‘GREAT point!’ Dana Loesch asks why bakeries need to follow laws but sanctuary cities don’t

There’s a double standard in America when it comes to obeying the law.

Conservative firebrand Dana Loesch took to social media to ask a very good and timely question: Why do businesses have to “follow the law” but cities labeled “sanctuaries” do not?

Loesch was referring to a controversial Oregon couple who are in the process of defending their First Amendment rights after their bakery was fined $135,000 because they declined to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding.

Loesch raised the question of why Aaron and Melissa Klein should be forced to bake a cake against their religious beliefs when a “sanctuary city” such as San Francisco can simply ignore federal law and let illegal immigrants with criminal records roam free.

Of course, the tragic murder of Kathryn Steinle, 32, by a five-time deported criminal alien as she took a stroll with her father along a San Francisco pier has a lot of concerned citizens asking how that can happen.

But not everyone has his priorities straight.

That’s why Loesch decided to take the question to Twitter, and the responses were epic.

It seems that’s where we’re headed.

Logic? What’s that?

They may be onto something.

H/T: Twitchy.com

Nicole Haas

Nicole Haas

"Nicole Haas is an author, activist, and writer of all things parenting, pop culture and politics. She seeks to champion truth and liberty with the hope that her children and future generations have a fighting chance."
Nicole Haas

Comments

158 thoughts on “‘GREAT point!’ Dana Loesch asks why bakeries need to follow laws but sanctuary cities don’t

  1. Sabrit says:

    “The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate laws,
    to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ” Decretal De Translat. Episcop.
    Cap.

    “The State has not the right to leave every man free to
    embrace whatever religion he shall deem true”

    “The Church has the right to require that the catholic religion
    be the religion of the State to the exclusion of all others” Cursed be those who
    assert liberty of conscience and of worship and such that maintain that the
    church may not employ force” The syllabus of Pope Pious IX, December 1864

    The Roman Catholic church must demand the right to freedom
    for herself alone” La Civilta CathplicaPages 82-86 (official Jesuit
    Publication)

    The Roman Catholic is to wield his vote for the purpose of
    securing catholic ascendancy in this country “ Catholic world, July 1870

    Do your research folks, The Dragon speaks, pulls the strings of “the image of the beast” Too many ready to sell out their fellow Americans….. ALL for what?

  2. James B Field says:

    Why should the LGBT be ignored by Christian bakeries? People are people and love is love. I don’t care what it says in the bible you can show me all the anti gay passages and I still couldn’t give 2 hoots! LGBT people can go into whatever bakeries they like whether Christain owned or otherwise and they should not be discriminated against based on what it says in some dusty old bible!

    1. lakeside227 says:

      How ’bout what it says in the Constitution?

      “Amendment I

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (emphasis mine)

      Any state for federal law that forces a person to act against their religious beliefs is invalid because it violates the Constitution. A SS marriage ceremony is sin to many people, participating in that ceremony is also a sin to many people. The government can’t violate the First Amendment and force people to commit a sin.

    2. VT Patriot says:

      I have a bakery Jimmy, why don’t you and your ladyboyfriend come on over.

    3. Dawn Davidson says:

      Thanks for your enlightened opinion. When I take my dog to a hotel chain that ”discriminates” against pets, you know what I do? I either A:) find a hotel that doesn’t ”discriminate” against pets, or B:) I sneak my dog in anyway, usually option B. You know what I don’t do? I don’t sue Holiday Inn for mental rape, or demand they change their rules especially for me, or demand money to ease the pain and suffering they cause when they tell me outrageous things like ”We don’t allow dogs”. What this couple did, and your attitude towards their actions make me very unsympathetic to the LGBT plight. And it doesn’t matter if the bakery is Christian bakery, Atheist bakery, or something in between, I feel sorry for them having to pay for a BS lawsuit. I am not a religious person, but I am a business owner and a realist. Holiday Inn’s right to refuse my dog, or my right to turn away a tax client for whatever reason IS really more important than anyone’s (mine, yours, or the traumatized lesbians) hurt feelings. I think most gay people realize that this decision is only a victory for those in the business of filing frivolous lawsuits. I hope so anyway…I know that my gay friends support the bakery, and they love Chick-Fil-A too!!

  3. Earick Ward says:

    Point of note – the Bakers weren’t tried and/or fined by a court of law. They were found guilty and fined by a bureaucracy.

    1. Dawn Davidson says:

      Almost, except for the ”guilty” part……..Two lesbian plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the bakery and they won a judgement of 135K for ”damages”. A judge sympathized with their complaints of ”mental rape”. The baker, by saying the words, ”We don’t do gay weddings””, traumatized the women. They felt emotionally raped, like they didn’t have a soul. Their words, not mine. Because the baker inflicted such emotional damage to the lesbians, the judge ruled for the plaintiffs and ordered the defendant/baker to pay the plaintiffs/lesbians 135K so they can buy their souls back. The State of Oregon did not prosecute them, so there was NO mention of guilty or not guilty, as it was NOT a criminal case….The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) awarded $60,000 to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for “emotional suffering.”

  4. VT Patriot says:

    Have tge bakery hire an illegal immigrant to bake all such cakes. Problem solved.

  5. Trying to convince Liberals / Obamacrats, regardless of political party affiliation, they’re wrong is like trying to convince a brick wall it’s not made of chicken soup.

    Conservatives have to stop trying to argue with liberals about their asinine stupidity, their illogic, irrationality, their cultist ideological political motivated govt and the MSMedia’s actions, which they are that way because they know they do not have truth on their side-just their ideological political agenda. The way you convince liberals / Obamacrats they are wrong is to defeat them, period, just lie the Nazis, the Imperial Japanese Military, the Communist USSR, etc..

    Right, Good, and Truth are axioms, thus need not be explained and proven to leftist ideologue idiots, they are what they are.

  6. Alan Wojtkowiak says:

    The “gay” couple initiated a law suit & took “Sweet Cakes” to court. Has anyone thought to take the cities to court? Find someone who indeed has “standing,” and let ’em sue a city!!! And the next city. And the next city. Will we see the dominoes fall?

  7. Alan Wojtkowiak says:

    Here is my short summary of the “gay” agenda. You may use it: ” First they ASKED for tolerance. Then they EXPECTED acceptance. Then they DEMANDED participation. When we DECLINED, they SUED to punish.” (Soon, if we THINK differently, they will REEDUCATE us or lock us away..)

    1. Dawn Davidson says:

      They DEMANDED tolerance, or at the very least, CRIED OUT LOUD for tolerance!

  8. Kevin C Delaney says:

    Cakes can not vote, but an illegal can get a fake ID to vote. .

  9. James Morrissey says:

    declare a“ sanctuary busi
    ness“ if a city can do it why not a bakery

Comments are closed.

Related Posts