You really want to check the context of that quote before using it again.

"Absolutely false. Folks traded, auctioned, and bred slaves for the profit they could make in selling them. They were transported strictly for sale and not worked at all on ships. They were a speculative commodity. "

Bullshit. I didn't say slaves weren't ever sold; I said their value lay in their labor, which it did. I said VALUE, not PROFIT.

Slave owners did NOT buy slaves from one another at auction. They bought them from the slavers at auction.

"Might that be a Harry Potter reference? Hmmmmm... Is Harry sinful? "

This is why I can identify you as a child. Either, as a child, you came here ignorant of Atlas Shrugged, but desiring to irritate the grownups, or you know damn well the Dr Potter reference and choose, once again, to be childishly irritating.

"The slaves are property intended to be bought and sold."

Wrong. The slaves are property intended to be utilized. Nobody buys a slave to have his lazy ass sitting around the plantation drinking mint juleps.

"Actually there are records of some slaves being treated much better by owners based upon incentives, a form of remuneration. Why do you presume that an owner can't bargain with a slave for better performance? Wouldn't a breeder produce more for the privilege? "

False assertion and false attribution.

Again... how is any of this different than what happened to the bakery... or for that matter, Hank Rearden?
"Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent." An adequate definition of slavery.

The government has stepped in and required the bakery to perform labor it does not wish to perform; as you yourself so thoughtfully pointed out, a slave *can* be remunerated.
If the bakery should choose NOT to make the cake, upon being ordered to do so by the government, they will be punished just as surely as any slave who refused to work.

No, the assholes didn't own the bakers. Nobody said they did. The *government* is the owner of the bakers.

You keep saying "fair remuneration". Fair by *who's* reckoning? If the reckoning is anyone other than the bakers', then again, they are slaves.

Tell us why you should impose your religion upon anyone else?

For example: http://www.holy-trinity.org/morality/hom...

Your "faith" incorporates organized bigotry here in America. I find that sad. Remember, render unto Cesar.

I don't care what Rand would or would not have desired. I'm not here to do or say what Rand would or would not like.

1) you are not taking MY religion

2) you are not expressing any truths; you are making baseless attacks with random assertions designed to slander Christianity as a whole; I won't play that game. Christianity has a 2,000 year heritage and I won't sit here and act as though it is on trial

3) it is the belief system of the BAKERY OWNERS that is the point of discussion, not my own.

4) you started the name calling by attacking, and I quote, "your religion"... "your god".
And, like the child you are, you agitated until the grown-up got tired of your gad-fly irritation.

5) I am not a Catholic, I believe I told you this. Not that you pay any attention to anything but your own hatred.
And someone who advocates homosexual behavior shouldn't bring up cannibalism. Nor, in this place, should someone who advocates forcing producers to produce for the benefit of others invoke "cannibalism".

You got what you wanted; you pissed me off. Pissing me off is not winning an argument, it merely demonstrates how you're a childish pest.
Now go bother somebody else.

It isn't an economic one either.

And that's pretty much what Ayn Rand was about.

When she stepped out of economics she herself was an atheist and probably had little desire to listen to your proclamations about such.

If you don't like me taking your religion and expressing truth about it perhaps you might consider not bringing it up around here.

BTW, how's that cannibalism thing going? Remember that there transubstantiation thing? Literally the body and blood! Oh myyyy, I wouldn't want my kids exposed to that.

BTW, thanks for demonstrating the name calling again. At least I don't rely upon an invisible crutch for support.

Of course he was owned. And the government put a price on him; the price of the fine if he did not comply and do the government's bidding.

You might want to check the context on that quote, there, poo-flinger.

Nope. The baker was not owned. Nobody is going to put a price on him.

For his work a fair market value was offered.

In America we respect each other. It's part of being an American. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

Let's look at: Matthew 22:21

Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

In addition to taxes and other social contracts, including marriage, this government is asking folks not to be bigots and love (well, that's extreme... Let's go for respect) the rights of each other.

Who are you to deny the words of Jesus?

But there are two categories of cakes.

Cakes for normal people: $200
Cakes for queers: $2,000,000

1) marriage is not a civil right
2) there is no such thing as "same sex marriage". Marriage requires the participation of a man and a woman.
3) I used the word "object" to include the ones that were, in fact, birds. I was attempting to be generous, something that is always a mistake when engaged in a poo flinging contest with a leftist.

So what are you doing to combat the Green theocracy the government is forcing on us, hm?
Oh, I forgot, you're all about hating on Christianity.

So what happen? Some Christian boy sneak a peek under your mom's Burqa when you were young(er)?

I repeat: what part of "off the shelf" are you incapable of comprehending?

You can either admit that you were wrong in your assertion, or you can deflect once again onto another topic having nothing to do with the two rump rangers trying to force a bakery to accept and endorse their perversion.

In the context of this story, are you saying you would refuse service to someone because they happened to be blind or missing a limb?

It pretty much does.

It's stalking when you pursue me with nonsense arguments and outright distortions.

You haven't corrected one thing I've said. You're not holding my Christianity in any light; you're flinging poo; rather poor quality poo at that.

I am not an Evangelical, nor am I a Catholic, nor am I an Anglican, nor am I a Greek Orthodox.
None of their belief systems have anything to do with me.

I am not interested in debating your hatred for all things Christian. This thread is not about me, nor about my beliefs, but about some assholes trying to force a bakery to affirm their twisted compulsion. Stick to the topic.

I'm well aware that Ayn Rand was an atheist. So was Carl Sagan. A lot of otherwise smart people held false and often idiotic beliefs; the world is full of Wiccans, Scientologists, Moslems, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Shintoists, and atheists. They can't all be right, especially since *I'm* right.

Rand was wrong about many things; she was a woman with insight, not a messiah. I do not worship at her feet as some here might, or as you might worship at the feet of Obama.

It's amusing that you think it appropriate for you to denigrate my faith "around here", and yet you continue to prattle your evil philosophy of socialism around here... and Rand certainly wasn't a socialist.

So, you're a childish, hypocritical poo-flinger.

In the words of Hank Rearden... we're done here.

The part where you claim that same sex marriage should be treated differently than any other civil right.

And you are correct, many are bride and bride, some are black and white, others are white and black...

Ain't America great! One huge melting pot... The salad idea is one to think about too. So many different folks getting along!

Sure am glad America isn't a theocracy.

How did the cake come into existence?

Once again, you fire random shots and never follow up, because you don't give half a squirt of sh*, you're just flinging poo to see where it lands.

Answer the question, Dr Potter...

So you're saying that if the plantation owners paid the slaves in the antebellum South, it wouldn't have been slavery?

I didn't ask if a person in business taking money is different than a slave. I asked whether you are saying that if the slaves would have been paid, would they have still been slaves?

Clue: slaves have no intrinsic value. Their value lies in their labor.

Clue: a slave is someone who is forced to obey another's will to another's profit or benefit. Remuneration has nothing to do with it.

Which you damn well know, you just don't give a shit because you're busy flinging poo, not arguing.