The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends: bakers must pay 135 K

[PaintMyHouse]

Or, more likely, look like they were the ones with a greater grasp on reality.

If you had that you would have seen this loss coming a decade ago, and also know that rights go forward here, not backwards into the time in which you live...

 

[Dragonlady]

No. That's your silly, made-up version of my argument. I don't think gays should take abuse from vendors. Neither should blacks. But that doesn't require a sledgehammer in the form of law that strips fundamental rights from business owners.

No fundemental rights are stripped. You have rights. Your business does not. Your business is required to follow all the laws that govern commerce. If you can't follow those laws, you shouldn't have a business.

This really isn't complicated.

You're right. It isn't complicated. Not nearly as complicated as your tortured argument. A business owner, and those that work for the business, shouldn't be required by law to give up their rights when they come to work. And that's what PA laws do. A free human being will always have the right to decide who they serve and under what circumstances. We should never give up the right to say "no".

You say that blacks shouldn't have to accept that Woolworths doesn't serve blacks but businesses shouldn't have the right to refuse serve. How do you propose ensuring that everyone gets what they want?

 

[Statistikhengst]

While the guardians of our morality are so concerned about this:

I would simply be enjoying this:

Long live the gay wedding cakes!

 

[dblack]

Some of those laws might violate their rights (and for that reason should be struck down), but their rights are still intact. This gets into all the whole "inalienable" thing, which no doubt evades you, but it's a staple of individual freedom.

You have individual freedom.

Your business does not.

A business is nothing more than in individual doing business.

If you really have a conflict between running your business and obeying the dictates of an Imaginary Pixie in the Sky, you have the option of not having that kind of business.

It seems you're just here to repeat slogans, but I wonder if you'd be willing to consider a hypothetical. I make custom websites for people. Much like a baker makes custom cakes for special events. When I build someone a website, I take a keen interest in who they are, and how their site will impact society. If I'm not comfortable with who they are, or what they're up to - I won't build their website.

By your 'reasoning', I have no right to do that. Would you also tell me that I need to get out of the website building business? That I have no right to choose who I do work for?

 

[Dragonlady]

Actually conservative Christianity has done amazing things for blow jobs and anal sex. Having their daughters promise to be "virgins" on their wedding night, these young, middle America Christian girls are now willingly giving blow jobs and having anal sex to keep their precious hymens intact for their wedding night.

In my youth, we would never have done anything so disgusting. As a teenager, I didn't even know anal sex existed, and I didn't really lead a sheltered life. Of course we didn't have the Internet or cable TV to teach us this stuff either.

I find these "unintended consequences" hugely laughable. Wanting to keep their daughters "pure", these families have created the most sexually perverted generation of young women in U.S. history.

 

[dblack]

I could get behind the "get rid of PA laws" drive...if they'd start at the Federal level and not state laws. {ahem}

Definitely. It should start at the Federal level.

Makes me think it's not really about PA laws (for most) and just about discriminating against "the gheys".

Probably. But defending freedom almost always entails standing up the fringe. The people most likely to be target suppression will always be the people most of us find repugnant.

 

[dblack]

No. That's your silly, made-up version of my argument. I don't think gays should take abuse from vendors. Neither should blacks. But that doesn't require a sledgehammer in the form of law that strips fundamental rights from business owners.

No fundemental rights are stripped. You have rights. Your business does not. Your business is required to follow all the laws that govern commerce. If you can't follow those laws, you shouldn't have a business.

This really isn't complicated.

You're right. It isn't complicated. Not nearly as complicated as your tortured argument. A business owner, and those that work for the business, shouldn't be required by law to give up their rights when they come to work. And that's what PA laws do. A free human being will always have the right to decide who they serve and under what circumstances. We should never give up the right to say "no".

You say that blacks shouldn't have to accept that Woolworths doesn't serve blacks but businesses shouldn't have the right to refuse serve. How do you propose ensuring that everyone gets what they want?

I don't propose ensuring that everyone gets what they want. I'm saying that not all social problems justify coercive solutions.

 

[Dragonlady]

Minorities are always going to be the subject of discrimination. If not by social coercion, how will minorities ever have equal treatment?

Since the Russians passed anti-gay laws, attacks and violence against gays have increased. The same thing happened in Nazi Germany when laws restricting the rights of Jews were passed.

Protective legislation banning discrimination against a class of people signals society that abuse will not be tolerated and provides broader protection against that class than the laws would suggest.

I know you're a libertarian but libertarians always assume that people are moral and will do the right thing, whereas people prove to us time and time again that without coercion a large portion of the population will do whatever the hell they want and damn the consequences.

 

[Pop23]

Or, more likely, look like they were the ones with a greater grasp on reality.

If you had that you would have seen this loss coming a decade ago, and also know that rights go forward here, not backwards into the time in which you live...

Like the rights for plural marriage? Sisters marrying?

A correction may happen, and the resulting may be the same as history has shown us has occurred several times before.

 

[Pop23]

It took about 20 years for the civil rights movement to become a done deal, with no more arguing about racial segregation. I guess we will just have to endure the whining about the damned wedding cake for another 19 1/2 years, too.

Oh, well....

I don't think it will take that long. The difference with gay rights is that you are more likely to have a gay relative staring at you across hte dining room table at thanksgiving giving you the stink-eye.

Oh, the stink eye?

Odd humans will remain odd humans no matter what the date on the calander reads. And their are not many odder than those who's entire life relolves around sex with their same gender.

Been around since time began, and still considered odd. Twenty more years is not going to change it much.

 

[Vandalshandle]

It took about 20 years for the civil rights movement to become a done deal, with no more arguing about racial segregation. I guess we will just have to endure the whining about the damned wedding cake for another 19 1/2 years, too.

Oh, well....

I don't think it will take that long. The difference with gay rights is that you are more likely to have a gay relative staring at you across hte dining room table at thanksgiving giving you the stink-eye.

Oh, the stink eye?

Odd humans will remain odd humans no matter what the date on the calander reads. And their are not many odder than those who's entire life relolves around sex with their same gender.

Been around since time began, and still considered odd. Twenty more years is not going to change it much.

True. And there are people still flying confederate flags after 150 years, too, but few take them seriously.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, the stink eye?

Odd humans will remain odd humans no matter what the date on the calander reads. And their are not many odder than those who's entire life relolves around sex with their same gender.

Been around since time began, and still considered odd. Twenty more years is not going to change it much.

You know what, your kind said the same thing about mixed marriages fifty years ago. Now no one thinks twice about them.

 

[dblack]

Minorities are always going to be the subject of discrimination. If not by social coercion, how will minorities ever have equal treatment?

You don't make any distinction between equal rights and equal treatment do you?

Since the Russians passed anti-gay laws, attacks and violence against gays have increased. The same thing happened in Nazi Germany when laws restricting the rights of Jews were passed.

Equal rights are vital.

Protective legislation banning discrimination against a class of people signals society that abuse will not be tolerated and provides broader protection against that class than the laws would suggest.

But equal treatment can't be ensured by government, not without taking totalitarian control of society.

I know you're a libertarian but libertarians always assume that people are moral and will do the right thing, whereas people prove to us time and time again that without coercion a large portion of the population will do whatever the hell they want and damn the consequences.

I don't know where you get your info about libertarianism, but the last thing I assume is that all people are moral.

 

[Pop23]

Oh, the stink eye?

Odd humans will remain odd humans no matter what the date on the calander reads. And their are not many odder than those who's entire life relolves around sex with their same gender.

Been around since time began, and still considered odd. Twenty more years is not going to change it much.

You know what, your kind said the same thing about mixed marriages fifty years ago. Now no one thinks twice about them.

Nobody ever accused black men of being odd because they wanted to sleep with women.

Sleeping with your own gender........

Dude, that's strange.

 

[JoeB131]

Nobody ever accused black men of being odd because they wanted to sleep with women.

Sleeping with your own gender........

Dude, that's strange.

That's strange to you. That might even be strange to me.

It's not strange to the people who are attracted to their own sex.

It's also none of your business.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually conservative Christianity has done amazing things for blow jobs and anal sex. Having their daughters promise to be "virgins" on their wedding night, these young, middle America Christian girls are now willingly giving blow jobs and having anal sex to keep their precious hymens intact for their wedding night.

In my youth, we would never have done anything so disgusting. As a teenager, I didn't even know anal sex existed, and I didn't really lead a sheltered life. Of course we didn't have the Internet or cable TV to teach us this stuff either.

I find these "unintended consequences" hugely laughable. Wanting to keep their daughters "pure", these families have created the most sexually perverted generation of young women in U.S. history.

There is some truth to that, but not for the reasons you think.

Purity before marriage is the highest predictor of a happy, and life long marriage. Statistically the absolute lowest chance of divorce is with a couple that are virgins on their wedding night.

A woman, or man, who has sex with even one person, before marriage, their chance of having a divorce go up dramatically.

So the problem isn't "purity" causing unintended consequences. But clearly there is something going on, and you are right that Christians are doing it.

The problem is, Christians have forgotten a new testament rule. (I'm going to yell at my christian sisters a minute) Any of you "Christian people" read this part? 1 Corinthians 7:9

But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.​

You stupid Christian parents.... What part of this don't you get? You tell your daughters, and your sons, date for 8 years, spend 8 years together, oh but don't get married, and don't have sex, and you gotta get your degree, and your home, and your car, and the nice job, and this and that, and then you are shocked...... SHOCKED! She now has herpies or some other STD, or she's pregnant, or he's into porn, or into something else.....

I was listing to this radio program, and a lady called in "My daughter is in college, and she wants to marry this boy, who is a great guy, but we said 'no' because she didn't have her degree yet. Now she called us, and she HAS to marry him immediately! What should we do?"

Idiots. What you need to do, is smack yourself in the head with a brick, for setting up your kids for failure.

G-d has a solution to the passions of youth.........

But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Christian parents are absolutely terrible for telling their kids they can't get married, the exact opposite of what G-d's word says.

Now back to you pagans.... do whatever you want. That's your deal, but you are partially correct. Christian parents have done a miserable job in western-American culture. Absolutely horrendous. But it's not purity that's the problem. I can tell, based on the severity of the problems people have in their marriages.... whether or not they were living together before they got married. And generally, the longer they were living together before marriage, the worse their marriage problems are.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, I'll be damned! The Duggars themselves have found this message board!

 

[Andylusion]

Minorities are always going to be the subject of discrimination. If not by social coercion, how will minorities ever have equal treatment?

Since the Russians passed anti-gay laws, attacks and violence against gays have increased. The same thing happened in Nazi Germany when laws restricting the rights of Jews were passed.

Protective legislation banning discrimination against a class of people signals society that abuse will not be tolerated and provides broader protection against that class than the laws would suggest.

I know you're a libertarian but libertarians always assume that people are moral and will do the right thing, whereas people prove to us time and time again that without coercion a large portion of the population will do whatever the hell they want and damn the consequences.

Actually, I disagree with that. Protection, that exclusively covers a special political group, to the exclusion of others, does not eliminate discrimination.

From what I've seen, it's the opposite. When everyone sees that one special group has laws that privilege them politically, everyone tends to hate that group more than ever.

There's is a large body of research now, which shows very clearly that Blacks in the US, were more integrated and accepted in society, prior to the 1960s. They had more positions in government. Held more positions in business. And had a higher (though only by a small margin), economic standing.

Of course prior to that, they really didn't try and use the power of government to force themselves on people.

In nearly every measure, the situation of blacks in America, declined since the push to use the power of government to coerce people into treating everyone 'equally' according to whatever political definition of 'equal' is at the moment.

Take for example, Brazil. Up until the last few years, Brazil didn't have any anti-discrimination laws. Government didn't have any laws that referred to race at all. Race problems were virtually non-existent. Most Brazilians refused to even identify themselves by some ethnic group.

In the last few years, a small group of government politicians have started to try and push for laws that institute a quota system for education, and already they are seeing anti-minority groups popping up. Already, race-based-hate is starting to be created.

So, I advocate that there should be absolute equality. By that, I mean no laws that even mention race. No quotas, and no preferences. And not to benefit the majority, but because not having those laws benefit the minorities the most.

The laws the propose to benefit minorities, are actually the most destructive to minorities. It doesn't help.

There is tons of research on this. IF you doubt it, try "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Thomas Sowell for starters.

 

[Andylusion]

Nobody ever accused black men of being odd because they wanted to sleep with women.

Sleeping with your own gender........

Dude, that's strange.

That's strange to you. That might even be strange to me.

It's not strange to the people who are attracted to their own sex.

It's also none of your business.

It's always funny how people get this "This is personal! It's none of your business!" and yet walk down the middle of the street publicly flaunting their "persona, none-of-your-busines" in front of everyone.... then cry bitterly "why are people in my personal business??!?".

Do you not see the idiotic contradiction there?

You know how many people know about my personal life? Zero. Because I don't tell them. That's why it's "personal".

I certainly don't walk into a cake store asking for a cake that says "I screwed Tammy for 3 years, until I dumped her and found Brenda who I've been screwing ever since", and then complain bitter "why are people judging my sex life! It's none of their business!"

If it's personal....... if it's private..... then......> SHUT UP ABOUT IT <..... and no one will judge, stupid. Seriously..... Forest Gump can figure this out, but the left-wing in America can not.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nobody ever accused black men of being odd because they wanted to sleep with women.

Sleeping with your own gender........

Dude, that's strange.

That's strange to you. That might even be strange to me.

It's not strange to the people who are attracted to their own sex.

It's also none of your business.

It's always funny how people get this "This is personal! It's none of your business!" and yet walk down the middle of the street publicly flaunting their "persona, none-of-your-busines" in front of everyone.... then cry bitterly "why are people in my personal business??!?".

Do you not see the idiotic contradiction there?

You know how many people know about my personal life? Zero. Because I don't tell them. That's why it's "personal".

I certainly don't walk into a cake store asking for a cake that says "I screwed Tammy for 3 years, until I dumped her and found Brenda who I've been screwing ever since", and then complain bitter "why are people judging my sex life! It's none of their business!"

If it's personal....... if it's private..... then......> SHUT UP ABOUT IT <..... and no one will judge, stupid. Seriously..... Forest Gump can figure this out, but the left-wing in America can not.

Sharing the reason for a wedding cake to be ordered, gay or straight, is not over-sharing however refusing to bake a cake for one kind of wedding versus another is over-caring, so don't.