patrick.net

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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...

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!

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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#

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.

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.

Who would want to buy a cake baked by someone that vehemently did not want to bake it?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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!