"We serve only Born Again Christians"

[Guard dad]

Your constitutional rights, do not entitle you to take rights away from others; especially if denying service places an undue burden on the customer. Just like it was wrong to deny service to the police, this is equally as wrong.

There are laws that cover discrimination by public utilities.

 

 

A bakery, printer, etc doesn't fall into that category.

God loves gays.

Yes He does. God loves everyone!

[LPPT]

I am thinking this is the dark side of the wishy-washy libertarian we keep hearing about. It sounds pretty firm on discrimination to me!

[icare]

 

Just not NFL players, Black Lives Matter,ANTIFA and those GD'ed Liberals.

 

Or, college students whose liberal college professors disagree with their response to a piece of literature in a reader response paper.

 

Yes, I returned to college in my early 40's and I wrote a response paper after reading The Mysterious Stranger by Mark Twain. I received a 0 on this paper because my liberal professor did not agree with my response. My response was based on my Christian beliefs regarding the mysterious stranger, Satan. The professor certainly didn't like or agree with what I said. In fact, he wrote me a page and a half response of his own. I went to the top and appealed the grade and won. I received an A on the paper. Imagine how many times this happens to young students right out of high school that are afraid to buck the system. It infuriates me...

 

One more thing....this didn't happen at Berkley, this happened at KSU right here in Cobb County, Georgia where a majority of the professors spew their liberal rhetoric every.single.day.

Edited October 13, 2017 by icare

[LPPT]

 

 

Cain, I'm getting really tired of your personal attacks.

 

LPPT - I think I'm older than you are, so yes I remember. Legislation was necessary in areas such as public schools refusing black students and public utilities making them sit on the back of the bus. The rest of the change has come from education and change of heart, not laws.

 

Condoning freedom is not condoning hatred. In fact, it's the lack of freedom that often fosters hatred.

I think you are wrong about the change of heart. Without the law, black people would have been allowed true freedom. We were kids when some of the lynchings and riots happened. I remember being taken out of school when busing started, just another word for desegregation. I remember when my grandmother drove her black maid home. I sat in the front and she sat in the back. Not out of personal disrespect but because both of them simply accepted that it was the way things were done. Funny thing, the maid was more financially secure than my grandmother. She owned her own home and it was paid for.

 

We passed the projects daily on our way home, They were constantly torn up. The black people that had their own homes kept them up. You see the black people hated the circumstances that put them in housing. Things got worse after desegregation. Retaliation was in the form of lack of employment and fair pay for the blacks.

 

Many retaliated by taking every dime they could get from the system to educate themselves and their children.

Others turned to drugs and alcohol.

 

The white folks were horrified at their children being bused to black schools. They were run down to the point that many parents thought they were unsafe and both races feared retribution on black and white students alike. My parents moved from the city to avoid the violence that was a daily occurrence in schools.

 

There is no such thing as separate and equal. It was the law that put us side by side, up close and personal for us to see it was just skin pigment that truly made us believe we are so different.

 

You are not allowed to hate them for their color nowadays but you are allowed to hate them for their politics.

There is not really that much difference

Frankly, it is still all right to hate on gays too. My son went to private church school. They could not refer to their rear ends as butts but could use gay as an insult.

[CitizenCain]

During the 1900's there was a very successful black community in Tulsa Oklahoma so successful in fact whites were jealous and the KKK sought to put an end to it. They accused a young black man of raping a white woman an excuse used many times before and since. The next day 300 lay dead and the town was burned to the ground.

 

 

 

1921 Tulsa Race Riot

One of the most significant events in Tulsa’s history was the Race Riot that occurred in 1921. Following World War I, Tulsa boasted one of the most affluent African American communities in the country, known as the Greenwood District. This thriving business district and surrounding residential area was referred to as “Black Wall Street.” In June of 1921, a series of events nearly destroyed the entire Greenwood area.

http://tulsahistory.org/learn/online-exhibits/the-tulsa-race-riot/

Edited October 13, 2017 by CitizenCain

[LPPT]

During the 1900's there was a very successful black community in Tulsa Oklahoma so successful in fact whites were jealous and the KKK sought to put an end to it. They accused a young black man of raping a white woman an excuse used many times before and since. The next day 300 lay dead and the town burned to the ground.

 

 

 

1921 Tulsa Race Riot

One of the most significant events in Tulsa’s history was the Race Riot that occurred in 1921. Following World War I, Tulsa boasted one of the most affluent African American communities in the country, known as the Greenwood District. This thriving business district and surrounding residential area was referred to as “Black Wall Street.” In June of 1921, a series of events nearly destroyed the entire Greenwood area.

http://tulsahistory.org/learn/online-exhibits/the-tulsa-race-riot/

They don't teach that in history classes. Learning about this affected me deeply and changed how I see black and white people. We are mean to all non-whites and have been throughout history. The fact that this is still not part of the curriculum in high school speaks volumes about white privilege. It exists and is so part of the norm that white people can't recognize it.

[mrshoward]

This is a matter of first amendment Constitutional law... not racism.

 

See the link on page one...

 

[CitizenCain]

This is a matter of first amendment Constitutional law... not racism.

 

See the link on page one...

 

 

You can dress this pig up all you like but it's not that hard to see it for what it is.

 

President Donald Trump on Friday became the first sitting president to address the Values Voter Summit, an event sponsored by the Family Research Council, a group known for its anti-LGBTQ views.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-becomes-first-sitting-president-143936635.html

[TJB]

 

You can dress this pig up all you like but it's not that hard to see it for what it is.

 

President Donald Trump on Friday became the first sitting president to address the Values Voter Summit, an event sponsored by the Family Research Council, a group known for its anti-LGBTQ views.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-becomes-first-sitting-president-143936635.html

Someone bereft of values addressing the Values Voters Summitt; how ironic, or par for the course.

[CitizenCain]

They don't teach that in history classes. Learning about this affected me deeply and changed how I see black and white people. We are mean to all non-whites and have been throughout history. The fact that this is still not part of the curriculum in high school speaks volumes about white privilege. It exists and is so part of the norm that white people can't recognize it.

 

From the days of Jim Crow and until this very day we have waged systematic State Sponsored and State approved terrorism on our own people. We can deny it, ignore it or tell ourselves it doesn't exist but the body count of unarmed men and women tells a different story.

Edited October 13, 2017 by CitizenCain

[TJB]

They don't teach that in history classes. Learning about this affected me deeply and changed how I see black and white people. We are mean to all non-whites and have been throughout history. The fact that this is still not part of the curriculum in high school speaks volumes about white privilege. It exists and is so part of the norm that white people can't recognize it.

I guess black people should just get over what is still happening to them today. This is less than 100 years ago, a mere blip in terms of history and if people can't understand the anger in the black community, they do so because they don't care. Plain and simple.

[Guard dad]

Two questions/comments to the lefties here regarding the article linked below:

1-How do you feel about this refusal of service?

 

2-This is the attitude you who are hating on the cops and condoning the protests are fueling



http://www.heralddemocrat.com/news/20171014/police-officers-refused-service-at-denison-whataburger

[CitizenCain]

Two questions/comments to the lefties here regarding the article linked below:

 

"lefties" .

[gpatt0n]

There are laws that cover discrimination by public utilities.

 

 

A bakery, printer, etc doesn't fall into that category.

Yes He does. God loves everyone!

 

Actually, their business offers their goods and services to the public and they are a public accommodation and covered by the civil rights laws. This is established law.

 

Let me ask you this. If this same bakery had the contract, say, to provide all cakes ordered by Kroger and the order came in for this as part of a contract that not only requires them to bake all the wedding cakes for Kroger but also constitutes half their business, what would the manager of the Kroger store do if they refused the work? Would he cancel the entire contract for breech?

 

Or what if the baker had worked at a commercial bakery overseeing a production line that made twinkies and he realized that some gays would stick a candle in the twinkies as a special testament of their love and because that meme caught on, sales of twinkies went up 20 percent, would that baker be justified in not increasing production because 'he knew' that gays were celebrating gay sex over those twinkies?

 

The obvious answer is that if the person were so inclined that the act of commerce undertaken was a religious violation of their morals, they have a choice and part of that choice is they would likely be required to sacrifice their job to remain true to their religious belief.

 

Similiarly, the local baker refusing to provide the service 'because they're gay' has a choice and part of that choice is that they may be forced to sacrifice money damages to those that they discriminate against. It is a sacrifice.

 

The law is the law. If you are driving on a street with a 35mph speed limit and you make the choice to drive 50 mph on along it, you may or may not be caught but you have made the choice to break the law and suffer what ever consequences you may face if your are caught.

 

The bakery owner who enters into business with the public takes on the responsibility of providing their good or service to all comers without discrimination. If they want to discriminate against a particular class of individuals they break that law and may suffer the consequences if they are caught.

 

The law doesn't care the reason you break the law whether it is a speeding law or the law regarding accommodations. Your freedom of religion is your freedom of religion and if the Good Lord came down and told you to sacrifice your son as has happened, do you think that the local cop, if he sees you about to slit your sons' throat wouldn't act to immediately stop your crime ... or arrest you on murder charges if you did.

 

The literal provision in our law that would allow that as a justification is your ability to be judged by a jury of your peers. That goes for Abraham (if God didn't give him a reprieve) or the baker.

This is a matter of first amendment Constitutional law... not racism.

 

See the link on page one...

 

 

The SCOTUS has not ruled on the case and Jeff Sessions is and always has been a bigoted idiot. It wouldn't be racism anyway, it is a violation of the public accommodations law as written and passed by the state of Colorado (from my cursory reading of the link) and involves gays. The last time I looked gays exist in all races.

 

pubby

[Guard dad]

 

"lefties" .

I was told I couldn't call you dumbasses.

[TJB]

Two questions/comments to the lefties here regarding the article linked below:

 

1-How do you feel about this refusal of service?

 

2-This is the attitude you who are hating on the cops and condoning the protests are fueling

 

 

 

http://www.heralddemocrat.com/news/20171014/police-officers-refused-service-at-denison-whataburger

According to the publication, she was fired, as she should've been.

[Guard dad]

According to the publication, she was fired, as she should've been.

Yes, she should have been.

[Guard dad]

 

Actually, their business offers their goods and services to the public and they are a public accommodation and covered by the civil rights laws. This is established law.

 

Let me ask you this. If this same bakery had the contract, say, to provide all cakes ordered by Kroger and the order came in for this as part of a contract that not only requires them to bake all the wedding cakes for Kroger but also constitutes half their business, what would the manager of the Kroger store do if they refused the work? Would he cancel the entire contract for breech?

 

Or what if the baker had worked at a commercial bakery overseeing a production line that made twinkies and he realized that some gays would stick a candle in the twinkies as a special testament of their love and because that meme caught on, sales of twinkies went up 20 percent, would that baker be justified in not increasing production because 'he knew' that gays were celebrating gay sex over those twinkies?

 

The obvious answer is that if the person were so inclined that the act of commerce undertaken was a religious violation of their morals, they have a choice and part of that choice is they would likely be required to sacrifice their job to remain true to their religious belief.

 

Similiarly, the local baker refusing to provide the service 'because they're gay' has a choice and part of that choice is that they may be forced to sacrifice money damages to those that they discriminate against. It is a sacrifice.

 

The law is the law. If you are driving on a street with a 35mph speed limit and you make the choice to drive 50 mph on along it, you may or may not be caught but you have made the choice to break the law and suffer what ever consequences you may face if your are caught.

 

The bakery owner who enters into business with the public takes on the responsibility of providing their good or service to all comers without discrimination. If they want to discriminate against a particular class of individuals they break that law and may suffer the consequences if they are caught.

 

The law doesn't care the reason you break the law whether it is a speeding law or the law regarding accommodations. Your freedom of religion is your freedom of religion and if the Good Lord came down and told you to sacrifice your son as has happened, do you think that the local cop, if he sees you about to slit your sons' throat wouldn't act to immediately stop your crime ... or arrest you on murder charges if you did.

 

The literal provision in our law that would allow that as a justification is your ability to be judged by a jury of your peers. That goes for Abraham (if God didn't give him a reprieve) or the baker.

 

The SCOTUS has not ruled on the case and Jeff Sessions is and always has been a bigoted idiot. It wouldn't be racism anyway, it is a violation of the public accommodations law as written and passed by the state of Colorado (from my cursory reading of the link) and involves gays. The last time I looked gays exist in all races.

 

pubby

I'm not even going to respond to most of your garbage.

 

 

But you're wrong about the public accommodation law. In spite of of any bad rulings by activist judges; this law was intended for critical services such as utilities, medical care, etc. Only people like you who have contempt for the Constitution think a privately owned business should not have freedom to operate his business as he wishes.

[gpatt0n]

I'm not even going to respond to most of your garbage.

 

 

But you're wrong about the public accommodation law. In spite of of any bad rulings by activist judges; this law was intended for critical services such as utilities, medical care, etc. Only people like you who have contempt for the Constitution think a privately owned business should not have freedom to operate his business as he wishes.

 

First, you do know that the law involved in this particular case is the Colorado public accommodation law: To wit:

 

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

(2) (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

( A claim brought pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2) that is based on disability is covered by the provisions of section 24-34-802.

(2.5) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for any person to discriminate against any individual or group because such person or group has opposed any practice made a discriminatory practice by this part 6 or because such person or group has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing conducted pursuant to this part 6.

(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, it is not a discriminatory practice for a person to restrict admission to a place of public accommodation to individuals of one sex if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation.

 

The 1964 law exempts 'private clubs' ... but includes places of lodging and where food is served generally to the public. While it does not specifically state bakeries or even department stores, this legislation affects businesses that conduct commerce but notably only prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin. Disability is now a condition that was added to the list of those who could be discriminated against by the 1964 civil rights act by the 1992 ADA.

 

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

OOO( Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

OOO)(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

OOO)(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

OO)O(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

OOO)(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and ( which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

OOO© The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection ( ; (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection ( , it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection ( , it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection ( , it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

 

In either case your assertion that these public accommodation laws only apply to public utilities and critical medical services is unbelievably and IMO maliciously wrong. Either you are too ill informed to comment or you are promoting Jim Crow.

 

pubby

 

Before you get too giddy about your Jim Crow era public accommodations laws, you should read this book review by Bill Moyers entitled: ‘Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law’ And then apply just a smidgen of critical thinking and you'll be as appalled as Moyers was of the attitudes the Nazi's expressed about Jim Crow's restrictions and how even the most reactionary were uncertain they could go that far. See, we were considered by the Nazi's to be the experts on how to create laws making second class citizens of some within the legal rubric of one class of citizens. The Nazi's were truly in awe of us in that regard.

[jennilyn77]

Imagine if every Business owner that refused to serve gays was required to hang a sign in the window of their business disclosing the fact that they are bigoted towards homosexuals and refused to serve them? I'm personally all for it. It's really no different than those who refused to serve black people. Of course that's illegal now. But by all means, show us the bigots and let their business die along with their humanity. The right to discriminate doesn't come without the right to suffer repercussions.

[Guard dad]

Imagine if every Business owner that refused to serve gays was required to hang a sign in the window of their business disclosing the fact that they are bigoted towards homosexuals and refused to serve them? I'm personally all for it. It's really no different than those who refused to serve black people. Of course that's illegal now. But by all means, show us the bigots and let their business die along with their humanity. The right to discriminate doesn't come without the right to suffer repercussions.

This is about far more than just gays or homosexuals

 

It's about freedom, and that's what this country was founded on.

 

 

[jennilyn77]

This is about far more than just gays or homosexuals

It's about freedom, and that's what this country was founded on.

 

Exactly. Like the freedom to take a knee. You can do what you want but expect to have repercussions.

[TJB]

This is about far more than just gays or homosexuals

It's about freedom, and that's what this country was founded on.

 

Our country was founded on the principle of freedom for white, land owning males. Slaves were 3/5 of a person, and women couldn't own property. Is this the freedom you speak of?

[gpatt0n]

I get how you are all about freedom but I'm perplexed how you can be so hyped on the freedom of a bakery owner to discriminate against people who walk in their door but so dismissive of a football player's freedom of speech to deny him the right to take the pledge on a knee.

 

The reality is the law regarding public accommodation is the publicly defined contract that is just as valid as the contract the players have with team owners ... if not more valid. Yet you reject one and accept the other as a limit on expression.

 

My point is that if the team owners want to fire their players; that is between the players and the teams management. I'm not a party to that contract except that I can punish the teams by withholding my patronage. Incidentally, the team owners, by the same laws that require the bakery owner, are required to provide accommodations on their terms to the public areas of the stadiums. They can't have a hot dog stand that only servers straights in the stadium either.

 

Maybe it would help to put it in the context of money. It is green and it is legal tender. If you are in business, you have to agree to accept it in payment for all debts public and private. When you discriminate against someone in a business covered by the public accommodations laws of the states you a disrespecting the government and its money.

 

pubby

[LPPT]

Two questions/comments to the lefties here regarding the article linked below:

 

1-How do you feel about this refusal of service?

 

2-This is the attitude you who are hating on the cops and condoning the protests are fueling

 

 

 

http://www.heralddemocrat.com/news/20171014/police-officers-refused-service-at-denison-whataburger

Lefties aren't cop haters. We are too damn smart to give anyone unconditional support. In other words, we are not gullible. Maybe you need to ask why this form of peaceful protest scares the right so much. I heard it all before when they dragged black people off while passively protesting civil rights. As long as you can find something to point a finger at it is all good. Rioting and looting is one thing. Peacefully getting the right kind of attention infuriates the right. I will point out you were the one that used the term lefty. so don't get your panties in a wad over the term righty coming right back at you,

[LPPT]

This is about far more than just gays or homosexuals

 

It's about freedom, and that's what this country was founded on.

 

 

You're kidding me, right? You would have the democratic party abolished if you could. If it were on the table, you would be to hell with freedom. You would have them destroyed. Close their businesses, financially break them. In other words, destroy the enemy. I watch how many times Tbar is brought up by you and your cronies. I don't see yall going after the postman. I see a double standard at work. You live in a mostly conservative area. You say and do what you want because there are powers in numbers. I don't think you can relate to being a minority. You feel very safe in your position of right-leaning white man.

[Guard dad]

You're kidding me, right? You would have the democratic party abolished if you could. If it were on the table, you would be to hell with freedom. You would have them destroyed. Close their businesses, financially break them. In other words, destroy the enemy. I watch how many times Tbar is brought up by you and your cronies. I don't see yall going after the postman. I see a double standard at work. You live in a mostly conservative area. You say and do what you want because there are powers in numbers. I don't think you can relate to being a minority. You feel very safe in your position of right-leaning white man.

You are terribly wrong, and you're being quite ridiculous with your accusations. Are you drinking?

 

And by the way...the fact that you injected race where it has no bearing demonstrates how badly you're brainwashed about this stuff.

Our country was founded on the principle of freedom for white, land owning males. Slaves were 3/5 of a person, and women couldn't own property. Is this the freedom you speak of?

That was fixed by amendment

Exactly. Like the freedom to take a knee. You can do what you want but expect to have repercussions.

Yep, exactly the kind of repercussions that the NFL is experiencing.

[CitizenCain]

This is about far more than just gays or homosexuals

 

It's about freedom, and that's what this country was founded on.

 

 

 

This has about as much to do with freedom as the Patriot Act does with patriotism.

 

[mrshoward]

 

This has about as much to do with freedom as the Patriot Act does with patriotism.

 

 

 

Forcing someone to bake a cake that violates their

sincerely held religious beliefs sounds pretty fascist to me...

 

 

[TJB]

Forcing someone to bake a cake that violates their

sincerely held religious beliefs sounds pretty fascist to me...

 

 

 

So it should be ok if someone doesn't serve the police, because they believe they violate their civil rights?

[Guard dad]

Cain, TJB, LPPT, pubby, etc

If you own a bakery and Westboro Baptist Church comes in and orders a cake with "God Hates Fags" on it....should you have to bake it?

[CitizenCain]

Cain, TJB, LPPT, pubby, etc

 

If you own a bakery and Westboro Baptist Church comes in and orders a cake with "God Hates Fags" on it....should you have to bake it?

 

As the owner of a business this might be a good opportunity to publish the name of your company and tell the community who you will and will not offer services to.

[mrshoward]

 

As the owner of a business this might be a good opportunity to publish the name of your company and tell the community who you will and will not offer services to.

 

Or you could just answer the question...

 

[Guard dad]

 

As the owner of a business this might be a good opportunity to publish the name of your company and tell the community who you will and will not offer services to.

That defeats the who concept of anonymity.

 

Please answer my question.

[CitizenCain]

That defeats the who concept of anonymity.

 

Please answer my question.

 

 

It's a ridiculous and leading question to begin with. I have seen no evidence this baker was asked to make anything outside of a standard wedding cake. I'm sure if he had been asked to bake something as nasty as the example you make it would have been made public. I don't think anyone should be forced to produce hate speech, porngraphy or anything that resembles either . If the reverend asked for a wedding cake he should get one.

Edited October 15, 2017 by CitizenCain

[gpatt0n]

Cain, TJB, LPPT, pubby, etc

 

If you own a bakery and Westboro Baptist Church comes in and orders a cake with "God Hates Fags" on it....should you have to bake it?

 

Yes, I would offer them a cake and include one of the tools used to write with icing and tell them that they can write what ever words on the cake they choose.

 

However, if they insisted otherwise, I'd simply write God hates thugs on it and deliver it. They would complain and I'd say sue me. The tort in this case is a lot more clear than the wholesale refusal to provide service that the folks in the so-called Christian bakery are claiming.

 

If they sued me, I would pay any judgment rendered by the court for my 'spelling error' ... which at most would be the cost of the cake. If I were lucky, I'd get the case heard on Judge Judy's show.

 

More likely they would protest me in which case I'd get the press out and show them the window of my bakery that was now full of cakes with the God Hates Thugs tagline and get some earned media.

 

How would you handle it?

 

pubby

[Guard dad]

 

Yes, I would offer them a cake and include one of the tools used to write with icing and tell them that they can write what ever words on the cake they choose.

 

However, if they insisted otherwise, I'd simply write God hates thugs on it and deliver it. They would complain and I'd say sue me. The tort in this case is a lot more clear than the wholesale refusal to provide service that the folks in the so-called Christian bakery are claiming.

 

If they sued me, I would pay any judgment rendered by the court for my 'spelling error' ... which at most would be the cost of the cake. If I were lucky, I'd get the case heard on Judge Judy's show.

 

More likely they would protest me in which case I'd get the press out and show them the window of my bakery that was now full of cakes with the God Hates Thugs tagline and get some earned media.

 

How would you handle it?

 

pubby

So you would refuse to bake the cake as requested.

 

Not unlike what the baker in Oregon did.

 

Hypocrisy exposed.

[Guard dad]

How would I handle it?

I'd tell Westboro to get out of my establishment. Hate is bad enough, but when it's done in God's name it's even worse.

According to some of you guys, I guess that would make me a bad person. Or is it only wrong when it' involves gays or blacks?

[CitizenCain]

Well it's been an interesting weekend. I found we have some serious racist in our community, a few bigots and I got a couple of bullets for responding to them, some that want to cloud the issues with disingenuous concepts of freedom of speech, discovered some that believe if we only ignore these issues they will go away and some that sincerely want to make a difference. I doubt any minds were changed tomorrow starts another week and life will go on as usual.

Edited October 15, 2017 by CitizenCain

[Guard dad]

Well it's been an interesting weekend. I found we have some serious racist in our community, a few bigots and I got a couple of bullets for responding to them, some that want to cloud the issues with disingenuous concepts of freedom of speech, discovered some that believe if we only ignore these issues they will go away and some that sincerely want to make a difference. I doubt any minds were changed tomorrow starts another week and life will go on as usual.