Obama has set race relations back decades

[Belk]

wait, who is refusing to bake a cake for any belief? We are talking about refusing to bake a cake for an event we don't believe in.

No. You are refusing because of the orientation of the participants of said event. The only difference in a marriage of heterosexuals and a marriage of homosexuals is the orientation of the participants.

If a homosexual bakery wanted to refuse to bake a cake for say, a religious group that was holding a special service to speak out against homosexuality. Would the honosexual baker have the right to not participate in the event by not baking the cake? remember, the event is in direct disagreement of what the baker believes and lives out.

The homosexual baker would not be participating in the event. He would be baking a cake. If he refused to sell a cake to the group because of their religion he would be in the wrong per the law.

 

[razzelflabben]

It's nice that your children have birth certificates, but many people, especially older people, do not and never did.

Neither of your two stories answers the question of what discrepancies Obama's "paperwork" had.

wow, you didn't even read what I said....as to the discrepancies, that is off topic and you can look it up. And before you make up some excuse, it is off topic for the OP as well as why I began to question his citizenship.

What mechanism would you have to provide 30 million people the chance to scrutinize your birth certificate?

the courts, but the court decision looks suspicious to me...how many times do I have to say it before you hear me?

 

[bhsmte]

It seems to me you ignore people's answers. But as far as "liberty for all people" your liberty ends where my nose begins. Always has, always will.

You nailed it!!!!!

 

[razzelflabben]

This has been addressed, but seems to be avoiding you.

A baker would not be obligated to write anything on a cake, that was deemed hate speech or derogatory towards any particular group. I don't see what that is so hard to understand.

since that isn't the question on the table, it seems that you are the one that keeps missing it.

the question on the table is do they have the right to refuse to bake a cake for the event. consider how many people will look at the cake, taste the cake and say, wow, that is so pretty, so tasty where did you get the cake from? My name is on the cake no matter if I write it there or not. Even after the event, someone from the event says, we are going to do this again, I want the name of your baker...once again, your name is on the cake. So do I have the right to refuse to allow my name to be associated with, in the one example the KKK or the Nazi's? in another example with the same criteria, a church event in which gays will be bashed?

But lets stick to weddings, since this matter revolves around weddings.

why, the OP is not limiting our discussion to Ferguson. The matter in question is an event, therefore we can substitute in any event...what are you afraid of that you can't answer the simple question?

Baker Sam opens a bakery and sells cakes for weddings. Baker Sam would be expected to sell a cake for; gays, catholics, Baptists, muslims, hindus, atheists, etc., who come in to buy a cake for a wedding.

if he so chooses....he has the right to bake any cake he wants his name on.

He would even be expected to sell a cake to that divorced couple who are getting married, and are committing adultery according to some Christians interpretation of their theology.

if he so chooses to do so....

By the way; were you going to point out which question I did not answer as you claim? I would love to do so, if I have not already answered it, just as I am sure you are quite willing, to answer the two simple questions I had for you.

the question that was referred to in the post in which the claim was made. this is getting so ridiculous I'm just ignoring things that are too stupid to comment on.

 

[smaneck]

first, the issue is one of natural born citizen,

A natural born citizen is one born of an American citizen or one born in the US. Both things were true of Obama whereas only one thing was true of McCain. Yet you only questioned Obama's citizenship and not McCain's. Why is that?

the courts didn't rule that harm had to be shown...not sure how many times I can point out to you that I became suspicious when the court ruling didn't reflect constitutional understanding, but hey seems to be a pattern on this thread.

What, you think there was a conspiracy in the courts? Must be. Their understanding of the Constitution is different than yours!

 

[razzelflabben]

Everyone assumes that there are plenty of alternate cake baking venues to go to when one venue refuses. But the nature of community prejudice is such that it can easily come about that every possible cake baking business in the region shares the same desire to refuse the baking of a cake. That is part of the reason for insisting the business serve all of the public.

cool, put your money where your mouth is and evidence one community in which no one can be found who will bake a cake for a gay wedding. Don't forget to look into the independent bakers in that community some of them do amazing work and around here that is mostly who bakes the cakes to start out with for weddings.

 

[smaneck]

wait, who is refusing to bake a cake for any belief? We are talking about refusing to bake a cake for an event we don't believe in. If a homosexual bakery wanted to refuse to bake a cake for say, a religious group that was holding a special service to speak out against homosexuality. Would the honosexual baker have the right to not participate in the event by not baking the cake? remember, the event is in direct disagreement of what the baker believes and lives out.

He is not participating in the event by baking a cake. If they order a cake, he needs to bake a cake. He does have the right to refuse to put offensive decorations on the cake, however.

 

[bhsmte]

since that isn't the question on the table, it seems that you are the one that keeps missing it.

What are you talking about, it directly addresses the discussion at hand?

the question on the table is do they have the right to refuse to bake a cake for the event. consider how many people will look at the cake, taste the cake and say, wow, that is so pretty, so tasty where did you get the cake from? My name is on the cake no matter if I write it there or not. Even after the event, someone from the event says, we are going to do this again, I want the name of your baker...once again, your name is on the cake. So do I have the right to refuse to allow my name to be associated with, in the one example the KKK or the Nazi's? in another example with the same criteria, a church event in which gays will be bashed? why, the OP is not limiting our discussion to Ferguson. The matter in question is an event, therefore we can substitute in any event...what are you afraid of that you can't answer the simple question? if he so chooses....he has the right to bake any cake he wants his name on. if he so chooses to do so....

How many times do I have to answer this????????????????????

The law does not allow a business owner of a publically accommodating business, to discriminate against a protected class. So no, they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to turn away the gay couple, who wants to buy a cake for their wedding.

If you actually believe, the law allows the baker to refuse customers who are willing to pay, to buy products he readily sells to others, please make your legal argument to support this.

Please stop with the not answering questions rhetoric, it is getting old and has worn out as a tactic and I am not the only one who has taken notice to this.

the question that was referred to in the post in which the claim was made. this is getting so ridiculous I'm just ignoring things that are too stupid to comment on.

Please point out the question you claim I didn't answer and I will gladly answer it. If you refuse to do so, I will have to conclude that is quite ridiculous.

I know, you are more than willing to answer my two simple questions, correct?

 

[razzelflabben]

How is this at all relevant. There is no religion which believes honor killings are okay.

really? where have you been hiding? not necesssarily called honor killings, but the same idea...happening today....try again

Gray area. If you can kill a chicken to eat, why couldn't you do so for a religious ritual? In Iran, Jews still perform animal sacrifices, but when they tried to do one in an LA condo, it created quite a stir. I would say, don't let the blood drip down in your neighbor's apartment. Also, you'd better make sure that any such sacrifices are done humanely.

cool, so we can do away with PETA then...I'm liking this line of reasoning.

Yeah, right. Why associate animal sacrifices with Satanism? And what exactly constitutes a 'suspicious carcass'?

I'm just relating some facts to you, nothing more or less. Sometimes it's lack of blood, sometimes other things like placement.

We've already discussed catering as a grey area, not yet decided by the courts.

see previous discussion, don't need to go over it since you all didn't answer the questions back then, I don't see them getting answered now...moving on.

Nope. But you do have the right to refuse to put Nazi or KKK decorations on the cake.

what good does that do when my name is on the cake that is supporting KKK or Nazi agenda?

It seems to me you ignore people's answers. But as far as "liberty for all people" your liberty ends where my nose begins. Always has, always will.

lol exactly the problem and exactly why race relations are going backwards since Obama, cause liberty is only good when it doesn't infringe on the rights of the group making the most noise at the time.

 

[bhsmte]

cool, put your money where your mouth is and evidence one community in which no one can be found who will bake a cake for a gay wedding. Don't forget to look into the independent bakers in that community some of them do amazing work and around here that is mostly who bakes the cakes to start out with for weddings.

Irrelevant.

If I own a business and refuse to serve Christians, can I use the excuse; well, there are other businesses like mine, that will serve Christians, so it is ok for me to discriminate against them?

Wow!!!

 

[razzelflabben]

No. You are refusing because of the orientation of the participants of said event. The only difference in a marriage of heterosexuals and a marriage of homosexuals is the orientation of the participants.

if that were true, there would never have been a discussion in this country over the legal definition of marriage.

The homosexual baker would not be participating in the event. He would be baking a cake. If he refused to sell a cake to the group because of their religion he would be in the wrong per the law.

see other posted examples and address them

 

[smaneck]

great, we should then be seeing a lot of media attention focused on muslim business owners...that is going to be a circus worth watching.

So far they only 'gay' who has been refused a cake was a fake one and he demanded decorations who deliberately asked for decorations the bakers found embarrassing and offensive. So far, there have been no cases where a Muslim baker has refused a gay person a plain, old regular wedding cake.

Until you find an actual case of discrimination there isn't going to be much of a circus, except the one which Crowder created, of course.

 

[Aldebaran]

So far they only 'gay' who has been refused a cake was a fake one and he demanded decorations who deliberately asked for decorations the bakers found embarrassing and offensive. So far, there have been no cases where a Muslim baker has refused a gay person a plain, old regular wedding cake.

Until you find an actual case of discrimination there isn't going to be much of a circus, except the one which Crowder created, of course.

So how does this differ from what we've been talking about? How was this case not discriminatory?

 

[razzelflabben]

A natural born citizen is one born of an American citizen or one born in the US. Both things were true of Obama whereas only one thing was true of McCain. Yet you only questioned Obama's citizenship and not McCain's. Why is that?

okay folks, the very last time I will say this because it's getting to the point of insanity and I find it best when dealing with insane people to just let them talk themselves into a corner and then laugh to myself.

I question his citizenship because I found the court ruling on the issue suspicious.

What, you think there was a conspiracy in the courts? Must be. Their understanding of the Constitution is different than yours!

I'm saying they didn't look into the matter and say, "of course it is legit" or look at the matter and say, "we don't find anything to question" or something like that, instead they dismissed the case for lack of harm, when harm is done every single time the constitution is not upheld. Conspiracy? why would that be conspiracy not just poor informed or misinformed judges? Could be that they just had a bad day, or that they didn't know how else to get things moving on the tight schedule they had...I don't know why they voted as they did, but not upholding the constitution is harming everyone in the USA and that is when I got suspicious, maybe they were bought and paid for, how would I know?

 

[razzelflabben]

He is not participating in the event by baking a cake. If they order a cake, he needs to bake a cake. He does have the right to refuse to put offensive decorations on the cake, however.

not the question, not the discussion....waiting while elevator music plays softly in background.

 

[smaneck]

This is fun.

It was fun. It is starting to get tiresome to be constantly told you didn't answer a question you most clearly did answer and when you repeat the same answer to be flamed for giving the same answer!

 

[razzelflabben]

What are you talking about, it directly addresses the discussion at hand?



How many times do I have to answer this????????????????????

The law does not allow a business owner of a publically accommodating business, to discriminate against a protected class. So no, they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to turn away the gay couple, who wants to buy a cake for their wedding.

If you actually believe, the law allows the baker to refuse customers who are willing to pay, to buy products he readily sells to others, please make your legal argument to support this.

Please stop with the not answering questions rhetoric, it is getting old and has worn out as a tactic and I am not the only one who has taken notice to this.



Please point out the question you claim I didn't answer and I will gladly answer it. If you refuse to do so, I will have to conclude that is quite ridiculous.

I know, you are more than willing to answer my two simple questions, correct?

still waiting for you to address the reputation of doing an event for the KKK or the Nazi groups...when you answer I will answer your questions

 

[smaneck]

not the question, not the discussion....waiting while elevator music plays softly in background.

What part of "he needs to bake the cake" did you not understand?

 

[smaneck]

still waiting for you to address the reputation of doing an event for the KKK or the Nazi groups...when you answer I will answer your questions

Baking a cake is not the same as "doing an event." Try to stay on the same page.

 

[Belk]

if that were true, there would never have been a discussion in this country over the legal definition of marriage.

Since the discussion over the definition was in direct response to whom was allowed to get married this is patently false. However if your contention is that they are fundamentally different in some aspect then by all means provide the criteria by which a legal determination can be made to allow one but not the other that does not hinge on the orientation of the participants.

see other posted examples and address them

No. I feel no further need to point out that the equal protection clause of the US constitution is in full effect. If you feel this is inaccurate you need to point out data to support it.