Ted Cruz says 'consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in the bedroom' as he promises his account will never like porn again

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes, I get that.  Just for the record though, I wanted to point out again that there is no law requiring food service companies to provide items not on the menu.  Oceander had inferred that there was no Constitutional prohibition against formulating such a law - oblivious to the fact that no such law had ever been enacted.

Totally agree.  Judges have moved well beyond the laws and Constitution, as written, to install whatever Karmic Justice they deem necessary to create "fairness."   That there is no Statue or mention in the Constitution can prevent Judges from seeing whatever Emanations and Penumbras they want to get the desired result.

This has effectively made this a Nation of Men, no longer a Nation of Laws.

[Bigun]

Your example is extreme, IMO.

The 'problem' seems to be in the wording and/or figurines on said cake.

If you bake cakes for profit, and you know how to read, you're bound to decorate it as the customer prefers.

I'm also free to tell you to get the hell out of my shop and don't come back!

[Just_Victor]

I'm also free to tell you to get the hell out of my shop and don't come back!

No shoes
No shirt
No service


What's this world coming to?

[DCPatriot]

I'm also free to tell you to get the hell out of my shop and don't come back!

@Just_Victor beat me to it!   

I understand, but that's not refusing based upon skin color or sexual preference.

(although I thought "Ladies Nite"...where they got drinks at 50% and no cover charge, was on legal shaky ground)

[txradioguy]

No shoes
No shirt
No service


What's this world coming to?

Give it time...someone will challenge that right of an eating establishment to refuse service because of those things as well.

[DCPatriot]

No shoes
No shirt
No service


What's this world coming to?

This old guy asks that question every single day.   

It's not pretty, when the largest voting bloc is indoctrinated in Leftist ideology PLUS....they've not experienced a large scale conflict where tens of thousands of our finest perish.

They weren't joking ....  History indeed repeats itself.

I've always maintained that they should STILL interrupt all cable and video broadcasts everyday at midnight and play the National Anthem while showing those planes crashing into the World Trade Center.

We wouldn't be here today.   

[Bigun]

@Just_Victor beat me to it!   

I understand, but that's not refusing based upon skin color or sexual preference.

(although I thought "Ladies Nite"...where they got drinks at 50% and no cover charge, was on legal shaky ground)

I don't have to tell you why!  Just a plain "get the hell out" is sufficient!

[DCPatriot]

Give it time...someone will challenge that right of an eating establishment to refuse service because of those things as well.

I believe because the common defense would be grounds of common decency and to insure hygiene in the surroundings.

Wearing your pants below your cheeks, IMO, is in the same league, if not ballpark. 

[txradioguy]

I believe because the common defense would be grounds of common decency and to insure hygiene in the surroundings.

I agree.  It's one of those things I like to bring up when someone here starts to bring up the fact that a baker can't refuse the right to back someone a cake.

I ask them if that's the case why hasn't McDonalds been sued for the right to refuse service on the shirts shoes thing.

Crickets.

Wearing your pants below your cheeks, IMO, is in the same league, if not ballpark.

Dumbest.Fashion.Trend.Ever.

I cured my boys of that by pantsing them in pubic in front of their sisters.  Never had to tell them to pull their pants up again. 

[DCPatriot]

I agree.  It's one of those things I like to bring up when someone here starts to bring up the fact that a baker can't refuse the right to back someone a cake.

I ask them if that's the case why hasn't McDonalds been sued for the right to refuse service on the shirts shoes thing.

Crickets.

Meh....I don't 'see' the comparison, @txradioguy

The baker can't claim hygiene reasons.  He's basing on his own set of principles.   

If a shoeless guy walks in to buy a doughnut....he can refuse.   But not asking for a gay wedding cake theme.

Dumbest.Fashion.Trend.Ever.

I cured my boys of that by prancing them in pubic in front of their sisters.  Never had to tell them to pull their pants up again. 

LOL!  It's even funnier when it's white guys.   

[Hoodat]

@Just_Victor beat me to it!   

I understand, but that's not refusing based upon skin color or sexual preference.

The skin color part I get.  Unless someone is dressed head to toe in a Storm Trooper outfit, you pretty much know what a person's skin color is when they walk in the door.  But sexual preference?  Unless they drop their drawers and start getting it on by the cash register, there is no way to know for sure what a person's sexual preference is.  Unless of course they volunteer this information up front because they are trying to cash in on being a victim.

Personally, I don't give a damn who you sleep with (as long as it isn't my daughter or wife).  But my business is an extension of me.  And I cannot be compelled to add boysenberry icing to a cupcake if that is not part of the menu I offer.

(Sidenote:  Have you noticed that you never see any female Storm Troopers?  Someone should sue George Lucas)

[Hoodat]

Dumbest.Fashion.Trend.Ever.

I cured my boys of that by pantsing them in pubic in front of their sisters.  Never had to tell them to pull their pants up again. 

I have a friend who is a middle school principal.  One day, he confronted a group of boys who were wearing their pants low exposing their boxers.  He asked them if they knew where that trend started.  The boys shook their heads.  He explained that in prison when a male prisoner gets the urge for another male prisoner to bend him over and have sex with him, he signals his desire by wearing his pants low just like theirs.

Those boys pulled those pants up fast and tightened their belts.  Never did they wear their pants low again.

[txradioguy]

Meh....I don't 'see' the comparison, @txradioguy

The baker can't claim hygiene reasons.  He's basing on his own set of principles.   

If a shoeless guy walks in to buy a doughnut....he can refuse.   But not asking for a gay wedding cake theme.

I just feel that if a business owner decides he doesn't want to do business with a particular customer...for whatever reason...they should have the right not to.

LOL!  It's even funnier when it's white guys.   

LOL! Yes it sure is.

[txradioguy]

I have a friend who is a middle school principal.  One day, he confronted a group of boys who were wearing their pants low exposing their boxers.  He asked them if they knew where that trend started.  The boys shook their heads.  He explained that in prison when a male prisoner gets the urge for another male prisoner to bend him over and have sex with him, he signals his desire by wearing his pants low just like theirs.

Those boys pulled those pants up fast and tightened their belts.  Never did they wear their pants low again.

Amazing how a little factual information can put an end to something like that.

[Just_Victor]

I just feel that if a business owner decides he doesn't want to do business with a particular customer...for whatever reason...they should have the right not to.

LOL! Yes it sure is.

Once you start parsing the justifiable reasons for refusing service from a provider to a requestor, you are simply justifying forced servitude.

And it's not about whether I agree or disagree with the reasons.  Either we believe in freedom, or we don't, period.

[GrouchoTex]

@CatherineofAragon

But then Ted took a pass on Lawrence v Texas, which opened the door same sex marriage, gay rights, etc. Ted is a phony. Ted could have defended Harris countys' Law against sodomy but Ted took a pass even thou he was asked to help. TED IS A PHONY. Ted could have stopped the queer mafia in it's tracks but Ted bailed out. TED IS A PHONY.

@jpsb

Your timeline is wrong.
Texas Attorney General declined to the case, before Greg Abbott was in office, same year, but Abbott arrive later, after it had already been filed with SCOTUS.
Lawrence V Texas was filed with SCOTUS in July, 2002.
Cornyn was Attorney General of Texas then.
Abbott became Attorney General December, 2002.
Cruz became his Solicitor General January of 2003.
But, hey, never let the facts get in the way of a good ol' Cruz bashing story.

[GrouchoTex]

@DCPatriot

Hard Core Astros fan since 1964.  Still, back in the day the  Orioles were my favorite AL team.  And the reason was Belanger and Robinson.  I remember tales where switch hitters would hit left against a left hander, just to avoid those guys.  Boog was an easier direction. 

And the fact they had one of the greatest starting staffs in history.  I can say with pretty good certainty, that we will never see a team with 4- 20 game winners again.

@catfish1957
@DCPatriot

I admired that O's team a lot, for all the reasons you 2 have mentioned.

[DCPatriot]

@catfish1957
@DCPatriot

I admired that O's team a lot, for all the reasons you 2 have mentioned.

 

[musiclady]

Your freedom of conscience is not sold to the state for the opportunity to hold a job.  That's crazy talk.  It is the opposite of freedom.  Should a photographer be forced to produce pornography?  Should a singer be forced to perform for Trump or Hillary?  Is the desire for a specific vendor's cake so fundamental a right that the vendor should have to do anything no matter what kind of violation of his own conscience before God...and that "right" somehow trumps any right of the vendor just because it is commerce?  So bow to the state's morality or starve?  That's your idea of freedom?  Only those who embrace perversity get to make money in today's America?  Count me among the starving then.  God will judge us.  I'll stand with Him.

GREAT post, @RAT Patrol !!

And WELCOME BACK!!!!  


(I've missed you!)

[txradioguy]

@jpsb

Your timeline is wrong.
Texas Attorney General declined to the case, before Greg Abbott was in office, same year, but Abbott arrive later, after it had already been filed with SCOTUS.
Lawrence V Texas was filed with SCOTUS in July, 2002.
Cornyn was Attorney General of Texas then.
Abbott became Attorney General December, 2002.
Cruz became his Solicitor General January of 2003.
But, hey, never let the facts get in the way of a good ol' Cruz bashing story.

 

Someone's gonna need a little ice for that bruise.

[Smokin Joe]

I agree.  It's one of those things I like to bring up when someone here starts to bring up the fact that a baker can't refuse the right to back someone a cake.

I ask them if that's the case why hasn't McDonalds been sued for the right to refuse service on the shirts shoes thing.

Crickets.

Dumbest.Fashion.Trend.Ever.

I cured my boys of that by pantsing them in pubic in front of their sisters.  Never had to tell them to pull their pants up again. 

We just told the kids it was the way some guy in the joint advertised he wanted a new boyfriend.
Amazing how fast that cleaned up.