Gay Mafia Is Fighting For Special Rights, Not Equal Rights

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
So, what right was infringed upon? Where is this right? Can someone point to it? Was it their right to be served? It’s true that we do generally have that right in modern America, though I don’t think we should and I certainly don’t think the Founders ever intended that we would. A business owner ought to be able to turn away anyone, at any time, for any reason. If it’s a bad or unkind reason, let the market punish him for it.

But that’s not the way things work in our “free” country. A person does, usually, basically, according to our modern laws, have the right to be served by an establishment that’s open to the public. Now here’s the good news: the gay couple were served. They were allowed to enter the store and they were allowed to purchase any item they desired. They could have walked right in and shouted, “We’re gay and we’re buying cookies!” And nobody would have stopped them from buying the cookies. Or cake. Or whatever they wanted. Phillips did not refuse to serve them. Rather, he refused to serve an event.

Ah. So that’s the right? They have a right to compel someone to provide a service, or create a product, for any event they’re planning? But wait. Nobody even pretends that this is a universal right. Again, it is understood that a Jew cannot be conscripted to serve a Nazi rally, a black person cannot be forced to serve a Klan meeting, a Muslim cannot be compelled to serve a conference of pork enthusiasts, a gay man cannot be told that he must create special cupcakes to be enjoyed at the next Westboro Baptist demonstration.

We see that every “right” so far suggested does not, and cannot, exist. But then comes the qualifier, and this appears to be the entire legal argument against Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop: you do not have these rights – unless you’re gay. The gay lobby is not seeking equal protection under the law. They already have it and then some. What they want are special protections.




WALSH: The Gay Lobby Is Fighting For Special Rights, Not Equal Rights
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
Factually incorrect. The cake shop did not serve the couple. They refused to design the cake.

Jack Phillips is a cake artist. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that he engaged in sexual orientation discrimination under the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act ("CADA'') when
he declined to design and create a custom cake honoring a samesex marriage because doing so conflicts with his sincerely held religious beliefs.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
4 Highlights From Christian Baker’s Wedding Cake Case at Supreme Court


1. Mutual Tolerance Is Essential in a Free Society

In one of the most charged exchanges of the day, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy questioned Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger about whether a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who compared Phillips to a racist and a Nazi demonstrated anti-religious bias—and that, if he did so, whether the judgment against Masterpiece should stand.

After disavowing the commissioner’s comments, Yarger argued that the ruling should still stand. But Kennedy returned to the issue again, telling Yarger that “tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs.”

Kennedy also pointed out there were other cake shops that would have accommodated Charlie Craig and David Mullins, the same-sex couple who requested a cake for their wedding.

In a similar line of questioning, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that the state of Colorado had failed to demonstrate mutual tolerance when it only protected the freedom of cake artists who landed on one side of the gay marriage debate—namely, the state’s side.

When three religious customers went to cake artists to request cakes that were critical of same-sex marriage, those cake artists declined—yet Colorado did not apply its anti-discrimination statute to punish the artists. But when Phillips declined to create a cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage, Colorado imposed a three-pronged penalty that drove him out of the wedding cake business, causing him to lose 40 percent of his business.

2. Compelled Speech for Everyone

3. Disagreement Does Not Equal Discrimination

Kennedy also challenged Colorado and the ACLU on their argument that Phillips discriminates on the basis of identity, rather than his idea of what constitutes a marriage. In an exchange with the ACLU attorney, Kennedy called the repeated attempts to characterize Phillips as discriminating on the basis of identity “too facile.”

During the oral arguments, the court appeared to recognize what is patently obvious from the facts. Phillips welcomes all people into his store, encourages them to buy off-the-shelf items, and will make custom-designed cakes for them provided they don’t ask for items that violate his beliefs.

He has served gays for the 24 years his store has been in operation and welcomes their business to this day. He does not discriminate against anybody because of their identity.

So comparisons to shopkeepers in the Jim Crow South who sought to keep the races “separate but equal” are a smear that divert attention from the real issue: Phillips simply disagrees with the state on the issue of marriage.


4. Orthodoxy Determined by the State
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
This is no different than a siding installer telling me that they do not install cedar shakes but offer to install vinyl siding instead.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
So do you guys believe the Supremes got their previous Piggly Park ruling wrong when they said that the white owner had to serve black customers despite his religious objections?
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
Islamic Bakery.jpg

O.K., Crab. What do you say about this one?
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
So let me get this straight....two guys want to put their dick in each other’s ass and want to force someone to bake a cake......

Makes sense to me...,,go SCOTUS....
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
So do you guys believe the Supremes got their previous Piggly Park ruling wrong when they said that the white owner had to serve black customers despite his religious objections?


not the same


so a Muslim should be forced to sell pork, a jew forced to print Neo-Nazi Flyers
 
Last edited:

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Heck, just ask them to make a gay wedding cake. They *kill* them in their country.



Louder With Crowder did just that, and got turned down multiple times

but you don't see gays going to Muslim Bakeries for Wedding Cakes they know better
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
How is it not the same?

He said he wouldn’t serve them based on his religious beliefs.

you really have not been paying attention, I am not going to explain it to you

I don't mind explaining it to her.

In Piggly Wiggly case, the offended suffered from a condition over which they had no control. In Masterpiece Cake, the offended were not suffering and they had made a personal choice to living the lifestyle they were living.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I don't mind explaining it to her.

In Piggly Wiggly case, the offended suffered from a condition over which they had no control. In Masterpiece Cake, the offended were not suffering and they had made a personal choice to living the lifestyle they were living.

Indeed ..... however one of the points being made,

'designing' a wedding cake is a Freedom of Expression as a work of art covered by the 1st Amendment like dance topless / nude in a Gentleman's Club or going topless in Central Park


after all the Masterpiece Cake has repeatedly said they would have sold them any other cake ..... that is hardly discriminatory
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
the offended were not suffering and they had made a personal choice to living the lifestyle they were living.

Here, I actually disagree with you. While even gay and bi friends I have, have said they do know people who say they are gay or bi but honestly think they really aren't -
I do think people are born that way. I wouldn't say it is "normal" anymore than being born blind or missing limbs or mentally retarded is "normal" - but I don't believe it is their fault.
I have two children who were born with abnormalities - I love them more than life, but they had no choice in the matter.

So it may surprise Sappy and others that while some of us support the baker in this instance - we still support gay marriage.
I have gay married relatives. That's fine with me. I support this man in his religion also.
I would not compel a Hasidic Jew or Muslim to do something against their religion, and there are a lot of places where that might happen.
Can you imagine an employer who compelled a religious person to work on a day their religion forbids them to?
To touch someone his religion forbids him to?

These men chose a baker and they could have bought anything in the store, and there would have been no problem - and that's from the owner saying that.
He said that.
What he objected to was making a wedding cake and thus endorsing the marriage and he believed he could not do that.
Almost certainly they could have gone to dozens of other places and had no problem.
They could have bought every other thing in the store, and he would have had no problem with it.
A Hasidic Jew or Muslim is not allowed to touch a member of the opposite sex unless they are married or related -
can people see that some people might take offense at that? It's their religion. They have that right.

For those who don't seem to understand tolerance towards religion - I suggest consider political lines.
Such as your union supporting Trump, and you paying union dues - and you can't have a job without the union.
 
Top