Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
An excellent example. Thank you for bringing it up, Marty. People worked long and hard to get such Jim Crow laws repealed or struck down in court. It took a while but they did it. If all they had done was verbally complain about it and not take ACTION, there probably would still be segregation laws like separate drinking fountains. People got off their couches and actually TOOK ACTION.Learn to be rational. If the law says Serve One, Serve All, do that.So, change to that, if you think you can get away with it. Just don't sell to the public. You can't have your no faggot cake and sell it too, unless you are very, very careful.I'm sure hope but that doesn't change the fact that they opened a public accommodation. if they only baked wedding cakes for straight friends they'd have no issues at all.
A by contract baking service is not a public accommodation.
It's not what I want to get away with, that has nothing to do with it. it's about government being able to ruin someone over something as stupid as politely saying they don't want to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
It's also about the fascist cheering squad you belong to, and the fact that your are all miserable, detestable pond scum forgeries of actual human beings.
The law used to say blacks had to use separate water fountains. Where was your respect for the law then?
Appeal to authority isn't a position, its a cop out.
The baker would have been just fine, had they done their job.What if the baker were an emergency room surgeon in a small hospital in the south, and he refused to operate on a critical patient because he was gay.
Does he have the right to let someone die because it would infringe on his religious rights.
Timely or necessary services are a compelling government interest that merit anti-discrimination rules. A gay couple having to spend 15 minutes finding another baker and feeling bad about it isn't, and it is not worth ruining the baker in question.
Does not have to be a compelling governmental interest. Only a rational one.What if the baker were an emergency room surgeon in a small hospital in the south, and he refused to operate on a critical patient because he was gay.
Does he have the right to let someone die because it would infringe on his religious rights.
Timely or necessary services are a compelling government interest that merit anti-discrimination rules. A gay couple having to spend 15 minutes finding another baker and feeling bad about it isn't, and it is not worth ruining the baker in question.
And how are they practicing their religion by baking a cake?Comparing religious conviction to a repulsion to fat people is, not to offend, rather absurd. For one, there is no Constitutional right that protects your right to abhor fat people, but there is one that ensures people of the right to religious freedom and their right to practice that religion.People can be disgusted at whatever they want. I find some very fat people to be disgusting. Should I be able to refuse to serve fat people? You have to realize the trouble this would cause. The state wants a smooth operation of business and flow of people doing business. THAT is in the best interest of everyone and the state's own bottom line.
The law is wrongly applied. Stop arguing mechanics and deal with the outcomes/results.
No the law was not "wrongly applied", Sweetcakes by Melissa was clearly a for profit business under Oregon Public Accommodation law. The violated the law by refusing goods and services they routinely supplied to the public based on the sexual orientation of the customers.
Just because you disagree with a law does not mean that it was "wrongly applied".
>>>>
As is business discrimination....not to mention the splashing the couple's name on facebook so that they started being harassed by "the god squad".Wait...you support the alleged butthurt of those who break the law? Do you also support the butthurt of those who steal? Those who murder? Worry about their feelings, do you?Who are you to make that "direct harm" call for others?I already explained above in the post you quoted how it benefits the states. Economic development, attracting business, smooth business flow.
those are not compelling without some direct harm involved.
I am the person defending other's right to various freedoms.
Why is one person's butthurt more than another person's butthurt in the absence of actual harm?
Theft and murder are actual harm.
All you need to do is read many of the posts here whenever race is the topic and you would think otherwise.You really think this problem would be rampant? You think if we didn't have those anti dis laws for blacks, they would still have their own fountain and sit in the back of the bus? No way.If we allow people to behave in this manner when conducting business, where does it end? Nope, we still have laws regarding business practice, and the states are perfectly within their rights to make reasonable laws and regulations regarding business practice. We are all considered equal and the same in the eyes of the law, regardless of your personal religious beliefs.That's how it should be.
You don't get to make that call.So is discrimination, in most cases.Wait...you support the alleged butthurt of those who break the law? Do you also support the butthurt of those who steal? Those who murder? Worry about their feelings, do you?Who are you to make that "direct harm" call for others?
I am the person defending other's right to various freedoms.
Why is one person's butthurt more than another person's butthurt in the absence of actual harm?
Theft and murder are actual harm.
Not in this case. Hurt feelings are not harm.
An excellent example. Thank you for bringing it up, Marty. People worked long and hard to get such Jim Crow laws repealed or struck down in court. It took a while but they did it. If all they had done was verbally complain about it and not take ACTION, there probably would still be segregation laws like separate drinking fountains. People got off their couches and actually TOOK ACTION.Learn to be rational. If the law says Serve One, Serve All, do that.So, change to that, if you think you can get away with it. Just don't sell to the public. You can't have your no faggot cake and sell it too, unless you are very, very careful.A by contract baking service is not a public accommodation.
It's not what I want to get away with, that has nothing to do with it. it's about government being able to ruin someone over something as stupid as politely saying they don't want to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
It's also about the fascist cheering squad you belong to, and the fact that your are all miserable, detestable pond scum forgeries of actual human beings.
The law used to say blacks had to use separate water fountains. Where was your respect for the law then?
Appeal to authority isn't a position, its a cop out.
Actually, they were meant to cover any public accommodation. You do understand that the term is defined in the act, right?The law is wrongly applied. Stop arguing mechanics and deal with the outcomes/results.
No the law was not "wrongly applied", Sweetcakes by Melissa was clearly a for profit business under Oregon Public Accommodation law. The violated the law by refusing goods and services they routinely supplied to the public based on the sexual orientation of the customers.
Just because you disagree with a law does not mean that it was "wrongly applied".
>>>>
and just quoting "the law is the law is the law is the law" is what bureaucratic zombies do.
PA laws were never meant to cover things like a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
You don't get to make that call.So is discrimination, in most cases.Wait...you support the alleged butthurt of those who break the law? Do you also support the butthurt of those who steal? Those who murder? Worry about their feelings, do you?I am the person defending other's right to various freedoms.
Why is one person's butthurt more than another person's butthurt in the absence of actual harm?
Theft and murder are actual harm.
Not in this case. Hurt feelings are not harm.
So you are actually going to continue to compare a goddamn cake to surgery?Strawman. But I will go ahead and break it down for youWhat if the baker were an emergency room surgeon in a small hospital in the south, and he refused to operate on a critical patient because he was gay.
Does he have the right to let someone die because it would infringe on his religious rights.
That would be illegal. FFS, hospitals cant even turn down people with no insurance.
The surgeon is in business and he is being forced to provide his services to gay people, which he doesn't want to do.
He's being forced to provide his services to EVERYONE.
See dopes.
Does not have to be a compelling governmental interest. Only a rational one.What if the baker were an emergency room surgeon in a small hospital in the south, and he refused to operate on a critical patient because he was gay.
Does he have the right to let someone die because it would infringe on his religious rights.
Timely or necessary services are a compelling government interest that merit anti-discrimination rules. A gay couple having to spend 15 minutes finding another baker and feeling bad about it isn't, and it is not worth ruining the baker in question.
And how are they practicing their religion by baking a cake?
Actually, they were meant to cover any public accommodation. You do understand that the term is defined in the act, right?The law is wrongly applied. Stop arguing mechanics and deal with the outcomes/results.
No the law was not "wrongly applied", Sweetcakes by Melissa was clearly a for profit business under Oregon Public Accommodation law. The violated the law by refusing goods and services they routinely supplied to the public based on the sexual orientation of the customers.
Just because you disagree with a law does not mean that it was "wrongly applied".
>>>>
and just quoting "the law is the law is the law is the law" is what bureaucratic zombies do.
PA laws were never meant to cover things like a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
I see. Now it's off topic because you cannot reply with a valid point. Ok.Exactly. No one is forced to go into the businesses they are in. Glad that you agree that there is freedom involved....no slavery. Yes you have to eat....yes you have to have a home...yes you have to earn a living. Who is FORCING you to choose the career you do have? Will you be complaining next about safety and health laws for your business enslaving you?You are a slave? You are FORCED to go into a certain business? You had no choice? You were FORCED to have a business in a specific state with specific PA laws? You had no choice? You are FORCED to quietly go along with laws? You're not allowed to vote for those who promise to repeal PA laws? You have no power of petition? You have no power to either join or start lobbying organizations to get such laws repealed?No, it is not your personal life. There are laws and regulations set forth by each state that you must follow and that you agree to follow whenever you pen your name to the legal document known as a business permit.
Ah, OK, if I make a deal with someone to make a living I'm no longer free, I'm a slave to government. That makes sense, I get it now
I guess, if we look at it that way....you are also a slave to business safety and health laws too.
That statement that you are "forced" to go into business is just functionally retarded. I have to eat, I have to have a home, and I need to earn a living. To say I am not being forced to earn a living is just complete fucking bullshit. You are right about one thing, you're a clown
How are things on the playground, making any new friends?
PA laws were never meant to cover things like a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
So...if you are unhappy with PA laws in your state, what are you actively doing to affect change?It IS the American way to affect change, you know.Let me ask you...what are you ACTIVELY doing to get PA laws off the books? Because there IS a way. You can vote for those who promise to repeal such laws. You can run yourself for office. You can petition. You can help fund organizations who lobby to get such laws repealed. You can start such an organization if you wish. All those avenues are open to you.Incorrect. In fact, PA laws have had their Constitutionality challenged. Guess what happened.
Government decided they have any fucking power they want and they can do anything they fucking want to because it's up to government what their powers are.
Am I right?
Trying to change minds
No shit
Who has said that dumbfuck? You are nothing but a big ball of emotional statism.Most of the morons posting here are just dying to post, "Yes, let the F*****s die"Strawman. But I will go ahead and break it down for youWhat if the baker were an emergency room surgeon in a small hospital in the south, and he refused to operate on a critical patient because he was gay.
Does he have the right to let someone die because it would infringe on his religious rights.
That would be illegal. FFS, hospitals cant even turn down people with no insurance.
The surgeon is in business and he is being forced to provide his services to gay people, which he doesn't want to do.
He's being forced to provide his services to EVERYONE.
See dopes.
PA laws were never meant to cover things like a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
The were in Oregon.
The legislature specifically included sexual orientation as a characteristic of the customer which cannot be used as a basis for refusing service.
>>>>
