by WineHorror ➕follow (0) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 80 of 121 Next » Last » Search these comments
So, the Muslim Bakery has to bake my "Happy Independence Day Israel 1947" cake?
Historically oppressed minority, pal.
anon_3a245 sayserrc saysWhat about cripples?
cripples?
Who still uses that word?
Why not use "cripple"?
So, the Muslim Bakery has to bake my "Happy Independence Day Israel 1947" cake?
Historically oppressed minority, pal.
Maybe the part The Constitution got wrong was Freedom of Religion
But what if the definition of the group is simply that they enjoy an ancient and well-known vice, like alcoholism?
The religious point of view is that homosexuality is simply the vice of sodomy
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.
Quigley saysHow 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?
I’d tell them to bake their own cake.
alcoholism?
purely genetic
special treatment for certain groups which is unconstitutional.
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
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.
@WorkInProgress excellent find. Got a link?
“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.
anonymous saysBake 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.
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.
errc saysQuigley saysHow 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.
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.
mell saysspecial 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...
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.
And this OP tweet is BS anyway. Nowhere else have I seen anything saying they drove past other bakeries.
Alcoholism is a disease involving an inherently self-destructive behavior pattern that tends to cause death, often by age 50.
It's pretty easy to find out religious or cultural preferences of business owners
The only real and fair solution is to allow anyone to refuse service to anyone or nobody to refuse service to anyone.
Why don't you just accept that FREEDOM is more important than your feelings?
So, if you haven't seen it somewhere (cuz, no one would ever suppress information, correct?), it has to be a lie?
cause
For those that support the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) remember these kind of proposals come with lots of unexpected consequences.
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.
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.
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.”
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 80 of 121 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,260,210 comments by 15,050 users - HeadSet, krc, Patrick online now