(05-20-2016 10:18 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 10:18 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 09:46 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 09:44 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 09:42 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The government shut down a Christian bakery?

yes. do your research.

Of course, after Trump replaces 2 or 3 of the SC justices with the people on his list, Oregon and Kentucky are probably going to get reamed. But for now, the loonie toons are out of control.

incorrect...they were fined 6 figures...that's not "shut down"

they were shut down.

nope.

Bless your ignorant heart.

(05-20-2016 10:20 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 10:18 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 10:18 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 09:46 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 09:44 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  yes. do your research.

Of course, after Trump replaces 2 or 3 of the SC justices with the people on his list, Oregon and Kentucky are probably going to get reamed. But for now, the loonie toons are out of control.

incorrect...they were fined 6 figures...that's not "shut down"

they were shut down.

nope.

Bless your ignorant heart.

Notice how no Libs have said muslim retailers bakeries should be treated the same as a christian one, relative to not servicing a gay wedding, not 1.

I prefer to think of myself as a left-leaning independent, but I'll definitely say that if a Muslim bakery denied service to a gay wedding they should also be penalized or censured the same way the Christian one was.

(05-20-2016 10:44 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  I prefer to think of myself as a left-leaning independent, but I'll definitely say that if a Muslim bakery denied service to a gay wedding they should also be penalized or censured the same way the Christian one was.

Thank You

(05-20-2016 10:44 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  I prefer to think of myself as a left-leaning independent, but I'll definitely say that if a Muslim bakery denied service to a gay wedding they should also be penalized or censured the same way the Christian one was.

I agree...that's just not something conservatives can accept.

(05-20-2016 10:44 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  I prefer to think of myself as a left-leaning independent, but I'll definitely say that if a Muslim bakery denied service to a gay wedding they should also be penalized or censured the same way the Christian one was.

I prefer to see situations like these with the idea that *both* people have rights in the equation. And the answer then seems to fall on "do least harm" because no matter what you're going to do it will impact the rights of another

We have a right to worship and assembly. Those should not go away if you run a business. I do believe, though, that you can regulate the practice of those rights so that the rights of homosexuals are likewise protected as much as possible.

Mom and pop bed and breakfast - Should be able to discriminate
Family owned Muslim / Christian Bakery - Should be able to discriminate

Hotels - Should not be able to discriminate
Food chain - Should not be able to discriminate

(05-20-2016 11:02 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 10:44 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  I prefer to think of myself as a left-leaning independent, but I'll definitely say that if a Muslim bakery denied service to a gay wedding they should also be penalized or censured the same way the Christian one was.

I prefer to see situations like these with the idea that *both* people have rights in the equation. And the answer then seems to fall on "do least harm" because no matter what you're going to do it will impact the rights of another

We have a right to worship and assembly. Those should not go away if you run a business. I do believe, though, that you can regulate the practice of those rights so that the rights of homosexuals are likewise protected as much as possible.

Mom and pop bed and breakfast - Should be able to discriminate
Family owned Muslim / Christian Bakery - Should be able to discriminate

Hotels - Should not be able to discriminate
Food chain - Should not be able to discriminate

I agree and the last time I checked I believe that if you own a 4 unit
apartment building you can discriminate against the protected classes.
The would be a federal exemption. Again a mom and pop operation, not a 250 unit complex.

My take on the wedding cake thing pisses everyone off on all sides.

A business should not be able to discriminate in selling a cake to a Muslim, a gay person, a Conservative, etc. A cake is a cake.

But.

I think the difference comes in when you start ordering people to create expressive material.

For instance, I believe that a Muslim baker should be able to refuse me if I ask him to sell me a cake that asserts that Mohammed is not a prophet.

A Jewish baker should be able to refuse to make me a cake that says Jesus is the only Messiah.

A gay baker should be able to refuse a cake with certain Bible verses.

It makes me nervous when the government is allowed to dictate that you express yourself contrary to your belief.

The freedom not to speak things you don't believe is part of Freedom of Speech.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(05-20-2016 11:11 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  My take on the wedding cake thing pisses everyone off on all sides.

what a shock...

(05-20-2016 11:11 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  My take on the wedding cake thing pisses everyone off on all sides.

A business should not be able to discriminate in selling a cake to a Muslim, a gay person, a Conservative, etc. A cake is a cake.

But.

I think the difference comes in when you start ordering people to create expressive material.

For instance, I believe that a Muslim baker should be able to refuse me if I ask him to sell me a cake that asserts that Mohammed is not a prophet.

A Jewish baker should be able to refuse to make me a cake that says Jesus is the only Messiah.

A gay baker should be able to refuse a cake with certain Bible verses.

It makes me nervous when the government is allowed to dictate that you express yourself contrary to your belief.

The freedom not to speak things you don't believe is part of Freedom of Speech.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

This doesn't piss me off at all. I agree with you 100%.

(05-20-2016 11:11 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 11:11 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  My take on the wedding cake thing pisses everyone off on all sides.

what a shock...

Thinking for yourself instead of agreeing to pick one of the set of talking points does that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(05-20-2016 11:11 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  My take on the wedding cake thing pisses everyone off on all sides.

A business should not be able to discriminate in selling a cake to a Muslim, a gay person, a Conservative, etc. A cake is a cake.

But.

I think the difference comes in when you start ordering people to create expressive material.

For instance, I believe that a Muslim baker should be able to refuse me if I ask him to sell me a cake that asserts that Mohammed is not a prophet.

A Jewish baker should be able to refuse to make me a cake that says Jesus is the only Messiah.

A gay baker should be able to refuse a cake with certain Bible verses.

It makes me nervous when the government is allowed to dictate that you express yourself contrary to your belief.

The freedom not to speak things you don't believe is part of Freedom of Speech.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

It should actually piss off neither side.

The issue with the definition of businesses and corporations is that those are entities that are forced to be set up by the government in order to transact business. The regulation of those entities by the federal government CAN NOT destroy the constitutional rights of people. A persons ability to exist depends on their ability of transacting commerce. The federal government CAN NOT regulate commerce in a way that destroys a persons religious freedoms. Period. End of story.

What Captain Butthurt has a problem with is that he believes that someone who has been proclaimed to be a protected class overrides someone else's existing constitutional rights to religious liberty. It does not. But thats not even the issue.

If a gay man goes into a bakery and orders a cake, he will get a cake.

If a gay man goes into a bakery and wants a cake with two penises on it, he can be denied that, because the bakery has every right to deny creating or being a part of something that violates their religious liberty.

You cant be denied service for who you are. You can be denied service for what you want. What you want is not protected under the constitution. Who you are is.

Thats the difference.

(05-20-2016 11:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 11:11 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  My take on the wedding cake thing pisses everyone off on all sides.

A business should not be able to discriminate in selling a cake to a Muslim, a gay person, a Conservative, etc. A cake is a cake.

But.

I think the difference comes in when you start ordering people to create expressive material.

For instance, I believe that a Muslim baker should be able to refuse me if I ask him to sell me a cake that asserts that Mohammed is not a prophet.

A Jewish baker should be able to refuse to make me a cake that says Jesus is the only Messiah.

A gay baker should be able to refuse a cake with certain Bible verses.

It makes me nervous when the government is allowed to dictate that you express yourself contrary to your belief.

The freedom not to speak things you don't believe is part of Freedom of Speech.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

It should actually piss off neither side.

The issue with the definition of businesses and corporations is that those are entities that are forced to be set up by the government in order to transact business. The regulation of those entities by the federal government CAN NOT destroy the constitutional rights of people. A persons ability to exist depends on their ability of transacting commerce. The federal government CAN NOT regulate commerce in a way that destroys a persons religious freedoms. Period. End of story.

What Captain Butthurt has a problem with is that he believes that someone who has been proclaimed to be a protected class overrides someone else's existing constitutional rights to religious liberty. It does not. But thats not even the issue.

If a gay man goes into a bakery and orders a cake, he will get a cake.

If a gay man goes into a bakery and wants a cake with two penises on it, he can be denied that, because the bakery has every right to deny creating or being a part of something that violates their religious liberty.

You cant be denied service for who you are. You can be denied service for what you want. What you want is not protected under the constitution. Who you are is.

Thats the difference.

Brilliant.

Very well said.

(05-20-2016 12:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 11:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 11:11 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  My take on the wedding cake thing pisses everyone off on all sides.

A business should not be able to discriminate in selling a cake to a Muslim, a gay person, a Conservative, etc. A cake is a cake.

But.

I think the difference comes in when you start ordering people to create expressive material.

For instance, I believe that a Muslim baker should be able to refuse me if I ask him to sell me a cake that asserts that Mohammed is not a prophet.

A Jewish baker should be able to refuse to make me a cake that says Jesus is the only Messiah.

A gay baker should be able to refuse a cake with certain Bible verses.

It makes me nervous when the government is allowed to dictate that you express yourself contrary to your belief.

The freedom not to speak things you don't believe is part of Freedom of Speech.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

It should actually piss off neither side.

The issue with the definition of businesses and corporations is that those are entities that are forced to be set up by the government in order to transact business. The regulation of those entities by the federal government CAN NOT destroy the constitutional rights of people. A persons ability to exist depends on their ability of transacting commerce. The federal government CAN NOT regulate commerce in a way that destroys a persons religious freedoms. Period. End of story.

What Captain Butthurt has a problem with is that he believes that someone who has been proclaimed to be a protected class overrides someone else's existing constitutional rights to religious liberty. It does not. But thats not even the issue.

If a gay man goes into a bakery and orders a cake, he will get a cake.

If a gay man goes into a bakery and wants a cake with two penises on it, he can be denied that, because the bakery has every right to deny creating or being a part of something that violates their religious liberty.

You cant be denied service for who you are. You can be denied service for what you want. What you want is not protected under the constitution. Who you are is.

Thats the difference.

Brilliant.

Very well said.

Fit and I have agreed on a couple of things over the past couple of days. It's almost scary.

(05-20-2016 12:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 11:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 11:11 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  My take on the wedding cake thing pisses everyone off on all sides.

A business should not be able to discriminate in selling a cake to a Muslim, a gay person, a Conservative, etc. A cake is a cake.

But.

I think the difference comes in when you start ordering people to create expressive material.

For instance, I believe that a Muslim baker should be able to refuse me if I ask him to sell me a cake that asserts that Mohammed is not a prophet.

A Jewish baker should be able to refuse to make me a cake that says Jesus is the only Messiah.

A gay baker should be able to refuse a cake with certain Bible verses.

It makes me nervous when the government is allowed to dictate that you express yourself contrary to your belief.

The freedom not to speak things you don't believe is part of Freedom of Speech.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

It should actually piss off neither side.

The issue with the definition of businesses and corporations is that those are entities that are forced to be set up by the government in order to transact business. The regulation of those entities by the federal government CAN NOT destroy the constitutional rights of people. A persons ability to exist depends on their ability of transacting commerce. The federal government CAN NOT regulate commerce in a way that destroys a persons religious freedoms. Period. End of story.

What Captain Butthurt has a problem with is that he believes that someone who has been proclaimed to be a protected class overrides someone else's existing constitutional rights to religious liberty. It does not. But thats not even the issue.

If a gay man goes into a bakery and orders a cake, he will get a cake.

If a gay man goes into a bakery and wants a cake with two penises on it, he can be denied that, because the bakery has every right to deny creating or being a part of something that violates their religious liberty.

You cant be denied service for who you are. You can be denied service for what you want. What you want is not protected under the constitution. Who you are is.

Thats the difference.

Brilliant.

Very well said.

x2

(05-20-2016 11:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 11:11 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  My take on the wedding cake thing pisses everyone off on all sides.

A business should not be able to discriminate in selling a cake to a Muslim, a gay person, a Conservative, etc. A cake is a cake.

But.

I think the difference comes in when you start ordering people to create expressive material.

For instance, I believe that a Muslim baker should be able to refuse me if I ask him to sell me a cake that asserts that Mohammed is not a prophet.

A Jewish baker should be able to refuse to make me a cake that says Jesus is the only Messiah.

A gay baker should be able to refuse a cake with certain Bible verses.

It makes me nervous when the government is allowed to dictate that you express yourself contrary to your belief.

The freedom not to speak things you don't believe is part of Freedom of Speech.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

It should actually piss off neither side.

The issue with the definition of businesses and corporations is that those are entities that are forced to be set up by the government in order to transact business. The regulation of those entities by the federal government CAN NOT destroy the constitutional rights of people. A persons ability to exist depends on their ability of transacting commerce. The federal government CAN NOT regulate commerce in a way that destroys a persons religious freedoms. Period. End of story.

What Captain Butthurt has a problem with is that he believes that someone who has been proclaimed to be a protected class overrides someone else's existing constitutional rights to religious liberty. It does not. But thats not even the issue.

If a gay man goes into a bakery and orders a cake, he will get a cake.

If a gay man goes into a bakery and wants a cake with two penises on it, he can be denied that, because the bakery has every right to deny creating or being a part of something that violates their religious liberty.

You cant be denied service for who you are. You can be denied service for what you want. What you want is not protected under the constitution. Who you are is.

Thats the difference.

I agree with this.

(05-20-2016 12:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 12:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 11:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 11:11 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  My take on the wedding cake thing pisses everyone off on all sides.

A business should not be able to discriminate in selling a cake to a Muslim, a gay person, a Conservative, etc. A cake is a cake.

But.

I think the difference comes in when you start ordering people to create expressive material.

For instance, I believe that a Muslim baker should be able to refuse me if I ask him to sell me a cake that asserts that Mohammed is not a prophet.

A Jewish baker should be able to refuse to make me a cake that says Jesus is the only Messiah.

A gay baker should be able to refuse a cake with certain Bible verses.

It makes me nervous when the government is allowed to dictate that you express yourself contrary to your belief.

The freedom not to speak things you don't believe is part of Freedom of Speech.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

It should actually piss off neither side.

The issue with the definition of businesses and corporations is that those are entities that are forced to be set up by the government in order to transact business. The regulation of those entities by the federal government CAN NOT destroy the constitutional rights of people. A persons ability to exist depends on their ability of transacting commerce. The federal government CAN NOT regulate commerce in a way that destroys a persons religious freedoms. Period. End of story.

What Captain Butthurt has a problem with is that he believes that someone who has been proclaimed to be a protected class overrides someone else's existing constitutional rights to religious liberty. It does not. But thats not even the issue.

If a gay man goes into a bakery and orders a cake, he will get a cake.

If a gay man goes into a bakery and wants a cake with two penises on it, he can be denied that, because the bakery has every right to deny creating or being a part of something that violates their religious liberty.

You cant be denied service for who you are. You can be denied service for what you want. What you want is not protected under the constitution. Who you are is.

Thats the difference.

Brilliant.

Very well said.

Fit and I have agreed on a couple of things over the past couple of days. It's almost scary.

I need to troll harder.

Target's lawsuit against the guy is stupid, but so is the family's lawsuit against Target. There is risk in going out in public. Target (or any store) cannot guarantee you that someone will not harm you while in their store. It's an absurd expectation.

I hope Target loses this lawsuit and I hope the family loses their's as well.

(05-20-2016 11:11 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  My take on the wedding cake thing pisses everyone off on all sides.

A business should not be able to discriminate in selling a cake to a Muslim, a gay person, a Conservative, etc. A cake is a cake.

But.

I think the difference comes in when you start ordering people to create expressive material.

This seems fair but we need to define "expressive"... If you mean there is a cake in the freezer and they want to walk in with it and walk out with it then by all means.

The minute the cake has to be created specifically for *your* occasion it's expressive.

(05-20-2016 01:00 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 11:11 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  My take on the wedding cake thing pisses everyone off on all sides.

A business should not be able to discriminate in selling a cake to a Muslim, a gay person, a Conservative, etc. A cake is a cake.

But.

I think the difference comes in when you start ordering people to create expressive material.

This seems fair but we need to define "expressive"... If you mean there is a cake in the freezer and they want to walk in with it and walk out with it then by all means.

The minute the cake has to be created specifically for *your* occasion it's expressive.

If a gay man comes in and asks for "Happy Birthday" and I assert that I am opposed to birthday greetings....then I had better not have ever sold "Happy Birthday" to a straight man or ever do so in the future...because then the gay man would have a legit cause of action.

If I ever made a ***** cake for a straight bachelor party once...I better not refuse one for a gay party on the grounds of being opposed to making that sort of cake.

Its not the content of the expression....its having the same policy for all...and not picking and choosing WHO you apply the expression to.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk