(04-04-2015 06:17 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Yes, that’s bakeries plural.

Stephen Crowder (a Conservative humorist and commentator) went to multiple bakeries in Dearborn Michigan and could not find a single Muslim bakery that would bake him a wedding cake celebrating gay marriage.

here’s the video:





But this post is not about how Muslims are big fat bigots and homophobes for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple. I support the Muslim bakers’ rights to refuse service just as much as I support the Christians. As a matter of fact, I’ll take it a step further than Crowder does in his video and say that I believe any private establishment should have the liberty to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That doesn’t mean that they should or that it’s moral. We loath bigoted discrimination but I just don’t like the government forcing people to do business when they don’t want to. So, no, this is not about hating on the Muslim bakery at all. Good for them for sticking with their convictions! I wouldn’t want a baker to be forced to write anti-gay slurs on a cake either (yes, that an actual lawsuit that’s happening right now).

No, this is a story about media bias. You see, when the media baited a Christian pizzeria owner into saying that she probably wouldn’t cater a gay wedding, the media went ballistic! There have already been hundreds of stories written about Memories Pizza…

And what about the Muslim bakers in Dearborn? Not a peep from the mainstream media. At the time of writing this article, Google News shows only 9 outlets that have covered this story and all of them are Conservative media outlets.

Where is the outrage? Where are the lawsuits? Where is the media frenzy? Where are the cries of bigotry and intolerance? Nowhere to be found because the Muslim bakeries don’t fit the media narrative of oppressive Christians stamping on gay rights.

The media doesn’t care about bigotry or intolerance. They care about whipping people into a frenzy because it benefits their chosen politicians and makes them money.

So you think a business should have the right to refuse business to blacks for example?

(04-08-2015 10:53 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 06:17 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Yes, that’s bakeries plural.

Stephen Crowder (a Conservative humorist and commentator) went to multiple bakeries in Dearborn Michigan and could not find a single Muslim bakery that would bake him a wedding cake celebrating gay marriage.

here’s the video:





But this post is not about how Muslims are big fat bigots and homophobes for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple. I support the Muslim bakers’ rights to refuse service just as much as I support the Christians. As a matter of fact, I’ll take it a step further than Crowder does in his video and say that I believe any private establishment should have the liberty to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That doesn’t mean that they should or that it’s moral. We loath bigoted discrimination but I just don’t like the government forcing people to do business when they don’t want to. So, no, this is not about hating on the Muslim bakery at all. Good for them for sticking with their convictions! I wouldn’t want a baker to be forced to write anti-gay slurs on a cake either (yes, that an actual lawsuit that’s happening right now).

No, this is a story about media bias. You see, when the media baited a Christian pizzeria owner into saying that she probably wouldn’t cater a gay wedding, the media went ballistic! There have already been hundreds of stories written about Memories Pizza…

And what about the Muslim bakers in Dearborn? Not a peep from the mainstream media. At the time of writing this article, Google News shows only 9 outlets that have covered this story and all of them are Conservative media outlets.

Where is the outrage? Where are the lawsuits? Where is the media frenzy? Where are the cries of bigotry and intolerance? Nowhere to be found because the Muslim bakeries don’t fit the media narrative of oppressive Christians stamping on gay rights.

The media doesn’t care about bigotry or intolerance. They care about whipping people into a frenzy because it benefits their chosen politicians and makes them money.

So you think a business should have the right to refuse business to blacks for example?

I'd be really interested in knowing what part of that post led you to that conclusion, and how you managed to get there.

(04-06-2015 10:09 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 09:28 PM)NewJersey GATA Wrote:  Muslims own bakeries? I live in a densely Muslim populated area and have never seen a Muslim bakery!

Yeah man. You should try their scones. They're the BOMB.

Bam ...... found one

http://www.yelp.com/biz/fattals-syrian-bakery-paterson

(04-08-2015 12:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:53 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 06:17 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Yes, that’s bakeries plural.

Stephen Crowder (a Conservative humorist and commentator) went to multiple bakeries in Dearborn Michigan and could not find a single Muslim bakery that would bake him a wedding cake celebrating gay marriage.

here’s the video:





But this post is not about how Muslims are big fat bigots and homophobes for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple. I support the Muslim bakers’ rights to refuse service just as much as I support the Christians. As a matter of fact, I’ll take it a step further than Crowder does in his video and say that I believe any private establishment should have the liberty to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That doesn’t mean that they should or that it’s moral. We loath bigoted discrimination but I just don’t like the government forcing people to do business when they don’t want to. So, no, this is not about hating on the Muslim bakery at all. Good for them for sticking with their convictions! I wouldn’t want a baker to be forced to write anti-gay slurs on a cake either (yes, that an actual lawsuit that’s happening right now).

No, this is a story about media bias. You see, when the media baited a Christian pizzeria owner into saying that she probably wouldn’t cater a gay wedding, the media went ballistic! There have already been hundreds of stories written about Memories Pizza…

And what about the Muslim bakers in Dearborn? Not a peep from the mainstream media. At the time of writing this article, Google News shows only 9 outlets that have covered this story and all of them are Conservative media outlets.

Where is the outrage? Where are the lawsuits? Where is the media frenzy? Where are the cries of bigotry and intolerance? Nowhere to be found because the Muslim bakeries don’t fit the media narrative of oppressive Christians stamping on gay rights.

The media doesn’t care about bigotry or intolerance. They care about whipping people into a frenzy because it benefits their chosen politicians and makes them money.

So you think a business should have the right to refuse business to blacks for example?

I'd be really interested in knowing what part of that post led you to that conclusion, and how you managed to get there.

" I believe any private establishment should have the liberty to refuse service to anyone for any reason."

Did you not write that?

(04-08-2015 10:45 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Easy solution for the bakery....Refuse to add toppers for any wedding cake.

Well, sort of....

Do you have evidence that this wasn't offered in every instance where the 'claim' of inequality has been raised? I've seen numerous times (certainly not every time and maybe not even most times) where it was the specifics of the cake that were refused, and not 'a cake' in general.

I agree with your premise and have said so numerous times... though I would draw this distinction. They can put whatever toppers they want on a cake... and not put those they don't. Just because they put SOME toppers doesn't mean they must put ALL toppers.

The outcome is essentially the same, but the important distinction is that they are not only free to choose what they are NOT willing to put, but also what they are. If a Muslim or Jewish bakery makes a cake with Jesus or a SpongeBob as a topper, they should STILL be allowed to NOT put a Muhammad or Hitler or a Swastika on the cake.... But they shouldn't be allowed to deny that Jesus or SpongeBob topper to someone because they are gay or any other reason.

That DOES raise an interesting question though.... purely hypothetical... What if a Christian baker were asked by someone to put a cross on a cake (something they regularly did).. but they were a Klan member and told them they intended to light the cross on fire and deliver it to the ACLU HQ to 'celebrate' MLK day. In other words, they KNEW that the person intended to do something intentionally offensive with their creation... should they be allowed to decline? I'm not really sure where I come down on that. I really want to say yes they can decline... because they know they intend to offend... but that obviously opens a door that I don't want opened. I suppose i'd have to say that KNOWING they intend to do something offensive, they STILL must bake the cake, but they can refuse the topper, even though they normally wouldn't.

I'd be interested in your opinion on that.

I know that's a bit of stretch of the analogy but I think the logic is pertinent... and trying to be fair, I don't think you really disagree about the right to do something also included the right not to.... and that as in my example, 'all toppers are not created equal'.

I would amend your statement to say... force them to bake the cake, but allow them to refuse any 'changes' to their traditional toppers. If they don't already make a cake with 2 grooms or 2 brides, they don't have to make an exception. The couple can choose to buy the cake with NO topper, or with one of each... and then make their own customization.

(04-08-2015 01:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 12:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:53 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 06:17 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Yes, that’s bakeries plural.

Stephen Crowder (a Conservative humorist and commentator) went to multiple bakeries in Dearborn Michigan and could not find a single Muslim bakery that would bake him a wedding cake celebrating gay marriage.

here’s the video:





But this post is not about how Muslims are big fat bigots and homophobes for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple. I support the Muslim bakers’ rights to refuse service just as much as I support the Christians. As a matter of fact, I’ll take it a step further than Crowder does in his video and say that I believe any private establishment should have the liberty to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That doesn’t mean that they should or that it’s moral. We loath bigoted discrimination but I just don’t like the government forcing people to do business when they don’t want to. So, no, this is not about hating on the Muslim bakery at all. Good for them for sticking with their convictions! I wouldn’t want a baker to be forced to write anti-gay slurs on a cake either (yes, that an actual lawsuit that’s happening right now).

No, this is a story about media bias. You see, when the media baited a Christian pizzeria owner into saying that she probably wouldn’t cater a gay wedding, the media went ballistic! There have already been hundreds of stories written about Memories Pizza…

And what about the Muslim bakers in Dearborn? Not a peep from the mainstream media. At the time of writing this article, Google News shows only 9 outlets that have covered this story and all of them are Conservative media outlets.

Where is the outrage? Where are the lawsuits? Where is the media frenzy? Where are the cries of bigotry and intolerance? Nowhere to be found because the Muslim bakeries don’t fit the media narrative of oppressive Christians stamping on gay rights.

The media doesn’t care about bigotry or intolerance. They care about whipping people into a frenzy because it benefits their chosen politicians and makes them money.

So you think a business should have the right to refuse business to blacks for example?

I'd be really interested in knowing what part of that post led you to that conclusion, and how you managed to get there.

" I believe any private establishment should have the liberty to refuse service to anyone for any reason."

Did you not write that?

No I didn't.

No shirt,..No shoes,...No Sodomites,....

(04-08-2015 01:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:45 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Easy solution for the bakery....Refuse to add toppers for any wedding cake.

Well, sort of....

Do you have evidence that this wasn't offered in every instance where the 'claim' of inequality has been raised? I've seen numerous times (certainly not every time and maybe not even most times) where it was the specifics of the cake that were refused, and not 'a cake' in general.

I agree with your premise and have said so numerous times... though I would draw this distinction. They can put whatever toppers they want on a cake... and not put those they don't. Just because they put SOME toppers doesn't mean they must put ALL toppers.

The outcome is essentially the same, but the important distinction is that they are not only free to choose what they are NOT willing to put, but also what they are. If a Muslim or Jewish bakery makes a cake with Jesus or a SpongeBob as a topper, they should STILL be allowed to NOT put a Muhammad or Hitler or a Swastika on the cake.... But they shouldn't be allowed to deny that Jesus or SpongeBob topper to someone because they are gay or any other reason.

That DOES raise an interesting question though.... purely hypothetical... What if a Christian baker were asked by someone to put a cross on a cake (something they regularly did).. but they were a Klan member and told them they intended to light the cross on fire and deliver it to the ACLU HQ to 'celebrate' MLK day. In other words, they KNEW that the person intended to do something intentionally offensive with their creation... should they be allowed to decline? I'm not really sure where I come down on that. I really want to say yes they can decline... because they know they intend to offend... but that obviously opens a door that I don't want opened. I suppose i'd have to say that KNOWING they intend to do something offensive, they STILL must bake the cake, but they can refuse the topper, even though they normally wouldn't.

I'd be interested in your opinion on that.

I know that's a bit of stretch of the analogy but I think the logic is pertinent... and trying to be fair, I don't think you really disagree about the right to do something also included the right not to.... and that as in my example, 'all toppers are not created equal'.

I would amend your statement to say... force them to bake the cake, but allow them to refuse any 'changes' to their traditional toppers. If they don't already make a cake with 2 grooms or 2 brides, they don't have to make an exception. The couple can choose to buy the cake with NO topper, or with one of each... and then make their own customization.

I think you're making this too complicated, and putting too much effort into finding scenarios in which you think a problem could arise. No baker will be forced to carry specific cake toppers anymore than a toy store in a heavily white area is currently forced to stock a black doll or a hispanic bodega forced to carry asian food-stuffs.

(04-08-2015 01:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 12:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:53 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 06:17 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Yes, that’s bakeries plural.

Stephen Crowder (a Conservative humorist and commentator) went to multiple bakeries in Dearborn Michigan and could not find a single Muslim bakery that would bake him a wedding cake celebrating gay marriage.

here’s the video:





But this post is not about how Muslims are big fat bigots and homophobes for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple. I support the Muslim bakers’ rights to refuse service just as much as I support the Christians. As a matter of fact, I’ll take it a step further than Crowder does in his video and say that I believe any private establishment should have the liberty to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That doesn’t mean that they should or that it’s moral. We loath bigoted discrimination but I just don’t like the government forcing people to do business when they don’t want to. So, no, this is not about hating on the Muslim bakery at all. Good for them for sticking with their convictions! I wouldn’t want a baker to be forced to write anti-gay slurs on a cake either (yes, that an actual lawsuit that’s happening right now).

No, this is a story about media bias. You see, when the media baited a Christian pizzeria owner into saying that she probably wouldn’t cater a gay wedding, the media went ballistic! There have already been hundreds of stories written about Memories Pizza…

And what about the Muslim bakers in Dearborn? Not a peep from the mainstream media. At the time of writing this article, Google News shows only 9 outlets that have covered this story and all of them are Conservative media outlets.

Where is the outrage? Where are the lawsuits? Where is the media frenzy? Where are the cries of bigotry and intolerance? Nowhere to be found because the Muslim bakeries don’t fit the media narrative of oppressive Christians stamping on gay rights.

The media doesn’t care about bigotry or intolerance. They care about whipping people into a frenzy because it benefits their chosen politicians and makes them money.

So you think a business should have the right to refuse business to blacks for example?

I'd be really interested in knowing what part of that post led you to that conclusion, and how you managed to get there.

" I believe any private establishment should have the liberty to refuse service to anyone for any reason."

Did you not write that?

No I didn't.

I know you didn't. I was asking Eaglerockcafe.

(04-08-2015 03:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I think you're making this too complicated, and putting too much effort into finding scenarios in which you think a problem could arise. No baker will be forced to carry specific cake toppers anymore than a toy store in a heavily white area is currently forced to stock a black doll or a hispanic bodega forced to carry asian food-stuffs.

Your example doesn't really address my hypothetical. That's another issue and we can talk about that in a minute.

I'm not trying to make it complicated, I'm trying to respond to Tom's response... which essentially implies (though I don't know if he meant it this way) that bakers couldn't put ANY toppers on a cake unless they put 'ALL' (and all combinations) of toppers. Your hypothetical where they wouldn't be forced to carry EVERY topper doesn't address those toppers being used to represent something they don't generally support. The best analogy I can think of is a PETA baker might have a dog cake or topper, but if you asked them to represent that dog in a cage or being injured or something else they didn't agree with, IMO you shouldn't be able to force them to... even though 'animal lover' isn't a protected class.

The reason i came up with my hypothetical is not because I envision a problem, but that the test of 'fairness' is when you use your opinion to support something that you really don't support. If you can think of a situation where you would go against your 'law', then you aren't interested in fairness... but only in regulating opinions... and the power to regulate opinions you disagree with is also the power to regulate those you agree with. I am generally against regulating opinions.

So yes... I think of extreme hypotheticals as a means of determining whether or not something is fair. If you would support the gay baker not making a 'kill gays' cake for the WBC or a Jewish baker not making a nazi cake or a black baker not making a cross for a klan member to burn, then you can't support forcing the religious baker to do something against their religion either. SO, you have to come up with a happy medium... where the gay person is treated fairly, but the other person is as well. 'Forcing' the baker to do EXACTLY what he would do for anyone else is fair. Any customization, no matter how 'trivial' it seems to anyone else is not. It should be obvious that religions frequently differ on very minor (to anyone else) concepts... and it is not for anyone else to judge.

Obama took another shot at Christians over Easter weekend. He still though praises the "peaceful" religion he truly loves. Any doubt what religion he really is?

(04-09-2015 12:42 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Obama took another shot at Christians over Easter weekend. He still though praises the "peaceful" religion he truly loves. Any doubt what religion he really is?

He also saved 13 children when the orphanage burnt down. I mean, if we're just going to make claims without specific sources or even attempting to paraphrase comments that upset you.

Adding this as a separate thought because I think it important...

I don't come up with wild comparisons because I think they are likely... I come up with wild comparisons to see if I can still support my 'law' when it protects something I disagree with.

The problem with most people on issues like these (from BOTH sides) is that they desperately want to enforce their beliefs on others, but don't want others enforcing their beliefs on them....

and that just isn't EVER the reality for very long.

If you can't support your law being used for something you don't agree with, then your law isn't going to last. My hypotheticals are essentially attempts to imagine the 'unintended consequences' of laws... and not a prediction of exactly what those consequences might be,

(04-09-2015 12:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 12:42 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Obama took another shot at Christians over Easter weekend. He still though praises the "peaceful" religion he truly loves. Any doubt what religion he really is?

He also saved 13 children when the orphanage burnt down. I mean, if we're just going to make claims without specific sources or even attempting to paraphrase comments that upset you.

he criticized what he called "less-than-loving Christians" while speaking vaguely about the religious freedom law.

I've yet to hear him speak sternly to Muslims regarding their treatment of women, let alone the fact that they stone to death or throw gays off roofs.

(04-09-2015 04:50 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 12:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 12:42 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Obama took another shot at Christians over Easter weekend. He still though praises the "peaceful" religion he truly loves. Any doubt what religion he really is?

He also saved 13 children when the orphanage burnt down. I mean, if we're just going to make claims without specific sources or even attempting to paraphrase comments that upset you.

he criticized what he called "less-than-loving Christians" while speaking vaguely about the religious freedom law.

I've yet to hear him speak sternly to Muslims regarding their treatment of women, let alone the fact that they stone to death or throw gays off roofs.

Wake up he is one?

(04-09-2015 04:50 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 12:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 12:42 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Obama took another shot at Christians over Easter weekend. He still though praises the "peaceful" religion he truly loves. Any doubt what religion he really is?

He also saved 13 children when the orphanage burnt down. I mean, if we're just going to make claims without specific sources or even attempting to paraphrase comments that upset you.

he criticized what he called "less-than-loving Christians" while speaking vaguely about the religious freedom law.

I've yet to hear him speak sternly to Muslims regarding their treatment of women, let alone the fact that they stone to death or throw gays off roofs.

There are no bad moozlems in Obamaworld. Only evil Christians.

(04-09-2015 12:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 12:42 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Obama took another shot at Christians over Easter weekend. He still though praises the "peaceful" religion he truly loves. Any doubt what religion he really is?

He also saved 13 children when the orphanage burnt down. I mean, if we're just going to make claims without specific sources or even attempting to paraphrase comments that upset you.

Obama Denounces ‘Less-than-Loving’ Christians at Easter Prayer Breakfast

When has he EVER said a moozlem was Lees-than-loving??? On the Holiest of Christian days he couldn't resist taking one more shot at Christians.

Quote:Towards the end of his speech at Tuesday morning’s Easter Prayer Breakfast, President Barack Obama appeared to veer off script to make some comments that implicitly referenced the fierce debate that has been raging over the last week about “religious freedom” laws in Indiana, Arkansas and elsewhere.

“On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love,” Obama said. “And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned.” As the crowd began to murmur, the president backed off, saying, “But that’s a topic for another day.”

“I was about to veer off,” he explained. “I’m pulling it back.”

“Where there is injustice we defend the oppressed,” Obama said, returning to his prepared remarks. “Where there is disagreement, we treat each other with compassion and respect. Where there are differences, we find strength in our common humanity, knowing that we are all children of God.”

The moment drew the attention of Fox News, which played this section of the speech on air. “The divisiveness over some issues coming up, but not Christians under attack around the world,” Martha MacCallum noted, referring to the recent attack on a Kenya university that explicitly targeted Christians.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-denounc...breakfast/

Good lord you've got some thin skin.