Not just religious oppression but Maoist "reeducation"

[pErvinalia]

But punishment/coercion/etc ARE part of the solution. They change the environment that leads to people making uncivil decisions.

[FBM]

But punishment/coercion/etc ARE part of the solution. They change the environment that leads to people making uncivil decisions.

Agreed. It's the feeling of moral outrage/indignation that is misplaced, not the punishment.

[Seth]

Wait a minute. I thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason. For example, those fast food restaurants that kicked out those gun-toting people recently. If it were a gov't service being denied, sure, they would be in the wrong. But a privately-owned business?

Refusing people because of their identity is bigotry. Black people can't help being black, same as gay people can't help being gay. Gun wankers can choose to not be gun wankers.

Correct. The distinction here, which you cannot seem to grasp, is that the baker didn't refuse them because of their identity, he refused to participate in a homosexual activity (gay marriage) that he has religious objections to.

I know you think they are the same thing, but they aren't, as I've said many times before. Once again, it's exactly the same as demanding that a Jewish Holocaust survivor bake a Nazi cake for Hitler's birthday celebration by neo-Nazis, or that a Catholic baker bake a vagina-cake for a lesbian wedding.

It has nothing to do with the status of the clients and everything to do with what specifically they are being asked to do to facilitate some act by the clients.

[Seth]

But punishment/coercion/etc ARE part of the solution. They change the environment that leads to people making uncivil decisions.

By what right do you presume to school anyone else on their decision making about how they will labor on behalf of others?

[piscator]

Wait a minute. I thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason. For example, those fast food restaurants that kicked out those gun-toting people recently. If it were a gov't service being denied, sure, they would be in the wrong. But a privately-owned business?

Refusing people because of their identity is bigotry. Black people can't help being black, same as gay people can't help being gay. Gun wankers can choose to not be gun wankers.

Correct. The distinction here, which you cannot seem to grasp, is that the baker didn't refuse them because of their identity, he refused to participate in a homosexual activity (gay marriage) that he has religious objections to.

I know you think they are the same thing, but they aren't, as I've said many times before. Once again, it's exactly the same as demanding that a Jewish Holocaust survivor bake a Nazi cake for Hitler's birthday celebration by neo-Nazis, or that a Catholic baker bake a vagina-cake for a lesbian wedding.

It has nothing to do with the status of the clients and everything to do with what specifically they are being asked to do to facilitate some act by the clients.

There was no discussion whatsoever about how the cake would look, and no need for Phillips to partake in anything gay.
Phillips may be a buttrape survivor, but he has a business license, and Colorado has the right to regulate trade in Aurora. Phillips knew he was violating the regulatory statute when he chose to exercise his presumed religious warrant to be a dick.

http://aclu-co.org/court-cases/masterpiece-cakeshop/

[pErvinalia]

Wait a minute. I thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason. For example, those fast food restaurants that kicked out those gun-toting people recently. If it were a gov't service being denied, sure, they would be in the wrong. But a privately-owned business?

Refusing people because of their identity is bigotry. Black people can't help being black, same as gay people can't help being gay. Gun wankers can choose to not be gun wankers.

Correct. The distinction here, which you cannot seem to grasp, is that the baker didn't refuse them because of their identity, he refused to participate in a homosexual activity (gay marriage) that he has religious objections to.

WTF? He wasn't "participating" in anything. Was he going to be there? Was his cake going to be labelled with his name? Of course not. It was refusal of service because of the identity of the customer.

I know you think they are the same thing, but they aren't, as I've said many times before. Once again, it's exactly the same as demanding that a Jewish Holocaust survivor bake a Nazi cake for Hitler's birthday celebration by neo-Nazis, or that a Catholic baker bake a vagina-cake for a lesbian wedding.

No it's not, you dolt. They ordered something on the fucking services provided list. Was there anything that was going to label the cake as being gay?? And even if there was, tough titties. A Jewish holocaust survivor should bake any damn cake he's asked to as long as it doesn't break any hate speech laws. Although, no one would care if they didn't, because Nazi's aren't a persecuted minority and they are anathema to a civilised society. Homosexuals are the exact opposite. God you bring forth some inane "arguments".

It has nothing to do with the status of the clients and everything to do with what specifically they are being asked to do to facilitate some act by the clients.

They were asked to bake a fucking cake, which is what THEIR JOB IS. They refused to do it because they are bigoted arsewipes. I wouldn't have sued them, I would have smashed their shops to bits. As far as I'm concerned it's alright to be a moral relativist leftist and accept that there are some things that are rationally and inter-subjectively wrong. Being a bigot is one such thing, and bigots should adapt their ways to be part of a modern civilised society, or get the fuck out of said society.

[Seth]

Wait a minute. I thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason. For example, those fast food restaurants that kicked out those gun-toting people recently. If it were a gov't service being denied, sure, they would be in the wrong. But a privately-owned business?

Refusing people because of their identity is bigotry. Black people can't help being black, same as gay people can't help being gay. Gun wankers can choose to not be gun wankers.

Correct. The distinction here, which you cannot seem to grasp, is that the baker didn't refuse them because of their identity, he refused to participate in a homosexual activity (gay marriage) that he has religious objections to.

I know you think they are the same thing, but they aren't, as I've said many times before. Once again, it's exactly the same as demanding that a Jewish Holocaust survivor bake a Nazi cake for Hitler's birthday celebration by neo-Nazis, or that a Catholic baker bake a vagina-cake for a lesbian wedding.

It has nothing to do with the status of the clients and everything to do with what specifically they are being asked to do to facilitate some act by the clients.

There was no discussion whatsoever about how the cake would look, and no need for Phillips to partake in anything gay.

They said "We want a cake for our wedding." He said "I don't make wedding cakes for gay marriages, but I'd glad to sell you something else in the shop." (I paraphrase) They got up and left. If they had said "We would like a wedding cake that looks like this..." he might not have objected.

Conscripting him to exercise his artistic talents and skills to make a cake for a homosexual wedding ceremony most certainly requires him to participate in that ceremony to the extent of lending at the very least the appearance that he approves of gay weddings, which might harm his business image with his other Christian clients. That's a concern, but it's not as much of a concern as their demand that he violate his religious beliefs in order to facilitate their wedding ceremony. Selfish pricks.

Phillips may be a buttrape survivor, but he has a business license, and Colorado has the right to regulate trade in Aurora.

Maybe, maybe not. That is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous political correctness or to take up arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings buster.

Phillips knew he was violating the regulatory statute when he chose to exercise his presumed religious warrant to be a dick.

He has a perfect right to contest the constitutionality of that regulatory statute, and he has a very strong case for doing so that could well change the way such laws are applied nationwide one day. In fact, the only way he CAN contest the constitutionality of the statute is to have a valid "case or controversy" to bring to the SCOTUS, and this is most certainly a valid controversy. For him to challenge the law he had to defy it. Good for him. This is how laws are tested by the courts for constitutionality.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

For him to challenge the law he had to defy it. Good for him. This is how laws are tested by the courts for constitutionality.

You anarchist, you!

[Seth]

Wait a minute. I thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason. For example, those fast food restaurants that kicked out those gun-toting people recently. If it were a gov't service being denied, sure, they would be in the wrong. But a privately-owned business?

Refusing people because of their identity is bigotry. Black people can't help being black, same as gay people can't help being gay. Gun wankers can choose to not be gun wankers.

Correct. The distinction here, which you cannot seem to grasp, is that the baker didn't refuse them because of their identity, he refused to participate in a homosexual activity (gay marriage) that he has religious objections to.

WTF? He wasn't "participating" in anything. Was he going to be there? Was his cake going to be labelled with his name? Of course not. It was refusal of service because of the identity of the customer.

Suppose he was a wedding photographer. Suppose he had strict Christian beliefs about sin, sodomy and sexual activity. Suppose the couple requested that he take photographs at their "wedding" which was to take place at the annual San Francisco Exotic Erotic Ball, where nakedness, sodomy, promiscuous sex, fetishism and all manner of free sexual expression takes place that he believes violates his religious beliefs and that he believes would imperil his immortal soul if he were to even attend the ball.

Why does some selfish prick of a homosexual have a right to burden the religious and free speech rights and freedoms of a cake baker or photographer just to satisfy their desire to have pictures taken or cakes baked? Why don't they find someone who supports their lifestyle and have him or her bake the cake and take the photos?

I'll tell you why. It's because the selfish pricks were homosexual bigots and activists who went to his shop knowing full well he would object and did so in order to set him up for prosecution because those evil, selfish fuckers believe that they have the right to force their lifestyle choices and practices onto others even when others find their behavior to be despicable, disgusting and morally corrupt. They are using an unconstitutional law as a blunt instrument to forward their agenda of forcible gay acceptance, which violates everyone else's right to not accept gays or their lifestyles or practices. This is hardly the only example of militant homosexual activism in this mode, but it could be the one that changes the law when it comes to them forcing people to tacitly approve of their lifestyle choices.

People have a right to despise homosexuality just as you have a right to despise Catholics and it's utterly morally wrong to violate the rights of individuals who hold religious beliefs that require them to remain strictly separate from such activities by forcing them to participate in activities that can be even remotely seen to be approving or supportive of those acts.

Note that I said "acts," not their sexual preferences or status. Acts. One can remain neutral about someone's sexual proclivities and preferences (I had a porn star in my Uber car today...quite a nice lady actually and I might even end up taking photos for her) while still holding negative beliefs and attitudes about their actual sexual practices and be well within one's right to choose with whom one will associate and with whom one will not.

Tolerance is not necessarily acceptance, it is just tolerance, and segregating oneself from people one cannot accept for any reason, but particularly for religious reasons, is a basic civil right. You do NOT have a civil right to force someone else against their will, no matter what anybody says, when it comes to conscripting their intellectual or artistic talents or labor on your behalf. Any law which purports to do so is immutably unconstitutional.

I know you think they are the same thing, but they aren't, as I've said many times before. Once again, it's exactly the same as demanding that a Jewish Holocaust survivor bake a Nazi cake for Hitler's birthday celebration by neo-Nazis, or that a Catholic baker bake a vagina-cake for a lesbian wedding.

No it's not, you dolt.

Yes it is, you fuckwit.

They ordered something on the fucking services provided list.

No, they ordered something NOT on the services list: a cake for a homosexual wedding.

Was there anything that was going to label the cake as being gay??

We don't know because they left as soon as he told them he didn't make cakes for gay weddings. They didn't say "Oh, it's not for a gay wedding, it's just a normal wedding." They didn't say anything, they just left. He informed them of his policy and they chose not to order the cake. He didn't actually even refuse to make them a cake, he just said "I don't make cakes for gay weddings." This is a fine point I hope comes out in the appeal. They didn't say it was or wasn't for a gay wedding, they just said "our wedding" (so far as I know) and he inferred they were gay and stated his policy which is based on his religious beliefs and his First Amendment rights.

And even if there was, tough titties.

Your opinion is noted.

A Jewish holocaust survivor should bake any damn cake he's asked to as long as it doesn't break any hate speech laws.

I would encourage a Holocaust survivor to bake the neo-Nazis IN the cake. That would be perfectly appropriate. But if he doesn't want to bake those fuckers a cake, he doesn't have to and nobody on earth can make him do so. They might imprison him, or kill him, or stick him in an oven, but he can refuse to bake the fucking cake, and should. And I'd be standing right there with him, with my guns, to protect him and vindicate his right to tell the neo-Nazis to go fuck their mothers, if they haven't already.

Although, no one would care if they didn't, because Nazi's aren't a persecuted minority and they are anathema to a civilised society. Homosexuals are the exact opposite. God you bring forth some inane "arguments".

See how easy it is to categorize people into convenient pigeonholes that support your particular bigotry and self interest? Neo-Nazis say the same thing about Jews. Evangelical Christians of some denominations say the same thing about homosexuals, whom they define as sinful perversions of nature destined to burn in hell for eternity and with whom they therefore do not wish to associate, lest their God doom them to perdition for violating his commandments.

Guess what? All of them have an absolute and unassailable constitutionally guaranteed right to hold those beliefs and to hold themselves apart from those whom they revile and hate.

It has nothing to do with the status of the clients and everything to do with what specifically they are being asked to do to facilitate some act by the clients.

They were asked to bake a fucking cake, which is what THEIR JOB IS.

No, he was asked to design and create a custom work of culinary art for use in a gay wedding, which he cannot do according to his religious beliefs.

They refused to do it because they are bigoted arsewipes.

It's their right to be bigoted arsewipes, just as it's the right of the bigoted arsewipes who set him up by demanding he bake them a cake.

I wouldn't have sued them, I would have smashed their shops to bits.

I wish they had. They would be put in jail for that. Instead, the innocent person whose rights are being violated is the one being persecuted by an unjust and unconstitutional law and a bunch of selfish prick homosexual arsewipe bigots.

As far as I'm concerned it's alright to be a moral relativist leftist and accept that there are some things that are rationally and inter-subjectively wrong. Being a bigot is one such thing, and bigots should adapt their ways to be part of a modern civilised society, or get the fuck out of said society.

Be careful what you wish for, Atheist bigot, lest you be hoist on the pointy end of your own pitchfork.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

For him to challenge the law he had to defy it. Good for him. This is how laws are tested by the courts for constitutionality.

You anarchist, you!

Civil disobedience is not anarchy, it's a time-tested and honorable way of demonstrating the inequity and error in a law by suffering the consequences of refusing to obey it.

He didn't go burn down the gay pride center in revenge. He didn't burn their car or chop them to bits with a cake knife. He didn't harass them or picket their homes with "God hates fags!" signs, he just told them he doesn't bake cakes for gay weddings and now he's following the legally-approved and appropriate avenues of redress of grievances and demands for justice by appealing his conviction.

You got a problem with his exercise of his due process rights?

[pErvinalia]

God your arguments get worse and worse over time.

The wedding photographer analogy is retarded as the wedding photographer has to actually attend and be personally affected by the act. A cake maker just has to make a fucking cake and that's the end of it.

No, they ordered something NOT on the services list: a cake for a homosexual wedding.

No, they ordered a wedding cake. Do these bigoted wankstains make wedding cakes or not? If so, then that is part of their services list.

I'll tell you why. It's because the selfish pricks were homosexual bigots

You do understand that words have definitions, right??

They are using an unconstitutional law

Um, how do you know it is unconstitutional? Has it been tested by constitutional courts??

militant homosexual activism

You're an idiot. They asked for a cake, got refused, and walked out. How the fuck is that "militant"?? It would be militant if they did what I recommend they should have done - that is, smash the shit out of his shop.

People have a right to despise homosexuality just as you have a right to despise Catholics and it's utterly morally wrong to violate the rights of individuals who hold religious beliefs that require them to remain strictly separate from such activities by forcing them to participate in activities that can be even remotely seen to be approving or supportive of those acts.

Where did anyone say the bigots couldn't despise homosexuals?? Go on, point it out. You really are failing shockingly at constructing cogent arguments lately.

Tolerance is not necessarily acceptance, it is just tolerance, and segregating oneself from people one cannot accept for any reason, but particularly for religious reasons, is a basic civil right. You do NOT have a civil right to force someone else against their will, no matter what anybody says, when it comes to conscripting their intellectual or artistic talents or labor on your behalf. Any law which purports to do so is immutably unconstitutional.

Yeah, and Obama is a Marxist.

Was there anything that was going to label the cake as being gay??

We don't know because they left as soon as he told them he didn't make cakes for gay weddings.

That's why you are a dolt, as I was trying to explain. You brought forth some idiotic analogy with jews having to bake a "nazi cake". These wankers weren't asked to bake a "gay cake". They were asked to bake a fucking cake like they say they do in there services list. You can't even follow your own idiotic arguments for more than one iteration. FFS, this is why "debating" with you is a total waste of time. You are a perennial goal post shifter and backflipper. You've been doing it since rd.net days.

I would encourage a Holocaust survivor to bake the neo-Nazis IN the cake. That would be perfectly appropriate. But if he doesn't want to bake those fuckers a cake, he doesn't have to and nobody on earth can make him do so. They might imprison him, or kill him, or stick him in an oven, but he can refuse to bake the fucking cake, and should. And I'd be standing right there with him, with my guns, to protect him and vindicate his right to tell the neo-Nazis to go fuck their mothers, if they haven't already.

Yes we all know what your vision for law and justice is. Why not campaign for it in a civil way, instead of thinking that every problem or thing you don't like needs to be enforced over the barrel of a gun??

See how easy it is to categorize people into convenient pigeonholes that support your particular bigotry and self interest? Neo-Nazis say the same thing about Jews. Evangelical Christians of some denominations say the same thing about homosexuals, whom they define as sinful perversions of nature destined to burn in hell for eternity and with whom they therefore do not wish to associate, lest their God doom them to perdition for violating his commandments.

The difference that you haven't grasped is that I our arguments come from a position of inclusion. Nazi arguments, and these bigoted fuckwits, come from a position of exclusion. There's a fundamental difference that I'm sure you could grasp if you took your hand off your bible and gun for a few minutes.

It's their right to be bigoted arsewipes, just as it's the right of the bigoted arsewipes who set him up by demanding he bake them a cake.

Rights flow forth from the law. Or is this another one of your "natural" law idiocies?

I wish they had. They would be put in jail for that. Instead, the innocent person whose rights are being violated is the one being persecuted by an unjust and unconstitutional law and a bunch of selfish prick homosexual arsewipe bigots.

You can't really believe this shit, can you?? Think for a moment, as a group who is being persecuted and who is being a bigot? Just labelling ones opponents with the same label that you (generic) correctly wear, is kindergarten stuff. I'm pretty sure you can do better than that.

[mistermack]

I don't know what the law actually is, the appeal will decide that. But if he gets off, they need to change the law to MAKE it illegal. It should be illegal.
There are SOME services you shouldn't be forced to provide against your ''principles''. Baking a fucking cake isn't one of them.
He might not like having to serve gays. He's got a choice. Don't provide a public service.
He might not like his punishment given by the court. Very few people do.
He's got a choice. Go to jail. Have fun.

That's the nature of a civilised society. Some peoples freedoms impinge on other peoples, and the government decides what the compromise is. Once that's happened, you can take it, or leave.
Or try to get elected.

[pErvinalia]

I don't know what the law actually is, the appeal will decide that. But if he gets off, they need to change the law to MAKE it illegal. It should be illegal.
There are SOME services you shouldn't be forced to provide against your ''principles''. Baking a fucking cake isn't one of them.
He might not like having to serve gays. He's got a choice. Don't provide a public service.
He might not like his punishment given by the court. Very few people do.
He's got a choice. Go to jail. Have fun.

That's the nature of a civilised society. Some peoples freedoms impinge on other peoples, and the government decides what the compromise is. Once that's happened, you can take it, or leave.
Or try to get elected.

Or start waving guns around and calling Obama a Marxist...

[Hermit]

I don't know what the law actually is, the appeal will decide that.

The law is clear and Piscator has quoted it a few days ago. Click here.

[mistermack]

I don't know what the law actually is, the appeal will decide that.

The law is clear and Piscator has quoted it a few days ago. Click here.

Yeh, the Colorado law seems clear enough. Maybe the appeal would claim that it contravenes the constitution though.
Going by the recent supreme court decision, about public worship, you can get just about any decision you like in the US. It's all down to the prejudices of the supreme court judges. Nothing to do with the facts, or truth or justice.