Blog powered by Typepad

« The axe-man cometh! | Main | Pheeew, glad I missed that one! »

Tuesday, 18 June 2019



They should get on and produce the cake, remembering to add something that induces diarrhoea!

These suits are targeted by lefty lawyers against Christian bakers, or florists or whatever avenue for grievance is open. This is what post Christian America is beginning to look like. NO, I mean NO Muslim baker or florist etc will be targeted for this kind of assault. The left has become intolerant and hate filled. Christians are taught to turn the other cheek. That turning will end abruptly one day. We on the Right keep score.

"I ask because it seems that the, er, 'LGBT' ( I am not absolutely sure what the correct initials are and, frankly, I can't be arsed to look then up) "

It stands for "Let's Get Bakers Trembling".

Do you mean, 'W', like a 'knee-trembler'?


Your personal predilections aside, the legal argument over equality under the law has evolved since the beginning of the republic and is only slightly connected to 'luuuuurve'. The US Constitution didn't originally remark on equality, because it wasn't possible to get free and slave states to agree on the matter. However, the Declaration of Independence stated "All men are created equal", which was an Enlightenment aspiration popular among, if not a majority, a considerable number of the founders, many of whom were deists and not Christians.

Equality was added to the Constitution in the 14th Amendment:

Since then it's affected a large range of law from women's suffrage to the freedom to put two same sex figures on a wedding cake along with the traditional "good luck, you'll need it" messages. So far legal discussions about more than two figures have been shut down. But, you know, we're going to hell in a hand basket. Or trying to get the government out of our business. Choose one or both.

Thanks for the, er, history lesson, Bob, but where do you stand on the cake, so to speak? Should the law enforce a baker to write a message on a cake with which he objects?

Jes' askin'!

You're welcome and we agree on not caring.

By the way, David, are you sure you'd stop with just a kiss?

Prejudice should be allowed so long as no harm is done.

If there is no baker who will serve homosexuals then harm is done. So long as at least some bakers will serve them then it's OK to be prejudiced.

It's the same with hotels. So long as there's room in the town at some hotels then hoteliers should be allowed to show prejudice. The moment a hotelier has a monopoly on the last rooms the right to deny guests due to prejudice ceases.

Something like that.


If, in the inverted monarchy we call "democracy", the people are sovereign, then if the will of "the people" supports the baking of cakes explicitly endorsing some viewpoint not shared by all, a distinct market opportunity exists for anyone willing to provide such a service -- while, at the same time, people are free to withhold their custom from vendors who won't.

In this way, the hand of the market tracks the evolution of social norms without the inflammatory and divisive effect of judiciary coercion.

The idea that a vendor should be taken by the scruff of the neck, driven to his knees, and forced to publish in his own name a message that he finds morally abhorrent is violative of the natural rights this nation was founded upon. Imagine if a Jew had been forced to decorate a cake with swastikas for an Aryan Nation couple. This is no different.

...or a black family of bakers forced to decorate with a klan hood or similar.


It's actually a pretty simple thing you can use, David, as a 'memory trick' whenever acronym stuff like that comes into play.

There are 33 genders. There's woman and there's man and there's 31 types of queers.

Got it?

David, a knee trembler was a common occurrence in the Glesga tenements. You could not take your burd intae the hoose so it was done at the back of the close. Aye fond memories.

Strewth, that's some visual image to foist into my mind's eye at breakfast, Jimmy!


Off topic(ish, or maybe not, come to think of it) but ...

Isn't it just the best? Sometimes pure genius is so beautiful it's almost painful.


Well, it's easier for you Jocks, Jimmy, you wear skirts same as the ladies!

Thanks, SoD, started my day with a snigger!

This is chilling:

Crude and undignified but prison? Chilling.

I'm not sure, Whiters, because he was actually charged with "encouraging", ie, inciting, terrorism and, according to The Mail, "five counts of possession of terrorist material, including the White Resistance Manual, The Anarchist Cookbook and the Al Qaeda Trading Manual".

From your source: "Judge Rebecca Poulet lambasted student Michal Szewczuk, 19, for creating an image of Harry with a pistol to his head against a blood-spattered background. The post, which was shared a few months after Harry married biracial ex-actress Meghan Markle, included the phrase ‘‘See Ya Later Race Traitor.’’

"Szewczuk pleaded guilty to two counts of encouraging terrorism and five counts of possession of terrorist material. He was sentenced at London Criminal Court alongside Oskar Dunn-Koczorowski, 18, who admitted two counts of encouraging terrorism."

Bang him up and throw away the key - until he grows up!

Maybe better yet ship him to Iran.

The comments to this entry are closed.