Tuesday, October 1, 2013

KKK and Gay-Gay-Gay share a tactic



KKK wins lawsuit against bakery for discrimination 
A Georgia court has ruled in favor of Marshall Saxby, the Grand Wizard of a local KKK chapter, in a lawsuit stemming from two years ago when a local bakery denied him service. 
The three judge panel concluded unanimously that the bakery had violated civil rights laws by discriminating against Saxby when they refused to sell him a cake for his organization’s annual birthday party. 
Elaine Bailey, who owns Bailey Bakeries, refused to bake a cake for the ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs. 
Saxby filed the lawsuit claiming that Bailey’s refusal of service was discriminatory against his religious beliefs. 
The case is similar to the recent decision in New Mexico where a court has ruled that a photographer discriminated against a gay couple for refusing to provide them service. 
Bailey said in a prepared statement, “it’s a sad day when bigots have to be treated equally before the law. If they can discriminate against people, then surely I cannot be forced to support their beliefs by providing them services against my will.” 
Saxby was very happy with the outcome, stating “the law says that it’s wrong to discriminate against people if you run a business, and that means she was wrong in discriminating against our organization by refusing us service.” 
People on both sides of the issue have had varying remarks. 
One man stated “I am against anti-discrimination laws. Freedom means people are able to do what they wish with their lives and property. Society can punish bad behaviors in a market, but the power to take away from someones life as if it did not belong to them is frightening. 
Another person familiar with the case responded “This is not the same as denying service to someone based on the color of their skin or sexual preference. This was a choice by the owner of the bakery to not serve someone based on their bigoted lifestyle, and there’s nothing wrong with that.” 
Many wonder that if she had simply lied about her reasoning, would this have even been an issue. That leaves the question to the public, do they want discrimination to happen out in the open where people can pinpoint it, or do they want it to operate a cloaked manner where it happens but it’s hard to tell who is doing it?

The KKK tactic and the Gay-Gay-Gay tactic are, unsurprisingly, the same. Intimidate ordinary citizens who, out of religious or moral beliefs, don't want to play a part in ceremonies such as a gay wedding or a Klan rally. To hell with the right of conscience, or the right to Free Exercise of Religion, or to simple respect for other people's beliefs.

Civil Rights laws are being used to deny people their civil rights. It's a very effective tactic, and it's going to be used extensively against Christians. Your moral beliefs, or your business. Choose one.

One fellow's view:
“I am against anti-discrimination laws. Freedom means people are able to do what they wish with their lives and property. Society can punish bad behaviors in a market, but the power to take away from someones life as if it did not belong to them is frightening."
Fool. What does he think this is, America?

37 comments:

  1. So according to you it should be legal for Christian shop owners to appeal to Free Exercise of Religion and refuse to serve Jewish customers on account of Jews being 'Christ-killers'? Just like in the good old days?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to me, it should be legal for any business owner to refuse any contract he doesn't want to take. It doesn't mean I have to agree with the reason. I think you should be able to refuse to serve those evil nasty Catholics you despise so much too.

      Anything else is compelling one supposedly sovereign individual to serve another. That's involuntary servitude and it's prohibited by the thirteenth amendment. The thirteenth amendment bans slavery, of course. Involuntary servitude is slavery.

      Your example of a business owner not serving Jews indicates that you believe that non-discrimination clauses should protect religion. So even if you find a particular religion repugnant, you think the government should force you to serve them? What if it's those freaks from Westboro Baptist came into your establishment and wanted you to make some "God Hates Fags" cupcakes? You gonna do it?

      I doubt it. See, you still want to reserve for yourself the right to refuse contracts based on your criteria, which is to say that you wish to discriminate against people you find unsavory. But if any one else does the same, you want to cry to the state and force your will upon them.

      JQ

      Delete
    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 1, 2013 at 6:57 AM

      Squirrel alert.

      Delete
    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 1, 2013 at 7:02 AM

      Actually, I think "it should be legal for Christian shop owners to appeal to Free Exercise of Religion and refuse to serve Martian customers on account of Martians being 'godless Cylons'."

      Delete
    4. According to me, it should be legal for any business owner to refuse any contract he doesn't want to take.

      So, JQ, according to you a shop owner has the right to refuse a contract based on a person's skin color. No problem with signs saying "No niggers, kikes, beaners, ragheads and fags are served here". You don't think that kind of freedom screws up a lot of other freedoms?

      Delete
    5. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 1, 2013 at 9:28 AM

      What color are "fags"?

      Delete
    6. >>So, JQ, according to you a shop owner has the right to refuse a contract based on a person's skin color.<<

      They should, yes.

      >>No problem with signs saying "No niggers, kikes, beaners, ragheads and fags are served here"<<

      I didn't say there wasn't a problem with it. I said it shouldn't be illegal. I'd see a problem with that and boycott the crap out of that business. Is that honestly what you're afraid of? In your feverish mind, you think that businesses like that would sprout up everywhere if not for non-discrimination laws?

      >>You don't think that kind of freedom screws up a lot of other freedoms?<<

      Nope. You don't have a right to someone else's labor. You don't have a right to cupcakes. You don't have a right to engage in a business transaction with someone who doesn't want to engage in a transaction with you.

      I love how you're deliberately trying to force me into a box. You began by trying imply that if I believe a business owner has the right to choose whichever contracts he wants, I must be an anti-Semite. Sorry, I'm not.

      I am a small business owner and I have done business with people of many different backgrounds. But it is my decision to make, not yours.

      Now answer my question about the Westboro Baptist Church. Because if you say that yes, you can decline to serve that terrible religion, you're just the same as someone who won't serve "beaners" and "ragheads." Nice racial slurs by the way.

      JQ

      Delete
    7. JQ, I would be more than happy to bake "God hates fags"cakes for the Westboro Baptists. I think they do a great job making Christianity look bad.

      However, if someone would ask me to bake cakes with "The Holocaust never happened" on it, I would impolitely refuse, but I would be within my rights to do so, since I would not systematically refuse to do business with a group based on their race, religion, sexual preference or whatever group-property qualifies under the law.

      Delete
    8. You didn't answer my question. You said you would be more than happy to bake some God hates fags cupcakes for the WBC. But what if you weren't happy? What if it wasn't a contract you wanted to take on voluntarily? Should you be forced?

      You would of course be within your rights not to bake a Holocaust-denying cake. You would be within your rights not to bake a cake for anybody for any reason. It just so happens that your government and mine violate that right by means of anti-discrimination laws.

      You mention, however, that refusing to bake a cake with a Holcaust-denying message would somehow be different because, in your words, >> I would not systematically refuse to do business with a group based on their race, religion, sexual preference or whatever group-property qualifies under the law. << It's curious that you say that. Of the many, many Christian business that are being attacked by homosexuals have made it very clear that they do not refuse to do business with anyone of a homosexual orientation. They don't care at all about their orientation. They don't ask when a person walks in the door, hey do you like boys or girls? When you talk of sexual preference, you don't mean preference, you mean sexual behavior.

      Most don't even discriminate against people with sexual behavior with which they disagree. Not systematically, as you said. They would, for example, bake a birthday cake for some practicing homosexual. They'd provide him flowers to bring to his mother on Mother's Day. What they don't want to do is provide flowers or a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding because a wedding is a celebration. The person who owns the damned business, who built it from scratch with years of labor, who took the enormous risk of going off on his own, thinks that a homosexual wedding is celebrating something sinful. Therefor, he doesn't wish to participate.

      And you want to drag him, against his will, to that wedding, and make him participate under penalty of law. You are violating that person's rights.

      I repeat myself: >>You don't have a right to someone else's labor. You don't have a right to cupcakes. You don't have a right to engage in a business transaction with someone who doesn't want to engage in a transaction with you.<<

      JQ

      Delete
    9. The idea that anyone is discriminated because of "sexual preference" is a real knee-slapper! Ha!

      Joey

      Delete
    10. You didn't answer my question. You said you would be more than happy to bake some God hates fags cupcakes for the WBC. But what if you weren't happy? What if it wasn't a contract you wanted to take on voluntarily? Should you be forced?

      If I had a policy of not serving Christians or heterosexuals or white people, because I would be "unhappy" to serve them, then yes, I should be forced. It's easy for me to say of course, since I don't feel that way, but it's my belief that outlawing discrimination based on e.g. religion, sex, race is for the greater good. I guess you don't share this belief.

      What they don't want to do is provide flowers or a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding because a wedding is a celebration. The person who owns the damned business, who built it from scratch with years of labor, who took the enormous risk of going off on his own, thinks that a homosexual wedding is celebrating something sinful. Therefor, he doesn't wish to participate.

      If you advertise that you provide flowers at weddings, you are not allowed to exclude homos from that service just because they are homos. I thinks that's fine. How would you feel if Christians were a small minority that could not do business because the local majority refused to interact with them? It would lead to segregation and hostility.

      Delete
    11. Christians are in fact a persecuted minority in this country and we are fired from our jobs for our religious beliefs. It happens all the time.

      By law, in many states, you are required to provide the same service for a homosexual wedding as for a heterosexual wedding. But it's a tyrannical law. That's the point. If a person doesn't want the contract, he shouldn't have to take it. That's called freedom.

      Ben

      Delete
    12. What country are you living in? Christians a minority? PROVE YOUR CLAIM!!!
      Where did you get that misinformation?
      Yes "white" Christians are a minority in 19 states which means there are 31 states where they ARE NOT which means in the country as a whole Christians are NOT a minoritiy!!!
      1. Hawaii – 20 percent
      2. California – 25 percent
      3. New Mexico – 33 percent
      4. Nevada – 36 percent
      5. New York – 37 percent
      6. Alaska – 37 percent
      7. Texas – 37 percent
      8. Maryland – 38 percent
      9. Arizona – 38 percent
      10. Washington – 42 percent
      11. Florida – 42 percent
      12. Oregon – 43 percent
      13. New Jersey – 43 percent
      14. Colorado – 44 percent
      15. Illinois – 46 percent
      16. Georgia – 46 percent
      17. Vermont – 47 percent
      18. Delaware – 48 percent
      19. Louisiana – 49 percent
      PRRI’s definition of “white Christian” includes evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Mormons who identify as “white, non-Hispanic.”

      If you add Black and Hispanic Christians there is no way a minority in the United States!!!...
      Get your FACTS str8 or are you one of those who doesn't think FACTS matter?

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/white-christians-minority-america_n_6811484.html


      Delete
    13. This is "WHITE CHRISTIANS" not ALL Christians which is still a majority in the United States...
      Hopefully the ignorant people are a minority...
      I have my doubts and Ben proves it...

      http://ava.publicreligion.org/#religious/2014/States/denomination/m/national


      Delete
  2. Troy doesn't like the idea of a Christian business owner refusing service to a Jew because it offends his personal sense of right and wrong. Obviously it wouldn't offend that same sense in anyone who would actually do it. So it's a very clear case of Troy wanting to legislate his morality. Troy says it's wrong for a Christian business owner to have a no-Jews policy, and I do too. But Troy wants to insert himself into someone else's business (literally!) and force him to act in accordance with his own personal moral code.

    Butt out, Troy.

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 1, 2013 at 7:21 AM

      You can bet Troi would be raising hell if those terrible Christians put partitions in their churches to separate men and women. You would see comment after comment denouncing Christians for their "sexist" faith and ranting about the Pope's shoes.

      Delete
    2. He does have a thing about the pope's shoes, doesn't he? Weird.

      Joey

      Delete
  3. Is this article real or one of those dissassociated press things?

    “This is not the same as denying service to someone based on the color of their skin or sexual preference. This was a choice by the owner of the bakery to not serve someone based on their bigoted lifestyle, and there’s nothing wrong with that.”

    What's funny is that none of these discrimination lawsuits based on "sexual preference" are actually about sexual preference, but about sexual lifestyle. People can change their lifestyle, and that is why the comparison to race is so ludicrous.

    I wonder if science could locate a "racist gene" if we would need special laws to protect racists from this kind of degrading treatment. They're just born that way! But then again that gay gene is mysteriously missing as well. Let's just assume that the gene exists and call it science.

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 1, 2013 at 7:24 AM

      It's real. The KKK and the Gay Lobby fighting for the Freedom to Consume.

      Delete
    2. It's fake, Joey. But quite funny and makes an excellent point about the absurdity of non-discrimination laws.

      JQ

      Delete
  4. Replies
    1. That link does not prove the story was fake. If there is real evidence it was fake, I'll retract it.

      The point made is important for discussion. What are the limits of freedom of conscience for businessmen?

      Delete
    2. Oh, you lovable dolt! Of course it's fake. Even your conservative brethren have figured it out. I guess you're a little slow on the uptake.



      The TribuneHerald.net site where the original story appeared is a fake news site, with a disclaimer that says "Tribune Herald is for satirical purposes only."

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. Hey, Dr. Gullible, where's the retraction?

      Hoo

      Delete
  5. In recent history religious belief has determined if you get sent to a gas chamber, or whacked with a machete. I guess it’s progress when religious bigots are left fighting for the right to withhold cake.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  6. The parallel between the KKK and gays exists only in the feverish mindset of conservative fire breathers like Egnor. They desperately grasp at straws to draw the analogy. In his case, a clearly fake story is used to bolster the contorted parallel.

    Joey was onto something when he raised some doubts. Luckily, the admiral assured him that the story was real. Way to go, admiral! The level of stupid is high this morning!

    Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
  7. Let me put it to you this way, KW and Troy and whoever else is listening. Do you think that a person should have the freedom to decide whom they date? I do. Do you think that a person should have the freedom to decide who moves in as their roommate? I do.

    But wait a second, some people might decide not to date outside their race. And that would violate other people's right to date them! That would essentially be the same thing as having a "no beaner" and "no raghead" policy.

    Someone else might want to live only with a person of the same sex. That same person might not want to live with a homosexual. Or they might want to have a roommate who shares their values and religious beliefs. And that would be discrimination! That would be like having a no Jew policy.

    And no one cares. Dating and sharing an apartment are voluntary transactions. Either party can decide not to engage in such a transaction and no one gets the government involved. All I'm saying is that when a person goes into business for himself, he is still a sovereign citizen, and he should have the freedom to choose which contracts he wants to take on. He should be able to decline a contract because he doesn't like your politics, because he thinks you're ugly, because your family and his have a longstanding Hatfield-McCoy style feud going back centuries, or because he doesn't like the color of your shoes. He should be allowed to decline your contract because he's tired and would rather take a rest somewhere than bake your damned cupcakes. It's his call.

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes JQ, we get it. Conservatives want the right to discriminate for any reason. If a shop owner finds black people “ugly” they can shop somewhere else. If all the businesses in town think Blacks are “ugly” they can always move.

      -KW

      Delete
    2. And you liberals want to be free to discriminate against white people, men, the unborn, and Christians. You discriminate your asses off.

      Actually, a business can refuse to serve ugly people. Studio 54 did it.

      JQ

      Delete
    3. "Conservatives want the right to discriminate for any reason."

      I don't know if all conservatives do, but I'm coming around to that way of thinking. I'm beginning to see how silly these laws are. Have they ever protected me? Not one iota.

      It's because I believe that anyone should allowed to discriminate for whatever reason they want that makes the position so fair and reasonable. If you own a business you can decide who you want to serve. I may not like your decision, I might even decide to boycott your business. The one thing I won't do is call the cops to bust down your door and force you to serve someone you don't want to serve.

      I really mean that. You and you alone should be the decider of who you serve. No one should ever force you to take on a contract you don't want to take on. Your burning, fanatical hatred for Christians is well-known. If you refused to bake a cake for the Knights of Columbus because of your hatred, you would be within your rights.

      Joey

      Delete
  8. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 1, 2013 at 3:14 PM

    Oh, it's real...

    The complaint seeks to force Masterpiece Cakeshop to "cease and desist" the practice of refusing wedding cakes for gay couples, and to tell the public that their business is open to everyone.

    If Phillips loses the case and refuses to comply with the order, he would face fines of $500 per case and up to a year in jail, his attorney said.


    The Right to Consume is in the Constitution. It says, and I quote: "Let them eat cake."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That case is just outrageous. And in Hawaii a lesbian couple sicced the government on a B&B owned by Christians after they were refused a room. They say they just want to be left alone, but really they want to force their way into your house and have sex all over the furniture.

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/16/lesbian-couple-wins-discrimination-lawsuit-against-religious-bed-and-breakfast-owner-who-denied-them-a-room/

      These people are pushy assholes.

      Joey

      Delete
    2. What these examples of Christian-haters using the law to punish Christians are is straight-forward repression, of the sort that goes on in more pervasive totalitarian states. It is sporadic and mild for now, but it is of the same nature as the programs of Christian repression in communist countries, revolutionary Spain, Mexico, etc.

      Delete
    3. What these examples of Christian-haters using the law to punish Christians are is straight-forward repression

      No, it's to prevent Christian haters, and all other haters, to impose their tyranny on everybody else. I can see why that upsets you - you just love to hate and you're a narcissist. It's all about you, you, you. Don't think that Jeebus doesn't notice. You will burn in the lake of fire.

      Delete
    4. How exactly are the Christian "haters" imposing their will on anyone? They're simply refusing to have someone else's tyranny imposed on them. It is you who wants to force a private citizen into an economic transaction that he wants nothing to do with.

      I see no hate here on Egnor's part. I see you hating. You hate people who won't get in line and discriminate the same way you would discriminate.

      Ho man examples must I cite of Christians being fired for their religious beliefs? I can go all night.

      Joey

      Delete
    5. He meant haters who are Christian, not people who hate Christians. But because of the clumsy wording, it reads something like the truth. Christian-haters, such as himself, are in fact imposing their tyranny on others.

      Ben

      Delete
    6. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 1, 2013 at 7:44 PM

      If one checks the online YP listings for "wedding cakes" in Denver, there are dozens.

      So these two about-to-be-"married" assholes, consumed with hate like our own Troi, went out on a "cake tasting" adventure. Philips told them he could not bake a cake for a gay "marriage". So, in the spirit of amity and tolerance for the Other,

      "We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, 'F**k you and your homophobic cake shop.' And I may or may not have flipped him off," Mullins told the Denver Westword.

      The happy couple then posted their experience on Facebook, where, according to CBS legacy media, the response was "huge". The "huge" response resulted in a small protest in front of Philips' store.

      Here is Philips' perspective:

      If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever. It's just the wedding cake, not the people, not their lifestyle."

      This is Troi's version of "tyranny".

      So, in the most liberal and live-and-let-live, nonjudgmental, tolerant way, the gay freedom fighters have sued Philips.

      Fortunately, the local Christian community has responded by ordering more goods from Philips. This we must do.

      In addition, to supporting our brothers and sisters by patronizing terrorized businesses, we must take a page from the Gay Lobby and start picketing the businesses and homes of the gay bullies who participate in these tactics.

      Christians won a fabulous victory with Chick-fil-A. We can do it every time. Remember,

      All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
      --- Edmund Burke (attributed)

      Delete