Trump May Not be a White Supremacist but He is In Fact a Bigot

[martybegan]

Again, it doesn't matter to me unless there is a compelling government interest.

The compelling interest for the government is discrimination. What are you not getting about that?

What they think is they don't want to provide a cake for a SSM wedding. .

OK, why?

Not compelling enough for government action due to a lack of actual harm.

Don't care.

 

[martybegan]

They have a right to free exercise barring a compelling government interest.

How is baking related to free exercise of religion?

It's not. Which means this argument of yours is bullshit.

Providing the cake as a contracted service for a ceremony they think is immoral is breaking free exercise.

 

[martybegan]

That isn't true. As a great person once said, "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your with my life your right to say it".

****. You.

Supporting the exercise of someone else's rights does not mean endorsing their position.

How is baking a cake an exercise of someone's religious rights? It's not. So your point is shit.

That is the problem with progressive's such as yourself, you can't actually support others expressing their own beliefs

How is baking a cake an expression of religious beliefs? And who the **** are these people to say it is?

because you are so full of yourself you can't fathom someone thinking differently from you. That's the narcissism I've been talking about.

Thinking differently about bigotry? I'm sorry, when did bigotry become a thing that had two sides? They "think" that baking a cake is somehow a violation of their religious freedom, only they don't say how and refuse to even think about it. So this isn't an instance of people thinking differently, this is an instance of people NOT THINKING AT ALL. And you've proved it here when you don't think about the sincerity of these beliefs. When you don't think about the inherent contradiction between faith and this "religious exercise of bigotry". You just don't think. Which makes sense because in order to be religious, you have to suspend disbelief.

Defending freedoms means defending people you don't like. Anything else is just bull.

Not baking a cake because you don't like gay people isn't a freedom.

It is free exercise, you just don't like the exercise, and you bigoted little mind can't fathom just letting them do what they want.

Baking a cake is not an exercise in religion. You are trying to impose the standard that it is, then refuse to defend how it became that standard. That's because you're a shit person with shit beliefs and shit morals.

Nice retort, shows you have no real point.

Being forced to provide the cake when they don't want to violates the bakers civil rights.

You are bigoted against religious people. Should we punish you for it?

Actually it is.

providing it, or more appropriately being forced to provide it is a violation of their civil right to free exercise.

 

[The Derp]

You are the one that made the claim that Christians had not been victims since, I believe being thrown to the lions? or some such shit?.

They're not victims. Not of anything. Christians are the victimizers. They don't hold a monopoly on victimhood. They do hold a monopoly on being whiny little bitches, though.

Sobieski has made a valid counter point to that incorrect claim on your part, and you are, again.

No, he invoked Communists because he knows there's no defense of his or your position on this thread, so it's an attempt to deflect and divert attention away to the real topic we were discussing; the laughable premise of Conservatives and Christians claiming insincerely that baking a cake is an exercise in religion.

 

[The Derp]

No, he's certainly right about that. Your hatred of Christians and your desire to jail them and deprive them of open worship

Since when is baking a cake "open worship"? Since never. So stop trying to redefine the parameters and move the goalposts just because your position is shit.

and your desire to commit violence on those you pretend to think are "nazis"...

Oh, I'm not pretending they're Nazis...they are Nazis. You guys were the ones throwing Sieg Heils, chanting "Blood and Soil" and "Jews will not replace us" as you wave your Nazi flags and spread your Nazi bullshit.

 

[The Derp]

How many "nazis" have you punched in the face?

Too many to count. Thing is, I'm no boxer nor am I really that much of a fighter. But Nazis have glass jaws so they go down pretty easily.

 

[The Derp]

You are a vile piece of shit.

You're the one hiding behind the skirt of religion because you're too ashamed and chickenshit to admit you're a bigot.

******* coward.

 

[The Derp]

And you don't seem to get that you don't get to decide what is sincere or not. Sorry wibble snowflake..

Actually I do because it seems like you're using the insincere religious defense of something you recognize is indefensible in any other context. So it seems to me like you all want to discriminate against gays, but can't find a way to do it legally, so you just invoke the broad, generalized "religious liberty" to cover your tracks.

Yeah, that bullshit doesn't fly with me, nor is it flying with the courts.

It's not a sincere religious belief since it was used as justification after the fact. Which it was in this case. The bigotry came first, and the religious justification for it followed. That's precisely what happened. That means both they and you are making insincere arguments knowingly. That's pretty shitty, even for you.

Appeal to authority again. fail.

The irony of this halfwit statement is that the entire basis of your support for discrimination is an appeal to the authority of God. So your argument eats itself. I can't appeal to the authority of the real courts, yet these bigots can appeal to the invisible and imaginary authority of God? **** you and **** your improvised standards.

Supporting their right to an opinion or view is not supporting that view.

So this is at least the 6th or 7th time you've moved the goalposts in this conversation. First it was their "religious beliefs", then it was their "viewpoints", now it's their "opinion"? Well, their opinion doesn't ******* matter. And thanks for clarifying that their position on gay cakes is merely an opinion now, and not a matter of sincere religious beliefs.

 

[The Derp]

Providing the cake as a contracted service for a ceremony they think is immoral is breaking free exercise.

Cakes aren't used in ceremonies, so try again.

Why do they think it's immoral? What do they think will happen if they bake the cake?

 

[The Derp]

Nice retort, shows you have no real point.
Being forced to provide the cake when they don't want to violates the bakers civil rights.

No it doesn't...and I thought your position was that it violates their religious rights...even though you fail to say exactly how and why, and bristle at any attempt by me to get you to expand on this weak and hollow position you seem to have.

In order for you to prove these bakers are having their religious rights violated, you have to first establish what baking has to do with religion. Then you need to prove how these bakers' religious beliefs are actually harmed. Then you need to provide what the consequences these bakers think they'll face for baking a gay cake. Then you need to explain how those consequences reconcile with their overarching dogma and reasoning behind their faith in the first place.

You've done none of that. Which is why I call you and them out as being insincere and dishonest bigots.

You are bigoted against religious people. Should we punish you for it?

I'm not exercising my bigotry to deny you or them anything. As I've said before, many times, worship whoever or whatever the **** you want...in the privacy of your own home, or in a church. Not in public where children can be exposed to your dangerous and bigoted beliefs.

So put the ******* crosses away. Take off the ******* yarmukles. Unravel the ******* headscarves. Religion is offense to many, myself included...so when I am bombarded with religious imagery and symbolism, my civil rights of not being subject to your evangelism are violated.

So it's actually the other way around...you people routinely violate my civil rights daily by shoving your religion in my face. I don't give a shit about you or your religion. So keep it private. Your relationship with God is supposed to be private anyway. Evangelizing goes against what Jesus taught about evangelizing faith.

Actually it is.
providing it, or more appropriately being forced to provide it is a violation of their civil right to free exercise.

No it's not. Because they make cakes available to everyone else. So it's clearly an act of discrimination, and one that is loosely justified by religious-based bigotry. You have to invoke your appeal to a higher, invisible authority to justify your bigotry. Yet I cannot appeal to the actual, real authority of the courts because of whatever weird standard you just invented on the spot.

 

[The Derp]

Not compelling enough for government action due to a lack of actual harm.

Discrimination is actual harm. What's lacking is the harm bakers face for baking a gay cake. That "harm" has gone unanswered and undefined by you and the bigots you defend. None of you can actually state how baking these cakes harms your religious beliefs without completely undermining your faith. Because we all know it doesn't. You people just hate gays and are looking for any excuse to discriminate against them. The fact that you have to stoop so low to invoke religion as your reasoning is pathetic. BTW - there are probably more Christians who don't think baking a cake is harm than Christians who do. And since we're all about appealing to the higher authority of God only, I'd say that the simple majority of Christians who support gay cakes and not bigotry have the final say...not inbred bigots who hate gay people probably because they are insecure in their own sexuality.

 

[The Derp]

Being forced to provide the cake when they don't want to violates the bakers civil rights.

Wait - I thought it violated their religious freedom...now you're saying it violates their civil rights? So that's another goalpost shift on your part. The people whose civil rights are being violated are the ones who are being denied service simply because of their sexual orientation.

The more you post and the more you redefine parameters, the less convinced I am that you've given this subject any real thought at all. It seems like you're just reacting to what I post, taking the contrary position because of some personal thing going on with you. Well, get the **** over yourself.

 

[martybegan]

And you don't seem to get that you don't get to decide what is sincere or not. Sorry wibble snowflake..

Actually I do because it seems like you're using the insincere religious defense of something you recognize is indefensible in any other context. So it seems to me like you all want to discriminate against gays, but can't find a way to do it legally, so you just invoke the broad, generalized "religious liberty" to cover your tracks.

Yeah, that bullshit doesn't fly with me, nor is it flying with the courts.

It's not a sincere religious belief since it was used as justification after the fact. Which it was in this case. The bigotry came first, and the religious justification for it followed. That's precisely what happened. That means both they and you are making insincere arguments knowingly. That's pretty shitty, even for you.

Appeal to authority again. fail.

The irony of this halfwit statement is that the entire basis of your support for discrimination is an appeal to the authority of God. So your argument eats itself. I can't appeal to the authority of the real courts, yet these bigots can appeal to the invisible and imaginary authority of God? **** you and **** your improvised standards.

Supporting their right to an opinion or view is not supporting that view.

So this is at least the 6th or 7th time you've moved the goalposts in this conversation. First it was their "religious beliefs", then it was their "viewpoints", now it's their "opinion"? Well, their opinion doesn't ******* matter. And thanks for clarifying that their position on gay cakes is merely an opinion now, and not a matter of sincere religious beliefs.

If I'm ok with government making them provide point of sale items to gays or whatever, but only take exception to contracted services to things like weddings, how am I now "against gays"?

You can try to justify your support of thug tactics by government any way you like, it's still infringement on free exercise.

The difference is getting government to use force to get your position established.

Semantics, semantics, semantics, in the end ALL are protected against government intervention via the 1st amendment, without a compelling interest.

 

[martybegan]

Providing the cake as a contracted service for a ceremony they think is immoral is breaking free exercise.

Cakes aren't used in ceremonies, so try again.

Why do they think it's immoral? What do they think will happen if they bake the cake?

ceremony, after party, before party, who cares. It's part of the tradition and celebration.

 

[martybegan]

Nice retort, shows you have no real point.
Being forced to provide the cake when they don't want to violates the bakers civil rights.

No it doesn't...and I thought your position was that it violates their religious rights...even though you fail to say exactly how and why, and bristle at any attempt by me to get you to expand on this weak and hollow position you seem to have.

In order for you to prove these bakers are having their religious rights violated, you have to first establish what baking has to do with religion. Then you need to prove how these bakers' religious beliefs are actually harmed. Then you need to provide what the consequences these bakers think they'll face for baking a gay cake. Then you need to explain how those consequences reconcile with their overarching dogma and reasoning behind their faith in the first place.

You've done none of that. Which is why I call you and them out as being insincere and dishonest bigots.

You are bigoted against religious people. Should we punish you for it?

I'm not exercising my bigotry to deny you or them anything. As I've said before, many times, worship whoever or whatever the **** you want...in the privacy of your own home, or in a church. Not in public where children can be exposed to your dangerous and bigoted beliefs.

So put the ******* crosses away. Take off the ******* yarmukles. Unravel the ******* headscarves. Religion is offense to many, myself included...so when I am bombarded with religious imagery and symbolism, my civil rights of not being subject to your evangelism are violated.

So it's actually the other way around...you people routinely violate my civil rights daily by shoving your religion in my face. I don't give a shit about you or your religion. So keep it private. Your relationship with God is supposed to be private anyway. Evangelizing goes against what Jesus taught about evangelizing faith.

Actually it is.
providing it, or more appropriately being forced to provide it is a violation of their civil right to free exercise.

No it's not. Because they make cakes available to everyone else. So it's clearly an act of discrimination, and one that is loosely justified by religious-based bigotry. You have to invoke your appeal to a higher, invisible authority to justify your bigotry. Yet I cannot appeal to the actual, real authority of the courts because of whatever weird standard you just invented on the spot.

Religious rights ARE civil rights in this country, the 1st amendment sees to that. Again, I don't have to prove squat. the government has to prove it has a compelling interest to violate their free exercise rights, and even then it has to use the least compulsory method to achieve it's goals.

Again, free exercise isn't limited to behind closed doors, despite the sand in your vagina over it.

You have zero right to not be offended, Ms. snowflake. Again, you don't have the right to not be offended.

I have an image of you as a 19th century dandy having the vapors over seeing a guy wearing a cross around his neck. If's HILARIOUS

they would sell a generic cake to anyone, they just don't want to provide one for this one type of ceremony.

 

[martybegan]

Not compelling enough for government action due to a lack of actual harm.

Discrimination is actual harm. What's lacking is the harm bakers face for baking a gay cake. That "harm" has gone unanswered and undefined by you and the bigots you defend. None of you can actually state how baking these cakes harms your religious beliefs without completely undermining your faith. Because we all know it doesn't. You people just hate gays and are looking for any excuse to discriminate against them. The fact that you have to stoop so low to invoke religion as your reasoning is pathetic. BTW - there are probably more Christians who don't think baking a cake is harm than Christians who do. And since we're all about appealing to the higher authority of God only, I'd say that the simple majority of Christians who support gay cakes and not bigotry have the final say...not inbred bigots who hate gay people probably because they are insecure in their own sexuality.

Only if there is an actual economic harm. Having to spend 15 minutes finding another baker is not an economic harm.

Again, don't care about the logistics, just the overall concept of free exercise.

 

[martybegan]

Being forced to provide the cake when they don't want to violates the bakers civil rights.

Wait - I thought it violated their religious freedom...now you're saying it violates their civil rights? So that's another goalpost shift on your part. The people whose civil rights are being violated are the ones who are being denied service simply because of their sexual orientation.

The more you post and the more you redefine parameters, the less convinced I am that you've given this subject any real thought at all. It seems like you're just reacting to what I post, taking the contrary position because of some personal thing going on with you. Well, get the **** over yourself.

In this country Free exercise IS a Civil Right.

 

[The Derp]

If I'm ok with government making them provide point of sale items to gays or whatever, but only take exception to contracted services to things like weddings, how am I now "against gays"?

Yeah, that exception doesn't fly because they're still a public business. The "contracted services" are made available on a public basis. So try again. Just because they invoice instead of ringing someone up at the register doesn't give them license to then discriminate. When a plumber comes to your home, they act on a contract basis too and they're not allowed to discriminate.

You can try to justify your support of thug tactics by government any way you like, it's still infringement on free exercise.

Pretending your religion gives you license to discriminate according to your tastes is a thug tactic. Fining a business for knowingly and maliciously violating someone's rights isn't, it's upholding the law. Particularly when the religious claims are insincere, unsupported, and contradicted by the faith itself. Don't want to get fined? Don't discriminate. It's really that easy. Like it's so ******* hard to do you job.

The difference is getting government to use force to get your position established.

The position is already established...it's the bigots who refuse to abide by the inherent position, and they're doing it under the guise of (in)sincere religious beliefs. These people have been unable, beyond a shadow of any doubt, to prove their religious beliefs are harmed by doing their jobs. You accept their religious belief argument unconditionally, while assaulting my argument as appealing to authority which is ******* ironic since their entire argument rests on the appeal to the invisible authority of God.

That's why your argument is ridiculous and bullshit. I am not sure you're even aware you're doing it. But if you are, that just makes you a shittier person than I thought. So you're either a clueless dupe, or a shady bigot. So which is it?

Semantics, semantics, semantics, in the end ALL are protected against government intervention via the 1st amendment, without a compelling interest.

No, not really. The 1A doesn't give you broad authority to justify incitement or discrimination. These people can come out and say they're bigots, but they can't discriminate based on their bigotry. Tough titties.

 

[The Derp]

ceremony, after party, before party, who cares. It's part of the tradition and celebration.

Well, hold on a second...that's a pretty wide range of parameters you are now establishing. First you said baking the cake is a religious act, then you said it was for the ceremony, then you said some ceremonies incorporate the cake (!), without providing any proof of course. Now you're saying none of that matters when it mattered quite a bit earlier in your argument. So you've moved the goalposts yet again to give yourself wiggle room in this argument while undermining everything you've said before.

So since your standards seem to change from post-to-post, why the **** should I or anyone take what you or they say seriously?

So now it's a part of the "tradition" and "celebration"...a standard you now just invented on the spot. Traditions and celebrations run in conflict with religious beliefs? Since when? So now that you've realized your argument that the cake is a part of the ceremony was bullshit, you change your argument in light of your asshole-ery to incorporate celebrations and traditions that fall outside the ceremony you previously and adamantly argued was their reason.

What a ******* tool. You gotta be a real piece of shit to be arguing like that.

 

[martybegan]

If I'm ok with government making them provide point of sale items to gays or whatever, but only take exception to contracted services to things like weddings, how am I now "against gays"?

Yeah, that exception doesn't fly because they're still a public business. The "contracted services" are made available on a public basis. So try again. Just because they invoice instead of ringing someone up at the register doesn't give them license to then discriminate. When a plumber comes to your home, they act on a contract basis too and they're not allowed to discriminate.

You can try to justify your support of thug tactics by government any way you like, it's still infringement on free exercise.

Pretending your religion gives you license to discriminate according to your tastes is a thug tactic. Fining a business for knowingly and maliciously violating someone's rights isn't, it's upholding the law. Particularly when the religious claims are insincere, unsupported, and contradicted by the faith itself. Don't want to get fined? Don't discriminate. It's really that easy. Like it's so ******* hard to do you job.

The difference is getting government to use force to get your position established.

The position is already established...it's the bigots who refuse to abide by the inherent position, and they're doing it under the guise of (in)sincere religious beliefs. These people have been unable, beyond a shadow of any doubt, to prove their religious beliefs are harmed by doing their jobs. You accept their religious belief argument unconditionally, while assaulting my argument as appealing to authority which is ******* ironic since their entire argument rests on the appeal to the invisible authority of God.

That's why your argument is ridiculous and bullshit. I am not sure you're even aware you're doing it. But if you are, that just makes you a shittier person than I thought. So you're either a clueless dupe, or a shady bigot. So which is it?

Semantics, semantics, semantics, in the end ALL are protected against government intervention via the 1st amendment, without a compelling interest.

No, not really. The 1A doesn't give you broad authority to justify incitement or discrimination. These people can come out and say they're bigots, but they can't discriminate based on their bigotry. Tough titties.

it makes a huge difference. It's a difference between providing a product or service with no idea how it will be used or who will be using it, and distinctly knowing how ones crafted and created expression is being used for a contracted service at a specific ceremony.

A plumber coming to your house usually has a degree of expediency, so PA laws apply.

Blah blah blah, I get a hard on watching government screw over people I don't like, blah blah blah.

Again, "me don't like them,.screw them". What a narcissist you are.

Yes, they can, unless there is actual harm.