Scripture

Adjust content blockingContent Blocking

MuahahaOfLore Rank: #16

Channel: politics

next random

Comment

Scripture. .. I look at it like this... Take chick fil a for example. They're against gays and are also closed on Sunday. It's their business. They own it and they can do wha

+1808

Views: 32975 Submitted: 12/14/2017

Block User's Content

Block Channel Content

Related Top Content:

Sounds like child abuse

3578

Cards Against Common Sense

2754

pewdiepie has bigger button

lively nippy horrible Lapwing

2498

Sexual harassment

2447

Pisug Ytuctof Tochimugl

2429

Meanwhile in South Africa...

2410

Sambyoch Edinilt Umercalyod

James woods getting sassy

2298

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (391)

First 2 3 4 5 Last Next

[ 391 comments ]

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#1 - braggaboom

Reply+392

(12/14/2017)[-]

I look at it like this...

Take chick fil a for example. They're against gays and are also closed on Sunday.

It's their business. They own it and they can do whatever the **** they want. That's pretty much the end of the argument.

#2 to #1 - MuahahaOfLore#16 on contentRank#16 [OP]

Reply+165

(12/14/2017)[-]

1 replies hidden: Please view thread directly to view.

#5 to #2 - cyberbloney

Reply+184

(12/14/2017)[-]

yea but they dont get "can I have a chicken sandwich shaped like a dick with 2 men on it getting married" request. the cake guy said hed sell them any cake, he just didnt wanna make a gay design wedding cake

#25 to #5 - anon id: d8186031

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

Chik Fil A serves standard make orders, tho. They don't custom make the food based on what the person wants in any such detail that your example would even be feasible to request. So still not the best example.

#106 to #25 - xarlot

Reply+33

(12/14/2017)[-]

Dude he's just saying the only reason the cake guy denied was because they wanted their cake to be flamboyant as hell. Anons are so dumb sometimes.

#145 to #25 - anon id: 0fa4cf28

Reply+8

(12/14/2017)[-]

ok,

so can I go to a muslim artist and demand them to draw me a person waring a bomb for a headdress with the caption "Muhammad, pieces be upon him."?

Or should e.g. a strong left leaning liberal baker not be allowed to refuse my request to design and dress my cake in red white ca couple on top standing beneath an archway that sprouts in bold letters "Arbeit Macht Frei!".

#192 to #145 - anon id: a148e726

Reply+8

(12/14/2017)[-]

Actually its literally in the law that any business owner can refuse service for any reason.

#231 to #192 - anon id: 803882c5

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

So your local bakery is allowed to refuse service to, for example, black people?

#303 to #231 - contextual

Reply+3

(12/14/2017)[-]

Yes. It wouldn't be a very good idea, but yes. They'd drown in bad publicity, but be entirely within their right of free association, as well as exercising their own right to agency in regards to their actions and their business.

You cannot force anybody to do anything, bar following the rule of law, without violating their inherent freedoms. Moral Authoritarians and busybodies will always try and agitate, fearmonger, and stew conflict to force people to surrender their agency to fit their moral imperatives, though, so you have to watch out.

#266 to #231 - anon id: ec074ffe

Reply-10

(12/14/2017)[-]

these are the kinds of doors the religious right-wing is going to open with a case like this, and honestly it's really scary

#375 to #266 - zardsman

Reply0

(12/15/2017)[-]

**** off anon

#256 to #145 - thegreatergoo

Reply-3

(12/14/2017)[-]

**thegreatergoo used "*roll picture*"**
**thegreatergoo rolled image**I didn't know that ' work makes you free ' was posted on several of the German concentration camps gates during WWII. Thanks for sharing, Anon. Great idea for a teenager's birthday cake!

#382 to #256 - thegreatergoo

Reply0

(12/15/2017)[-]

I sense many butthurt, lazy teenagers.

#65 to #2 - lisreal

Reply+12

(12/14/2017)[-]

Exactly. I believe it's discrimination to deny gay people service based on their sexuality alone. Refusing to bake a cake with certain subject matter is a completely different story.

If the owners refused to sell gay customers a standard cake or other neutral bakery items, that's discrimination. But this owner would never bake a gay wedding cake period, regardless of who comes in to purchase it. That in my mind is totally acceptable.

#57 to #2 - citruslord

Reply+6

(12/14/2017)[-]

And so does the bakery. They never outright refused to serve gay people, just refused to make an piece that went against his religion.

#4 to #2 - braggaboom

Reply+3

(12/14/2017)[-]

I more or less meant they've made their stance on how the feel about homosexuality very clear.
Yeah that's a good point.

Yeah it's damn good, they're pretty much always busy.

#342 to #2 - heine

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

their sandwich is pretty good

#339 to #2 - chrishansenhater

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

I only love them so much because they give me 2 buffalo sauces with my nuggets. I haven't bought buffalo sauce not from Chic for a good 6 months.

#147 to #2 - halfblindguy

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

Maybe if the couple asked to have they cater their gay wedding.

#3 to #2 - dndxplain#194 on contentRank#194

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

1 replies hidden: Please view thread directly to view.

#6 to #3 - MuahahaOfLore#16 on contentRank#16 [OP]

Reply+29

(12/14/2017)[-]

You hear that on CNN?
www.chick-fil-a.com/Careers/Corporate
Chick-fil-A, Inc. is an equal opportunity employer and makes employment decisions on a non-discriminatory basis. We do not discriminate in employment decisions based upon sex, gender, race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, pregnancy, age, physical or mental disability, genetic information, military or veteran status, and/or any other status, classification or factor, protected by federal, state or local law. Further, we are committed to fulfilling our responsibilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar state and federal laws, including reasonably accommodating a qualified employee or applicant with a disability.

#7 to #6 - dndxplain#194 on contentRank#194

Reply+15

(12/14/2017)[-]

that's the reason I was given when I applied

#9 to #7 - MuahahaOfLore#16 on contentRank#16 [OP]

Reply+21

(12/14/2017)[-]

REALLY???
damn dude, sorry to hear.
Gay is not a protected class, but I know gays do work there on occasion.

#22 to #9 - wraithguard#121 on commentsRank#121

Reply+26

(12/14/2017)[-]

If you ask me, there shouldn't be any "protected classes".

#27 to #22 - anon id: d8186031

Reply+24

(12/14/2017)[-]

Autism is also a protected class so you're just screwing yourself over, too

#28 to #27 - wraithguard#121 on commentsRank#121

Reply+55

(12/14/2017)[-]

The captain goes down with his ship.

#73 to #28 - Ruspanic

Reply+12

(12/14/2017)[-]

I like to see a man of principle

#163 to #73 - stipulateprism

Reply+4

(12/14/2017)[-]

Let me know if you find one.

#23 to #22 - MuahahaOfLore#16 on contentRank#16 [OP]

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

So if someone refuses to hire qualified black people?

#26 to #23 - wraithguard#121 on commentsRank#121

Reply+18

(12/14/2017)[-]

If it's a private business, then the owner has a right to be a dick. As long as he/she isn't violating their fundamental rights, then he/she doesn't have to hire ANYONE.

#29 to #26 - MuahahaOfLore#16 on contentRank#16 [OP]

Reply+10

(12/14/2017)[-]

fair enough it wouldnt be bad in my eyes either.

#72 to #7 - anon id: 7c301f95

Reply+7

(12/14/2017)[-]

maybe trying to suck the interviewers dick during the interview wasnt the best idea then

#267 to #7 - freedomfiend#417 on commentsRank#417

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

In that instance, you can call corporate Chic-Fil-A and report the owners for violating the business' policy on non-descrimination. It's absolutely within your right to hold them accountable for anything they put in writing.

#349 to #267 - dndxplain#194 on contentRank#194

Reply-1

(12/14/2017)[-]

if you check, it doesn't list "sexuality" as a non-descriminatory facet

#350 to #349 - freedomfiend#417 on commentsRank#417

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

Still wouldn't hurt to call it in. I'm willing to bet they'd rather hire you than let you stir up a *********.

#351 to #350 - dndxplain#194 on contentRank#194

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

I work at taco bell now anyway. it's right next to the ******* and I purposefully smoke on their pavilion

#260 to #7 - anon id: 79bcd06b

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

Yeah, I don't go to fast food joints to buy a fag burger. Those ******* carry disease.

#225 to #7 - thewhitezombie

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

Honestly, if you behave in a manner that an interviewer can easily guess your sexuality, then it's likely that behavior that is objectionable, rather than your sexuality.

#135 to #7 - TheBobby

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

fag

#40 to #3 - robotcomander

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

Worked at one with a gay manager.

#94 to #1 - wadawada#139 on commentsRank#139

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

A bussines owner is free to deny service to anyone without any reason.

It's their own problem, because they are refusing money, buy if your morals and higher than moneymaking, go for it.

#321 to #1 - anon id: 0ab00cde

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

The real key is when "the gays" said "CHANGE!" CFA said "No." and refused to say more than that.

In general, Americans like it when pushy queers are told to stfu.

#299 to #1 - quintillionplanets

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

And yet there are cars wrapped around the building every minute they are open where I live

#276 to #1 - joebox

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

Chick-fil-A is a franchise.

#247 to #1 - mackd#145 on commentsRank#145

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

i really respec chick-fil-a for that and also for making sure their franchises can only be owned by chick-fil-a employees who have put in their time with the company (so iv'e heard)

#197 to #1 - themaninacan

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

K, I own Tyrone and can do whatever with him.
The sovereign owns the kingdom, and he can do whatever the **** he wants with it.

It is a really minor thing to be mad about, because its the owner not somehpw the business, products or labour itself, i.e. what matters; it is not any kind if matter that is beyond normal actions like boycott etc.

#129 to #1 - springbok#11 on commentsRank#11

Reply-1

(12/14/2017)[-]

I think you would believe differently if it was a Muslim owned bakery refusing to serve war veterans

#269 to #129 - freedomfiend#417 on commentsRank#417

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

No, that's still within their right.
Just as it is within my right to tell eveyone that they openly refuse to serve our honored veterans and to suggest that anyone thinking of giving them business should consider going somewhere else.

#10 - crucible#190 on commentsRank#190

Reply+71

(12/14/2017)[-]

The only thing that happened with ChikFila is that it's owner stated he believed in traditional marriage.

That's it.

And the Left wing started harassing thousands of employees, demonstrating outside their buildings trying to put them all out of a job, going through the drive-thrus ordering cups of water just so they can talk a bunch of ****..

There doesn't need to be a discussion on the validity of these people filing lawsuits or protesting-
they are the one's in the wrong, end-o-story

#67 to #10 - gavnthsociopth#15 on commentsRank#15

Reply+6

(12/14/2017)[-]

The thing with the whole Chil fI La controversy that i thought was such nonsense was that the owner just stated he didn't agree with same-sex marriage. Nothing else. He didn't make any homophobic remarks or anything against homosexuals. Yet these people were so offended that they blew it out of proportion, making he, the restaurant, and it's employees seem like they simply hate homosexuals.
I remember one person held a sign that said (in a comedic way) don't hate the homo.
Such ignorance.

#365 to #67 - crucible#190 on commentsRank#190

Reply+1

(12/15/2017)[-]

What makes it even more excusable is the fact that CF is well known as a Christian establishment. They may as well have been rolling up on churches.
That's what really made me mad about the whole matter- how blatant it was, and how so many people are influenced by that sort of ridiculousness.

It's just like the bakery, or the bar that got screwed by the state simply because the owner got tired of LGBT driving away his customers and turning the place to a circus.

~Ridiculousness~

#8 - anon id: ba0efe99

Reply-9

(12/14/2017)[-]

**anonymous used "*roll picture*"**
**anonymous rolled image**I'm torn on this issue. I don't want Christians to have to go against their religion, but I don't want businesses refusing services over something so trivial.

#12 to #8 - anon id: deb057eb

Reply+55

(12/14/2017)[-]

Private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone they want for whatever reason they want. You have no right to demand service from anyone and the government has no right to force you to provide service to anyone you don't want to.

#13 to #12 - deupsettinupsetta

Reply+9

(12/14/2017)[-]

Uhhh they do "reserve the right to refuse service for any reason"

#15 to #13 - einsen

Reply+3

(12/14/2017)[-]

So equal rights mean never being able to say no? Ok

#16 to #15 - deupsettinupsetta

Reply+4

(12/14/2017)[-]

Why would ypu want to give buisness to someone who doesn't like you? **** i deliberatley avoid places with ****** policy. I aint helping somebody i dont like

#17 to #16 - einsen

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

Can you uh... repeat that? I honestly dont understand

#18 to #17 - deupsettinupsetta

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

I refuse to do buisness with people i don't like. Mostly liberals. Why give money to those you hate?

#19 to #18 - einsen

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

Ah ok gotcha now.

#20 to #17 - deupsettinupsetta

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

I mean as opposed to harassing them with lawsuits and discrimination of my own. I also don't shop anywhere with those magic "no firearms" signs that keep everybody safe.

#21 to #20 - einsen

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

People should just chill qith the milennial and liberal ****. Just let people live their lives. It is impossible for everyone to do what they want thatd be utter chaos

#107 to #21 - manza

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

libtards should wear stickers like the jews did so we can put them in ghettos and kill all of them. every single liberal needs to killed, easiest way to identify them and sort them is when they meltdown when they are refused service. I can't wait to see piles of corpses of those ********* and burning corpses once Trump begins cleansing the population of those subhuman soy-eating inbreds.

#141 to #107 - einsen

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

i hate them too but woah man, thats a bit too much, well not really, but its gonna be hard to do that

#174 to #13 - kalaark

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

Not in the one state where they lost the lawsuit for refusing service to someone.

#179 to #174 - deupsettinupsetta

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

Good point

#14 to #12 - videogamehippey

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

Can they refuse someone service for being black?
The principal should be the same for sexuality Unless you're being obnoxious about it

#31 to #14 - cabbagemayhem

Reply+7

(12/14/2017)[-]

Yes, a business should be allowed to refuse service to blacks if that's what they want. It's a basic human right. Your criteria for selecting people you want to do business with is your choice. If your criteria is arbitrary, you will make less money, but it's not up to someone else to decide what's arbitrary and what's not. The problem we had in the past with refusing service to blacks could have been dealt with in better ways without stripping every citizen of their legal rights.

#324 to #31 - videogamehippey

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

No, what if you live in a small town with only 1 mechanic? You got denied service because you're white. Now you have to go to the next city to get service from a mechanic.

Now with something more trivial, let's say you go to an ice cream shop in the same, small town, you got denied service because you're asian. Now since that was the only ice cream shop in town, and the next ice cream shop in in the other city, you're not gonna get ice cream, because no one goes to another city just to get ice cream.

Also Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits businesses from denying service to anyone based on race, color, ethnicity, or religion.

#334 to #324 - cabbagemayhem

Reply-2

(12/14/2017)[-]

Your hypotheticals are just that: hypothetical. We don't have a problem with people wanting to refuse service to anyone for irrational prejudice. What we do have a problem with is people not being able to refuse service to people for legitimate and rational reasons, to the point it's even a violation of religious freedom.

In the nightmare racist state you proposed, that white man already has more problems than mere refusal of service that you can't fix with a law. Forcing them to shine the white man's shoes would only pour gas on the flames and turn things violent, as we've seen in the past. Real change only happens socially and naturally. That white man can skip town if he wants to live with friendlier people.

I'm aware of the Civil Right's Act. Just because something is law doesn't mean it's a good law. Those Reconstruction Amendments were passed without quorum in the Senate, anyway. Lincoln pushed them through without representation in the South. He set several precedents during that war for the powers of the President and for the imperialist federalist state we live in now where the 10th Amendment has no real meaning. In the grand scheme of things, the good guys didn't really win that war. That is what is meant when people say the Confederate Flag isn't about slavery.

#338 to #334 - videogamehippey

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

My Aztec religion says I must sacrifice a virgin in order to prevent the world from ending. If you punish me for sacrificing this virgin, you are infringing on my religious freedom.
Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can do something that is expected in that religion, but illegal in society.

#341 to #338 - cabbagemayhem

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

That wasn't even my argument, it was an ancillary point to solidify the fact. You're also conflating what's legal with what's moral. Making someone bake a cake at gun point is not the same as sacrificing virgins.

#343 to #341 - videogamehippey

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

The example was extreme but it has the same principle. If your job is to bake cakes for people, you are expected to serve anyone who can legally buy a cake, isn't breaking any rules that they can reasonably follow, and will give the price you specified. If you really can't, have another employee do it, but don't bar them from the entire business.

#345 to #343 - cabbagemayhem

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

You completely miss the point of my whole argument, and you don't seem to care about Western liberal principles at all. You just want to substitute it with what suits you right now and back it up with the status quo of our current Federalist state. You're the future. May God have mercy on our souls.

#347 to #345 - videogamehippey

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

I care about fairness and equal treatment for everyone. Things should change when they need to.
And you didn't really have a single argument, you first started saying that a business should be able to deny business to someone. Then you said that someone could just go to a different place if they don't like the businesses denying them. Then you started talking about Reconstruction. And then topped it off with the Confederate Flag?

#195 to #8 - Low

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

Agreed. The baker is just a lacking businessman.
Who gives a ****. Accept their order and charge a **** load.

#61 - sassybaskets

Reply+24

(12/14/2017)[-]

Just agree to bake the cake then charge them an exorbitant amount of money for it, also do an incredibly **** job on it. You can set the prices on your cakes in your shop to whatever price you damn well please and no one has any say but you on what quality your cakes have to be. Just make sure to do it to all cakes so they can't scream discrimination then when they **** off to another bakery have a sale resetting the prices back to normal.

#178 to #61 - kalaark

Reply+6

(12/14/2017)[-]

That's no solution as far as Christianity is concerned. That'd be sinful as well.

#63 to #61 - scowler

Reply+4

(12/14/2017)[-]

Dude, that's ******* savage.

#74 to #61 - JohnHimself

Reply-24

(12/14/2017)[-]

or you know, you could just not be an ignorant cunt and make the homos a cake, but oh no that will displease the sky daddy whos magic book says slavery is ok and that a woman can be sold back to her rapist. brain dead sheep all of you.

#83 to #74 - sassybaskets

Reply+4

(12/14/2017)[-]

I honestly don't really give a damn if gay people get married or not, or if they get a cake. I care about people being complete cunts for the sake of being complete cunts. In which case these gay men are. This is the USA, the baker is within his rights to practice his religion. The gay men are free to get married. No one can force you to violate your religious beliefs just like no one can force these gay men to shack up with women. Everyone is free to do as they please and in the case of these men they're just being cunts for the sake of being cunts, there are plenty of bakeries around that they could have gone to but no they had to go all the way to the Christian one so they could make a scene and scream about discrimination. If you don't want to provide a service to someone that's your right as a business owner. The repercussions are that your business loses money and customers, that's capitalism and it balances itself out.
The gay men's argument is as foolish as going from church to church demanding a wedding and becoming angry when they tell you it's against their religious beliefs when they refuse. If the baker wants to deny paying customers service because of his beliefs that's his choice and his business will lose money from it as opposed to a bakery that will make a cake for everyone. The point is it's his right to practice his religion and it's their right to be gay. And it's also their right to be complete cunts, which is why I say he should screw their wallets and cake into the ground until they **** off to another bakery. Your business, your livelihood, your cakes, your time, your labor, your rules. If I had customers coming to my business asking me to do things against my beliefs I'd tell them to **** off. That's my right as a business owner. Just like it's their right as customers not to give me anymore business after that point.

TL;DR Don't be a cunt for the sake of being a cunt and respect other people's rights.

#86 to #83 - JohnHimself

Reply-20

(12/14/2017)[-]

they have no right, discremination is a hate crime. if i was these gays i would have done the exact same thing, **** the bigots whos fairytale books say who can and cant have cake.

#96 to #86 - sassybaskets

Reply+10

(12/14/2017)[-]

They do have rights, I know it's hard to comprehend living in the UK these days but we have a little document called the Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion. Also you're free to hate whoever you wish to hate. That's covered under freedom of speech, another concept that's difficult to comprehend living in the UK these days. I can't make Jewish or Islamic people serve bourbon barbecued pork ribs at a catered party if I should hire their services. It's against their religious beliefs. They don't hate me for eating pork it's just what their beliefs are. And if it's your business there's this little clause that states "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason." It's a handy little clause that basically says if you come into my business making absurd demands of me or start cursing me out and act like a twat I can tell you to **** off because I don't want your patronage and I won't have to serve you. It comes down to respect. Would I make the gay men a cake if it was my business? If they came in acting like cunts probably not. If they came in and respectfully asked me? (without the news crew, see that part about them being cunts above) I probably would make the cake. However it's not me that owns the bakery. The baker believes that homosexuality is immoral and wrong. It's his right to believe so. Just as a Jewish or Islamic caterer believes that pork is unclean and no matter how much I bitch and moan about it I can't force them to prepare and serve bourbon barbecued pork ribs at my party no matter how delicious they are. The difference is I'll respect their beliefs and their right to practice their religions rather than bitching like an entitled cunt about it and scream into a news camera about discrimination. Because at the end of the day it's my right as a customer to take my money to a different caterer who will serve more booze covered pig than anyone thought possible, I'm talking a full on drove of hogs bathing in an Olympic swimming pool of Jim Beam.

TL;DR People have inalienable rights in the USA. I know, shocker for someone living in the UK these days.

#97 to #96 - JohnHimself

Reply-12

(12/14/2017)[-]

except the clause is invailed when if falls under unlawful dicremination
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-a...

#113 to #97 - sassybaskets

Reply+11

(12/14/2017)[-]

Except this isn't unlawful as of yet. If a legal precedent is put into place where these men's sexuality invalidates the baker's religious freedom then all of this will be a moot point. As of now though he is within his rights. However if they overturn the rights of a Christian baker to refuse a homosexual couple's patronage at his business then it also overturns the religious freedoms of those nice Jewish and Islamic caterers I was talking about and suddenly everyone is free to bitch and moan about not being served the bourbon barbecued pork ribs I was talking about that everyone seems to love at their parties until they serve them otherwise they all can sue. And the Islamic tattoo artist down the street can't refuse to serve me if I want a tattoo of Mohammad on my chest because he's discriminating against me and my choices. And that church across town has to have my cousin's wedding since they can't say no no matter if they're a Christian church and don't agree with her choice in her fiance Kendra because the church's religious beliefs don't matter to them and the church has pretty windows. The point being what's being dealt with now is a fundamental right in the Constitution. Let me emphasize that point, a fundamental INALIENABLE RIGHT to freedom of religion provided by the Constitution, now that's not to say Constitutional rights haven't been infringed upon before, hell that seems to be the modus operandi of most politicians these days. But if you cancel out an entire group of people's rights just to appease a more vocal group of people you're setting yourself up for years of litigation from both sides about every imagined or perceived injustice they can think of. If everyone would take a step back and just respect each other's rights the conflict would vanish. It's as simple as "I'm Christian I don't believe in what you're doing so you can't force me to spend my time and money providing you a service against my views" and the gay couple says "That's within your rights, we won't be frequenting this establishment anymore, consider us lost customers as well as us telling all our friends about this" then the baker says " That's your right as a customer good luck to you both finding another baker hopefully you and your friends lost patronage doesn't hurt my business to the point of bankruptcy but that's the risk I am taking for my beliefs" Then everyone ***** off to their own lives. But this is 2017 and everyone is an entitled sensitive easily offended pathetic bitch so that won't happen. Which is why what I said about changing the prices and quality of all of your cakes to drive away business is the solution to the problem because if everyone's getting ****** no one is getting discriminated against.

#115 to #113 - anon id: a3389f0e

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

muslims cant get tatooos though. We believe the bodies we have a loaned to us, and to be returned to the earth(buried, not cremated). Thats why any form of harm to the body is either unrecommended(makroh) or haram. Thats why no alcohol, no pork(some porks carry heat resistant parasites), no drugs etc.

So drawing on your body is also unrecommended, especially if its permanent

#117 to #115 - sassybaskets

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

Most people I've met don't follow their religions one hundred percent. Instead what I've seen from all the people I've met throughout my life is people picking and choosing which parts of their religion to follow while still claiming to be so and so religion. In the US the idea of an Islamic tattoo artist isn't that crazy to me, no more than a homosexual Christian, or a Jew who loves bacon.

#114 to #113 - JohnHimself

Reply-4

(12/14/2017)[-]

**JohnHimself used "*roll picture*"**
**JohnHimself rolled image**youre goddamn right all that stuff will happen, people will still have right, just not the right to discriminate based on bad belifs from some retarded old book.

#122 to #114 - sassybaskets

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

I feel they'll just find new innovative legal ways to follow their beliefs, such as just agreeing to bake the cake then charge them an exorbitant amount of money for it, while also doing an incredibly **** job on it. Setting the prices on their cakes in their shop to whatever price they damn well please and no one has any say but them on what quality their cakes have to be. Making sure to do it to all cakes so they can't scream discrimination then when they **** off to another bakery have a sale resetting the prices back to normal.

#143 to #122 - JohnHimself

Reply-7

(12/14/2017)[-]

more lawsuits for the bigots.

#159 to #143 - wertologist#245 on commentsRank#245

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

Nothing illegal about exercising the right to refuse service to anyone. Any decent lawyer can defend that right. Lawsuits won't do anything but hurt the instigator's wallet. A lawsuit can be filed over anything, but that doesn't mean they're notable. I could take you to court over you being an asshole, but it wouldn't go anywhere.

You know it's funny. You bitched about how everyone here is ignorant, but you don't even know our laws. That is literally the definition of ignorance.

ig·no·rance
ˈiɡnərəns/Submit
noun
lack of knowledge or information.

Not to say that ignorance is necessarily bad, but it escalates to delusion if you hear the information and continue to ignore it anyways.

de·lu·sion
dəˈlo͞oZHən/Submit
noun
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

#164 to #159 - JohnHimself

Reply-7

(12/14/2017)[-]

your discription of ignorance perfectly discribes the bigoted shop owner. further more, unlawful dicrimanation is taken very seriously in court.

#171 to #164 - wertologist#245 on commentsRank#245

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

>your discription of ignorance perfectly discribes the bigoted shop owner.

How so? They knew they were gay. Saying they didn't support their choice is not ignorance. They literally knew they were gay. That is literally not ignorance.

>further more, unlawful dicrimanation is taken very seriously in court.

But it's not unlawful. They have every right to say no. Both the freedom to practice their religion and the right to refuse service to anyone. They are perfectly legal in this. No matter how much you hate them for it, they've done nothing illegal. Just because you got salty doesn't mean it's illegal. Learn how our laws work before you try to pretend it works like yours. We have different laws than you. You've gone over ignorance on our laws and went straight to delusion. Multiple people have corrected you on how our laws work, but you still claim to know the laws on the subject.

You're claiming everyone is ignorant, but you were ignorant to our laws and are now in denial about how they function.

#172 to #171 - JohnHimself

Reply-6

(12/14/2017)[-]

**JohnHimself used "*roll picture*"**
**JohnHimself rolled image**yeah thats why homos are winning lawsuits left right and center.

#153 to #113 - JohnHimself

Reply-5

(12/14/2017)[-]

the courts majorly disagree ;)

#101 to #86 - pingun#154 on commentsRank#154

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

Or the homos could stop being faggots and order a normal non-dick cake.

#132 to #74 - wertologist#245 on commentsRank#245

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

>you could just not be an ignorant cunt

What did he say was "ignorant"? I saw nothing showing ignorance.

#144 to #132 - JohnHimself

Reply-6

(12/14/2017)[-]

then you can not see whats in front of your own nose for this is ignornace personifyied.

#146 to #144 - wertologist#245 on commentsRank#245

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

Sounds to be like you're just throwing words together and hoping they make sense and then acting like everyone is stupid for not seeing it. So, if it really is obvious then humor me. What is ignorant about what he said? If you can't answer, then you're full of ****.

#149 to #146 - JohnHimself

Reply-6

(12/14/2017)[-]

shop owner denies man cake because of who he chooses to loved based solely on the nonesesne in a old book, it is ignornace incarnate.

#154 to #149 - wertologist#245 on commentsRank#245

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

Click to show spoiler

First, I was specifically talking about sassybaskets comment since you said it was ignorant and doubled down on it by saying it was "ignorance personifyied". Second, the shop owner's decision was not of ignorance. In fact, he knew very well who they were as that is exactly why he declined them. It was intolerance. Not ignorance.

It's not even illegal either, despite your claim. Here in America, we actually have freedoms that you do not so it can be excused to a degree that you might not know that. Freedom of religion. You can practice your religion provided it doesn't hurt anyone or break any laws. Not baking a cake for someone you don't approve of is not illegal. Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. The only grey area on that revolves around race(which is a whole other issue anyways).

On a side note, you don't even know if the reason the baker did so stemmed from their religion. I've met non-religious people who hated gays. They could have just hated gays for any other reason. But by all means, try to use any excuse to tip your fedora and bitch about religion by acting superior.

#155 to #154 - JohnHimself

Reply-6

(12/14/2017)[-]

TLR i hate gays because of nonesense superstion

#156 to #155 - wertologist#245 on commentsRank#245

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

So you are the type to act on assumptions. Not that you probably will even respond to this, but what part of anything I said indicates that I hate gay people? Get off your high horse and actually tackle some of these questions rather than run and hide like a bitch.

#158 to #156 - JohnHimself

Reply-7

(12/14/2017)[-]

TL: DR gay people have less rights than normals.

ya know they said this about black people once..

#161 to #158 - wertologist#245 on commentsRank#245

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

Where did I say they have less rights? Are you daft? Show me where I even implied that anywhere in any of my comments. You've blown past ignorance and went full blown retarded.

#162 to #161 - JohnHimself

Reply-7

(12/14/2017)[-]

you've been pretty clear you support this bigot shop owner over these people that just wanted a cake.

#165 to #162 - wertologist#245 on commentsRank#245

Reply+3

(12/14/2017)[-]

Because they had every right to do so. If gay people opened up a bakery and said they wouldn't service religious people, I'd defend the gay bakers too. I'm all for equal rights. They have equal right to exclude anyone they want. It's their business. If their business hurts due to their choices then the free market has done its job. If you don't like a business or it's decisions, then don't support them until they change. That's what the free market is all about. Run your business how you want. If the way you want to run it makes your business do poorly, then you only have yourself to blame.

I'd still like you to show me where I said or even implied that gay people had fewer rights. You specifically claimed that so I'm asking you to provide proof that I said or even implied that. If you can't, then you're full of ****.

#168 to #165 - helterskeleton

Reply-3

(12/14/2017)[-]

And in such a scenario where the gay bakers deny service to the christians, you'd still be wrong in defending the gay bakers.
Civil rights act of 1964, bitch

#167 to #165 - JohnHimself

Reply-8

(12/14/2017)[-]

no you are full of ****, and these people have no right discriminate based on race, sexual orientation or religion for that matter, its unlawful and damn right unconstatoinal.

#176 to #74 - kalaark

Reply-2

(12/14/2017)[-]

Prove the Bible teaches that.

Or are you upset that the Bible records history?

#180 to #176 - JohnHimself

Reply-3

(12/14/2017)[-]

Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

#239 to #180 - kalaark

Reply-2

(12/14/2017)[-]

So the parts about how Christians are no longer bound to the old law, and that if you follow any part of the old law then you're already condemned to death, because all the law does is condemn... You just kinda skimmed over those parts? Or are you just not honest enough to learn what he Bible actually teaches?

I asked what the Bible TEACHES. The Old Law is a recording of history, it's the historical law for people who lived thousands of years ago. That's not what the Bible teaches us to do. What the Bible teaches us to do is reach out with love and a message of salvation, that even as we were once sinners and were saved by the blood of Christ, so too can anyone be. And that since the salvation of Christ is a gift given to us freely, we can't boast for having it (think of ourselves superior than anyone else, for example). That no one is exempt from salvation.

#244 to #239 - JohnHimself

Reply-3

(12/14/2017)[-]

thats from the new testement idiot.

#296 to #244 - kalaark

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

The New Testament? You mean the Bible?

#262 to #244 - Scubasage

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

...Leviticus is old testament, not new.

#284 to #262 - JohnHimself

Reply-1

(12/14/2017)[-]

well im holding a copy of of the new testament in my hands and its right here on page 271 so what gives?

#285 to #284 - Scubasage

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

Are you sure you only have the new testament or do you just have a bible? Cause the bible has both the old and the new testaments in it.

#286 to #285 - JohnHimself

Reply-1

(12/14/2017)[-]

just new testament its in david secton right before the part that says homos may never enter heaven.

#291 to #286 - Scubasage

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

The "David section"? I don't think you have a copy of the new testament at all lol

#292 to #291 - JohnHimself

Reply-1

(12/14/2017)[-]

says right on front new testament, its a small version and i got it from a bnb, i dident steal it they were free to take.

#36 - thebombshell

Reply+18

(12/14/2017)[-]

There are 2 sides to the issue, both of which I sympathize with.

You should be able to run your business however you wish so long as it is in a legal capacity.
You should be able to access services however you wish so long as it is in a legal capacity.

Here in lies the complexity of the problem, it's hard to disagree with either of these, however the argument could be made that the christian values are a belief whilst the gay is a genetic condition.
Blanketing the argument helps no one, actually considering the conditions which lead to this argument and the matters which it concerns is notably more difficult but also why it is worth considering.

Are personal liberties more important than professional liberties? How should conditions of birth be considered along conditions of belief? When should accomodation of conditions be limited; at personal objection, professional objection, belief based objection, etc? Is it fair to pursue dissenting beliefs if that belief can be reasonably disproven? etc. etc. etc.

#56 to #36 - baconweasel

Reply+8

(12/14/2017)[-]

You are over complicating the matter. A gay couple can still legally be united by a "civil marriage", which doesn't require any religious authority to complete.

They are being denied the privilege of having a cake done specifically by a privately owned and run, non-corporation, christian bakery. There are plenty of bakeries that can and will complete their order, they just insist on that one because they want to make a name for themselves.

If a cake was legally necessary to be married to one another, which is a legal right, THEN it would be a problem.

#59 to #56 - thebombshell

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

I feel I need to bring this up often, but bear in mind, legal precedent is law there is next to no distinction in future legal discourse. This is why the issue can not simply be christians vs gays, I'm pretty sure any lawyer worth their salt will not present a case to the judge of the note "christians hate gays" and expect it to be accepted.

However from a legal standpoint concerns of consumer rights can be raised, the counter to this is the rights of private enterprise, and so on from there. The legal ramifications of this will depend on these arguments, potentially supported by discussion of rights to practice religion or persecution of beliefs.

Saving a ramble, the end result is not as simple as gays vs christians, its effect on law will certainly be more complicated, and so the discussion of the issue deserves as much prudence.

#119 to #59 - baconweasel

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

If you want to argue legal standpoints, I suggest you mention that you wish to discuss the matter with someone who has experience in legal matters of this nature. I speak in a manner of logic and reasoning, which is often not present in legal matters for the purpose of manipulating wording and context in favor of one's client. That's the job of a lawyer.

Simply put, in non-legal wording, a wedding cake, and the creation of said wedding cake, is not a necessity to life, nor even necessary to the ceremonial act upon which it is based, nor is it necessary for the completion of a legal civil marriage.

Also, as a bonus touch up, what is being denied here is a specific service, not a product. The owner offered them literally anything else in the store, except his service to construct, specifically, a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage.

#220 to #119 - thebombshell

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

To argue law is not logic is certainly a silly thing, are you aware of the reasonings of law?

A judge is educated in rule of law and is trusted to make judgement based on the verdict of the jury, respectfully, the defendant's peers. These peers are expected to represent society at large, their power to determine the legality of a case is intended to allow rule of law to change with the values of the society. Legal precedent as a rule of law is put in place as a means of reaching a point where all men are treated equal, if sam killed bob and got 10 years, then when jim kills frank, he should also get 10 years.

Now over time this process has gotten very extremely complicated, but I feel it necessary to point out on top of all of this the lawyers isn't there because its their job, whilst the individual lawyer may be, the lawyer is part of the legal process and is required by law to represent someone within that someone's interest, the case for this being NO ONE DESERVES A ONE SIDED TRIAL, not even hitler. If a case can be made for the persons actions being legitimate, or the case can be made that the actions were never taken, it should be, in fact for the sake of legal prudence and the good of law, it must be.

#331 to #220 - baconweasel

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

And once again, you over complicate things.

I said "often not present", not "doesn't exist at all". A judge and/or jury has no effect on whether the text of a specific law exhibits logic and reasoning. To put it simply, a law may not have any logic or reasoning behind it, but a judge and/or jury MAY apply logic and reasoning to their verdict based on that. The keyword being MAY. They don't have to.

A lawyers job is simply to attempt to achieve the desired result in a trial for their client, on the basis that they are paid to do it. No pay means no representation, and lawyers that are automatically appointed are paid for by taxpayers, so they are still being paid to do something. That's why people have a love/hate relationship with them. They represent families and people in need, but also people like Al Capone.

#78 to #36 - Ruspanic

Reply+4

(12/14/2017)[-]

I disagree with your second statement.
You're not entitled to other people's services. You should be able to access legal services however you wish only if the provider of those services agrees to provide them.

#222 to #78 - thebombshell

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

You're free to disagree, but others disagree with you, there in lies the jurisdiction of law who is right and who is wrong and what determines that rightness or wrongness in the society at large.

#227 to #222 - Ruspanic

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

Well... yeah, you could say that about literally any political opinion.
If I disagree with the status quo or with a particular popular opinion, then I guess I just have to vote for what I believe in and try to convince others to take my stance.

#49 to #36 - laclosa

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

I feel if it's a necessity you shouldn't be able to get turned down by a business for your own sexual orientation, that's just autistic. However with like the bakery it's super ****** they turn down gays but it's not like they can't find another bakery or something online, it's just a ******** inconvenience.

Really stupid everything gets blown out of the water if it's a little controversial, like **** if you're denied treatment at hospitals then that's a real outrage but getting denied a specified cake of your own design that just sucks but not like you can't solve the issue by going elsewhere

#66 to #49 - heartbleed

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

This is far fetched but what's stopping all bakeries in the entire state from just being like "Yeah we don't serve gays"
What's the alternative then?
Or what if it's the only business of it's kind in the area?

#70 to #66 - laclosa

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

That's why I mentioned online, you can get almost anything delivered with privacy of your own personal life and privacy of no one knowing what you're getting

I get your point and yea that's a very real possibility but still at least in America I'm considering the freedom aspect here when it comes to your own personal business or your own life, can't just make it illegal to say no since that's stripping away your freedom. It's a tricky situation like bombshell said but in reality there is no black or white answer, you just have to weight what's being traded for whatever in these situations and sometimes there are just things not worth giving up because people are douchebags to others it's sad but I mean I'd prefer to get refused service a few tims because I like men or something rather than for the rest of my life I have to do anything anyone asks no matter what just because I have to have a job to actually live in this **** hole while trading anything that actually makes me me.

I really do wish people weren't like this but it happens and there's nothing more we can really do about this than keep the freedom of choice actually free

#75 to #70 - heartbleed

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

I think you should have the freedom of choice as long as you aren't restricting other peoples freedom of choice, if you want people to be truly free.

#77 to #75 - laclosa

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

Every good person wishes for that but like I said you'd still be losing freedom either way, just one is the freedom of every single person while the other is those select groups that the ****** people may dislike and refuse

#43 to #36 - Enternal

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

Is it not still under debate that it is genetic?
is there a 'gay test' in the near future?

#50 to #43 - thebombshell

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

You can debate it but there has been sufficient evidence now to consider it at pre-birth condition, whether that's genetic or other factors is debatable, needless to say though I'm not so versed in this as to start a lecture

#54 to #50 - Enternal

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

Well I looked at a study for it (Only ONE study mind you, there have been many)
But I read that all the people pulled in the study were males of similar height, age, and weight, so the genetic similarity they found in that particular study was kinda suspect, given that all those they tested were so similar already, in more ways than all being gay.

But that was the only one I have personally read, as far as I know it could be true, but it seems highly suspect and that it is to push an agenda. I dont think people shouldn suffer for being gay mind you, I see nothing wrong with it myself, but in my opinion the christians at the bakery were justified

#30 - JohnHimself

Reply-25

(12/14/2017)[-]

**JohnHimself used "*roll picture*"**
**JohnHimself rolled image**if those beleifs and based on ignorance and hatred then yes it does.

#32 to #30 - MuahahaOfLore#16 on contentRank#16 [OP]

Reply+18

(12/14/2017)[-]

1 replies hidden: Please view thread directly to view.

#278 to #32 - anon id: 0194fded

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

I know you don't know much about U.S. constitution or law, but any publicly registered business, you know like a bakery, are not allowed to discriminate against protected classes, you know like homosexuals. Thats the law. Also stop being so gullible/dumb by spreading uncited fake news. You make this website worse.

#282 to #278 - MuahahaOfLore#16 on contentRank#16 [OP]

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

sexuality is not a protected classification Jackass

#294 to #282 - anon id: 0194fded

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

YES IT IS DUMBASS. It not the same grounds as Race, religion etc therefor doesn't apply in terms of EMPLOYMENT. Sexual orientation is a semi-protected class and the protection does apply in this instance. Also, since you replied to me, mind giving me the sources and citations on the content you posted? You know, the one filled with made up facts?

#301 to #294 - MuahahaOfLore#16 on contentRank#16 [OP]

Reply-1

(12/14/2017)[-]

Strict Scrutiny- Race, National Origin, Religion, Disability
Intermediate Scrutiny- Sex
Rational Basis- Ideas

Sauce- Human Resource Undergrad, and Law Degree

#33 to #32 - JohnHimself

Reply-11

(12/14/2017)[-]

1 replies hidden: Please view thread directly to view.

#44 to #30 - northkoreanguy#204 on commentsRank#204

Reply+10

(12/14/2017)[-]

A privately-owned company can do whatever the hell it wants.
So using your logic, Google's way of silencing dissenting opinions on the "Google Manifesto" author are ignorant and hateful.

#47 to #44 - JohnHimself

Reply-16

(12/14/2017)[-]

**JohnHimself used "*roll picture*"**
**JohnHimself rolled image**your logic is flawed because you are with out context, what the opinoin is matters quite alot.

#224 to #47 - northkoreanguy#204 on commentsRank#204

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

**northkoreanguy used "*roll picture*"**
**northkoreanguy rolled image**"what the opinoin is matters quite alot"

apology, I dont english.

#226 to #224 - JohnHimself

Reply-2

(12/14/2017)[-]

you are forgiven.

#230 to #226 - northkoreanguy#204 on commentsRank#204

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

ah, that was quite mannerly.

#242 to #230 - JohnHimself

Reply-1

(12/14/2017)[-]

**JohnHimself used "*roll picture*"**
**JohnHimself rolled image**

#243 to #242 - northkoreanguy#204 on commentsRank#204

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

>E ******* A

No thanks.

#245 to #243 - JohnHimself

Reply-2

(12/14/2017)[-]

**JohnHimself used "*roll picture*"**
**JohnHimself rolled image**

#37 to #30 - thebombshell

Reply+4

(12/14/2017)[-]

ignorance and hatred here meaning a disagreeing view, which is a dangerous precedent to be set, ths issue is not simply "christians hate faggots" this is a more complicated argument one manner of which you overlook is that of 2 upstanding ideals, the right to access services and the right to control of private enterprise, the ramifications of this argument is turned to piss if you simply sum it up to "ignorance" rather than a legitimate concern of whether or not law should uphold the right to practice this belief and if so or if not, to what extent such tollerances are to be set.

#42 to #37 - JohnHimself

Reply-12

(12/14/2017)[-]

no thats simply wrong, the reason these people couldent get their cake is because an old book says being gay is as bad as murder. its complete ********.

#48 to #42 - thebombshell

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

"an old book" not like its the single most influential piece of literature in the western world and for better or for worse has steered the culture and development of culture in the western world.

You may doubt it from how I'm approaching this issue but I'm actually firmly of the belief that the gays should be allowed their cake, but the matter stands that the issue is not simply "christians hate faggots"
Seeing the issue so plainly only does the whole argument a disservice, you're failing to consider the legitimate legal ramifications of a ruling on the issue.

Bearing in mind legal precedent IS law and while I neither bake cakes, nor am of a condition which might deny me cakes, I'm not so foolish as to let an issue being raised in upstanding courts of law be discussed in the same manner I discuss the ramifications of a hanzo main.

#52 to #48 - JohnHimself

Reply-9

(12/14/2017)[-]

im not saying the bible is all bad their is alot of wisdom and morals in there, at the same time hitler loved dogs and did alot of charity work but that doesnt make he's political veiws correct.

#46 to #42 - kurtlanglie#56 on commentsRank#56

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

No, the reason the couple didn't get their cake is because the person they went to to make it for them said that he didn't want to because it went against his beliefs.

It is his right to do what he wants. I don't personally agree with the decision but to say that he should be forced to conduct his business in a different way that he wants because of a moral reason is unacceptable. That is literally saying that we should legislate morality which is both impossible and unethical.

#51 to #46 - JohnHimself

Reply-11

(12/14/2017)[-]

no the real reason they dident get their cake is becuase god says gays are as bad as murders and should be stoned to death, fact. seeing as these beleafs are based on ignorance and hatered i think its quite acceptable.

#53 to #51 - kurtlanglie#56 on commentsRank#56

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

Alright, so it's hateful and ignorant. So what? It's not against the law to hate someone and it's not against the law to be ignorant. This may come as a shock to you but policing people's thoughts is wrong.

#55 to #53 - JohnHimself

Reply-9

(12/14/2017)[-]

your logic is flawed because you are with out context, what the opinoin is matters quite alot. also were talking about actions not thoughts.

#58 to #55 - kurtlanglie#56 on commentsRank#56

Reply+3

(12/14/2017)[-]

If we are talking about actions and not thoughts, then the motivation for not serving the gay couple does not matter, because the reason for not serving them is due to a thought.

If we are talking about the action and not the thought, then it boils down to a shop owner exercising his right to not serve customers.

If we are talking about the action and not the thought, then it is immoral to punish an individual for exercising his rights.

Do you see what you're saying?

#62 to #58 - JohnHimself

Reply-8

(12/14/2017)[-]

nice analogy, lets apply it to the islamic terrorists that blow them selves up, see once again you are lacking context. what is the reason he exerises this right, because of someones skin color? the shoes they wear? a child murderer? context matters some reasons are exceptable others are a hate crime, and some are just redicoulus.

this baker refuses gay man his cake, he denies them their life.

terrorist blows himself up and kills people, he denies them their life. where do you draw the line?

#64 to #62 - kurtlanglie#56 on commentsRank#56

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

We are not talking about islamic terrorists. We are talking about the shop owner who refused to serve a gay couple their cake because it was against his beliefs.

It is his right to do so. It is not against the law to refuse a patron of your business for any reason. It is also not against the law to hold hateful beliefs of anyone for any reason. Neither of these aspects of this event are against the law, and the two of them together is not, either. Hating someone is NOT A CRIME. If you want to prosecute people for what they THINK, you are in favor of THOUGHT POLICING. Do you understand?

>This baker refuses gay man his cake, he denies him their life
>Terrorist blows himself up and kills people, he denies them their life.

What on EARTH are you talking about? Are you seriously conflating an actual murderous terrorist attack with a couple not getting a cake? Those two are not comparable outside of the motivation behind the two being discriminatory beliefs against homosexuals.

#71 to #64 - JohnHimself

Reply-8

(12/14/2017)[-]

you are wrong, a shop owner can not refuse someone based on ethnicity as it is a hate crime and punishable by law.

the terrorist and the shop keeper are not comparable, they are the exact same, one simply follows their old book more closely.

#87 to #71 - kurtlanglie#56 on commentsRank#56

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

What is the crime? Tell me what law he violated.

Again, it is not against the law to hate someone. It is also not against the law to refuse service to someone. Refusing to serve someone because you hate them is not a crime, either.

Show me what law he violated other than whatever thought crime you think hes guilty of.

#99 to #87 - brainbug

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

The Civil Rights Act is the violated law I believe.
I agree that it's an unjust law, but it's a law nonetheless.

#104 to #99 - kurtlanglie#56 on commentsRank#56

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

No, the Civil Rights Act, "...prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodations and provides injunctive relief for such violations"

civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-you...

Particularly, PUBLIC accommodations are defined as such:
Courthouses
Libraries
Post offices
Benefit programs (i.e., welfare services)

Anything else does not qualify

civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-...

#116 to #104 - brainbug

has deleted their comment [-]

#112 to #104 - kurtlanglie#56 on commentsRank#56

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

I just read this page further and I misread the part about defining public accommodations. I read the latter examples given in the second link to be separate from the first part, and not a separate classification of such. I was wrong about that.

However, my point still stands anyway because it does not include sexual orientation in the list of discrimination grounds.

#88 to #87 - JohnHimself

Reply-4

(12/14/2017)[-]

its called unlawful discremination look it up.

#89 to #88 - kurtlanglie#56 on commentsRank#56

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

No, those laws apply to unlawful employment discrimination based on race, sex, age, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs. They have no bearing whatsoever outside the context of the workplace, nor should they.

I told you to show me what law he violated and you haven't done it. You claim he's done something illegal and you can't prove it.

#90 to #89 - JohnHimself

Reply-4

(12/14/2017)[-]

yes they do, shop keeper can not refuse service based on race, sexual orientation or religioun funily enough.

#91 to #90 - kurtlanglie#56 on commentsRank#56

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

Prove it. Show me a law that states he must serve everyone no matter what.

#92 to #91 - JohnHimself

Reply-5

(12/14/2017)[-]

not everyone.. you even paying attention? he can refuse drunk or if some guy is just a cunt. but not becuase of any of those 3 things other wise is unlawful discremination and see you in court.

#93 to #92 - kurtlanglie#56 on commentsRank#56

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

Fine, let me specify. Show me a law that says he must serve homosexuals no matter what.

#95 to #93 - JohnHimself

Reply-3

(12/14/2017)[-]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-a...

#110 to #95 - brainbug

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

We all know that the British don't have the right to freedom of association, he's asking you to show how Americans don't have the right to freedom of association.

#98 to #95 - kurtlanglie#56 on commentsRank#56

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

I don't know if you're trolling or just stupid, but we are talking about United States law, not UK law, as this event took place in the USA.

#100 to #98 - JohnHimself

-4

(12/14/2017)[-]

its same for us, gays are winning lawsuits left right and center.

#34 to #30 - constructivechaos

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

come on man, yes most gays are ignorant of what they are doing and are spitefully vindictive towards anyone who disagrees with the mental disorder they call a life choice, but you're being a little harsh.

#39 to #34 - JohnHimself

Reply-6

(12/14/2017)[-]

youre looking at this with the mindset of a backward savage, focus on science, a hole is hole, whether it is a mental illness, chemical inbalance or brainwashing by the jews, if people do not harm or infinge on the liberty of others then they should be accepted and respected not demonized because of superstion.

#41 to #39 - WutsAtroll

Reply+3

(12/14/2017)[-]

Why do you hate proper punctuation so much? this was annoying to read.

#45 to #41 - JohnHimself

Reply-7

(12/14/2017)[-]

i never attended school not even really sure what punctuation means, sorry my writing is bad.

#207 to #45 - WutsAtroll

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

you said beliefs based on ignorance should be disregarded and now you're saying you were never educated and don't even know things as basic as punctuation. Should we disregard everything you say since it all comes from ignorance?

#210 to #207 - JohnHimself

Reply-3

(12/14/2017)[-]

Do what ever you think is right, however i think context is very important. while my writing is bad and probably barely readable, i do my best, and do not infringe apon the liberty or hate those who have good writing, and while people who were more fortunate with their education are much better at writing than me, for someone who taught their self to read and write i think i do ok.

#38 - whenindoubtsplooge

Reply+14

(12/14/2017)[-]

**** em if they wanna play that **** head to a muslim bakery and demand they paint Mohammad on your cake, Law is onelawfitsall anyhow

#272 - vinskinator

Reply+13

(12/14/2017)[-]

IMO, Religious people should be able to turn away all the business their retarded believes tell them to.

That's part of the beauty of capitalism. It discourages prejudice because it limits financial gain.

That said, the content has several verifiably false claims like the distance (10miles from where they lived, not 120....) and number of bakeries ********. good job spreading lies OP

#280 to #272 - pointblankhits

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

Just fags being fags

and your just a **** cunt being "euphoric"

#344 to #280 - vinskinator

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

Not sure what about my comment makes me "euphoric" buddy, but okay

#323 to #280 - juuru

Reply+1

(12/14/2017)[-]

we're all assholes here, it's ok to be an asshole in your own way
cunt

#60 - nexdemise#492 on commentsRank#492

Reply+13

(12/14/2017)[-]

Well the question is does the first amendment give you the right to discriminate in business, and really how far it goes.

This lawsuit originally happened under Colorado state law which states you cannot discriminate on basis of sexual orientation. Now, if you invalidated one protected class then what stops us from tossing the entire civil rights act out the window?

#81 to #60 - Ruspanic

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

Setting aside whether the existence of anti-discrimination laws and "protected classes" is justified, I'd make a distinction between refusing to serve a particular class of people (such as gay people), and refusing to provide a particular specified service. Especially a customized service. In this case the couple asked for a custom wedding cake for their gay wedding. To a person who opposes gay marriage, wouldn't making such a custom cake be tantamount to directly contributing to something you oppose?
I don't think that's the same as generally denying services to gay people. It's not the same as if the couple had asked for a birthday cake and been refused because they were gay.

#111 to #81 - nexdemise#492 on commentsRank#492

Reply+3

(12/14/2017)[-]

Possibly but if you don't like black people then wouldn't providing any kind of a service to a black customer be directly contributing to something you oppose?

What if you belong to some sect that thinks that Hitler was the second coming of Christ and overall it's an insult to your religion Clerance Thomas hasn't recused himself.

This is kinda why I think religious and personal belief services are total ********. You should've checked what's up when you applied for a business license.

#121 to #111 - Ruspanic

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

tbh I view anti-discrimination laws as a necessary evil that I'll support only to the extent that they remain necessary. So only if they're demonstrably needed to prevent large-scale discrimination or inequality. If discrimination against a given class is rare enough in society that it doesn't significantly impact their lives, then laws banning that kind of discrimination aren't needed.

On principle, racist business-owners should be legally allowed to deny service to black people, because on principle a business is your private property and no one is entitled to the goods or services you provide. Just because racists are bad people doesn't mean we should restrict their rights to their own labor and property.
I know some conservatives like to make the "religious freedom" argument, but I don't care about that. I'd support the bakery's right to refuse to make a gay wedding cake even if the owners were atheists.

#372 to #60 - YllekNayr

Reply0

(12/15/2017)[-]

"Now, if you invalidated one protected class then what stops us from tossing the entire civil rights act out the window?"

You do realize this group of Funnyjunk users have specifically and directly said that they would prefer we threw out the entire civil rights act?

I mean literally. Repeatedly. Seen people say that businesses should be able to discriminate based on race, religion, and sexuality.

It really ******* disappoints me.

#380 to #372 - nexdemise#492 on commentsRank#492

Reply0

(12/15/2017)[-]

I'm glad the average moron isn't a justice on the Supreme Court, but the bar is kinda falling and rolling away.

#102 to #60 - pingun#154 on commentsRank#154

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

You have a right to give or not.give services all you want.

1St ammendment goes for speech and stuff

#109 to #102 - nexdemise#492 on commentsRank#492

Reply+4

(12/14/2017)[-]

Then you do have the Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Immigration Reform and Control Act, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and a whole lot of other laws that state you may not discriminate based upon some characteristic.

In this case the baker did violate Colorado law which states you may not discriminate on sexual orientation which he did, the disqualifying factor was that the potential customers are gay.

It's all just a huge slippery slope because if you decide that first amendment gives you the right to discriminate then where does it end? How much can you discriminate? Can you make up a religion on the spot to discriminate against an individual? How does that hold up to the Lemon test? Etc etc.

The easiest way for the court to get out of it would be that states may create additional protected classes and religion doesn't give you the right to discriminate. So basically crawl out the window and let the ruling of the state courts stand.

#134 - altreich

Reply+10

(12/14/2017)[-]

So Ive heard about vegan cafe about 100 miles from me, its despicable they say they want to serve everybody but they wont serve me meat which is such a huge part of who I am. I think we should ruin the cafe owners life because clearly why should i have to suffer if i ever decide to go two cities across in order to get meat from a place that doesnt serve it.

This argument wouldnt fly so why does theirs?

#175 to #134 - JohnHimself

Reply-6

(12/14/2017)[-]

So Ive heard about ferrari dealership about 100 miles from me, its despicable they say they want to serve everybody but they wont serve me porche which is such a huge part of who I am. I think we should ruin the dealership owners life because clearly why should i have to suffer if i ever decide to go two cities across in order to get porche from a place that doesnt serve it.

This argument wouldnt fly beacause its nonsesne and so is yours.

#215 to #175 - altreich

Reply+2

(12/14/2017)[-]

You do realise that that is the point of my comment? I wouldnt put someone out of business because they dont cater to me, id go somewhere else where they so cater to me

#217 to #215 - JohnHimself

Reply-4

(12/14/2017)[-]

the problem is youre completly wrong because in this situation, you have gone to the meat which they have plenty of but will not give you shop and they will not give you because an old book says your no good.

#300 to #217 - altreich

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

And to you that old book means nothing, but to that man it is the word of his God, the one who he believes he owes himself too, therefore he owns his own convictions and lives in a country where he is free to practice said convictions

#302 to #300 - JohnHimself

Reply-1

(12/14/2017)[-]

while ive no time for fools and their imaginary friends, if beliveing that rubbish helps them sleep at night then i could care less, that is until their delusions infringe apon the liberty of others, which in this case they have.

if your convictions are to hate and scorn good, innocent people for no good reason other than it says to in some old book chock full of nonesense then i will not respect them, and you should seriously consider revaluating them.

#305 to #302 - altreich

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

But this guy didnt infringe on the liberty of others, as the post describes these people went out of there way to find this man in order that may cause controversy.

The man runs his own business therefore it should be at his disrection what kind of cakes he makes and what kind he doesnt, he didn't refuse to sell them anything, however he refused to make a flamboyant cake

#310 to #305 - JohnHimself

Reply-1

(12/14/2017)[-]

when he refused these these people he may aswell have shouted "allah akbar" whether he knows it or not, these are hateful delusions, simple as that. he was too good to make a wang cake for these nice gay people because some stupid old book says he is better than them.

#320 to #310 - altreich

Reply0

(12/14/2017)[-]

Oh i see you are one of those edgy types who hates christians

#322 to #320 - JohnHimself

Reply-1

(12/14/2017)[-]

i do not hate them, but i do hate there intolarnce of good people for ******* reasons, and i dont respect them, or anyone else that needs an imaginary friend to tell them wrong from right.