Where are all of the “bake the cake” progressives NOW?

[Pilot1]

Having sex is a choice, being gay is not. Gay people are not being denied service for what they do, but who they are.

Where are gays being denied service? They could have bought any cake at the bakery, and put their own gay message on it. Are you advocating the denial of religious freedom?

 

[danielpalos]

Funny...no “outrage” from the left on this one! Just dead silence.

Virginia restaurant owner kicks out Sarah Huckabee Sanders over ‘moral conviction.’ Backlash ensues.

seems, political.

 

[Seawytch]

Nah it’s very different. I would love to have been there to watch porky lumber on out of there in a huff. I wish somebody had recorded it.

Then you don't know the facts like most liberal/progressives. She left the restaurant quietly, and politely, and even offered to pay for the full meal which of course they were not even served.

I wonder what a Leftist would done if they were thrown out for their political beliefs, and opinions?

Look up when Biden was kicked out of a Virginia restaurant a couple years ago for the same reason. You didn't care then about that, of course. He didn’t even use his power to try to destroy the restaurant. Sanders is a classless hoe.

Incorrect the classless hoes are the owner and her intolerant employees!

Nope the restaurant workers don’t lie to and harm the American people on a daily basis. They did Sanders a favor by kicking her out. She needs to skip a few meals.

Don’t ever open your fat lying mouth about intolerance again!

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

― Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

 

[Seawytch]

Having sex is a choice, being gay is not. Gay people are not being denied service for what they do, but who they are.

Where are gays being denied service? They could have bought any cake at the bakery, and put their own gay message on it. Are you advocating the denial of religious freedom?

That is incorrect. If you sell a product to couple A then refuse to sell the same cake to couple B, that is a denial of service and you could be in violation of public accommodation laws.

 

[Pilot1]

That is incorrect. If you sell a product to couple A then refuse to sell the same cake to couple B, that is a denial of service and you could be in violation of public accommodation laws.

Wrong. The Gays could have bought any cake straight people could have bought.

 

[Seawytch]

That is incorrect. If you sell a product to couple A then refuse to sell the same cake to couple B, that is a denial of service and you could be in violation of public accommodation laws.

Wrong. The Gays could have bought any cake straight people could have bought.

Incorrect. They could not have ordered a wedding cake, even from a catalog of wedding cakes. The baker was found to be in violation of State PA laws. (And the SCOTUS ruling did not change that, BTW)

 

[WillowTree]

Then you don't know the facts like most liberal/progressives. She left the restaurant quietly, and politely, and even offered to pay for the full meal which of course they were not even served.

I wonder what a Leftist would done if they were thrown out for their political beliefs, and opinions?

Look up when Biden was kicked out of a Virginia restaurant a couple years ago for the same reason. You didn't care then about that, of course. He didn’t even use his power to try to destroy the restaurant. Sanders is a classless hoe.

Incorrect the classless hoes are the owner and her intolerant employees!

Nope the restaurant workers don’t lie to and harm the American people on a daily basis. They did Sanders a favor by kicking her out. She needs to skip a few meals.

Don’t ever open your fat lying mouth about intolerance again!

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

― Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

Works for me. I can show intolerance for anyone I disagree with. If a pro abortionist is asked to leave I will applaud the action. Screw tolerance!

 

[P@triot]

Having sex is a choice, being gay is not.

That's exactly what I said. I agree. Getting married is a choice though. And telling the baker you're gay is a choice as well.

Gay people are not being denied service for what they do, but who they are.

Not true at all. If they were gay and never acted on it, they wouldn't be denied anything because nobody would know. It's not who they are that people have a problem with. It's what they do. That is a indisputable fact.

 

[Pop23]

This is not the same as the baker. Political views are a choice.

So is a man sticking his dick in another man, dumb ass.

It’s not like some force of nature - more powerful than gravity - pulls a man towards another man.

Also, snowflake, deciding to get married is a choice.

Having sex is a choice, being gay is not. Gay people are not being denied service for what they do, but who they are.

OMG! If having sex is a choice, having gay sex is a choice as well!

Oh, and opposite sex sex serves the most important requirement of the human race.

Gay sex serves no biological purpose.

Every man, woman and child ever was created by the coupling of male and female components.

FACT!

 

[Seawytch]

Look up when Biden was kicked out of a Virginia restaurant a couple years ago for the same reason. You didn't care then about that, of course. He didn’t even use his power to try to destroy the restaurant. Sanders is a classless hoe.

Incorrect the classless hoes are the owner and her intolerant employees!

Nope the restaurant workers don’t lie to and harm the American people on a daily basis. They did Sanders a favor by kicking her out. She needs to skip a few meals.

Don’t ever open your fat lying mouth about intolerance again!

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

― Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

Works for me. I can show intolerance for anyone I disagree with. If a pro abortionist is asked to leave I will applaud the action. Screw tolerance!

You obviously didn't understand the words you read.

 

[Seawytch]

Having sex is a choice, being gay is not.

That's exactly what I said. I agree. Getting married is a choice though. And telling the baker you're gay is a choice as well.

Gay people are not being denied service for what they do, but who they are.

Not true at all. If they were gay and never acted on it, they wouldn't be denied anything because nobody would know. It's not who they are that people have a problem with. It's what they do. That is a indisputable fact.

Virgins marry. They were denied service for being gay which violated local law. The SCOTUS ruling did not change that fact.

 

[J.E.D]

Now you’re just comparing apples-to-oranges. Don’t compare marriage to dining.

that’s what you’re doing, snowflake

 

[WillowTree]

Incorrect the classless hoes are the owner and her intolerant employees!

Nope the restaurant workers don’t lie to and harm the American people on a daily basis. They did Sanders a favor by kicking her out. She needs to skip a few meals.

Don’t ever open your fat lying mouth about intolerance again!

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

― Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

Works for me. I can show intolerance for anyone I disagree with. If a pro abortionist is asked to leave I will applaud the action. Screw tolerance!

You obviously didn't understand the words you read.

Then clarify.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Good point. I guess Public Accommodation laws don't apply to them.

Liars are not a protected class.

You know this. Why pretend otherwise?

 

[hadit]

There you said it! Hatred is the left’s only hope!

Um, yeah, i hate people who send children to concentration camps....

Why don't you?

You hate FDR?

 

[JoeB131]

/----/ The Left has more in common with Nazis

The Nazis didn't have gun control, and abortion was illegal everywhere back then.

In fact, Nazi Germany was the ONLY country that ever executed anyone for performing abortions.

 

[Seawytch]

This is not the same as the baker. Political views are a choice.

So is a man sticking his dick in another man, dumb ass.

It’s not like some force of nature - more powerful than gravity - pulls a man towards another man.

Also, snowflake, deciding to get married is a choice.

Having sex is a choice, being gay is not. Gay people are not being denied service for what they do, but who they are.

OMG! If having sex is a choice, having gay sex is a choice as well!

Oh, and opposite sex sex serves the most important requirement of the human race.

Gay sex serves no biological purpose.

Every man, woman and child ever was created by the coupling of male and female components.

FACT!

Attractions are not a choice.
No coupling was needed to create the five babies I bore. You're not as necessary as you seem to need to think you are, sorry.

 

[Seawytch]

Nope the restaurant workers don’t lie to and harm the American people on a daily basis. They did Sanders a favor by kicking her out. She needs to skip a few meals.

Don’t ever open your fat lying mouth about intolerance again!

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

― Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

Works for me. I can show intolerance for anyone I disagree with. If a pro abortionist is asked to leave I will applaud the action. Screw tolerance!

You obviously didn't understand the words you read.

Then clarify.

You don't have to be tolerant of intolerance. That should be simple enough even for you.

 

[WillowTree]

Don’t ever open your fat lying mouth about intolerance again!

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

― Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

Works for me. I can show intolerance for anyone I disagree with. If a pro abortionist is asked to leave I will applaud the action. Screw tolerance!

You obviously didn't understand the words you read.

Then clarify.

You don't have to be tolerant of intolerance. That should be simple enough even for you.

Well I am not tolerant of intolerance. Those ***** who threw Sanders out are pure evil pigs! I hope she goes broke!

 

[Seawytch]

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

― Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

Works for me. I can show intolerance for anyone I disagree with. If a pro abortionist is asked to leave I will applaud the action. Screw tolerance!

You obviously didn't understand the words you read.

Then clarify.

You don't have to be tolerant of intolerance. That should be simple enough even for you.

Well I am not tolerant of intolerance. Those ***** who threw Sanders out are pure evil pigs! I hope she goes broke!

Of course you are. You support every one of the so called "Christian" bakers denying service to gays, in violation of local laws. No law was violated in denying Sarah Huckleberry Sandbag service.

Who do you think would go out of business sooner, the anti gay baker in Oregon or Colorado or the anti Trump restaurant in Northern Virginia?