing welfare recipients?

Or more to the point, what if a state instituted drug testing in order to receive a DL?

Not really comparable, as they would involve a major violation of one's Fourth Amendment Rights against unreasonable searches and seizures...

 

[bendog]

How do you feel about drug testing welfare recipients?

Or more to the point, what if a state instituted drug testing in order to receive a DL?

Not really comparable, as they would involve a major violation of one's Fourth Amendment Rights against unreasonable searches and seizures...

Actually, the fourth isn't implicated because the State is not compelling the person submit to the search. Not that I'm for drug testing for welfare. I'm for cutting off all welfare, beyond free lunches for poor kids, after some set of time.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

How do you feel about drug testing welfare recipients?

Or more to the point, what if a state instituted drug testing in order to receive a DL?

Not really comparable, as they would involve a major violation of one's Fourth Amendment Rights against unreasonable searches and seizures...

LOL and telling a business owner they don't have a right to associate with whomever they choose doesn't violate their rights?? Come on Joe, be consistent. You can both defend a right, and deplore its use.

 

[Seawytch]

Have you been pointing out this "injustice" since 1964 or just since PA laws also started covering gays?

No. Not since 1964. I'd say probably since about 2000 or so.

But of course my personal details have no effect on whether a law is just or unjust. It would be so whether I existed or not.

A law (or any act) is unjust if it constitutes an initiation of violence against one who hasn't violated anyone's person or property.

Ah, 2000. So you didn't object when racists were forced to serve interracial couples in all 50 states but when gays have to be served in fewer than half...well, that's a bridge too far!

Puhleese.

 

[Seawytch]

Name the "group" that is prevented from attending his concert

So if the baker refused to bake for gays or blacks, that would have worked? Interesting

No Kaz, the baker would have to close shop for it to work. Not refuse to serve some people, they have to not serve all people...by closing. Nobody is prevented from attending a Bruce Springsteen concert. He's denying no one attendence at his event, he's just not having it where you want him to. Nothing says he has to.

NC residents? Nope, they can go to his concert in another state. Who is discriminated against?

Queers can go to another baker. Who is discriminated against?

The people denied entry into the public accommodation. No one has been denied entry into a Bruce Springsteen concert. Argument fail.

If you close your bakery rather than bake me a cake, you've violated no PA law anywhere.

And can I reopen when you leave?

Nope, that would be in violation of the law....which you're free to do if you're willing to be caught and pay a fine.

You just said it was OK to discriminate against multiple groups, now your standard changes again. Blacks and gays discriminated against by Springstein need to sue for millions, class action. The guy hates blacks, fags, women, Hispanics, Muslims, the elderly, youth. He's apparently only OK with white, middle age men. Don't you want to send a message to someone like that, someone who peddles hate?

No group is being discriminated against. No one is prevented from attending a Springsteen concert.

 

[kaz]

Name the "group" that is prevented from attending his concert

So if the baker refused to bake for gays or blacks, that would have worked? Interesting

No Kaz, the baker would have to close shop for it to work. Not refuse to serve some people, they have to not serve all people...by closing. Nobody is prevented from attending a Bruce Springsteen concert. He's denying no one attendence at his event, he's just not having it where you want him to. Nothing says he has to.

NC residents? Nope, they can go to his concert in another state. Who is discriminated against?

Queers can go to another baker. Who is discriminated against?

The people denied entry into the public accommodation. No one has been denied entry into a Bruce Springsteen concert. Argument fail.

If you close your bakery rather than bake me a cake, you've violated no PA law anywhere.

And can I reopen when you leave?

Nope, that would be in violation of the law....which you're free to do if you're willing to be caught and pay a fine.

You just said it was OK to discriminate against multiple groups, now your standard changes again. Blacks and gays discriminated against by Springstein need to sue for millions, class action. The guy hates blacks, fags, women, Hispanics, Muslims, the elderly, youth. He's apparently only OK with white, middle age men. Don't you want to send a message to someone like that, someone who peddles hate?

No group is being discriminated against. No one is prevented from attending a Springsteen concert.

So gays and blacks can go to the concert? How can that be when he cancelled it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How do you feel about drug testing welfare recipients?

Or more to the point, what if a state instituted drug testing in order to receive a DL?

Not really comparable, as they would involve a major violation of one's Fourth Amendment Rights against unreasonable searches and seizures...

No, you wouldn't.

Accepting welfare is an option just like accepting a job that has drug tests. If you don't want to get drug tested, then don't apply for welfare.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My bigotries? What bigotries?

You have no "right" to get good service from anyone. You are not the owner of anyone, nor do you have the right to initiate violence against them simply because they chose to give you or not give you the service that you think you have the right to.

A law that results in the initiation of violence against someone who hasn't violated the person or property of anyone is simply an unjust law.

I'm not sure why you keep babbling about "violence". In fact, let's be honest, it's a trade off. The government makes sure an angry gay mob won't burn down Bigoted Bakers and Bigoted Bakers has to do what they promised to do by advertising services. Seems like a fair and reasonable trade off.

Sounds more like the Mafia than organized government.

If you don't want your business burned down, you better do as we say.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's say a black owned bakery has a customer come in saying he's the Grand Poobah of the KKK. He wants the black baker to make him a cake for their annual Hang The N party. Does that black baker have the moral and legal right to refuse service to the Grand Poobah or not?

Nope. And frankly, if a gay couple wanted a baker to make them a big old Penis cake, they'd probably have grounds to refuse, too.

But the same wedding cake they offer to straight couples they can't refuse.

So they bake the gay couple a cake with no writing on it and a plastic man and woman on the top of it?

 

[Centinel]

Ah, 2000. So you didn't object when racists were forced to serve interracial couples in all 50 states but when gays have to be served in fewer than half...well, that's a bridge too far!

1960, 2000, or 2016. It doesn't matter. No matter where or when, it's unjust to initiate violence against someone who hasn't violated anyone's person or property. That was true in the past, and it will be true in the future. It's wrong to use violence against other, except in response to violence.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL and telling a business owner they don't have a right to associate with whomever they choose doesn't violate their rights?? Come on Joe, be consistent. You can both defend a right, and deplore its use.

If a business owner doesn't want to associate with someone, they need to find some other kind of business.
A business owner has rights, a business has obligations to follow the law.

 

[JoeB131]

So they bake the gay couple a cake with no writing on it and a plastic man and woman on the top of it?

Stretching again, buddy?

 

[JoeB131]

No, you wouldn't.

Accepting welfare is an option just like accepting a job that has drug tests. If you don't want to get drug tested, then don't apply for welfare.

oh, I see. what task is a welfare person going to do that might be impaired by his taking drugs? Because that's the legal rational behind drug testing job applicants.

Sounds more like the Mafia than organized government.

If you don't want your business burned down, you better do as we say.

Well, uh, no. You see, the thing is, you guys want no law to apply to you but you want laws to apply to people who might use violence to retaliate against you bigots.

And while you might relish the thought of wanting to sit outside a bakery all night waiting for some queer to show up with a lighter so you can shoot him, real world, most people want government protection.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want the benefits of a civilized society or you don't. Because as much as you talk smack about 'freedom' and 'liberty', you want the bad old government keeping those people in line. You just don't want them keeping YOU in line.