The Gay-Wedding Cake Fight Isn’t About Religious Freedom—It’s About Sex

First topic message reminder :

The slippery-slope argument goes something like this: If Masterpiece Cakeshop, and its owner, Jack Phillips, can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, what’s to stop him from refusing to bake a wedding cake for two Jews, or an interracial couple, or anyone else for that matter?

There are good reasons to make that argument—I’ve made it myself on many occasions, and it may carry the day when the Supreme Court hears the case next week.

But ultimately, it misses the point: that it’s not Jews or people of color or anyone else who are the targets of these “religious freedom” claims. It’s women and LGBT people. Because at the end of the day, these “religious freedom” claims aren’t about religious freedom. They’re about the Culture War. They’re about sex.

First, if Phillips and his ilk were consistent, they would have plenty of sinful people to turn away from their businesses. In Matthew 5:32, for example, Jesus forbids divorce and says that remarriage is the same as adultery. So why isn’t Phillips turning away the remarried?

Here’s another example. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, one of the seven so-called clobber verses (out of 31,102 in the Bible) that talk about homosexuality, Paul states that “neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes (malakoi) nor homosexual offenders (arsenokoitai) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Whoever Paul is talking about here—it’s almost certainly not all gay men, and definitely not lesbians, but even if it were—they are placed on the same level as thieves, slanderers, and swindlers. No better and no worse.

And yet, I’m unaware of a single case in which a service provider sought the right to refuse service to a slanderer on the basis of a religious belief. Why?


Nor has Phillips asserted a right to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a Hindu wedding, even though most evangelical Christians believe Hinduism to be a form of idolatry—which is forbidden over 100 times in the Bible, on penalty of death.

In other words, these “religious freedom” claimants are being highly selective about when their conscience compels them to discriminate. Of all of the sins in Scripture, it seems that only those involving sex and gender—contraception, abortion, LGBT people—are the only ones which trigger such claims.

Quite a coincidence, is it not?

Obviously, it is not. These “religious freedom” claims are extensions of the five-decade old Culture War. They are front-line issues in politicized Christianity, not Christianity itself, and are stand-ins for a cultural clash that runs deeper than any individual claim.

The Culture War is a battle about sex, but it is really a battle about what country we are living in: either a Christian nation, with right-wing Christianity as its moral bedrock, or a diverse, secular nation, in which religious claims are respected, but not used as a trump card over the civil rights of others.

After all, the reason I’ve scare-quoted “religious freedom” here is that these kinds of claims are really quite novel. For two centuries, the First Amendment was primarily a shield held up by persecuted religious minorities—Jehovah’s Witnesses, Native Americans—against governmental interference in their religious practice. No third parties were involved; these minorities wanted to practice their religion and be left alone.

To be sure, this history is still marred by Christian domination. The First Amendment didn’t stop Mormon polygamy from being banned, and it didn’t stop the government from seizing lands held to be sacred by Native Americans. It was often used against Catholics as well.

But in principle, the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment was a shield protecting minority religions from government interference.

Only in the last 20 years has it been used as a sword, allowing a religious individual to discriminate against someone else. In cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop or 2014’s Hobby Lobby, it’s not just the government and the practitioner. It’s the government, the practitioner, and the person the practitioner is harming. That is a crucial, and unprecedented, difference: Today’s “religious freedom” claimants want to abridge the rights of others.

And it’s not a coincidence. Poll data shows that when you scratch a “religious freedom” claimant, what you find underneath is someone who really wants to ban abortion, overturn same-sex marriage, and bring back anti-sodomy laws. These organizations—the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Becket Fund, Liberty Counsel—are fundamentally insincere. They’re not defending our “First Freedom.” They’re fighting the Culture War.

Now, having followed this issue for many years, I know that millions of conservative Christians sincerely believe their religion to be under attack. But the data doesn’t lie. Ultimately, Christian conservatives don’t just want to be left alone to practice their religion in peace. Ultimately, they want to impose their religious beliefs on others. They want to win the Culture War and ban the stuff they don’t like.

That’s why the slippery-slope argument is off point. We shouldn’t be asking “what’s to stop this person from turning away Jews?” We should be asking “why is it that the only people this person wants to turn away are women and gays?” Because that’s what reveals this campaign for what it is.

Now, two important caveats.

First—and this is a historical point I wish we could all keep in mind—this kind of religious freedom claim was, in fact, used against African Americans during the 1960s and 1970s. Bob Jones University, for example, argued that it had a First Amendment right to refuse admission to black students (and, later, to segregate them in special housing).

And on a local level, “religious freedom” was offered as a pretext by restauranteurs and hoteliers to deny service to blacks. God separated the races on different continents, evangelicals said in the 1950s, and we must not interfere with His plan.

The Bob Jones case went all the way to the Supreme Court—the university lost, and lost their tax-exempt status—and historian Randall Balmer has shown that it, not Roe v. Wade, was the chief motivation behind the formation of the “New Christian Right,” the term political scientists use to describe the Christian political movement that was born in the 1970s. (Prior to the Sexual Revolution, most evangelicals thought that Christians should stay out of the dirty business of politics. Times have changed.)

So it’s not as though the slippery slope isn’t true. It was true quite recently, in fact. The modern “religious freedom” movement was born in segregation.

It’s also true that, when pressed, “religious freedom” activists admit that the slippery slope is accurate in principle. In one memorable exchange from 2014, Congressman Jerrold Nadler asked the Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver why, under the laws Staver favored—which have now become law in 22 states—a wedding photographer couldn’t refuse service to Jews.

After trying to weasel out of the question—“I think it wouldn’t be something she wouldn’t object to,” he stammered—Staver admitted that, yes, “She would have an issue there—a violation potential in that case.”

So, in principle, the slippery-slope argument is spot-on, and, as mentioned earlier, it may well be decisive at the Supreme Court. For the rule of law to mean something, people can’t pick which laws they wish to obey.

Yet I want to conclude with Staver’s initial response: “I think it wouldn’t be something she wouldn’t object to.” That may well be true. Anti-Semitism has surged during the Trump administration, but probably Staver’s clients—including the Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, now a hero of the New Christian Right—wouldn’t turn Jews away. That’s not what they’re worried about.

No—what they’re worried about are women and gays; sex and gender; the Culture War and the Christian Nation. And they want to win. Don’t let claims of “religious freedom” fool you.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-gay-wedding-cake-fight-isnt-about-religious-freedomits-about-sex

you clearly have no idea of how finicky the law can be, especially over in the states

question...did he refuse to make a CAKE...in any form becasue they were a gay couple
or "only" a gay themed one

and THERIN may lie the whole point of the case (first amendment and all that, remember this is the good ole US of A)

not your twitter and stentorian bletherings

and before you poison the discussion with more of your baseless "suggestions" as to what YOU claim I'm saying.....fuck off with the placing of words/ motive /whatever into my mouth, words etc...

there IS a parity between the two
that will need addressing

Lord Foul wrote:you clearly have no idea of how finicky the law can be, especially over in the states

question...did he refuse to make a CAKE...in any form becasue they were a gay couple
or "only" a gay themed one

and THERIN may lie the whole point of the case (first amendment and all that, remember this is the good ole US of A)

not your twitter and stentorian bletherings

and before you poison the discussion with more of your baseless "suggestions" as to what YOU claim I'm saying.....fuck off with the placing of words/ motive /whatever into my mouth, words etc...

there IS a parity between the two
that will need addressing

So basically you ignored my points and crap on about laws.

You then still continue with gay themed

Holy crap on a cracker

Did the point on a  marriage cake as a consistant escape you?

He refused to make a cake for a wedding for two homosexuals

Which would be no different to refusing to make a cake for two African Americans getting married.

Or two Jews

Or two Muslims

Ot two athiests

Ot any mixed combination

I am saying, stop being a right fucking idiot, as I respect you better than that and yet you still fail to concede you are being stupid here. You made a right tit of yourself and now because i take the piss, you take it personnal.

Its got fuck all to do with the first ammendment. It has everything to do with a consistant policy, no matter any equality policies.

I mean, do you think, its a fair policy, that you would be denied a seat in a restaurant, because your beard is grey?

That their policy was based on colour discrimination on beards?

There is no parity here and I know you know what I am saying is right.

You are just to bloody stubborn to admit, because I have taken the piss

Face facts, your argument would class marriage between gays as not equal to hetrosexuals

As the theme is weddings

For some reason, you have made the cake gay, when its two gay people marrying, that want a wedding cake.

So learn to grow up and sometimes admit you fucked up

first line of that diatribe and last line

the whole point is that it IS ABOUT LAWS, and how they should (or more pointedly DO) operate within the FRAMEWORK of the countries jurisprudence.

no matter how correct YOU think you are ...that doesnt trump the law....

It will be interesting to see how this evolves in the supreme court, and especially any justices reasonings

Lord Foul wrote:first line of that diatribe and last line

the whole point is that it IS ABOUT LAWS, and how they should (or more pointedly DO) operate within the FRAMEWORK of the countries jurisprudence.

no matter how correct YOU think you are ...that doesnt trump the law....

It will be interesting to see how this evolves in the supreme court, and especially any justices reasonings

Its about you not recognizing gays marrying and have made them unequal to hetrosexuals marrying.

It will be interesting to see the day you admit when you have fucked up.

I guess I will have a long wait

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:first line of that diatribe and last line

the whole point is that it IS ABOUT LAWS, and how they should (or more pointedly DO) operate within the FRAMEWORK of the countries jurisprudence.

no matter how correct YOU think you are ...that doesnt trump the law....

It will be interesting to see how this evolves in the supreme court, and especially any justices reasonings

Its about you not recognizing gays marrying and have made them unequal to hetrosexuals marrying.

It will be interesting to see the day you admit when you have fucked up.

I guess I will have a long wait

oh I see ...doing a scrat now are we?

I told you a couple of posts above to stop putting words/motives /meanings into my mouth

typical of your "style" this, you bleat on about folks "delegitimising " others, and whine on about folks taking things personally, and here you are doing one and being the cause of the other...

FU

Lord Foul wrote:first line of that diatribe and last line

the whole point is that it IS ABOUT LAWS, and how they should (or more pointedly DO) operate within the FRAMEWORK of the countries jurisprudence.

no matter how correct YOU think you are ...that doesnt trump the law....

It will be interesting to see how this evolves in the supreme court, and especially any justices reasonings

Yeah, Trump is the law

only in your addled head smelly...be ye ever so high, the law is above you.....

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:

Its about you not recognizing gays marrying and have made them unequal to hetrosexuals marrying.

It will be interesting to see the day you admit when you have fucked up.

I guess I will have a long wait

oh I see ...doing a scrat now are we?

I told you a couple of posts above to stop putting words/motives /meanings into my mouth

typical of your "style" this, you bleat on about folks "delegitimising " others, and whine on about folks taking things personally, and here you are doing one and being the cause of the other...

FU

Spoken like a true lefty

When all else fails, compare me to a complete far left extremist.

Like i say, a person with diginity, would admit they fucked up, but I guess your pride is more important that admitting when wrong to now make me comparable to Scrat.

You have reached a new low with that.

You really do not like being wrong do you?

Think of me what you like and if you think I am like scrat, then you clearly do not think much of me.

I am happy with that.

I on the other hand have listened to you constantly and at times been at odds, but when i digest what you have said. See often reason.

Yet when you make a poor argument, you do what the left do.

Says it all

Grow some backbone eh

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


The cake man didn't refuse to serve them... he just refused to make a cake with the particular 'theme' they requested... as I'm sure he would have refused any other customer wanting that particular 'theme', regardless of any of the customers personal details...


So all customers treated equally... all can have as many cakes as they want... as long as they are within the range of 'themes'/styles that the cake man is willing to provide...!


And isn't that for cake man to decide...?


I bet there's loads of different cake design things he does do for people... so he's quite flexible really... as there are some places here in the SW of England where you can stop for a cream tea, but instead end up getting frog marched out of the place...


Just for asking them to put the jam on first...!!!

A technicality, tommy. If we couldn't have got our wedding cake from a place where a heterosexual couple could, we wouldn't be being treated equally.

Why in the fuck would you want to give this man your money?

Two points in response.

1. If the cake maker was forced by law to make or decorate the cake, their backward views on homosexuality would never be known to me. I don't like the idea of giving money to intolerant business owners, but chances are I often do so without ever knowing (on issues ranging from gay rights to abortion to racism to Brexit). Business and custom cannot really be mixed up with personal views.

2. If I lived in many areas of the deep south in the USA, I might be seriously hard pressed to find someone who'd do this for me close to home, if everyone were allowed to openly refuse my request on religious grounds. In the UK it probably would be easy enough to shop elsewhere; in Georgia or Alabama- not so much.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Why in the fuck would you want to give this man your money?

Two points in response.

1. If the cake maker was forced by law to make or decorate the cake, their backward views on homosexuality would never be known to me. I don't like the idea of giving money to intolerant business owners, bit chances are I often do so without ever knowing (on issues ranging from gay rights to abortion to racism to Brexit). Business and custom cannot really be mixed up with personal views.

2. If I lived in many areas of the deep south in the USA, I might be seriously hard pressed to find someone who'd do this for me close to home, if everyone were allowed to openly refuse my request on religious grounds. In the UK it probably would be easy enough to shop elsewhere; in Georgia or Alabama- not so much.

Which is a fair point.

Just how many miles would you have to travel to find a baker, that was not a religious hateful fuckwit in the US?

I guess you could go online, but how is travelling hundreds of miles and paying a fortune to get a cake fair, when idiots, including Lord Foul, think its fair to seperate marriage based on sexuality?

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Why in the fuck would you want to give this man your money?

Two points in response.

1. If the cake maker was forced by law to make or decorate the cake, their backward views on homosexuality would never be known to me. I don't like the idea of giving money to intolerant business owners, but chances are I often do so without ever knowing (on issues ranging from gay rights to abortion to racism to Brexit). Business and custom cannot really be mixed up with personal views.

2. If I lived in many areas of the deep south in the USA, I might be seriously hard pressed to find someone who'd do this for me close to home, if everyone were allowed to openly refuse my request on religious grounds. In the UK it probably would be easy enough to shop elsewhere; in Georgia or Alabama- not so much.

The number of people that wouldn't serve you would be tiny. Most people are fairly tolerant, despite what you have been led to believe.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Two points in response.

1. If the cake maker was forced by law to make or decorate the cake, their backward views on homosexuality would never be known to me. I don't like the idea of giving money to intolerant business owners, but chances are I often do so without ever knowing (on issues ranging from gay rights to abortion to racism to Brexit). Business and custom cannot really be mixed up with personal views.

2. If I lived in many areas of the deep south in the USA, I might be seriously hard pressed to find someone who'd do this for me close to home, if everyone were allowed to openly refuse my request on religious grounds. In the UK it probably would be easy enough to shop elsewhere; in Georgia or Alabama- not so much.

The number of people that wouldn't serve you would be tiny. Most people are fairly tolerant, despite what you have been led to believe.

Based on your perception?

based on Christian perception?

Or based on you actually understanding what its like to be gay and discriminated upon?

How is it tolerant, when some people living in the west, abide by one religious command, and ignore countless others?

I mean how many birthday cakes are questioned on children when they disobey their parents?

Do parents make a stonning a kid day, based on the bible?

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:you clearly have no idea of how finicky the law can be, especially over in the states

question...did he refuse to make a CAKE...in any form becasue they were a gay couple
or "only" a gay themed one

and THERIN may lie the whole point of the case (first amendment and all that, remember this is the good ole US of A)

not your twitter and stentorian bletherings

and before you poison the discussion with more of your baseless "suggestions" as to what YOU claim I'm saying.....fuck off with the placing of words/ motive /whatever into my mouth, words etc...

there IS a parity between the two
that will need addressing

So basically you ignored my points and crap on about laws.

You then still continue with gay themed

Holy crap on a cracker

Did the point on a  marriage cake as a consistant escape you?

He refused to make a cake for a wedding for two homosexuals

Which would be no different to refusing to make a cake for two African Americans getting married.

Or two Jews

Or two Muslims

Ot two athiests

Ot any mixed combination

I am saying, stop being a right fucking idiot, as I respect you better than that and yet you still fail to concede you are being stupid here. You made a right tit of yourself and now because i take the piss, you take it personnal.

Its got fuck all to do with the first ammendment. It has everything to do with a consistant policy, no matter any equality policies.

I mean, do you think, its a fair policy, that you would be denied a seat in a restaurant, because your beard is grey?

That their policy was based on colour discrimination on beards?

There is no parity here and I know you know what I am saying is right.

You are just to bloody stubborn to admit, because I have taken the piss

Face facts, your argument would class marriage between gays as not equal to hetrosexuals

As the theme is weddings

For some reason, you have made the cake gay, when its two gay people marrying, that want a wedding cake.

So learn to grow up and sometimes admit you fucked up

Actually, he would have sold them a cake. It was the art on the cake and what it depicted that bothered him. Not that I make the distinction, but it is important in this particular case. He was willing to sell them a cake, but he wasn't going to decorate it as it was an artistic endeavor depicting gay marriage. That point is relevant.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The number of people that wouldn't serve you would be tiny. Most people are fairly tolerant, despite what you have been led to believe.

Based on your perception?

based on Christian perception?

Or based on you actually understanding what its like to be gay and discriminated upon?

How is it tolerant, when some people living in the west, abide by one religious command, and ignore countless others?

I mean how many birthday cakes are questioned on children when they disobey their parents?

Do parents make a stonning a kid day, based on the bible?

Based on my experience.

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Why in the fuck would you want to give this man your money?

Two points in response.

1. If the cake maker was forced by law to make or decorate the cake, their backward views on homosexuality would never be known to me. I don't like the idea of giving money to intolerant business owners, bit chances are I often do so without ever knowing (on issues ranging from gay rights to abortion to racism to Brexit). Business and custom cannot really be mixed up with personal views.

2. If I lived in many areas of the deep south in the USA, I might be seriously hard pressed to find someone who'd do this for me close to home, if everyone were allowed to openly refuse my request on religious grounds. In the UK it probably would be easy enough to shop elsewhere; in Georgia or Alabama- not so much.

Which is a fair point.

Just how many miles would you have to travel to find a baker, that was not a religious hateful fuckwit in the US?

I guess you could go online, but how is travelling hundreds of miles and paying a fortune to get a cake fair, when idiots, including Lord Foul, think its fair to seperate marriage based on sexuality?

I don't think Foul has commented on whether he think the shop owner was right or not, only his view on the law. I'd be interested to know, though.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Why in the fuck would you want to give this man your money?

Two points in response.

1. If the cake maker was forced by law to make or decorate the cake, their backward views on homosexuality would never be known to me. I don't like the idea of giving money to intolerant business owners, but chances are I often do so without ever knowing (on issues ranging from gay rights to abortion to racism to Brexit). Business and custom cannot really be mixed up with personal views.

2. If I lived in many areas of the deep south in the USA, I might be seriously hard pressed to find someone who'd do this for me close to home, if everyone were allowed to openly refuse my request on religious grounds. In the UK it probably would be easy enough to shop elsewhere; in Georgia or Alabama- not so much.

The number of people that wouldn't serve you would be tiny. Most people are fairly tolerant, despite what you have been led to believe.

You cannot know that would be the case in every part of every red state, though. And regardless, no one should even be expected to go the next town when others could get the same service next door.

If this were an objection based on it being a mixed race couple then there would be no discussion.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

So basically you ignored my points and crap on about laws.

You then still continue with gay themed

Holy crap on a cracker

Did the point on a  marriage cake as a consistant escape you?

He refused to make a cake for a wedding for two homosexuals

Which would be no different to refusing to make a cake for two African Americans getting married.

Or two Jews

Or two Muslims

Ot two athiests

Ot any mixed combination

I am saying, stop being a right fucking idiot, as I respect you better than that and yet you still fail to concede you are being stupid here. You made a right tit of yourself and now because i take the piss, you take it personnal.

Its got fuck all to do with the first ammendment. It has everything to do with a consistant policy, no matter any equality policies.

I mean, do you think, its a fair policy, that you would be denied a seat in a restaurant, because your beard is grey?

That their policy was based on colour discrimination on beards?

There is no parity here and I know you know what I am saying is right.

You are just to bloody stubborn to admit, because I have taken the piss

Face facts, your argument would class marriage between gays as not equal to hetrosexuals

As the theme is weddings

For some reason, you have made the cake gay, when its two gay people marrying, that want a wedding cake.

So learn to grow up and sometimes admit you fucked up

Actually, he would have sold them a cake. It was the art on the cake and what it depicted that bothered him. Not that I make the distinction, but it is important in this particular case. He was willing to sell them a cake, but he wasn't going to decorate it as it was an artistic endeavor depicting gay marriage. That point is relevant.    

Sorry but now it goes beyond ridiculous

So now a wedding cakes is down to the art?

So a wedding cake that says cogratualtions on your marriage, was the problem.

So what you are saying is that you do not believe to conscenting adults should not marry, as the baker

I mean, its simple words, is it not?

Cut the crap on artistic, that is just bullshit.

Do youy make a cake to cull the first born of Eygpt?

How about stonning disobeient children?

I mean, are you a christian, or are you a selective follower of the bible?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Based on your perception?

based on Christian perception?

Or based on you actually understanding what its like to be gay and discriminated upon?

How is it tolerant, when some people living in the west, abide by one religious command, and ignore countless others?

I mean how many birthday cakes are questioned on children when they disobey their parents?

Do parents make a stonning a kid day, based on the bible?

Based on my experience.

So how many people do you turn away that sin?

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

Which is a fair point.

Just how many miles would you have to travel to find a baker, that was not a religious hateful fuckwit in the US?

I guess you could go online, but how is travelling hundreds of miles and paying a fortune to get a cake fair, when idiots, including Lord Foul, think its fair to seperate marriage based on sexuality?

I don't think Foul has commented on whether he think the shop owner was right or not, only his view on the law. I'd be interested to know, though.

Come on Eilzel, he knows he fucked up, and he was more annoyed I ripped him for it

Read back what I said

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Actually, he would have sold them a cake. It was the art on the cake and what it depicted that bothered him. Not that I make the distinction, but it is important in this particular case. He was willing to sell them a cake, but he wasn't going to decorate it as it was an artistic endeavor depicting gay marriage. That point is relevant.    

Sorry but now it goes beyond ridiculous

So now a wedding cakes is down to the art?

So a wedding cake that says cogratualtions on your marriage, was the problem.

So what you are saying is that you do not believe to conscenting adults should not marry, as the baker

I mean, its simple words, is it not?

Cut the crap on artistic, that is just bullshit.

Do youy make a cake to cull the first born of Eygpt?

How about stonning disobeient children?

I mean, are you a christian, or are you a selective follower of the bible?

I'm basically an agnostic at this point in my life.

The baker had an issue with the message. I don't . But I also don't care if he does.

Bake a cake, decorate a cake, don't decorate a cake. I really don't care, and I see no need to involve the government in this transaction.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Based on my experience.

So how many people do you turn away that sin?

The only people I don't work for are those that I think are crooked, or those that are a pain in my ass.

This isn't about me. If I knew how to bake cakes I would bake them all day for gay people. As long as they had good money.

Didge... the man just didn't want to make gay marriage themed cakes... not for anyone, gay or straight... that is his choice!


He was happy to create plenty of other cakes for them... so was not refusing to serve them at all...!


Say these two wanted to hire a DJ or a band for the event... then after specifying that only a certain list of tunes (all 'gay anthems') be played, then the DJ/band refused to take the booking because they didn't feel happy playing the music that was requested...


Would that be ok...?


Or should the DJ/band be hounded by the two gays, and dragged through the courts for 'discrimination' and 'homophobia' etc too...!?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Sorry but now it goes beyond ridiculous

So now a wedding cakes is down to the art?

So a wedding cake that says cogratualtions on your marriage, was the problem.

So what you are saying is that you do not believe to conscenting adults should not marry, as the baker

I mean, its simple words, is it not?

Cut the crap on artistic, that is just bullshit.

Do youy make a cake to cull the first born of Eygpt?

How about stonning disobeient children?

I mean, are you a christian, or are you a selective follower of the bible?

I'm basically an agnostic at this point in my life.  

The baker had an issue with the message. I don't . But I also don't care if he does.

Bake a cake, decorate a cake, don't decorate a cake. I really don't care, and I see no need to involve the government in this transaction.  

So he had an issue with the message, a wedding

So why is he not against all marriages within the law?

Its a simple queston and one that should apply to all customers should it not?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


So how many people do you turn away that sin?

The only people I don't work for are those that I think are crooked, or those that are a pain in my ass.

This isn't about me. If I knew how to bake cakes I would bake them all day for gay people. As long as they had good money.  

I never said it is about you.

The point is, this is an excuse for some to think they can discriminate is it not?

I mean, are you going to tell me, its okay for a baker to refuse African americans based on the artistic work?

So why defend those who actively are hatefule twats?

You know it has fuck all to do with anything religious, but how they are bigoted, so why defend that?

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... the man just didn't want to make gay marriage themed cakes... not for anyone, gay or straight... that is his choice!


He was happy to create plenty of other cakes for them... so was not refusing to serve them at all...!


Say these two wanted to hire a DJ or a band for the event... then after specifying that only a certain list of tunes (all 'gay anthems') be played, then the DJ/band refused to take the booking because they didn't feel happy playing the music that was requested...


Would that be ok...?


Or should the DJ/band be hounded by the two gays, and dragged through the courts for 'discrimination' and 'homophobia' etc too...!?

Did he offer to make them a wedding cake?

How many others did he refuse to make a wedding cake for?

Take your time on this tommy

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm basically an agnostic at this point in my life.  

The baker had an issue with the message. I don't . But I also don't care if he does.

Bake a cake, decorate a cake, don't decorate a cake. I really don't care, and I see no need to involve the government in this transaction.  

So he had an issue with the message, a wedding

So why is he not against all marriages within the law?

Its a simple queston and one that should apply to all customers should it not?

He has a religious issue with gay marriage. He doesn't mind decorating a cake with a female and male standing on top of it. He does if the cake has two men.

It's kind of silly, but I don't really care. I'm not all judgy like that.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


So he had an issue with the message, a wedding

So why is he not against all marriages within the law?

Its a simple queston and one that should apply to all customers should it not?

He has a religious issue with gay marriage. He doesn't mind decorating a cake with a female and male standing on top of it. He does if the cake has two men.

It's kind of silly, but I don't really care. I'm not all judgy like that.  

So his issue is based on the bible or the Quran or Torah.

So how many Catholics has he refused a wedding cake that are divorced?

How many Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs etc, has he refused cakes for based on the view, he would find them pagans?

Its really silly, when a person is so bigoted, he actually makes a fool of himself, by not following the teachings of Jesus, that accepted everyone.

What people follow today is Pauline Christianity

Go figure

It does not matter what he objects to. He has to have a clear policiy, that is consistant to all

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Actually, he would have sold them a cake. It was the art on the cake and what it depicted that bothered him. Not that I make the distinction, but it is important in this particular case. He was willing to sell them a cake, but he wasn't going to decorate it as it was an artistic endeavor depicting gay marriage. That point is relevant.    

Sorry but now it goes beyond ridiculous

So now a wedding cakes is down to the art?

So a wedding cake that says cogratualtions on your marriage, was the problem.

So what you are saying is that you do not believe to conscenting adults should not marry, as the baker

I mean, its simple words, is it not?

Cut the crap on artistic, that is just bullshit.

Do youy make a cake to cull the first born of Eygpt?

How about stonning disobeient children?

I mean, are you a christian, or are you a selective follower of the bible?

I'm basically an agnostic at this point in my life.  

The baker had an issue with the message. I don't . But I also don't care if he does.

Bake a cake, decorate a cake, don't decorate a cake. I really don't care, and I see no need to involve the government in this transaction.  

Because it doesn't affect you personally.

I get that you say you have no problem with making or decorating a cake for a gay marriage, but try and imagine for a moment that you are one of that couple and when asking for a service you are told no, because that person thinks your love is wrong.

No one has the right to refuse service on grounds like that.

Again, would you accept it if they'd refused a mixed race couple?

Ok so especially for the forum donkey

I'll explain for him, since he was more interested in using his usual form of hectoring mile long posts, with false attribution and fully falsified "claims" that I supported this guy(which I dont, as you said Eil, its a matter of law and in america the law aint always grounded in any sense at all) to actually get to the root point and sensibly argue the issue.

now Didge...be schooled and stop acting like something that escaped from kindergarden....


why would (should...remember this is america) the comparison to the Muslim butcher fail utterly.........

think.......

deeply.......


go on you can do it..........


oh...no you cant can you , too busy spluttering with faux indignation.......


well OK then .....its really quite simple.......


being a "pork eater" is NOT a "protected right"

NOW, I'm not entirely sure of the status of things like protected rights over in the USA......but I dont think, by law you are allowed to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality in general, (though again it may vary by state, however the supreme court is federal I beleive and THAT makes a difference.)

but as a matter of "the philosophy of law" THAT is the reason the Muslim butcher indeed can refuse to serve you pork (and is the reason say for instance a vegan CANNOT demand a restaurant supply them with a meal if its say a "meat feast" restaurant...since being a vegan is NOT a protected right)

see ...nothing to do with your (wrong) gurglings on the sexual staus of the cake itself......

Lord Foul wrote:Ok so especially for the forum donkey

Didgel wrote:Triggered

I'll  explain for him, since he was more interested in using his usual form of hectoring mile long posts, with false attribution and fully falsified "claims" that I supported this guy(which I dont, as you said Eil,  its a matter of law and in america the law aint always grounded in any sense at all) to actually get to the root point and sensibly argue the issue.

Didgel wrote:Actually that was you.
Lets take a reality check here on who tried to deligitmize who?
I simple called your argument stupid and mocked this.
You on the other hand compared me to scrat

now Didge...be schooled and stop acting like something that escaped from kindergarden....

Didgel wrote:Triggered

why would (should...remember this is america) the comparison to the Muslim butcher fail utterly.........

think.......

deeply.......


go on you can do it..........


oh...no you cant can you , too busy spluttering with faux indignation.......


well OK then .....its really quite simple.......


being a "pork eater" is NOT a "protected right"

NOW, I'm not entirely sure of the status of things like protected rights over in the USA......but I dont think, by law you are allowed to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality in general, (though again it may vary by state, however the supreme court is federal I beleive and THAT makes a difference.)

Didgel wrote:Triggered

but as a matter of "the philosophy of law" THAT is the reason the Muslim butcher indeed can refuse to serve you pork (and is the reason say for instance a vegan CANNOT demand a restaurant supply them with a meal if its say a "meat feast" restaurant...since being a vegan is NOT a protected right)

Didgel wrote:Triggered

see ...nothing to do with your (wrong) gurglings on the sexual staus of the cake itself......

Now after being treated to the biggest load of horseshit ever

Allow me to respond

I see you have even given up the ghost on the actual case here and moved to Muslims.

In other words your desperation card being played

Let me break this down in simpleton terms for you, once again

A buisness has to make a rule consistant to all people.

Do you understand this?

A Muslim butcher or a Jew, is not going to provide a service of Pork. He is not going to provide a service of Mobile phones or computers either. Hence going into a store that specializes in religious food, when you want pork. Is not discrimination. It has a policy to all customers on what it serves.

Its consistant

Has this point sunk in?

A bakery, that makes wedding cakes. 

Thus a bakery that makes wedding cakes already, has to provide a service to make such cakes, no matter if that couple is gay or straight.

Has this point sunken in?

If the baker had no policy to make no such cakes, he would be under no obligation to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. As long as he never made any wedding cakes.

How this point sunken in yet?

This means any establishment is based on what it sells.

So a vegitarian store, does not advertize or sell meat.
Thus you could not demand meat from them.

Neither would a Halal or Kosher Butcher advertize or sell Pork (some might do so) but the point is, if they do not advertize this to sell. Then nobody can demand that they do. Its a consistant policy.

Now the religious fuckwit here, has no such policy.

They make wedding cakes, of which he has said, he will stop making them, due to the fact he knows, this is the only way, he can get around the law to discriminate against homosexuals

Now I have zero respect for people that cannot admit when wrong and continue to be idiots and worse compare me to scrat

Seriously didge, you can be as barbed with your comments as LF with his as any of us csn be, but do you think saying 'triggered' to everythings has any point or worth?

You and LF basically agree in your view of this guy but basically seem to only differ on why there may or may not be case against him. LF raises interesting points regarding to protected status of gay people vs lack of protection for pork eaters.

I happen to agree with both (unsurprisingly), gay people shouldn't be refused equal service and businesses should be expected to provide an advertised service equally.

Eilzel wrote:Seriously didge, you can be as barbed with your comments as LF with his as any of us csn be, but do you think saying 'triggered' to everythings has any point or worth?

You and LF basically agree in your view of this guy but basically seem to only differ on why there may or may not be case against him. LF raises interesting points regarding to protected status of gay people vs lack of protection for pork eaters.

I happen to agree with both (unsurprisingly), gay people shouldn't be refused equal service and businesses should be expected to provide an advertised service equally.

Really.

I got bored after he got emotional and compared me to scrat

He views were emotive, not reasoned and still are poor

Allow him to respond for himself, which as seen, he cannot be adult with here. Hence i will treat him with kid gloves

The fact is, he made poor arguments and his problem, is he hates to admit he could or can be wrong

we shall see when the judgement is made and we see the justices reasonings......

Lord Foul wrote:we shall see when the judgement is made and we see the justices reasonings......

You mean when you are willing to eat humble pie.

Why does the buddy holly song come to mind "that'll be the day"

How about you use your brain and see here what is wrong and how some people based off hate are trying find loop holes in order to get around the discrimination laws to be prejudice.

But you do not see that, as that is what it boils down to.

Some fuckwit Christian baker, could care shit about most biblical rules, but uses some of them in order to be a right prejudice fuckwit

I see you had no answer to my points

So, not only were you a muppet here. You compared me to the worst forum poster after philagain, mainly as I made your arguments look pathetic, but you then ensured to me, you have no humility.

Game over for you

you havnt bested anyone...yet...
what you fail to understand is the LAW....

its quite simple, whatever their justices decide it is.

I was pointing out one possible argument that could, in the right circumstances lead to an absurdity, you of course are to pig headed to see that and failed to correctly pick aprt the argument...

If you went into that supreme court on behalf of the plaintifs I can assure you the case would be very short and you would loose....

your argument is based soley on what YOU think "should "be. YOU are not the arbiter of usa law....
it may agree with you (and actually I hope it does) but it may well not, and legally the point I was making could be seen as a valid argument.
It may agree with you (and I) but for entirely different reasons than what you have stated
It may also dissagree with you and for entirely unexpected reasons....

law has very little to do with justice,(and in many cases the fact that justice is seen to be served is merely incidental) indeed it has little to do with "whats right" (since "whats right" is subjective and depends entirely on your pov.) Just because YOU (or I or anyone else) think something is right (or wrong) does NOT stop the justices from taking a contrary view.....

dont EVER make the mistake of thinking American law is the same as british law, sure they borrowed things from us BUT they are as different as chalk and cheese, not so much in the intent as in the application.

oh and I compared you to that other person since you were doing EXACTLY what he does......
putting words/motives/intent/ideas into my mouth, that were NOT there, never intended to be there and no one else thought they were there......false attribution.....then you have the brass nerve to claim the victim card and accuse me of "taking it personally" Well yes you dumb fuck.....what do you expect.

Lord Foul wrote:you havnt bested anyone...yet...
what you fail to understand is the LAW....

Didge wrote: Sorry, you think I fail to understand the law, after i just educated you on this?
Blimey you are one hell of a conceited twat

its quite simple, whatever their justices decide it is.

Didge wrote: It is simple and yet you still failo to understand the law and even have posted this

I was pointing out one possible argument that could, in the right circumstances lead to an absurdity, you of course are to pig headed to see that and failed to correctly pick aprt the argument...

Didge wrote:No it was you trying to be a smart arse and got your hairy buttocks burnt.
There was no argument here.
Even the baker was willing to concede to giving up making wedding cakes in this case, because he knew it would allow him to discriminate against gays. By refusing to make wedding cakes. It allowed him to deny homoseuxals, even at the expense of his own buisness with hetrosexual weddings. The point so far over your head

If you went into that supreme court on behalf of the plaintifs I can assure you the case would be very short and you would loose...

Didge wrote: I suggest you read back to the examples I gave and how you would lose

your argument is based soley on what YOU think "should "be. YOU are not the arbiter of usa law....
it may agree with you (and actually I hope it does) but it may well not, and legally the point I was making could be seen as a valid argument.

Didge wrote: Wrong, as its based on the law.
If you had the deceny to follow this thread, i actually posted what is the law and how it is very much baried on states, based on discrimination. You made no valid point, as you were simple trying to measure dicks.

If you had of actually read back, I had actually posted about the law

It may agree with you (and I) but for entirely different reasons than what you have stated
It may also dissagree with you and for entirely unexpected reasons....

Didge wrote:More waffle, why not address the points I raised to you?
Its very simple and after many sentences, you have not addressed one of them

law has very little to do with justice,(and in many cases the fact that justice is seen to be served is merely incidental) indeed it has little to do with "whats right" (since "whats right" is subjective and depends entirely on your pov.) Just because YOU (or I or anyone else) think something is right (or wrong) does NOT stop the justices from taking a contrary view.....
.

I got board of your babble

Go back you inbred cretin and see what has been said before

Then see what I posted on the law

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm basically an agnostic at this point in my life.  

The baker had an issue with the message. I don't . But I also don't care if he does.

Bake a cake, decorate a cake, don't decorate a cake. I really don't care, and I see no need to involve the government in this transaction.  

Because it doesn't affect you personally.

I get that you say you have no problem with making or decorating a cake for a gay marriage, but try and imagine for a moment that you are one of that couple and when asking for a service you are told no, because that person thinks your love is wrong.

No one has the right to refuse service on grounds like that.

Again, would you accept it if they'd refused a mixed race couple?

Quite right. I said it a few posts ago this is about civil rights and the law. No discrimination at all. Why this is so hard for some to accept and/or understand is baffling.

It will be interesting to see what the SC says with the bench divided. Of course I’m hoping the baker loses.

Cass wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm basically an agnostic at this point in my life.  

The baker had an issue with the message. I don't . But I also don't care if he does.

Bake a cake, decorate a cake, don't decorate a cake. I really don't care, and I see no need to involve the government in this transaction.  

Because it doesn't affect you personally.

I get that you say you have no problem with making or decorating a cake for a gay marriage, but try and imagine for a moment that you are one of that couple and when asking for a service you are told no, because that person thinks your love is wrong.

No one has the right to refuse service on grounds like that.

Again, would you accept it if they'd refused a mixed race couple?

Quite right. I said it a few posts ago this is about civil rights and the law. No discrimination at all. Why this is so hard for some to accept and/or understand is baffling.

It will be interesting to see what the SC says with the bench divided. Of course I’m hoping the baker loses.

Me too and I expect he will, it's just the way the world is moving in the west at least.

And exactly, this is nothing to do with religious rights or freedom of belief or whatever. He was asked to decorate a cake to the wishes of customers, not publically endorse anything.

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... the man just didn't want to make gay marriage themed cakes... not for anyone, gay or straight... that is his choice!


He was happy to create plenty of other cakes for them... so was not refusing to serve them at all...!


Say these two wanted to hire a DJ or a band for the event... then after specifying that only a certain list of tunes (all 'gay anthems') be played, then the DJ/band refused to take the booking because they didn't feel happy playing the music that was requested...


Would that be ok...?


Or should the DJ/band be hounded by the two gays, and dragged through the courts for 'discrimination' and 'homophobia' etc too...!?

Did he offer to make them a wedding cake?

How many others did he refuse to make a wedding cake for?

Take your time on this tommy

He was happy to make them a wide range of themed cakes... and would have happily made them a wedding cake too... just as long as it was a traditional marriage themed wedding cake (which is one of the many different themes/designs that he offers to provide), but not a homosexual themed cake (which he doesn't offer to provide)...!


But I'd like you to answer the DJ/band question...?

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm basically an agnostic at this point in my life.  

The baker had an issue with the message. I don't . But I also don't care if he does.

Bake a cake, decorate a cake, don't decorate a cake. I really don't care, and I see no need to involve the government in this transaction.  

Because it doesn't affect you personally.

I get that you say you have no problem with making or decorating a cake for a gay marriage, but try and imagine for a moment that you are one of that couple and when asking for a service you are told no, because that person thinks your love is wrong.

No one has the right to refuse service on grounds like that.

Again, would you accept it if they'd refused a mixed race couple?

I'm cool if you tell me you don't serve Rednecks. I would thank you for letting me know, so that I could spend my money elsewhere.

Still not answering the question, Maddog.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:


Did he offer to make them a wedding cake?

How many others did he refuse to make a wedding cake for?

Take your time on this tommy

He was happy to make them a wide range of themed cakes... and would have happily made them a wedding cake too... just as long as it was a traditional marriage themed wedding cake (which is one of the many different themes/designs that he offers to provide), but not a homosexual themed cake (which he doesn't offer to provide)...!


But I'd like you to answer the DJ/band question...?

But not a wedding cake

Which he made for others, but not homosexuals.

Thus that is prejudice and not a consistant policy.

He would have to have a policy that did not make any wedding cakes

You do understand this dont you dummy?

Didge wrote:What Do the Anti-Discrimination Laws Say?

At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations against a particular group of people, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people.

What Does It Mean to Discriminate Against Someone?

If there’s an anti-discrimination law, does that mean that a business can never refuse service to a member of a group that is protected from discrimination?

The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

A couple of recent court cases illustrate the fine line between discrimination and a justifiable refusal of service. In each case, a Colorado baker was sued for violating discrimination laws.

In the first case, the baker refused service to a customer who wanted her to bake a cake with anti-gay Bible verses on it. The customer argued that he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. But the court ruled that this was not discrimination because the baker had a consistent policy of refusing to create cakes that used derogatory language or imagery.

In the second case, a baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, saying that it violated his religious beliefs. The court held the baker liable, saying that his reason was just a pretext for discriminating against gays.

Which brings us back to the original restaurant signs. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” sounds vague and arbitrary. As we’ve seen, a business can’t just randomly refuse to serve someone.

“No shirt, no shoes, no service” on the other hand, is a clear dress code that could also relate to health and safety issues. You usually see the sign in beach towns where tourists of all kinds are apt to be walking around shirtless or shoeless. As long as the policy is applied to everyone equally, it’s not likely to violate any discrimination laws.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

For Elmer Fudd (lord Foul) and Penfold (tommy)

Huh

Isn't it weird that when it's against gays everyone is shitting in their hands and smearing it across their faces in outrage.

But I posted a story about a gay business owner kicking out some Christians and everyone was MEH!!!!

Or the assembly woman who lost her job, again its meh

But woe betide any who do not tug the forelock and pay proper respect to the LGBT regime.

I might tell people I'm gay just to get some of that gay privilege

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


He was happy to make them a wide range of themed cakes... and would have happily made them a wedding cake too... just as long as it was a traditional marriage themed wedding cake (which is one of the many different themes/designs that he offers to provide), but not a homosexual themed cake (which he doesn't offer to provide)...!


But I'd like you to answer the DJ/band question...?

But not a wedding cake

Which he made for others, but not homosexuals.

Thus that is prejudice and not a consistant policy.

He would have to have a policy that did not make any wedding cakes

You do understand this dont you dummy?

So by your logic, you would force all DJs/bands to have to play a set list of popular 'gay anthems', if asked by a couple of gays to play at their wedding event...?


Or... wouldn't it rather be the case that the wedding DJ/band has a right to say that they have a range of music that they are offering to play, take it or leave it, and the right to refuse the booking if asked to be playing music that they were unwilling/unhappy to play...?


What if a Sikh couple wanted a wedding DJ/band at their event... and the ones they tried to book refused to do it because the Sikh couple wanted all 'bangra' and Punjabi drumming being played, and DJ/band said not something they did as part of their service... would they be 'racist/Sikh-aphobic', and it be right to hound them through the courts etc...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:


But not a wedding cake

Which he made for others, but not homosexuals.

Thus that is prejudice and not a consistant policy.

He would have to have a policy that did not make any wedding cakes

You do understand this dont you dummy?

So by your logic, you would force all DJs/bands to have to play a set list of popular 'gay anthems', if asked by a couple of gays to play at their wedding event...?


Or... wouldn't it rather be the case that the wedding DJ/band has a right to say that they have a range of music that they are offering to play, take it or leave it, and the right to refuse the booking if asked to be playing music that they were unwilling/unhappy to play...?


What if a Sikh couple wanted a wedding DJ/band at their event... and the ones they tried to book refused to do it because the Sikh couple wanted all 'bangra' and Punjabi drumming being played, and DJ/band said not something they did as part of their service... would they be 'racist/Sikh-aphobic', and it be right to hound them through the courts etc...?

Cannot stop laughing.

Come again?

"Gay anthems"?

So your view is now based on where some gays like some tunes, you have decided they are now gay tunes?

Is this your argument?

Again, a buisness has to be consistant in its policies.

For example, a DJ may have a policy on only playing Hip hop. Another country.

Its a consistant policy

Do you understand this?

A wedding cake maker may have a policy of only making tradional wedding cakes...


Just like a wedding DJ/band, might have a policy of only playing a certain type of music...

Tommy Monk wrote:A wedding cake maker may have a policy of only making tradional wedding cakes...


Just like a wedding DJ/band, might have a policy of only playing a certain type of music...

"Traditional wedding cake"?

Come again?

This is getting hilarious.

The policy has to consistant. If they make wedding cakes, then it cannot discriminate based on sexuality.

Still avoiding I see...

Tommy Monk wrote:Still avoiding I see...

Seriously Tommy, you really are not grasping this are you.

Do you understand what consistant means?

I never avoided anything, but you had me rolling up, when you came out with an argument on "gay anthems"

That was priceless