Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Anti-Gay Bake Shop Fined Up To $150K" video.

She is the victim. People who are supporting forcing her to pay this fine or serving someone they don't want to serve are straight up fascist. Are these owners bigots? Yes. Do I support their actions? No. But I support their right to run their business the way they want. Instead we have people that want to use the threat of incarceration to do what they want them to do. They are saying "serve these people or go to jail". That is similar to slavery, that is fascism at it's finest which is worse than being a bigot. I would rather have millions of bigots in our country than a few fascist forcing people to live the life they feel is "right". This is why we do have people that hate the LGBT movement, they are set on ruining people's lives to suit their needs. Instead of using free speech to criticize this company, and going to another business, they use threat of incarceration and government force to get these people to accept the gay lifestyle. This is no different then forcing anti-abortion laws on people, or banning marijuana laws. It is pathetic what this is becoming too, how fascism is being supported and celebrated.
5
rodney barry I can easily put "black people" in place of gay and support what that business did. You don't have a right to another person's service. You shouldn't have the ability to take away someone else's pursuit of happiness to give you happiness. I was discriminated once as a guy. A night club late at night was only allowing women in but not men. I just made a smart ass remark and moved on. I didn't sue or anything and took my money elsewhere.
4
Adam Langfelder That is her job she choose to work. I agree that proper business practice is to serve those people and I would if I were running the business. At the same time it is her right to not serve those people because you don't have a right to someone else's services.
3
Adam Langfelder How so? You need to elaborate because until then you are just going off a what you think is right which isn't valid at all.
3
rodney barry To extend what I said. Would I agree with a business' actions when they discriminate? No. What I support is their right to do so. I don't support their actions but their right to do so. Another example is when the WBC protests funerals, I don't support their actions, I support their 1st amendment right to protest funerals. I also support other's first amendment right to criticize them. You have to understand the difference.
3
mikefromwa She did break the law and that is her fault. As I said I am willing to accept said law at the state level. People need to question it though and several people aren't. Yes she broke the law, but was it worth shutting down her business and radically changing her life? That couple had other options. That is like giving someone a felony for speeding in my opinion.
3
Ok fascist.
2
Adam Langfelder Forcing others to do something they don't agree with.
2
Adam Langfelder It isn't good for business. At the same time the government shouldn't force you to not discriminate. If you want to discriminate as a business then that is your choice. It isn't a smart idea but it is your choice.
2
Adam Langfelder Are you even reading what I am writing? I said it isn't good to discriminate. What I am saying is that the government shouldn't force a business to serve people they don't want to serve.
2
rodney barry Yeah, that is fine with me. We don't live in 1954. These days you can call someone, have media to enhance your free speech and find alternatives if you so desire.
2
Adam Langfelder Equal protection of who? What you are doing is telling business owners you have to give up your services to people you don't want to. So now business owners are not protected and thus it isn't equal protection. You are now discriminating against business owners.
2
rodney barry Yeah, you can't infringe on other people's freedom. You don't have a right to other people's services. Forcing that gas station owner to give you gas is a form of slavery.
2
Kenny Smith How am a homophobic, a sexist and a racist? Because I support people having rights and don't support fascism?
2
rodney barry How far are you willing to go on putting other people's lives in danger? What if a homeless guy who was hungry walked into a restaurant wanting food but was turned away due to having no money? Do you want the government to force the restaurant to serve him for free so he doesn't starve?
2
WildwoodClaire1 That is a more convincing argument you made there then others have made. Me being a state rights person can accept that. I will question the law on the grounds of if it is a form of slavery saying one has a right to that person's services, but saying it is a privilege to run a business is more convincing as long as it is a state or local law and not a federal one (a federal law violates the 10th amendment and is 100% unconstitutional). It is way more convincing then what others are saying in calling the owners bigots and picking and choosing who can discriminate against who or not.
2
Bitter Disillusionment But you also don't have a right to other people's services. Saying you have a right to other people's services is saying slavery is legal.
2
Ben Lutz You also bring up a good point in your devil advocate comment. Another problem I have is a line of inconsistency some people have. A cake in the shape of the twin towers being hit by a plane is an interesting argument. How many of these people criticizing this cake shop owner will criticize her if she refused to bake that cake? I try to remain consistence in my argument. Someone told me to replace gay with black and I still support the stance of having the ability to refuse service. But if you are going to have the stance of forcing the business to serve everyone then one has to supporting forcing that business to make that twin towers cake.
2
rodney barry Slaves were given food and shelter. Just because she is being paid means nothing, she is being forced to give up her services to someone they don't want too. Also, what if she charged them $100,000, what will be your stance than? Do you want to set price control as well?
2
Alex Weiss There are tow issues there. One, I am willing to accept it as a state or local law. My issue is people are supporting a federal law that prohibits discrimination. The federal law is unconstitutional, the state law isn't. Another is that people are not questioning the law. They are so quick to support the law and basically ruined this woman's life and career just to protect a gay couple that could have easily gone to another bakery. There is nothing wrong with questioning laws.
2
Kyle's story at the end was pathetic. This isn't 1954. Technology is great. Rip on them in Yelp and use the media to drum up some emotional story about it because you know the media will take it to get views and money. Transportation is great these days, go to another bakery.
1
***** The only case where there will be one bakery is in a rural area. In rural areas of small populations you don't see that problem. There is a strong community feel in those areas and if that company doesn't like you it has to do with more than if you are gay or not, it is that they hate your for something you have done or said and the entire town hates you. In that case typically they just end up moving all together. So in all the story is pathetic. You only see these instances of discrimination in more urban areas.
1
Ultra80s And the federal law is unconstitutional. It violates the 10th amendment and arguably is a form of slavery.
1
Ultra80s If it is a state law then I will accept it more. But one still has to question if it is constitutional or not. A federal law isn't constitutional, a state law is questionable because it one could say it is a form of slavery. You are forcing someone to give up their services to someone they don't want to.
1
K1productions What right is that business owner taking away? Please cite it for me. Yes a doctor can refuse to help someone, a firefighter for a private business or a volunteer one can refuse to stop a fire. A firefighter being funded by tax dollars doesn't have a choice though via the 14th amendment.
1
tubester4567 Yes a business who wants to discriminate should be allowed to. If you have a problem with it then discriminate against them and don't go to their business. Discriminate against them and use your 1st amendment right to criticize their way of doing business. The question for your is where do we draw the line? Do we force the baker to give the gay couple a discount on their cake? Or give a discount to minorities since they are statistically going to earn less money than someone who is white? You are playing this game in saying a business owner can't discriminate against person X and Y but you as an individual can. You as an individual are allowed to discriminate against a business if you so desire. It isn't the job of the government to be fascists and force people to serve others they don't want to serve.
1
Trevor Leon Yep
1
K1productions You arbitrarily picked healthcare. Why not homes? Why are they private? I feel a home is more important than healthcare. I bet, barring some major accident, I will pay more in rent than in healthcare. I want to treat all humans as equals, not give any special privileges. You don't have a right to anyone services and I don't have to take your money. It is as simple as that. I don't agree with what this bakery did, what I support is their freedom. It is similar to rather having 100 guilty guys walk free than one innocent man go to jail. I rather have a 100 bigots discriminate then have a government that is fascist and forces others to do what they don't want to do.
1
Feuerbach1 I assume you have a public road that leads you your home as well and you trust cops to protect you. So with that I can just enter your home at my own free will. That is all based on what you just wrote. You took advantage of the tax payers so I should be able to just go into your home and eat your food. Agreed.
1
Ultra80s I agree that the business is wrong in the eyes of the law, I just feel people should question the law. It is a state law which I support as opposed to a federal law which is unconstitutional in that it violates the 10th amendment. So as a state rights supporter I will accept the law more. But it should be question. People here cry that she is a bigot without realizing that their methods are a form of fascism.
1
Arthur Fuksayk And that is her private business. She isn't offering her services of baking wedding cakes to gay couples to anyone. You seem to have a trouble understanding this.
1
Arthur Fuksayk The constitution doesn't ban the ability to discriminate also. Show me where in the constitution that discrimination of private individuals is banned? You do have the ability to pursue happiness and if discriminating against someone is it then so be it. The Civil Rights Act violates the 10th amendment. Now I can accept a state law that enforces what you are saying. If a state or local law put in place anti-discrimination laws for businesses I can accept that based on the 10th amendment. My problem on this issue is that one, we have a federal law on it which violates the constitution, and 2, how people like you are so myopically bowing down to this law without questioning it. You have no problem removing the freedoms of this business owner using government force. Just keep in mind what goes around comes around. When someone else using the government to take away your freedom for their benefit then don't complain.
1
Hal Jordan The Civil Rights Act does violate the constitution. I bet you think the Patriot Act doesn't violate the 4th amendment as well?
1
Arthur Fuksayk The Civil Rights Act violates the 10th amendment. There is a limit on what the federal government can do, the Civil Rights Act stepped over that limit.
1
Hal Jordan It does violate the 10th amendment. I bet you think the Patriot Act is unconstitutional? The issue is that you are moving the goal post in the limits of the federal government in what it can and cannot do. You are so quick to support the Civil Rights Act because it protects certain people but the same people who support that are quick to rip on the Patriot Act even though it was designed to "protect" all of society. At what cost though? I feel that DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional and violates the 4th amendment. Others say it is just to protect us from drunk drivers. So then I say why not put a Breathalyzer in every car? People oppose that because they have a limit on how far the federal government, and government in general can invade in people's lives. They easily move that line to support what they believe when in reality the line is set and it is the constitution. We have a system in place to solve these issues and it is the constitution. You don't have to give up freedom for protection.
1
Hal Jordan The ruling isn't backed by the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment just prevents government from discriminating, not people. So the civil rights act does violate the 10th amendment. Riots is not peaceful protest. A threat is potentially putting someone in harm's way when they have not other option which is why it isn't covered in free speech. If a baker refuses to give you a cake then you can go to another bakery. You keep on moving the lines on what is and isn't allowed when it is clearly listed in the constitution listed in the constitution what is and isn't allowed. Anti-discrimination laws fall under the 10th amendment, it is a state rights issue. You refuse to accept that because to you it is a necessary law to "protect" some people. Ok, what about spying in your home? You may disagree with that. But if they would have spied in on James Holmes they could have seen his plans to shoot up that movie theater and stopped it saving lives. How far are you wiling to go on removing freedom for "protection"? The constitution placed limits on that because the founding fathers saw a time when they knew there will be politicians that will play that deceptive game in that they are there to "protect" you and will trick you in giving up your rights for their advantage. That is why we have state rights, states are easier to control and the constitution places limits on them. You play a dangerous game when you allow unconstitutional laws get passed for your "protection".
1
Arthur Fuksayk Law are so hard to pass and almost impossible to change or remove, especially a law like this when you have a large class of ignorant people that are wiling to give up freedom for "protection". Remember, the patriot was passed. DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional but the are allowed to keep us "safe".
1
Arthur Fuksayk The patriot act isn't a red herring but a great example in how are you willing to let government go. We have limitations on governments as listed in the constitution. The civil rights act violates the 10th amendment. You support the civil rights acts because is "protects" person x, y and z, but it breaks down the barrier of the role of state governments and federal government. You are opening the way for an oppressive and uncontrollable government to "protect" certain people. We can use another example. James Holmes planned for months to shoot up that theater. He stocked up on ammo, built bombs and body armor. If we had the ability to monitor and spy on people the federal government would have caught him before he acted out. I bet you don't support the federal government spying on citizens but if they were allowed to then those people in that theater would be alive. Infringing on our privacy would protect us. But you wouldn't allow that. We can do this with several situations. The constitution was designed because the founding fathers knew that future politicians would use the government in their favor and thus limits should be placed on it. Everyone has their different idea of what government should do and that is why we have state rights and limits on the federal government. You may feel it is just for the government to prevent discrimination by businesses, I feel that allowing the federal government to create domestic laws like that opens up the doorway (and has) into them infringing on state rights in other issues and create laws you don't agree with but I do. But the issue is that there is a stopping point in place to limit government. Much like we have the 4th amendment to prevent spying we have the 10th amendment to prevent infringing state rights. You are so concerned about me being a bigot when you should be concerned in what the federal government is able to do.
1
Arthur Fuksayk There are a lot of things we do that are no listed as rights. You say discrimination is not a right, neither is college, or driving, or someone else's services, or owning a home, etc. So by what you are saying is that I shouldn't own my car or drive since I don't have a right to it. Show me where in the constitution does the federal government has the ability to prevent discrimination? I can easily say you don't have a right to a computer or to own a business. You need to learn what rights are.
1
Arthur Fuksayk If discrimination is prohibited by the state or local government the I can accept that because that falls within the 10th amendment. The federal government can't create such law because it violates the 10th amendment. That is the issue. That is why the law is unconstitutional. It matters what level of government is doing it. There isn't an amendment, or anywhere in the constitution that allows them to enforce the civil rights act. They can force governments not to discriminate via the 14th amendment, but for private businesses that is a state and local issue. Once again this comes down to you moving the line in what freedoms we should give up for "protection". The constitution sets those limits. The 10th amendment was supposed to prevent the domestic law of the civil rights act. Instead people allow it to pass because it "protects" people. As I said before, we could have protected people in that movie theater if we were allowed to spy in people's homes and saw what James Holmes was planning. We can protect people if we ban free speech. How far are you willing to go? The constitution sets that limit, there is a reason why the founders placed it because the limits were not supposed to be arbitrary like you are making them, there were set in stone to see that we don't get an oppressive government. That is what you need to understand. You are arbitrarily setting the limits when the limits were already set in place. Would you allow the federal government to enforce a law that requires everyone to run 4 miles a day? I mean, they just passed a healthcare law so we need healthy people. How far is your limit because it is different then mine and others. That is why we have a constitution.
1
Arthur Fuksayk It does move the line. I bet you don't want the government spying in on you. If that is the case then why are you arguing for murder? You know how many planned murders we could have stopped if we just allowed the government to spy into us? Why are you advocating for traffic deaths. You know how many lives we could save if we ban driving at the federal level? You see, I can move the line as well and play your little game. I don't care if someone is a racist or a homophobe or a misogynist. That is their life and why do I have the right to force them to change or confirm to what I think is right. You don't have that right either to force a racist to accept the black lifestyle. I couldn't care less if they are a racist any more than if they are an Oregon Ducks fan or a heavy metal music fan or a fan of Joe Don Baker movies or whatever. That is their life. Are they hurting anyone? In today's society most likely themselves. You are moving the line. You don't see it as being bad because you hate racism and homophobic people so much. That is fine, but you can't pass laws based on emotions, you have to use reason and work within the constitution and not be fascist about it.
1
Arthur Fuksayk What I am doing is making the same arguments you are. Just because I don't support anti-discrimination laws at the federal level doesn't mean I support racism or homophobic or bigotry in general. I also don't support murder laws at the federal level but love the ones at the state and local level. If the KKK lynches a black guy then they should be punished. Them being racist or the guy the lynch being black means nothing to me. The fact that they lynch a guy is what matter. You are passing a law passed on emotions. You are limiting other people's freedom ability to discriminate to "protect" a certain group of people. That is fine, but do it at the state level. That was the idea of the constitution and state rights, everyone has their different idea of what government should and shouldn't do, so the states and local governments were left with that issue. That is why the civil rights act violates the 10th amendment.
1
Arthur Fuksayk I am playing the same game you are. The Civil Rights Act violates the 10th amendment. The commerce class was commerce between states and in any uncivil dispute between states. The Civil Rights Act doesn't fall under the commerce clause thus it violates the 10th amendment. You have no problem violating that amendment so I am making the argument that you support murder because you don't want to spy on people to see what they are planning. It is moving the line for "protection". That line wasn't supposed to be moved but you are allowing it with the Civil Rights Act. Might as well allow the federal government to spy on people and create a curfew and ban driving. It is the same thing. People should have the ability to think how they want. So you support thought crimes? The sitting in the back of the bus idea is flawed. If it is a private bus then fine, if the bus is funded by public funds in any way then they can't in that it violates the 14 amendment. Everyone already has the same rights. You are not understanding what a right is. No one has the right not to be discriminate against. That is why that issue falls under the 10th amendment. Like you said there is no right to discriminate, there is no right to not be discriminated against as well. A fascist is using government force to change other people's ways a living. A private individual doing it isn't fascism.
1