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  
•       •       •

5452 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2014 at 1:11 PM (30 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 04:02:32 PM

Onkel Buck: iheartscotch: I'm all for any business to refuse service; but, these guys did it the wrong way. Should have said that they were booked solid and couldn't possibly make another cake.

That may have worked but you know how some folks like to play the victim. The couple could have went home and called the bakery posing as a straight couple and then GOTCHA! The bakery owner was farked once he unlocked the door that morning.


That's a pretty sad and pathetic way to regard the world around you.

But it's also kinda neat how you paint the bakery owner as an innocent victim and them whine about other people "playing the victim."  At least you have an active imagination.
 
2014-01-21 04:03:08 PM

Leishu: And, once again, because you're too stupid to get it every time you're told, seemingly, you seem to be glossing over the fact that intolerance of intolerance is NOT bigotry.Tolerance of intolerance, however? There's a special word for that: Appeasement. It's a terrible thing which tends to lead to lynchings and genocide, but filth like you tends to pretend that your bigotry is somehow less bigoted because teh gays and brown people.


reposting because of the awesome.
 
2014-01-21 04:04:37 PM

frepnog: Theaetetus: This is their "freedom to conduct business in any manner they see fit", which doesn't actually exist and never has.

untrue.

Theaetetus: Then they probably shouldn't be in the business of selling stuff to the public. Go found a church.

there is nothing wrong with running a business based on christian values.


Christian, like in Christ? Show me where he said to discriminate against gays.

Or, are you just trying to stuff words in his mouth that he never said as an excuse to justify being a knuckle-dragging, backwards, homophobic twatwaffle.
 
2014-01-21 04:05:27 PM

gerrymander: But they didn't. They wanted a specialty cake for a one-time event, which required a separate contract. A separate contract to create a one-time piece should have been viewed as art, regardless of whether or not the government imposed restrictions upon the place where the art is created. And at that point, the rights enshrined by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should have taken precedence.

This decision is wrong, as a matter of law.


you put into words what I have been trying to say.  this.

the owner still didn't need to be a dick tho.
 
2014-01-21 04:05:49 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.


Because that's what Jeezus would have done, right?
 
2014-01-21 04:05:50 PM

MyRandomName: This is about liberals trying to fark a religious person over. No more, no less.


No, but you go right on saying that if it makes you feel better.  It also makes it more fun for us to laugh at you.  So, really, everybody wins.
 
2014-01-21 04:06:46 PM
So, let's say it's 1955, and I run a bakery, and the government has passed a law MANDATING that I can't bake a cake for gays.

I'll be JAILED for it. But I want to bake for gays. I want the gay baking trade.

And, in response to this unjust law, I say things like, "The law is unjust. The government has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to prohibit me from selling cakes to gays, or to anyone I want. It's between me and my customers, and (literally) none of your business!"

And since we're all in 1955 and not just me, all of the FarkProg assholes posting in this thread would rise up and call me names and tell me to go live in the woods and cite "licensing" laws, to force me to follow their precious government's laws.

Because Respect My Authoritah.
 
Ant
2014-01-21 04:08:08 PM

totallyfubar: That is an incorrect interpretation obviously


Not very obvious, actually.
 
2014-01-21 04:08:27 PM

Weatherkiss: jso2897: You don't actually have any idea what a "protected class" is, do you?

Not really, no. It's not something I've really looked into. Which is why I corrected myself when I found out I was in error.


Good - it isn't complicated. Briefly "religion" is a protected class. "Muslims" are not. "Race" is a protected class. "Asians" are not.
And so on. It applies to the abstract category - not to anyone who falls under them.
In this case "sexual orientation" is protected under Oregon law. "Lesbians" are not.
 
2014-01-21 04:08:40 PM

Phinn: So, let's say it's 1955, and I run a bakery, and the government has passed a law MANDATING that I can't bake a cake for gays.

I'll be JAILED for it. But I want to bake for gays. I want the gay baking trade.

And, in response to this unjust law, I say things like, "The law is unjust. The government has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to prohibit me from selling cakes to gays, or to anyone I want. It's between me and my customers, and (literally) none of your business!"

And since we're all in 1955 and not just me, all of the FarkProg assholes posting in this thread would rise up and call me names and tell me to go live in the woods and cite "licensing" laws, to force me to follow their precious government's laws.

Because Respect My Authoritah.


Dear Phinn,

Get new material.

Thanks.
 
2014-01-21 04:08:52 PM

Baz744: Last I checked, 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.


So you'd be OK with freedom of religion except in churches open to the public?

So you'd be OK with freedom of speech only applying to private conversations?

So you'd be OK with freedom of the press only not covering the ability to distribute your material to the public?

So you'd be OK with freedom of assembly to only apply to members of your family?

So you'd be OK with the freedom to redress grievances only if you are talking to your representative behind closed doors?
 
2014-01-21 04:09:23 PM

Gentoolive: If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.


If you don't like following the rules of the land, don't set up a shop there.

Or vote to change them, but that's a little more long-term.
 
2014-01-21 04:10:15 PM

scubamage: frepnog: Theaetetus: This is their "freedom to conduct business in any manner they see fit", which doesn't actually exist and never has.

untrue.

Theaetetus: Then they probably shouldn't be in the business of selling stuff to the public. Go found a church.

there is nothing wrong with running a business based on christian values.

Christian, like in Christ? Show me where he said to discriminate against gays.

Or, are you just trying to stuff words in his mouth that he never said as an excuse to justify being a knuckle-dragging, backwards, homophobic twatwaffle.


ah.  someone here doesn't know me at all.  or that last sentence would not have been posted.

and trying to act like christianity isn't against homosexuality is stupid.
 
2014-01-21 04:10:27 PM
BMFPitt:

So you'd be OK with freedom of religion except in churches open to the public?

So you'd be OK with freedom of speech only applying to private conversations?

So you'd be OK with freedom of the press only not covering the ability to distribute your material to the public?

So you'd be OK with freedom of assembly to only apply to members of your family?

So you'd be OK with the freedom to redress grievances only if you are talking to your representative behind closed doors?


Whoosh - right over your head.
 
2014-01-21 04:11:01 PM

Phinn: So, let's say it's 1955, and I run a bakery, and the government has passed a law MANDATING that I can't bake a cake for gays.

I'll be JAILED for it. But I want to bake for gays. I want the gay baking trade.

And, in response to this unjust law, I say things like, "The law is unjust. The government has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to prohibit me from selling cakes to gays, or to anyone I want. It's between me and my customers, and (literally) none of your business!"

And since we're all in 1955 and not just me, all of the FarkProg assholes posting in this thread would rise up and call me names and tell me to go live in the woods and cite "licensing" laws, to force me to follow their precious government's laws.

Because Respect My Authoritah.


My favorite "What if...?" was the one where Elektra didn't die.
 
2014-01-21 04:11:24 PM

MyRandomName: The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you. Yet if any person attempted an economic boycott of a minority business, you would be outraged. You are the people you complain about. You have simply switched skin color for politics and religion. You are no better. You at just as intolerant.


It's always amusing when Conservatives explain how they think Liberalism works.
 
2014-01-21 04:11:32 PM

BMFPitt: Baz744: Last I checked, 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.

So you'd be OK with freedom of religion except in churches open to the public?

So you'd be OK with freedom of speech only applying to private conversations?

So you'd be OK with freedom of the press only not covering the ability to distribute your material to the public?

So you'd be OK with freedom of assembly to only apply to members of your family?

So you'd be OK with the freedom to redress grievances only if you are talking to your representative behind closed doors?


Hey look, the point! It just went whooshing by!
 
2014-01-21 04:13:23 PM

totallyfubar: It is a religious belief they are standing for, that homosexuality is wrong.  Comparing that to segregation is apples and oranges.  The bible never said blacks were not equal, it says the opposite.


Poe's Law strikes again.  I really can't tell.
 
2014-01-21 04:15:39 PM

Finger51: 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.

Because that's what Jeezus would have done, right?


Don't worry, anyone that says that doesn't actually make food for a living. Nobody will hire you if it's known you fark with food.
 
2014-01-21 04:15:39 PM

Phinn: So, let's say it's 1955, and I run a bakery, and the government has passed a law MANDATING that I can't bake a cake for gays.

I'll be JAILED for it. But I want to bake for gays. I want the gay baking trade.

And, in response to this unjust law, I say things like, "The law is unjust. The government has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to prohibit me from selling cakes to gays, or to anyone I want. It's between me and my customers, and (literally) none of your business!"

And since we're all in 1955 and not just me, all of the FarkProg assholes posting in this thread would rise up and call me names and tell me to go live in the woods and cite "licensing" laws, to force me to follow their precious government's laws.

Because Respect My Authoritah.


A better analogy would be how people would have reacted in 1955 if someone had proposed that we roll back history and restore slavery.
 
2014-01-21 04:15:54 PM

frepnog: scubamage: frepnog: Theaetetus: This is their "freedom to conduct business in any manner they see fit", which doesn't actually exist and never has.

untrue.

Theaetetus: Then they probably shouldn't be in the business of selling stuff to the public. Go found a church.

there is nothing wrong with running a business based on christian values.

Christian, like in Christ? Show me where he said to discriminate against gays.

Or, are you just trying to stuff words in his mouth that he never said as an excuse to justify being a knuckle-dragging, backwards, homophobic twatwaffle.

ah.  someone here doesn't know me at all.  or that last sentence would not have been posted.

and trying to act like christianity isn't against homosexuality is stupid.


It's not. Cite otherwise. The only passage citing speech by Christ which could in any way be interpreted as anti-homosexual is when he spoke out against fornicators. There is no statement by Christ which is overtly anti-homosexual. The end.

Jesus had more negative things to say about Caananites than he did about homosexuals, although it's likely that was more Matthew being a racist douchenozzle than the actual words of Christ.

What idiots have tried to inject over the past 2000 years should not be construed as Christianity.
 
2014-01-21 04:17:54 PM

tricycleracer: Become a private bakery club and discriminate to your heart's content.


The first rule of Private Bakery Club is that you do not talk about Private Bakery Club.
 
2014-01-21 04:21:59 PM

notto: Whoosh - right over your head.

scubamage: Hey look, the point! It just went whooshing by!


Hard to tell whether you're actually as dense as you're claiming to be.
 
2014-01-21 04:22:06 PM

frepnog: Theaetetus: This is their "freedom to conduct business in any manner they see fit", which doesn't actually exist and never has.

untrue.


Absolutely true. You may think that such a freedom existed, because you were implicitly reading in a further limitation, like "in any manner they see fit, provided it follows all local laws" or the like. For example, you have never had the freedom to operate a business in which customers are allowed to commit murder.
Your operation of a business has always been subject to governmental regulation.

Theaetetus: Then they probably shouldn't be in the business of selling stuff to the public. Go found a church.

there is nothing wrong with running a business based on christian values.


There is if those values require you to engage in illegal discrimination.

Theaetetus: But this isn't:
i do have a problem with the government saying "so what if you are christian, make those gays a cake".

And the government isn't saying that. Rather, the government is saying "if you want to run a business, you don't get to discriminate. You are free to close your business."

sigh. i suppose you are right.


Let's go to a hypothetical, just in case it clarifies things by distinction. As mentioned above, until 1978, Mormons believed that black people were all sinners, with their skin being a mark of the "curse of Cain".  Do you think it would be morally right for a business owner to refuse to serve black people, on the grounds that he's a Mormon? And that it would be morally wrong for the government to say "serve everyone, regardless of race, or serve no one"?
 
2014-01-21 04:23:14 PM

BalugaJoe: Money is money.  What is wrong with these people.


I had inlaws who owned a small grocery store. They wanted a local handyman to create a shelving system for storing rented out VHS tapes - he was okay doing the carpentry work until he found out they rented rated 'R' movies - then he refused to work anymore. Can you guess what religion he identified with?
 
2014-01-21 04:24:18 PM
Word of mouth can be a biatch, eh?
 
2014-01-21 04:24:28 PM

HipsterTrash: They have been targeted and will feel the wrath of the Gay K K.



i1.ytimg.com

Exactly.
 
2014-01-21 04:26:12 PM

BMFPitt: Baz744: Last I checked, 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.

So you'd be OK with freedom of religion except in churches open to the public?


Not a public, commercial conduct of a business.

So you'd be OK with freedom of speech only applying to private conversations?

Not a public, commercial conduct of a business. Unless you're trying to say statutes against fraud should be abolished?

So you'd be OK with freedom of the press only not covering the ability to distribute your material to the public?

Uh, that's what it does do. It protects the freedom to publish and distribute. Private writings are really under freedom of speech.

So you'd be OK with freedom of assembly to only apply to members of your family?

Not a public, commercial conduct of a business.

So you'd be OK with the freedom to redress grievances only if you are talking to your representative behind closed doors?

Not a public, commercial conduct of a business.

Your post fails to actually address what you're responding to, so therefore I award you no points.
 
2014-01-21 04:26:18 PM

mark12A: /It's a comfy bed you Libtards are setting up for yourselves.
//and yes, people WILL set up private bakeries, restaurants, etc. if this shiat gets much deeper, and America Balkanizes further....


Yes, and it's going to happen soon.  Hold your breath.
 
2014-01-21 04:26:33 PM

Phinn: So, let's say it's 1955, and I run a bakery, and the government has passed a law MANDATING that I can't bake a cake for gays.

I'll be JAILED for it. But I want to bake for gays. I want the gay baking trade.

And, in response to this unjust law, I say things like, "The law is unjust. The government has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to prohibit me from selling cakes to gays, or to anyone I want. It's between me and my customers, and (literally) none of your business!"

And since we're all in 1955 and not just me, all of the FarkProg assholes posting in this thread would rise up and call me names and tell me to go live in the woods and cite "licensing" laws, to force me to follow their precious government's laws.

Because Respect My Authoritah.


I think you're writing incorrect arguments onto us.  Just because shiatty libertarian ideals would be an improvement on some past states of existence(like say feudalism) you aren't  going to swing us onto your "why can't I beat me own slaves, I own them after all type platform"
 
2014-01-21 04:27:45 PM

scubamage: What idiots have tried to inject over the past 2000 years should not be construed as Christianity.


So we should ignore what Christians actually believe, and should focus on your interpretation of what they should believe?
 
2014-01-21 04:28:30 PM

Elzar: BalugaJoe: Money is money.  What is wrong with these people.

I had inlaws who owned a small grocery store. They wanted a local handyman to create a shelving system for storing rented out VHS tapes - he was okay doing the carpentry work until he found out they rented rated 'R' movies - then he refused to work anymore. Can you guess what religion he identified with?



Jedi monk?
 
2014-01-21 04:29:02 PM

BMFPitt: So we should ignore what Christians actually believe, and should focus on your interpretation of what they should believe?


Based on a new testament that was first written over 300 years after when he thinks the immutable truth was supposedly laid down?
 
2014-01-21 04:32:39 PM

totallyfubar: It is a religious belief they are standing for, that homosexuality is wrong.  Comparing that to segregation is apples and oranges.  The bible never said blacks were not equal, it says the opposite.


[citation needed]
 
2014-01-21 04:34:17 PM

Theaetetus: Not a public, commercial conduct of a business.

Your post fails to actually address what you're responding to, so therefore I award you no points.


So your response is that LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

If you believe that conducting business should nullify your right to free association, then make a case for that.

Pretending not to understand the arguments being made only make you look silly.
 
2014-01-21 04:36:16 PM

MooseUpNorth: totallyfubar: It is a religious belief they are standing for, that homosexuality is wrong.  Comparing that to segregation is apples and oranges.  The bible never said blacks were not equal, it says the opposite.

[citation needed]


The Mark of Cain doesn't exist.    For what it's worth, congratulations on not being as racist like the people who wrote your holy book.  Really.  No sarcasm.
 
2014-01-21 04:40:13 PM
Phinn: Forcing people to interact with other people is evil.

In some cases.  Like, for example, if the person I were forced to interact with were you.  That'd be pretty evil.
 
2014-01-21 04:41:00 PM

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Not a public, commercial conduct of a business.

Your post fails to actually address what you're responding to, so therefore I award you no points.

So your response is that LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

If you believe that conducting business should nullify your right to free association, then make a case for that.


It doesn't. your "right to free association" doesn't include the right to discriminate against members of the public on the basis of certain things. The fact that your right to free association does not include things you think it should does not mean that it has been taken away from you.
 
2014-01-21 04:44:50 PM

ciberido: Phinn: Forcing people to interact with other people is evil.

In some cases.  Like, for example, if the person I were forced to interact with were you.  That'd be pretty evil.


Anyway - nobody is forcing anybody to do anything here. The fact that I am not allowed to drive a car without mufflers does not mean that I am being forced to drive a car equipped with them.
The fact that I am not allowed to build a seven storey structure of unmortared construction block on my lot does not mean that I am being forced to build a structure that is up to code.
And so on.
 
2014-01-21 04:45:16 PM

totallyfubar: Chummer45

Discrimination against someone for what they are (ex. black) is biblically wrong.  Refusing to participate in a sinful ACT by others is not discrimination.  It would be like a black person asked me to sell them a gun vs. a chinese person asking me to sell them a gun to kill someone.  I would not sell to the one who is going to do something I find morrally wrong but I would sell to the other.


How is baking a cake 'participating in a sinful ACT' ?

Where in the bible does it say "thou shalt not provide baked goods for the homos as it is an abomination unto the lord"
 
2014-01-21 04:47:42 PM

Finger51: totallyfubar: Chummer45

Discrimination against someone for what they are (ex. black) is biblically wrong.  Refusing to participate in a sinful ACT by others is not discrimination.  It would be like a black person asked me to sell them a gun vs. a chinese person asking me to sell them a gun to kill someone.  I would not sell to the one who is going to do something I find morrally wrong but I would sell to the other.

How is baking a cake 'participating in a sinful ACT' ?

Where in the bible does it say "thou shalt not provide baked goods for the homos as it is an abomination unto the lord"


Even if youi are right (and I suspect you are) it's still bullshiat. religion is, in fact, entirely made up - and if this guy says his god forbids teh ghey - he does. His mistake is in believing that this somehow entitles him to operate his business unlawfully.
 
2014-01-21 04:51:32 PM

Chummer45: totallyfubar: Chummer45

Discrimination against someone for what they are (ex. black) is biblically wrong.  Refusing to participate in a sinful ACT by others is not discrimination.  It would be like a black person asked me to sell them a gun vs. a chinese person asking me to sell them a gun to kill someone.  I would not sell to the one who is going to do something I find morrally wrong but I would sell to the other.


uh.... ok.....?  Nothing about what you said made any sense.


He's trying to argue that homosexuality is a choice, basically.  It's the old "it's ok to BE gay, but it's not ok to ever have gay sex" chestnut used by some people opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds.

To paraphrase it another way, "I'm not discriminating against you because you're a lesbian; I'm discriminating against you because I know you're going to have sex with another woman, and that's a sin."

It's often associated with the catchphrase, "Love the sinner but hate the sin."
 
2014-01-21 04:54:39 PM
It's amazing to see so many farkers proudly speak up and show their ignorance and bigotry.
 
2014-01-21 04:55:34 PM

TrotlineDesigns:  I'm not good at being forced to do much of anything and yea.. I would have pissed in the cake like the employees spit in the food at McDonalds and don't get charged with criminal offenses and what not.

/Wouldn't be my first time in jail or criminal court


Nor your last, at this rate.

ProTip: I'm told you get better food if you claim to be Jewish.
 
2014-01-21 04:55:50 PM

ikanreed: Phinn: So, let's say it's 1955, and I run a bakery, and the government has passed a law MANDATING that I can't bake a cake for gays.

I'll be JAILED for it. But I want to bake for gays. I want the gay baking trade.

And, in response to this unjust law, I say things like, "The law is unjust. The government has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to prohibit me from selling cakes to gays, or to anyone I want. It's between me and my customers, and (literally) none of your business!"

And since we're all in 1955 and not just me, all of the FarkProg assholes posting in this thread would rise up and call me names and tell me to go live in the woods and cite "licensing" laws, to force me to follow their precious government's laws.

Because Respect My Authoritah.

I think you're writing incorrect arguments onto us.  Just because shiatty libertarian ideals would be an improvement on some past states of existence(like say feudalism) you aren't  going to swing us onto your "why can't I beat me own slaves, I own them after all type platform"


What I'm getting at is that the FarkProg mentality is incapable of reason in general, and grasping ethical principles in particular.

See, when someone says that X is wrong, or that Rule A is better than Rule B, he's making an ethical assertion. It's more than just saying "I want X to happen." He's advancing a normative proposition.

Now, saying "I want X to happen" is all well and good, but it means as much as the next guy who says "I want Y to happen." They cancel each other out. They are ethically equivalent assertions.

When you claim that X is a better result than Y, or that X is right and Y is wrong, you have (perhaps unwittingly) relied on some principle that supports that conclusion.

What I'm saying is that when the question is whether a particular law is just, "because the State licenses it" is a non-answer. It articulates no ethical principle at all. It's not even wrong.

The State licenses marriage, too. As we've seen with the gays, when they ask, "Why should I not be allowed to get married to my love?" it's not a sufficient answer to say "because the State licenses it."

What if this baker didn't want to bake a cake for vegetarians? Or the lactose intolerant? Or left-handed Twilight fans? Or teenaged death-metal retro-goths? What if this baker wanted to bake these people a cake but some law prevented her? Is there an ethical principle that addresses these bigotries?

The Freedom of Association is the only ethical principle that is coherent and stands up to the slightest scrutiny. Just like the Freedom of the Press protects ugly and bigoted documents, the Freedom of Association protects ugly and bigoted cake-baking.
 
2014-01-21 04:57:55 PM

ciberido: Phinn: Forcing people to interact with other people is evil.

In some cases.  Like, for example, if the person I were forced to interact with were you.  That'd be pretty evil.


I'd gladly defend your right not to associate with me. I'd downright enjoy not having you in my life.
 
2014-01-21 04:58:17 PM

jso2897: Another thread where the grownups have to debate some pimple-faced virgin teens about the "Constitutionality" of civil rights statutes that were settled law before they were born.


Sad isn't it?
 
2014-01-21 04:58:51 PM

umad: 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?



I thought I made my point pretty clear, but I guess I need to clarify for you.  My point was that many people in this thread have invoked "economic freedom" as their excuse for why they support allowing businesses to discriminate against gays.  This technique - invoking concepts like "economic freedom" or "states rights" - is frequently used by conservatives when they need an excuse for their bigoted public policy ideas.

Kind of like how conservatives manage to argue, with a straight face, that the reason they support voter ID laws is because they want to stop voter fraud.
 
2014-01-21 04:59:04 PM

ciberido: karnal: I guess my sense of capitalism trumps any of my beliefs...If I owned a bakery I would sale a cake to anyone.....well, except the Irish.

You wouldn't have to worry about it, because you can't be Irish if you're gay.


LoL : )
 
2014-01-21 05:00:16 PM

jso2897: It doesn't. your "right to free association" doesn't include the right to discriminate against members of the public on the basis of certain things.


By law I certainly don't.  That's black and white, and this case is a slam dunk that the couple will win.  The law is wrong, as are court cases upholding it.  I was just aging for someone to at least attempt to defend the law other than citing it and declaring victory.

The fact that your right to free association does not include things you think it should does not mean that it has been taken away from you.

My right to free speech is restricted in all kinds of ways.  That doesn't make it OK.
 
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 »





Report