Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Trump Supports Businesses Banning Gays

President Trump's press secretary said her boss would have no problem with businesses hanging antigay signs that explicitly state they don't serve LGBT customers. Hours after oral arguments concluded in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case -- where a Colorado baker argued to the Supreme Court that his religion allows him to refuse service to gay people -- press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was confronted on legalized discrmination during today's White House press briefing. "The lawyer for the solicitor general's office for the administration said today in the Supreme Court if it would be legal, possible for a baker to put a sign in his window saying we don't bake cakes for gay weddings," The New York Times' Michael Shear asked. "Does the president agree that that would be OK?" "The president certainly supports religious liberty and that's something he talked about during the campaign and has upheld since taking office," Sanders replied.

More

When pressed on whether that included support for signs that deny service to gay people, Sanders responded, "I believe that would include that."

Comments

My gay sister and her partner would say to let them hang signs, It helps them know who not to give their money to. True dat is....

#1 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-12-11 02:54 PM

#1 - But publish their doner list and they bitch, squirming away from the light. Damned if you do..

#2 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2017-12-11 03:31 PM

I wonder if you can get a Jewish baker to bake you a Hitler cake with Jews being gassed in a concentration camp on it?

This goes far beyond religion, though. An artist should never be compelled to create something just because somebody asks for it, and decorating a cake just barely counts as artistic expression. Barely.

But go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.

#3 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-12-11 05:33 PM

- tell me I'm wrong.

That would be totally redundant for most people here.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-11 05:42 PM

#4 Whatever. But it's a good way to address the question when you have no counter argument.

I know that you don't you don't support freedom of expression, and believe that people who do (like the ACLU)are Nazi's. So it is sort of pointless to argue with you, since your answer would probably be a violent physical assault like Antifa or a Nazi.

#5 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-12-11 06:11 PM

#5

lmao... still clinging to your claims that shooting at people, beating them up, and murdering them with a car are free speech? And claiming that bakers selling stock cakes are artists?

Bernie farts in your general direction... berniesanders.com

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-11 06:16 PM

#6 What the hell are you even talking about! Violence like Nazi's do and Antifa does is not free speech! Are you God-damn insane?! Jesus!

#7 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-12-11 06:33 PM

#6 "still clinging to your claims that shooting at people, beating them up, and murdering them with a car are free speech?"

when did I ever, ever say that you God-damn Orwellian thought-Nazi! Stop making false accusations! Jesus H. Christ!

#8 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-12-11 06:40 PM

#6 I can't believe you are trying to slander me by changing history! Christ!

#9 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-12-11 06:41 PM

Equal protection under the law.
Public service providers should not discriminate.
Trying to put first amendment lipstick on a bigotry pig is lame.

How low can you go, pedo bro?

#10 | Posted by bored at 2017-12-11 06:44 PM

#10 Oh, that's it. Now I'm a pedo for believing in artistic freedom. Explain yourself or shut up.

#11 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-12-11 06:47 PM

Check your defense of sexual abusers and explain that pedo bro.

#12 | Posted by bored at 2017-12-11 06:51 PM

Besides calling you a pedo bro is artistic expression which you claim to support. Or are you a snowflake too?

#13 | Posted by bored at 2017-12-11 06:53 PM

When the hell did I ever defend a sexual abuser? And it's an insult you ignorant ----. Or are you good with me calling you "boy"?

#14 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-12-11 06:58 PM

"I can't believe you are trying to slander me by changing history!"

Sure you can. Everybody here believes it. He does it all the time.

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2017-12-11 08:29 PM

#2 - Your false equivalence is ugly, and I understand that homosexuals are loathsome to fundamentalism, but where does the Bible mention cake?

Does it matter that 10% of each masterpiece is gobbled by gays? I'm questioning the rituals' Christianity. Doesn't lavender buttercream deserve a gay wedding?

#16 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2017-12-11 09:23 PM

I wonder if you can get a Jewish baker to bake you a Hitler cake with Jews being gassed in a concentration camp on it?

Are homosexuals asking fundamental conservative Christians to bake a cake depicting two guys boning?

Cause otherwise your analogy sucks.

Most homosexuals getting married simply want a cake.

Possibly one made of lavender buttercream.

#17 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-12-11 10:50 PM

- Stop making false accusations!

Stop lying. Every there was an article posted here detailing Spencer's Nazi Marcher violence, you were there posting that people here were condemning free speech, and you were Deflecting to antifa.

People here know that because they remember it distinctly. But if they need to check it out and read your postage they can... if they have a strong stomach.

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-11 11:56 PM

- He does it all the time.

#15 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Then it should be really easy for you to provide an example of that claim... or stick it where the sun don't shine... your ear, I mean rear.... well, either would werk!

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-12 12:02 AM

Every time there in 18

#20 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-12 12:14 AM

#17 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

What?!? You're expecting decent analogies around here?

Stop trying to suppress his freedom of expression!

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-12 09:16 AM

I don't see any legal issue with a company saying 'we don't want your kind here'.
It is certainly a moral issue, and it would do a good job of informing people where there money shouldn't be spent.
I think said company, regardless of signage, still should be required to provide services regardless of race, color, religion, national origin and sex.

#22 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-12-12 10:15 AM

"Violence like Nazi's do and Antifa does is not free speech!"

Oh goody, the old, stupid and dishonest claim that both sides are the same. Liar! Sorry that's wrong. Stupid liar!

#23 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-12 11:32 AM

"I don't see any legal issue with a company saying 'we don't want your kind here'." - #22 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-12-12 10:15 AM

You don't see?

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. - The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964)
Perhaps you should get your eyes checked.

#24 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-12 11:50 AM

Were 3 lines too far for you to read, Hans?
They are welcome to name their restaurant 'Whiteys not invited', as long as they provide services to all regardless of race, color, religion, national origin and sex.

#25 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-12-12 12:05 PM

"They are welcome to name their restaurant 'Whiteys not invited'" =/= "I don't see any legal issue with a company saying 'we don't want your kind here'."

#26 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-12 12:14 PM

Oh, I see. It was the lines above mine you didn't read. This is a discussion on an article specifically about "hanging antigay signs that explicitly state they don't serve LGBT customers". I feel relatively confident that the name of the restaurant would be posted in said restaurant.

#27 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-12-12 12:19 PM

"It was the lines above mine you didn't read." - #27 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-12-12 12:19 PM

None of the lines above your #22 were "Posted by Avigdore"

"Oh, I see."

Obviously not.

#28 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-12 12:31 PM

"I think said company, regardless of signage, still should be required to provide services regardless of race, color, religion, national origin and sex."

But not sexual orientation or gender identification?

#29 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-12 01:13 PM

Most homosexuals getting married simply want a cake.
Possibly one made of lavender buttercream.

#17 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Clown, Corky doesn't take hints that well... You are going to just have to tell him you want to get married and have lavender buttercream on the cake.

#30 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-12-12 01:38 PM

Now about the article...

Bad business to exclude, suck it up buttercups and serve the customers.

#31 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-12-12 01:41 PM

I would love it if a business did this. I'd take pictures of the sign and the business itself, post it on social media and watch gleefully as the bigot's sales plummeted.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-12 01:51 PM

The problem with the "go ahead and let them hang signs" argument ignores smaller communities and rural areas where there may not be another similar business for many miles. If there's only one hospital around and they decide to stop taking gay patients, or black patients, well, hopefully you get the idea.

This also presupposes a society in which the majority will continue to serve all, where you can always go next door and not be subjected to prejudice. In today's world i'm not so confident in that.

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-12 02:58 PM

"Blacks need not apply" signs are going to be the next Bitcoin!

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-12 03:17 PM

Most homosexuals getting married simply want a cake.
Possibly one made of lavender buttercream.
#17 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK
Clown, Corky doesn't take hints that well... You are going to just have to tell him you want to get married and have lavender buttercream on the cake.
#30 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-12-12 01:38 PM

Great British Baking Show influence aside, it's entirely about measured discrimination. There is no fundamental reason to deny anyone their gayest icing of choice. It's beholden upon the establishment to act as a business with reasonable intention to perform as such. The whomever can act reasonable and perform monetary transaction. This isn't a thinking 'thing' being sold here, just a delicious hate values-laden masterpiece that hasn't to do with Christianity and shares everything with global pagan tradition. The cake-baker is interpreting his religion to include feeding the remains to the kennels but never adorn a gay wedding? Cersci would approve.

#35 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2017-12-12 03:29 PM

Anna Kendrick once tweeted asking what it would cost to buy a wedding cake just to eat by herself. Why does the cake maker running a business get to care what the buyer is going to do with it?

I can see where they would get to choose what designs they'll make, but selling a cake is just selling a cake. I get that small business cake makers spend a lot of time on a single cake, and some of them get into it because they love cakes and weddings, but I'm sure they get customers who are jerks and they still make their cakes. I'm sure most of the customers of these cake makers are having sex out of wedlock. Are they going to ask them that?

#36 | Posted by LEgregius at 2017-12-12 04:57 PM

For those people who are supporting business discriminating against gays... would it also be OK in your eyes for those same businesses to discriminate (or refuse to make a cake for) an interracial couple?

If not, please explain what the difference is.

#37 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2017-12-13 09:31 AM

I wouldn't mind if they hung a sign, but it would have to be out in public on the door, clearly visible to all. Not only would they alienate gays, but most right thinking Democrats. You can't kiss off 50% of your potential customer base and hope to succeed in business.

#38 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2017-12-13 10:42 AM

I wonder if you can get a Jewish baker to bake you a Hitler cake with Jews being gassed in a concentration camp on it?
This goes far beyond religion, though. An artist should never be compelled to create something just because somebody asks for it, and decorating a cake just barely counts as artistic expression. Barely.
But go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.

#3 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

Only took 3 posts to invoke Hitler. Nice.

Also FIRST TIME in history that Republicans are defending artists.

But seriously, if you can't tell the difference, you aren't smart enough to be here. Making a cake for a gay couple and making a cake that explicitly supports Nazi Fascism are two entirely different things. Get over it.

#39 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-12-13 11:29 AM

If there's only one hospital around and they decide to stop taking gay patients, or black patients, well, hopefully you get the idea.

I'm pretty sure that the bigots understand what would happen and they are ok with them dying. It's what Jesus would have wanted.

#40 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-14 07:56 AM

I wonder if you can get a Jewish baker to bake you a Hitler cake with Jews being gassed in a concentration camp on it?

That is a strong contender for dumbest straw man of 2017.

#41 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-14 07:57 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Man Arrested in Threat Against CNN Employees (146 comments)

Oxfam: World's Richest 1% Hoard 82% of the Wealth (104 comments)

Senate Votes to End Shut Down (73 comments)

Blue States Are the Engine Driving Job Gains (35 comments)

Russian Bots Blame Schumer For Shutdown (35 comments)

China Winning in Scientific Productivity (31 comments)

Senators Used Talking Stick During Bipartisan Budget Talks (22 comments)

Doctor Living in U.S. Since Age 5 Faces Deportation (21 comments)