A Plethora of Bad Ideas wrote:
We can eliminate a lot of confusion by simply making Christians stitch a large gold colored cross on all of their clothing, carry special papers identifying them as practicing Christians, and mark their businesses with a cross as well. That way, the rest of us will know who they are so that we may avoid doing business with them and offending their sensibilities until a final solution is reached.
Come guys, this was funny.
The baker was not trying to impose his religion on anyone. The baker was SOUGHT OUT by the gay dudes. They walked into HIS bakery. The baker didn't show up at their house unexpected and put chastity belts on them. Imposing needs to be coupled with offense, not defense. The baker was defending his rights against an onslaught by the gaystapo in this case.
When you visit a business, the business is not supposed to discriminate on who customers can be, but they also dont have to DO every possible type of business service that customers want.
I can't walk in a fried chicken joint and demand to buy a car. I cant walk into a car dealership and demand a japanese car or a stick shift. If they sell automatics and only automatic american cars, that's what they sell.
Obviously gays in this case think if you're gay, you can name the menu at a bakery. You can't.
But what if there were law that said all establishments offering fried chicken also had to sell cars? The law would be stupid, but not unconstitutional.
but you could wrote:
But what if there were law that said all establishments offering fried chicken also had to sell cars? The law would be stupid, but not unconstitutional.
Actually it is against the US Constitution but probably constitutional in most states. The US constitution does deny the federal government the power to get involved in things not specified as under the authority of the federal government.
When in the constitution does it give Congress the authority to pass a law forcing you to buy something?
Historically unconstitutional issues were resolved by changing the constitution. See amendment 16 as an example. Unfortunately today Congress just passes unconstitutional laws and they stand until the Supreme court rules otherwise.
it's pretty simple....if you are selling goods to the general public yeah you got to sell to everybody.
However, if your job requires personal service, like baking a cake or cutting someone's lawn, then yeah you
should have every right to do it or not. An you don't have to give a reason!
Fried Chicken wrote:
[quote]but you could wrote:
When in the constitution does it give Congress the authority to pass a law forcing you to buy something?
by coercive measure according to john roberts, whereby you levy a tax for choosing to not buy it. So you either pay a tax, or buy it. Its a way to coerce people into buying. I'm not saying I agree with that tactic, but thats how the mandate stood
Pop Pop, you're obviously not getting it. I'm pretty sure JALI is alluding to the fact that the "hypothetical" situation posed by JALI...actually happened, three different times, in Colorado- and was upheld as "A-ok" by the CO state equal rights commission, the same commission that told jack phillips the exact opposite. Yes pop pop, there's at least three liberal bakers...and probably a heck of a lot more.
Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
No. You are asking the question in a very specific way to get a very specific response as to create a rhetorical trap that has nothing to do with the law. On top of that, you don't even phrase it correctly.
Wait, there's a liberal baker who does not live and let live?
Why does it have "nothing to do with the law"? Tell us in the way that this idiot could understand.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
You equate the individual with the business. They are not the same thing in the eyes of the court.
And then you try to join speech to action, which is a total failure.
You don't know anything about First Amendment law.
Banana Bread wrote:
Imagine if the cake was gay banana bread
Your trolling never ceases to a amaze.
Why dont Jewish and Muslim businesses ever get into these targeted situations by LGBT activists?
This is an obvious targeting of Christians by the gaystapo and the ACLU. The ACLU should be shut down by the fed govt because they are biased anti-Christian, anti-white organization full of reverse racists.
Before you ask, yes I want far right government. We need to re-balance the country again. You need extremism sometimes.
Resetting the agendas wrote:
Why dont Jewish and Muslim businesses ever get into these targeted situations by LGBT activists?
This is an obvious targeting of Christians by the gaystapo and the ACLU. The ACLU should be shut down by the fed govt because they are biased anti-Christian, anti-white organization full of reverse racists.
Before you ask, yes I want far right government. We need to re-balance the country again. You need extremism sometimes.
Lol, get out of here fascist.
supreme nuts wrote:
Fried Chicken wrote:
[quote]but you could wrote:
When in the constitution does it give Congress the authority to pass a law forcing you to buy something?
by coercive measure according to john roberts, whereby you levy a tax for choosing to not buy it. So you either pay a tax, or buy it. Its a way to coerce people into buying. I'm not saying I agree with that tactic, but thats how the mandate stood
You proved the point. Roberts wouldn't agree that they could force you to buy something. He said they could issue a tax. For most of the US history the court and citizens would have said he was wrong. This is how the government gets around things they should not be involved with. It was the same with the national speed limit. Congress couldn't mandate it so they said we will give you money for roads if your sate sets the speed limit to what we want.
I recently stumbled upon a wonderful dessert recipe. Loved this cake, although I rarely eat them.
club.cooking/recipe/ube-cake/
I think you will be happy too.
Ingredients
2 1/2 cups cake flour
2 1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp salt
2 tsp ube extract
1/2 cup milk
1/2 cup vegetable oil
8 pcs egg yolks
1/3 cup sugar
1/2 cup ube jam
CubeOfCube wrote:
I recently stumbled upon a wonderful dessert recipe. Loved this cake, although I rarely eat them.
club.cooking/recipe/ube-cake/
I think you will be happy too.
Ingredients
2 1/2 cups cake flour
2 1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp salt
2 tsp ube extract
1/2 cup milk
1/2 cup vegetable oil
8 pcs egg yolks
1/3 cup sugar
1/2 cup ube jam
I hope your day job covers your bills as this comedy thing is not working for you.
chicken2 wrote:
You proved the point. Roberts wouldn't agree that they could force you to buy something. He said they could issue a tax. For most of the US history the court and citizens would have said he was wrong. This is how the government gets around things they should not be involved with. It was the same with the national speed limit. Congress couldn't mandate it so they said we will give you money for roads if your sate sets the speed limit to what we want.
What a lot of people missed about the tax holding of that case was that it pretty much guaranteed that Obamacare would fail. A tax can't be coercive. It has to be rational for a significant percentage of people to choose to pay the tax rather than buying insurance. If it the tax were high enough to actually force people to buy insurance, then the "tax" wouldn't be a revenue raising measure, and it would actually just be a penalty. But the majority said that penalties are a no-no.
The strings that Congress attaches to funds it gives to the state--as in your highway example--can be much more coercive.
Just once I want to see one of these couples go into a Muslim bakery or shop and see how tolerant they are to the whole "Gay Thing".
I find the Left's love of Islam, arguably the religion that is MOST repressive of women and gays, completely counter to their hatred of Christianity, (while seriously flawed) is no where near as intolerant as Islam.
Never understood why a company should be able to decide whom to provide service to based on race or sexual orientation. What if the private bus company in an african country decides to not take white customers? You guys should be fine with that then
semenyagoat wrote:
Never understood why a company should be able to decide whom to provide service to based on race or sexual orientation. What if the private bus company in an african country decides to not take white customers? You guys should be fine with that then
What if the president of an African country called for the killing of whites in his country and then the people of that country starting carrying out his wishes?
semenyagoat wrote:
Never understood why a company should be able to decide whom to provide service to based on race or sexual orientation. What if the private bus company in an african country decides to not take white customers? You guys should be fine with that then
This has nothing to do with providing service to a group of people. It is about putting a specific message on a cake, it doesn't matter who asked for that message. It is their business so they can choose what messages they allow on their cakes. Would you think it was wrong if they refused to bake a cake with a swastika on it?