Gay wedding cakes and the bigots who won't bake them.

[twostrokenut]

nice bigoted double standard, glad you're on twostroke's and kynes' side and not mine, ya white supremacist.

Ok now you have gone full retard. You are on the side of limited government.
Like an explanation mr galt?

 

[UncleBuck]

Ok now you have gone full retard. You are on the side of limited government.
Like an explanation mr galt?

i was hoping your irrational butthurt was due to staying up past your bedtime, but i can see you are suffering an asshurt hangover yet again.

how many lies you planning on today, about 5-8 or so?

 

[Beefbisquit]

The picture of the loving couple you displayed outted themselves. If they were wearing normal clothes, one could not automatically assume they were gay. Of course some people who are gay simply have to, for whatever reason, let the whole world know. They have that right, but they need to know that others have a right to have an opinion about that.

But having an opinion and acting on it are different. You can think someone is an despicable prick that you'd like to throw in a meat grinder, but if you actually DO it, you're a murderer.

If you are an employer, I think it is perfectly reasonable to require that your employees dress within established cultural norms, and behave within those same norms.

For sure.

If you have a male employee wearing a dress to work, you should be able to require him to go home and change, or take the day off, or even terminate him should you be so inclined.

For sure, work clothes are for work, unless your work place doesn't give a fuck about dress code, then if a dude wants to wear a parka, or dress, or speedo, it shouldn't matter.

Homosexuality does not deserve the same level of protection as race, because it can be hidden, and only becomes evident upon your choice to make it known.

Disagree. Just because someone can hide something from the public doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are handicapped people that can easily hide their disability that still get handicapped spots. It doesn't make them less handicapped, or less deserving of the parking spot. There are lots of black people that you'd never know were black, and even more half black people that you'd never know were black.

All half black.

I'm find with making it a law, and indeed think it should be, that you can't be fired for being gay. I also think that if you are gay, you should respect your employer enough to not act like a fairy at work, or a dyke, and not be openly engaging in homosexual activity at the workplace.

You're basically disallowing a type of personality. Would that work with other personality types too? It'd be weird if we started firing shy people as well as flamboyant people. There's no law requiring you to like someone, and if they're being loud and disruptive, then treat them as someone being loud and disruptive. If they're just talking with a lisp and saying "HELLLLOOOOOOO....", that's just a personality type, and should be treated as such. With no requirement to like them.... lol

Of course this also applies to heterosexual couples.

They have to behave within social norms, and the social norms for hetero and homo sexual people's are different.

Just because something doesn't fit the social norm doesn't mean it's wrong. No one should be fucking in the streets, or waving their junk around, hetero or homo, but you either make it wrong for all, or no one. Being in a relationship with someone isn't a privilege.

 

[twostrokenut]

i was hoping your irrational butthurt was due to staying up past your bedtime, but i can see you are suffering an asshurt hangover yet again.

how many lies you planning on today, about 5-8 or so?

Now that deserves rofl lolz...and potato.

 

[Rob Roy]

if you are referring to title II, aka the "robroy is no longer allowed to deny service to blacks" bill, then no. no rights were taken away from business owners, or as you call them "private property owners".

the racist practices of those business owners caused harm, and no one has a right to cause harm to others. the right to swing a fist ends at the other person's face.

since it was never a right in the first place, it couldn't have been taken away.

you should probably bother to learn how rights work before non-stop regurgitating your utopian spooner nonsense all over this forum.

If lying and side stepping were illegal, you'd be a felon. You are the one that turns property rights of ALL individuals, be they black, white or anything else over to the decisions of the government. Where have we seen that before...hmmm. Oh yeah, THAT is exactly the mindset of a prohibitionist. You and the prohibitionists are on the same page, since control of our own bodies is an expression of a property right. Why do you think people shouldn't control their own body and their own property but not the property of others?

Your answers suck, by the way. Take away the stupid race card and you're not terribly bright. On second thought even with it, you're not terribly bright. Did you get under the sink and sniff the cleaner again, c'mon fess up.

 

[UncleBuck]

Your answers suck

go clean your room, you petulant child.

 

[Rob Roy]

go clean your room, you petulant child.

Well when your intellectual reservoir is dry, it's really dry isn't it?

 

[UncleBuck]

Well when your intellectual reservoir is dry, it's really dry isn't it?

tell me more about how racist business owners have a right to harm people with their racist practices.

tell me all about how anyone has a right to harm anyone else, ever.

go ahead and revise history, since you will need to in order to make your racist case.

 

[greentrip]

I guess everyone should be served with a smile even if it's against our values.
[video=youtube;CbZEyN_kNDE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CbZEyN_kNDE#t=17[/video]

 

[UncleBuck]

I guess everyone should be served with a smile even if it's against our values.
[video=youtube;CbZEyN_kNDE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CbZEyN_kNDE#t=17[/video]

what is it with you retards and your inability to comprehend that being born a certain way is different from choosing to don a KKK outfit, which i'm sure many of you do in your spare time?

 

[Red1966]

But having an opinion and acting on it are different. You can think someone is an despicable prick that you'd like to throw in a meat grinder, but if you actually DO it, you're a murderer. For sure. For sure, work clothes are for work, unless your work place doesn't give a fuck about dress code, then if a dude wants to wear a parka, or dress, or speedo, it shouldn't matter. Disagree. Just because someone can hide something from the public doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are handicapped people that can easily hide their disability that still get handicapped spots. It doesn't make them less handicapped, or less deserving of the parking spot. There are lots of black people that you'd never know were black, and even more half black people that you'd never know were black.

All half black. You're basically disallowing a type of personality. Would that work with other personality types too? It'd be weird if we started firing shy people as well as flamboyant people. There's no law requiring you to like someone, and if they're being loud and disruptive, then treat them as someone being loud and disruptive. If they're just talking with a lisp and saying "HELLLLOOOOOOO....", that's just a personality type, and should be treated as such. With no requirement to like them.... lol Just because something doesn't fit the social norm doesn't mean it's wrong. No one should be fucking in the streets, or waving their junk around, hetero or homo, but you either make it wrong for all, or no one. Being in a relationship with someone isn't a privilege.

"Being in a relationship with someone isn't a privilege." ....... Sounds like you've been in a bad relationship

 

[Dr Kynes]

Under existing law they should certainly be compelled to comply because Title II prohibits discrimination based on religion in places of public accommodation. The protections cut both ways. A gay photographer might be appalled at having to photograph a conservative religious wedding, but too bad.

As a practical matter the government isn't actually going to compel anyone to do anything. They're always free to refuse, even if it does subject them to some kind of legal liability. That liability seems a fair price for refusing service to a certain customer when society has judged that impermissible.

The better question is why a couple would want a photographer who was so uncomfortable to shoot their wedding--presumably one of the most important days of their lives--or why Westboro would want to buy fag cakes from fag bakers.

you answer your own question.

if it makes for a groovy lucrative lolsuit, why not get your cheddar on?

under your crazy whackadoo looney program, any jackhole who wants a cause of action simply has to demand an orthodox jewish chef cater his pork based wedding banquet, or place an order for 5000 "God Hates Fags" brochures from a gay printer.

when they refuse, Cha-Ching! you get paid.

 

[UncleBuck]

When you argue against yourself how do you know when to stop? I'm not saying anybody has the right to initiate aggression, you are dipshit.

If you are concerned about harm, first understand what a demonstrable harm is. It is an act that breaks the peace or neutrality of "if you leave me alone and I will leave you alone".

A person or government that breaks that neutrality of respecting the individuals right to control their own body and their property is known as , "the initiator of aggression".

Why do you support people that initiate aggression?

i can find no definition of harm that involves your phrasing of being left alone, so i will disregard your babble as the angst ridden nonsense that it is.

harm is that which causes loss or pain.

when you tell gays and blacks that they can be denied service in places that are open to the public, they have now lost access to the same set of goods and services that the rest of us have access to.

look back 50 years and note that this did indeed cause much harm to blacks in the south.

of course you defend this practice, because as someone who believes that civil rights are simply "special rights" for black people, you are naturally going to side with racist business owners, as you are a racist scumbag.

of course, you have no way of denying the actual history of the united states, nor the harm that your preferred views caused to blacks in this nation, so you revert to your childish and meaningless word games.

no one cares. go clean your fucking room now.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Does that mean it's a right to (-1*-1=1) serve whomever I don't want?

So the people I do want to serve should not get served?

Why did Dr. Evil need ransom money if he had all of that shit and employees in the first place?
The guy was clearly loaded. He had a custom submarine FFS! And all those Fem-Bots.

speaking as an apprentice super-villain myself, it's not about the money, it's about taking over the world.

 

[UncleBuck]

you answer your own question.

if it makes for a groovy lucrative lolsuit, why not get your cheddar on?

under your crazy whackadoo looney program, any jackhole who wants a cause of action simply has to demand an orthodox jewish chef cater his pork based wedding banquet, or place an order for 5000 "God Hates Fags" brochures from a gay printer.

when they refuse, Cha-Ching! you get paid.

what the fuck don't you idiots understand about this?

no one is born a member of the WBC. being a member of the WBC is not a civil right, like sexual orientation is.

we get it kynes, in addition to being a racist you are also a homophobe. no further elaboration of your idiocy via a series of bad analogies is needed.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Those are potential public health hazards.
"Religious" sensibilities are only mental health hazards (to those that subscribe to those views).

It appears to be a false analogy in this case.
Does you argument still apply with those elements in bold being removed?

yes.

if i open a shop, and refuse service to everyone wearing their drawers down around their ass, i can only refuse those who are NOT black, chicano, asian, or some other protected group, because they are special.

it's all about making an easy buck from a civil lolsuit.

of course bucky believes that sagging your britches is a genetic predisposition, cuz gangbangers and classless assholes were "born that way"

 

[Rob Roy]

i can find no definition of harm that involves your phrasing of being left alone, so i will disregard your babble as the angst ridden nonsense that it is.

harm is that which causes loss or pain.

when you tell gays and blacks that they can be denied service in places that are open to the public, they have now lost access to the same set of goods and services that the rest of us have access to.

look back 50 years and note that this did indeed cause much harm to blacks in the south.

of course you defend this practice, because as someone who believes that civil rights are simply "special rights" for black people, you are naturally going to side with racist business owners, as you are a racist scumbag.

of course, you have no way of denying the actual history of the united states, nor the harm that your preferred views caused to blacks in this nation, so you revert to your childish and meaningless word games.

no one cares. go clean your fucking room now.

Well thats quite a story you've spun, Mr. Prohibitionist. You talk like you respect people and the first thing you want to do is order them how to behave with their own property. You brought race into this, not me. I think ALL people should determine the use of their body and their property, you don't. THAT is the difference between us.

I think NO person should aggress against another or anothers property. YOU disagree and want to use force to make others associate or lose the right to control their own property.

Obviously you are uncomfortable with the mirror I've held up to you. You really really want me to be a racist, but I'm not. My personal beliefs do not give me the right to tell a racist or a prohibitionist like you how to use your own property do they?

Do I think racists are in the wrong? Yes of course. So are people that want to control others. Hey, that's YOU in that mirror!

 

[UncleBuck]

Well thats quite a story you've spun, Mr. Prohibitionist. You talk like you respect people and the first thing you want to do is order them how to behave with their own property. You brought race into this, not me. I think ALL people should determine the use of their body and their property, you don't. THAT is the difference between us.

I think NO person should aggress against another or anothers property. YOU disagree and want to use force to make others associate or lose the right to control their own property.

Obviously you are uncomfortable with the mirror I've held up to you. You really really want me to be a racist, but I'm not. My personal beliefs do not give me the right to tell a racist or a prohibitionist like you how to use your own property do they?

Do I think racists are in the wrong? Yes of course. So are people that want to control others. Hey, that's YOU in that mirror!

i've spun no story, only reminded you of history.

the view you support is where racist business owners who are supposedly open to the public get to kick out blacks if they so choose. that's a belief you have made very clear in debates when you were defending your hero and savior, rawn pawl.

the problem with that racist view of yours is that it causes harm.

that which causes harm can not be a right.

so when you say the government took away rights by telling racist business owners that they could not do that, you are ignoring history completely in order to defend racist business owners, an endorsement of racist practices that cause harm to others.

don't be mad with me, it is history that has your racist ass checkmated here.

 

[UncleBuck]

yes.

if i open a shop, and refuse service to everyone wearing their drawers down around their ass, i can only refuse those who are NOT black, chicano, asian, or some other protected group, because they are special.

it's all about making an easy buck from a civil lolsuit.

of course bucky believes that sagging your britches is a genetic predisposition, cuz gangbangers and classless assholes were "born that way"

whites are a protected group too. it just says skin color, it does not say which ones.

so nice try at attempting your narrative of white persecution, but you fail again.

 

[Uncle Ben]

Trees are a protected group and what better way to make a statement than using a white tree hugger to make the statement! White is beautiful. Just look at that WHITE, PURE silky skin...that straight fine blond hair! Those PINK.....