If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Bakery that refused to sell wedding cake to lesbian couple found to have discriminated, its owner saying it's part of 'God's plan'. Sure, if God's plan for you is a jury trial   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 676
    More: Followup, lesbian couples, public accommodations  
•       •       •

5466 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2014 at 1:11 PM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



676 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-21 02:54:53 PM  
Headso: Way to take something cool like Americans making goods, growing food and providing services sound like some kind of corny rebellion, if there is an actual rise in Americans doing these things then good, I welcome the variety in produce, meat and homemade goods, clothing, art... I live in a rural area and what you describe is pretty much par for the course for many people here, I don't think it's anything new more likely you are personally getting more immersed in that hippyish lifestyle so it seems everyone is doing it.

So you're cool with THESE people selling only to selected groups? The Lefties rail against the evil corporations, the Rights rail against the gub'mint, both are escaping from what they see as an increasingly heavy handed and dysfunctional society. What happens when our current Ponzi scheme (massive government deficit spending) collapses and hordes of rioting poor people start demanding food and services, and all those heavily armed country folk sitting out in the country say: "No"? Civil war? March out into the countryside and start seizing stuff?

Heavy handed government social engineering is splitting this country apart. There wouldn't be increasing numbers of people disengaging from the rest of society if there wasn't something driving them off. And that something is petty crap like nuking a small business because they committed ThoughtCrime.
 
2014-01-21 02:56:04 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Baz744: Can someone please direct me to the Bible passage which requires Jehovah religionists to discriminate against homosexuals in provision of public services?

Rom 16:17
2 Thess 3:6
2 Thess 3:14


They're applicable if you believe the corresponding bits about homosexuals.

/if


1) Excuse me. I overlooked this.

2) Thanks for the attempt.

3) Actually, all three of these directives call for dehumanizing treatment of other Christians. Two of them explicitly, the third by logical context. None of these passages provide support for the proposition that Christians should subject pagans to the dehumanizing treatment they subject each other to.

So, if the lesbians involved in this case are Christians, and the baker knew it, these passages apply. Otherwise, he's not acting on any religious compulsion.
 
2014-01-21 02:56:16 PM  

mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.


This. This one's a little conflicting. On one hand, yes it's discriminatory. On the other, what the heck happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? something that,  although it won't exeactly go over well, should remain an essential business choice.
 
2014-01-21 02:57:01 PM  
if you are hetero itz becaws you are afraid of teh ghey and racist
 
2014-01-21 02:57:35 PM  
No one is infringing their freedom of religion. No one is forcing them to operate a business that serves the pubic.  One of the legal requirements of being a business that serves the public is to server all the public without regard to race, creed, color, or sexual orientation. The are perfectly free to surrender their business license and operate a church that hates whoever they want to hate. Just can't operate a business like that.
 
2014-01-21 02:57:58 PM  

Somaticasual: On the other, what the heck happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?


You can't reserve a right you never had to begin with.
 
2014-01-21 02:58:31 PM  

Dr Dreidel: More like, "If the government's gonna force us ALL to pay for roads, etc, then we should ALL have the same access to them." Meaning a state-licensed business cannot refuse service to someone for reasons the state deems invalid. If you're going to exercise a power granted by the state, you exercise it according to state rules.

Does that help?



No.  You still erroneously believe that "licensing" is like the Swiss Army Knife of justifications.  You think it's like magic.  You think it has god-like super powers.  You think it's the magic word that unlocks all doors.

But "licensing" does not mean "empowering government to control everything you do."  Where does this power to license come from?  What are its limits?

Issuing a driver's license to you does not mean that government gets to abduct you and use you for medical experiments if they find you driving a car on one of their roads.

You still have not articulated a coherent ethical principle for your position as to how the State gets its legitimate power to use "licensing" as a proxy for any and all controls it wants to enact.

When asked if a government rule is legitimate, "because of the license law" is not a substantive answer.  It's just a dodge.  It just kicks the can down the road to the next question -- if the licensing power is legitimate.
 
2014-01-21 03:03:14 PM  
If the guy refused to make this kind of cake he would be a farking hero to some of you

i26.photobucket.com
i26.photobucket.com
/ban assualt cakes
 
2014-01-21 03:07:06 PM  

Phinn: barneyfifesbullet: It's just another day in Your Gay Indoctrination.

Only a liberal would want the government to force someone to bake them a cake.

It's not about the cake.  No one wants a cake made by someone who dislikes him.  Obvi.

The medium is the message.  The superficial message from the government here is: YOU MUST BAKE CAKES FOR THE GAYS.

But the superficial message is unimportant.  It's the import of the communication that matters, the subtext.  Here, the real, unspoken message is: WE CONTROL YOUR BUSINESS.

Arbitrary compliance with fake-rules is what Drill Instructors do to recruits, or what fraternities do to pledges.  The government could make a rule that says, "No baking blue cakes on Thursdays."  Or "You MUST bake blue cakes on Thursdays."  Kind of how it goes from mandating racial discrimination one week, to prohibiting it the next.

The point is not the presence or absence of blue cakes.  The content of the rule doesn't matter.  The EXISTENCE of the rule is what matters, because having a rule is what defines the role of the "governed" as one of submission to authority.

In fact, the more trivial the rule is, the better it is for its use as a tool of symbolic submission.



It's a very simple message: If you wish to conduct business in the state of ______________, then you must follow the rules of __________.

Why is this freaking you out so much? This is how business has been done since (at least) Hammurabi was king. Societies have always operated in this fashion.
 
2014-01-21 03:07:41 PM  

I drunk what: if you are hetero itz becaws you are afraid of teh ghey and racist


I'm guessing we can assume the answer to your name is "paint thinner."
 
2014-01-21 03:08:03 PM  

Onkel Buck: If the guy refused to make this kind of cake he would be a farking hero to some of you

[i26.photobucket.com image 320x195]
[i26.photobucket.com image 320x236]
/ban assualt cakes


Nobody cares about images of guns, except conservatives trying to blame "the media" for the latest school shooting.
 
2014-01-21 03:08:10 PM  

Onkel Buck: If the guy refused to make this kind of cake he would be a farking hero to some of you

[i26.photobucket.com image 320x195]
[i26.photobucket.com image 320x236]
/ban assualt cakes


Another bad analogy.  To fit, the baker in your fantasy would need to refuse to sell the same stock cake design to gun owners that he sells willingly and openly  to non gun owners.

You are comparing apples to oranges (which shows just how poor of an argument it is).
 
2014-01-21 03:09:38 PM  

Baz744: 3) Actually, all three of these directives call for dehumanizing treatment of other Christians. Two of them explicitly, the third by logical context. None of these passages provide support for the proposition that Christians should subject pagans to the dehumanizing treatment they subject each other to.


Let me revise this a little:

Romans 16:17
I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.

These lesbians caused no divisions among Christians, and placed no obstacles in the baker's way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned--which teaching, by the way, probably refers to Paul's secret teachings to his circle of initiates, and has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Thessalonians 3:6
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonian s%203&vers ion=NIV#fen-NIV-29685a" title="See footnote a">a] you received from us.

This passage only requires dehumanizing treatment of other Christians, not of pagans.

Thessalonians 3:14
Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

The "as you would a fellow believer" here could be construed to extend Paul's requirements of dehumanizing treatment to pagans. But Paul's letters discussed evangelism extensively, which necessarily requires association with persons who do not obey his instructions. It is therefore not logically coherent to construe this passage to apply to pagans. Here, again, he means other Christians only.
 
2014-01-21 03:09:56 PM  

Onkel Buck: If the guy refused to make this kind of cake he would be a farking hero to some of you

[i26.photobucket.com image 320x195]
[i26.photobucket.com image 320x236]
/ban assualt cakes


Your cakes are very phallic.
 
2014-01-21 03:11:37 PM  

frepnog: it is morally wrong to force someone to do business with someone that they don't want to do business with.


No one is forcing the baker to do any business, period. The baker can close shop and run a church if they'd like. However, if the baker chooses to do business in the public sphere, then the baker is not allowed to discriminate. And it's morally  right to take steps to stop discrimination in the public sphere.
 
2014-01-21 03:13:41 PM  

JRoo: Dr Dreidel: MyRandomName: The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you.

Like the liberals who boycotted Pepsi over some Jay-Z lyrics?
Like the liberals who boycotted Dunkin Donuts over Rachel Ray's neckwear?
Like the liberals who boycotted Starbucks over their decision to not be dicks to their employees?
Like the liberals who boycotted government because Congress wouldn't pass the laws they wanted?

[static01.mediaite.com image 402x243]


oh wow!  13,741 people liking that page.  As compared to the millions that drink Starbucks daily.  It makes me want a cup of coffee, but the line to the Starbucks here goes around the block.
 
2014-01-21 03:14:04 PM  

mark12A: Headso: Way to take something cool like Americans making goods, growing food and providing services sound like some kind of corny rebellion, if there is an actual rise in Americans doing these things then good, I welcome the variety in produce, meat and homemade goods, clothing, art... I live in a rural area and what you describe is pretty much par for the course for many people here, I don't think it's anything new more likely you are personally getting more immersed in that hippyish lifestyle so it seems everyone is doing it.

So you're cool with THESE people selling only to selected groups? The Lefties rail against the evil corporations, the Rights rail against the gub'mint, both are escaping from what they see as an increasingly heavy handed and dysfunctional society. What happens when our current Ponzi scheme (massive government deficit spending) collapses and hordes of rioting poor people start demanding food and services, and all those heavily armed country folk sitting out in the country say: "No"? Civil war? March out into the countryside and start seizing stuff?

Heavy handed government social engineering is splitting this country apart. There wouldn't be increasing numbers of people disengaging from the rest of society if there wasn't something driving them off. And that something is petty crap like nuking a small business because they committed ThoughtCrime.


The small time farmers and bakers I know sell to whoever will buy their stuff at the farmers market, I paid one of my neighbors to fix our atv, I've paid another to put in some horse fence posts. They are just poor people trying to get money.
 
2014-01-21 03:14:13 PM  

frepnog: in this case however, the law is being used technically correctly, the best kind of correctly, but morally incorrectly.

it is morally wrong to force someone to do business with someone that they don't want to do business with.

and that is part of living in a free society.



Morality is nothing more than tribal custom, and in this case the tribe says that it is quite correct to force them to do business with those of whom they disaprove.
 
2014-01-21 03:14:13 PM  

give me doughnuts: It's a very simple message: If you wish to conduct business in the state of ______________, then you must follow the rules of __________.

Why is this freaking you out so much? This is how business has been done since (at least) Hammurabi was king. Societies have always operated in this fashion.



Once upon a time, not all that long ago, one of the typical "rules of _______" was "You Can't Serve Black People at Counters."

Slavery has been the norm since Hammurabi was king, too.

The rules of Mayan society for centuries was to cut the still-beating hearts out of children.

I don't respect rules merely because they have the imprimatur of the State on them.
 
2014-01-21 03:14:19 PM  
Just another example of conservatives not understanding the constitution they pretend to hold dear and persecuting someone illegally while simultaneously falsely pretending they are persecuted.

So, in other words, a day that ends in 'Y.'
 
2014-01-21 03:14:23 PM  

TrotlineDesigns: I would have just pissed in the cake at the very least.  Funny thing about farking with people that prepare your food.. it isn't a good idea to fark with people that prepare your food.

/had my dog pee in it too.


Hope you are aware that, as you commented on the article with EXACTLY THE SAME SENTENCE, your Facebook profile is wide open to the world, and has all your details in it...
 
2014-01-21 03:15:55 PM  

deffuse: TrotlineDesigns: I would have just pissed in the cake at the very least.  Funny thing about farking with people that prepare your food.. it isn't a good idea to fark with people that prepare your food.

/had my dog pee in it too.

Hope you are aware that, as you commented on the article with EXACTLY THE SAME SENTENCE, your Facebook profile is wide open to the world, and has all your details in it...


And your profile photos are the same....
 
2014-01-21 03:15:57 PM  

Witty_Retort: ITT:
Lots of freedom loving Americans butt hurt they can't discriminate against people because that nasty Constitution says otherwise.


It's just a piece of paper. The founding fathers couldn't have forseen teh gays wanting to rule the world.
 
2014-01-21 03:15:58 PM  

Leishu: I'm guessing we can assume the answer to your name is "paint thinner."


why do you hate teh gheys?

is it because you are afraid of them or just racist??  or both???
 
2014-01-21 03:16:29 PM  

Somaticasual: mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.

This. This one's a little conflicting. On one hand, yes it's discriminatory. On the other, what the heck happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? something that,  although it won't exeactly go over well, should remain an essential business choice.


Where have you been hiding for the past forty-nine years?
 
2014-01-21 03:17:12 PM  

Phinn: Syrrh: Racial discrimination 80 years ago was a VERY different thing, and that's why the law is on the books now.

Racial discrimination 80 years ago WAS THE LAW.  IT WAS REQUIRED.


So how would you like that NSS trophy delivered?
Striking pro-discrimination laws off the books was not enough. Yeah, some people stopped treating blacks like shiat, but not enough for them to 'go to another bakery'. Hell, even after discrimination was legally prohibited it STILL took a while for the south to cut it out.

That's the problem. If it was as simple as "I want the right to discriminate against people with hair", the law doesn't need to back that up. If I want to discriminate against shifty middle-easterners, there's enough public opinion against them that the law IS needed.
 
2014-01-21 03:17:40 PM  

Somaticasual: mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.

This. This one's a little conflicting. On one hand, yes it's discriminatory. On the other, what the heck happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? something that,  although it won't exeactly go over well, should remain an essential business choice.


That only applies if you're not violating their constitutional rights. Sexual orientation is a protected class.

This is not new.
 
2014-01-21 03:19:11 PM  

Phinn: give me doughnuts: It's a very simple message: If you wish to conduct business in the state of ______________, then you must follow the rules of __________.

Why is this freaking you out so much? This is how business has been done since (at least) Hammurabi was king. Societies have always operated in this fashion.

Once upon a time, not all that long ago, one of the typical "rules of _______" was "You Can't Serve Black People at Counters."


I don't respect rules merely because they have the imprimatur of the State on them.


Well gee, Grizzly Adams, I guess you'll just have to go live out in the woods because you don't like living by the rules that your society decided to live by.
Hope you  and the rest of the Mountain Men have a good time.
 
2014-01-21 03:20:30 PM  

Syrrh: Striking pro-discrimination laws off the books was not enough.



How do you know?  The law went straight from Mandatory Discrimination to Mandatory Non-Discrimination, and never passed the Free Association zone in between.

The only commonality has been the "Forced" part.  Force is therefore the element that matters most to this benevolent all-knowing government at whose altar you worship.
 
2014-01-21 03:21:04 PM  

give me doughnuts: It's a very simple message: If you wish to conduct business in the state of ______________, then you must follow the rules of __________.


sigh.  pretty much this.

kinda how people in jail for pot offenses in CO right now probably deserve to sit there.  they broke they law when it was a law.
 
2014-01-21 03:21:07 PM  

Girl Sailor: This is a really tough issue, honest.


No, it really isn't.

I'm a super-Lib, and I just don't have the answer. On the one hand, discrimination against people of color is why this is an issue to begin with.

There are good reasons for a society to prohibit businesses from discriminating against minority groups. If such discrimination is permitted, who's to say it would just be one lousy bakery that does it? In some areas the bigots might be rare, but in others they could be the norm.

Do you really want to see towns where most businesses decide that they won't serve black people? Jews? (Insert any minority here). If the minority is too small to have their own "separate but equal" businesses to provide all the services needed, their other choice would be to leave. Leave town, leave the state... whatever it takes to get away from the bigots. Congregate in minority communities so that they can actually go to local businesses and get service.

Is that the kind of "freedom" a civilized society should have? I think not.

Phinn: Baz744: this bakery own remains free to believe homosexuality is immoral. He is not, however, free to discriminate against homosexuals in the public, commercial conduct of his business

The freedom of association says otherwise, but thanks for outlining the point where you think other people's freedoms end, control freak.


So what you're saying is you are fine with businesses discriminating against whomever they want. Don't want to serve black people at your restaurant? That's your choice. Because freedom!
Congratulations, you're a despicable piece of shiat.
 
2014-01-21 03:21:30 PM  

give me doughnuts: go live out in the woods



Dear Fark,

Get new material.

Thanks.
 
2014-01-21 03:22:05 PM  

Theaetetus: frepnog: it is morally wrong to force someone to do business with someone that they don't want to do business with.

No one is forcing the baker to do any business, period. The baker can close shop and run a church if they'd like. However, if the baker chooses to do business in the public sphere, then the baker is not allowed to discriminate. And it's morally  right to take steps to stop discrimination in the public sphere.


I said that the suit was needed.
 
2014-01-21 03:24:00 PM  

Phinn: Once upon a time, not all that long ago, one of the typical "rules of _______" was "You Can't Serve Black People at Counters."



And in another state at the same time, this rule didn't exist.

I don't see why it bothers you though, since this sort of discrimination is exactly what you are arguing in favor of.
 
2014-01-21 03:24:23 PM  

I drunk what: teh ghey iz a race


Leishu: I'm guessing we can assume the answer to your name is "paint thinner."


/THREAD
 
2014-01-21 03:25:50 PM  

frepnog: Theaetetus: frepnog: it is morally wrong to force someone to do business with someone that they don't want to do business with.

No one is forcing the baker to do any business, period. The baker can close shop and run a church if they'd like. However, if the baker chooses to do business in the public sphere, then the baker is not allowed to discriminate. And it's morally  right to take steps to stop discrimination in the public sphere.

I said that the suit was needed.


You also said it was morally wrong. It appears, particularly from your later comment regarding pot possession, that you believe the suit is needed because the law makes it illegal to discriminate, but that you believe the law is morally wrong and should be abolished: i.e. they broke the law, and should be held accountable, but the law should be removed and no one should be subject to its requirements in the future.
 
2014-01-21 03:26:29 PM  

ikanreed: Onkel Buck: If the guy refused to make this kind of cake he would be a farking hero to some of you

[i26.photobucket.com image 320x195]
[i26.photobucket.com image 320x236]
/ban assualt cakes

Nobody cares about images of guns, except conservatives trying to blame "the media" for the latest school shooting.


Hmmm what about all those liberals in schools that kicked the kids out for the  gun shaped Pop-Tart, drawing a picture of a gun, brought in an action figures minature gun, used his fingers to make a gun shape with his hand. Doesnt sound like nobody caring about images of guns to me. I know I know its different when liberals do it.
 
2014-01-21 03:26:42 PM  

frepnog: give me doughnuts: It's a very simple message: If you wish to conduct business in the state of ______________, then you must follow the rules of __________.

sigh.  pretty much this.

kinda how people in jail for pot offenses in CO right now probably deserve to sit there.  they broke they law when it was a law.



... said every statist boot-licker ever.
 
2014-01-21 03:27:18 PM  
I had said it before and i will say it again.

If you own a business keep your politics and religion out of it, just shut up and take the money and sell your product or service.
 
2014-01-21 03:27:24 PM  

Phinn: And that's what makes you giddy -- control.


Yeah, MAAAAAAN!  Tell the sheeple to WAKE UP!
 
2014-01-21 03:28:45 PM  

Phinn: give me doughnuts: go live out in the woods

Dear Fark,

Get new material.

Thanks.


Your arguments don't deserve any new responses.
The law changed forty-nine years ago, and you can no longer keep "those people" away from your lunch counter.
 
2014-01-21 03:29:15 PM  
I guess just going to another bakery was out of the question. Are they still waiting for that cake?

I guess just sitting in the back of the bus was out of the question. Is Rosa Parks still waiting for that bus?



You're right! It's totally the same thing! In fact, why compare them to Rosa Parks-why not Ghandi or Mandela while you're at it.
 
2014-01-21 03:29:19 PM  

Weatherkiss: .


Actually, until the fairly recent age of "feel good" and civil rights legislation (late 50s and onward), you had plenty of say in how you conducted your business. Granted, we saw the obvious downsides ( like "no negros" signs)t, but it was essentially a business by business decision.  Something further to think about: there are plenty of businesses that now legally discriminate against gender or sexual preferences - so how does something like 'curves' get a pass for basically discriminating against males while this cake business gets legally ordered to make a cake for a customer against the owner's religious preferences?
 
2014-01-21 03:29:40 PM  

WillJM8528: Personally, I would have taken my business elsewhere. The best way to get rid of these bigots is to not give them your business.


But ya see, when libtards don't like something they do everything they can to force everyone else into doing things their way.
 
2014-01-21 03:31:04 PM  

Onkel Buck: ikanreed: Onkel Buck: If the guy refused to make this kind of cake he would be a farking hero to some of you

[i26.photobucket.com image 320x195]
[i26.photobucket.com image 320x236]
/ban assualt cakes

Nobody cares about images of guns, except conservatives trying to blame "the media" for the latest school shooting.

Hmmm what about all those liberals in schools that kicked the kids out for the  gun shaped Pop-Tart, drawing a picture of a gun, brought in an action figures minature gun, used his fingers to make a gun shape with his hand. Doesnt sound like nobody caring about images of guns to me. I know I know its different when liberals do it.


You sound poor.
 
2014-01-21 03:31:11 PM  

Onkel Buck: ikanreed: Onkel Buck: If the guy refused to make this kind of cake he would be a farking hero to some of you

[i26.photobucket.com image 320x195]
[i26.photobucket.com image 320x236]
/ban assualt cakes

Nobody cares about images of guns, except conservatives trying to blame "the media" for the latest school shooting.

Hmmm what about all those liberals in schools that kicked the kids out for the  gun shaped Pop-Tart, drawing a picture of a gun, brought in an action figures minature gun, used his fingers to make a gun shape with his hand. Doesnt sound like nobody caring about images of guns to me. I know I know its different when liberals do it.



And I know you're selectively choosing to ignore how everyone thought that shiat was ridiculous too. It's more convenient to make a bullshiat point if you just ignore how actual reality conflicts with it.
 
2014-01-21 03:31:25 PM  

Chummer45: The whole "economic freedom" and "states rights" nonsense is always invoked by conservatives as their excuse for opposing policies.  It lets them say "I oppose the civil rights act because states' rights," so they can avoid saying the real reason why they oppose it - because they're racist a-holes who think that the "right" to discriminate is a "right" worth defending.


So let me get this straight. You are derping out about how "states rights" are teh evils in a thread for a story which is about a business violating a state law? A state law which bans discrimination based on sexual preference?
 
2014-01-21 03:31:38 PM  
letrole:
The real moral winner is the fellow who does not approve, who does not accept, yet still tolerates the things that he does not approve or accept.

But the majority of the posters here would seem to demand that nothing short of full acceptance and approval of homosexuality will do.


I won't argue that the bakery owners should have to approve of the gays. They are free to think bigoted thoughts and say bigoted words. They just have to bake the goddamn cake.
 
2014-01-21 03:32:03 PM  

stpauler: karnal: stpauler: karnal: stpauler: MyRandomName: stpauler: HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.

The only real comeback for this is "fark you, you disgusting sad piece of flapping ass shiat".

You realize that you liberals are acting exactly the same towards religious people, right? Liberals always want respect but never respect the religious views of others. The irony is thick.

Are there really zero other wedding cake designers? This is about liberals trying to fark a religious person over. No more, no less.

My boyfriend is a church-going Catholic. So, no, it's not about religion, it's about bigotry. So fark you and the bigotry you come flying in on.

Are you two engaging in pre-martital sex?  If so, then he is not a good Catholic boy and your opinoin is moot.

Actually, if you need shiat about Catholicism, you would also know the stance on freedom of conscience
The Catholic Church has always held to the primacy of conscience and taught that individuals must follow their consciences even when they are wrong. (Vatican II, On Religious Liberty (1965), §2)
 This means, my retarded little poster, that Catholics can and are obliged to dissent from the Church when their conscience disagrees with it. Now who is moot?


And who is without a wedding cake because I damn sure won't be making one for you fornicating sinners....unless, of course, the government tells me to.


and the Catholic church says:
Pre-marital sex is selfish
Pre-marital sex is unloving and
Pre-marital sex is a misuse of our sexuality

I'd love to see where the Catholic Church actually and literally says that. Please cite catechism as I have done before (as opposed to where a pope/bishop/cleric/et al said it-UNLESS the pope was speaking ex cathedra)

I'll give you a hint. Here's where you would find it if it existed. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm"> http://www.vat ...


You seem to be moving the goalposts to fit your current lifestyle - I don't need to cite anything to state matter of factly that the Catholic Church has put sexual intercourse within the bonds of marriage.


Look deep into yourself and you will know the truth.....and if it is too dark for you to see, you can seek answers here----> Answers
 
2014-01-21 03:33:00 PM  

stpauler: HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.

The only real comeback for this is "fark you, you disgusting sad piece of flapping ass shiat".


Dude, it's an oversized pastry. Get a grip.
 
Displayed 50 of 676 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report