« prev   random   next »

6
3

Bake me a cake...I'm gay.

By WineHorror following x   2017 Dec 13, 7:22am 18,289 views   124 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


#social

« First    « Previous    Comments 45 - 124 of 124    Last »

45   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 14, 10:21am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

errc says
Maybe the part The Constitution got wrong was Freedom of Religion


When you consider how many wars have been and are being still fought over religious differences, you might come to the inescapable conclusion that people tend to really CARE about their faiths. Put what might be their most treasured ideas and beliefs in jeopardy, and they can behave in completely irrational and uncivilized manner, wrecking the delicate balance necessary for a functioning society. The only other way for this to work, with social cohesion, is an imposed state religion with no room for variance.

The most liberal way to ensure both freedom of belief and social order was to put religion out of the control of the state. That way people are free to believe and worship how they wish. At least, that’s the theory. In practice, religious mores can be encoded into law by democratic means, and then you’ve got de-facto state-sponsored religion by virtue of majority rule.
46   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 14, 11:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/06/11/the_science_of_sexual_orientation_the_latest_on_genes_chromosomes_and_environmental.html
"However, the extent of the inheritance between twins was lower than expected. These findings contribute to the notion that although homosexuality can be inherited, this does not occur according to the rules of classical genetics. Rather, it occurs through another mechanism, known as epigenetics.

Epigenetics relates to the influence of environmental factors on genes, either in the uterus or after birth. The field of epigenetics was developed after new methods were found that identify the molecular mechanisms (epi-marks) that mediate the effect of the environment on gene expression.
Epi-marks are usually erased from generation to generation. But under certain circumstances, they may be passed on to the next generation.
Normally, all females have two X-chromosomes, one of which is inactive or “switched off” in a random manner. Researchers have observed that in some mothers who have homosexual sons, there is an extreme “skewing” of inactivation of these X-chromosomes. The process is no longer random, and the same X-chromosome is inactivated in these mothers."
47   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 14, 11:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rando says
But what if the definition of the group is simply that they enjoy an ancient and well-known vice, like alcoholism?


If alcoholics were burnt at the stake, arrested for being born alcoholic, and prevented from marrying other alcoholics, then yes, you would have a point.

rando says
The religious point of view is that homosexuality is simply the vice of sodomy


If America were a theocracy like Saudi Arabia, you would have a point.

rando says
And so far, science seems to back them up reasonably well. For example, if gayness were purely genetic, then identical twins would be identically gay or straight. But they are not.


Who claims that there exists a gay gene? Scientific studies has shown that sexual orientation is determined biologically through hormones present in the uterus during embryonic development. This is why the more male children a woman has, the more likely the younger ones are to be gay.

Have you ever met a straight person who had the ability to choose to be gay? Could you make this conscious choice? I can't. I have zero control over my sexual orientation, straight, and I doubt you have any control over yours.
48   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 14, 11:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

errc says
Quigley says
How about the white supremacist who drives to a black owned bakery asking for a cake with a burning cross and “death to ni**ers” in red icing? Should they be forced to make it?

How about the Nazi swastica on the cake at the Jewish bakery?


If white supremacists were hung from trees, falsely imprisoned, prevented from voting by Jim Crow laws, and were the victims of terrorism instead of the terrorists, then yes, you would be correct. If the Nazis were the ones being burned in ovens instead of the ones operating the ovens, again, you would be spot on.

But since this is the opposite of reality, you are completely off base.
49   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 14, 11:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Strategist says
jvolstad says


The balls are on the wrong side of the dick.


Fixed that for ya.

50   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 14, 11:12am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

@Patrick

Wow-so now pointing out when a poster is wrong is uncivil?
51   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 14, 11:12am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayne says
I’d tell them to bake their own cake.


And if most bakeries decided not to bake cakes for Christian weddings, you'd be ok with that?
52   curious2   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 14, 4:11pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Did anyone bother to check whether the OP Twitter meme has any actual facts in it? Six bakeries owned by Muslims and only one owned by a Christian? That sounds like Syria, not Colorado. You are being manipulated and driven by fake news, but most don't care because they want an excuse to insult somebody, either a gay couple they've never met or each other. The ability to get away with lying to insult others with impunity seems to produce a certain thrill in some people.

rando says
alcoholism?


Alcoholism is a disease involving an inherently self-destructive behavior pattern that tends to cause death, often by age 50.

rando says
purely genetic


By that measure, nothing is purely genetic. Even "identical" twins can be identified individually by people who know them well. You can easily read actual facts about the topic, e.g. "Family and twin studies suggest that genes play a role in male sexual orientation." As for specific mechanisms, "mothers of gay sons, particularly those with older brothers, had significantly higher anti-NLGN4Y levels than did the control samples of women, including mothers of heterosexual sons. The results suggest an association between a maternal immune response to NLGN4Y and subsequent sexual orientation in male offspring." Also, you mentioned being married to a schoolteacher, and having school-age daughters; they can probably tell you about the lived experience of gay kids in school, whose actual lives disprove your purported "theory" on this topic.

Although you might jail this comment as "uncivil," your self-proclaimed resistance to dogma can sometimes trap you in a dogma of your own. You made valid points about housing and realtors, but you would almost certainly be better off today if you had bought ~2010 instead of continuing to rent. You make a valid point about things being not "purely genetic," but you seem to overlook (a) genetic influence on hormonal factors and (b) the weight of environmental factors beyond the control of any individual person. A fetus cannot deliberately decide the mother's immune response to male proteins during pregnancy. You have no theory to explain Tim Cook and Peter Thiel, either of whom would have no trouble finding a wife if he wanted one. You have no theory to explain lesbians. You cling to a bias that you call a "theory", despite its being disproved by data. The question becomes, why do you continue to insist on rejecting objective (e.g. peer-reviewed empirical) and personally trusted (e.g. your own family) sources of information in order to confirm your own bias and spread misinformation.
53   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 14, 5:35pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

None of this debate about whether it's genetic or not matters. Neither does if the original report was sensationalized. The point is that you can tell somebody that you're not serving them and that you don't like their ugly horse teeth or their duck face for that matter and you are fine, but suddenly if the person is gay, female (technically the majority), or another minority du jour that is en vogue you have serious problems refusing to serve them. It's either everybody has the right to refuse service to anyone or everybody has to serve everyone (unless the customer ie breaking the law or by serving them you would be doing so, e.g. indoor capacity reached). Everything else is horseshit and just special treatment for certain groups which is unconstitutional.
54   curious2   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 14, 6:20pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mell says
special treatment for certain groups which is unconstitutional.


The only group asking for special treatment are the purportedly "Christian" baker and his enablers, who assert a "religious" objection to a law of general application. If he were a Muslim baker and objected to using toilet paper and washing his hands to meet secular public health codes, these purported "Christians" might have less sympathy for him.

No federal or state law requires the baker to bake cakes, but this particular baker chose to operate his business in a municipality that prohibits local businesses from discriminating against people on the basis of specified criteria. This case looks very similar to the segregated lunch counters in the southeastern USA in the 1960s, which were also defended on "religious" grounds. This case involves a municipal law, which in my opinion should have exempted small businesses below a certain size, which would have prevented this case from ever arising. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and to secure to all persons the equal protection of the laws, and the municipal law builds on that Constitutional foundation.

If the baker prevails, you can expect "religious" objections to other laws of general application, e.g. the Hobby Lobby case that got Gorsuch elevated to SCOTUS. Using government to empower religion, and to elevate those who claim to be "believers" over their fellow citizens, is an essentially Islamic practice. Nothing in Christianity says not to bake cakes for people, nor to claim exemptions from laws of general application; to the contrary, the New Testament says, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's." The baker has a right to his beliefs, but he does not have a right to exempt himself from secular laws, including those governing public health and public accommodations.
55   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 14, 6:37pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

For any who missed it regarding the word "cripple", see George Carlin's bit on language:
56   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 14, 7:17pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says
The only group asking for special treatment are the purportedly "Christian" baker and his enablers,


You can twist that around and say the only group asking for special treatments are those gay couples seeking out Christian bakers for their wedding cakes. This is totally in the eye of the beholder. The only true constitutional solution is to either give businesses the right to refuse service to anyone or give them no right to refuse service to anyone who doesn't break the law. Obviously we haven't been following the constitution for a while now, otherwise we would not have laws such as affirmative action or title IX kangaroo courts.
57   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 14, 8:40pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mell says

You can twist that around and say the only group asking for special treatments are those gay couples seeking out Christian bakers for their wedding cakes


Do bakers advertise their religious faith on the storefront? How does one go about finding a Christian bakery?

And this OP tweet is BS anyway. Nowhere else have I seen anything saying they drove past other bakeries.
58   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 14, 8:59pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

anon_3b28c says
mell says

You can twist that around and say the only group asking for special treatments are those gay couples seeking out Christian bakers for their wedding cakes


Do bakers advertise their religious faith on the storefront? How does one go about finding a Christian bakery?

And this OP tweet is BS anyway. Nowhere else have I seen anything saying they drove past other bakeries.


Who gives a shit you don't know and we don't know. It's pretty easy to find out religious or cultural preferences of business owners. Fact is that there are more than enough bakeries that will gladly bake your cake the way you want it within reasonable proximity, no matter where you are in the US. No need to sue the one that won't out of business. Like 99.9999% will go to the next night-club if they are refused entrance for their ugly sweater, gender or their - unfortunately genetically predisposed - acne-laced face at the first club, instead of suing the first club for discrimination. The only real and fair solution is to allow anyone to refuse service to anyone or nobody to refuse service to anyone.
59   WineHorror1   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 5:47am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
@WorkInProgress excellent find. Got a link?

When searching the net, I get conflicting information BUT, I am a real estate photographer and interact with hundreds of Realtors. I have been told this by many Realtors.
http://activerain.com/blogsview/2806343/-walking-distance-to-----is-this-a-fair-housing-act-violation--words-to-avoid-when-advertising-house-for-rent-for-sale-
60   WineHorror1   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 5:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

BayArea says
“I think you need mental help” is worse than “walkable” in my book. But in the USA, I’m sure there are no shortage of individuals that will disagree.

Can I call someone a snowflake?
61   WineHorror1   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 5:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

anon_670d2 says
anonymous says
Bake me a cake...I'm gay.


No person has to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or a black wedding, or a wedding for crippled people. Of course, such people don't get to have business licenses because with the privilege of business there comes responsibilities and not discriminating against historically oppressed groups is one of them. You are not entitled to a business license. You are not entitled to any of the limited land.

You don't believe in economic freedom? How about private property rights? Do you believe in those?
62   WineHorror1   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 6:00am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
PS sorry I had to jail one of your comments, but "I think you need mental help" is definitely a personal attack, not an attack on the point.


63   WineHorror1   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 6:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

anon_2a32b says
errc says
Quigley says
How about the white supremacist who drives to a black owned bakery asking for a cake with a burning cross and “death to ni**ers” in red icing? Should they be forced to make it?

How about the Nazi swastica on the cake at the Jewish bakery?


If white supremacists were hung from trees, falsely imprisoned, prevented from voting by Jim Crow laws, and were the victims of terrorism instead of the terrorists, then yes, you would be correct. If the Nazis were the ones being burned in ovens instead of the ones operating the ovens, again, you would be spot on.

But since this is the opposite of reality, you are completely off base.

Would you agree that Nazis are discriminated against today?
64   WineHorror1   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 6:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mell says
None of this debate about whether it's genetic or not matters. Neither does if the original report was sensationalized. The point is that you can tell somebody that you're not serving them and that you don't like their ugly horse teeth or their duck face for that matter and you are fine, but suddenly if the person is gay, female (technically the majority), or another minority du jour that is en vogue you have serious problems refusing to serve them. It's either everybody has the right to refuse service to anyone or everybody has to serve everyone (unless the customer ie breaking the law or by serving them you would be doing so, e.g. indoor capacity reached). Everything else is horseshit and just special treatment for certain groups which is unconstitutional.

I know, right? FREEDOM is what the country was founded on. Goodbye America, it was nice knowing thee.
65   WineHorror1   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 6:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says
mell says
special treatment for certain groups which is unconstitutional.


The only group asking for special treatment are the purportedly "Christian" baker and his enablers, who assert a "religious" objection to a law of general application. If he were a Muslim baker and objected to using toilet paper and washing his hands to meet secular public health codes, these purported "Christians" might have less sympathy for him.

No federal or state law requires the baker to bake cakes, but this particular baker chose to operate his business in a municipality that prohibits local businesses from discriminating against people on the basis of specified criteria. This case looks very similar to the segregated lunch counters in the southeastern USA in the 1960s, which were also defended on "religious" grounds. This case involves a municipal law, which in my opinion should have exempted small b...

Why don't you just accept that FREEDOM is more important than your feelings?
66   WineHorror1   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 6:19am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

curious2 says
If the baker prevails, you can expect "religious" objections to other laws of general application, e.g. the Hobby Lobby case that got Gorsuch elevated to SCOTUS. Using government to empower religion, and to elevate those who claim to be "believers" over their fellow citizens, is an essentially Islamic practice.

We should be able to use a banhammer on lying. This would put all religions on equal footing not just Christian religions. Don't hate FREEDOM.
67   WineHorror1   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 6:21am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

anon_3b28c says
And this OP tweet is BS anyway. Nowhere else have I seen anything saying they drove past other bakeries.

So, if you haven't seen it somewhere (cuz, no one would ever suppress information, correct?), it has to be a lie?
68   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 15, 7:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

So we should ban the DEA and bake cakes for gays, because nobody should have the right to regulate what you put in your body - even wieners.
69   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 15, 7:43am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

curious2 says
Alcoholism is a disease involving an inherently self-destructive behavior pattern that tends to cause death, often by age 50.


Sodomy amongst gays is a self destructive behavior that tends to cause HIV, often by age 32.
70   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 15, 7:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

mell says
It's pretty easy to find out religious or cultural preferences of business owners


Not in my experience. Do you go around asking them?

mell says
The only real and fair solution is to allow anyone to refuse service to anyone or nobody to refuse service to anyone.


Nope--the current laws are much fairer. The US is a secular nation-if you want to do business here, you can't let your personal religious views interfere with your business. It's pretty simple and completely fair.
71   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 15, 7:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

WorkInProgress says
Why don't you just accept that FREEDOM is more important than your feelings?


Why don't you accept that your FREEDOM ends when it infringes upon someone else's FREEDOM?
72   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 7:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WorkInProgress says

So, if you haven't seen it somewhere (cuz, no one would ever suppress information, correct?), it has to be a lie?


No, but you have to take anything on the Internet or twitter with a grain of salt. And it's amazing that, despite all the publicity this case has gotten, no other source has mentioned that the couple traveled so far and passed so many bakeries to find this one.
73   curious2   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 16, 9:41pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

anon_4480e says
cause


No, HIV is a virus that spread mostly by heterosexual transmission in Africa. You and Fortwhine can meet at the Reseda truck stop and engage in monogamous sodomy every day for decades, and if neither of you got HIV from someone else, then neither of you will "cause" it, no matter how many times you might try.
74   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 26, 8:15am   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

anonymous says
For those that support the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) remember these kind of proposals come with lots of unexpected consequences.


That same bakery no doubt refuses to make cakes for homo weddings as well! As most to all Muslim-owned bakeries in the USA do. The point is: the government shouldn’t be in the business of forcing people to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. The gays in question could have found any number of other cake shops to get their wedding pastry, but they chose to violate that one owner’s religious agency in an attempt to FORCE him to acknowledge their union despite his religious convictions that it was an immoral one.

Gay rights haven’t been about rights for twenty years. They’ve been about enforcing their brand of morality onto the country. Same as any religious asshole. Only difference is these assholes like to get dicked.
75   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 26, 8:37am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
The point is: the government shouldn’t be in the business of forcing people to violate their deeply held religious beliefs


The US is a secular nation. If you want to do business here, you must follow the laws.
76   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 26, 8:40am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HappyGilmore says
The US is a secular nation. If you want to do business here, you must follow the laws.


The US is a Constitutional Republic. That means that laws have to follow the Constitution. The local statute in question in this case clearly does not, as will be borne out by the impending SCOTUS decision shortly.
77   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 26, 8:43am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
That means that laws have to follow the Constitution. The local statute in question in this case clearly does not, as will be borne out by the impending SCOTUS decision shortly.


Perhaps. We shall see.

But until it's ruled unconstitutional, the law must be followed.

And I don't believe it's a local statute--it's a State civil rights case.
78   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 26, 9:18am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Just because you sit on a Civil Rights Commission, you don’t get the right to start violating the Constitution. I’d give this case about a 95% chance of favoring the baker, with probably a 7-2 split. The two will be Obama’s trash, Kagen and the “wise Latina.”
79   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 26, 9:55am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Just because you sit on a Civil Rights Commission, you don’t get the right to start violating the Constitution. I’d give this case about a 95% chance of favoring the baker, with probably a 7-2 split. The two will be Obama’s trash, Kagen and the “wise Latina.”


I think you must mean a State Legislature.

Which specific provisions of the Constitution does it violate? Funny that all the Federal Judges are missing such a clear violation...
80   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 26, 11:15am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

No, the actions of Colorado’s civil rights commission are what’s being legally adjudicated here. Was it correct to demand that a man bake a gay cake? Remember, he wasn’t declining to bake a cake for the gay couple; just declining to bake them a specifically gay cake!

Also the fact that Federal judges are constantly making horrendous extra-legal decisions based on nothing but politics is because they were appointed by the Big Zero. All that’s changing, however, as Trump appoints thousands of responsible judges to fill vacancies of retiring or outgoing judges. Perhaps the law will be actually upheld instead of twisted to resemble whatever politically expedient opinion is currently popular? It’s a lot to hope for, but change is coming!
81   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 26, 11:56am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Was it correct to demand that a man bake a gay cake? Remember, he wasn’t declining to bake a cake for the gay couple; just declining to bake them a specifically gay cake!


They didn't ask for a "gay" cake. They asked for a wedding cake.

Quigley says
No, the actions of Colorado’s civil rights commission are what’s being legally adjudicated here


It is a State Law. Civil Rights commission determines if violations have occurred.

Still waiting for what sections of the Constitution were violated here. (I'd think it would be easier to argue that being gay shouldn't be a protected class vs. a Constitutional argument. There is a lot of case law already concerning discrimination and protected classes)
82   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 26, 12:21pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I want a Hitler cake. A cake with statue of Hitler doing a Nazi salute on top, preferably from a Jewish bakery. I will sue the baker's pants off if he refuse to bake me a Hitler cake.
83   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 26, 12:34pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

anon_28052 says
I want a Hitler cake. A cake with statue of Hitler doing a Nazi salute on top, preferably from a Jewish bakery. I will sue the baker's pants off if he refuse to bake me a Hitler cake.


Except that Nazis aren't a protected class so it's a poor analogy.

A better analogy would be a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a black man.
84   curious2   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 26, 1:08pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
twenty years.


@Quigley, I respect you, but you've overlooked the enormous progress that occurred from 1998-2015. In 1998, Texas prosecuted sodomy, but only if the couple were gay. The military had the Clintonian "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which got Americans killed in Iraq because qualified translators were replaced with local contractors who lied in order to call in military strikes against their tribal enemies. Gay couples didn't get the equal protection of the laws until 2015.

As for the baker, he claimed to get personally involved in every wedding he bakes a cake for. He did not offer to sell the couple a generic wedding cake. He did offer other pastries, but not a wedding cake. One possible result would be for SCOTUS to say the couple could ask for a cake just like some other wedding cake that he's already sold, or one already on display, except without the lettering. IOW, if he writes usually something like "Happy Wedding Adam and Eve," they could get a generic cake without lettering or even maybe "Happy Wedding," but they'd have to write in their own names.

Beware the temptation of political charlatans who offer to protect your religion from government interference. Islam says to kill you, and you will probably want your government to interfere with devout Muslims following what Islam commands. The KKK is also a religious organization, and exempting their beliefs from civil rights laws would have left segregated lunch counters and other businesses across the southeastern USA.
85   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 26, 1:11pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Beware the temptation of political charlatans who offer to protect your religion from government interference. Islam says to kill you, and you will probably want your government to interfere with that. I know I do.

——————

It’s too late

Christians have already destroyed the country and defecated on The Constitution
86   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 26, 1:26pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Fine, where does it end? Apparently with mandatory re-education for anyone not embracing the homosexual lifestyle. That’s what the civil rights board decided in this case. I don’t agree with that decision. I also don’t agree with sodomists being jailed as per Old Texas law. I think we agree more than we disagree on this subject, but I’m a libertarian at heart. My rights end where yours begin, and vice versa. You can’t sic the government on me for “incorrect” or even outrageous speech, and you can’t prosecute me for having a “currently unfashionable” faith.

The courts have ruled many times that art is speech and thus protected. Cakes, photography, and even flower arrangement can be considered art and thus protected free speech. First Ammendment is a real bitch for progs! All kinds of things they hate with speech and religion and assembly.
87   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 26, 5:01pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HappyGilmore says
anon_28052 says
I want a Hitler cake. A cake with statue of Hitler doing a Nazi salute on top, preferably from a Jewish bakery. I will sue the baker's pants off if he refuse to bake me a Hitler cake.


Except that Nazis aren't a protected class so it's a poor analogy.

A better analogy would be a bakery refusing the bake a cake for a black man.


What a Christian cake, with a cross on top, from a devout Wahabi Muslim?
88   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 26, 5:21pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says
anon_4480e says
cause


No, HIV is a virus that spread mostly by heterosexual transmission in Africa. You and Fortwhine can meet at the Reseda truck stop and engage in monogamous sodomy every day for decades, and if neither of you got HIV from someone else, then neither of you will "cause" it, no matter how many times you might try.


There's zero doubt that man on man sex (whether gay or bisexual) greatly increases the risk for HIV contraction, and so does on average the lifestyle. The percentages in relation to the general population prove that, no matter whether one regards gay sex as immoral or not. Didn't cause AIDS but certainly helped spreading it. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_and_men_who_have_sex_with_men#
89   BlueSardine   ignore (4)   2017 Dec 26, 5:30pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FIFY...
mell says
There's zero doubt that man Dan on man Goat sex (whether gay or bisexual) greatly increases the risk for HIV contraction, and so does on average the lifestyle.
90   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2017 Dec 26, 5:33pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
. First Ammendment is a real bitch for progs! All kinds of things they hate with speech and religion and assembly.

So true. The first amendment is the most important.
91   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2017 Dec 26, 5:33pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Who would want to buy a cake baked by someone that vehemently did not want to bake it?
92   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 26, 5:52pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
The courts have ruled many times that art is speech and thus protected. Cakes, photography, and even flower arrangement can be considered art and thus protected free speech. First Ammendment is a real bitch for progs! All kinds of things they hate with speech and religion and assembly.


Ah--so a cake is free speech? That's your Constitutional argument?


anon_28052 says
What a Christian cake, with a cross on top, from a devout Wahabi Muslim?


Nope--once again, Christians are not a protected class. Look up "protected class" and you can learn about what types of discrimination are against the law.
93   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2017 Dec 26, 6:31pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

anon_3b28c says
Christians are not a protected class. Look up "protected class"

Looked it up for you:
"Federal protected classes include:
Race.
Color.
Religion or creed.
National origin or ancestry.
Sex.
Age.
Physical or mental disability.
Veteran status.
Genetic information.
Citizenship."
I believe Christian falls under religion.
94   Strategist   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 26, 6:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
I believe Christian falls under religion.


You mean we can't say anything we want that ridicules Christianity? I know we can't with Islam.
95   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2017 Dec 26, 6:49pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Strategist says


You mean we can't say anything we want that ridicules Christianity? I know we can't with Islam.

That falls under the first amendment.

The bill of rights are constitutional law but also a list of inalienable rights not given by law but possessed by humanity.

Ok by me if you ridicule christ, allah, god, mohammed, even joseph smith.
It's your God given right.
96   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 26, 9:00pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

anon_3b28c says
Quigley says
The courts have ruled many times that art is speech and thus protected. Cakes, photography, and even flower arrangement can be considered art and thus protected free speech. First Ammendment is a real bitch for progs! All kinds of things they hate with speech and religion and assembly.


Ah--so a cake is free speech? That's your Constitutional argument?


anon_28052 says
What a Christian cake, with a cross on top, from a devout Wahabi Muslim?


Nope--once again, Christians are not a protected class. Look up "protected class" and you can learn about what types of discrimination are against the law.

Religion is a protected class.
97   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 26, 9:14pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Federal protected classes include:
Race.
Color.
Religion or creed.
National origin or ancestry.
Sex.
Age.
Physical or mental disability.
Veteran status.
And in many states, sexual orientation.

But when two protected classes clash, the best solution is to refrain from giving th government power to force anyone to do anything about it.
98   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 26, 9:17pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Also for those of you who are confused, the first Ammendment gives you freedom of speech to say anything you wish about any religion at all. You can say Mohammed was a pedophile murderer psychopath and the government can not punish you. The first amendment also bars GOVERNMENT from making any law respecting or restricting a religion or religious practice.

Like I said above, it’s a pesky little Ammendment for progressives, who wish to “progress” to a Totalitarian State!
99   Strategist   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 26, 9:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
Ok by me if you ridicule christ, allah, god, mohammed, even joseph smith.
It's your God given right.


Allah and Mohammad are my favorite assholes. Good thing one never existed, and the other is dead.
100   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 26, 11:11pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

anon_28052 says
anon_28052 says
What a Christian cake, with a cross on top, from a devout Wahabi Muslim?


Nope--once again, Christians are not a protected class. Look up "protected class" and you can learn about what types of discrimination are against the law.

Religion is a protected class.

Quigley says
Federal protected classes include:
Race.
Color.
Religion or creed.
National origin or ancestry.
Sex.
Age.
Physical or mental disability.
Veteran status.
And in many states, sexual orientation.

But when two protected classes clash, the best solution is to refrain from giving th government power to force anyone to do anything about it.


Agreed on both. The problem with "protected" classes are that people are not equal anymore after those laws who are really at their core unconstitutional. And it is extremely easy for government to abuse those laws and selectively enforce case, which is already the case in most of the western world. If you bbq pork in front of a mosque or object to an oriental prayer-room in your company you're fucked, if you're Christian and demand prayer-room or even break at your work place you're laughed at.
101   curious2   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 27, 12:08am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

mell says
selectively enforce


Selective enforcement is unconstitutional. The phrase "protected class" can cause confusion; in reality, there are prohibited classifications, e.g. race or color. For example, you can sue for race discrimination in employment regardless of whether you are white, black, or any other color. If Chobani says the CEO's Muslim religion requires him to discriminate against disbelievers, please get that in writing or otherwise on record. Alas, since Hobby Lobby, even large and seemingly secular corporations can impose the managers' religious beliefs and claim exemption from laws of general application, so Chobani yogurt could conceivably claim the CEO has a right to kill disbelievers or at least subordinate them.
102   curious2   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 29, 7:34pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

anonymous says
Evidence from a national survey experiment.


Interesting survey, though it asked only about photography, not cakes. It found a huge disparity between Evangelical "Christians" vs the population as a whole:



Sometimes majorities of Evangelicals say things that make me question if they are really Christian:

103   Strategist   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 29, 7:46pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says


I like what this sign says, however it is a complete lie. The Bible is clear about it's hate towards Gay's. It says they are going to hell, period. Therefore a gay person can never be a true Christian.
What I see in this sign is an ongoing reinterpretation of the Bible for the positive. They reinterpret slavery, blasphemy, gays, burning witches etc. Awesome. It's a sign of becoming civilized.
Can you name another religion that continues to interpret it's religion the way it was written? I'll give you a hint. They are barbarians from the 7th century, stuck in a time warp.
104   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 4, 8:34am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/04/supreme-court-sides-with-masterpiece-cakeshop-in-same-sex-wedding-ruling/

Guess that’s been decided. 1st Ammendment trumps civil rights commissions!
Hurray for the Constitution!
Suck it, Leftist fucks!
105   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 4, 8:40am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Just because you sit on a Civil Rights Commission, you don’t get the right to start violating the Constitution. I’d give this case about a 95% chance of favoring the baker, with probably a 7-2 split. The two will be Obama’s trash, Kagen and the “wise Latina.”


Damn, I’m good! Although it was Ginsburg and the wise Latina.
106   joshuatrio   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 4, 8:47am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Gay rights haven’t been about rights for twenty years. They’ve been about enforcing their brand of morality onto the country. Same as any religious asshole. Only difference is these assholes like to get dicked.


This
107   FortWayne   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 4, 9:02am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Finally short break from liberal fag assault.
108   HEYYOU   ignore (25)   2018 Jun 4, 9:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Does anyone notice how Rep/Con/hypocrite Christians are so focused on dick sucking & anal fucking?
Closeted?
109   FortWayne   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 4, 9:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Maybe I just think I’m in business not to be your bitch and bake you a cake just cause you want one.

Normal society should not accept gay shit.

HEYYOU says
Does anyone notice how Rep/Con/hypocrite Christians are so focused on dick sucking & anal fucking?
Closeted?
110   HEYYOU   ignore (25)   2018 Jun 4, 9:45am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayne says
Maybe I just think I’m in business not to be your bitch and bake you a cake just cause you want one.

Normal society should not accept gay shit.


Same sex,sex, has been around for ever. It is normal.
I must have gotten close to home.
111   MisterLearnToCode   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 4, 10:11am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HEYYOU says
Does anyone notice how Rep/Con/hypocrite Christians are so focused on dick sucking & anal fucking?


Ever notice how Dem/Lib/Left hypocrites say sex pref, race, and gender don't matter, but are so focused on everybody believing what some self-appointed spokesperson says with regard to gays, race, and women?

Liberals:
"Employees on the clock have a right to disrespect the flag to show their stance on particular issues."
Also Liberals:
"Business owners have no right not to bake a cake that requires them to endorse positions they disagree with."
112   FortWayne   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 4, 10:15am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

It’s retardation, mental disorder. Not normal. And hence not ok.

Shitting in public also is natural, but also not ok. We are society and not animals who ok every retard thing left wants to do.

HEYYOU says
FortWayne says
Maybe I just think I’m in business not to be your bitch and bake you a cake just cause you want one.

Normal society should not accept gay shit.


Same sex,sex, has been around for ever. It is normal.
I must have gotten close to home.
113   P N Dr Lo R   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 4, 11:55am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HEYYOU says
Same sex,sex, has been around for ever. It is normal.
It's what the left has been doing for the past 50 years--it's called the normalization of deviancy.
114   CovfefeButDeadly   ignore (5)   2018 Jun 4, 12:44pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Quigley says
Just because you sit on a Civil Rights Commission, you don’t get the right to start violating the Constitution. I’d give this case about a 95% chance of favoring the baker, with probably a 7-2 split. The two will be Obama’s trash, Kagen and the “wise Latina.”


Damn, I’m good! Although it was Ginsburg and the wise Latina.


Absolutely. You were dead on correct.

I read tgrough all your old comments in this thread. You had it right down to small details.

I’ll say I’m shocked(and hopeful) that Kagen sided with the majority. Not due to politics, but due to upholding the constitution. I’d be very please if Trump gets to nominate a replacement for Ginsburg and we have a Supreme Court that largely follows the intent of the constitution.

Freedom and liberty are in the balance and the fewer sjw supporters on the court, the better.
115   HEYYOU   ignore (25)   2018 Jun 4, 12:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Now Muslims with t-shirts that read "Allah Akbar" & "Christians are Infidels" need to order cakes with the same slogans.
What are the bakers going to do about their love of Freedom of Religion?
116   CovfefeButDeadly   ignore (5)   2018 Jun 4, 12:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayne says
Maybe I just think I’m in business not to be your bitch and bake you a cake just cause you want one.

Normal society should not accept gay shit.

HEYYOU says
Does anyone notice how Rep/Con/hypocrite Christians are so focused on dick sucking & anal fucking?
Closeted?


In a normal society, people are free to pursue whatever leads them to happiness. This court case was about striking a balance in that and was much more about religious freeedom.

If you don’t like homosexuality, fine. But keep in mind that God and Jesus are there for whomever, whenever, as soon as that person is ready. Regardless of sin, as we are all sinners.

If you want to make a difference, concentrate on that. You won’t “fix” gay people I don’t think. But you can make a stand for the religious freedoms that were under attack when Barrack Obama was president. And you can speak to Christianity as a way to repentance and salvation.
117   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 12:56pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Compelling an artist to make a work that is contrary to his beliefs is unconstitutional, immoral and unamerican. It is basically involuntary conscription.
118   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 1:47pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

A better analogy would be a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a black man.

That's a straw man. The baker was not refusing to bake for gays in general, just not for a specific event.

A "better analogy" would be a black baker who accepts white customers, but will not make a Confederate Flag cake. Or a Jewish caterer who accepts Morman customers, but will not provide services for a polygamous wedding.
119   MisterLearnToCode   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 4, 1:53pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Liberals cleverly excluded politics, so you CAN refuse to bake a MAGA cake, but not a "Transgender Coming Out Party" cake. Because the former is "just politics" the latter is a "Gender/Sexual Preference"
123   komputodo   ignore (0)   2018 Jul 6, 9:06pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

you have to be a complete idiot to eat something that someone was forced to prepare for you.
124   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 6, 10:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

If I was forced to bake something for gays I would hock so many loogies into it, that i might bake only gay cakes as a full time job.

« First    « Previous    Comments 45 - 124 of 124    Last »



about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions