You Don't Have to Bake a Gay Cake - SCOTUS

a reply to: RowanBean

He does, unless a woman who orders a cake is on her period or the man had eaten some pork rinds before coming into the shop.

In those cases, the customer must make an animal sacrifice to give a sweet savor unto the lord. Then the cake can get made.

Thoughts?

I don't think a business should be forced to serve anyone for any reason. Idiot businesses turning away hard earned cash will likely find themselves out of business. Secondly, if a company doesn't want my money, I am going to take my business elsewhere.

Pretty much in full agreement here.

But, if the business is large enough for Title VII to apply for employment, then they should be wise enough to extend this criteria to their customer base as well.

Now, gays aren't protected under Title VII. Perhaps THAT is more what they should be working towards? Hmm...???

a reply to: Edumakated

You Don't Have to Bake a Gay Cake - SCOTUS

Curious, do you think cakes are baked gay? or do cakes become gay sometime after baking through socializing with other gay cakes?

a reply to: soberbacchus

it's caused by the genetic properties in the flour that they use...
most bakeries are cheap and use the cheapest all purpose flour they can get...
which will produce the gayest of cakes...
if you want a pure, non gay cake, expect to pay a premium price since it will require flour made from organically grown wheat, but not just any wheat. only wheat that is grown in a non-gay state like I don't know Iran, where it's proudly proclaimed that there are no gays there!!
oh, yes, the gayness can be rubbed off from those nurturing and harvesting the wheat and be carried to the end products...
so be care and know where you food comes from, who is growing it, where it is grown at, and only buy the best quality products to feed your family, or... you might find the gayness gene within them... or yourself.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Edumakated

You Don't Have to Bake a Gay Cake - SCOTUS

Curious, do you think cakes are baked gay? or do cakes become gay sometime after baking through socializing with other gay cakes?

Actually the eggs have to come from gay chicken.

a reply to: Knightshadowz

So, as long as someone believes that women are property or that dark-skinned people are cursed (both religious beliefs, btw) we must respect those beliefs?

I'd have to disagree. The Bible and the other Holy Books have all sorts of requirements and restrictions that are basically abhorrant.

Why should we as a society have to respect that? In America, our government cannot create a religion or prevent individuals from performing their religions ... BUT, the rule-of-law is still superior and has been found as such repeatedly by the Supreme Court of the United States as long as an individuals religion is not being targetted. What that does not mean is that any interpretation of any religion can be used to avoid compliance with the laws of the land.

As to respecting beliefs ... that sounds fine and even laudable, doesn't it? As you say, however, it's a two-way street.

Believing that one is a member of the public and a citizen with full civil rights that can go into a business offerring public accomodation and be served just liek everyone else has to be respected as well in your scenario ... right?

Right?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Knightshadowz

So, as long as someone believes that women are property or that dark-skinned people are cursed (both in the BIble, btw) we must respect those beliefs?

all peoples are cursed according to the book

yes women are property of the corporation of the usa along with every other sucker on lockdown here


you may want to change the wedding vows and such in regards to the property aspect...to have and to hold...

all colors of people have been slaves yet the blackards today believe their slavery trumps every other thing that has ever happened or will happen

i say either get over it.

blackards are not special
women are not special
whitey is not special

this white privilige crap needs to go

to think valerie jarrett that is completely full of pigment has been discriminated against buy other pigmented people cause she has no pigment or privilege is mental hospital quality thought

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Knightshadowz

So, as long as someone believes that women are property or that dark-skinned people are cursed (both in the BIble, btw) we must respect those beliefs?

all peoples are cursed according to the book

yes women are property of the corporation of the usa along with every other sucker on lockdown here


you may want to change the wedding vows and such in regards to the property aspect...to have and to hold...

all colors of people have been slaves yet the blackards today believe their slavery trumps every other thing that has ever happened or will happen

i say either get over it.

blackards are not special
women are not special
whitey is not special

this white privilige crap needs to go

to think valerie jarrett that is completely full of pigment has been discriminated against buy other pigmented people cause she has no pigment or privilege is mental hospital quality thought

You say "get over it" to the gay couple ... but not to the Christian baker?

Why?

EDIT: Also, what on earth is a "blackard"?

a reply to: Gryphon66

the get over it was toward you bringing your black privilige and slavery talk to the table but i still like your response so here...

the gayers need to get over it cause they were not discriminated against anymore so than the baker was.

respect for eachother

they only seek to destroy

they were planning to eat that cake if they got to it

ftf florida flower sellers should not have to service gayers either unless they want to

and just to sum it up

blackies do not have the pain and suffering market cornered nor do the gayers

a reply to: Gryphon66

EDIT: Also, what on earth is a "blackard"?

it is a person lacking skin pigment unlike valerie jarrett

not to be confused with a whitard or whitey

a reply to: Boadicea

That’s a very consistent argument.

Here’s where it fails for me. Individual religious beliefs are utterly variable. if these are the prima facie political measure then the only possible result is anarchy.

My take is that The Founders were wise to keep it simple: government can’t establish religion; government can’t restrict the free exercise thereof.However, religion is not higher than the law

a reply to: howtonhawky

i haven’t made the statements you claim.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: howtonhawky

i haven’t made the statements you claim.

ok
i guess if you never said such then neither did i

have a good one

Two new words I learned on ATS: "Gayer" and "blackard".

Keep up with the good work ATS posters.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Teikiatsu. you know as well as I do this cultural conflict isn't about cake.

It's about a politico-religious belief that it's okay to treat certain Americans as second-class citizens. That's un-American.

No, that's hyperbole. They were not treated as second-class citizens, and you know it.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Teikiatsu. you know as well as I do this cultural conflict isn't about cake.

It's about a politico-religious belief that it's okay to treat certain Americans as second-class citizens. That's un-American.

No, that's hyperbole. They were not treated as second-class citizens, and you know it.

So why not just bake the cake like Jesus would?

"I'm not gonna bake you a wedding cake because I find your relationship icky."

originally posted by: dawnstar
communion, baptism, bar-mitzvahs and such are religious issues I have a problem with the idea that marriage is a religious issue for a number of reason, first of which being that one does not have to be a believer of any religion to desire to be married, or to understand the advantages of being married. even non-believing pagans selected partners and grew families. no religion was necessary to define what it was. the fact is that the earliest documents of marriages reflect more of a contractual agreement between the husband to be and the father of the bride.. and contracts usually are governed in the realm of the civil gov'ts and not the religion.

There was a time in man's history before organized government existed. Are you saying a man and a woman could not be considered married before government?

what is at question here though is to what extent does making a cake, refusing to tow a damaged car, providing birth control pills or insurance that covers them, referring a patient to a place that provides abortions, equate to taking part in that sin, and well, just how adversely a person's decision to not want to "take part" should be allowed to effect the refused.

The question is association and participation in a way that can be interpreted to support that sinful behavior. If the baker has a method where he puts his heart into the design and production of the cake, then it can be interpreted that he fully endorses and supports a union that will in part undergo a sinful behavior. He doesn't want to be tied into that activity.

yes, there is probably another bakery in the area that will bake the poor gay couple their wedding cake... ya, in time the disabled lady managed to have someone come with a tow truck and tow their car... but does that religious freedom go to the extent where your refusals to provide services because of your religious beliefs actually endanger people's lives and causes adverse health effects? IS there any line that can't be crossed in the quest for religious freedom?

I have no idea what is the story with the tow truck.

In the case of OTC contraceptives, I have worked in a pharmacy. Trust me, the pharmacy will know if the drugs are intended as standard birth control, a stand-in for the morning-after-pill, or for a serious condition like endometriosis. No pharmacist would deny drugs with medicinal impact for a serious condition, and neither did Hobby Lobby prevent coverage of those drugs when it was prescribed as part of a critical therapy.

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Teikiatsu. you know as well as I do this cultural conflict isn't about cake.

It's about a politico-religious belief that it's okay to treat certain Americans as second-class citizens. That's un-American.

No, that's hyperbole. They were not treated as second-class citizens, and you know it.

So why not just bake the cake like Jesus would?

"I'm not gonna bake you a wedding cake because I find your relationship icky."

So now you know the mind of Jesus. Amazing.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Teikiatsu. you know as well as I do this cultural conflict isn't about cake.

It's about a politico-religious belief that it's okay to treat certain Americans as second-class citizens. That's un-American.

No, that's hyperbole. They were not treated as second-class citizens, and you know it.

So why not just bake the cake like Jesus would?

"I'm not gonna bake you a wedding cake because I find your relationship icky."

So now you know the mind of Jesus. Amazing.

Don't we all? We have the Gospels, remember? Jesus walked among the sinners and served them.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Knightshadowz

So, as long as someone believes that women are property or that dark-skinned people are cursed (both in the BIble, btw) we must respect those beliefs?

all peoples are cursed according to the book

yes women are property of the corporation of the usa along with every other sucker on lockdown here


you may want to change the wedding vows and such in regards to the property aspect...to have and to hold...

all colors of people have been slaves yet the blackards today believe their slavery trumps every other thing that has ever happened or will happen

i say either get over it.

blackards are not special
women are not special
whitey is not special

this white privilige crap needs to go

to think valerie jarrett that is completely full of pigment has been discriminated against buy other pigmented people cause she has no pigment or privilege is mental hospital quality thought

You say "get over it" to the gay couple ... but not to the Christian baker?

Why?

The gay couple has a multitude of baker options, of which Mr. Phillips was one.

Mr. Phillips had two options: Yes or No. Yes meant he would have not gotten into trouble with the government but undermined his own integrity. No meant he would get in trouble, and was eventually forced by government to cut back his business by 40%

Yeah, I think the gay couple can get over their first world problem.