Because we shouldn't force Jewish Delis to serve Bacon to Nazis nor should we force Gay Bakers to bake cakes for Westboro Baptist Church weddings.
Because we shouldn't force Jewish Delis to serve Bacon to Nazis nor should we force Gay Bakers to bake cakes for Westboro Baptist Church weddings.
Are there actual businesses participating in this? If so can we get some good homo-protest videos up here of very fabulous people attempting to spend their hard earned dollar these shit-shops?
Maybe we can stop pictures of hot chicks and wonder where the dicks is also while we are at it.
I'm curious where this problem is such an issue with homos having buttsex out in the open and having gross pdi because I certainly don't see it here. If you don't want to make dick cakes I don't think anyone is going to take you to court, just don't make them. Future brides everywhere will simply call another bakery.
What the fuck is wrong with people? Why is it so important to exclude gays from your business when your business has nothing to do with them being gay?
Corporations and businesses are people, man. And people have religion, and religions can be whatever the hell we want. So to hell with every other law and any common sense, tax avoiding entities on paper with copyrights that live longer than people can do whatever we want them to!
I seriously dont understand people. What business owner in this day and age would refuse to make money simply because the customer is gay?
Don't forget you still have corps like hobby lobby and chik-fil-a who give up a whole days worth of potential revenue "because god"
Gays shouldn't have to "do it right" to not be discriminated against.
If these laws are necessary, they should include provisions like the one that died in the OK legislature and require that the business post notice outside of their physical location and on their websites, listing those groups of people they do not wish to count as patrons for religious reasons. Let the players in the free market make an informed decision as to whether or not your business should survive and save everyone the embarrassment of being on the receiving end of your public display of bigotry.
edit: And the Jewish deli example is just dumb. Refusing to serve bacon to everyone doesn't require a special legal carve out protection from anti-discrimination laws.
Last edited by Royal; 03-27-2015 at 08:22 PM.
If you had to hang a sign shaped like a pink starfish outside your business that stated "We Don't Serve Gays" I think capitalism would sort this all out.
The point is they simply wanted a wedding cake, not a goatse with ball shot cake.
The people wanting the right to refuse service against gays want nothing less than to ostracize these people from their communities. To be able to tell them they don't want "their kind" anywhere near them. So yeah, to fight that kind of shit, you often have to fight over otherwise silly things like a cake.
If business owners want to be shit bags and deny service to people based on pink assless chaps, government should not be passing laws to protect such business owners. I dont think they should be penalized either, let the market sort that out. But definitely no legal protections. You want to be an asshat? Get sued. This is america, the land of the litigious.
I'm saying society has a right to set standards such that religious groups (and lets face it, all these people are religious) aren't allowed to enforce their silliness on others. What I am for is stopping religious groups from ostracizing others.
Not that Apple would have the balls to do it but I would love it if they decided not to sell to straight folk.
As to the other point, sanctioned or not, I can still bring suit against anything for anything. I didnt say there would be no consequences. Just as an example, we just had some dumbass try to sue us because the HoA that she purchased a house in does not allow pets. She claims it was our fault that she was not aware of it but yet she signed a release with the HoA that she has no pets. The court told her to eat a dick but that was after she sued us obviously.
Last edited by wormie; 03-27-2015 at 09:19 PM.
I live in Indianapolis. About 70% of the population is pretty furious about this. Even the fucking Republican Mayor says it's a travesty. I can't wait to open a store with a sign that says "No Faggots. Gays Welcome" and just shut down any dude with a macklemore haircut or girl with northface and uggs from buying my shitty cupcakes.
Oh and the whole reason this is a 'thing' apparently is because some wedding cake place refused to make a cake for a gay couple. So everyone did the logical thing and just boycotted it and it went out of business. The way butthurt is SUPPOSED to be channeled.
The real problem isn't businesses that want to discriminate, it's the politicians who want to force their religious beliefs down our throats....when will our political leaders understand freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, if the people of Indiana really want to make a statement they should come together and exercise their constitutional right to remove these fuckers from office.
Charge a fee to be a member, make it $0.50 and ring it up at time of purchase. Don't like XX refuse to let them become a member.
No different than in parts of the country that still have dry counties or whatever. They want to keep XX from getting drunk, the restaurants require you to be a member to serve alcohol and it's a $1.00 or whatever and they add it to the bill for one person at the table.
If you're one of the people that they are trying to avoid, they simply don't allow you to become a member.
Last edited by Borzak; 03-27-2015 at 09:47 PM.
Let us see how serious they are
A major gaming convention, Gen Con, threatened on Tuesday to move its annual event out of Indiana if Gov. Mike Pence signs into law a controversial bill that would allow private businesses to deny service to homosexuals on religious grounds.
GenCon is a minor shot across the bow. The NCAA (which is based in Indianapolis) and the NFL can make them take notice.
The party of less government is falling all over themselves passing more laws and making government more intrusive. Can't explain that. Here in Denton TX we passed a law banning fracking within the city limits. The Republicans in the state house's response? Make a law overriding the ability of local communities to pass laws concerning the oil and gas industry within their own borders. Freedom hating faggots.
Bloomington, IN has a sign somewhere that says "Official Gay Capital of America". Maybe less so now. This shit will get shut down somehow soon enough. They already dismissed the gay marriage ban a few months ago.
Well what if you were in the business of selling leather chaps? Wouldn't restricting their access somewhat cause them to be a little less gay?
Well the good news about all this that Liberal Indiana Residents will know which local businesses not to support.
@Lyrical- why no like Gay Marriage? WTF dude?
Reminds me of an article I read yesterday about a guy who mouthed off to a Chik Fil-A employee when they had a sit in or whatever. He waited in line for hours to get his turn to get free water to protest the CEO talking about gays. He got up there and recorded it and posted it on youtube and talked about how he didn't know the woman who worked there lived with herself.
Well he got fired and the company said they didn't want him to represent their company, he was CFO and making $200k a year. He lost his $1 million stock options. Fast forward two years and he lost another job after they found out he was posting these vidoes. He lost his house, sold all his stuff, and now him and his wife with 4 kids now live in a RV and is on food stamps.
Former CFO on Food Stamps After Controversial Viral Video About Chik-Fil-A - ABC News
2. No it's all the same fucking thing: this is just the start of what one hopes is a whole slew of bills restoring our First Amendment rights of (dis)Association that liberal fuckswads want to trample on because they get hardons at the thought of controlling other people and making them do things they don't want to do.
Anyone should be able to tell anyone to fuck off for any reason. 'Merica.
Jesus, how shitty do you have to be with managing your money that you go on foodstamp shortly after being fired from a $200k a year job that gives you a million + in stock options?
Wait this is spur'd on by these dumbfucks?
Indianapolis' 111 Cakery Turns Away Gay Couple Seeking Commitment Ceremony Cake
“As artists, we have to find inspiration to create something special for our clients,” Randy McGath
i don't know about you guys, most artists i know are pretty gay, i mean you gotta be pretty gay if you're a guy making cupcakes, at least effeminate. Seriously i've watched a lot of baking shows, and watching these fat guys bake(cuz all guys who bake are fat) they're either flamboyantly gay or fighting the gay away.
anyway they got shit on bad by yelp idiots.
111 Cakery - CLOSED - Bakeries - Indianapolis, IN - Yelp
here are the yelp "censored" reviews
you'll see a lot of these reviews are from idiots who only have 1 review (this one) and from like fucking florida or CA, most of them made 3-14-14, so obviously dumb mad yelpers shitting on them (this is when this article came out Same-sex couple denied cake by bakery, owners speak out | Fox 59)
scroll all the way down
and you'll see all the ones that are just removed, probably other gays going "YOU DUMB FUCKS, GAY FOR LIFE" or whatever counts as being pro gay and stupid on yelp
also if you're bored here's an outdated streetview (latest is june2014)-scroll back you can see they started around 2012, being built
ok that's enough sherlocking
they got down voted on FB that time too
they have zero activity feb 21 to june 13, probably facing too many "go eat a dick" comments.
also seemed like a fine gay place just by location, no wonder a gay cake was ordered there, but only one in all this time?
"The bakery was at the intersection of 16th and Talbott streets, a hub of gay culture for decades. At least three long-established gay bars are just blocks away."
Last edited by lanx; 03-28-2015 at 02:26 AM.
Yeah, Tad is convinced that Iran stole MH370 and flew it to Iran to get ahold of some mangosteens. He was so convinced of this that he has a ban bet with me over it.
So I don't think debating him on the definition of what a religion is will get you anyhere.
An Indianapolis business owner called in to a local radio show to say that he would he eagerly discriminate against gays in his place of business. I love how he cites his Christian upbringing as the reason for not wanting gays in his restaurant yet readily admits to lying to suspected gay customers in the past about kitchen equipment being broken to avoid serving them. Selective Christians are the best Christians. However he wasn't eager enough about the new law to name his business. I wonder how he hopes to eagerly flex his Jesus muscles and keep it from getting out locally.
An entire city refuses to do business with a homo which results in them being forced to drive 50 miles to buy groceries or leaves them unable to get electricity/water to their home because the utility companies won't provide service to them? Sure, we've got an issue. Randy's cake shop won't sell you a cake for your gay marriage? Who the fuck cares, buy a cake somewhere else.
On a seperate note, I like all the retards in here raging against religion claiming it's not fair for "religious nutjobs" to force their beliefs on anyone else while simultaneously wanting THEIR views shit down everyone else's throats because "lolz i'm right cause i'm anti-religion, my thoughts are teh proper way to human. If you disagree with me, go fuck yourself, bigot.".
How many of you who rage at religious groups for "trying to ostracize people from their communities and show them they aren't appreciated" and talk about how wrong it is get all giddy and start screaming how glorious it is when people do things far worse, more destructive, and usually a lot more harmful (physically or otherwise) than simply refusing service on something like a wedding cake but aim it at a "religious group" whether it's a church somewhere or even some loons like the Westboro Baptist crowd.
Last edited by ZombieWizardhawk; 03-28-2015 at 08:20 AM.
telling me that I have to love people or else is the greatest hate crime of all.
Shit like this law make me want to leave the country, not just the state. I firmly believe people are gay when born, that it isn't a decision that comes with puberty or whatever. Telling them they don't get service is absolutely no different than segregating blacks or Jews or Native North Americans or whatever. This shit is bonkers.
We can work with this
I don't even want trannies discriminated when they go out in public to shop at businesses. Which goes to Itzena's attempt to cry hypocrisy as well about the GG thread.
There is a wide divide between refusal to pander to the internet based social justice movement that does nothing but whine and bitch endlessly about privilege and shit, and actually supporting discriminating against those people when they go out shopping.
Last edited by hodj; 03-28-2015 at 12:29 PM.
Take it up with the Supremes if you disagree.
Katzenbach v. McClung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce. The ruling was a 9–0 decision in favor of the plaintiff—the United States government.
Gen. Anthony doesn't recognize the authority of the SCOTUS.
I still fail to see the issue, as mentioned above make it a club where you instantly make people join for a small fee of $1.00 or whatever and it's good for a year. They do that in lots of other "retail" type businesses like bars and retaurants. Don't want to server them, fine "you're not a member".
It's really simple: people should get to discriminate in this country under our First Amendment rights of Association, Free Speech and Free Exercise of Religion. And if you don't like how someone's FA rights mean that you don't get your cake, guess what? You get to take your business elsewhere to someone who isn't a bigot and give them your money. You should not get to take them to court.
1. I don't need an education on a "little background" you can read the wikipedia link it is comprehensive
2. No matter how much you want to cry that 1st amendment right to free association gives you a right to discriminate when running a public business, the fact is that you're wrong, the Supremes have decided this multiple times. You're free to have a wrong opinion, but its wrong and that isn't going to change regardless of how much you wish it were so.
This isn't up for debate. The Supremes decided 9-0 that the Feds have a reasonable right to regulate to prevent discrimination, because it affects interstate commerce, which it does.
You cannot have this discussion devoid of the historical context of most of the businesses in the South segregating and discriminating against customers, and how that socially accepted mass discrimination affected the fundamental rights of the people being discriminated against.
Your right to dislike someone based on their skin color, sexual orientation, etc ends at their nose, and when discrimination could lead to loss of access to basic goods and services such as buying food, the discriminators are the ones violating the basic fundamental rights of the discriminated against. Its that simple.
And the social consequences of this viewpoint you are expressing is that you'd tear our civilization apart at the seams. Blacks only serving blacks. Whites only serving whites. Gays only serving gays. Christians only interacting with Christians. Muslims only interacting with Muslims.
If you think the Feds don't have a vested interest in preventing that sort of social mass break down, you might be retarded.
But this is tad we're talking about, so yeah.
Last edited by hodj; 03-28-2015 at 02:45 PM.
I don't entirely understand why this is even a law.
Couple wants a wedding cake from wedding cake shop. Wedding cake shop owner says, "Newp". Couple sues wedding cake shop, wedding cake shop calls his buddy who works in the statehouse and everyone decides to pass a law because god damn this is retarded?
I mean is there really something special about these cakes? Are they that good? Cause the law is kinda retarded. But it's kinda retarded both ways. Hey, fucknuts, make the cake for Adam and Steve over there. Like you got anything better to do. And hey, Adam and Steve fucknuts. Here's an idea. When a baker tells you you're going to hell and he won't make you your god damn wedding cake... here's an idea: Maybe, just maybe, you don't want to eat that wedding cake anyway.
ITS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THING.
It's a frilly cake man.
Was it something like he said yes at first and then found out it was for a homo marriage and then reneged, and they went after him for the wasted time? Cause if so, he should be happy it wasn't a woman he renegged on. Bitch woulda burnt his bakery down.
As mentioned earlier, the baker agreed to make the cake. When the baker found out that she/he would be baking a cake for a gay couple, she said she could not bake it due to religious reasons.
Yeah, law's retarded. He owes them for the waste of time. Same as he'd owe a pair of breeders. Just trying to cheap out in the name of Jesus. Ain't what it's about, man.
But a business owner should have the right to refuse service for whatever damnfool reason he wants to. Just not reneg. They ain't slaves.
2. Try reading the actual decision sometime instead of Wikipedia.
3. You are welcome to defend the logic of the McClung decision by explaining to the world how BBQ sandwiches sold from a single location affect Interstate Commerce. Good luck.
You seem to be operating under the false assumption that this decision can't be reversed. It's already been partially reversed by the Roberts Court in Obamacare case.
So you basically think everyone is a bigot and only the coercive power of the state keeps us from tearing each other apart.]And the social consequences of this viewpoint you are expressing is that you'd tear our civilization apart at the seams.
When you have no cars, does that mean you really have a car, tad?
When you have no money, does that really mean you're rich?
By the same reasoning, when you have a LACK OF BELIEF IN A CLAIM, you do not BELIEVE THAT CLAIM.
1. Genetic fallacies aren't rebuttals2. Try reading the actual decision sometime instead of Wikipedia.
2. How Accurate Is Wikipedia?
You are literally this retarded.In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica—"the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts.
And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute.
The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies.
I don't need to defend the logic of the decision, we already had 9 supreme court justices do that for me, including 4 of them all writing confirming opinions on the case. If you'd like to argue the logic of their decision, my suggestion is take it up with the Supreme Court.3. You are welcome to defend the logic of the McClung decision by explaining to the world how BBQ sandwiches sold from a single location affect Interstate Commerce. Good luck.
I'm not operating under any assumptions here. The fact that you think because something could maybe potentially happen in the future, therefore the law isn't the way it is today because of that, is fucking dumb. But it is you we're talking about here.You seem to be operating under the false assumption that this decision can't be reversed. It's already been partially reversed by the Roberts Court in Obamacare case
No, I think we have a history in this country of a mass discrimination machine perpetuated against a segment of our population, and that was recent enough history that people still remember what it would be like if we went back to that.So you basically think everyone is a bigot and only the coercive power of the state keeps us from tearing each other apart.
Shitty attempt to claim reverse racism is shitty.Racist much?
Last edited by hodj; 03-28-2015 at 04:35 PM.
I will never understand why professors will not allow citations/references of Wikipedia when it is incredibly accurate and up-to-date.
They all suggest you use the citations section of the articles as a starting point, and they all suggest you use the article as a way to get a broad general overview of the topic you want to discuss, they just don't want direct citations from wikipedia because its already done all your work for you.
You just cite Wikipedia's sources and not Wikipedia itself. Rarely was I ever unable to track down their sources.
I don't mind doing the hard work. I just dislike the fact that it's completely set in stone, "NO WIKIPEDIA". And yeah, Wikipedia has all the citations you need to go to the main source, haha.
I did read the linked story. Didn't see shit about the initial cause, Cappn. Maybe I gave up too soon.
But when the whole thing is 5 paragraphs, and they haven't gotten to it by the 3rd, I feel confident that I spent my time in a more productive manner.
Can someone actually quote scripture that has any context for people refusing gays? Yes it's an "abomination" but it's making a cake for them actually a sin or have any repercussions for damning their eternal soul to burn in hell?
If someone can or cannot do it, case closed but if it's purely interpretation, well, bigot.
And that these analogies have nothing to do with anything.When you have no cars, does that mean you really have a car, tad?
When you have no money, does that really mean you're rich?
God isn't a car. Belief isn't a tangible thing. The proper analogy is when all you ever see are White Swans so you assert that Black Swans do not exist. That's a logical fallacy, and the one you're making. Atheism is a belief system centered about the unprovable through scientific means assertion that God does not exist, and those who propagate and evangelize it like you seem to be doing in this thread have turned it into a religion. But that's for that other thread, right.By the same reasoning, when you have a LACK OF BELIEF IN A CLAIM, you do not BELIEVE THAT CLAIM.
Yeah, that's not how Constitutional Law works which points out that you know fuck all about what you're talking about it.No, you're trying to debate a settled issue. I'm merely pointing out you're retarded
Constitutional Law changes all the time and decisions have been completely walked back: Plessy v. Ferguson comes to mind.I'm not operating under any assumptions here. The fact that you think because something could maybe potentially happen in the future, therefore the law isn't the way it is today because of that, is fucking dumb. But it is you we're talking about here.
Yes. You're a super-secret racist who think everyone else is a super-secret racist and wants Jim Crow back. I got that already.No, I think we have a history in this country of a mass discrimination machine perpetuated against a segment of our population, and that was recent enough history that people still remember what it would be like if we went back to that.
Shitty defense of your flat-out racist statement is shitty.Shitty attempt to claim reverse racism is shitty.
I mean you can say it, but the fact that you're trying to hand wave it away because you can't actually address it is all the evidence we need that you don't have a rebuttal to basic, simple facts. You cannot have a lack of belief, and then call it a religion. A religion is defined as a series of beliefs. By definition, a lack of belief is not a belief. Therefore atheism cannot be a religion. This is definitional.And that these analogies have nothing to do with anything.
Your god does not exist to be anything.God isn't a car.
Incorrect. We can demonstrate on a very visceral level when beliefs are accepted in the brain. Neural imaging and brain scanning has demonstrated that there are very real physiological processes that occur in the brain when someone accepts something as a belief.Belief isn't a tangible thing.
Functional neuroimaging of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty - Harris - 2007 - Annals of Neurology - Wiley Online Library
The difference between believing and disbelieving a proposition is one of the most potent regulators of human behavior and emotion. When one accepts a statement as true, it becomes the basis for further thought and action; rejected as false, it remains a string of words. The purpose of this study was to differentiate belief, disbelief, and uncertainty at the level of the brain.
We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study the brains of 14 adults while they judged written statements to be “true” (belief), “false” (disbelief), or “undecidable” (uncertainty). To characterize belief, disbelief, and uncertainty in a content-independent manner, we included statements from a wide range of categories: autobiographical, mathematical, geographical, religious, ethical, semantic, and factual.
The states of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty differentially activated distinct regions of the prefrontal and parietal cortices, as well as the basal ganglia.Until you can provide evidence to justify your claim that black swans exist, whether they exist somewhere in the universe or not is irrelevant to the fact that belief in their existence is not justified.The proper analogy is when all you ever see are White Swans so you assert that Black Swans do not exist.
No, its called rational skepticism, where you do not just believe a claim of existence because someone can imagine it potentially being true. We've been over this with Dumar. Try go reading the Atheism thread.That's a logical fallacy
Disbelieving positive claims for which there is no evidence is not a logical fallacy. Again, you need to go back to basic intro to logic 101.and the one you're making
Wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief in a positive claim of a god's existence. Again, you cannot have a lack of belief and call that a belief. This is definitional.. Atheism is a belief system
Stale strawman from theists is stale. Already rebutted twice in this post. Regurgitate your shitty wrong opinion all you want, A will never equal Not A. That's definitional.centered about the unprovable through scientific means assertion that God does not exist
Can't evangelize a lack of belief. Evangelism is an attempt to convert someone to a religion, like Christianity. A lack of belief is not belief, so atheism isn't a religion, so you can't convert people to it, and you can't evangelize to them. Try again, and those who propagate and evangelize it
Incorrect.like you seem to be doing in this thread have turned it into a religion
Actually this has already been hashed out in the Atheism thread, and you're wrong on the subject which ever thread you choose to shitpost about it in.But that's for that other thread, right.
It actually is how our Constitutional law works: Supreme Court hears a case, makes a decision, and that decision is final.Yeah, that's not how Constitutional Law works
He says while stating that 2 and 2 equate to 5 for all intents and purposes.which points out that you know fuck all about what you're talking about it.
Using one genetic fallacy to defend another genetic fallacy when the article cited points out that every single peer reviewed look at Wikipedia's articles demonstrate their validity isn't a rebuttal. Its a cop out. A pathetic, shitty one at that.You're quoting Live Science to defend Wikipedia? GTFO.
That's nice. You're never going to see the Supreme's revoke this decision, and since they haven't yet, speculating that they might one day is meaningless to this discussion. The law is settled. You will not see a time where a case like this goes to the Supremes and they decide that, yes, in fact, its perfectly okay for private businesses to refuse service to customers based on their race, class, biological sex, religion, sexual persuasion, etc.Constitutional Law changes all the time
Cites a case where discriminatory policies were revoked to justify an argument that discriminatory policies will be reinstated. Retarded.and decisions have been completely walked back: Plessy v. Ferguson comes to mind.
Clearly whether you consciously want Jim Crow back, the policy you support is how Jim Crow came to be in the first place, so arguing for your position is, in fact, stating you would like to take us back to Jim CrowYes. You're a super-secret racist who think everyone else is a super-secret racist and wants Jim Crow back
And Tad has now devolved to the "I'm rubber, you're glue" phase of his shitty 1st grade debate methodology.Shitty defense of your flat-out racist statement is shitty.
Last edited by hodj; 03-28-2015 at 05:37 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)