On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:01:17 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Forgot to ask... are you a prison guard elsewhere? Maybe you said so to
someone else previously, but I missed it if you did. No problem if you
don't care to say, though. I've always thought that would be a difficult
job to work at.

Retired after 25 years as a Penologist. The job is difficult. Most
people are not ready to do what needs to be done. I respect that.

Paid my own pension, so did my bride. The dual checks keep coming.


wow ... that's a long time doing that job. You still have a sense of
humor, too.

We didn't make a lot of money but we had a lot of fun. Constant change
in routine is very important. Eight prisons in those 25 years. You
get to see other locations.

On 7/13/2015 2:40 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:01:17 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Forgot to ask... are you a prison guard elsewhere? Maybe you said so to
someone else previously, but I missed it if you did. No problem if you
don't care to say, though. I've always thought that would be a difficult
job to work at.

Retired after 25 years as a Penologist. The job is difficult. Most
people are not ready to do what needs to be done. I respect that.

Paid my own pension, so did my bride. The dual checks keep coming.


wow ... that's a long time doing that job. You still have a sense of
humor, too.

We didn't make a lot of money but we had a lot of fun. Constant change
in routine is very important. Eight prisons in those 25 years. You
get to see other locations.


Is there a particular memory that has stuck with you from working in
those 8 prisons?

--
Maggie

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:32:56 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/13/2015 2:40 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:01:17 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Forgot to ask... are you a prison guard elsewhere? Maybe you said so to
someone else previously, but I missed it if you did. No problem if you
don't care to say, though. I've always thought that would be a difficult
job to work at.

Retired after 25 years as a Penologist. The job is difficult. Most
people are not ready to do what needs to be done. I respect that.

Paid my own pension, so did my bride. The dual checks keep coming.


wow ... that's a long time doing that job. You still have a sense of
humor, too.

We didn't make a lot of money but we had a lot of fun. Constant change
in routine is very important. Eight prisons in those 25 years. You
get to see other locations.


Is there a particular memory that has stuck with you from working in
those 8 prisons?

Yes. A warden in NY put me in the penalty box. I had to stay in the
same region Not the first time I was called on the carpet.

http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/lew/index.jsp after my
penalty I graduated back out ... You can't be a cowboy unless you step
in horse ****. Lewisburg was a crown jewel, to work there.

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:20:30 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:33:20 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:


You need to stick to the facts. This had nothing to do with them
refusing to go to their reception. It was pure bigotry based on
religion. They refused to sell a cake to a lesbian couple. Just as in
the south in the 50's businesses refused to do business with Blacks.
They violated the law. It's that simple.

http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet...lissa-damages/

From your own source, the judge said they refused to provide
"wedding cake services". Typically, wedding cake services include
delivering the cake, setting it up at the reception. I took it
to mean it was more than just picking up a cake, so you might be
right on that point. But to me it doesn't matter. And where is your
lib outrage at the illegal, unconstitutional gag order the court
put on the bakers?

He didn't put a 'gag order' on them. He did limit their ability to
tell lies.

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:27:24 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/12/2015 10:00 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 6:01:43 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message news:388319c7-

stuff snipped

No one is saying religious freedom trumps the law.

That's precisely what the religious exceptionists ARE preaching. In Oregon,
which had anti-gay discrimination laws in place, the bakers explicitly
claimed their religion gave them the right to refuse service. The court and
authorities decided otherwise.

They aren't saying religious freedom "trumps" the law at all.
They are saying religious freedom is incorporated into the law,
ie the constitution. The SC in their recent gay marriage law
decision, in Hobby Lobby, etc has affirmed that. The only question
now is to clarify it based on specific cases.


I'm against anyone being forced to bake a cake period.
Sounds like Stalin, Kim Jung Un or Hitler to me.

You make it sound like these folks didn't sell cakes for a living and these
gay demons broke into a hair salon and demanded they bake a cake for them.

Never said or implied any such thing. Stick to the facts.


It's the baker's business. No one forced them to do anything.

Good grief. Of course they are being forced. Did you even read
what happened? They are being forced to serve customers they
don't choose to serve or close/sell their business. In addition,
the court imposed a *gag order* on them, barring them from voicing
their objections. Of course, when it's a gag order on free speech
in the name of a lib cause, then it's OK.

I'd close the business, and then re-open it under a different name
listing specifically which cakes I would/could make. If it isn't on the
list, then I can't make it. Gag order ... pffffft! There's always a way
around such things.

Keep in mind, wedding cakes are normally not simply made ahead of
time with the hope that someone needing a wedding cake THAT DAY will
come in and buy it but they are made to order. So if someone comes in
as another customer is leaving with a cake and the new customer says
"I want a cake just like that one for two weeks from today" and then
proceeds to tell the clerk/owner that they are gay and going to marry
their boyfriend you want the owner to be able to say "we don't sell to
gays, not even identical cakes like the one that just walked out the
door." That is what the law says a business can't do. They can't
discriminate because someone doesn't like gays, or blacks, or
Methodists.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:13:52 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

He didn't put a 'gag order' on them. He did limit their ability to
tell lies.

Please study the difference and let the class know.

A gag order is exactly intended to silence a person.

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:29:12 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:42:04 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:46:43 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 11:03:22 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:37:02 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/8/2015 3:20 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 13:51:56 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

http://allenwestrepublic.com/2015/07...ependence-day/


Published on July 2nd, 2015 | by Allen West Republic


Here is a list of the Top 5 Things Liberals Never
Remember ON Independence Day



2. It was about Religious Freedom: What the ACLU
was once FOR, they are now AGAINST. They are using
a made up accusation of discrimination to prevent
the actual practice of religious convictions.



How come it's acceptable to be a bigot if you do it in the name of
your religion?

Why do you consider practicing ones freedom of choice to be equivalent
to being a bigot?

If baking a "gay cake" is offensive because my bible
tells me that why should the religious person get to refuse service

Business owners should have the right to determine what sort of services
they will offer and not offer. If baking a "gay cake" isn't a service
they offer, why should anyone try to usurp the business owners rights to
what services they will provide? A straight person might also want to
order a "gay cake" and they would also be turned down.

The service would be equally denied to straight or gay people. There
would not be anything illegal in doing so.

but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service? And if my bible says
blacks are inferior why should I be able to refuse service to blacks.


The race argument is moot.

No the race argument isn't moot. You want religious belief to be able
to be able to trump the law. Which is why you are against being
"forced" to bake a gay cake.

No one is saying religious freedom trumps the law. I'm against
anyone being forced to bake a cake period. Sounds like Stalin,
Kim Jung Un or Hitler to me.


And if the religion says blacks are
inferior, as some do,

Which religion is that?


you would have to also say religious people
could refuse anything having to do with blacks.

I'd be fine with that, for the reasons I previously described.
There is no widespread discrimination today, and the heavy handed
politically correct "enforcement", where you force people to
bake cakes, is worse than any problem with black discrimination.
If discrimination were totally legal, do you think Walmart
is going to put up a sign, "no blacks"? The local hardware
store where you live? A gas station. Sure there would be a few
idiots someplace that would want to screw their businesses and
do it. But, so what? You libs want to pretend that you can
eliminate every wrong, every place, by the most draconian means,
even when it's hardly a problem today.

You would want your
religious beliefs to be able to trump ANY law that you claimed
infringed on your beliefs. So what makes religious bigotry "special",
why can't a non-religious bigot have the same choice to refuse service
for things they don't like, like gays or blacks etc.

I say they should be able to. It's called freedom. Problem solved.

Say whatever you want. Your still a bigot because there is no
business related reason you would refuse service to gays or blacks.

Stick to the facts. I'm not a bigot, because I wouldn't choose to
refuse service to gays or blacks. It's just I'm not of the mindset
to use the heavy hand of govt to force everyone to think the way I
do, behave exactly the way I do, etc. If one baker in Oregon wants
to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake, there are 99.9% of other bakers
who will welcome their business. Probably many that, having learned
what happened, would do it for free too. In other words, there is no real
problem. And unlike you libs, I like a rainbow of diversity, where
people are free. I have no compelling need to find non-problems and
crush people with govt. The race baiters and big lib govt types, they
always have the need.

BTW, where is your lib outrage at the unconstitutional gag order
the court put on them? THAT alone shows where the bigger problem is.

There is no "gag order". Go back and read the link I posted again.


What BUSINESS reason would a business owner have for refusing service
to gays or blacks? If you can't come up with one then you are a bald
faced bigot racist if you think it would be alright to refuse service
to gays, blacks, etc. Just to make sure you understand the question,
no one is saying that if someone can't pay for the product you must
still 'sell and deliver" it to them. Clearly, inability to pay is a
BUSINESS reason to refuse to "do business" with someone. Likewise, if
someone say's "My watch is worth $20 (and it really is worth at least
that) so sell me that $20 radio for this watch" you are not required
to take anything but legal tender so refusing to sell to that guy is a
legitimate BUSINESS reason for refusing.

So the deal that's made between YOU, the business owner, and the
society you live within is that you will not be a racist bigot in your
business dealings and that your religious beliefs won't get to trump
the laws. Yes, you are giving up your freedom to be a racist bigot in
exchange for being able to have a business in THIS society. You are
restricted to having BUSINESS reasons for how you run your business,
not religious reasons.

I know you don't like it. Too bad.

On 7/13/2015 5:20 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:27:24 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/12/2015 10:00 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 6:01:43 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message news:388319c7-

stuff snipped

No one is saying religious freedom trumps the law.

That's precisely what the religious exceptionists ARE preaching. In Oregon,
which had anti-gay discrimination laws in place, the bakers explicitly
claimed their religion gave them the right to refuse service. The court and
authorities decided otherwise.

They aren't saying religious freedom "trumps" the law at all.
They are saying religious freedom is incorporated into the law,
ie the constitution. The SC in their recent gay marriage law
decision, in Hobby Lobby, etc has affirmed that. The only question
now is to clarify it based on specific cases.


I'm against anyone being forced to bake a cake period.
Sounds like Stalin, Kim Jung Un or Hitler to me.

You make it sound like these folks didn't sell cakes for a living and these
gay demons broke into a hair salon and demanded they bake a cake for them.

Never said or implied any such thing. Stick to the facts.


It's the baker's business. No one forced them to do anything.

Good grief. Of course they are being forced. Did you even read
what happened? They are being forced to serve customers they
don't choose to serve or close/sell their business. In addition,
the court imposed a *gag order* on them, barring them from voicing
their objections. Of course, when it's a gag order on free speech
in the name of a lib cause, then it's OK.

I'd close the business, and then re-open it under a different name
listing specifically which cakes I would/could make. If it isn't on the
list, then I can't make it. Gag order ... pffffft! There's always a way
around such things.

Keep in mind, wedding cakes are normally not simply made ahead of
time with the hope that someone needing a wedding cake THAT DAY will
come in and buy it but they are made to order. So if someone comes in
as another customer is leaving with a cake and the new customer says
"I want a cake just like that one for two weeks from today" and then
proceeds to tell the clerk/owner that they are gay and going to marry
their boyfriend you want the owner to be able to say "we don't sell to
gays, not even identical cakes like the one that just walked out the
door." That is what the law says a business can't do. They can't
discriminate because someone doesn't like gays, or blacks, or
Methodists.


From what I've read so far, that isn't what happened, is it?

--
Maggie

On 7/13/2015 5:34 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:29:12 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:42:04 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:46:43 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 11:03:22 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:37:02 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/8/2015 3:20 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 13:51:56 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

http://allenwestrepublic.com/2015/07...ependence-day/


Published on July 2nd, 2015 | by Allen West Republic


Here is a list of the Top 5 Things Liberals Never
Remember ON Independence Day



2. It was about Religious Freedom: What the ACLU
was once FOR, they are now AGAINST. They are using
a made up accusation of discrimination to prevent
the actual practice of religious convictions.



How come it's acceptable to be a bigot if you do it in the name of
your religion?

Why do you consider practicing ones freedom of choice to be equivalent
to being a bigot?

If baking a "gay cake" is offensive because my bible
tells me that why should the religious person get to refuse service

Business owners should have the right to determine what sort of services
they will offer and not offer. If baking a "gay cake" isn't a service
they offer, why should anyone try to usurp the business owners rights to
what services they will provide? A straight person might also want to
order a "gay cake" and they would also be turned down.

The service would be equally denied to straight or gay people. There
would not be anything illegal in doing so.

but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service? And if my bible says
blacks are inferior why should I be able to refuse service to blacks.


The race argument is moot.

No the race argument isn't moot. You want religious belief to be able
to be able to trump the law. Which is why you are against being
"forced" to bake a gay cake.

No one is saying religious freedom trumps the law. I'm against
anyone being forced to bake a cake period. Sounds like Stalin,
Kim Jung Un or Hitler to me.


And if the religion says blacks are
inferior, as some do,

Which religion is that?


you would have to also say religious people
could refuse anything having to do with blacks.

I'd be fine with that, for the reasons I previously described.
There is no widespread discrimination today, and the heavy handed
politically correct "enforcement", where you force people to
bake cakes, is worse than any problem with black discrimination.
If discrimination were totally legal, do you think Walmart
is going to put up a sign, "no blacks"? The local hardware
store where you live? A gas station. Sure there would be a few
idiots someplace that would want to screw their businesses and
do it. But, so what? You libs want to pretend that you can
eliminate every wrong, every place, by the most draconian means,
even when it's hardly a problem today.

You would want your
religious beliefs to be able to trump ANY law that you claimed
infringed on your beliefs. So what makes religious bigotry "special",
why can't a non-religious bigot have the same choice to refuse service
for things they don't like, like gays or blacks etc.

I say they should be able to. It's called freedom. Problem solved.

Say whatever you want. Your still a bigot because there is no
business related reason you would refuse service to gays or blacks.

Stick to the facts. I'm not a bigot, because I wouldn't choose to
refuse service to gays or blacks. It's just I'm not of the mindset
to use the heavy hand of govt to force everyone to think the way I
do, behave exactly the way I do, etc. If one baker in Oregon wants
to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake, there are 99.9% of other bakers
who will welcome their business. Probably many that, having learned
what happened, would do it for free too. In other words, there is no real
problem. And unlike you libs, I like a rainbow of diversity, where
people are free. I have no compelling need to find non-problems and
crush people with govt. The race baiters and big lib govt types, they
always have the need.

BTW, where is your lib outrage at the unconstitutional gag order
the court put on them? THAT alone shows where the bigger problem is.

There is no "gag order". Go back and read the link I posted again.


What BUSINESS reason would a business owner have for refusing service
to gays or blacks? If you can't come up with one then you are a bald
faced bigot racist if you think it would be alright to refuse service
to gays, blacks, etc. Just to make sure you understand the question,
no one is saying that if someone can't pay for the product you must
still 'sell and deliver" it to them. Clearly, inability to pay is a
BUSINESS reason to refuse to "do business" with someone. Likewise, if
someone say's "My watch is worth $20 (and it really is worth at least
that) so sell me that $20 radio for this watch" you are not required
to take anything but legal tender so refusing to sell to that guy is a
legitimate BUSINESS reason for refusing.

So the deal that's made between YOU, the business owner, and the
society you live within is that you will not be a racist bigot in your
business dealings and that your religious beliefs won't get to trump
the laws.

Religious beliefs are part of the core reason we have freedom of
religion mentioned in the Constitution. If someones religious beliefs
tell them they can't do something, it doesn't matter if you want to call
them a "racist bigot". It doesn't make them a racist bigot.

They still have that freedom of religion and should be allowed to
practice their religion. If gays want a wedding cake, and it violates
someone's religious beliefs to promote gay marriage, then refusing to
make that cake for that marriage is part of their religious freedom.
That business owner is still free to sell baked goods to anyone, even gays.


Yes, you are giving up your freedom to be a racist bigot in

You're free to conclude whatever you like, but it doesn't mean you're
right. Using the "racist bigot" card is a catch-all for labeling people
who don't go with the flow and have their own beliefs they want to
practice. It does no good to label people simply because someone
doesn't walk your particular pc line. That's just a cop out.

exchange for being able to have a business in THIS society. You are
restricted to having BUSINESS reasons for how you run your business,
not religious reasons.

I know you don't like it. Too bad.




--
Maggie

On 7/13/2015 5:12 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:32:56 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/13/2015 2:40 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:01:17 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Forgot to ask... are you a prison guard elsewhere? Maybe you said so to
someone else previously, but I missed it if you did. No problem if you
don't care to say, though. I've always thought that would be a difficult
job to work at.

Retired after 25 years as a Penologist. The job is difficult. Most
people are not ready to do what needs to be done. I respect that.

Paid my own pension, so did my bride. The dual checks keep coming.


wow ... that's a long time doing that job. You still have a sense of
humor, too.

We didn't make a lot of money but we had a lot of fun. Constant change
in routine is very important. Eight prisons in those 25 years. You
get to see other locations.


Is there a particular memory that has stuck with you from working in
those 8 prisons?

Yes. A warden in NY put me in the penalty box. I had to stay in the
same region Not the first time I was called on the carpet.

http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/lew/index.jsp after my
penalty I graduated back out ... You can't be a cowboy unless you step
in horse ****. Lewisburg was a crown jewel, to work there.


Is being in the penalty box kind of like having your wings clipped to
adjust your attitude?

--
Maggie

On 07/13/2015 12:35 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
Merkle, Thatcher, others in history? (I am NOT fluent in history).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_O%27Malley

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:51:46 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Is being in the penalty box kind of like having your wings clipped to
adjust your attitude?


Yep. There is also:

Called on the carpet - ass chewing.

Time Out - go stand in the corner.

Penalty Box

Termination has been changed to removed from position.
It sounded too much the boss was out to kill you.
--
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last" -- Winston Churchill

On 7/14/2015 9:51 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:51:46 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Is being in the penalty box kind of like having your wings clipped to
adjust your attitude?


Yep. There is also:

Called on the carpet - ass chewing.

Time Out - go stand in the corner.

Penalty Box

Termination has been changed to removed from position.
It sounded too much the boss was out to kill you.


ahh ... Penalty Box sounded like something from a hockey game. I can
see why "termination" was changed, too. That one is kind of funny.

--
Maggie

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:13:57 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:20:30 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:33:20 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:


You need to stick to the facts. This had nothing to do with them
refusing to go to their reception. It was pure bigotry based on
religion. They refused to sell a cake to a lesbian couple. Just as in
the south in the 50's businesses refused to do business with Blacks.
They violated the law. It's that simple.

http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet...lissa-damages/

From your own source, the judge said they refused to provide
"wedding cake services". Typically, wedding cake services include
delivering the cake, setting it up at the reception. I took it
to mean it was more than just picking up a cake, so you might be
right on that point. But to me it doesn't matter. And where is your
lib outrage at the illegal, unconstitutional gag order the court
put on the bakers?

He didn't put a 'gag order' on them. He did limit their ability to
tell lies.

Cute. Real cute. You obviously need to read the first amendment.
It's not up to you, a court, or anyone else to decide what "lies"
are. All the couple was saying is saying what their religious beliefs
are, that they think being homo is a sin, etc. It's really, really
shocking how the radical libs want to force people to conform to their
ways. BTW, the couple is not following the gag order.

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:21:56 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:


They are saying their religious beliefs tell them not to do it.
Ultimately that case or similar will reach the SC and they will
have to decide it. They decided Hobby Lobby, didn't they?
BTW, where is your lib outrage over the gag order the court imposed
on those bakers?


So how's life in the 19th century these days?

How's your life in Russia under Stalin, NK today, or in George
Orwell's 1984? When you approve of courts issuing gag orders
on bakers that tries to deny them their right to free speech,
that's where you're at. But, heh, the ends justify any means, right?

On 7/14/2015 10:40 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:13:57 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:20:30 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:33:20 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:


You need to stick to the facts. This had nothing to do with them
refusing to go to their reception. It was pure bigotry based on
religion. They refused to sell a cake to a lesbian couple. Just as in
the south in the 50's businesses refused to do business with Blacks.
They violated the law. It's that simple.

http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet...lissa-damages/

From your own source, the judge said they refused to provide
"wedding cake services". Typically, wedding cake services include
delivering the cake, setting it up at the reception. I took it
to mean it was more than just picking up a cake, so you might be
right on that point. But to me it doesn't matter. And where is your
lib outrage at the illegal, unconstitutional gag order the court
put on the bakers?

He didn't put a 'gag order' on them. He did limit their ability to
tell lies.

Cute. Real cute. You obviously need to read the first amendment.
It's not up to you, a court, or anyone else to decide what "lies"
are. All the couple was saying is saying what their religious beliefs
are, that they think being homo is a sin, etc. It's really, really
shocking how the radical libs want to force people to conform to their
ways. BTW, the couple is not following the gag order.


This is interesting:
http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christ...hocking-video/


--
Maggie

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:34:37 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

What BUSINESS reason would a business owner have for refusing service
to gays or blacks?

They shouldn't need to give you or anyone a reason. It's their
business. No more so than a gay baker should have to give a reason
for refusing to provide a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
Or a black baker refusing to provide an anniversary cake for the
local KKK.

See how well and easy that works? No gag orders, no heavy hand of
the law required.



If you can't come up with one then you are a bald
faced bigot racist if you think it would be alright to refuse service
to gays, blacks, etc.

Baloney. That does not compute. Believing someone else should
have the freedom and right to do what they want with their own
business does not mean that I or anyone here would agree with what
they are doing. If I saw a baker that had a sign saying "whites only",
I wouldn't go there. Neither would the vast majority of Americans,
You could expect protests, business disruptions, and a loss of most
of your business. If you still want to do it anyway, who cares.
See how simple that is? No judges issuing gag orders, no heavy handed
policing.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 08:40:04 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

He didn't put a 'gag order' on them. He did limit their ability to
tell lies.

Cute. Real cute. You obviously need to read the first amendment.
It's not up to you, a court, or anyone else to decide what "lies"
are. All the couple was saying is saying what their religious beliefs
are, that they think being homo is a sin, etc. It's really, really
shocking how the radical libs want to force people to conform to their
ways. BTW, the couple is not following the gag order.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=802

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 11:47:50 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/14/2015 10:40 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:13:57 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:20:30 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:33:20 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:


You need to stick to the facts. This had nothing to do with them
refusing to go to their reception. It was pure bigotry based on
religion. They refused to sell a cake to a lesbian couple. Just as in
the south in the 50's businesses refused to do business with Blacks.
They violated the law. It's that simple.

http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet...lissa-damages/

From your own source, the judge said they refused to provide
"wedding cake services". Typically, wedding cake services include
delivering the cake, setting it up at the reception. I took it
to mean it was more than just picking up a cake, so you might be
right on that point. But to me it doesn't matter. And where is your
lib outrage at the illegal, unconstitutional gag order the court
put on the bakers?

He didn't put a 'gag order' on them. He did limit their ability to
tell lies.

Cute. Real cute. You obviously need to read the first amendment.
It's not up to you, a court, or anyone else to decide what "lies"
are. All the couple was saying is saying what their religious beliefs
are, that they think being homo is a sin, etc. It's really, really
shocking how the radical libs want to force people to conform to their
ways. BTW, the couple is not following the gag order.


This is interesting:
http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christ...hocking-video/


--
Maggie

Excellent find. EXACTLY the scenario I proposed. Some groups of
people get special protection, special treatment under the law.
And if you don't agree, then out come the Orwellian PC police
to *force* you to comply, have their values, gag order you, etc.

Oren posted for all of us...



On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:35:27 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

Oren posted for all of us...



On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 01:06:40 -0500, Muggles wrote:

It's not a question of what you or I want, it's what
happened.

A nation was being birthed.

The penis always gets in the way. It has been said wars are started
because of the penis. Women would never start a war, right?

(sorry I had too break the news)

Merkle, Thatcher, others in history? (I am NOT fluent in history).

Merkle 'started" a war? Maggie followed advice from Reagan during the
Falkland war. Gipper gave her secret use of AWAC's.

IDK, I only can think of these two that would have enough balls to do it.

--
Tekkie *Please post a follow-up*

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:40:22 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/13/2015 5:20 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:27:24 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/12/2015 10:00 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 6:01:43 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message news:388319c7-

stuff snipped

No one is saying religious freedom trumps the law.

That's precisely what the religious exceptionists ARE preaching. In Oregon,
which had anti-gay discrimination laws in place, the bakers explicitly
claimed their religion gave them the right to refuse service. The court and
authorities decided otherwise.

They aren't saying religious freedom "trumps" the law at all.
They are saying religious freedom is incorporated into the law,
ie the constitution. The SC in their recent gay marriage law
decision, in Hobby Lobby, etc has affirmed that. The only question
now is to clarify it based on specific cases.


I'm against anyone being forced to bake a cake period.
Sounds like Stalin, Kim Jung Un or Hitler to me.

You make it sound like these folks didn't sell cakes for a living and these
gay demons broke into a hair salon and demanded they bake a cake for them.

Never said or implied any such thing. Stick to the facts.


It's the baker's business. No one forced them to do anything.

Good grief. Of course they are being forced. Did you even read
what happened? They are being forced to serve customers they
don't choose to serve or close/sell their business. In addition,
the court imposed a *gag order* on them, barring them from voicing
their objections. Of course, when it's a gag order on free speech
in the name of a lib cause, then it's OK.

I'd close the business, and then re-open it under a different name
listing specifically which cakes I would/could make. If it isn't on the
list, then I can't make it. Gag order ... pffffft! There's always a way
around such things.

Keep in mind, wedding cakes are normally not simply made ahead of
time with the hope that someone needing a wedding cake THAT DAY will
come in and buy it but they are made to order. So if someone comes in
as another customer is leaving with a cake and the new customer says
"I want a cake just like that one for two weeks from today" and then
proceeds to tell the clerk/owner that they are gay and going to marry
their boyfriend you want the owner to be able to say "we don't sell to
gays, not even identical cakes like the one that just walked out the
door." That is what the law says a business can't do. They can't
discriminate because someone doesn't like gays, or blacks, or
Methodists.


From what I've read so far, that isn't what happened, is it?

I have no idea what right wing wacko religious sites you read.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 08:42:54 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:21:56 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:


They are saying their religious beliefs tell them not to do it.
Ultimately that case or similar will reach the SC and they will
have to decide it. They decided Hobby Lobby, didn't they?
BTW, where is your lib outrage over the gag order the court imposed
on those bakers?


So how's life in the 19th century these days?

How's your life in Russia under Stalin, NK today, or in George
Orwell's 1984? When you approve of courts issuing gag orders
on bakers that tries to deny them their right to free speech,
that's where you're at. But, heh, the ends justify any means, right?

Since that's not the case there is no issue.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:06:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:34:37 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

What BUSINESS reason would a business owner have for refusing service
to gays or blacks?

They shouldn't need to give you or anyone a reason. It's their
business. No more so than a gay baker should have to give a reason
for refusing to provide a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
Or a black baker refusing to provide an anniversary cake for the
local KKK.

See how well and easy that works? No gag orders, no heavy hand of
the law required.



If you can't come up with one then you are a bald
faced bigot racist if you think it would be alright to refuse service
to gays, blacks, etc.

Baloney. That does not compute. Believing someone else should
have the freedom and right to do what they want with their own
business does not mean that I or anyone here would agree with what
they are doing. If I saw a baker that had a sign saying "whites only",
I wouldn't go there. Neither would the vast majority of Americans,
You could expect protests, business disruptions, and a loss of most
of your business. If you still want to do it anyway, who cares.
See how simple that is? No judges issuing gag orders, no heavy handed
policing.


And if my religion prohibits me from paying taxes to the gvt I should
be exempt from taxes under your views on this. THAT is the idiocy
your position leads to.

On 7/14/2015 9:44 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:40:22 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/13/2015 5:20 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:27:24 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/12/2015 10:00 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 6:01:43 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message news:388319c7-

stuff snipped

No one is saying religious freedom trumps the law.

That's precisely what the religious exceptionists ARE preaching. In Oregon,
which had anti-gay discrimination laws in place, the bakers explicitly
claimed their religion gave them the right to refuse service. The court and
authorities decided otherwise.

They aren't saying religious freedom "trumps" the law at all.
They are saying religious freedom is incorporated into the law,
ie the constitution. The SC in their recent gay marriage law
decision, in Hobby Lobby, etc has affirmed that. The only question
now is to clarify it based on specific cases.


I'm against anyone being forced to bake a cake period.
Sounds like Stalin, Kim Jung Un or Hitler to me.

You make it sound like these folks didn't sell cakes for a living and these
gay demons broke into a hair salon and demanded they bake a cake for them.

Never said or implied any such thing. Stick to the facts.


It's the baker's business. No one forced them to do anything.

Good grief. Of course they are being forced. Did you even read
what happened? They are being forced to serve customers they
don't choose to serve or close/sell their business. In addition,
the court imposed a *gag order* on them, barring them from voicing
their objections. Of course, when it's a gag order on free speech
in the name of a lib cause, then it's OK.

I'd close the business, and then re-open it under a different name
listing specifically which cakes I would/could make. If it isn't on the
list, then I can't make it. Gag order ... pffffft! There's always a way
around such things.

Keep in mind, wedding cakes are normally not simply made ahead of
time with the hope that someone needing a wedding cake THAT DAY will
come in and buy it but they are made to order. So if someone comes in
as another customer is leaving with a cake and the new customer says
"I want a cake just like that one for two weeks from today" and then
proceeds to tell the clerk/owner that they are gay and going to marry
their boyfriend you want the owner to be able to say "we don't sell to
gays, not even identical cakes like the one that just walked out the
door." That is what the law says a business can't do. They can't
discriminate because someone doesn't like gays, or blacks, or
Methodists.


From what I've read so far, that isn't what happened, is it?

I have no idea what right wing wacko religious sites you read.


I did a google search and looked at a random selection of sights on the
story that gave different perspectives.

Do you think it's ok for a gay baker to refuse to bake a cake that says
"Gay marriage is a sin"?

--
Maggie

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 11:37:43 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/14/2015 9:44 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:40:22 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/13/2015 5:20 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:27:24 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/12/2015 10:00 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 6:01:43 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message news:388319c7-

stuff snipped

No one is saying religious freedom trumps the law.

That's precisely what the religious exceptionists ARE preaching. In Oregon,
which had anti-gay discrimination laws in place, the bakers explicitly
claimed their religion gave them the right to refuse service. The court and
authorities decided otherwise.

They aren't saying religious freedom "trumps" the law at all.
They are saying religious freedom is incorporated into the law,
ie the constitution. The SC in their recent gay marriage law
decision, in Hobby Lobby, etc has affirmed that. The only question
now is to clarify it based on specific cases.


I'm against anyone being forced to bake a cake period.
Sounds like Stalin, Kim Jung Un or Hitler to me.

You make it sound like these folks didn't sell cakes for a living and these
gay demons broke into a hair salon and demanded they bake a cake for them.

Never said or implied any such thing. Stick to the facts.


It's the baker's business. No one forced them to do anything.

Good grief. Of course they are being forced. Did you even read
what happened? They are being forced to serve customers they
don't choose to serve or close/sell their business. In addition,
the court imposed a *gag order* on them, barring them from voicing
their objections. Of course, when it's a gag order on free speech
in the name of a lib cause, then it's OK.

I'd close the business, and then re-open it under a different name
listing specifically which cakes I would/could make. If it isn't on the
list, then I can't make it. Gag order ... pffffft! There's always a way
around such things.

Keep in mind, wedding cakes are normally not simply made ahead of
time with the hope that someone needing a wedding cake THAT DAY will
come in and buy it but they are made to order. So if someone comes in
as another customer is leaving with a cake and the new customer says
"I want a cake just like that one for two weeks from today" and then
proceeds to tell the clerk/owner that they are gay and going to marry
their boyfriend you want the owner to be able to say "we don't sell to
gays, not even identical cakes like the one that just walked out the
door." That is what the law says a business can't do. They can't
discriminate because someone doesn't like gays, or blacks, or
Methodists.


From what I've read so far, that isn't what happened, is it?

I have no idea what right wing wacko religious sites you read.


I did a google search and looked at a random selection of sights on the
story that gave different perspectives.

Do you think it's ok for a gay baker to refuse to bake a cake that says
"Gay marriage is a sin"?

--
Maggie

I wonder why that's OK? In the words of Dr.Michael Savage,"Liberalism is a mental disorder." 8-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ixvPz1PIHI

[8~{} Uncle Straight Monster

On 7/14/2015 11:57 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 11:37:43 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/14/2015 9:44 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:40:22 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/13/2015 5:20 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:27:24 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/12/2015 10:00 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 6:01:43 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message news:388319c7-

stuff snipped

No one is saying religious freedom trumps the law.

That's precisely what the religious exceptionists ARE preaching. In Oregon,
which had anti-gay discrimination laws in place, the bakers explicitly
claimed their religion gave them the right to refuse service. The court and
authorities decided otherwise.

They aren't saying religious freedom "trumps" the law at all.
They are saying religious freedom is incorporated into the law,
ie the constitution. The SC in their recent gay marriage law
decision, in Hobby Lobby, etc has affirmed that. The only question
now is to clarify it based on specific cases.


I'm against anyone being forced to bake a cake period.
Sounds like Stalin, Kim Jung Un or Hitler to me.

You make it sound like these folks didn't sell cakes for a living and these
gay demons broke into a hair salon and demanded they bake a cake for them.

Never said or implied any such thing. Stick to the facts.


It's the baker's business. No one forced them to do anything.

Good grief. Of course they are being forced. Did you even read
what happened? They are being forced to serve customers they
don't choose to serve or close/sell their business. In addition,
the court imposed a *gag order* on them, barring them from voicing
their objections. Of course, when it's a gag order on free speech
in the name of a lib cause, then it's OK.

I'd close the business, and then re-open it under a different name
listing specifically which cakes I would/could make. If it isn't on the
list, then I can't make it. Gag order ... pffffft! There's always a way
around such things.

Keep in mind, wedding cakes are normally not simply made ahead of
time with the hope that someone needing a wedding cake THAT DAY will
come in and buy it but they are made to order. So if someone comes in
as another customer is leaving with a cake and the new customer says
"I want a cake just like that one for two weeks from today" and then
proceeds to tell the clerk/owner that they are gay and going to marry
their boyfriend you want the owner to be able to say "we don't sell to
gays, not even identical cakes like the one that just walked out the
door." That is what the law says a business can't do. They can't
discriminate because someone doesn't like gays, or blacks, or
Methodists.


From what I've read so far, that isn't what happened, is it?

I have no idea what right wing wacko religious sites you read.


I did a google search and looked at a random selection of sights on the
story that gave different perspectives.

Do you think it's ok for a gay baker to refuse to bake a cake that says
"Gay marriage is a sin"?

--
Maggie

I wonder why that's OK? In the words of Dr.Michael Savage,"Liberalism is a mental disorder." 8-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ixvPz1PIHI

[8~{} Uncle Straight Monster


Well .. it seems gay bakeries can do that to straight people.

--
Maggie

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 6:01:43 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message news:388319c7-

stuff snipped

No one is saying religious freedom trumps the law.

That's precisely what the religious exceptionists ARE preaching. In
Oregon,
which had anti-gay discrimination laws in place, the bakers explicitly
claimed their religion gave them the right to refuse service. The court
and
authorities decided otherwise.

They aren't saying religious freedom "trumps" the law at all.
They are saying religious freedom is incorporated into the law,
ie the constitution. The SC in their recent gay marriage law
decision, in Hobby Lobby, etc has affirmed that. The only question
now is to clarify it based on specific cases.

This isn't an abstract, untested case we're talking about. The law in
Oregon is clear, and they violated it. They derided the gay couple who
asked to be served, according to Oregon law, on social media. They
continued to say they would defy the law and refuse to serve gays. It's all
he

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsset...Cakes%20FO.pdf

It's like that grazing fees case. When you get to the details, the cause
seems somehow less just than first presented. If you don't like equal
access laws, move to a state where there aren't any. I moved out of DC
because I couldn't legally own a gun. I didn't recommend that people break
the law in protest, as the bakers did.

I'm against anyone being forced to bake a cake period.
Sounds like Stalin, Kim Jung Un or Hitler to me.

You make it sound like these folks didn't sell cakes for a living and
these
gay demons broke into a hair salon and demanded they bake a cake for
them.

Never said or implied any such thing. Stick to the facts.

Do the same. Did they *ever* actually bake a cake for these people? No.
So no one was ever forced to bake a cake. You can't be forced to bake a
cake that never was. So where are you getting your forced cake baking
comment from? See, that knife cuts both ways, but I cut deeper. (-:

The court found that they disobeyed the law in their state, and admitted
they would do it again, they advised others to break the law and they
damaged the gay couple's reputation through their derisive writings on
Facebook and other places. Then, miraculously, after collecting nearly
enough donations to cover the fines they incurred, they went private.

That's the choice they should have made knowing they were religious hard
liners who somehow thinking bake a cake for gay person is going to damn them
to hell. Does the Bible have gay baking rules?

If you go private, discriminate your "Christian" heart out. But when you
open your business to the public, you agree to abide by the law, plain and
simple. Don't like the law? Go private or work to get it changed. Break it
before it's changed and pay the fines. Problem solved. But apparently you
want to have your cake and to be able to eat it, too.

Sorry. This is a simple "do the crime, do the time" case despite what
people are trying to twist it into. Most of that financial penalty was
increased by the bakers' willful disregard of court orders. How is this not
simply using the cloak of religion to justify bigotry? How is this not
grandstanding in the fine old tradition of Al Sharpton?

Considering how Roberts had voted in the past, I don't see the SC mustering
the votes to allow shop and innkeepers to refuse service on the basis of
their religious beliefs when the choice those merchants who feel the need to
discriminate have is to go private?

These bakers made bad business decisions - and then they made even worse
ones.

--
Bobby G.

On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 12:51:52 PM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:
http://allenwestrepublic.com/2015/07...ependence-day/


Published on July 2nd, 2015 | by Allen West Republic


Here is a list of the Top 5 Things Liberals Never
Remember ON Independence Day

1. It's about taxation without representation: Taxation
is now in fact the redistribution of wealth in the name
of fairness. What charities once gave, "entitlements"
now take.

2. It was about Religious Freedom: What the ACLU
was once FOR, they are now AGAINST. They are using
a made up accusation of discrimination to prevent
the actual practice of religious convictions.


3. It was about unjust laws: They did not pass the
Bill of Rights to "see what's in it." It was
thoroughly debated before it was brought to a vote.

4. It was about owning firearms: Simply put, YOU are
the militia and government is the reason you need to
bear arms.


5. It was about seizure of property: Now it is okay
to seize your property for the common good. That is
a key tenant of socialism and communism.



Copyright (c) 2014 Allen West Republic

All Rights Reserved.
Proudly built by WPDevelopers

I checked this thread today and it had been hidden because some Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Freak had reported it for abuse to Google Groups. Free speech as long as it's their approved speech. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Speech Monster

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 10:47:56 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:06:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:34:37 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

What BUSINESS reason would a business owner have for refusing service
to gays or blacks?

They shouldn't need to give you or anyone a reason. It's their
business. No more so than a gay baker should have to give a reason
for refusing to provide a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
Or a black baker refusing to provide an anniversary cake for the
local KKK.

See how well and easy that works? No gag orders, no heavy hand of
the law required.



If you can't come up with one then you are a bald
faced bigot racist if you think it would be alright to refuse service
to gays, blacks, etc.

Baloney. That does not compute. Believing someone else should
have the freedom and right to do what they want with their own
business does not mean that I or anyone here would agree with what
they are doing. If I saw a baker that had a sign saying "whites only",
I wouldn't go there. Neither would the vast majority of Americans,
You could expect protests, business disruptions, and a loss of most
of your business. If you still want to do it anyway, who cares.
See how simple that is? No judges issuing gag orders, no heavy handed
policing.


And if my religion prohibits me from paying taxes to the gvt I should
be exempt from taxes under your views on this. THAT is the idiocy
your position leads to.

There is no such religion. But there are religions that don't want
to have anything to do with gay weddings. And you misrepresent my
views. I would not limit the right to discriminate to only cases
where it involves religion. My position is very simple. If it's your
business you should have the right to choose who you want to do
business with for any reason. You libs believe that somehow this
will immediately lead to mass discrimination. That's because you
have a very jaundiced view of your fellow citizens and don't trust
them. In reality, you'd have some small number of businesses that
would discriminate and I say so what. Just go to the 99% of businesses
that don't, actually welcome your business, etc.

The idiocy of your position is that a gay baker can discriminate against
Christians by refusing to bake a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
A pro abortion baker can refuse to bake a cake that says "Abortion is a sin".
But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 2:31:21 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:


Do the same. Did they *ever* actually bake a cake for these people? No.
So no one was ever forced to bake a cake. You can't be forced to bake a
cake that never was. So where are you getting your forced cake baking
comment from? See, that knife cuts both ways, but I cut deeper. (-:

Only a lib would argue the nit that they were not actually forced
to bake a cake. Here is what I posted:

"I'm against anyone being forced to bake a cake period. Sounds like Stalin,
Kim Jung Un or Hitler to me. "

The analogy still applies. Of course they didn't force them to bake
*this* particular cake, because the wedding was long over.
Presumably the poor couple that was so horribly wronged didn't
suffer all that much because there were 1000 other bakers ready
to bake it, give them a free cake, etc. Bbut by fining the bakers $130K
and issuing a gag order, the govt is certainly forcing them to either
go out of business or bake the *next* gay cake. Good grief.
And I'm sure there will be a parade of the rainbow colored agitating
radicals in drag waiting in line demanding gay cakes.



The court found that they disobeyed the law in their state, and admitted
they would do it again, they advised others to break the law and they
damaged the gay couple's reputation through their derisive writings on
Facebook and other places. Then, miraculously, after collecting nearly
enough donations to cover the fines they incurred, they went private.

That's the choice they should have made knowing they were religious hard
liners who somehow thinking bake a cake for gay person is going to damn them
to hell. Does the Bible have gay baking rules?


Do you and the courts get to decide the religious rules?


If you go private, discriminate your "Christian" heart out. But when you
open your business to the public, you agree to abide by the law, plain and
simple. Don't like the law? Go private or work to get it changed. Break it
before it's changed and pay the fines. Problem solved. But apparently you
want to have your cake and to be able to eat it, too.

Sorry. This is a simple "do the crime, do the time" case despite what
people are trying to twist it into. Most of that financial penalty was
increased by the bakers' willful disregard of court orders. How is this not
simply using the cloak of religion to justify bigotry?

Because they aren't bigots, by all indications they just have deeply
held religious beliefs. If a Christian comes to a gay baker and wants
to have a cake made that says "Celebrating Traditional Man/woman Marriage"
and the gay baker refuses, should they be fined $130K and gag ordered
for being bigots?


How is this not
grandstanding in the fine old tradition of Al Sharpton?

Bizarre you'd even try to draw that comparison.



Considering how Roberts had voted in the past, I don't see the SC mustering
the votes to allow shop and innkeepers to refuse service on the basis of
their religious beliefs when the choice those merchants who feel the need to
discriminate have is to go private?

Well, then you're the only person in the universe who can understand
Roberts, because he just makes it up as he goes.




These bakers made bad business decisions - and then they made even worse
ones.

--
Bobby G.

It wasn't a business decision. It was a religious one.

On 7/17/2015 8:52 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 12:51:52 PM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:
http://allenwestrepublic.com/2015/07...ependence-day/


Published on July 2nd, 2015 | by Allen West Republic



I checked this thread today and it had been hidden because some Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Freak had reported it for abuse to Google Groups. Free speech as long as it's their approved speech. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Speech Monster


It's the liberal progressive way.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:44:59 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

It's the liberal progressive way.

Those creatures don't care what you do as long as it is mandatory.
--
"Im going to take it like a man and hate you."- Gavin McInnes

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 12:29:33 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:44:59 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

It's the liberal progressive way.

Those creatures don't care what you do as long as it is mandatory.
--


https://i.imgur.com/Fc1GTKY.jpg

[8~{} Uncle Political Monster

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

It's the liberal progressive way.

Those creatures don't care what you do as long as it is mandatory.

https://i.imgur.com/Fc1GTKY.jpg

You make my point. Thank you very much.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 10:47:56 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:06:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:34:37 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

What BUSINESS reason would a business owner have for refusing service
to gays or blacks?

They shouldn't need to give you or anyone a reason. It's their
business. No more so than a gay baker should have to give a reason
for refusing to provide a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
Or a black baker refusing to provide an anniversary cake for the
local KKK.

See how well and easy that works? No gag orders, no heavy hand of
the law required.



If you can't come up with one then you are a bald
faced bigot racist if you think it would be alright to refuse service
to gays, blacks, etc.

Baloney. That does not compute. Believing someone else should
have the freedom and right to do what they want with their own
business does not mean that I or anyone here would agree with what
they are doing. If I saw a baker that had a sign saying "whites only",
I wouldn't go there. Neither would the vast majority of Americans,
You could expect protests, business disruptions, and a loss of most
of your business. If you still want to do it anyway, who cares.
See how simple that is? No judges issuing gag orders, no heavy handed
policing.


And if my religion prohibits me from paying taxes to the gvt I should
be exempt from taxes under your views on this. THAT is the idiocy
your position leads to.

There is no such religion. But there are religions that don't want
to have anything to do with gay weddings. And you misrepresent my
views. I would not limit the right to discriminate to only cases
where it involves religion. My position is very simple. If it's your
business you should have the right to choose who you want to do
business with for any reason. You libs believe that somehow this
will immediately lead to mass discrimination. That's because you
have a very jaundiced view of your fellow citizens and don't trust
them. In reality, you'd have some small number of businesses that
would discriminate and I say so what. Just go to the 99% of businesses
that don't, actually welcome your business, etc.

The idiocy of your position is that a gay baker can discriminate against
Christians by refusing to bake a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
A pro abortion baker can refuse to bake a cake that says "Abortion is a sin".
But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?

On 7/17/2015 5:21 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 10:47:56 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:06:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:34:37 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

What BUSINESS reason would a business owner have for refusing service
to gays or blacks?

They shouldn't need to give you or anyone a reason. It's their
business. No more so than a gay baker should have to give a reason
for refusing to provide a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
Or a black baker refusing to provide an anniversary cake for the
local KKK.

See how well and easy that works? No gag orders, no heavy hand of
the law required.



If you can't come up with one then you are a bald
faced bigot racist if you think it would be alright to refuse service
to gays, blacks, etc.

Baloney. That does not compute. Believing someone else should
have the freedom and right to do what they want with their own
business does not mean that I or anyone here would agree with what
they are doing. If I saw a baker that had a sign saying "whites only",
I wouldn't go there. Neither would the vast majority of Americans,
You could expect protests, business disruptions, and a loss of most
of your business. If you still want to do it anyway, who cares.
See how simple that is? No judges issuing gag orders, no heavy handed
policing.


And if my religion prohibits me from paying taxes to the gvt I should
be exempt from taxes under your views on this. THAT is the idiocy
your position leads to.

There is no such religion. But there are religions that don't want
to have anything to do with gay weddings. And you misrepresent my
views. I would not limit the right to discriminate to only cases
where it involves religion. My position is very simple. If it's your
business you should have the right to choose who you want to do
business with for any reason. You libs believe that somehow this
will immediately lead to mass discrimination. That's because you
have a very jaundiced view of your fellow citizens and don't trust
them. In reality, you'd have some small number of businesses that
would discriminate and I say so what. Just go to the 99% of businesses
that don't, actually welcome your business, etc.

The idiocy of your position is that a gay baker can discriminate against
Christians by refusing to bake a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
A pro abortion baker can refuse to bake a cake that says "Abortion is a sin".
But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?


Jesus would ask them to turn away from their sin, and follow him.


--
Maggie

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:26:36 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/17/2015 5:21 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 10:47:56 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:06:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:34:37 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

What BUSINESS reason would a business owner have for refusing service
to gays or blacks?

They shouldn't need to give you or anyone a reason. It's their
business. No more so than a gay baker should have to give a reason
for refusing to provide a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
Or a black baker refusing to provide an anniversary cake for the
local KKK.

See how well and easy that works? No gag orders, no heavy hand of
the law required.



If you can't come up with one then you are a bald
faced bigot racist if you think it would be alright to refuse service
to gays, blacks, etc.

Baloney. That does not compute. Believing someone else should
have the freedom and right to do what they want with their own
business does not mean that I or anyone here would agree with what
they are doing. If I saw a baker that had a sign saying "whites only",
I wouldn't go there. Neither would the vast majority of Americans,
You could expect protests, business disruptions, and a loss of most
of your business. If you still want to do it anyway, who cares.
See how simple that is? No judges issuing gag orders, no heavy handed
policing.


And if my religion prohibits me from paying taxes to the gvt I should
be exempt from taxes under your views on this. THAT is the idiocy
your position leads to.

There is no such religion. But there are religions that don't want
to have anything to do with gay weddings. And you misrepresent my
views. I would not limit the right to discriminate to only cases
where it involves religion. My position is very simple. If it's your
business you should have the right to choose who you want to do
business with for any reason. You libs believe that somehow this
will immediately lead to mass discrimination. That's because you
have a very jaundiced view of your fellow citizens and don't trust
them. In reality, you'd have some small number of businesses that
would discriminate and I say so what. Just go to the 99% of businesses
that don't, actually welcome your business, etc.

The idiocy of your position is that a gay baker can discriminate against
Christians by refusing to bake a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
A pro abortion baker can refuse to bake a cake that says "Abortion is a sin".
But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?


Jesus would ask them to turn away from their sin, and follow him.

That's nice but would he refuse to bake cakes for them? Nothing I
read in the bible suggests Jesus would be the bigot that many
so-called "good Christians" are. Since you were too chicken to answer
the question it would appear you are one of them.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:39:18 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:
Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery,
would refuse to bake cakes for Gays simply
because they were gay?


Jesus would ask them to turn away from their sin,
and follow him.

That's nice but would he refuse to bake cakes for
them?

Jesus was a carpenter, and his friends were fishermen. He wasn't a
baker. Women did that work in his time. He would have fed the
people fish and multiplied the food that people had so the multitudes
could eat while he preached to them to stop sinning , and to start
loving one another.

He would tell gays to stop sinning and follow him and his ways just
like he'd tell the prostitute and tax collector to do the same thing.

Nothing I read in the bible suggests Jesus would be
the bigot

Jesus called the religious people white washed seplucres full of dead
mens bones, and threw the money changers out of the temple because
they had turned the place into a den of thieves. You don't appear to
know anything about Jesus. He looked at people straight up and read
their mail to therm, pointed at their sin and called it evil, and
then told them to turn from their wicked ways and change their
lives... You want to a ask if Jesus would bake gays a cake? That's
the most ignorant question I've ever seen anyone ask..

that many so-called "good Christians" are. Since you
were too chicken to answer the question it would
appear you are one of them.

Chicken? I've learned that fools are wise in their own eyes... You
think you're question was intelligent, but it wasn't.

--
Maggie

"rbowman" wrote in message
...
On 07/12/2015 04:23 AM, Robert Green wrote:
What I
don't understand is how people vote against their own interests.

That's been a puzzle to me for the last 50 years. Most have a single
issue that is their litmus test and the parties can exploit that. Of
course, once the politician is elected that single issue gets buried in
bidness as usual.

I also think it's why we've seen such an explosion of hot-button social
issues recently as politicians try to distract voters from the real business
of running the country.

It's rather like clinton's sudden concern for the middle class after
being Wall Street's constant companion all these years. Can an elderly
leopard get rid of those damned spots?

No, but I am betting it will be a cinch for her to get elected when I look
at whose likely to run against her. If the Donald goes third party like
Perot did, it will end up putting a Clinton in the Whitehouse *again*.
History has a fondness for repeating itself.

If the Republicans are forced to deal with Trump as an independent, the Dems
could like get a ham sandwich elected President. Or Hillary. (-:

--
Bobby G.

On 7/17/2015 9:26 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/17/2015 5:21 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
The idiocy of your position is that a gay baker can discriminate against
Christians by refusing to bake a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
A pro abortion baker can refuse to bake a cake that says "Abortion is a sin".
But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?


Jesus would ask them to turn away from their sin, and follow him.


If they continued to sin, there is a very good
chance Jesus would decline to bake the cake.

According to the Latter-day prophets, homosexual
behavior is a very severe sin.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..