Fink, putting a sign on your door that says "no gays allowed" and choosing to not work an event are NOT and never will be the same thing. No matter how many mental gymnastics you do and how much word salad you dish out.
freemindfade
JoinedPosts by freemindfade
-
286
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple
by Simon inseems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
-
-
-
286
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple
by Simon inseems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
-
-
freemindfade
Lets say a JWS opened their own cake shop but they refused to make cakes for Birthdays, Christmas, Mother's day, Father's day, same sex marriages, secular holidays or any religious affiliated celebrations.
Legal or not even though they held a public business license to operate in their community ?Its legal, it's a business decision. Who can demand what kind of cake they make??? How does that make any sense? What if they just don't make cakes at all?? Should someone come in and say if you don't start baking cakes i'm turning you in?
Here is a better one, you are a JW, and a DJ, a gay couple calls you and asks if you can do their wedding, you politely decline (and we all know why). Should you be penalized for choosing to not work a wedding? That's everyone's choice.
But back to your JW cake shop, they would likely go out of business in a month not making all those cakes. And do you really want the state coming in and saying "you must make a birthday cake!"
no way, I'm not with that nonsense, you have to draw the line somewhere and let people have their choice to do business or not, no matter how dumb it is.
-
286
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple
by Simon inseems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
-
-
freemindfade
Well most modernized countries when you want operate a public business you have to apply for a business license by the local laws and regulatory authorities.
If a business owner is going to accept and welcome all people, must he then accept and welcome and willingly promote all events that those people partake in?
The answer is NO
For the millionth time:
Gay marriage is an event/activity, a thing you do. Not a person...
- Phillips never turned any customer away due to their sexual orientation.
- The two gay men, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, were welcome to purchase any item in the store.
- They could have bought all the brownies and cookies and pies that their hearts and stomachs desired. They could have even bought a wedding cake.
- Their romantic interests were of no concern to Jack Phillips.
- He was not discriminating on that basis or any basis.
Jack Phillips did not refuse service to gay people. He refused service to a gay wedding. He declined to make a special cake — a work of art — for a particular occasion that he determined to be morally objectionable.
-
286
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple
by Simon inseems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
-
-
freemindfade
What is the difference ?
oh my sweet lord, please see above, jesus christ
-
286
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple
by Simon inseems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
-
-
freemindfade
Gay marriage is an event/activity, a thing you do. Not a person...
- Phillips never turned any customer away due to their sexual orientation.
- The two gay men, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, were welcome to purchase any item in the store.
- They could have bought all the brownies and cookies and pies that their hearts and stomachs desired. They could have even bought a wedding cake.
- Their romantic interests were of no concern to Jack Phillips.
- He was not discriminating on that basis or any basis.
Jack Phillips did not refuse service to gay people. He refused service to a gay wedding. He declined to make a special cake — a work of art — for a particular occasion that he determined to be morally objectionable.
I don't know how to make that more plain
This guy also:
- Wouldn't make lewd bachelor party cakes.
- He wouldn't make Halloween cakes.
- He wouldn't make cakes for divorce parties.
Does that mean he was discriminating against divorced people? Would it be fair to say that he "refused to serve the divorced"? Of course not. He just didn't want to direct his creative energies towards making something that would celebrate divorce.
-
286
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple
by Simon inseems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
-
-
freemindfade
He didn't break any laws. If you told them to get out of his store because they were gay, I am sure he'd have some problems. Choosing not to work for someone is not illegal in American thank god.
-
286
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple
by Simon inseems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
-
-
freemindfade
Lets reverse it a little, what if a gay couple owned a restaurant and they saw a two priests sit down at a table and asked to be served and the owners knowing these people are against gay relationships refused serving the priests and asked them to leave.
You are still on the wrong track, one more time:
Gay marriage is an event/activity, a thing you do. The point is that a business owner is free to think it good or bad and decide, based on that equation, whether he wants to be associated with it. If he decides against, he is not denying or rejecting a person.
A gay catering company would be totally in their right to not cater a Catholic event, get it yet???
-
286
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple
by Simon inseems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
-
-
freemindfade
you're a true liberal, are you ttdtt?
I would say no, he is a rabid leftist trying to badge himself as a classical liberal.
-
286
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple
by Simon inseems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
-
-
freemindfade
Gay marriage is an event/activity, a thing you do. The point is that a business owner is free to think it good or bad and decide, based on that equation, whether he wants to be associated with it. If he decides against, he is not denying or rejecting a person.
Can it be put any more simple than that?
-
286
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple
by Simon inseems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
-
-
freemindfade
Why is there labor laws in most modernized countries that penalizes businesses for acting in prejudice against someone of certain religious affiliation or sexual identity (gay) ???
Think of it the other way around, why would you choose to work for someone (as an employee) whose values (whatever those might be) were something you very strongly disagreed with.
The baker, essentially chose not to work for them, the couple. You are framing it backward. labor discrimination and choosing not to work FOR someone are two different things. No one is going to go after an employee who is some fundamental religion and chose not to work for a cause they feel is immoral.