Again, not my faith, it's me defending theirs because I support free exercise.
How is baking, or not baking a cake an "exercise of religion"? Oh, right...you refuse to answer that. Because you're a piece of shit and your argument is a piece of shit,
and you know it. That's the part of this whole thing that gets me...the fact that you make false arguments knowingly and abrogate responsibility for doing so.
There's a word for people like you:
Sophist.
Again, unless there is actual harm, none of my business, and none of governments.
So how are bakers harmed by baking a cake? Oh, right...you refuse to answer that. Because you're a piece of shit and your argument is a piece of shit,
and you know it. That's the part of this whole thing that gets me...the fact that you make false arguments knowingly and abrogate responsibility for doing so.
There's a word for that:
Sophistry.
Their free exercise is a civil right
So how is baking, or not baking a cake an "exercise of religion"? Where in the Bible does it talk about that? Oh, right...you refuse to answer that. Because you're a piece of shit and your argument is a piece of shit,
and you know it.
There's a word for that type of behavior:
Sophism.
something you don't seem to grasp. and considering a wedding cake is a non point of sale, contracted non-essential and non-timely service, free exercise takes precedent.
A wedding cake is most definitely a point of sale, and that's what the courts have uphold. So once again, you're making a rhetorical leap, then refusing to produce anything to support that leap and conclusion. So instead, you just repeat the false argument, knowing it's a false argument, for the sake of protecting your ego.
Now that's
sophistry, but it's also
narcissism.
Again, I don't have to justify anything, and neither do they because of free exercise.
You'll need to prove that baking a cake is a religious exercise in order for your sophist argument to make sense. But here, you're refusing to do that.
So you're telling me that anyone can claim any action as a religious exercise, right? So if someone wanted to go and murder a church full of Christians, they could simply say that it is a religious exercise to do that, and not be held accountable. So you make a claim on behalf of them, then refuse to support that claim hoping that no one asks the question of
how?
You are a sophist, plain and simple.
The 1st amendment gives them that right, unless a compelling reason is found otherwise.
But again, that's you working from the assumption that baking a cake is a religious exercise. It isn't. Baking cakes for weddings isn't mentioned in the Bible, so the only people claiming it's a religious exercise are the bigots. Me challenging your dogma that baking a cake is a religious exercise gives you the vapors, so you simply dismiss it as saying you don't have to prove anything. So if I went and fucked your wife, you can't get mad at me or her for doing so because I can just claim it's a religious exercise. If I went and stole your car, I could just claim it was a religious exercise. If I hacked into your computer and stole your e-mails or put a virus on your machine, I could just claim it's a religious exercise. Gee, this is fun!
Punching Nazis? Religious exercise.
Shooting Nazis? Religious exercise.
Murdering Nazis? Religious exercise.
Burning down a church? Religious exercise.
Insulting people on USMB? Religious exercise.
Plenty of them question things, Martin Luther Questioned, Calvin, Questioned, even MLK questioned due to the resistance of White Baptist Churches to the Civil Rights movement. It also doesn't want to or have to prove God's existence, because it requires faith in something other then oneself.
If you have to put faith in something besides yourself, then you're not a fully-developed adult. "Question things"? Like what"? What did they question? Did they question God's existence? No. So they worked from the inherent position that God exists. So right away, you're setting your argument up for a rhetorical failure because, again, it falls on faith to bridge the credibility and truth gap. In other words, refusing to provide or even search for truth and calling it "faith", means you're too lazy, ignorant, cowardly, or stupid to search for answers to those tough questions. So you can just dismiss it by saying "it's God's will".
Cop-out to the nth degree. And also
wildly narcissistic.
And Book burning more recently was due to ideology, not religion.
Ideology and religion are the same thing.