Current Events > Trump Sides with CHRISTIAN BAKER who REFUSED Service to a Gay Couple!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

every time these stories come up

Is the right to refuse service not applicable?
---

kkTheKiller42 posted...

every time these stories come up

Is the right to refuse service not applicable?

Stop supporting hate crimes, you bigoted facist!

/sarcasm

DonaldClinton posted...

kkTheKiller42 posted...

every time these stories come up

Is the right to refuse service not applicable?

Stop supporting hate crimes, you bigoted facist!

/sarcasm

is that what these last 100 posts have been about? lol
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

kkTheKiller42 posted...

is that what these last 100 posts have been about? lol

Pretty much.

It's the extremes most people are beyond sick of.

"Gay guy says other gays should just go somewhere else...."
"OMG U FUCKING ALT-RIGHT NAZI!!!!!"

Same old same old.

What does you being gay have anything to do with other people being discriminated?
---

classic ce
---

kkTheKiller42 posted...

every time these stories come up

Is the right to refuse service not applicable?

no because discrimination is not a right
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

What does you being gay have anything to do with other people being discriminated?

Victim hierarchy.

As in the two things are completely unrelated to one another?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. End of story. There are no "two sides to the story". They discriminated, and deserve to be shut down.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service"

The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores.
---

Inb4 Mal_Fet points out that federal law doesn't provide protections based on sexual orientation while ignoring that Colorado law does.
---

I4NRulez posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. End of story. There are no "two sides to the story". They discriminated, and deserve to be shut down.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service"

[appeal to authority]

The existence of a law is not a justification for itself. Explain why it's justified to force someone to bake a cake at gunpoint.
---

why does mal fet always purposely act dense in topics like this
theres no way hes serious
---

Mal_Fet posted...

I4NRulez posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. End of story. There are no "two sides to the story". They discriminated, and deserve to be shut down.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service"

[appeal to authority]

The existence of a law is not a justification for itself. Explain why it's justified to force someone to bake a cake at gunpoint.

Explain the justification for discriminating against LGBT.
---

Squidkids posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Blue_Inigo posted...

Imagine actually thinking discrimination over cakes is ok.

It's not ok to flame people, but police should not haul you off to jail for flaming people.

See the difference?

Um it is actual law people can't do this, and yet people start this S*** anyway

Where do you stand on DACA and illegal immigrants?

BGleason22 posted...

Squidkids posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Blue_Inigo posted...

Imagine actually thinking discrimination over cakes is ok.

It's not ok to flame people, but police should not haul you off to jail for flaming people.

See the difference?

Um it is actual law people can't do this, and yet people start this S*** anyway

Where do you stand on DACA and illegal immigrants?

dont care, what does that have to do with what I said?
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

I4NRulez posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. End of story. There are no "two sides to the story". They discriminated, and deserve to be shut down.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service"

[appeal to authority]

The existence of a law is not a justification for itself. Explain why it's justified to force someone to bake a cake at gunpoint.

Explain the justification for discriminating against LGBT.

People should be allowed to bake a cake or not bake a cake for whatever reason they choose without the government kicking in their door. Supporting otherwise is an endorsement of tyranny.

Your turn!
---

Mal_Fet posted...

People should be allowed to bake a cake or not bake a cake for whatever reason they choose.

a business isn't a person
---

Mal_Fet posted...

People should be allowed to bake a cake or not bake a cake for whatever reason they choose without the government kicking in their door. Supporting otherwise is an endorsement of tyranny.

don't open a bakery if you dont want to bake cakes lol
---

so we've gotten to the point where the civil rights act of 1964 is too much for this board's conservatrolls huh
---

Frolex posted...

so we've the civil rights act of 1964 is too much for this board's conservatrolls huh

and the president consevatorll too..
I swear he is trolling us.. how can someone be so clueless?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

I4NRulez posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. End of story. There are no "two sides to the story". They discriminated, and deserve to be shut down.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service"

[appeal to authority]

The existence of a law is not a justification for itself. Explain why it's justified to force someone to bake a cake at gunpoint.

Explain the justification for discriminating against LGBT.

People should be allowed to bake a cake or not bake a cake for whatever reason they choose without the government kicking in their door. Supporting otherwise is an endorsement of tyranny.

Your turn!

If you think that it's tyrannical that private citizens and other organizations use their positions to stifle the free speech of white supremacists and neo-nazis then why do you consider it tyrannical that the government forces Christians to provide accommodations to the LGBT against their wishes? How is it that the actions of private citizens discriminating against white supremacists gets you upset but not private citizens discriminating against the LGBT?
---

Or better yet: why do you get upset that Google chose to no longer associate with the conservative dude who wrote the manifesto and while supporting the bakery refusing to serve this gay couple?
---

Rika_Furude posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

People should be allowed to bake a cake or not bake a cake for whatever reason they choose.

a business isn't a person

Incorrect. A business is a group of people.

A_Good_Boy posted...

If you think that it's tyrannical that private citizens and other organizations use their positions to stifle the free speech

Tyrannical? No. Immoral? Yes. I never said that Google should be forced to keep someone employed. You're just projecting your own natural impulse when something offends you (trying to ban it) onto me.

Unlike most regressives, I don't believe in making everything I don't like illegal.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Incorrect. A business is a group of people.

a business is not a single person nor is it a group of people. a business is commercial activity, and commercial activity is not a person nor is commercial activity a group of people
---

Rika_Furude posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Incorrect. A business is a group of people.

a business is not a single person nor is it a group of people. a business is commercial activity, and commercial activity is not a person nor is commercial activity a group of people

What's a business with no one in it? Oh yeah: nothing.

And your point is moot. No one should be able to force you to bake a cake at gunpoint, be it your boss or a police officer.

What's it like being such an unapologetic bootlicker?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

What's a business with no one in it? Oh yeah: nothing.

goalpost status: hauled ass

seriously, this is too easy. you're always wrong but never this wrong
---

Rika_Furude posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

What's a business with no one in it? Oh yeah: nothing.

goalpost status: hauled ass

seriously, this is too easy. you're always wrong but never this wrong

You're wrong about what a business is and you've failed to explain why anyone, in a business or not, should be forced at gunpoint to bake a cake.

Honestly the only reason I'm still asking you at this point is out of morbid curiosity of how far you will go to avoid answering a simple question.
---

Literally arguing with Rika
---

Mal_Fet posted...

You're wrong about what a business is and you've failed to explain why anyone, in a business or not, should be forced at gunpoint to bake a cake.

they aren't. nobody forced them at gunpoint to open the business or to operate in america. they can always just not run a business, or run a business in some shitty country like korea if they need to discriminate
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Literally arguing with Rika

And getting schooled by Rika that's even worse.
---

DreadedWave posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Literally arguing with Rika

And getting schooled by Rika that's even worse.

i see posts like this in nearly every topic i argue in. why continue this "rika is bad" gimmick
---

DreadedWave posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Literally arguing with Rika

And getting schooled by Rika that's even worse.

Not really.

"It shouldn't be illegal "

" a business is not a person! "

That's not an argument its just quoting CNN
---

Liberals when it benefits them: "bu.. but! The law!"

UnfairRepresent posted...

DreadedWave posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Literally arguing with Rika

And getting schooled by Rika that's even worse.

Not really.

"It shouldn't be illegal "

" a business is not a person! "

That's not an argument its just quoting CNN

i dont watch cnn. you've failed yet again to counter my argument. piss off you troll
---

What about that restaurant in Hawaii that had a sign that said "If you voted for Trump you can not eat here! No Nazis"? What is CE's stance on that?
---

fuzzylittlbunny posted...

What about that restaurant in Hawaii that had a sign that said "If you voted for Trump you can not eat here! No Nazis"? What is CE's stance on that?

political discrimination is also bad
---

fuzzylittlbunny posted...

What about that restaurant in Hawaii that had a sign that said "If you voted for Trump you can not eat here! No Nazis"? What is CE's stance on that?

Same.

Guys are dicks, go to not dicks inc down the road to get served
---

fuzzylittlbunny posted...

What about that restaurant in Hawaii that had a sign that said "If you voted for Trump you can not eat here! No Nazis"? What is CE's stance on that?

Political opinions are not a protected class, nor should they be.
---

_Near_ posted...

fuzzylittlbunny posted...

What about that restaurant in Hawaii that had a sign that said "If you voted for Trump you can not eat here! No Nazis"? What is CE's stance on that?

Political opinions are not a protected class, nor should they be.

They actually are in some states.
---

YugiNoob posted...

_Near_ posted...

fuzzylittlbunny posted...

What about that restaurant in Hawaii that had a sign that said "If you voted for Trump you can not eat here! No Nazis"? What is CE's stance on that?

Political opinions are not a protected class, nor should they be.

They actually are in some states.

I was speaking federally. But I think protected classes should be reserved mainly for immutable characteristics. I should be able to kick out a Nazi out of my establishment, but not a gay person. And sexual orientation needs to be read into the 14th amendment pronto so these topics can stop happening.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

All laws are backed by a threat of violence. No one would follow any laws if they could just refuse to do what the courts say and never see any further repercussions.

That was kind of my point. Do you think that is justified in every instance except discrimination? Because you say all laws are have to be backed by threat of violence, but you also said the punishment should fit the crime. So what other laws do you feel should be abolished? Or are you ok with the threat of violence in literally every other instance?

Mal_Fet posted...

What if you tell them you don't want to be arrested?

What do police do to people who resist arrest?

People who resist arrest may get a gun pointed at them. It seems a little disingenuous to say "People are forced at gunpoint to follow laws" when it is really "If you break the law, continually ignore warnings to stop it or pay restitution, and then one day aggressively resist arrest, you might get a gun drawn on you." You're making a shitty emotional appeal by screaming about guns and government force. That might be a solid argument if you were an anarchist, but you're just worrying about discrimination laws and exaggerating to push your agenda. And since you want to be so technical, you would be having a gun drawn on you for breaking a different law and acting violent. So yeah, stick that in your pipe.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

they aren't. nobody forced them at gunpoint to open the business or to operate in america.

Can you defend the law on it's own merit or can't you?

hockeybub89 posted...

That was kind of my point. Do you think that is justified in every instance except discrimination?

Most laws are justified. A lot aren't. Why do you keep acting like saying this law is terrible is equivalent to saying all laws are terrible? Quote where I said such a thing.

hockeybub89 posted...

People who resist arrest may get a gun pointed at them. It seems a little disingenuous to say "People are forced at gunpoint to follow laws" when it is really "If you break the law, continually ignore warnings to stop it or pay restitution, and then one day aggressively resist arrest, you might get a gun drawn on you."

Yeah. They will draw guns on you if you refuse to comply with any law. That's why I say all laws are backed up with a threat of violence.

You know why no one was punished for Eric Garner's death? Because the law was that you aren't allowed to sell untaxed cigarettes. Because that law exists, the police were required to use violence to stop him, which is why they weren't at fault when his asthma acted up and killed him. So you're ok with that, right?
---

Texas_Horns posted...

OEIO999 posted...

CADE FOSTER posted...

Dont know why you would turn away money religious people are crazy

God bless Atheists.

Bible doesn't value money

literally every character in the bible is gay. it was just lost in translation
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Most laws are justified. A lot aren't. Why do you keep acting like saying this law is terrible is equivalent to saying all laws are terrible? Quote where I said such a thing.

You said punishments should fit the crime because of the 8th Amendment. You are also saying all laws need to be backed with threats of violence to be effective. So does that not mean any non-violent crime should be legal? Otherwise, people might potentially get guns pointed at them if they break the law for long enough, something you think is morally wrong. Or do you think the threat of violence is cool as long as it isn't for discrimination? Is the threat of violence justified for crimes like tax evasion, fraud, or hacking? If not, then it sounds like you disagree with them being illegal. If Yes, what is the fundamental difference between those and discrimination in your opinion?
---

hockeybub89 posted...

You said punishments should fit the crime because of the 8th Amendment. You are also saying all laws need to be backed with threats of violence to be effective. So does that not mean any non-violent crime should be legal?

No, but it does mean that not baking a cake shouldn't be illegal. Any other questions?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Can you defend the law on it's own merit or can't you?

*its

BAD Mal_Fet! BAD!
---

Mal_Fet posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

You said punishments should fit the crime because of the 8th Amendment. You are also saying all laws need to be backed with threats of violence to be effective. So does that not mean any non-violent crime should be legal?

No, but it does mean that not baking a cake shouldn't be illegal. Any other questions?

Not baking a cake due to someone's immutable characteristics is seen as discrimination. Discrimination is considered wrong and breaking the law. What I want you to is explain to me how discrimination law is unjustifiable, but other non-violent law is. Remember, you said all laws need to be backed with the threat of violence AND that violence is unjustifiable if you aren't hurting anyone. So with that in mind, how can you support any law barring non-violent actions?
---

Trying to argue against discrimination laws by saying "You don't have a right to get a cake from a specific baker" is like arguing against theft laws by saying "You don't have a right to own a PlayStation". No, those specific things aren't in law, but being denied those things are singular examples of larger issues that are specifically codified in the Constitution or other statutes.
---