HIDDEN CAMERA: Gay Wedding Cake At Muslim Bakeries

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
If you want to deny someone service, that's YOUR RIGHT. Doesn't matter your religion or the fact you're running a business.

If someone won't serve you based on your lifestyle, tell them to piss off and take your business elsewhere.

Legislation DOES NOT need to get involved in this crap.

Grow some skin people... Oh booo hooohooo.... someone doesn't like the fact that you're queer. Who the hell cares????

What is the legal basis of the right to deny service to the public in a public business?

Any law, Federal, State, local.

Thanks.

HAPPY EASTER EVERYONE!

Not only did Senator Barack Obama support RFRA...before he didn't:

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was passed, with broad bipartisan support, by a Democratic Congress and signed enthusiastically by President Clinton. In 1998 the Illinois Senate passed the state’s own version of RFRA, 56-0, with Sen. Barack Obama not just present but voting “yes.”

www.sodahead.com...

Barack Obama was against gay marriage...before he was:

"I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation..."
-Barack Obama 2004 (Senate campaign)

"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."
-Barack Obama 2008 (Presidential campaign)

The hypocrisy exhibited by our progressive liberal leaders on this issue is extremely telling...and it speaks to their; 'Say Anything' approach to get elected.

WHY should the American people trust anything this leadership says on this subject, given it's previous record on flip-flopping for political gain?

I'm sure Obama probably wishes he actually was a time-traveler...as has been suggested by the always amusing Gryphon66...The President would probably love to go back in time to correct many of his earlier statements and inconvenient truths.

a reply to: IAMTAT

So, Obama voted for something in 1998 in the Illinois State Senate but not in 1993 in Bill Clinton's time, as you previously stated? What's the point, that Democrats voted for the Federal RFRA passed in 1993 (without Mr. Obama present, as you previously stated)?

In fact, the House passed it with a VOICE VOTE (probably unanimous) and the Senate passed it 97-3.

Thanks for clearing that up though!

Oh, and by the way, the Indiana RFRA varied distinctly from the Federal version in several points, as I'm sure you know.

As to the rest of your post, can you explain why the President's evolving ideas about marriage equality relate to the con-man in your OP going into Muslim bakeries and harassing them? You remember ... the topic of your thread here? The abuses of religous freedom on the part of the fraud you linked in your OP?

Oh well, I guess if you want to keep talking about Mr. Obama ...

The President isn't allowed to change his mind? He supported the religious contention that it was between one man and one woman based on his Christian faith in 2004.

You didn't change your mind about any topic between 2004 and 2008? Well, actually, I can believe that.

The man changed his mind. Many Americans changed their minds about marriage equality in those years. I find the overblown statement "hypocrisy exhibited by our progressive liberal leaders" quite ... hypocritical. At least misplaced.

I'm so glad I amuse you IAMTAT! But I really didn't come up with the time traveler thing!

You had Obama voting for the RFRA in Bill Clinton's time (1993). All the credit for that boehner goes to you!

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
a reply to: EloquentThinker

would you think the same thing if they refused to bake a cake for a black person or if a gay bakery refused to bake a cake for a straight person? what would you think if a bakery refused to bake a cake for you?

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying - They can refuse ANYONE they want to. It's not illegal to refuse to bake a cake based on gender, race, religion or anything. It's their business and if they don't want to do something, they don't have to if they're willing to put up with any repercussions from easily offended nutjobs. The Customer can go elsewhere too.

What is up with some people who insist that you have to act, behave and believe the same things as they do in the modern world? Seriously, most of us are adults here so grow up and accept that most people will never see the world as you do. Those who insist that gays must be treated equally at every opportunity and ridicule those who hold any opinion to the contrary remind me of Islamic State and all the other nutjob regimes in the world who enforce their views on others. If I don't feel comfortable baking a cake, talking to gay people, Blacks, Martians or anything, I should be free to do so without having to defend myself as if I did something wrong. We live in a free society where all points of view are welcome and some people need to be reminded of that.

a reply to: EloquentThinker

well i'm of the opinion that, although we should not discriminate against gays who are seeking our public services (if we have any), that the real reason for all this bruhaha is not because the people making it such a big deal actually care about gays, rather they are using it as a political bludgeon.

but first, the public discourse had to be framed properly, which was achieved when out of nowhere, the democratic party started condemning their own voting base for being christian and/or white. this got worse and worse, till there was a public backlash and huge portions of lifelong, christian democrats moved to the right or out of the 2 party system entirely. so instead of an equal distribution of white christians, in both parties, you have this completely uneven mess, where the right can be easily pigeon-holed and discriminated against, and the left can also be easily pigeon-holed and discriminated against.

democrats said "no problem" we'll just ship in new voters from impoverished countries (normally they'd be gnawing at the bit along with the neocons to invade said impoverished country and set up globalist commerical and banking infrastructure - centralized government baby! it's the way to a totalitarian globe - where we can force the whole world to believe as we do. they got close enough though with nafta so it worked out anyway. the neocons were convinced to go along with it by dangling the cheap labor carrot under their noses. and so, the 2 party system sold their own voters down the river).

so how did we respond? we tried to elect ron paul, a former libertarian (?) who posed as a republican just so we could vote for him. the repubs wouldn't even let him on the ticket. so a huge chunk of our votes were nullified. these guys got us coming and going.

meanwhile, they resurrect from the dustbin of world war 2, the law that allows them to use propaganda on us, and wham, right away, almost every democratic political hot button and bludgeon, is sprung on the nation, followed immediately by almost every republican hot button and bludgeon, and each is pulled out with such well timed placement, that you could swear this was a pre-planned passion play and all of it aimed at removing our ability to make our own decisions or be treated fairly by the rest of society. i mean we were making significant in-roads on the treatment of gays and then the government stepped in and fudged the whole thing up. now treating them with the same respect you'd treat anyone, is in danger, because people just hate to be forced to do anything.

a reply to: undo

Where do you stand on the con-man that harassed Muslim business owners as in the OP's video ... you know ... the topic?

Surely you stand against that, right?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: undo

Where do you stand on the con-man that harassed Muslim business owners as in the OP's video ... you know ... the topic?

Surely you stand against that, right?

i like crowder, but as i said earlier, i personally (and that is, afterall, the only person i have a right to dictate to) don't agree with not serving gays the same as anyone else. treat people how you want to be treated. i would not want to be denied service, that's for sure, so naturally, i wouldn't want to deny anyone else service. the issue in my prior post before yours, was that i don't think this whole scenario is actually designed to help gays. i think it's got the potential to backfire horribly.

somewhere out there is a video of an israeli rabbi who stated, in response to the issue of the west being overtaken by islam (population wise), that the west needs to be under the control of islam, because we have let our morals degrade and our women dress dishonorably. now i dunno how close he is to the top of the food chain (300 globalists bankers, headed by mr. rothschild and friends), but if that's their plan, you're gonna need christian friends if you're gay.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I think you meant to reply to grandmakdw

originally posted by: [post=19196018]NavyDoc


If you want the law to punish me for not wanting to do business with you, then you want the state to act as your agent.

If you want the "law" to prosecute someone who robs your store...or an employee who embezzles from you..or a local gang shaking you down for protection money...or another business from stealing your hard earned name and reputation..or to enforce some contract when a client decides they don't feel like paying you...and a thousand other things big and small..then "you want the state to act as your agent".

You just would like that "agent" to only protect YOU from being treated unfairly while allowing you to illegally discriminate against what color, gender, race, religion or sexual orientation you do business with.

a reply to: undo

I'm not sure how anyone can like a con-man that abuses religious minorities ... but there you go.

You seem to be operating under a misunderstanding, and I'd like to offer a quick point in the right direction.

The 'gay rights movement/equality movement' certainly DID NOT BEGIN with anything the Democratic Party has done.

Here's a great timeline/summary from PBS: Milestones in the American Gay Rights Movement

You'll find that the above ground efforts date back into the late 40s.

The Democratic Party made no statement regarding equal rights for LGBT folk at all until 1980 ... at which point it "added a plank to the platform" and was then mostly silent until the last decade at best.

Gay rights are not, therefore, a Democratic plot, as you seem to suggest.

You might really benefit from reading that timeline, undo. You might be surprised at some of the facts.

Best,

a reply to: Gryphon66

i don't think baiting muslims into revealing they have deeply held religious convictions (as if that was a surprise???) was the correct thing for crowder to do, i just happen to get a real kick out of his videos (most of the time). like this one

or this one


as far as my spiel about the democratic party: realize i think both sides are in the process of heading us straight into a totalitarian government. they are using whatever they can grab ahold of to do so, by getting us to vote our own issues in, at the expense of others and they are making sure that these issues have alot of interference in the free will category.

they are deilberately heating up the rhetoric on both sides, so that what would normally be groups that would help/defend each other in the face of real persecution, will already be dire enemies (bridge burning) so the overthrowers don't have to contend with coordinated fronts. we had some healthy bridges going up everywhere, between christians and gays, and wham, like in 1 week, years of progress, tossed out the w indow.

that should scare the hell out of you, i know it does me.

a reply to: undo

This con-man Crowder also dressed as a cartoon character to offer candy to kids and then take it away from kids to teach them a lesson about "handouts."

Is that "cute" to you as well? To me, it borders on child abuse.

This con-man went into 10 bakeries, only 3 denied his ludicrous requests and actions, but those that denied him are the only ones he demonstrated in his video. Note, they didn't deny selling him a cake, only denied writing certain words on it.

My feelings overall about what is dangerous in the world and the relative menace of political parties and hidden figures are off-topic here.

a reply to: Gryphon66

how can what's dangerous to gays and christians be off topic in a thread about gays and christians, but it' s fine for me to comment on crowder's other videos? tell ya what i'm gonna do, since i know just having empathy for you, believing you should be treated fairly and not discriminated against, is not enough for ya, i'm gonna excuse myself.

been nice chatting.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Gryphon66

how can what's dangerous to gays and christians be off topic in a thread about gays and christians, but it' s fine for me to comment on crowder's other videos? tell ya what i'm gonna do, since i know just having empathy for you, believing you should be treated fairly and not discriminated against, is not enough for ya, i'm gonna excuse myself.

been nice chatting.

Sometimes I really don't know what to say to you. I did NOT tell you that you couldn't address whatever you want to in the thread. I don't have that kind of authority, and unless you were being abusive or whatever, I have nothing say about it.

Free speech and all.

You ended the post I responded to with a question TO ME. TO ME the topic is about a very narrow subject; the con-man Crowder's videos abusing minorites in Michigan. THE LIMITATION ON MY RESPONSE is that I can't address fears about political parties, et. al.

That's not a totalitarian command to you about what you can talk about; it's a limitation on what I will talk about, personally, in an attempt to remain in T&C.

No hard feelings from me at least.

Best,

a reply to: Gryphon66

so the subject then is about crowder? i thought it was about gay, christian, muslim relations, with crowder's video being the evidence that this entire new series of bridge burnings, is being artificially stimulated and specifically targeted at christians (to create the divide).

a reply to: undo

Uhhhmmm....

Maybe reread the OP? IAMTAT wants to discuss the meaning of the video of the fraudster Crowder trying to trap Muslim bakeries into ... something.

The video is edited to make it seem that all of the bakeries denied the service of writing a hateful message on the cake.

Only three refused.

How that reads to you as some sort of attack on Christians ... honestly ... I can't say, with the exception that I would guess that the media you listen to read and watch everyday has the fake "Christians under attack" meme blasting 24/7.

That would be a guess. How you read the OP is up to you. No hard feelings though, I hope, at least not because you think I'm trying to "shut you down."

not really sure if i care enough to post, but hey why not!!!

If shop A doesnt want to make you the custom cake you require, go to shop B - rinse and repeat.

Would anyone be surprised if you go to a vegan cake shop and demand a cake topped with bacon (delicious apparently) and then be shocked if they dont want to bake it for you, and quite polity give you a few alternative bakery options? What about we hit the hindu bakery next with a beef mince layered one? How about a cartoon Mohammad?


Some bakers might not do very good letters with their poor icing skill, are they infringing your rights in anyway or making a big deal if they deny your lettering? Nope, you just go to another baker lol!!!!



Is this really that huge of a deal?

a reply to: Gryphon66

this place is the only media i have been listening to and watching. the question from crowder, in the video was: why isn't this harrassment being evenly distributed to all groups who might refrain for similar reasons. my suggestion was to reconsider who the actual problem causer is here. it's not muslims, christians, or gays, it's globalists in our government, trying to create massive divides between people who were, hithertofore, actuallly getting along fine, most of the time. and that the end goal of that is to separate friends or potential future friends, from each other, so that people can be more easily targeted.

a reply to: Biigs

Wait is being gay an ingredient? I'm lost, how does a store that's vegan and thus... wait vegan cakes? Is that possible? Eh, ignoring that. How would a store that's advertised as a vegan bakery be considered discriminatory for not selling you a cake with bacon on it? They don't sell meat products, it's blatently advertized, it's straight up a vegan bakery.

Sorry but the two things are not comparable.