Rules For Traditionals: How People In Wedding Trades Can Defend Themselves

[danielpalos]

That's just total left-wing horseshit. If a business doesn't want to serve you, then you need to take a hike. Hanging a sign in your window is a promise of nothing. There is not contractual arrangement created by a sign that says "Joe's wedding cakes."

actually, 50 years of PA laws says that there is.

It does nothing of the sort. All it says is that government can force you to do what it wants.

Only when engaged in Commerce via public accommodations on a for-profit basis.

 

[JoeB131]

You're a ******* moron, Joe, and a poltroon. Anyone who says that laws aren't ultimately enforced with guns is either stupid or lying. We all know that if you fail to comply with a police officer's orders, than violence against you will continue to escalate until eventually they get out their guns. Your post is a pile of horsecrap.

Except no one is going to go out with a gun to collect from Homophobic Bakers.

What will happen instead is if they don't pay it, a lien will be placed against their accounts. Which means if they try to open another bakery, no one is going to loan them any money to bake bigoted cakes.

BTW, moron, we also have laws on the books in this country that say marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Why aren't you attacking the people violating those laws?

Because they are shitty unconstitutional laws.

There's no constitutional issue with Public Accommodation Laws. Women and Minorities already had this argument with Sexists and Racists, and the Racists and Sexists lost.

Public accommodations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[JoeB131]

And yet his bigotry still killed someone!

A person is dead because of bigotry and racism, and you think it's a victory because at least the bigotry was dressed up?!?!

Jesus ******* Christ, you are seriously deranged.

You should talk to some of your fellow Homophobes here, guy. They'll all insist George Zimmerman doesn't have a racist bone in his body and Trayvon totally had it coming.

I personally think he was a fatboy who let a bad situation get out of hand, not some Klansman looking to lynch someone.

 

[SwimExpert]

And yet his bigotry still killed someone!

A person is dead because of bigotry and racism, and you think it's a victory because at least the bigotry was dressed up?!?!

Jesus ******* Christ, you are seriously deranged.

You should talk to some of your fellow Homophobes here, guy. They'll all insist George Zimmerman doesn't have a racist bone in his body and Trayvon totally had it coming.

I personally think he was a fatboy who let a bad situation get out of hand, not some Klansman looking to lynch someone.

Translation: Joe can only think in terms of gigantic brushes.

 

[JoeB131]

Translation: Joe can only think in terms of gigantic brushes.

I like to think more in terms of big hammers..

But the point remains. We don't know if ZImmerman was a racist or not, but his life is pretty much ruined anyway, as opposed to the guys who lynched Emmit Till, who lived to a ripe old age before anyone called them on it.

 

[dblack]

Translation: Joe can only think in terms of gigantic brushes.

I like to think more in terms of big hammers..

Heh. I bet you do.

 

[dblack]

Translation: Joe can only think in terms of gigantic brushes.

I like to think more in terms of big hammers..

Heh. I bet you do.

 

[Seawytch]

BTW, moron, we also have laws on the books in this country that say marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Why aren't you attacking the people violating those laws?

Those unconstitutional laws weren't violated, they were ruled invalid. Huge difference.

 

[SwimExpert]

I like to think more in terms of big hammers.

No doubt. Those who can't make their point logically tend to resort to hostility.

 

[bripat9643]

r

BTW, moron, we also have laws on the books in this country that say marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Why aren't you attacking the people violating those laws?

Those unconstitutional laws weren't violated, they were ruled invalid. Huge difference.

They aren't unconstitutional. The GAYstapo simply went judge shopping and found some liberal judges who they knew would rule they way they wanted them to rule.

There's no difference whatsoever.

 

[Dragonlady]

The judges on the current edition of the Supreme Court have a conservative bias which is why you have Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, and various restrictions on abortions being upheld, and portions of the Voters Rights Act being struck down.

So far the SC has decided every SSM case that's come before them in favour of gays. That should tell you how Just plain wrong your position is.

 

[Seawytch]

r

BTW, moron, we also have laws on the books in this country that say marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Why aren't you attacking the people violating those laws?

Those unconstitutional laws weren't violated, they were ruled invalid. Huge difference.

They aren't unconstitutional. The GAYstapo simply went judge shopping and found some liberal judges who they knew would rule they way they wanted them to rule.

There's no difference whatsoever.

Right...gays went "judge shopping". We must be damn good shoppers since over 40 have ruled our way and only, what, one or two against?

The laws aren't being ignored..which is the claim you made. They were ruled unconstitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

r

BTW, moron, we also have laws on the books in this country that say marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Why aren't you attacking the people violating those laws?

Those unconstitutional laws weren't violated, they were ruled invalid. Huge difference.

They aren't unconstitutional. The GAYstapo simply went judge shopping and found some liberal judges who they knew would rule they way they wanted them to rule.

There's no difference whatsoever.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant, wrong, and ridiculous.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence used by Federal judges to invalidate laws hostile to gay Americans is well over a century old, in place long before the judges reviewing these laws took their respective benches.

Federal judges are appropriately and in concert with the Constitution striking down these laws because they seek only to disadvantage gay Americans, absent a rational basis, objective, documented evidence in support, and a proper legislative end.

“We hate gays” is not a valid Constitutional reason to deny same-sex couples equal protection of the law.

 

[JoeB131]

I like to think more in terms of big hammers.

No doubt. Those who can't make their point logically tend to resort to hostility.

I'm not just interested in "logically" arguing with people who hate gay people because an imaginary zombie told them to.

I just break out the big ******* hammer on them.

 

[JoeB131]

They aren't unconstitutional. The GAYstapo simply went judge shopping and found some liberal judges who they knew would rule they way they wanted them to rule.

There's no difference whatsoever.

Uh, most of the judges who have heard these cases have ruled against them. You guys are losing because your anti-gay laws are unconstitutional, and people told you they were when you passed them.

 

[bripat9643]

r

BTW, moron, we also have laws on the books in this country that say marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Why aren't you attacking the people violating those laws?

Those unconstitutional laws weren't violated, they were ruled invalid. Huge difference.

They aren't unconstitutional. The GAYstapo simply went judge shopping and found some liberal judges who they knew would rule they way they wanted them to rule.

There's no difference whatsoever.

Right...gays went "judge shopping". We must be damn good shoppers since over 40 have ruled our way and only, what, one or two against?

The laws aren't being ignored..which is the claim you made. They were ruled unconstitutional.

That's how liberal judges ignore the law: they rule them unconstitutional. Judge shopping is the way you get the ruling you want. Furthermore, Obama has spent the last 7 years infesting the courts with a bunch of left-wing judges.

 

[martybegan]

I like to think more in terms of big hammers.

No doubt. Those who can't make their point logically tend to resort to hostility.

I'm not just interested in "logically" arguing with people who hate gay people because an imaginary zombie told them to.

I just break out the big ******* hammer on them.

Bigot. and the only hammer you wield is made of nerf.

 

[bripat9643]

They aren't unconstitutional. The GAYstapo simply went judge shopping and found some liberal judges who they knew would rule they way they wanted them to rule.

There's no difference whatsoever.

Uh, most of the judges who have heard these cases have ruled against them. You guys are losing because your anti-gay laws are unconstitutional, and people told you they were when you passed them.

We're losing because Republicans are stupid and nominate RINOs like Romney, Bush and McCain

 

[bripat9643]

r

BTW, moron, we also have laws on the books in this country that say marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Why aren't you attacking the people violating those laws?

Those unconstitutional laws weren't violated, they were ruled invalid. Huge difference.

They aren't unconstitutional. The GAYstapo simply went judge shopping and found some liberal judges who they knew would rule they way they wanted them to rule.

There's no difference whatsoever.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant, wrong, and ridiculous.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence used by Federal judges to invalidate laws hostile to gay Americans is well over a century old, in place long before the judges reviewing these laws took their respective benches.

Federal judges are appropriately and in concert with the Constitution striking down these laws because they seek only to disadvantage gay Americans, absent a rational basis, objective, documented evidence in support, and a proper legislative end.

“We hate gays” is not a valid Constitutional reason to deny same-sex couples equal protection of the law.

They already have equal protection of the law, numskull.

 

[SwimExpert]

I like to think more in terms of big hammers.

No doubt. Those who can't make their point logically tend to resort to hostility.

I'm not just interested in "logically" arguing with people who hate gay people because an imaginary zombie told them to.

I just break out the big ******* hammer on them.

Your concession is noted and accepted.