Indiana

[Marc.Knight]

Private business owners should not feel compelled to serve anyone -- regardless of how screwed-up we may think the reason is -- that they don`t feel comfortable serving. Period.

Take your point to the next natural conclusion.  If we do, then we could surmise that hotel or restaurant chains, for example, could decide to bar African Americans, or people of Chinese descent simply because they don't feel comfortable serving them?  It is an absurd argument to state that because of what someone intrinsically is, is reason enough to alienate them.  I think the argument for 'rights to exclude' is better placed as an option to deter non-social behavior, rather than the intrinsic nature of the person.  For example, excluding a sexual predator from a school zone is based on evidence of the person's malevolent behavior, and not an action based on their mere existence as a person.

[albrecht]

Take your point to the next natural conclusion.  If we do, then we could surmise that hotel or restaurant chains, for example, could decide to bar African Americans, or people of Chinese descent simply because they don't feel comfortable serving them?  It is an absurd argument to state that because of what someone intrinsically is, is reason enough to alienate them.  I think the argument for 'rights to exclude' is better placed as an option to deter non-social behavior, rather than the intrinsic nature of the person.  For example, excluding a sexual predator from a school zone is based on evidence of the person's malevolent behavior, and not an action based on their mere existence as a person.

So if it could be shown by FBI, and other statistics, that a demographic of a certain age, or race, are more likely to have been involved in the penal system or be more violent than it would be ok to refuse service to them? What if it is based on data and statistics and not tied to the individual's background check but a preponderance of risk due to the statistical information?

As I said the marketplace will solve this question because if you discriminate too much you will have no customers. Let business owners discriminate as they wish (as long as you aren't accepting government money, loans, grants, tax-breaks, etc.) What about housing? If I'm renting out a room, for example, would it be illegal for me to say I want an older, single women if I'm a 65 year old women trying to make ends meet and need to take on borders? What if I have teenage girls and want to stipulate that only a female can rent the spare room? Why are senior living centers and communities or all-girl dormitories allowed to say "no young people", "no children", "no men?" etc?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/07/legal-for-colorado-bakery-to-refuse-to-write-anti-gay-inscription-on-cake/

So it is legal to refuse to bake an anti-homosexual cake but illegal to refuse to bake a pro-homosexual cake? I guess this is similar to how Muslim bakers are allowed to refuse to make a pro-homosexual cake, say in Dearborn, but a Christian baker MUST make a pro-homosexual cake elsewhere?
http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/

[Gd5150]

I applaud Courtney, and other members of the gay community, for understanding the real issue here.

http://www.usaheadlinenews.com/members-of-gay-community-apologize-to-memories-pizza-donations-nearing-300k/

Agreed. Its sad normal folk end up being represented by the fringe protestor types who don't represent anyone but organized protesting groups. The large majority of gay people want to be left alone to live their lives and not be bothered. They work, pay taxes, and vote. And many more than most think are conservative. Why? Because they work, and they pay taxes. The ones running around in pink thongs shoving their sexuality in peoples faces at parades represent about as many in the gay community as the gentle giants burning down Ferguson represent the black community. But those in the media loves these incendiary types and put them on pedestals because most who make up the media would like be be out their protesting with them.

[Marc.Knight]

What about housing? If I'm renting out a room, for example, would it be illegal for me to say I want an older, single women if I'm a 65 year old women trying to make ends meet and need to take on borders? What if I have teenage girls and want to stipulate that only a female can rent the spare room? Why are senior living centers and communities or all-girl dormitories allowed to say "no young people", "no children", "no men?" etc?

The range of service defines the clientele.  By definition, a "senior living center" serves seniors.  This is more of a "passive exclusion" based on the definition of the serving entity.  "Active exclusion" would be if the senior living center served seniors, but excluded "gay" seniors. 

The societal distinction that you are subtly touching upon is between what is public policy (law) in contrast to what is ethical, which exists with or without law.  I contend that it is unethical to actively exclude anyone from services that are otherwise provided to a select group or provided to the wider public if that exclusion is based on a peculiarity of that person or class of persons.  Passive exclusion, rightly, allows any entity to form and serve a defined clientele.  However, even extremes of passive exclusion can stretch the boundaries of what could be considered ethical.

Examples:

Passive exclusion: pizza restaurant open to the public.  Delivery is limited to a certain radius beyond which people are excluded from delivery service.

Active exclusion: pizza restaurant will not serve or deliver to gays in the radius of delivery, but will serve the rest of the public.

[albrecht]

The range of service defines the clientele.  By definition, a "senior living center" serves seniors.  This is more of a "passive exclusion" based on the definition of the serving entity.  "Active exclusion" would be if the senior living center served seniors, but excluded "gay" seniors. 

The societal distinction that you are subtly touching upon is between what is public policy (law) in contrast to what is ethical, which exists with or without law.  I contend that it is unethical to actively exclude anyone from services that are otherwise provided to a select group or provided to the wider public if that exclusion is based on a peculiarity of that person or class of persons.  Passive exclusion, rightly, allows any entity to form and serve a defined clientele.  However, even extremes of passive exclusion can stretch the boundaries of what could be considered ethical.

Examples:

Passive exclusion: pizza restaurant open to the public.  Delivery is limited to a certain radius beyond which people are excluded from delivery service.

Active exclusion: pizza restaurant will not serve or deliver to gays in the radius of delivery, but will serve the rest of the public.

Here there is debate about extending Federal laws already in place for Section 8 and other subsidized housing to private parties that haven't gotten government tax-breaks, etc. Essentially ending "sources of income" discrimination, as they call it. Fun "debate" on local AM drive-time radio!

Redlining is also found to be illegal by some courts and laws. And laws like CRA. Why shouldn't this apply to Domino's (or other Pizza place) or cab companies, etc? So we have already set several precedents that a company/person cannot even use verifiable economic data in making business decisions!

What is next? You MUST offer credit to people who have no verifiable sources of income and poor credit history? The poor pizza guy must deliver pizza into a well-known gang-activity zone at night? The Tri-Delt house will have to allow guys, maybe a Ted Bundy type, live in their sorority house?

[VtaGeezer]

As I said the marketplace will solve this question because if you discriminate too much you will have no customers. Let business owners discriminate as they wish (as long as you aren't accepting government money, loans, grants, tax-breaks, etc.) What about housing? If I'm renting out a room, for example, would it be illegal for me to say I want an older, single women if I'm a 65 year old women trying to make ends meet and need to take on borders? What if I have teenage girls and want to stipulate that only a female can rent the spare room? Why are senior living centers and communities or all-girl dormitories allowed to say "no young people", "no children", "no men?" etc?

"...the marketplace will solve this question because if you discriminate too much you will have no customers..."

You bet; just ask a black person who remembers how well it worked before 1964.  More talk radio sophistry that collapses under even superficial inspection...unless your a right winger.  Are you that easily duped?

And you may restrict to whom you rent your back room quite specifically, as long as it's not a race or religious exclusion. For example, you can't exclude a Santarian based on his religion, but you may prohibit killing chickens or open flame in the premises. Ex-cons and sex offenders have a lot of trouble finding housing.  In most states, housing regs beyond the basics don't apply unless the property has multiple units.

[albrecht]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/azucar-bakery-did-not-discriminate-by-refusing-to-115703680320.html
Another article on the decision. Ok to refuse to bake an anti-homosexual cake but not ok to refuse to bake a pro-homosexual cake (unless you are a Muslim.) 

Personally I don't understand why people feel the need for sexual messages on cakes. Or why even the baker would need to know if you are a deviant (using the Obama administration CDC statistics of <2% of the population and, therefore a deviant from the norm?) What do these activists say: "I'm homosexual and make that have anchovies on it?" How does someone's sexuality, regardless of is nature or type, come up when ordering a pizze or cake even? It sort of reminds of Phil Hendrie's "gay reporter" who always had to mention "I'm gay." Classic bit.

Anyway, that is the apparently policy now: OK for some, not OK for others; at least in some places. But look for the media, the Feds, or other Courts to get involved- because things like the ability to have sexual-oriented cakes, and pizza, is clearly the number one issue facing our nation today!

[WOTR]

I believe that Jesus' philosophy would not only allow him to cater a "gay" wedding, but in all humility he would probably delicately wash their feet and celebrate their testimony of love before God. 

This can't be right.  Where is the hate?  if there is one thing that I have learned it is that Jesus would be full of hate and intolerance in today's society.  As a matter of fact, I think that Westboro is right and that 911 was punishment for being too accepting of homosexuals. 

Unlike you, I cannot speak for Jesus. However, I would guess that Jesus would ask the queers not to force someone that wishes not to participate in their queer weeding, to go somewhere else for their cake, instead of seeking out a victim upon whom to cast stones and to harass out of business because of their spiritual beliefs - which is the real issue here.

I forgot to study theology... But I am going to go with Marc on this one.  I doubt that Jesus would get involved in trying to segregate queers.  If anything, he seemed to get upset with those who claimed to know Gods thoughts (think pharisees) and sat in judgement of others.

I don't know that he would be present turning water into wine for the ceremony... But I cannot imagine him advocating that people deny service or love to one another in his name...

[VtaGeezer]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/azucar-bakery-did-not-discriminate-by-refusing-to-115703680320.html
Another article on the decision. Ok to refuse to bake an anti-homosexual cake but not ok to refuse to bake a pro-homosexual cake (unless you are a Muslim.) 

Personally I don't understand why people feel the need for sexual messages on cakes. Or why even the baker would need to know if you are a deviant (using the Obama administration CDC statistics of <2% of the population and, therefore a deviant from the norm?) What do these activists say: "I'm homosexual and make that have anchovies on it?" How does someone's sexuality, regardless of is nature or type, come up when ordering a pizze or cake even? It sort of reminds of Phil Hendrie's "gay reporter" who always had to mention "I'm gay." Classic bit.

Anyway, that is the apparently policy now: OK for some, not OK for others; at least in some places. But look for the media, the Feds, or other Courts to get involved- because things like the ability to have sexual-oriented cakes, and pizza, is clearly the number one issue facing our nation today!

Baking and delivering a wedding cake is not a "pro-homosexual" act unless the cake is required to be decorated with an explicit message. The bible thumper in CO wanted an explicitly anti-gay image on a cake, and was out to start a cake fight. The pizza place everyone is weeping over refused to deliver pizzas to a gay wedding. 

[WOTR]

Take your point to the next natural conclusion.  If we do, then we could surmise that hotel or restaurant chains, for example, could decide to bar African Americans, or people of Chinese descent simply because they don't feel comfortable serving them?

Why not?  I think the biggest reason that I would advocate this as being alright is because it would allow me to know that the business that I support do not turn around and give my money to their local KKK chapter.  I have a preference to know who I do business with and if that person hates African Americans, why should they profit and have the money to promote causes that work against their customers?  Why not come out and say it so that I know where my money may be directed..

I understand that laws had to be made in the past because a lunch counter that excluded African Americans would still attract a portion of the population.  And that portion of the population was large enough that it kept that establishement in business and caused tensions.  However, I believe we may be past that.  Stick up a "whites only" sign in your window and see how quickly even the whites abandon your shop...

The pizza joint brought in $800 000.  A surprisingly small amount given the amount of attention and air play that it received.  A surprisingly small portion of the population would put their money where their mouth was, and I question if that portion of the population could keep business' solvent once they started publicly outing themselves and putting up signs.

[136 or 142]

There are no impartial news sources, everyone has biases whether they recognize them and admit to them or not. 

I read or heard a quote of Edmund Burke the other day, it was something along the lines of ~if you want to understand a political viewpoint don't ask those who oppose it, ask those who support it~  But a person should really understand both/all sides of whatever issues they are interested in


By the way, how often have these websites pointed out the lies from 'their' side?  If they don't, isn't that a lie of omission?

1.There may be no impartial news sources but there are sources that try and be intellectually honest and there are sources that are partisan hacks.  All the sources you get your news from are obviously partisan hacks.

2.Of course a lie of omission is also a lie.

"Limbaugh is a national treasure"

If Dimbaugh is a 'national treasure' the currency truly is debased.

[AZ/CO]

The right to refuse service to someone started when our world was so much smaller.  If you owned the local coffee shop and the farmer down the street comes in reeking of BO, the counter manager might take him aside and say "sorry, Bob, but you'll have to leave.  You are upsetting my customers".  Worldwide travel has changed this.  In that same small town coffee shop, if a man of Indian descent wants a quaint cup of coffee and He smells of BO, asking him to leave would be discrimination.  The counter manager and the establishment would be sued although the Indian man's race was never, ever a factor.  Folks in the United States were so disgusted with racial discrimination enough so that it is against the law.

Gays want that protection - for it to be against the law to refuse them whatever, whenever.

The sticky point of Indiana is bringing Religion into it.  A wedding is usually a religious ceremony be it Christian, Jew, Muslim.  Many religions don't agree with homosexuality so do we now need laws forcing people put aside their religious beliefs?  Does the local merchant need to bend over backwards to make sure that no one is hurt or refused?  What about that local merchant.  Isn't his core belief being refused to be acknowledged?

Just my two cents...

[albrecht]

The right to refuse service to someone started when our world was so much smaller.  If you owned the local coffee shop and the farmer down the street comes in reeking of BO, the counter manager might take him aside and say "sorry, Bob, but you'll have to leave.  You are upsetting my customers".  Worldwide travel has changed this.  In that same small town coffee shop, if a man of Indian descent wants a quaint cup of coffee and He smells of BO, asking him to leave would be discrimination.  The counter manager and the establishment would be sued although the Indian man's race was never, ever a factor.  Folks in the United States were so disgusted with racial discrimination enough so that it is against the law.

Gays want that protection - for it to be against the law to refuse them whatever, whenever.

The sticky point of Indiana is bringing Religion into it.  A wedding is usually a religious ceremony be it Christian, Jew, Muslim.  Many religions don't agree with homosexuality so do we now need laws forcing people put aside their religious beliefs?  Does the local merchant need to bend over backwards to make sure that no one is hurt or refused?  What about that local merchant.  Isn't his core belief being refused to be acknowledged?

Just my two cents...

I will add that it is only Western countries, that is historically so-called "white" or European, or European-descended countries, that are being forced to "accommodate", change its culture or laws, adopt to immigrants' demands, or have open-borders. You will note not many activists protesting in Yemen about how Muslims treat homosexuals or calls for Japan to take in illegal immigrants and change their culture. Or official speeches and reprimands about benign Russia laws against homosexuals, meanwhile sending $$$ and no condemnation of how Saudi Arabia treats homosexuals (far worse than Russia or our bakers do.) No 'affirmative action' for whites in Zimbabwe or South Africa. (Though I have heard that Qatar has actually allowed a church to be build recently. But, on the whole, more are burnt in the region and not many new ones are allowed to be built.) So far as I know to vote in China they are not required to have ballots printed out in such myriad of languages as we do to vote in our elections. And nobody at our State Dept, or even La Raza, complains about Mexico kicking out immigrants or trying to protect their border with Guatemala.
My 2 cents.

[Quick Karl]

This can't be right.  Where is the hate?  if there is one thing that I have learned it is that Jesus would be full of hate and intolerance in today's society.  As a matter of fact, I think that Westboro is right and that 911 was punishment for being too accepting of homosexuals. 
I forgot to study theology... But I am going to go with Marc on this one.  I doubt that Jesus would get involved in trying to segregate queers.  If anything, he seemed to get upset with those who claimed to know Gods thoughts (think pharisees) and sat in judgement of others.

I don't know that he would be present turning water into wine for the ceremony... But I cannot imagine him advocating that people deny service or love to one another in his name...

If you cannot be polite enough to go find another pizza joint or bakery that wants your business, then you're just a douche bag trying to force your lifestyle choice into the realm someone that you know disagrees with it.

It's not the 1940's wherein there may have been, in fact, only one bakery in a town and real racism and worse was going on. The baker and the pizza owner simply said they would not provide their creative effort to a wedding they disagreed with. You would think people would be decent enough to respect their religious RIGHTS.

[RealCool Daddio]

No 'affirmative action' for whites in Zimbabwe or South Africa.
...
My 2 cents.

Of all the dumb ass shit I have seen posted on Bellgab, this is well and truly the stupidest.  You, sir, are the Grand Poobah of bigoted fuckwits.

On the plus side, conservatism in it's current form is as dead as the dinosaurs.  The extinction may take another decade or two, but the likes of Quick Karl and yourself will soon be "Darwined" from the face of the Earth.  Your hatred - and frankly, your very obvious lack of of anything approaching baseline intelligence - has rendered you obsolete.  You will be hard pressed to find anyone who will reproduce with you (unless, like Quick Karl, you favor changing the age of consent to pre-pubescent), your reprehensible world view so filled with fear of anything approaching diversity, and your general appeal as a human being so infinitesimally small, that you will no doubt die alone, crouched in a corner, muttering about "illegals" "sexual deviants" and "Kenyan Muslems".

Just as God intended.

[Quick Karl]

Of all the dumb ass shit I have seen posted on Bellgab, this is well and truly the stupidest.  You, sir, are the Grand Poobah of bigoted fuckwits.

On the plus side, conservatism in it's current form is as dead as the dinosaurs.  The extinction may take another decade or two, but the likes of Quick Karl and yourself will soon be "Darwined" from the face of the Earth.  Your hatred - and frankly, your very obvious lack of of anything approaching baseline intelligence - has rendered you obsolete.  You will be hard pressed to find anyone who will reproduce with you (unless, like Quick Karl, you favor changing the age of consent to pre-pubescent), your reprehensible world view so filled with fear of anything approaching diversity, and your general appeal as a human being so infinitesimally small, that you will no doubt die alone, crouched in a corner, muttering about "illegals" "sexual deviants" and "Kenyan Muslems".

Just as God intended.

Anal sex is for assholes - there's shit in there and, it smells like shit.

[RealCool Daddio]

Anal sex is for assholes - there's shit in there and, it smells like shit.

Your INTIMATE knowledge of the ins and outs of anal sex is well established, Karl.

[Quick Karl]

Your INTIMATE knowledge of the ins and outs of anal sex is well established, Karl.

Maybe for you it would take a rocket scientist to figure out that when he takes a shit, shit gets excreted out of his ass, and it smells like shit.

But most intelligent people can come to the conclusion pretty easily.

You better go brush your teeth and rinse with Listerine...

[RealCool Daddio]

You better go brush your teeth and rinse with Listerine...

More pro tips from a seasoned practioner.  I guess everyone in life has a calling, Karl.  You go, girl!

[WOTR]

If you cannot be polite enough to go find another pizza joint or bakery that wants your business, then you're just a douche bag trying to force your lifestyle choice into the realm someone that you know disagrees with it.

It's not the 1940's wherein there may have been, in fact, only one bakery in a town and real racism and worse was going on. The baker and the pizza owner simply said they would not provide their creative effort to a wedding they disagreed with. You would think people would be decent enough to respect their religious RIGHTS.

I agree with you in that if I know how a proprietor feels I (and most people) would happily find another place... Back to my requesting a sign in your window so that I do not make the mistake of making you uncomfortable by requesting service.  Yes, there will be a few people who want to make a point and want to demand the right to give a person who despises them money... But those people are probably few and far between.

As for it being a religious right- I only half agree.  I support a doctor in being able to refuse performing abortions as he may believe his mortal soul is in danger.  I would agree with allowing a priest to refuse to perform the service.  I cannot imagine that a pizza maker would be worried about his eternal soul- he just disagrees with it.  Now we are down to saying that what you do in your bedroom  is against my morals.  Not that I am worried about me sinning by providing the service- but rather that I disagree with gays and don't feel like baking a pizza (who the hell has pizza at their wedding anyhow???)

The main problem is that the vast majority of people who want a religious right do not want it because they are concerned that they are sinning by doing something, not doing something or coming in contact with gays- they are using it as an excuse.  It becomes difficult to know where that line is- and there is the possibility that the guy honestly thought that he would roast in his own pizza oven for eternity if he served pizza at a gay wedding... But I really doubt it.  He did not like gays and used his religious "right" as nothing more than an excuse to deny service.

[Quick Karl]

I agree with you in that if I know how a proprietor feels I (and most people) would happily find another place... Back to my requesting a sign in your window so that I do not make the mistake of making you uncomfortable by requesting service.  Yes, there will be a few people who want to make a point and want to demand the right to give a person who despises them money... But those people are probably few and far between.

As for it being a religious right- I only half agree.  I support a doctor in being able to refuse performing abortions as he may believe his mortal soul is in danger.  I would agree with allowing a priest to refuse to perform the service.  I cannot imagine that a pizza maker would be worried about his eternal soul- he just disagrees with it.  Now we are down to saying that what you do in your bedroom  is against my morals.  Not that I am worried about me sinning by providing the service- but rather that I disagree with gays and don't feel like baking a pizza (who the hell has pizza at their wedding anyhow???)

The main problem is that the vast majority of people who want a religious right do not want it because they are concerned that they are sinning by doing something, not doing something or coming in contact with gays- they are using it as an excuse.  It becomes difficult to know where that line is- and there is the possibility that the guy honestly thought that he would roast in his own pizza oven for eternity if he served pizza at a gay wedding... But I really doubt it.  He did not like gays and used his religious "right" as nothing more than an excuse to deny service.

Well then, how do we know the queer was really a queer, and not just pretending to be, to be a douche?

[Marc.Knight]

More pro tips from a seasoned practioner.  I guess everyone in life has a calling, Karl.  You go, girl!

Now we know why he is "Quick" Karl.

[Zetaspeak]

So now Conservatives is all for business owners to do what they want. Yet just a few years ago the same Conservatives were in an uproar when business decided to have non-English signs.

[albrecht]

So now Conservatives is all for business owners to do what they want. Yet just a few years ago the same Conservatives were in an uproar when business decided to have non-English signs.

I missed that thread. I have no problem with a business having non-English signs but the government shouldn't force businesses to HAVE to have any non-English signage, even for public safety purposes. If a business wants to have non-English signage I have no problem with that (considering the Obama Doctrine of open-borders it is likely a good business move actually depending on the area.) The difference being FORCED too to do something.

And the government and schools also shouldn't have official forms, voting ballots, court documents, hospital forms, signage, etc in other languages. Excepting teaching languages in schools no other language except English should be used in public schools (private schools can do what they wish as long as no public funds received.) And those citizens, residents, or illegals who don't understand English should be require to pay for a translator, or reimburse the cost if a tax-payer funded translator (even if police, court, or hospital) translate documents or something for them. (If they are a legitimate traveler on vacation or businessman and came to the country legally to visit or work a deal then I have no problem with EMS, legal, etc translating for them if they got into trouble or hurt.)

I would allow local jurisdictions (cities, counties, etc) and States, if they wish, to have non-English signage, in addition to English, as long as no Federal funds, grants, or tax money are used. (I could see some places would want it for tourist/historical reasons or simply because they have become flooded with non-English speakers due to the Obama Doctrine.) But not for any voting in a Federal election, legal proceedings, or jury duty.

[Quick Karl]

So now Conservatives is all for business owners to do what they want. Yet just a few years ago the same Conservatives were in an uproar when business decided to have non-English signs.

A business owner posting non-English signs is a Free Market choice.

The U.S. government FORCING ANYONE to accommodate non-English languages ANYWHERE, is a despotic plot to undermine the unity of Free American Citizens.

[PB the Deplorable]

A business owner posting non-English signs is a Free Market choice.

The U.S. government FORCING ANYONE to accommodate non-English languages ANYWHERE, is a despotic plot to undermine the unity of Free American Citizens.

There are now videos on YouTube where people are asking 'gay friendly' bakery]ies to prepare a sheet cake with messages such as 'We are against gay marriage', or certain Bible verses, and they are being turned down.

Of course there is no national outcry, and any media coverage sides with the bakery's right to not create cakes with 'hateful' messages.  Look how they report this

Warning:  if anyone still believes there are no double standards - either with 'Progressives' and cakes (read Christians and Gays), or in how Big Media reports issues - and wishes to continue believing that, do not watch)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSWmB0RKjpQ

[albrecht]

There are now videos on YouTube where people are asking 'gay friendly' bakery]ies to prepare a sheet cake with messages such as 'We are against gay marriage', or certain Bible verses, and they are being turned down.

Of course there is no national outcry, and any media coverage sides with the bakery's right to not create cakes with 'hateful' messages.  Look how they report this

Warning:  if anyone still believes there are no double standards - either with 'Progressives' and cakes (read Christians and Gays), or in how Big Media reports issues - and wishes to continue believing that, do not watch)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSWmB0RKjpQ

a Court in Colorado has already confirmed the new legal standard (at least in their jurisdiction) is that it is ok to refuse to make a anti-homosexual cake but it illegal to not make a pro-homosexual cake. Bizarre, but this is in keeping with the standard "progressive" idea that only whites can be racist, only men can rape, only Western countries need to change their culture,only Christians need to change their religion practices (and so on) because they have "the power" etc.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/07/legal-for-colorado-bakery-to-refuse-to-write-anti-gay-inscription-on-cake/

[VtaGeezer]

a Court in Colorado has already confirmed the new legal standard (at least in their jurisdiction) is that it is ok to refuse to make a anti-homosexual cake but it illegal to not make a pro-homosexual cake. Bizarre, but this is in keeping with the standard "progressive" idea that only whites can be racist, only men can rape, only Western countries need to change their culture,only Christians need to change their religion practices (and so on) because they have "the power" etc.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/07/legal-for-colorado-bakery-to-refuse-to-write-anti-gay-inscription-on-cake/

There's nothing remotely "pro-homosexual" about selling and delivering a damned cake unless the customer demands the baker make and sign a "pro" statement in buttercream on it. The argument being used by vendors is hollow. I've been to a lot of weddings never heard anyone describe the bakery or caterer or florist as "participants".  The jerk-off "ex-pastor" is just trying to stir up thumpers to write him check for doing such vital work for Jesus.

We've not come nearly as far as we so love congratulate ourselves for.

[PB the Deplorable]

.. We've not come nearly as far as we so love congratulate ourselves for.

Indeed.  According to the law, some are still more equal than others

[albrecht]

One thing I thought during the most recent orchestrated activist/media orgy....what kind of homosexuals are these people? Pizza at a wedding? They need to hire a homosexual wedding planner, like one of those always on tv or in the tabloids. Pizza for your so-called wedding?? I hope they at least they had an open-bar because that sounds like a fairly shitty "wedding."