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

[Hutch Starskey]

Defacto slavery? Involuntary servitude?
I think if you offer your services to the public then your servitude is quite voluntary.

Another word you people don't understand, apparently.

I'm beginning to think the whole problem with totalitarians is that they just don't know what the words they use, mean.

Really?
Selling goods to people in the business that you built to sell goods to people is involuntary servitude?

Yes, it is, if one is not free to choose one's customers.

The PA laws address why you cannot "choose" your customers in the manner you wish to. Grow up.

So PA made a law which violates the 1st Amendment, and you defend it.

What a tool.

No. The PA ( public accommodation) laws ensure that businesses that are open to the public actually serve the public. All of the public.

What a fool.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Can an interracial marriage also be seen as an improper relationship? Should it be?
If religious exemptions were given for gays, shouldn't it then be given for interracial marriage? Does the exemption only apply to married gays or can it apply to gays in general? If it applies to interracial couples. Can it be used on each individual in the relationship? If you give an exemption to gay marriage, it is very easy to then argue exemptions for other types of discrimination.
Are employers, landlords, other businesses the allowed the exemption as well?
It's a total can of worms.

Religious exemptions would completely defeat the intent of the law.

Race is an artificial construct. Gender is biological reality. There is no relation.

 

[The Rabbi]

Does this mean the feds are going to start raiding marijuana sellers in Colorado?

What does that have to do with state PA laws?

If you're going to argue that breaking the law is wrong then the feds ought to be shutting down CO's pot industry, which is contrary to federal law.
Or is that somehow different?

I would say that is a wholly different issue.
The feds aren't coming to shut you down for not baking a cake.

They are comin to shut you down for violating the law.
Tha'ts been the argument from P1 on this thread: The bakers violated the law and ought to pay for it. But citizens selling pot in CO are violating the law too and somehow that's fine.
The hypocrisy is disgusting.

No one is shutting anyone down. They were fined for their actions. The bakers were not the victims. They were the perps.

Like Rosa Parks, right?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Really?
Selling goods to people in the business that you built to sell goods to people is involuntary servitude?

If they are people you don't want to sell to.

I have bought a hamburger. I am a consumer of burgers. Using the totalitarian logic of you democrats, McDonald's can sue my for buying my burger from In & Out rather than from them - for discriminating against shitty food.

Free people decide who they will buy from, or sell to. Slaves do as they are commanded.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What does that have to do with state PA laws?

If you're going to argue that breaking the law is wrong then the feds ought to be shutting down CO's pot industry, which is contrary to federal law.
Or is that somehow different?

I would say that is a wholly different issue.
The feds aren't coming to shut you down for not baking a cake.

They are comin to shut you down for violating the law.
Tha'ts been the argument from P1 on this thread: The bakers violated the law and ought to pay for it. But citizens selling pot in CO are violating the law too and somehow that's fine.
The hypocrisy is disgusting.

No one is shutting anyone down. They were fined for their actions. The bakers were not the victims. They were the perps.

Like Rosa Parks, right?

Yeah that's exactly the same thing.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you're going to argue that breaking the law is wrong then the feds ought to be shutting down CO's pot industry, which is contrary to federal law.
Or is that somehow different?

I would say that is a wholly different issue.
The feds aren't coming to shut you down for not baking a cake.

They are comin to shut you down for violating the law.
Tha'ts been the argument from P1 on this thread: The bakers violated the law and ought to pay for it. But citizens selling pot in CO are violating the law too and somehow that's fine.
The hypocrisy is disgusting.

No one is shutting anyone down. They were fined for their actions. The bakers were not the victims. They were the perps.

Like Rosa Parks, right?

Yeah that's exactly the same thing.

It is. She stood up for her rights and got arrested. The bakers stood up for their rights and were fined. No difference.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

The concept of liberty is something leftists cannot grasp.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I don't understand the outrage

At $135 a cake, the baker only needs to bake 100,000 cakes to break even

Uh, 1,000 cakes, 1,000 cakes....

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Where does the Bible state, thou shalt not bake a cake for thine woman who lieth with another woman?

Well if I need a strawman baked, I know who to look up.

Translation: Sweet Cakes was not asked to violate their religious beliefs by baking a cake.

A woman having sex with a woman is sin, asking a third party to participate in celebrating that sin is a violation of the third party's rights.

So your objection is more about the sex acts than the marriage?

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't understand the outrage

At $135 a cake, the baker only needs to bake 100,000 cakes to break even

Uh, 1,000 cakes, 1,000 cakes....

Libs are bad at both math AND business!

 

[paperview]

You thought the foundation of legalized same sex marriage nationwide - Obergefell v. Hodges -

was based on the CRA's Public Accommodation Laws.

Seriously. Are you drunk or something?

The problem here is that you are severely mentally retarded.

Ask your handlers at the hate sites what this thread is about..

Then consider WHAT court based the decision to fine a bakery on what.

The one suffering from mental retardation seems to be you.

For the readers - this was the totality of the interchange:

Uncensored2008 said: ↑
So you are saying that the Defiance of Marriage Law dictated by the SCOTUS ....
=====================
paperview said: ↑
Was Brown v Board of Education the Defiance of Segregation by the SCOTUS?
========================
Uncensored2008 said: ↑
No, it was the reversal of a law very similar to that which you celebrate.
Nothing the left fears more than free people.

========================
paperview said: ↑
You misspelled "upheld the 14th Amendment."

Nothing the right fears more than people being treated equally under the law.
========================
Uncensored2008 said: ↑

Actually moron, the Court cited Title II of the Civil Rights act as their foundation.

==========================
paperview said: ↑
Waaa???
You think the Court cited Title II of the Civil Rights act as their foundation for Brown v Board of Education???

OMG, that's hilarious.BvB was in 1954 - before the CRA of 64. It had nothing to do with Public Accommodation, either.

And she calls *me* a moron.

lol
==========================
Uncensored2008 said: ↑
I don't know if you are just astoundingly stupid, or you think you're being clever. The SCOTUS based their federalizing of marriage law on Title II of the Civil Rights act. That was law created in 2015 - moron.
============================
paperview said: ↑
I made exception that you *may* been referring to the recent same sex marriage ruling, then I said - naw, that can't be it - because, no dumbo - the Obergefell v. Hodges case was not decided by SCOTUS using Title II of the Civil Rights Act. So you fail on both counts.

Title II has to do with public accommodations. Geezez. The ruling didn't even address any part of the CRA64. You are so lost, it's pathetic.
=========================

Now the Unny one is trying to say it was the cake case she was talking about --

even when she stupidly said:

"The SCOTUS based their federalizing of marriage law on Title II of the Civil Rights act. That was law created in 2015 - moron."

Could the Unny one be any more dishonest and obtuse?

 

[Statistikhengst]

I don't understand the outrage

At $135 a cake, the baker only needs to bake 100,000 cakes to break even

Uh, 1,000 cakes, 1,000 cakes....

Libs are bad at both math AND business!

If that is the case, we are still 1,000 times better at it than neanderthals like you.

 

[Esmeralda]

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Even if we did play dumb, since that's the only way you know how to play....show me where in the Constitution it says that homos can force people to participate in their 'ceremonies'? And in the meantime...you don't have to agree with my religion before I am allowed to practice it. Nor do you get to dictate what is, or is not, a sacrament. I know you've admitted you don't understand what sacrament or sacrilege mean....but for the rest of us who do, it needs to be said.

Practicing your religion and owning a commercial business that serves the public are two different things. When you own a commercial business, you are required to keep to the state and national laws governing commerical business. Period. It is completely separate from your personal religious beliefs.

No, it's not.

That was easy.

According to the law, the law of the land and of the majority, your commercial business is subject to the law. Your personal beliefs are something else, something completely separate. Yes they are.

Your simple minded response is exceptionally unimpressive.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And as liberals crow with pride about this they miss the fact that these people are being denied two constitutional rights.

Freedom to practice religion and freedom of speech.

Good job. Idiots.

Discrimination is not a religious practice.
You have freedom of speech. In some cases your speech has consequences.

Ahhhh, but the Christians get skewered there. Paul counseled Christians to have little dealings with those not of the faith. In fact, he pretty much preached a doctrine of socialism within Christian communities. The Amish Mennonites et al. all have some commercial dealings, but unlike the bakers, their goods are not tied to any specific "religious rite."

That's one reason I have difficulty summoning sympathy for the bakers. I knew a Christian family years ago that employed every adult (and some kids) in a commercial printing business. Can't the Christians find an avocation that does not require them to discriminate in order to not offend their oh-so-precious beliefs of who others can marry?

Or simply act like an adult and a professional

 

[koshergrl]

I don't understand the outrage

At $135 a cake, the baker only needs to bake 100,000 cakes to break even

They make a $135 wedding cake?

Here, are you in the market? They're doing great Home - Sweet Cakes

 

[Statistikhengst]

And as liberals crow with pride about this they miss the fact that these people are being denied two constitutional rights.

Freedom to practice religion and freedom of speech.

Good job. Idiots.

Discrimination is not a religious practice.
You have freedom of speech. In some cases your speech has consequences.

Ahhhh, but the Christians get skewered there. Paul counseled Christians to have little dealings with those not of the faith. In fact, he pretty much preached a doctrine of socialism within Christian communities. The Amish Mennonites et al. all have some commercial dealings, but unlike the bakers, their goods are not tied to any specific "religious rite."

That's one reason I have difficulty summoning sympathy for the bakers. I knew a Christian family years ago that employed every adult (and some kids) in a commercial printing business. Can't the Christians find an avocation that does not require them to discriminate in order to not offend their oh-so-precious beliefs of who others can marry?

Or simply act like an adult and a professional

Amazing that Christians of this hateful, bigoted sort have completely forgotten the history of the masons..... and why they were formed.... and how they functioned.

Just amazing.

For we they to know the history, they would know that Christians have been doing business with "unbelievers" of practically all stripes for a good 1800 years now. But all of a sudden, gay people are suddenly too icky for those upstanding Christians to even touch.

Funny that.

The Christians on this thread, well many of them, are almost as stupid and worthless as the fake Rabbi, who is no Rabbi, much less a Jew.

 

[koshergrl]

The new gaystapo flag:

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I would say that is a wholly different issue.
The feds aren't coming to shut you down for not baking a cake.

They are comin to shut you down for violating the law.
Tha'ts been the argument from P1 on this thread: The bakers violated the law and ought to pay for it. But citizens selling pot in CO are violating the law too and somehow that's fine.
The hypocrisy is disgusting.

No one is shutting anyone down. They were fined for their actions. The bakers were not the victims. They were the perps.

Like Rosa Parks, right?

Yeah that's exactly the same thing.

It is. She stood up for her rights and got arrested. The bakers stood up for their rights and were fined. No difference.

I suppose there is a superficial similarity.

Rosa Parks stood against undeniable discrimination. Your slights are supposed and self inflicted.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hebrews 8:13

Okay, here's where I'm going to call Shenanigans on you.

First and foremost, I asked "Which VERSE OF THE GOSPELS" revoked the Mosaic Dietary Laws.

Because the epistle of the Hebrews was not written by Jesus and it is doubtful that it was even written by Paul.

By the end of the first century there was not a consensus over the author’s identity. Clement of Rome, Barnabas, the Apostle Paul, and other names were proposed. Others later suggested Luke the Evangelist, Apollos and Priscilla as possible authors.[11]

Though no author is named, the original King James Version of the Bible titled the work "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews". However, the KJV's attribution to Paul was only a guess, and not a very good one according to the majority of recent scholarship.[5] Its vastly different style, different theological focus, different spiritual experience—all are believed to make Paul's authorship of Hebrews increasingly indefensible. At present, neither modern scholarship nor church teaching ascribes Hebrews to Paul.


Where did JESUS himself say, "Yeah, that stuff my Dad said about the Shrimp, that's totally not valid anymore."

Furthermore, let's look at what that verse actually says...

8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Okay, then He really doesn't say anything specific about any specific laws.

Now, if you want to go to the Gospel.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18).

wow. That sounds pretty clear to me. Sounds to me the ban on Shrimp Eating is just as Iron-Clad as the rules on Slavery, Witch-Burning and Homosexuality.

The only difference is, "Christians" claim those rules (except for the ones on the gays) are no longer binding, even though nothing in the bible overturns any of them.

Not Jesus.
Not Paul
Not some guy pretending to be Paul.

You and your little friend are getting annoying, you two don't understand the Bible, neither of you knew the difference between Covenants and Testaments, you don't know what moral, ceremonial and Mosaic laws are and you're posting crap I have no intention of wading through. I take neither of you serious because you failed out of the gate, learn what you profess to know and then comment.

You obviously know neither the 613 mosaic laws, 7 of which are noahidic. And nowhere does a covenant supplant a law. As a matter of fact, most covenants enshrined the law even further. Poor you.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You're not embarassed that a Roman Catholic knows the Torah better than you do? Because what you write is total crap, on a par with "mitzvoteem."

Only, that is bullshit, fake ******* Rabbi. Fake ******* racist bullshit Rabbi.

You are no Jew. You are a faker, a poseur. Nothing more. You are a mote.

Thanks for admitting you dont know what you're talking about. The fact is The Roman Catholic lady knows more about the Bible than you do, fake poseur Jew.

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't understand the outrage

At $135 a cake, the baker only needs to bake 100,000 cakes to break even

Uh, 1,000 cakes, 1,000 cakes....

Libs are bad at both math AND business!

If that is the case, we are still 1,000 times better at it than neanderthals like you.

I'll bet you cannot figure out the fallacy of your statement. I'd bet money on it in fact.