The gay wedding cake.

Then how do we justify Kim Davis, a government employee? Somehow she still has her job. Can we stop pretending the laws apply to everyone?

I'm sorry but there is no way you can say that someone who is gay is infringing on your religious freedom. I'm not banging down your door demanding you put on a flannel and come to Home Depot to have an orgy while we all burn Bibles for heat. I do all my gay sexing at home away from bigoted eyes (also I love it when Christians condemn us one second and watch lesbian porn the next. As if their hypocrisy wasn't ironic enough already). I'm allowed to exist without having to worry about your comfort, because they sure as fuck don't worry about mine when I get on a bus and there's someone screaming about dykes going to hell. Isn't that infringing on my freedom? No, so it's just to protect them? Okay.

How can they tell it's us anyway? I only wear my rainbows to Pride, where I drive directly there in a car so I don't impose myself on a nice poor persecuted Christian who thinks it's within his right to gun us all down. I'm crying a river for people like that.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Matthew 7:1-3

 

Kim Davis should have lost her job.

But then our liberal fabric would have insisted that she file a lawsuit for religious discrimination and she would have been awarded enough money for 8 people to retire on.

Welcome to the new normal.

We have to pandering to everyone.

 

Yeah sure that's what I'm saying. Eye roll.

It's simple. If I am a doctor that has some religious beliefs that are contrary to some of my potential patients, I as that doctor have to make a choice. Private practice or not.

He/she did not create the government that forces him to treat people he has religious objection to. People like you did. He/she has to choose how they will proceed in their professional path. If he is a Muslim doctor, he has some moral dilemmas that he chose to address. Muslims are not supposed to view or touch a woman's body that is not thier wives. That same Muslim doctor may have to face a Jewish patient. People like you will tell him he has no choice but to treat these people regardless of how he feels about it.

I am beginning to understand how our educational system is failing America. I pity a child that has an upbringing you don't agree with.

 

The declaration of independence is not the same thing as your constitution

The wording in the original document, 2nd, not 4th of July 1776, was "That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States"

Wasnt till 9th September 1776 that a congressional declaration changed the wording to United States, and was intended at the time to mean these states that are united in gaining independence from Britain, wasnt till then that the DOI was actually sent to Britain. Jeffersons edit on 4th of July contains the line "That these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independant states" - that is, at the time (4th of July 1776) the 13 colonies were intended to be independant, NOT United
You didnt really become the United States of America until 1789, 13 years later, when your proper constitution was finalized and Washington became the first President

They borrowed some wording from the DOI, but it has nothing to do with your constitution, and all the amendments that followed

.....and you have all been celebrating the birth of your nation on the wrong day

 

Seriously, how long ago was Kim Davis?

One clerk in a nation of 330 million wants to not do a marriage license, one dumb case about a wedding cake. This is pretty much the sum total of gay oppression in the US over the last decade.

In the same time frame, how many black people shot by police, how many Costa Rican kids died crossing 5 countries to eventually try get over the US border

I have it sweet in my country, and you do in yours

 

It is growing more sour in recent times. We now have one clerk in 330 million people getting more attention that the about 325 million should be getting. We have become a nation of spending all of our resources on the fewest we need to.

 

A disgraceful business for sure. But if you are more outraged over a sign at a store, than you are at entire nations that are de facto no gay zones. Then it’s time for a serious re-evaluation

 

ummm, first of all you know that's it for discrimination in America how??? From your experience living all acorss America as a gay man? Second, it's not about the specific case, it's about future discrimination the case either condones or forbids. Third, discussing this does not in any way limit discussion about our other forms of bigotry. It's all about the same core thing. Scared little uneducated weak white men trying to hold on to a world that's passed their little minds and fragile egos by

 

How often is it a straight white man that has the real intel on discrimination??

 

Like the couple in question here?

Are you suggesting they weren't discriminated against, but instead are simply blaming the bakery for their own inability to buy a wedding cake?

 

That's a deflection though.

Oh, it's okay to ignore and accept gay bigotry in the US because--hey! At least we're not the Middle East!

If you think THAT way, then it's time for a serious reevaluation

 

Nope. I'm blaming them for simply not picking another bakery to get their cake done at. Instead we go all the way to the Supreme Court to prove what? That they are gay and feel discriminated against? Just go somewhere you feel more comfortable doing business with. Freedom of Choice does not mean you make me choose your way. It means if you don't like the way the baker conducts business you have a choice to go elsewhere. Weren't you the same person that stood on the platform of boycotting Chick-Fil-A for their policies against gays? Yet now you stand on the platform to force a baker to cater service to something they don't desire to.

Go eat your Chicken Sandwiches somewhere else. Go get your cake baked somewhere else. The baker and Chick-Fil-A won't protest your actions or take you to court over it. That's tolerance.

Gay Bigotry? They couldn't get a cake made for them. This does not mean they are being intolerant of them. They were allowed to leave in peace. Intolerant is being thrown off roofs because of your sexual orientation.

If you want to define it the same, welcome to the deterioration of America.

 

We tried that with African-Americans until the sixties. If hotels, motels, restaurants, hospitals, and other public accommodations wouldn't serve them, they could just go elsewhere. Except there was sometimes no elsewhere, and nothing could more dramatically brand people as second class citizens than to make them drive miles and miles for room at the inn. Defenders of Kim Davis, a public employee whose job was to issue marriage licenses who decided not to issue them to gays, said wanting to get married could go to the next county to get their licenses--that, assuming the clerks in the next county wouldn't get the same idea. The public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 put a stop to that. Colorado adopted a similar provision in 1885: If you open your doors for business, you have to serve all comers. The wedding cake case raises the particular issue of the baker's freedom of religion, but that issue wasn't really decided. The Court really decided against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's grounds for deciding against the baker, because the Commission included language indicating animus against the Free Exercise Clause and religious liberty. But in the long run, allowing businessmen and professionals to claim religion as a basis for denying service could have unfortunate consequences--since imaginative folks could start a religion requiring them not to serve--say, Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, unveiled women, etc. And the court left it to future courts to deal with that.

 

Here we have two logical fallacies rolled into one short post. the fallacy of relative privation (how can you be worried about gays being denied a wedding cake when they're being subjected to far worse treatment in other countries); and the red herring fallacy (deflecting attention from one topic to another unrelated one). Congratulations!

 

Yes I agree that the case was lost on poor process not poor principal. The principal part was never ruled on because the case was already lost on faulty filing.

Yes I am also aware of the public accommodations portion of this act specifies what constitutes a public establishment. I don't know the nature of the bakery as far as if it seats customers or simply bakes for customers. That would better sort out if he fits into the discriminatory category of a "public" accommodation.

And yes if I plan on opening a business I choose that business partially on the laws that govern my ability to do business as a I choose to. I see many an establishment that post signs that say, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone" . How can that be possible? The answer is Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class.

As more and more liberals grant "protected" status to more and more groups, they will simply try and use other angles, such as religious beliefs, or health and safety of other citizens or pose a civil threat to the security of others.

Otherwise they just choose to not do business. Oh wait......that's whats happening.......

They will figure out how to assault a "membership only" establishment. They are not considered "public" due to the fact that its a membership required for entry. They hurt no one and can control who can and can't be there. Until that gets attacked.

Keep attacking everyone that has a preference that may not agree with your beliefs until we paralyze anyone that doesn't feel like you do. Oh wait........that's what's happening.

How hard is it to have a country where people can have a preference and can choose based on that preference? If gays want to boycott an establishment, an establishment should be able to discriminate who they serve.

 

You seem to be wanting to re-litigate Katzenbach v. McClung (1964). Olli's Barbecue thought it had the right to deny service to blacks because--hey, it's McClung's business and he ought to be able to serve or not serve whomever he wanted. Are you saying he was right? I sometimes get the impression you'd like to go back to the days before those libruls introduced those #$%^civil rights acts. I hear the Archie Bunker theme music playing in the background:
Boy, the way Glenn Miller played!
Songs that made the Hit Parade.
Guys like us, we had it made.
Those were the days!

Gays don't currently have "protected status" except through state laws and local ordinances, but as members of the public they should be able to use the services of a public business. Otherwise, they are relegated to second class citizenship. It's true that owners whose discriminatory efforts are thwarted by the law can and often will try to find a loophole around it. In fact, that's what seems to be going on with all the "religious rights" objections to serving gays. Civil liberties have always been about balance: my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. I think letting the camel's nose of religious objections into the tent will cause havoc that will have unintended consequences for rights across the board.

 

Nothing to re-litigate.

Yes he was right if that is they way he felt and it was his business. He didn't depend on the public funds (taxes) to conduct business. Likely established before these laws were passed. The laws were passed that forbade him that right. So he had a choice. He disobeyed the law. He was wrong for doing that. He should have tried it a different way. But he had an established clientele who expected the establishment to be what they came for.

While I personally don't support his view, I support his right to have it and his wish to conduct his business based on those views. He will either succeed or fail if his customer base does or does not feel the same way he does.

The days where we got to choose by our preferences and not forced to choose to accommodate someone else's are gone. So if those are the "days" you are referring to, then yes those were the days.

I have gone into more than one Middle Eastern eatery, that were patronized by 99% practicing Muslims in an American city. I had every right to eat there. They were not unpleasant to me. The patrons for the most part stunk. As in not bathing for what smelled like a week. Further the men smoked like chimneys, Middle Eastern sourced cigarettes. The women were treated like trash. They had a cleanliness score of like 68, posted on the wall. And it was packed!

So who belonged there in that place me or them?

If I protested the conditions who do you think would have won?

I make a choice. Go there because my business partner wants to have lunch there? Or tell them to clean it up or I will lodge a complaint against them? Or refuse to go there?

If I own a restaurant that caters to white Christian patrons by the choice I make, I'd want to be able to say that seating Muslims does not bode well for my business model.

When do you liberals use common sense and say this is not where I need to poke my nose in and cause trouble? Just fucking don't go somewhere if you don't like it. Nothing complicated.

If I could go to an establishment to eat where the food was good, they don't have anyone under the age of 18, they had a code of conduct for those that are there, and the caliber of service was based on performance of staff not what I'm willing to tolerate, would you allow me to go there and not complain if you had kids and couldn't go?

If I am going to pay to dine somewhere, I'd like to pick a place that is to my liking. Its my money to spend the way I'd like to.

Discrimination is a part of everyone. We can't legislate how people feel or have a preference to something. Gays discriminate against Chik-Fil-A, and wave the Gay flag when doing so. We have no laws to prevent that side of discrimination. Yet if you don't feel like you want to bake for a marriage you don't believe in, fuck you for being in business with those views?

If these are the days of today, then yes we need to reset the days to something that once was.

 

Oh the irony