HIDDEN CAMERA: Gay Wedding Cake At Muslim Bakeries

a reply to: undo

Right, Crowder is a con man that went into Muslim bakeries and tried to intimidate them for his own fraudulent purposes.

He doctored the "video evidence" so that the majority of bakeries (7) that did not refuse were ignored.

Globalists in the government? Maybe. I have nothing to say on that here.

There doesn't have to be a problem though. We have fair and equitable laws in this country for the most part.

We administer the laws fairly and equitably and the public follows those laws ... and everything goes smoothly.

You may be right about the nefarious globalist agenda, Undo ... I just see no evidence of that here.

a reply to: Gryphon66

then what do you call the guy who suggested the law in the first place? you know i'm pretty sure both sides have totalitarians in them, that are just chomping at the bit about the outcome of all this, and neither of them actually cares about gays or religious people. wouldn't surprise me in the least. had this not happened, we would've continued our steadily improving acceptance of gays, at least enough where catering or selling them our products, would not be an issue (shouldn't be in an issue in the first place).

why the need for the sudden injection of a law that was already at the federal level? what inspired that decision? were gays encountering an epidemic of christians not selling to them or did they decide to do the same thing crowder did, and go from store to store till they found someone who would refuse?

a reply to: undo

The Federal RFRA (1993) was declared unconstitutional when applied to the States in City of Boerne v. Flores (SCOTUS). The Supreme Court stated that Congress did not have the right to expand religious rights beyond those granted in the Constitution AT THE STATE LEVEL.

That decision of unconstitutionality coupled with the desires at the State level to "protect" merchants from doing business with homosexuals is what has prompted the several states to enact similar styled laws on their own.

Indiana was the latest to do so, and they have now modified that law to provide some protection against discrimination directed at gays and lesbians, etc.

I refuse to bake a penis shaped cake. You might as well throw me to the wolves. You'll never change my mind. If you want it done, open a bakery and make it yourself.

Have a nice day.

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
I refuse to bake a penis shaped cake. You might as well throw me to the wolves. You'll never change my mind. If you want it done, open a bakery and make it yourself.

Have a nice day.

Which is completely within your legal rights...what you can't do is refuse to bake ANY cake for someone because don't like their color, religion or who they love.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
I refuse to bake a penis shaped cake. You might as well throw me to the wolves. You'll never change my mind. If you want it done, open a bakery and make it yourself.

Have a nice day.

Which is completely within your legal rights...what you can't do is refuse to bake ANY cake for someone because don't like their color, religion or who they love.

I wouldn't refuse money from anyone except if it went against my thin line of morality. I have no problem baking a normal cake but I won't be going to the wedding nor will I make what I described in my last post. I think if people flaunt the fact to get a rise out of someone, they should be bitch slapped.

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
I refuse to bake a penis shaped cake. You might as well throw me to the wolves. You'll never change my mind. If you want it done, open a bakery and make it yourself.

Have a nice day.

LOL!

Who buys penis shaped cakes? Red blooded heterosexual women planning a "Bachelorette Party"! Party pooper!

PS: You can get the cake pan at any F Street!

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
I refuse to bake a penis shaped cake. You might as well throw me to the wolves. You'll never change my mind. If you want it done, open a bakery and make it yourself.

Have a nice day.

LOL!

Who buys penis shaped cakes? Red blooded heterosexual women planning a "Bachelorette Party"! Party pooper!

PS: You can get the cake pan at any F Street!

That's probably true but I won't be doing it. That's the difference.

a reply to: IAMTAT

This is just as wrong as when Christians do it.

What is funny to me, is that Christians want to be viewed as just as intolerant as the Muslims that they slander all the time.

God, the Government, or you are going to change what I think. That's a fact.

a reply to: IAMTAT

It is hypocritical that those who have pushed this idea that business can be forced into doing something and then magically avoid this.


I, however back the business's decision in refusing service. They have that right....well if you abide by the Constitution and BoRs they do.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: IAMTAT

It is hypocritical that those who have pushed this idea that business can be forced into doing something and then magically avoid this.


I, however back the business's decision in refusing service. They have that right....well if you abide by the Constitution and BoRs they do.

You agree with anything that removes government.

originally posted by: undo

why the need for the sudden injection of a law that was already at the federal level? what inspired that decision? were gays encountering an epidemic of christians not selling to them or did they decide to do the same thing crowder did, and go from store to store till they found someone who would refuse?

SNEAKY LAWS

The bible belt type states are in fear of the Federal Government making same sex marriage legal in all states. Also, the possibility they may be added to the Civil Rights Act as a protected minority.

The states are trying to make discrimination laws prior to the USSC decision - - to protect them from having to do business with gays.

Louisiana just introduced one, I believe.

WATCH: A Field Guide for Identifying Sneaky, Homophobic Laws
Nice civil rights you've got there. Sure would be a shame if something happened to them.
BY MATT BAUMEMARCH 6 2015

While LGBT Americans are busy celebrating the spread of marriage equality, homophobic lawmakers have yet another trick up their sleeve. A new trend hitting legislatures across the country: sneaky laws that erode civil rights for LGBT citzens without ever actually mentioning LGBT people, or even same-sex marriage.



It's a clever strategic move, since it would be unconstitutional to call out gays and lesbians specifically in a law that revokes civil rights. So anti-equality politicians have figured out how to cleverly word new laws that still manage to target sexual orientation for discrimination.

Some of these proposed new laws — like the one recently enacted in Arkansas — would make it against the law for towns to add new groups to nondiscrimination policies. Others follow Mississippi's lead, and would allow businesses and government employees to pick and choose which members of the public they'd serve. And some — like a bill passed last month in the North Carolina Senate — would even require public employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

www.advocate.com...

a reply to: Annee

Yeah, basically.

See, I don't need a Govt there to tell me what to do and what not to do.


Also, that is what our country was founded on and created as.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Annee

Yeah, basically.

See, I don't need a Govt there to tell me what to do and what not to do.


Also, that is what our country was founded on and created as.

It didn't have 300+ million people back then - - - pretty much living on top of each other.

a reply to: Annee

Doesn't matter.

What you propose is that with the increase of people, more and more laws are required.

Is is that you think people are too dumb to manage their own lives? Or that you just want the Govt to control more how you deem as okay.

Absurd Defenses for Marriage Bans Headed to Supreme Court

WATCH: Absurd Defenses for Marriage Bans Headed to Supreme Court - - BY MATT BAUMEAPRIL 06 2015

Four states will defend their marriage bans before the U.S. Supreme Court this month, but their arguments are hard to swallow.

On April 28, attorneys for Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee will defend their states' marriage bans before the Supreme Court. But we got a little preview of their arguments last week when they submitted their briefs.

The states never had a strong case for maintaining their bans, but the claims in their briefs are flat-out absurd. Kentucky, for example, claims that its marriage ban is not discriminatory because it applies equally to gay and straight couples. That's technically true, but straight couples aren't exactly clamoring to marry someone of the same sex. The impact of the ban is only felt by LGBT residents.

Michigan's brief claims that gay couples will be demeaned by the Court's potential finding that they're entiled to equal protection. According to the state, couples should strive to have their rights validated by popular opinion instead. Tennessee claims that its marriage ban promotes responsible procreation — somehow. And Ohio says that voters would be harmed if the Supreme Court found that they had voted for an unconstitutional law.

www.advocate.com...

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Annee

Doesn't matter.

What you propose is that with the increase of people, more and more laws are required.

Is is that you think people are too dumb to manage their own lives? Or that you just want the Govt to control more how you deem as okay.

Of course it matters.

As I've said to Navy Doc: it doesn't even work in a family of five. There are rules and constant on-going adjustments - - readjustments so everyone gets their needs met.

a reply to: Annee

WOW....so the Govt exerting greater and greater control, penned by a few, is now equal to what happens in the private confines of a home.

Did it hurt just a little bit, when you made that attempt? I mean, just thinking that the Govt is some form of parent(s) should give most people an aneurism.

Here I thought someone like you was for "What happens in a person's home is their business". Guess not.

And here is the greatest example of hypocrisy from people of your mindset.

The Govt telling people what marriage is, when it goes against what YOU believe is evil and not right.
Yet, when the Govt pushes YOUR agenda, it is the Golden Calf.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Annee

WOW....so the Govt exerting greater and greater control, penned by a few, is now equal to what happens in the private confines of a home.

I think its your delusion that its penned by a few.

And I grew up with almost no rules, so I do know what that's like.

Being raised in the 50s, I'd say there is less invasion now of what one does in their own home.

Today I live in both CA and AZ. It is a contrast. AZ definitely makes me appreciate CA building laws

-----------------------------

BTW - - is secret filming legal in Michigan?