# If selling a gay couple a wedding cake means a "Christian" baker participated in the marriage...



## basquebromance (Dec 22, 2018)

does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 22, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?


I'd have to say "yes", if you look at it that way.

However, I'd say he participated in neither.


----------



## Google_Yourself (Dec 22, 2018)

No more than an atheist boat salesman selling a boat to Scott Peterson.


----------



## JGalt (Dec 22, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?



The baker knew who was wanting the cake and because of the baker's religious belief, wanted nothing to do with it.

Does this Christian gun store owner know whether or not the purchaser is going to commit a murder?


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben (Dec 22, 2018)

Freedom of association. If you cannot choose whom to associate with...you are not free.
Oh...and a shitty comparison.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 22, 2018)

One thing to consider, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever been killed with a wedding cake.


----------



## otto105 (Dec 22, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?



christian yes.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 22, 2018)

There are plenty of Homosexual bakers out there- there really is no reason for people intent on Gay Marriage to insist that Christians bake a cake for them.

The only reason I see is that the Homos want to "stick it" in the eye of Normative Americans who are offended by this bastardization.

BTW, if I was a baker, I'd have no problem with baking a cake for this kind of silliness.  I'd still think it was stupid, but I liked Jim Carey in drag as Vera De Milo back in the day.


----------



## Asclepias (Dec 22, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?


If youre a conservative youre automatically allowed to hold 2 different views even if its the same logic.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 22, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?




Sure, if someone comes into a gun shop and tells the man they need a gun to shoot their grandmother, and they make the sale, they are participating in the murder.


----------



## baileyn45 (Dec 22, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?


You are not entitled to my services, period. If I don't want to bake you a cake, go f yourself.


----------



## otto105 (Dec 22, 2018)

baileyn45 said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> > does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?
> ...




What we have here is a failure of public accommodation in a public market and its effects on a capitalistic system.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 23, 2018)

Political correctness is for pussies


----------



## Asclepias (Dec 23, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Political correctness is for pussies


Not true boy. Youre a pussy and you are not PC.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 23, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Political correctness is for pussies
> ...


Boy,
PC is cowardly behavior


----------



## Asclepias (Dec 23, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


So is being a pussy like you boy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

JGalt said:


> The baker knew who was wanting the cake and because of the baker's religious belief, wanted nothing to do with it.
> 
> Does this Christian gun store owner know whether or not the purchaser is going to commit a murder?



A gun is designed to kill people.  What else would they want it for?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> There are plenty of Homosexual bakers out there- there really is no reason for people intent on Gay Marriage to insist that Christians bake a cake for them.
> 
> The only reason I see is that the Homos want to "stick it" in the eye of Normative Americans who are offended by this bastardization.
> 
> BTW, if I was a baker, I'd have no problem with baking a cake for this kind of silliness. I'd still think it was stupid, but I liked Jim Carey in drag as Vera De Milo back in the day.



That's like saying that there are plenty of black bakers out there, there's no reason why a white baker can't refuse to sell to blacks..  

We went over this 50 years ago, this doesn't fly.


----------



## baileyn45 (Dec 23, 2018)

otto105 said:


> baileyn45 said:
> 
> 
> > basquebromance said:
> ...


And where do you draw the line? Bake me a cake with nazi symbols. If you don't I will sue you. Make me a cake with the words "god hates fags". Somehow I doubt you would stand up for those that wish such things. You are not "entitled" to my services. And of course the obvious, will you hold a muslim bakery to the same standard? After all, not baking a cake isn't quite the same as throwing someone off a roof.


----------



## baileyn45 (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > There are plenty of Homosexual bakers out there- there really is no reason for people intent on Gay Marriage to insist that Christians bake a cake for them.
> ...


Great, force those black bakers to cater a KKK rally. Somehow, I doubt that would happen.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 23, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?


No. Informing is the issue. If a gay person walked into a cake shop & said “ I want a white cake with white frosting, the baker would have no idea what it was for.   So he’d bake it. 

If a gay guy walked into a gun shop & said he wanted to buy the gun to murder someone, the shop owner would refuse sale. 

See how easy this is?


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > There are plenty of Homosexual bakers out there- there really is no reason for people intent on Gay Marriage to insist that Christians bake a cake for them.
> ...




No one is saying to refuse to sell to Homosexuals, just saying to refuse to participate and celebrate the brand new, absurd societal institution of Gay Marriage.  If a homo wants to buy a cake and decorate it themselves, or wants a cake for a birthday or bar mitzvah, they can buy it.   But not for a mockery of an institution that Christians see as sacred.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> That's like saying that there are plenty of black bakers out there, there's no reason why a white baker can't refuse to sell to blacks..
> 
> We went over this 50 years ago, this doesn't fly.


Comparing a noble race to ass sex is not going to win you any favors with Justice Thomas & those he holds influence over on the Bench with him. 

I have a feeling Thomas himself will soon author the prevailing opinion that race is not equal to an endless buffet of escalating deviant sex fetishes. So, brace yourself.


----------



## K9Buck (Dec 23, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?



Your analogy is not analogous.


----------



## JGalt (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > The baker knew who was wanting the cake and because of the baker's religious belief, wanted nothing to do with it.
> ...


----------



## JGalt (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > The baker knew who was wanting the cake and because of the baker's religious belief, wanted nothing to do with it.
> ...



I have a shitload of guns. None of them have ever killed anyone.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

baileyn45 said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> > does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?
> ...




In retail business, you probably wouldn't want to tell a prospective customer to f themselves.  Might hurt your chances of getting the job for the customers' retirement party cake or their mum's 90th birthday cake.

You should be a bit more diplomatic when dealing with the public.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 23, 2018)

JGalt said:


> I have a shitload of guns. None of them have ever killed anyone.


I've never used my guns to kill anyone.  But I've had to shoot livestock and gravely injured dogs so they wouldn't even have to suffer the ride to the vet to be put down.  If I had to kill in self defense, that's not murder.   So this thread is kind of whack.  But it comes from the left so what do you expect?


----------



## K9Buck (Dec 23, 2018)

JGalt said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



I have 4 guns.  So far, they haven't snuck out and shot anyone.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 23, 2018)

JGalt said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> > does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?
> ...


What religion promotes bigotry????


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 23, 2018)

RealDave said:


> What religion promotes bigotry????



LGBT.  Their faith requires that all members HATE organized faith with decent morals because that moral system attacks the core of their own beliefs: rampant and unchecked escalation of self-indulgent sexual addictions of every type and description.

Shifting, not inborn.  And most definitely not anywhere near on par with a noble race like blacks.  I warned them last page that the continued comparison with deviant sex kinks with blacks is going to catch the notice of Justice Thomas sooner or later.  And NOT in a good way from where they're standing..


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 23, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?



No, the baker would be aware of the sin regarding the cake. A gun store has no idea of intent of a gun buyer 

Stupid thread


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

RealDave said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > basquebromance said:
> ...




Plenty of religions promote bigotry.  Islam is the best example, with America's most prominent muslim imam calling Judaism a "gutter religion".


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 23, 2018)

RealDave said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > basquebromance said:
> ...



Islam comes to mind


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



Phillips and what he is doing have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. People like him just want to trash the religion for their own purposes. It's a shame what the Christian faith is being dragged through by scum like him.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 23, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Does the Bible say homosexuality is a sin?

Yes or no, none of your usual nonsense


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> Phillips and what he is doing have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. People like him just want to trash the religion for their own purposes. It's a shame what the Christian faith is being dragged through by scum like him.




I disagree with you, but that's ok.    I went to 16 years of Christian school and never heard of Christianity approving people changing genders myself.


However, if your version of Christianity celebrates gender benders and she-males, that's great and you should do that.

I just don't go for it.however.


----------



## JGalt (Dec 23, 2018)

RealDave said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > basquebromance said:
> ...



*Atheism* promotes bigotry, as well as murder through abortion.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 23, 2018)

baileyn45 said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> > does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?
> ...


Right, just forget about the laws and constitution and stuff, they don't mean anything.


----------



## mdk (Dec 23, 2018)

No cakes for queers, but Twitter, Facebook, and PayPal must provide services to Alex Jones.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 23, 2018)

JGalt said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...


Yeah....  Nope.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Phillips and what he is doing have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. People like him just want to trash the religion for their own purposes. It's a shame what the Christian faith is being dragged through by scum like him.
> ...


Nobody is asking you to do it.  Just don't mistreat the folks who do because of it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

baileyn45 said:


> Great, force those black bakers to cater a KKK rally. Somehow, I doubt that would happen.



Since being a racist is a choice, probably not. 

There's no choice in race or sexual orientation.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> No one is saying to refuse to sell to Homosexuals, just saying to refuse to participate and celebrate the brand new, absurd societal institution of Gay Marriage. If a homo wants to buy a cake and decorate it themselves, or wants a cake for a birthday or bar mitzvah, they can buy it. But not for a mockery of an institution that Christians see as sacred.



again, if Bakers consider Marriage sacred, they should refuse to make cakes unless the bride can prove she's a virgin on her wedding night.  

Because that's what the bible calls for. If she isn't, they should stone that bitch.   

Because it's in the fucking bible.  

We could also refuse service to women who wear pants, women who wear jewelry, women who wear braids in their hair, men with bad eyesight, and a whole list of other people the bible condemns... 

So you guys are being kind of selective in what bible rules you consider 'Sacred", aren't you?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

JGalt said:


> I have a shitload of guns. None of them have ever killed anyone.



I'm sure that's what Nancy Lanza used to say.


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Phillips and what he is doing have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. People like him just want to trash the religion for their own purposes. It's a shame what the Christian faith is being dragged through by scum like him.
> ...



There simply isn't anything in Christianity about the subject. Jesus never said a word about it. The phonies are trying piggyback their prejudices on to the Christian faith. Dorks are doing that a lot these days.

Sorry that you had to endure Christian school.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> LGBT. Their faith requires that all members HATE organized faith with decent morals because that moral system attacks the core of their own beliefs: rampant and unchecked escalation of self-indulgent sexual addictions of every type and description.
> 
> Shifting, not inborn. And most definitely not anywhere near on par with a noble race like blacks. I warned them last page that the continued comparison with deviant sex kinks with blacks is going to catch the notice of Justice Thomas sooner or later. And NOT in a good way from where they're standing..



Nobody cares what Uncle Tom thinks.   

Here's why you are stuck with gay marriage.  Big corporations have decided they no longer want to fight this battle.  You silly little man, you think you live in a democracy?


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 23, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> There simply isn't anything in Christianity about the subject. Jesus never said a word about it. The phonies are trying piggyback their prejudices on to the Christian faith. Dorks are doing that a lot these days.
> 
> Sorry that you had to endure Christian school.



Sorry.  Romans 1.   Jude 1.   Both New Testament of Jesus Christ.

Thanks for playing though!


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 23, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?




No...because the gun owner likely didn't know the killer was going to break the law with the gun when he sold it.  If he knowingly sold it to a criminal, then yes....and we already have that codified in our system of law.

The cake maker knows that his cake will be used in the wedding....and if it is against their religious beliefs, our Constitution protects him....


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> No, the baker would be aware of the sin regarding the cake. A gun store has no idea of intent of a gun buyer
> 
> Stupid thread



You don't think the gun industry doesn't know when it's selling to a dangerous loon? 

Then why do you think they INSISTED on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)?  After a jury found that a gun store illegally sold guns to the DC Snipers (even though one was a felon and the other was a minor) and held them and the gun manufacturer liable, the NRA ran to COngress and insisted on legal protections to sell to lunatics.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > No one is saying to refuse to sell to Homosexuals, just saying to refuse to participate and celebrate the brand new, absurd societal institution of Gay Marriage. If a homo wants to buy a cake and decorate it themselves, or wants a cake for a birthday or bar mitzvah, they can buy it. But not for a mockery of an institution that Christians see as sacred.
> ...




No...that is what you believe the bible calls for.....your interpretation.....you don't get to tell anyone what their religious beliefs are....


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 23, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > There simply isn't anything in Christianity about the subject. Jesus never said a word about it. The phonies are trying piggyback their prejudices on to the Christian faith. Dorks are doing that a lot these days.
> ...



I knew that dope would put it's foot in its mouth


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > No, the baker would be aware of the sin regarding the cake. A gun store has no idea of intent of a gun buyer
> ...




Moron.......selling a gun legally and then the buyer commits a crime isn't a crime......just like the car salesman who sells the car to a criminal who uses it in a drive by shooting isn't part of that crime, you doofus.

The Lawful Commerce in Arms act was created to protect gun makers from "Lawfare," meant to put them out of business even if no laws were broken....


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

2aguy said:


> No...because the gun owner likely didn't know the killer was going to break the law with the gun when he sold it. If he knowingly sold it to a criminal, then yes....and we already have that codified in our system of law.



Um, no, we don't. IN fact, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)  immunizes gun sellers... that's the problem. 



2aguy said:


> The cake maker knows that his cake will be used in the wedding....and if it is against their religious beliefs, our Constitution protects him....



Horseshit. The first amendment does not allow you to do things that are illegal otherwise.  It's why the Rastafarians can't smoke dope and the Branch Davidians can't diddle their kids.  

I mean, if you want to make a law that allow religion to trump (no pun intended) other laws, I'm good with that.  I'll declare myself a worshiper of Quetzalcoatl, which will allow me to ignore murder laws as long as I cut out the hearts of my enemies with an obsidian dagger. 






Praise the winged serpent.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Moron.......selling a gun legally and then the buyer commits a crime isn't a crime......just like the car salesman who sells the car to a criminal who uses it in a drive by shooting isn't part of that crime, you doofus.
> 
> The Lawful Commerce in Arms act was created to protect gun makers from "Lawfare," meant to put them out of business even if no laws were broken....



YOu mean, it allows a gun seller to sell to a crazy like Nancy Lanza, and not be held accountable when her even crazier son shoots up a bunch of preschoolers?  

That's kind of fucked up.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > No, the baker would be aware of the sin regarding the cake. A gun store has no idea of intent of a gun buyer
> ...



Stop babbling, nobody takes you serious


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

2aguy said:


> No...that is what you believe the bible calls for.....your interpretation.....you don't get to tell anyone what their religious beliefs are....



NO, i don't. Wouldn't think of it.  YOu are free to believe in whatever backwards ass bronze age superstitions float your boat, buddy, knock yourself out. 

But when I come to your store and request a service that you offered, you have no business denying it to me because of your religion.  It's called "Public Accommodation".  

And frankly, it's totally fair.  I can't deny service to Mormons, Christian bakers can't deny service to gays, racist car dealers can't deny service to blacks.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Stop babbling, nobody takes you serious



Again, I would be more impressed if you understood the difference between an adjective and an adverb...


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No...because the gun owner likely didn't know the killer was going to break the law with the gun when he sold it. If he knowingly sold it to a criminal, then yes....and we already have that codified in our system of law.
> ...




No, it doesn't...it simply protectes them from frivolous, and malicious law suits created to attack gun ownership.  They can still be sued as any other business can be sued if they create defective products or actually break the law......they can't be sued because asshats like you don't like guns and the only way to attack guns is to bankrupt gun makers.....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No...that is what you believe the bible calls for.....your interpretation.....you don't get to tell anyone what their religious beliefs are....
> ...




In this Country we have Freedom of Religion.....that means you asshats can't tell people to violate their religious beliefs.....the public accomodation laws are wrong.....they also violate private property rights....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Moron.......selling a gun legally and then the buyer commits a crime isn't a crime......just like the car salesman who sells the car to a criminal who uses it in a drive by shooting isn't part of that crime, you doofus.
> ...




You mean law abiding Nancy Lanza who was murdered and had her guns stolen?  You mean that Nancy Lanza?  

You should be a rape victim counselor...."Hey, bitch, why did you go around dressed like a slut...you wanted to be raped......"


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > No one is saying to refuse to sell to Homosexuals, just saying to refuse to participate and celebrate the brand new, absurd societal institution of Gay Marriage. If a homo wants to buy a cake and decorate it themselves, or wants a cake for a birthday or bar mitzvah, they can buy it. But not for a mockery of an institution that Christians see as sacred.
> ...



The bible has a lot of crazy things in it. 

Just one minor correction: no one, male or female, is supposed to have sex outside of marriage. That's what I've heard. The grooms should also be virgins when they approach the marriage altar. Each groom and bride should be made to swear that they are virgins. 

I would love to see the question put to the clergy of whether it is ever permissible to have sex with someone to whom one is not married. Some folks, like donald trump, are more than a little shop-worn.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 23, 2018)

The New Testament of Jesus Christ in Romans 1 & Jude 1 are clearly prohibitive of homosexuality; especially any act that would promote the spread of the behavior in any society; like condoning it baking a "wedding" cake for two males or two females. (The New Testament is what Christians follow, the Old is a historical reference to show the changes made by Jesus)

Any Christian who promotes or condones the spread of the homosexual lifestyle "as normal" within any society is condemned to hell for eternity.  It is considered a non-forgivable (mortal) sin.


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 23, 2018)

2aguy said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> > does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?
> ...



No. The Constitution does not protect this scumbag. He's not at the wedding. He broke the law and that's it.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 23, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> No. The Constitution does not protect this scumbag. He's not at the wedding. He broke the law and that's it.



That's NOT what the USSC said in its last Opinion on the matter.  Why do you lie?


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

mdk said:


> No cakes for queers, but Twitter, Facebook, and PayPal must provide services to Alex Jones.



Alex Jones is a top flight journalist, not a practitioner of alternative sexuality


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




Being told "no thank you, not interested" isn't mistreating anyone.   Christian bakers should NOT tell homosexuals to go fuck themselves


----------



## Disir (Dec 23, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> One thing to consider, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever been killed with a wedding cake.


The wedding cake from Hell:  A 19th century Shelby County murder episode still filled with mystery – All Things Sabine


----------



## mdk (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > No cakes for queers, but Twitter, Facebook, and PayPal must provide services to Alex Jones.
> ...



In other words; it’s different when it’s my ox being gored. How delightfully convenient.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


Discrimination is always mistreatment.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




Actually, I liked Christian school.   Smaller, got a chance to dress in a shirt or tie every day, didn't have to worry about my fellow students attacking me with a shiv like they did in government schools- actually learned things too.

But you are right, Jesus didn't say a word about Gay Marriage- the idea wasn't even thought of until the late 20th Century when a group of gay beaus came up with it to freak out squares.   Gay Marriage is the ultimate in camp, mocking the family and normative marriage itself.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 23, 2018)

Disir said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > One thing to consider, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever been killed with a wedding cake.
> ...


Ok then.  Now find me a mass wedding-caking.  Better yet, one every three to six months for several years


----------



## hadit (Dec 23, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?



If the buyer announced that he intended to use the gun to murder someone, of course. 

Did you think of that angle?


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> But you are right, *Jesus didn't say a word about Gay Marriage-* the idea wasn't even thought of until the late 20th Century when a group of gay beaus came up with it to freak out squares.   Gay Marriage is the ultimate in camp, mocking the family and normative marriage itself.



The New Testament is a collection of eyewitnesses to Jesus' words.

Romans 1 and Jude 1 clearly forbid homosexuality and the promotion of homosexuality within any society.    So you're wrong about that.  "Gay marriage" would be the epitome of that promotion.  No matter how the homosexual lifestyle sought means to promote itself by subtlety or craft, assisting its spread in ANY way is prohibited as a mortal sin.


----------



## Disir (Dec 23, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Nope.  My fun is over.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Moron.......selling a gun legally and then the buyer commits a crime isn't a crime......just like the car salesman who sells the car to a criminal who uses it in a drive by shooting isn't part of that crime, you doofus.
> ...


 
Nancy Lanza was never adjudicated to be "crazy", and besides she was a VICTIM who died so she can't be "held accountable".   A violent thief stole her arsenal, nothing she could have done about that.


----------



## mdk (Dec 23, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> The New Testament of Jesus Christ in Romans 1 & Jude 1 are clearly prohibitive of homosexuality; especially any act that would promote the spread of the behavior in any society; like condoning it baking a "wedding" cake for two males or two females. (The New Testament is what Christians follow, the Old is a historical reference to show the changes made by Jesus)
> 
> Any Christian who promotes or condones the spread of the homosexual lifestyle "as normal" within any society is condemned to hell for eternity.  It is considered a non-forgivable (mortal) sin.



What does the First Commandment say, remind me? Should I be forced to do business with a heretic Hindu? Or a Protestant renegade? I won’t hold my breath for your answer.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 23, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?



No, a wedding cake is a personal creation. A gun is generally sold by a retailer who has no personal connection to the gun, it’s creation, or how it’s used. The cake  is designed specifically for the very personal event of the people getting married. 

Now I have a question- are you really that ignorant, or are you just trolling?


----------



## hadit (Dec 23, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > But you are right, *Jesus didn't say a word about Gay Marriage-* the idea wasn't even thought of until the late 20th Century when a group of gay beaus came up with it to freak out squares.   Gay Marriage is the ultimate in camp, mocking the family and normative marriage itself.
> ...



Jesus revered the Mosaic law. He would not condone something explicitly condemned in the law. He thus didn't have to say anything about homosexuality.


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



Gay marriage is two people getting legally married; nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't "mock" anything. It doesn't hurt you or anyone else. This business of phony "Christians" making up non-existent hurts and harms is ridiculous. 

I don't think that two people decide to get married just to piss you off. You are not that important.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 23, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> If selling a gay couple a wedding cake *means* a "Christian" baker participated in the marriage...



That's what you want it to mean. 

It simply doesn't mean that.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> Gay marriage is two people getting legally married; nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't "mock" anything. It doesn't hurt you or anyone else. This business of phony "Christians" making up non-existent hurts and harms is ridiculous.
> 
> I don't think that two people decide to get married just to piss you off. You are not that important.




Here's where we disagree.   Marriage is a relationship between a man and a broad by definition- Gay Marriage is a new institution entirely.

Gay Marriage didn't exist when I was a youngster, and IMHO, was designed by the Gay Mafia for exactly that reason to mock "squares" and "straight arrows" and freak us out.

I'm personally not "freaked out" and get the joke.   But I also have empathy to those who are truly upset by this kind of Atrocity.


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Gay marriage is two people getting legally married; nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't "mock" anything. It doesn't hurt you or anyone else. This business of phony "Christians" making up non-existent hurts and harms is ridiculous.
> ...



Your use of the term "broad" rather than "woman" reveals what sort of disrespectful person you are, particularly in the context of discussing marriage. Apparently you don't respect the institution anyway, and you don't respect women.
There is no such thing as a "gay mafia."
If one is "truly upset" by same-sex marriage, this person has no life, and so tries to run other people's.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> If one is "truly upset" by same-sex marriage, this person has no life, and so tries to run other people's.



Aw, rubbish.   Some people just don't appreciate the humor, the high camp of a guy in a wedding dress.    When Jim Carrey dressed in drag as Vera De Milo, I thought it was hilarious, others not so much.

Homosexuality has existed as an alternative form of sexuality for about 4 millennia since the destruction of Sodom. Gay Marriage only a few decades.


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > If one is "truly upset" by same-sex marriage, this person has no life, and so tries to run other people's.
> ...



So? It just means that same-sex marriage finally has legal standing and people who are LGBT can live ordinary and stable lives. Nothing to worry about. Better to be worried about all the guys beating up and killing their wives and girlfriends, and religious fundies raising young daughters to be sold as "wives" for sex.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




What makes you think that people who decide to pursue butt sex with other fellows are at all interested in an "ordinary and stable life"?

They choose their lifestyle because they want to live on the edge and outrage people.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 23, 2018)

2aguy said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> > does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?
> ...


If the dumbass DECIDES to op open a business then he must follow the law or quit.

I understand your desire for legalized discrimination like most bigots & racists.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



So, when you had desires for men, you decided not to act on them?


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 23, 2018)

RealDave said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > basquebromance said:
> ...




No, you dumb shitstain.......if you cannot freely conduct business with your own property, you are a slave, not a free human being, and wrapping up that slavery in high sounding bullcrap doesn't make you less a slave...


----------



## RealDave (Dec 23, 2018)

2aguy said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


We have anti-discrimination laws.  I thought we were a nation of laws?


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 23, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?


He is being COMPELLED by the Godvernment to participate in a "religion" he finds offensive.


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 23, 2018)

RealDave said:


> We have anti-discrimination laws. I thought we were a nation of laws?


If we passed a law that you must kill an illegal Mexican, would you do it?


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




No , I have no desire to cheese Normative Americans off by taking it in the ass.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

2aguy said:


> No, it doesn't...it simply protectes them from frivolous, and malicious law suits created to attack gun ownership. They can still be sued as any other business can be sued if they create defective products or actually break the law......they can't be sued because asshats like you don't like guns and the only way to attack guns is to bankrupt gun makers.....



Um, if someone died because your gun store sold a gun to a crazy person, then a lawsuit isn't frivilous.  

What triggered the law was that a court WON a case where gun stores sold the DC Snipers, neither of whom should have ever been sold a gun (One was a felon, the other a minor.)


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

2aguy said:


> In this Country we have Freedom of Religion.....that means you asshats can't tell people to violate their religious beliefs.....the public accomodation laws are wrong.....they also violate private property rights....



That's like saying that health inspections violate property rights.  We have laws that govern commerce. They don't become null because an imaginary voice in your head said so.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

2aguy said:


> You mean law abiding Nancy Lanza who was murdered and had her guns stolen? You mean that Nancy Lanza?



The Nancy Lanza who bought enough guns to fight the Zombie Apocalypse and showed her mentally ill son how to use them.  That Nancy Lanza.  



2aguy said:


> You should be a rape victim counselor...."Hey, bitch, why did you go around dressed like a slut...you wanted to be raped......"



Nobody lists Nancy as one of the "victims" of Sandy Hook. She was a perpetrator.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> The New Testament of Jesus Christ in Romans 1 & Jude 1 are clearly prohibitive of homosexuality;



The New Testament said slavery was cool and slaves should happily serve their masters.  

God didn't change his mind, we changed ours.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > In this Country we have Freedom of Religion.....that means you asshats can't tell people to violate their religious beliefs.....the public accomodation laws are wrong.....they also violate private property rights....
> ...




Riddle me this, Joe.    If I want to buy a pig to roast for Christmas, can I force an Islamonazi butcher to do it?


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > You mean law abiding Nancy Lanza who was murdered and had her guns stolen? You mean that Nancy Lanza?
> ...





Ms. Lanza was killed, makes her a victim.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> The New Testament is a collection of eyewitnesses to Jesus' words.



Except they were all written in different languages decades after Jesus was supposedly around, and contradict themselves on a lot of key points.  Like what year Jesus was born.  



Silhouette said:


> Romans 1 and Jude 1 clearly forbid homosexuality and the promotion of homosexuality within any society.



Awesome. SO the fuck what.  I'm sure I can find half a dozen biblical laws you are violating right now... including WORKING ON A SUNDAY.


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



You have to be a weirdo to be obsessed with whatever other people who are consenting adults do in bed. Why would any person, regardless of sexual orientation, be concerned with the thoughts of those who somehow are "normative Americans," whatever this term is supposed to mean?

Get over the idea that anyone else gives a damn about what you think and what your obsessions are.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

2aguy said:


> No, you dumb shitstain.......if you cannot freely conduct business with your own property, you are a slave, not a free human being, and wrapping up that slavery in high sounding bullcrap doesn't make you less a slave...



But that's the point. The same laws that protect consumers from abuse also protect property owners.   That's why the baker won't go into his shop tomorrow morning and find that a bunch of hoodlum from down the street have taken it over.  

The problem with you libertarians is you have a 10 year olds view of how the world works.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Riddle me this, Joe. If I want to buy a pig to roast for Christmas, can I force an Islamonazi butcher to do it?



Obviously not, first because "Islamonazis" don't actually exist.  

Secondly, because an Islamic Butcher wouldn't have pigs on his his premises.  

Since a baker already has all the fixings to make a cake, he really doesn't have much of an excuse.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> Why would any person, regardless of sexual orientation, be concerned with the thoughts of those who somehow are "normative Americans," whatever this term is supposed to mean?.




That's why homosexuals do what they do, to freak out Normative Americans- folks who are just pursuing and engaging in the Normalcy.

Gay Marriage really pisses a lot of people off, and pushes the buttons of NA's.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Riddle me this, Joe. If I want to buy a pig to roast for Christmas, can I force an Islamonazi butcher to do it?
> ...



Butchers don't raise their own swine, you know, they order them the wholesaler.    If there is a demand at a store for a product, they can request it for delivery.


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Why would any person, regardless of sexual orientation, be concerned with the thoughts of those who somehow are "normative Americans," whatever this term is supposed to mean?.
> ...



But who gives a damn? If you don't like it, don't do it.

"NAs"??? Hilarious. Is this what the twits call themselves now?


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No, you dumb shitstain.......if you cannot freely conduct business with your own property, you are a slave, not a free human being, and wrapping up that slavery in high sounding bullcrap doesn't make you less a slave...
> ...




wrong....if you are forced to work against your will, you are a slave.  And criminals invading a shop and a baker refusing to bake a cake is weak, even for someone as dumb as you.....


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Dec 23, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?



*Never ever eat a cake that you had to sue the Baker to make for you.*


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




"NA" is short for Normative Americans.

Homosexuals care.   And if the NA's didn't get upset about Gay Marriage, homosexuals would lose interest and look for something else to honk off their normal neighbors.  

That's why a big fuss is made about allowing Men in Dresses into the nation's ladies rooms.   Homosexuals weren't expecting so much acceptance of their silliness, so they had to crank it up to a new level.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> That's why homosexuals do what they do, to freak out Normative Americans- folks who are just pursuing and engaging in the Normalcy.
> 
> Gay Marriage really pisses a lot of people off, and pushes the buttons of NA's.



Where are these "Normal" Americans you talk about...  frankly, Normal Americans love their drugs, their booze, their cigarettes and their porn... they really don't have any business telling anyone else how to live their life. 



2aguy said:


> wrong....if you are forced to work against your will, you are a slave. And criminals invading a shop and a baker refusing to bake a cake is weak, even for someone as dumb as you.....



Not at all... you guys claim you hate government except for the parts that protect you.  

So here's a simple enough solution.  No public accommodation laws, but if an angry mob wants to loot your business because you are kind of an asshole, it's your own darned fault.  

Me. I prefer a system of laws that protect both the vendor and the buyer.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 23, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?




No.  Your logic circuits are misfiring.

Marriage is an act.  A gun is an inert object.

Think about it and try again.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 23, 2018)

JGalt said:


> The baker knew who was wanting the cake and because of the baker's religious belief, wanted nothing to do with it.
> 
> Does this Christian gun store owner know whether or not the purchaser is going to commit a murder?


These are small details I don't think the OP anticipated. Clearly the baker didn't want to work on something that violated his personal beliefs. What's implied by the gun shop owner analogy is he (gun shop owner) is okay with people murdering others with his guns. That's an absurd fallacious leap no right minded person would make.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

boedicca said:


> No. Your logic circuits are misfiring.
> 
> Marriage is an act. A gun is an inert object.
> 
> Think about it and try again.



A cake is an inert object.  Not an act.  

So if a cake seller can claim they are participating in a wedding, a gun seller is participating in gun crime.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> These are small details I don't think the OP anticipated. Clearly the baker didn't want to work on something that violated his personal beliefs. What's implied by the gun shop owner analogy is he (gun shop owner) is okay with people murdering others with his guns. That's an absurd fallacious leap no right minded person would make.



The gun industry fights every last regulation, rule and law to make it harder for criminals and the insane to get guns.  When there's a mass shooting, the NRA rushes out and threatens Congress if they even dare think about passing background checks.


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



It's a really stupid term. There is no such thing. And nobody of any orientation lives his or her life to piss off some jerk who probably is a total stranger, and who likely is sexually insecure.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > That's why homosexuals do what they do, to freak out Normative Americans- folks who are just pursuing and engaging in the Normalcy.
> ...




You really need to work on that, it doesn't even come close ........

The jim crow of the democrat party that kept businesses from serving Black Americans needed to be ended, but not by forcing people to become slaves......we are trying to end it no matter how hard you leftists try to keep it....


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

2aguy said:


> The jim crow of the democrat party that kept businesses from serving Black Americans needed to be ended, but not by forcing people to become slaves......we are trying to end it no matter how hard you leftists try to keep it....



But that's exactly what it did. It forced white people who were racists to serve black folks they didn't want to serve.  

These businesses didn't want to serve blacks... they supported the laws and lynched any pesky Northerners.. 

And when the National Democratic Party finally told these racists they weren't welcome, the GOP Took them with open arms.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The jim crow of the democrat party that kept businesses from serving Black Americans needed to be ended, but not by forcing people to become slaves......we are trying to end it no matter how hard you leftists try to keep it....
> ...




No, moron......all they had to do was stop the democrats from forcing businesses to not serve Black Americans....jim crow laws, created by democrats, kept people from serving Blacks.....by law.....There were plenty of people willing to serve Blacks but people like you at the time said they couldn't...by law.....all that needed to happen was to end that law.....but then people like you can't stand freedom..so you went back and saw that you could use the law again, to attack different people...and that is what you are doing now....

The racists never left the democrat party, it is now the home of racists of all skin colors.....


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> And nobody of any orientation lives his or her life to piss off some jerk who probably is a total stranger, and who likely is sexually insecure.



And there is where you would be dead wrong.    The Homosexual Orientation was invented to piss squares off, and oftentimes its their old man is who they are looking to make angry first although all of society quickly follows.

No one really "likes" to take it up the ass, but they get satisfaction as it is shocking behavior  to their acquaintances and strangers who are vested in Normalcy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

2aguy said:


> No, moron......all they had to do was stop the democrats from forcing businesses to not serve Black Americans....jim crow laws, created by democrats, kept people from serving Blacks.....by law.....There were plenty of people willing to serve Blacks but people like you at the time said they couldn't...by law.....



Uh, guy the South was as shit-brained racist then as it is now.  If it wasn't, then the PEOPLE would have voted to get rid of Jim Crow.  



2aguy said:


> but then people like you can't stand freedom..so you went back and saw that you could use the law again, to attack different people...and that is what you are doing now....



No, we saw that it was just as right to protect the rights of gays as it is to protect the rights of blacks.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > These are small details I don't think the OP anticipated. Clearly the baker didn't want to work on something that violated his personal beliefs. What's implied by the gun shop owner analogy is he (gun shop owner) is okay with people murdering others with his guns. That's an absurd fallacious leap no right minded person would make.
> ...




wrong, you dumb ass.....the NRA has been fighting to make it harder for criminals to get guns while the democrats keep releasing violent gun criminals from jail....

California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register

Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”

I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.

Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.

*The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration. *

*Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.*

Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.

and for all those anti-gunners who want to know where criminals get guns....well...this law lowers the prison time for those who give guns to criminals.....

Why is that?

Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.


*supplying a firearm to a gang member,*

l
*felon obtaining a firearm,*

*discharging a firearm on school grounds*


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> And there is where you would be dead wrong. The Homosexual Orientation was invented to piss squares off, and oftentimes its their old man is who they are looking to make angry first although all of society quickly follows.
> 
> No one really "likes" to take it up the ass, but they get satisfaction as it is shocking behavior to their acquaintances and strangers who are vested in Normalcy.



37% of straight couples engage in anal sex... probably more straight people doing Anal than gay couples. 

Let's do the numbers, shall we.  Let's say we have 200 Million sexually active adults in the US.  10% of them are gay. Or 20 million.  


Since half the gays are lesbians, they aren't doing anal, so it's just the gay dudes.  So about 10 million gay folks are doing anal. 

MEANWHILE, 37% of the 180 million who are straight are doing anal.  So that means- 66 million straight folks are coming in through the back door.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

2aguy said:


> wrong, you dumb ass.....the NRA has been fighting to make it harder for criminals to get guns while the democrats keep releasing violent gun criminals from jail....



No, locking up people for petty crimes doesn't make us safer.  We already have 2 million people in jail... that doesn't help the problem. 

Mostly because if you are angry enough to shoot someone, you aren't thinking about the consequences.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No, moron......all they had to do was stop the democrats from forcing businesses to not serve Black Americans....jim crow laws, created by democrats, kept people from serving Blacks.....by law.....There were plenty of people willing to serve Blacks but people like you at the time said they couldn't...by law.....
> ...




Moron, you don't know what you are talking about....Louisiana........the deepest of the deep south....

Baton Rouge Bus Boycott - Know Louisiana

The drivers claimed in official statements to be looking out for the rights of white riders, but public opinion in the press criticized the drivers and supported the city council’s actions. “This silly strike is sending Louisiana back to the days of King Cotton,” wrote one reader. “This is a progressive state and I hope the company fires all the drivers who don’t want to comply with the laws of the people.”


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > These are small details I don't think the OP anticipated. Clearly the baker didn't want to work on something that violated his personal beliefs. What's implied by the gun shop owner analogy is he (gun shop owner) is okay with people murdering others with his guns. That's an absurd fallacious leap no right minded person would make.
> ...




How does the Democrat Gun Control Plan disarm criminals and the insane?

In areas with heavy duty gun control,  people are forced to visit Black Market gun dealers who work out of the trunks of their cars or in the back rooms of drinking establishments.    Those gun dealers don't do background checks at all- will sell to kids, the insane, whomever. 

The choice that we have isn't been guns or no guns.   But between safe, legal guns and those sold to anyone with the money


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > And nobody of any orientation lives his or her life to piss off some jerk who probably is a total stranger, and who likely is sexually insecure.
> ...



Do you just sit around thinking about sexual fantasies all day long? Your fixation on anal sex is really quite entertaining. It doesn't float my boat personally, but both heterosexuals and homosexuals sometimes do it, and it is none of my business or your's. I bet even the orange whore in the White House has done it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Moron, you don't know what you are talking about....Louisiana........the deepest of the deep south....



I'm not sure what your point here is.. One person wrote a letter that the boycott was silly?  

Point was, Jim Crow didn't end because White Southerners decided it was bad. It ended because the courts told them to knock it the fuck off.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> And when the National Democratic Party finally told these racists they weren't welcome, the GOP Took them with open arms.




When did that happen?   

I don't remember national Democrats ever telling southern honkies they weren't welcome.   Indeed, honky families like the Carters of Georgia and Clintons of Arkansas retained control of their states into the 1990's, long after the civil rights movement was part of history


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> How does the Democrat Gun Control Plan disarm criminals and the insane?
> 
> In areas with heavy duty gun control, people are forced to visit Black Market gun dealers who work out of the trunks of their cars or in the back rooms of drinking establishments. Those gun dealers don't do background checks at all- will sell to kids, the insane, whomever.
> 
> The choice that we have isn't been guns or no guns. But between safe, legal guns and those sold to anyone with the money



Again, every other industrialized nation limits or bans who can own guns... and they have nowhere near the murder rates we have.  

Yes, you actually have to enforce the laws, otherwise they become like the prostitution laws.


----------



## mdk (Dec 23, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > And nobody of any orientation lives his or her life to piss off some jerk who probably is a total stranger, and who likely is sexually insecure.
> ...



I love that you think that people are gay just to shock and piss you off as if it was somehow about you. It isn’t.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Point was, Jim Crow didn't end because White Southerners decided it was bad. It ended because the courts told them to knock it the fuck off.




Racial segregation was a nationwide phenomenon, mostly in liberal areas from coast to coast and border to border.  Even when I was a young man in Ohio, there were black bars that wouldn't serve me, and white bars that barred African American drinkers.

It wasn't "the south" at all.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > No. Your logic circuits are misfiring.
> ...




B'loney.  Making a cake is a creative endeavor of a customized product requiring specific labor.   The cake baker didn't refuse to sell a ready made cake to gays; he refused to do a custom wedding cake.

So, if you wish to make an analogy, find a gun seller who hand made a gun knowing that the buyer was planning to murder someone.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> I'm not sure what your point here is.. One person wrote a letter that the boycott was silly?
> 
> Point was, Jim Crow didn't end because White Southerners decided it was bad. It ended because the courts told them to knock it the fuck off.



What does the behavior of ass sex addicts have to do with a noble race of people?  You realize this stuff is going to pass in front of Justice Thomas. Might not want to irritate him with the disgusting comparison.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

mdk said:


> I love that you think that people are gay just to shock and piss you off as if it was somehow about you. It isn’t.




It doesn't shock me,  they are into the orientation to shock blue nosed type Normative Americans.  

If everyone had my attitude, Homosexuals would have given this up  decades ago- they would have had to find some other way to irritate me- maybe zoophilia.


----------



## JGalt (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > No one is saying to refuse to sell to Homosexuals, just saying to refuse to participate and celebrate the brand new, absurd societal institution of Gay Marriage. If a homo wants to buy a cake and decorate it themselves, or wants a cake for a birthday or bar mitzvah, they can buy it. But not for a mockery of an institution that Christians see as sacred.
> ...



Actually, the left is very selective about the Bible, as long as they can use their selections to discredit the Bible, Christianity, and religion in general.

Your knowledge of the Bible is painfully evident: The marriage of "virgins" is covered in Leviticus, and it relates only to priests...

Leviticus 21 - New International Version (NIV) | Biblica

Christianity is centered around the New Testament, as the old Mosaic testament is mainly Jewish law, and is only useful to the Christian because of the many prophesies of the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ.

By the time the New testament was written, women were allowed to remarry if they were widows or their husbands divorced them...

*1 Corinthians 7:8-9* 8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to *marry* than to burn with passion.


----------



## JGalt (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > No. Your logic circuits are misfiring.
> ...



That's idiotic, and it shows how little you really know about firearms or firearms law.  A firearms dealer requires a purchaser to fill out a BATFE Form 4473 which asks the purchaser if he or she is a felon, an illegal, a doper, has been adjudicated mentally deficient, and a whole bunch of other questions. Then the purchaser's name is submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System where if there is a problem, the transfer is refused.

So if that firearms purchaser legally purchases the firearm and then commits a crime with it, what the hell makes you think that the seller "participated" in the crime? That's both childish and retarded.

So if you sell someone a car and they go run over someone purposely, did you "participate" in the hit and run?

How about if you sold someone a guitar, and they bashed in someone's head in with it? Does that make you liable?

Quit being stupid.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 23, 2018)

deleted....mispost


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> The gun industry fights every last regulation, rule and law to make it harder for criminals and the insane to get guns. When there's a mass shooting, the NRA rushes out and threatens Congress if they even dare think about passing background checks.


I'm not an NRA absolutist so you are crying to the wrong guy. But I do think they are an excellent bulwark against the clowns that want to do away with the 2nd Amendment. 
People love their guns and distrust their government. What can I say? Look how far the astroturfed campaign of little David Hogg got.


----------



## Asclepias (Dec 23, 2018)

baileyn45 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


Yeah cause being gay means youre anti-christian like being in the kkk means your anti Black.  Terrible logic.


----------



## hadit (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > The New Testament is a collection of eyewitnesses to Jesus' words.
> ...



Interesting that you equate Sunday with the Sabbath day, which is not Biblical.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> Yeah cause being gay means youre anti-christian like being in the kkk means your anti Black.  Terrible logic.




No "being gay" doesn't mean that someone is "anti Christian".   The great homoamerican lawman, J. Edgar Hoover wasn't anti-Christian.

But these gay characters are anti-christian, as it is they who are stirring the shit by finding Christians to refuse them service so they can sue.

If this baker had said "sure" when first approached by these homos, they would have said "no thanks" and moved on.   They really didn't want a cake, they wanted to ruin someone Christian.


----------



## hadit (Dec 23, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Riddle me this, Joe. If I want to buy a pig to roast for Christmas, can I force an Islamonazi butcher to do it?
> ...



If a Jew went into a Muslim owed grocery store and wanted them to prepare things for a Passover feast, you would have a comparable situation.

Under the laws in place today, the Muslim would have to help prepare the Passover feast.


----------



## sparky (Dec 23, 2018)

Discrimination encompases all race, religion and sexual proclivities

despite the biblically challenged trying desperatly to weasle their way 'round it

~S~


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 23, 2018)

sparky said:


> Discrimination encompases all race, religion and sexual proclivities
> 
> despite the biblically challenged trying desperatly to weasle their way 'round it
> 
> ~S~


I think that Justice Thomas would disagree that ass sex addiction or any other of a number of deviant sex behavior addictions are on par with a noble race like his. 

Good luck convincing him.


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Dec 23, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?


First the seller has to know that a murderer is who they are selling the gun to and only a complete and total idiot would share their gun using history with whoever is standing behind that counter.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. If people aren't buying guns to start or further a murderer status, they are getting them for self defense or just getting them as collector's items. Why else would someone ask for a homosexual wedding cake?


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2018)

sparky said:


> Discrimination encompases all race, religion and sexual proclivities
> 
> despite the biblically challenged trying desperatly to weasle their way 'round it
> 
> ~S~




Personally I could care less what someone's personal sexual proclivities are.   But when someone marches through the streets showing pride because they take it in the ass, that's just too much information.

If someone is a homosexual, IMHO, they should share the information on a "need to know" basis.   I guess they have to share it with their fellow butt sex aficionados , but I can't think of a reason why I would need to know that about someone


----------



## Aba Incieni (Dec 23, 2018)

sparky said:


> Discrimination encompases all race, religion and sexual proclivities
> 
> despite the biblically challenged trying desperatly to weasle their way 'round it
> 
> ~S~


To be discriminatory, the baker would have to sell the cakes in question to others but not to gays.

When in fact, he doesn't carry those products and thus, doesn't sell them to anyone, regardless of protected status.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 24, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> There are plenty of Homosexual bakers out there- there really is no reason for people intent on Gay Marriage to insist that Christians bake a cake for them.
> 
> The only reason I see is that the Homos want to "stick it" in the eye of Normative Americans who are offended by this bastardization.
> 
> BTW, if I was a baker, I'd have no problem with baking a cake for this kind of silliness.  I'd still think it was stupid, but I liked Jim Carey in drag as Vera De Milo back in the day.



You assume that everyone has other options and that’s not always the case. I live in a tiny town. There isn’t a huge business district.


----------



## Asclepias (Dec 24, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah cause being gay means youre anti-christian like being in the kkk means your anti Black.  Terrible logic.
> ...


Stop whining and making up conspiracy theories.  The logic was fucked up. I called the poster on it. Deal with it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 24, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?


With the case of the baker, the intent is known being for the gay wedding.

Unless the guy buying the gun informs the seller of his intent to commit murder, these are two totally different types of things.


----------



## sparky (Dec 24, 2018)

JOSweetHeart said:


> Why else would someone ask for a homosexual wedding cake?


because they're homo's, and wish to celebrate it....



Polishprince said:


> If someone is a homosexual, IMHO, they should share the information on a "need to know" basis. I guess they have to share it with their fellow butt sex aficionados , but I can't think of a reason why I would need to know that about someone


because you're a baker being asked to bake>>>






Aba Incieni said:


> When in fact, he doesn't carry those products and thus, doesn't sell them to anyone, regardless of protected status


They're asking a baker for a cake, bakers carry cake & cake products


Asclepias said:


> The logic was fucked up.


Bakers weigh in on Colorado gay wedding cake standoff -- by baking!

&&&&

Gay wedding cake ruling reaffirms that businesses can't discriminate (Opinion) - CNN



> The court did not rule that the Constitution grants the right to discriminate but maintained the longstanding principle that business owners cannot deny equal access to goods and services.





> The case did, however, unearth a question decided half a century ago: Can business owners in America use their religious beliefs as a justification to discriminate?



and get a load of this jem>>>



> The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination in public accommodations based on race, color, religion or national origin. *<snip> *Several years later, in the 1968 Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises decision, the Supreme Court upheld the law by rejecting a barbecue restaurant owner's claim that his religious beliefs justified discrimination against African-American customers.



'effin entrapment!
~S~


----------



## SweetSue92 (Dec 24, 2018)

I believe these Christian bakers/photographers/florists will WIN their cases with the new Supreme Court seated now.


----------



## sparky (Dec 24, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> I believe these Christian bakers/photographers/florists will WIN their cases with the new Supreme Court seated now.




and you may well be _right _Sue , Trump has introduced two RWingers 

but you see, their supreme constitutional interpretations won't send with one different faction , they'll eventually oust _anyone_ different

Overruling and/or underminding _cherished _constitutional doctrines that generations of _past_ justices, conservative as well as liberal, fought tooth nail for thrown under the bus by partisan ,cultural gestalt ,religous allegiance looms on our horizon

 Let freedom reign!

~S~


----------



## SweetSue92 (Dec 24, 2018)

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe these Christian bakers/photographers/florists will WIN their cases with the new Supreme Court seated now.
> ...



You have your religious faith, that's for sure.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> You assume that everyone has other options and that’s not always the case. I live in a tiny town. There isn’t a huge business district.



There probably isn’t an S&M shop in your little town then either. So go to a distant town for all your deviant sex addiction needs, including cake. Don’t expect the decent folk in your town to be forced as a matter of law to accomodate your repugnant addictions.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe these Christian bakers/photographers/florists will WIN their cases with the new Supreme Court seated now.
> ...



Unless they clearly define lgbt as a group of behaviors instead of innate. Once you grant privileges to deviant behaviors that the majority reject, you can’t pick & choose which behaviors those can be.  The 14th is a knife that cuts both ways.

Look to the discussion delineating the difference between what one was born & what one has become to turn the tide. Behaviors in Homo sapiens is Pandora’s Box.  The only recourse lgbt etc. has is to declare itself a religion ( that it factually is). 

Which sex kinks get special exceptions & why?  Who says?  Why are polygamists & incest “love” etc. left out?


----------



## sparky (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Which sex kinks get special exceptions & why? Who says? Why are polygamists & incest “love” etc. left out?



Good one Silhouette.....i would venture sexual procivilities _cross the line_ when they _harm_ others.  

Of course that's the simple view, but can be expanded on.

~S~


----------



## SweetSue92 (Dec 24, 2018)

sparky said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Which sex kinks get special exceptions & why? Who says? Why are polygamists & incest “love” etc. left out?
> ...



Your ignorant views harm others, but they make me laugh, so I keep you off my ignore list. For now.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2018)

boedicca said:


> B'loney. Making a cake is a creative endeavor of a customized product requiring specific labor. The cake baker didn't refuse to sell a ready made cake to gays; he refused to do a custom wedding cake.
> 
> So, if you wish to make an analogy, find a gun seller who hand made a gun knowing that the buyer was planning to murder someone.



Oh, please, this "Artistic" stuff is crap.  You bake the cake, you put frosting on it, you stick the little figures up top. It's not fucking brain surgery.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2018)

JGalt said:


> Actually, the left is very selective about the Bible, as long as they can use their selections to discredit the Bible, Christianity, and religion in general.
> 
> Your knowledge of the Bible is painfully evident: The marriage of "virgins" is covered in Leviticus, and it relates only to priests...



Um... no.  Let's look at the verse, shall we? 

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, _*and when I came to her, I found her not a maid*_: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate.... _*But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: *_Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.-- Deuteronomy 22:13-22

Now, I want you to think about this.  How many poor girls got stoned to death in bible times for not only losing their virginity, but just for their hymen breaking in other ways, as they often do.   Man, this is kind of messed up... but this is the wise and holy book you clowns want us all to live by.  



JGalt said:


> Christianity is centered around the New Testament, as the old Mosaic testament is mainly Jewish law, and is only useful to the Christian because of the many prophesies of the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ.



Which part? Because in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus clearly says the Mosaic laws shall stand for all time!  Also, there are very few valid prophecies in the OT that predicted Jesus, just a lot of shoehorning to get Jesus to fit into prophecy....  our boy Matthew being the worst offender, actually making quotes up that weren't in there. 



JGalt said:


> By the time the New testament was written, women were allowed to remarry if they were widows or their husbands divorced them...



Actually, that was allowed in the OT as well.  I was talking about the barbaric practice of stoning women to death for not being virgins... while this was probably not still going on by the time of Jesus, (The "Go forth and sin no more" seems more like a thought excercise than an actual stoning.) probably the same thing can be said about homosexuality, which was largely accepted in the Greco-Roman world.


----------



## BWK (Dec 24, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> There are plenty of Homosexual bakers out there- there really is no reason for people intent on Gay Marriage to insist that Christians bake a cake for them.
> 
> The only reason I see is that the Homos want to "stick it" in the eye of Normative Americans who are offended by this bastardization.
> 
> BTW, if I was a baker, I'd have no problem with baking a cake for this kind of silliness.  I'd still think it was stupid, but I liked Jim Carey in drag as Vera De Milo back in the day.


Your proof that being gay is not normal?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2018)

JGalt said:


> That's idiotic, and it shows how little you really know about firearms or firearms law. A firearms dealer requires a purchaser to fill out a BATFE Form 4473 which asks the purchaser if he or she is a felon, an illegal, a doper, has been adjudicated mentally deficient, and a whole bunch of other questions. Then the purchaser's name is submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System where if there is a problem, the transfer is refused.
> 
> So if that firearms purchaser legally purchases the firearm and then commits a crime with it, what the hell makes you think that the seller "participated" in the crime? That's both childish and retarded.



The problem here is the gun sellers and the National Rampage Association have so watered down those background checks that anyone can pass them.   "Oh you didn't self-identify as crazy?  Well, alrighty then, you look perfect sane to me, Mr. Holmes.  Nice Orange hair, by the way, but why are you dressed like the Joker again? Never mind, you filled out form 4473 and told me you weren't crazy, so here's your AR-15 and your 100 round magazine!!! Have fun at the movies! "


----------



## sparky (Dec 24, 2018)

Really.....this viginity thing is a tad overdone ......reeks of pedophila....~S~


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2018)

hadit said:


> If a Jew went into a Muslim owed grocery store and wanted them to prepare things for a Passover feast, you would have a comparable situation.
> 
> Under the laws in place today, the Muslim would have to help prepare the Passover feast.



Probably. I'd have no problem with suing them if they refused.  If these were products they offered, they have to sell them. 



JimBowie1958 said:


> With the case of the baker, the intent is known being for the gay wedding.
> 
> Unless the guy buying the gun informs the seller of his intent to commit murder, these are two totally different types of things.



again, the gun industry is predicated on selling to crazy people...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Which sex kinks get special exceptions & why? Who says? Why are polygamists & incest “love” etc. left out?



I'd have no problem with polygamy being made legal. 

Incest, however, you can make a scientific argument against, as children produced by such unions would have a higher incidence of birth defects and voting Republican.


----------



## hadit (Dec 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > If a Jew went into a Muslim owed grocery store and wanted them to prepare things for a Passover feast, you would have a comparable situation.
> ...



Predicated on it? That requires support.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2018)

hadit said:


> Predicated on it? That requires support.



Five minute conversation with a gun nut on this board...  

Best argument for gun control ever.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Dec 24, 2018)

sparky said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > Why else would someone ask for a homosexual wedding cake?
> ...


not the type they want. Same as a Jewish deli doesn't sell ham sandwiches to anyone, regardless of protected status.


----------



## sparky (Dec 24, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > JOSweetHeart said:
> ...



A Jew and a Muslim walk into a sandwich shop , the daily special is ham sandwhich ........you finish the joke......~S~


----------



## Aba Incieni (Dec 24, 2018)

sparky said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...


They don't serve ham sandwiches. The joke is on the homo who demands one.

#HeteroPride.


----------



## sparky (Dec 24, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Aba Incieni said:
> ...


----------



## Aba Incieni (Dec 24, 2018)

sparky said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...


Still don't sell certain types of cakes or sandwiches to anyone, regardless of protected status.

Not discriminatory.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > B'loney. Making a cake is a creative endeavor of a customized product requiring specific labor. The cake baker didn't refuse to sell a ready made cake to gays; he refused to do a custom wedding cake.
> ...



ORLY?  Please post pics of your cakes that compare to this:


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

or this:


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2018)

boedicca said:


> ORLY? Please post pics of your cakes that compare to this:



Actually, it kind of makes me ill, looking at all that frosting...  

But that's just me.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > ORLY? Please post pics of your cakes that compare to this:
> ...




Then don't buy one or eat it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Then don't buy one or eat it.



I probably won't.  

But if I decide I want one and you tell me you are going sell it to me, you don't get to say, "Oops, no, I don't like you!"


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Then don't buy one or eat it.
> ...



Yes, I do if you want me to make a custom one that I don't want to make.  You can buy an off the shelf ready made one.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Yes, I do if you want me to make a custom one that I don't want to make. You can buy an off the shelf ready made one.



But your business is making custom cakes...  

Public Accommedation.  

Not an issue.  

You don't want to make cakes for the icky, icky, gays, then close down your bakery and find something else to do for a living.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I do if you want me to make a custom one that I don't want to make. You can buy an off the shelf ready made one.
> ...




You are disingenuously twisting the meaning of public accommodation. The phrase pertains to services needed in the moment (food, lodging)...not future products that can be easily acquired elsewhere.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Then don't buy one or eat it.
> ...


Correct. It’s not the person rejected by the moral baker. It’s the ceremony or ritual.  

Your getting good at this!


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?




What a stupid OP that is easily destroyed.

If anyone, even a Christian, knowingly sells a gun to man , or a woman, who they know is going to use that gun to commit murder than not only have they went against their religion, they have also violated the law.

Moron


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Then don't buy one or eat it.
> ...




This is actually completely untrue. If I own a bakery and you come in and want to buy a cake and I say "Nah, I don't like you, go elsewhere" that's perfectly legal.


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

Yeah, this a hysterically flimsy premise.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

mdk said:


> Yeah, this a hysterically flimsy premise.



You misspelled pathetic.


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



But only if you’re gay. You still want the government to force people to business with each other. Funny how all these little standards you set never seem to apply to anyone but faggots.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




Both sides are doing that. Fucking stupid authoritarians.

"It's okay if people throw Trump supporters out heehee that's funny, but the government should FORCE Christians to serve gays" 

I don't get it.


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, this a hysterically flimsy premise.
> ...



At least it was good exposing people that actually support individual liberty and property rights from those merely pay lip service.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...




Yes, you do get it.  It's not about rational thought and values.  It's about POWER.  Hence, the standards are fluid based on what enables the exercise of POWER over others.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

mdk said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...




I just don't get how we got a point in this country where we actually have people who believe that sometimes its a good thing to have the government FORCE people to work for people they rather not work for.....


----------



## Aba Incieni (Dec 24, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


That's been standard Dem policy since its inception.


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



People are generally fine with it if they one of the protected, but boy do they clutch their pearls if they feel targeted.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



America has long been under assault by Tribal-Biological Determinists around the world.  Our system based on individual liberty is a threat to the global elites who feed off of their groups of slaves-serfs.   Over the past century, Progressivism has infiltrated our education system, government bureaucracies, and media to the point where a large portion of our population has no appreciation for our freedom, and has been gaslighted into thinking Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace and Ignorance is Strength.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 24, 2018)

JGalt said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> > does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?
> ...


Take his business license away since he cannot follow business law...simple as that.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



Um plenty of Republicans support it as well.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 24, 2018)

mdk said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



It's a stupid law, forcing it solves nothing


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Then don't buy one or eat it.
> ...





Silhouette said:


> Correct. It’s not the person rejected by the moral baker. It’s the ceremony or ritual.
> 
> Your getting good at this!



You understand this ^^, yes?


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

bodecea said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > basquebromance said:
> ...




Business law may not violate the COTUS, which in fact all alleged public accomodation laws do.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

mdk said:


> People are generally fine with it if they one of the protected, but boy do they clutch their pearls if they feel targeted.


Well see, then all is well.  It's not the people being "targeted" by Christian bakers (the clients are actually targeting him for religious persecution).  It's the ritual of celebrating butt sex "as married" that moral bakers object to across the nation....Christian, Orthodox Jew, Muslim...just regular people who find two men marrying morally repulsive offense to necessary mothers in marriage etc.

Not the person or people, the ritual they want to celebrate.  This is so easy.  If it's two men, a baker might feel so incensed at the idea of a contract excluding a mother from the household, or two women, a father excluded by contract for life from any kids involved...they can object on that basis as well.  "I want no part of child bondage via contract".  Bound away legally from either a mother or father for life...those types of moral objections.


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Can a moral baker turn away a Hindu citing the First Commandment? Is that allowed or does this standard only apply to fags?


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > People are generally fine with it if they one of the protected, but boy do they clutch their pearls if they feel targeted.
> ...



All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 24, 2018)

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Here's a big problem with all this to me. The Colorado baker refuses, SCOTUS tells Colorado they are on thin ice, be best to reconsider and meanwhile a tranny drives 90 miles to the same baker to force him to create a coming out cake 

That's targeting and it's BS. I suspect many of the cases are simply targeting Christian bakers


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

mdk said:


> Can a moral baker turn away a Hindu citing the First Commandment? Is that allowed or does this standard only apply to fags?


You're getting really good at this.  It's not the Hindu the moral baker would turn away.  It's the ritual he would be giving a leg up to if it defies his fundamental beliefs.

Think Nazis wanting a Jewish baker to bake an anti-Semitic cake.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Here's a big problem with all this to me. The Colorado baker refuses, SCOTUS tells Colorado they are on thin ice, be best to reconsider and meanwhile a tranny drives 90 miles to the same baker to force him to create a coming out cake
> 
> That's targeting and it's BS. I suspect many of the cases are simply targeting Christian bakers


They were warned about this.  And the new SCOTUS is not going to be so vague in their next Ruling.

Brace yourselves crybullies...


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...




It is.  The tranny in question has requested satanic cakes and phallic cakes.  It's disgusting the way the baker is being harassed.


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Can a moral baker turn away a Hindu citing the First Commandment? Is that allowed or does this standard only apply to fags?
> ...



You didn’t answer my question. Is the moral baker allowed to turn away a Hindu or not? It’s a simple yes or no. You won’t answer b/c you’re cool with the government forcing people to do business with each other, but not for people *you* dislike. Like all your standards you want it both ways.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 24, 2018)

boedicca said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



Given trannies are mentally disturbed troublemakers it's no surprise


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



The tranny suing him is a disgraceful asshole. It’s beyond petty.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

If I want into a Muslim bakery and wanted them to make me a cake celebrating National Booze Day or something like that, and I was turned away.  I wouldn't feel discriminated against.  I'd expect it. 

BTW, why aren't these deviant sex addicts trying this cry by targeting Muslim bakeries?  Anyone?  Any thoughts?


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...




Simple fact of the matter

A Christian should be able to turn down a gay and a gay should be able to turn down a Christian, and a black person should be able to turn down a honky.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Simple fact of the matter
> 
> A Christian should be able to turn down a gay and a gay should be able to turn down a Christian, and a black person should be able to turn down a honky.



No.  A couple of problems:

1. RACE, (not butt sex addiction) or what religion one belongs to is forbidden to discriminate against.  There is no mention of butt sex or other deviant sex addictions in the US Constitution, no matter what Obergefell insinuates.  It ain't there.  Not even implied.  If it was, it would have to have a full listing, not a partial one of the potential deviant sex addictions allowed coverage..

2. It's not a person who can be turned down for an innate thing or religion.  It's the RITUAL requested to be celebrated.  Once informed, a moral baker cannot participate in a ritual forbidden to his deeply held beliefs.

Someone mentioned that the tranny wanted the decent baker to bake a "penis cake".  The baker would refuse because that too would be a celebration of pornography...defying the baker's deeply held modesty.


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



I could not agree more. Some appear to want have their gay cake and eat it too. lol


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Simple fact of the matter
> ...



Funny how these standards of yours have all these little loopholes that never apply to people you don’t hate. Thanks for admitting you’re a hypocritical slut.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> If I want into a Muslim bakery and wanted them to make me a cake celebrating National Booze Day or something like that, and I was turned away.  I wouldn't feel discriminated against.  I'd expect it.
> 
> BTW, why aren't these deviant sex addicts trying this cry by targeting Muslim bakeries?  Anyone?  Any thoughts?




Can you stop screaming long enough to admit that both sides are asshole??

If the Christian baker would just give the nasty queers a price that was too high or a delivery date that was beyond the nasty gay wedding date, or just give any other reason for refusing service than the queer wouldn't have a legal justification for crying.d

But the Christian baker wants that queer to know exactly why he doesn't want to bake him a cake.

Now, IMO the Christian ought be able to say to the queer "get out fudge packer" and that be that, but unless and until this law gets over turned or removed, it IS the law.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Dec 24, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


Not as policy. 

See: slavery, open borders, forced labor.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Simple fact of the matter
> ...




God you are stupid.

Religion should hold no import in this conversation. What if an atheist baker just hates gays? Too bad, he has to serve the cake because his sky god doesn't tell him he can't?


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> If I want into a Muslim bakery and wanted them to make me a cake celebrating National Booze Day or something like that, and I was turned away.  I wouldn't feel discriminated against.  I'd expect it.
> 
> BTW, why aren't these deviant sex addicts trying this cry by targeting Muslim bakeries?  Anyone?  Any thoughts?






DandyDonovan said:


> Can you stop screaming long enough to admit that both sides are asshole??
> 
> If the Christian baker would just give the nasty queers a price that was too high or a delivery date that was beyond the nasty gay wedding date, or just give any other reason for refusing service than the queer wouldn't have a legal justification for crying.d
> 
> ...



They'd have to prove discrimination.  Again, race and religion are prohibited to discriminate against.  You can't say "we don't serve Jews here".  But you can say "I won't make a cake to celebrate (****) Jewish ritual" if you feel strongly opposed to such a ritual in your deeply held beliefs.

No screaming.  Rituals cannot be forced upon others to celebrate if they defy their fundamentally deeply held beliefs opposing such a ritual.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 24, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



Actually religion is the crux of the matter. The Constitution is in play


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> God you are stupid.
> 
> Religion should hold no import in this conversation. What if an atheist baker just hates gays? Too bad, he has to serve the cake because his sky god doesn't tell him he can't?



We're talking about the 1st & 14th Amendments so religion most definitely does belong here.  Butt sex or other deviant sex addictions have no Constitutional protections that I'm aware of.  If they did, the list would have to be very very comprehensive, which it is not under "LGBT".


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > If I want into a Muslim bakery and wanted them to make me a cake celebrating National Booze Day or something like that, and I was turned away.  I wouldn't feel discriminated against.  I'd expect it.
> ...



Sorry. I can’t sell you groceries for Shabbat dinner.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > If I want into a Muslim bakery and wanted them to make me a cake celebrating National Booze Day or something like that, and I was turned away.  I wouldn't feel discriminated against.  I'd expect it.
> ...




When you have to twist logic around like a pretzel to defend your position, you hold a weak position.

Mayhaps you should change your name to Christian Pretzel


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > God you are stupid.
> ...




False stupid, because if the government punished people who discriminated for non religious reasons while allowing those who had religious reasons to discriminate that would a direct violation of the 14th Amendment which calls for ALL laws to be applied equally.


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > God you are stupid.
> ...



*You have to serve me, but I don’t have to serve you...b/c reasons.*

This isn’t about some noble cause of liberty and property rights for you. This about your mentally ill obsession with hating homos. Nothing more


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> If I want into a Muslim bakery and wanted them to make me a cake celebrating National Booze Day or something like that, and I was turned away.  I wouldn't feel discriminated against.  I'd expect it.
> 
> BTW, why aren't these deviant sex addicts trying this cry by targeting Muslim bakeries?  Anyone?  Any thoughts?






DandyDonovan said:


> Can you stop screaming long enough to admit that both sides are asshole??
> 
> If the Christian baker would just give the nasty queers a price that was too high or a delivery date that was beyond the nasty gay wedding date, or just give any other reason for refusing service than the queer wouldn't have a legal justification for crying.d
> 
> ...





Silhouette said:


> They'd have to prove discrimination.  Again, race and religion are prohibited to discriminate against.  You can't say "we don't serve Jews here".  But you can say "I won't make a cake to celebrate (****) Jewish ritual" if you feel strongly opposed to such a ritual in your deeply held beliefs.
> 
> No screaming.  Rituals cannot be forced upon others to celebrate if they defy their fundamentally deeply held beliefs opposing such a ritual.





mdk said:


> Sorry. I can’t sell you groceries for Shabbat dinner.



Exactly.  You're really getting good at this.  But if nobody informed you the groceries were for Shabbat, you'd sell them and not defy your faith.  Part of the USSC Ruling that will soon come on this will include language about "informed of the ritual intended".  And, they will sift out Race, Religion from the endless escalating "identities" formed around deviant sex addictions, which are not and cannot be covered under the US Constitution.  Not even implied.

Wait for it, because it's coming.  The language will include "informed of intended ritual" and "right to refuse participation in offending rituals", not individual people just buying cakes without informing.

When gays usurped our way of making Laws in the country by falsely assigning a special class to JUST their type of deviant sex addiction (but illegally excluding all other potentials), they deluded themselves into believing they could force Christians to participate in their deviant sex addiction ritual celebrations ("gay marriage").  The gay marriage Ruling was arrived at illegally.  It may very well become the law of the land via Congress, or after a proper Hearing where one of the Justices hasn't gone on local media to announce weeks before the Hearing how she would cast.  It's just that that hasn't happened yet.

If you think Obergefell is going to save the day on this gay vs moral baker thing, you're asking for Obergefell's rationale to be opened up to deep introspection again.  That's like opening a wall of a house that looks solid, but is completely filled with termites in the studs.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > If I want into a Muslim bakery and wanted them to make me a cake celebrating National Booze Day or something like that, and I was turned away.  I wouldn't feel discriminated against.  I'd expect it.
> ...



This would be funny if it wasn't so scary.


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > If I want into a Muslim bakery and wanted them to make me a cake celebrating National Booze Day or something like that, and I was turned away.  I wouldn't feel discriminated against.  I'd expect it.
> ...



Considering your rich history of being laughably wrong concerning how the courts will rule, you’ll have to excuse me if I treat your latest prediction with a very small grain of salt.


----------



## deanrd (Dec 24, 2018)

I think most Republicans don’t even know any gay people. So why do they hate gay people so much?


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 24, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?


No, but the fact that you think that is logical proves what a failure our schools are.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 24, 2018)

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



SCOTUS gave you a clue where it will go if pushed...and remember the court now leans right.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 24, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?



So do you think that murderers should be able to force gun shops to provide them with guns?

Obviously, you do.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 24, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Tick tock, Ginsburg, you depraved old skank. Your time is winding to a close..and then Trump will appoint another justice who actually upholds the constitution. 

And that is the end game. Bye bye criminal craphead jackboots.


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



They punted. I doubt they are going to scrap public accommodation laws just for gays while leaving all the others in place. The courts have rules those stupid laws constitutional on numerous occasions. I doubt this case ends well for the tranny suing, though.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> If I want into a Muslim bakery and wanted them to make me a cake celebrating National Booze Day or something like that, and I was turned away.  I wouldn't feel discriminated against.  I'd expect it.
> 
> BTW, why aren't these deviant sex addicts trying this cry by targeting Muslim bakeries?  Anyone?  Any thoughts?






DandyDonovan said:


> Can you stop screaming long enough to admit that both sides are asshole??
> 
> If the Christian baker would just give the nasty queers a price that was too high or a delivery date that was beyond the nasty gay wedding date, or just give any other reason for refusing service than the queer wouldn't have a legal justification for crying.d
> 
> ...





Silhouette said:


> They'd have to prove discrimination.  Again, race and religion are prohibited to discriminate against.  You can't say "we don't serve Jews here".  But you can say "I won't make a cake to celebrate (****) Jewish ritual" if you feel strongly opposed to such a ritual in your deeply held beliefs.
> 
> No screaming.  Rituals cannot be forced upon others to celebrate if they defy their fundamentally deeply held beliefs opposing such a ritual.





mdk said:


> Sorry. I can’t sell you groceries for Shabbat dinner.





Silhouette said:


> Exactly.  You're really getting good at this.  But if nobody informed you the groceries were for Shabbat, you'd sell them and not defy your faith.  Part of the USSC Ruling that will soon come on this will include language about "informed of the ritual intended".  And, they will sift out Race, Religion from the endless escalating "identities" formed around deviant sex addictions, which are not and cannot be covered under the US Constitution.  Not even implied.
> 
> Wait for it, because it's coming.





mdk said:


> Considering your rich history of being laughablly wrong concerning how the courts will rule, you’ll have to excuse me if I treat your latest prediction with a very small grain of salt.





SassyIrishLass said:


> SCOTUS gave you a clue where it will go if pushed...and remember the court now leans right.


Yes, they did send a clear message last time where this would go if pushed.  Straight into "Obergefell revisiting" territory.  Be careful what you wish for or what you are pushy about....


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

koshergrl said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



If I were Trump, no way would RBG leave that hospital in any thing other than a body bag.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 24, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


How'd that leaning Right work out on the PP case?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 24, 2018)

mdk said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



Me thinks you're wrong and full of wishful thinking.

PA laws are ignorant...but religious freedom is huge. They won't punt again...but go ahead and push it...the clue is already there


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

Where in the US Constitution does it say or even imply that "just some deviant sex addictions but not all of them" get "the same rights and priveleges" as men and women to marry each other?

Where?  And don't cite race case law because race is innate and sex addictions are acquired behaviors..of which there could never be a comprehensive list of.  You can't favor some and exclude others according, ironically, to the same Amendment Obergefell cited to justify its rationale.  '
Oh what fun it will be when that is pointed out...


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > If I want into a Muslim bakery and wanted them to make me a cake celebrating National Booze Day or something like that, and I was turned away.  I wouldn't feel discriminated against.  I'd expect it.
> ...



You’ve been saying that for years. Good luck finding any standard in court. You’re going to need to bring far more to the table than saying the married queers down the street hurt my feelings. You’ll need to prove how them getting married as harmed you in a measurable away. You can’t.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Where in the US Constitution does it say or even imply that "just some deviant sex addictions but not all of them" get "the same rights and priveleges" as men and women to marry each other?
> 
> Where?  And don't cite race case law because race is innate and sex addictions are acquired behaviors..of which there could never be a comprehensive list of.  You can't favor some and exclude others according, ironically, to the same Amendment Obergefell cited to justify its rationale.  '
> Oh what fun it will be when that is pointed out...



Damn you are stupid. YOU just advocated for allowing religious people to have rights that non religious people wouldn't have under your reading of the law.

I mean damn, I'm embarrassed for you.


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



I hope they rule against all public accommodations laws. It would be pretty shitty to say you don’t have to serve G,A, and Y, but you have to serve J, E, and W.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

bodecea said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...




Oh you're one of those idiots that thinks that SCOTUS uhpeld PP funding aren't you LOL


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

mdk said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



Sil quite obviously wants Christian bakers to be allowed to probe the anal cavity of anyone they suspect of being gay before serving them.


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Where in the US Constitution does it say or even imply that "just some deviant sex addictions but not all of them" get "the same rights and priveleges" as men and women to marry each other?
> 
> Where?  And don't cite race case law because race is innate and sex addictions are acquired behaviors..of which there could never be a comprehensive list of.  You can't favor some and exclude others according, ironically, to the same Amendment Obergefell cited to justify its rationale.  '
> Oh what fun it will be when that is pointed out...



The whole basis of your argument is favoring some while excluding others. Like all statist twats, you want it both ways.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 24, 2018)

bodecea said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



SCOTUS ruled on Medicare funding, dumbass

Leave it to you not to understand


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 24, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Well to be honest if someone orders a ssm cake there is no need for that nasty type of exam


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 24, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...




But if Sil probes them as they enter, then two things happen.

1. The nasty queers don't even have to order a cake to expose their nasty queerness.

2. Sil gets to fulfill her psuedo homosexual fantasies.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Where in the US Constitution does it say or even imply that "just some deviant sex addictions but not all of them" get "the same rights and priveleges" as men and women to marry each other?
> 
> Where?  And don't cite race case law because race is innate and sex addictions are acquired behaviors..of which there could never be a comprehensive list of.  You can't favor some and exclude others according, ironically, to the same Amendment Obergefell cited to justify its rationale.  '
> Oh what fun it will be when that is pointed out...





DandyDonovan said:


> Damn you are stupid. YOU just advocated for allowing religious people to have rights that non religious people wouldn't have under your reading of the law.
> 
> I mean damn, I'm embarrassed for you.


Non religious people can object based on deeply held convictions too.  For example, I have deep convictions that a contract that banishes potential children in marriage (remember, Obergefell cited children as intrinsic to marriage in their rationale) from either a mother or father for life, is wrong and quite frankly provable child abuse under contract.  So I, agnostic (or even atheist) would still have a right to object to a ritual that celebrates child abuse; or the potential for child abuse. << That BTW is the rationale cited even by gays for not allowing polygamists to marry (??) for example..  I find it ironic and amusing that one deviant sex addiction has heated objections to another...  

Once I'd been informed that "this cake is for a ritual to celebrate a "marriage" where any children potentially involved would be barred via binding contract for life from either a mother or father under their roof", I'd have a right to reject any participation in that ritual.  Informing will be part of the language of the new Ruling.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

mdk said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...




It's beyond vindictive...and a good example of how to the Totalitarians, Tolerance (leaving someone alone to do his thing) is not enough. You will Accept and Participate in whatever the Biggest Identity Victim wants you too...or you will be destroyed.


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

boedicca said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Hopping on the victim train is all the rage these days. Hells bells, look at the some of the “woe is me” threads started here.

It’s so hard being black in America!
It’s so hard being white in America!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

mdk said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...




It's so hard to be bazillionaire Lebron James in America!

Oh.Teh.Oppression!


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

boedicca said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



I know, right? Give me an f-word break.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

mdk said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...




He's just an extreme example of the whinging going on at elite college campuses.  Rich minority kids and white prog soy boys going into hysterics because someone wears a sombrero on Halloween is hardly oppression.

Now, the blacks sold into slavery in Libya due to hiLIARy and Obabble's interference really do have something to complain about.


----------



## Asclepias (Dec 24, 2018)

boedicca said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


This is ignorance. Even Lebron has experienced racism.

LeBron James: Racism is hidden but alive


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

^^  If you can't win the argument, change the conversation?  
vv 


Silhouette said:


> Where in the US Constitution does it say or even imply that "just some deviant sex addictions but not all of them" get "the same rights and priveleges" as men and women to marry each other?
> 
> Where?  And don't cite race case law because race is innate and sex addictions are acquired behaviors..of which there could never be a comprehensive list of.  You can't favor some and exclude others according, ironically, to the same Amendment Obergefell cited to justify its rationale.  '
> Oh what fun it will be when that is pointed out...





DandyDonovan said:


> Damn you are stupid. YOU just advocated for allowing religious people to have rights that non religious people wouldn't have under your reading of the law.
> 
> I mean damn, I'm embarrassed for you.


Non religious people can object based on deeply held convictions too.  For example, I have deep convictions that a contract that banishes potential children in marriage (remember, Obergefell cited children as intrinsic to marriage in their rationale) from either a mother or father for life, is wrong and quite frankly provable child abuse under contract.  So I, agnostic (or even atheist) would still have a right to object to a ritual that celebrates child abuse; or the potential for child abuse. << That BTW is the rationale cited even by gays for not allowing polygamists to marry (??) for example..  I find it ironic and amusing that one deviant sex addiction has heated objections to another... 

Once I'd been informed that "this cake is for a ritual to celebrate a "marriage" where any children potentially involved would be barred via binding contract for life from either a mother or father under their roof", I'd have a right to reject any participation in that ritual.  Informing will be part of the language of the new Ruling.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...




^^^ WAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!! The world isn't perfect WAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!! ^^^


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 24, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



Lots of people have experienced racism...James isn't special. In fact he's just a clueless loudmouth with a hilariously sad beard


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...




EVERYONE has experienced some form of bigotry in their lives.  Healthy people shrug it off; what other people think and do does not affect their self-esteem.  People who obsess about it are just whiney bee-yatches.

And before the loons go into hysterics, I'm talking about opinions and thoughts, not the real oppression of things like slavery.  Lebron is one of the most fortunate humans who have every lived.  I'm not going to feel sorry for him.  He's a grown man with a great deal of self-determination and the means to support it.


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> ^^  If you can't win the argument, change the conversation?
> vv
> 
> 
> ...



It’s okay when *you’re* not served, but don’t you dare refuse me. I am special and shit!

Since you are so concerned about child having a father under their roof? Where’s the father under yours? Not having a father under *your* roof is child abuse, but not when it’s mine. More double standards from a fool.


----------



## Asclepias (Dec 24, 2018)

boedicca said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


I didnt say bigotry dummy. I said racism.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Racism is a type of bigotry.  

Please learn a proper vocabulary and stop the apostrophe abuse.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> ^^  If you can't win the argument, change the conversation?
> vv
> 
> 
> ...



No child has a right to
siblings, or to having two parents of opposite sex, except in your fevered brain.


----------



## Asclepias (Dec 24, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


No dummy. Prejudice is a type of bigotry not racism. You can prefer Blacks to whites but that doesnt mean you think they are superior.


----------



## Asclepias (Dec 24, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


No one said he was special. I just pointed out that you must be an idiot to say Lebron hasnt experienced racism.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > ^^  If you can't win the argument, change the conversation?
> ...


Mdk, long ago I learned with you that when you begin to lean heavily on ad hominem, your argument is slipping precariously. Thanks for the litmus reading. When you are ready to talk to my points, let me know.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...




You are thoroughly ignorant.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...




I didn't say he hadn't experienced racism.  I pointed out that despite it, he is an incredibly fortunate human being.  It's sad to see him speak like a pussified wimp.


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Doesn’t it just stink having to live by the same standards you set for others. The grand part in your silly rant about child abuse and how children are a party to the marriage of their parents is that no one is bound by these definitions you’ve pulled out of your arse. Not me, not the courts, not anyone.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 24, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > ^^  If you can't win the argument, change the conversation?
> ...



Odds are the child will end up better though.

Normal is good for children


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 24, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Cept I never said he hasn't experienced it....dumbass


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2018)

boedicca said:


> You are disingenuously twisting the meaning of public accommodation. The phrase pertains to services needed in the moment (food, lodging)...not future products that can be easily acquired elsewhere.



actually, the law makes no such distinction... and hasn't for some time.  

Would you agree that I can't deny someone a service just because I don't like them?  If I were a racist or homophobe just because I just don't like group X.  

So why does it suddenly become okay if you say a few magic words from a book?


----------



## Asclepias (Dec 24, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Not you specifically. Any idiot dumbass..


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Correct. It’s not the person rejected by the moral baker. It’s the ceremony or ritual.



Please point out were cakes are mentioned as part of the marriage ritual in the bible. (Hint. It's nowhere in the bible. It's actually a Roman tradition, and they used to serve cakes shaped like sex organs to assure fertility.) 

So if your Baker was TRULY RIGHT WITH JESUS, he wouldn't engage in this pagan ritual at all.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > You are disingenuously twisting the meaning of public accommodation. The phrase pertains to services needed in the moment (food, lodging)...not future products that can be easily acquired elsewhere.
> ...



Translation:  Progs and their henchthug lawyers and judges have bastardized the original meaning of "public accommodation" in order to turn normal people into criminals.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Both sides are doing that. Fucking stupid authoritarians.
> 
> "It's okay if people throw Trump supporters out heehee that's funny, but the government should FORCE Christians to serve gays"
> 
> I don't get it.



I'm sure you don't. 

No one chooses to be gay. Or black.  

People have to make an active effort to be a Trump supporter. It's actually a sustained act of stupidity.


----------



## mdk (Dec 24, 2018)

Sil’s argument about ending gay marriage in no way address her concern for children. Magically ending gay marriage doesn’t mean their children suddenly have a mother or a father in their house. What she reallly wants is it to be illegal for gays to raise and have children. That’s her real end game in all this, but she doesn’t have the stones to come and say it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Translation: Progs and their henchthug lawyers and judges have bastardized the original meaning of "public accommodation" in order to turn normal people into criminals.



No more than they did when they mandated seat belt laws.  

Tell you what, Seat Belt laws tick me off.  I usually fasten mine, but man, some cop pulling me over because I forgot... that's an imposition.. 

But it's also the law.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Translation: Progs and their henchthug lawyers and judges have bastardized the original meaning of "public accommodation" in order to turn normal people into criminals.
> ...




Jeebus, you are dull.   There is a vast difference between one's personal safety and forcing someone to perform labor for another against his will.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Translation: Progs and their henchthug lawyers and judges have bastardized the original meaning of "public accommodation" in order to turn normal people into criminals.
> ...


Seat belt and helmet laws just like insurance law is ridiculous


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

Rustic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Agreed.   When I was first learning to drive, my parents' insurance company gave them a discount for me pledging to wear a seat belt.  The market was already taking care of this issue before the government mandated seat belts.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Please point out were cakes are mentioned as part of the marriage ritual in the bible. (Hint. It's nowhere in the bible. It's actually a Roman tradition, and they used to serve cakes shaped like sex organs to assure fertility.)
> 
> So if your Baker was TRULY RIGHT WITH JESUS, he wouldn't engage in this pagan ritual at all.


Serving cake at parties and events hardly makes that event a "pagan ritual". The Romans served many things including wine, beer, bread, sea food, olive oil, etc. and none of those things a pagan ritual makes. 

And that you think you know what Jesus would approve or disapprove of is hilarious.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 24, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Ya fucked up...own it


----------



## Asclepias (Dec 24, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


I never fuck up. You just thought I didnt know you werent the one thats said it. I set you up and you fell for it as usual.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Jeebus, you are dull. There is a vast difference between one's personal safety and forcing someone to perform labor for another against his will.



Really?  Not seeing a difference.  Kind of ought to be my choice if I buckle up... 

On the other hand, if I go into a store after they promised a service, I'd better get that service.  



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Serving cake at parties and events hardly makes that event a "pagan ritual". The Romans served many things including wine, beer, bread, sea food, olive oil, etc. and none of those things a pagan ritual makes.
> 
> And that you think you know what Jesus would approve or disapprove of is hilarious.



Well, Jesus never existed, so there's that.  

The point is, if you are going to argue that a cake is a sacred part of a ritual, you should really show me where your religion mandates it. 

It doesn't. It's a pagan holdover like the Christmas Tree or Easter Eggs. 

How dare you make a mockery of this pagan tradition we coopted..


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Agreed. When I was first learning to drive, my parents' insurance company gave them a discount for me pledging to wear a seat belt. The market was already taking care of this issue before the government mandated seat belts.



And then the Insurance companies realized that the pledge wasn't doing it, and they were paying out too much money for personal injuries due to auto accidents, and they went to the State legislatures and demanded seat belt laws.  So, yeah, I guess the market did take care of it.. They took that money and bought some politicians... 

Now the gays are taking their money and they are buying politicians to get their way on things... sucks to be you guys.


----------



## sparky (Dec 24, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> I never fuck up



man, i just can't post what i'm thinkin' in mixed company Asclepias....



JoeB131 said:


> The point is, if you are going to argue that a cake is a sacred part of a ritual, you should really show me where your religion mandates it.



hilarious!

The Cake Wars: Who among us is righteous enough to eat of the sacred buttercream Bible-beating Oregon bakers have denied gays?

~S~


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Well, Jesus never existed, so there's that.


Well actually there is a historical record of Jesus, so there is that. Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
Sorry to shoot down your denial. 



> The point is, if you are going to argue that a cake is a sacred part of a ritual, you should really show me where your religion mandates it.


A wedding cake is an absolutely essential part of the wedding ceremony. I'm not sure it's "sacred" anymore than catching the wedding bouquet, the best man/maid of honor or any of the other traditional customs
of marriage. 



> It doesn't. It's a pagan holdover like the Christmas Tree or Easter Eggs.
> 
> How dare you make a mockery of this pagan tradition we coopted..


Once again cake doesn't make a wedding ceremony a "pagan ritual". Perhaps it's time you put your straw man away.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Dec 24, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> One thing to consider, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever been killed with a wedding cake.


/——/ Wedding Cake Murder by Joanne Fluke is the nineteenth book in the Hannah Swensen Mystery series.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Well actually there is a historical record of Jesus, so there is that. Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
> Sorry to shoot down your denial.



They are all crap. Here's the problem with that... all those "sources" were handed down by Christians who perserved some of the ancient writings... and we what we see are cases where they tried to shoe-horn Jesus into Josephus or Tacitus that doesn't even stand up to mild scrutiny.  



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> A wedding cake is an absolutely essential part of the wedding ceremony. I'm not sure it's "sacred" anymore than catching the wedding bouquet, the best man/maid of honor or any of the other traditional customs
> of marriage.



Actually, what you have are a lot of anachronisms.  The father giving away the bride because the woman is property.  Carrying the bride over the threshold because, again, she is property.  Wearing white because she was supposed to be a virgin.  What we have is kind of an ancient ritual full of patriarchal nonsense...  



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Once again cake doesn't make a wedding ceremony a "pagan ritual". Perhaps it's time you put your straw man away.



Naw, I've made my point.  If we had a truly biblical wedding, we'd be stoning 90% of brides the first day of hte honeymoon because those bitches were totally not virgins.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Jeebus, you are dull. There is a vast difference between one's personal safety and forcing someone to perform labor for another against his will.
> ...




Here's what you are refusing to see:  you can do your own thing without forcing others to participate.  

That's what freedom is.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 24, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Preferring one race to another is the very essence of racism.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Dec 24, 2018)

If the Christian baker made homo-inspired cakes for one protected class, and the Jewish deli owner made ham sandwiches for another, that would qualify as discriminatory.

Since neither makes all types of cakes and sandwiches for anybody regardless of protected status, they aren't discriminating against anyone.


----------



## hadit (Dec 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Predicated on it? That requires support.
> ...



Gun nut =/= gun industry. I thought you knew that. I see no support in what you said.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 24, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> They are all crap. Here's the problem with that... all those "sources" were handed down by Christians who perserved some of the ancient writings... and we what we see are cases where they tried to shoe-horn Jesus into Josephus or Tacitus that doesn't even stand up to mild scrutiny.


You have zero basis on which to ignore or discount historical references to Jesus of Nazareth except your own prejudices and displeasure at actually discovering something you'd rather not find. Not all that convincing.


JoeB131 said:


> Actually, what you have are a lot of anachronisms. The father giving away the bride because the woman is property. Carrying the bride over the threshold because, again, she is property. Wearing white because she was supposed to be a virgin. What we have is kind of an ancient ritual full of patriarchal nonsense...


Marriage is an ancient societal convention going back tens of thousands of years in all societies
of the world.
Not surprising there are anachronisms that have lost their original meanings that survived the centuries that we still enjoy
and take part in today. Despite your carping and negativity it is women, ironically, who still relish the idea of marriage along with all the silly traditions and "patriarchal" nonsense.
I don't know what to tell you. Don't get married if you find the idea objectionable. No one is forcing you.


JoeB131 said:


> Naw, I've made my point. If we had a truly biblical wedding, we'd be stoning 90% of brides the first day of hte honeymoon because those bitches were totally not virgins.


Yeah, but that's what makes your point so silly: We don't have Old Testament style marriages or societies anymore and haven't for quite some time. Perhaps you should look around.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

And yet even atheist or agnostics can have strong moral objections to being forced to participate in a ritual that celebrates a contract whose terms banish children from a mother or father for life. 

It seems as if some here are just focusing on Christian morals?  Anyone want to take a stab at calling Islam & Muhammad hogwash?


----------



## hadit (Dec 24, 2018)

deanrd said:


> I think most Republicans don’t even know any gay people. So why do they hate gay people so much?



You think stupid things.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 24, 2018)

It’s about rejecting rituals, not people. 

The key is the customer informing the merchant of the ritual intended. Once informed, the merchant’s personal morals become involved (and are protected).


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Here's what you are refusing to see: you can do your own thing without forcing others to participate.
> 
> That's what freedom is.



And you are perfectly free to NOT own a bakery.  But once you own a bakery, you have to follow all the commerce laws that have been put into place.  

This is really not complicated.  Tell you what, why don't you go to a bakery where the owner has decided the Health Codes are a violation of his religious "Freedom".  That should be amusing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 25, 2018)

hadit said:


> Gun nut =/= gun industry. I thought you knew that. I see no support in what you said.



Except the gun nuts are the primacy customers of the gun industry. They'd go broke catering to the gun owner who only takes out his gun once a year for target practice... Nope, they got to pander to the gun nut, the guy who arms himself like the Zombies are a-comin', and probably wouldn't pass a test that involved measuring their mental health.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 25, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> And yet even atheist or agnostics can have strong moral objections to being forced to participate in a ritual that celebrates a contract whose terms banish children from a mother or father for life.
> 
> It seems as if some here are just focusing on Christian morals? Anyone want to take a stab at calling Islam & Muhammad hogwash?



Muslim owned businesses aren't the ones fighting the PA Laws.  That would be Christians. 

And, no, if you have a homophobic atheist, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. 



Silhouette said:


> It’s about rejecting rituals, not people.
> 
> The key is the customer informing the merchant of the ritual intended. Once informed, the merchant’s personal morals become involved (and are protected).



Then where do you draw the line?  If we start granting carte blanche to ignore PA Laws- or any laws for that matter - based on the sincerely held beliefs of hateful Christians, where do you stop? 

Hey, can we ignore the child abuse laws based on "Spare the rod, spoil the child?"  How about allowing honor killings based on biblical and Koranic teaching? 

the Christian Baker has a remedy if they really don't want to participate in a "ritual" due to "morals'.  Don't be in that line of work.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 25, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> And you are perfectly free to NOT own a bakery.  But once you own a bakery, you have to follow all the commerce laws that have been put into place.
> 
> This is really not complicated.  Tell you what, why don't you go to a bakery where the owner has decided the Health Codes are a violation of his religious "Freedom".  That should be amusing.



Ok you clearly have not read the last USSC Opinion on that. They said a man can’t be made to choose between his faith & his trade. That’s interfering with his Constitutional rights. You have already lost on that angle so you may now retire it. Try again.

Killing people with tainted food interferes with their rights to life. See how easy this is?


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 25, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Muslim owned businesses aren't the ones fighting the PA Laws.  That would be Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> .


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 25, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Ok you clearly have not read the last USSC Opinion on that. They said a man can’t be made to choose between his faith & his trade. That’s interfering with his Constitutional rights. You have already lost on that angle so you may now retire it. Try again.



Actually, all they said was that the board was mean to him, and shouldn't have been.  Even SCOTUS is reluctant to say, "You can avoid obeying the law if your imaginary friend in the sky says so." 

You know, because if you did, you'd have a lot of people joining the cult of Queztacoatl and cutting the hearts out of the enemies. 

But we'll bankrupt the homophobic bakers long before the courts resolve this mess.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 25, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Ok you clearly have not read the last USSC Opinion on that. They said a man can’t be made to choose between his faith & his trade. That’s interfering with his Constitutional rights. You have already lost on that angle so you may now retire it. Try again.
> ...


Nope. There was language about how a State can’t punish a business owner for following his faith clear into the shop & beyond. Read it again Sparky.

I hope the Court reads your threat about purposefully targeting Christian bakers for bankruptcy if they won’t participate in your deviant sex cult rituals. Should play well for you with the new Court.


----------



## sparky (Dec 25, 2018)




----------



## Silhouette (Dec 25, 2018)

Weird. I had no idea your sock puppet was “sparky”. That’s eerie that I nicknamed you sparky just seconds before “sparky” posted.

And again, your threats of financial sabotage if others don’t bow to your deviant sex cult values will not be well received by the Court.

You going to bankrupt Muslim bakers next?


----------



## sparky (Dec 25, 2018)

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Black-Muslim-bakery-raided-7-arrested-in-2549497.php


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 25, 2018)

So JoeB/Sparky, you were saying about Christians being the only ones saying no to participating in the ritual of two men or two women marrying?  Did you view the video on the Muslim shop saying no also?  Where's their lawsuit?  Where's their glitter bombs and social media witch hunts?


----------



## boedicca (Dec 25, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Here's what you are refusing to see: you can do your own thing without forcing others to participate.
> ...




Merry Christmas, bub.

I don't think you get either the concept of Liberty, but that's for another day.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 25, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Nope. There was language about how a State can’t punish a business owner for following his faith clear into the shop & beyond. Read it again Sparky.



Nobody is punishing him for his faith.  He's being punished for violating the state's public accommodation laws. 



Silhouette said:


> I hope the Court reads your threat about purposefully targeting Christian bakers for bankruptcy if they won’t participate in your deviant sex cult rituals. Should play well for you with the new Court.



Could care less.... you keep refusing service, the state will keep suing you.  and your side will run out of money first, I promise. 



Silhouette said:


> So JoeB/Sparky, you were saying about Christians being the only ones saying no to participating in the ritual of two men or two women marrying? Did you view the video on the Muslim shop saying no also? Where's their lawsuit? Where's their glitter bombs and social media witch hunts?



Did you type in the words "Muslim Bakery" and this is all you came up with?  That's kind of pathetic.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Merry Christmas, bub.
> 
> I don't think you get either the concept of Liberty, but that's for another day.



You can't have freedom OF religion unless you have freedom FROM religion. 

You have the right to believe in whatever backward ass superstitions from the bronze age you want.  

Your business does not.  Your business has to obey the same commerce laws the rest of us do.


----------



## WEATHER53 (Dec 25, 2018)

If you craft one of the centerpieces of the event then you have participated in the event . Participation in the event should be voluntary and Not mandatory


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 25, 2018)

WEATHER53 said:


> If you craft one of the centerpieces of the event then you have participated in the event . Participation in the event should be voluntary and Not mandatory



They volunteered the minute they said, "Will make Custom Wedding Cakes"


----------



## hadit (Dec 25, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Gun nut =/= gun industry. I thought you knew that. I see no support in what you said.
> ...



So, IOW, you're just making it up because of your antipathy toward gun owners. You don't like them, so of course they're stupid and nutty about guns and aren't really human. 

That's pretty lame thinking right there.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 25, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Gun nut =/= gun industry. I thought you knew that. I see no support in what you said.
> ...



And who's going to "measure" their mental health, you?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 26, 2018)

hadit said:


> So, IOW, you're just making it up because of your antipathy toward gun owners. You don't like them, so of course they're stupid and nutty about guns and aren't really human.



well, no, i don't like them because they'd rather compensate for their tiny dicks than do something about 33,000 gun deaths a year.  But, yeah, if you talk to the gun owners, and their wank fantasies about all the people they want to shoot, and you can see how nutty they are.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 26, 2018)

Ame®icano said:


> And who's going to "measure" their mental health, you?



How about, trained psychiatrists?   

YOu see, funny thing. Every last time we have a mass shooting, we find out two things about the shooter. 

1) Everyone in their life knew they were nuts. 
2) They were still able to get a gun without any problems.  

You know, when the guy likes to dress up as the Joker (like at least two mass shooters have done) you might want to think twice about giving them guns.


----------



## hadit (Dec 26, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > So, IOW, you're just making it up because of your antipathy toward gun owners. You don't like them, so of course they're stupid and nutty about guns and aren't really human.
> ...



The vast majority of gun owners will never shoot a human being in their lives. The vast majority of guns will never be used to harm a human being.

That's reality, your phallic fantasies aside.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 26, 2018)

hadit said:


> The vast majority of gun owners will never shoot a human being in their lives. The vast majority of guns will never be used to harm a human being.



Wasn't talking about the majority of gun owners,w ho bought one gun once, put it in the back of their closets and forgot about it.  

I am talking about the "super owners", that 3% of the population that owns 50% of the guns, and have wank fantasies about shooting the darkies.  they are a tragedy looking for a place to happen.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Dec 26, 2018)

Just a reminder: at heart here is, can the government force to to make products or serve events which violate your moral conscience just because "discrimination laws". 

Again. I believe are new Supreme Court is going to say, no, they cannot. That going into private business does not make you an indentured servant to gov't bureaucrats. And that is the right call, btw.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 26, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> Just a reminder: at heart here is, can the government force to to make products or serve events which violate your moral conscience just because "discrimination laws".
> 
> Again. I believe are new Supreme Court is going to say, no, they cannot. That going into private business does not make you an indentured servant to gov't bureaucrats. And that is the right call, btw.



I don't think the Supreme Court is going to say, "YOu can ignore laws you don't like because a Magic Sky Fairy said so."  

that's a recipe for chaos.  How do you tell a sincerely religious homophobe or racist from a plain old secular homophobe or racist?


----------



## SweetSue92 (Dec 26, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Just a reminder: at heart here is, can the government force to to make products or serve events which violate your moral conscience just because "discrimination laws".
> ...



I don't know any major religions that adhere to racism so openly that they would endorse a business owner not selling to someone based on their skin color. That's generally not going to be an issue. But even if it were, you're weighing out competing rights. The gov't does not have the right to conscript people into acts of business just because they hung an "open" sign on their door. 

I'm sure the ruling will come with all kinds of caveats and it should, and will be open to individual judgments down the line, as it should. But so what. That's why we have courts, judges, and the appeals system.


----------



## hadit (Dec 26, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > The vast majority of gun owners will never shoot a human being in their lives. The vast majority of guns will never be used to harm a human being.
> ...



The vast majority of "super owners" will never shoot another human being. The vast majority of their guns will never harm a human being, your phallic fantasies aside.

That's reality.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 26, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> > If you craft one of the centerpieces of the event then you have participated in the event . Participation in the event should be voluntary and Not mandatory
> ...


Then gay graphic designers signed up to print “homosexuality is a sin unto God” on highway billboards when they said they make custom billboards. 

BTW, why didn’t you say your sock puppet was Sparky before Joe?


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 26, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > SweetSue92 said:
> ...


The caveats will be 

1.  Was the shop owner informed that a ritual or offensive ideal was to be celebrated?

2.  Did the shop owner make it clear it was the ritual or concept (not the individual) he was rejecting?

There’s also the issue of customers being unruly. In which case the individual could be turned away.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Dec 26, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I'm not really understanding number one. Are you saying that otherwise, the shop owner might be rejecting a customer because of who they are rather than an event/occasion that might be offensive?


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 26, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > SweetSue92 said:
> ...


Correct. This is how the Court will rule. If a guy wants a cake, you sell him one. If there’s a ritual or ideal to be celebrated with that cake & he informs the shop owner, then the shop owner will be free to participate or not in that ritual or ideal according to his personal moral structure.  Without any consequences.

For instance, a customer might walk into a cake shop & tell the owner he wants a penis cake because he likes to eat dick. Then if any person finds that ideal or icon offensive, they can reject it.  The only way a shop keep could be in trouble is if he made a dick cake for one guy but not another. Even then he could claim the customer was unruly. There’s no law saying a shop keep has to serve unruly customers.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 26, 2018)

You know, it got really quiet around this thread right about the time when early in the morning on Christmas, yesterday, it appeared as if JoeB had a sock puppet manifest.  Made more eerie by the fact that I'd just nicknamed him "Sparky" as "Sparky" was typing a post seemingly in lockstep with JoeB.  Same IP address?  

Anyway, the Court will rule that a customer informing a shopkeep of a product's destination to celebrate a ritual or ideal that is thoroughly repugnant to the shop keep (religious or not, because a moral structure doesn't need a label), will automatically allow the shop keep to not participate.  The ritual or ideal is what's being rejected, not the person.  And yet, unruly customers can also be rejected for any reason...


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 26, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Both sides are doing that. Fucking stupid authoritarians.
> ...




Your argument is stupid, which I have ascertained is the norm for you. I mean truly you are a dumb fuck. 

First of all, you can't even prove that gay isn't a choice, second of all you sure can't prove that some people just aren't born Republicans.

Third of all, and most importantly, you can't justify allowing the government to force some people to do business with some people based on whatever reason, but not others. Meaning , obviously that I should have the right to deny service to a queer whether he chose to be gay, or whether he was born gay. It's IRRELEVANT. As are you.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 26, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Your argument is stupid, which I have ascertained is the norm for you. I mean truly you are a dumb fuck.
> 
> First of all, you can't even prove that gay isn't a choice, second of all you sure can't prove that some people just aren't born Republicans.
> 
> Third of all, and most importantly, you can't justify allowing the government to force some people to do business with some people based on whatever reason, but not others. Meaning , obviously that I should have the right to deny service to a queer whether he chose to be gay, or whether he was born gay. It's IRRELEVANT. As are you.



This is where you are wrong.  That could spill over into denying someone just because they are black.  Unless you want the Court to really delve into what makes one "gay" (acquired behavior) vs black (innate).  Personally I would like to see the Court "go there". 

But what they will chicken out and do instead of addressing that elephant in the living room is a compromise.  They'll agree not to expose the LGBT cult as an incomplete set of sexual deviant addictions, and instead focus on an individual's right to reject an ideal or ritual in a product produced as their 1st Amendment right.  Not individuals based on their race or where they are addicted to putting their dicks.

I'd be very leery of proposing to Justice Thomas especially that his noble race is on par with ass sex.  Very leery.  But who knows?  LGBT cultees  are extremely deluded and pushy.  I kind of hope they push the issue.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 26, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Merry Christmas, bub.
> ...




B'loney.   The cake buyers have freedom from religion if they choose another baker to bake their cake.   Instead, they are trying to impose their Statist Secular Relgion on a Christian.


----------



## mdk (Dec 26, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Your argument is stupid, which I have ascertained is the norm for you. I mean truly you are a dumb fuck.
> ...



Imagine that! Your argument contains another loophole that affords you the right to refuse service all the while denying it to others. Rights for me, but not for thee.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 26, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Your argument is stupid, which I have ascertained is the norm for you. I mean truly you are a dumb fuck.
> ...




This isn't where I'm wrong, this is where you are stupid. This isn't about gays, and it isn't about Christians. I will ask you again, what if an atheist just says "no I don't like the queers because it's gross" and refuses service based on that rather than religious reasons. Can the government tell THAT person they can't discriminate against the queer, but you can?

I swear you authoritarians on both sides are just stupid.

PS A black man should absolutely have the right to refuse to serve white people , it's HIS business, or hers.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 26, 2018)

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...




To be fair , I just don't think that poster is smart enough to grasp the point we are making here.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 26, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


The Court will sift out refusal of individuals & instead focus on informing & the right to refuse to honor ideals or rituals others ask them to participate in.

You can prattle on all you like.  It this is how it will come down.

And I know mdk hates to hear this but the right to refuse any unruly customer does exist. It’s just a fact.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 26, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> I don't know any major religions that adhere to racism so openly that they would endorse a business owner not selling to someone based on their skin color. That's generally not going to be an issue. But even if it were, you're weighing out competing rights. The gov't does not have the right to conscript people into acts of business just because they hung an "open" sign on their door.



Why would it have to be a major religion?  The Southern Baptist Convention and Mormon Church have some pretty racist history.  

Yes, I am weighing competing rights.  Given that Gays have faced a history of repression and Christians have not, I would go so far to say gays merit more protection.  



SweetSue92 said:


> I'm sure the ruling will come with all kinds of caveats and it should, and will be open to individual judgments down the line, as it should. But so what. That's why we have courts, judges, and the appeals system.



Well, you can hope that, but the courts are smart enough to realize that once you give an exemption to obeying laws, you are opening a pandora's box.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 26, 2018)

boedicca said:


> B'loney. The cake buyers have freedom from religion if they choose another baker to bake their cake. Instead, they are trying to impose their Statist Secular Relgion on a Christian.



The Cake Makers have the freedom of religion to choose something else to do for a living.  

Shit, why not apply this to all workers, not just business owners.  "Sorry, Boss, I think filing these PO's would be against my Religion!  Stop oppressing me, man."


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 26, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Your argument is stupid, which I have ascertained is the norm for you. I mean truly you are a dumb fuck.



Probably better educated than you are, and I'm pretty good at getting a rise out of you. 



DandyDonovan said:


> First of all, you can't even prove that gay isn't a choice, second of all you sure can't prove that some people just aren't born Republicans.



Sure I can prove being gay isn't a choice.  Very simply.  

When did you choose to be straight?  See. If sexual orientation is a choice, then there had a to be a day when you were thinking about it, and chose one way or the other.  

I can pretty easily prove that people aren't born in any political party.  You only have "Republicans" in the United States. You don't have republicans beign born in Japan or Chad.  It's a very geographic level of stupidity. 

Now, I could argue it's a result of generations of inbreeding, looking at the regions that consistantly vote Republican. 



DandyDonovan said:


> Third of all, and most importantly, you can't justify allowing the government to force some people to do business with some people based on whatever reason, but not others. Meaning , obviously that I should have the right to deny service to a queer whether he chose to be gay, or whether he was born gay. It's IRRELEVANT. As are you.



Sure we can. We can designate protected classes based on their history of oppression.  We already do for minorities and women.  

Tell you what, though, go down to wherever you work and scream your homophobia at the top of your lungs.  Let me know what HR says. 

You guys are on the wrong side of history.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 26, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> ou know, it got really quiet around this thread right about the time when early in the morning on Christmas, yesterday, it appeared as if JoeB had a sock puppet manifest. Made more eerie by the fact that I'd just nicknamed him "Sparky" as "Sparky" was typing a post seemingly in lockstep with JoeB. Same IP address?



Sparky has been posting here for months...  so your argument is that I cleverly created a sock named Sparky because I know you would call someone "Sparky"?   

I would say you're kind of nuts, but then I read the same homophobic crazy garbage you post here every day.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 26, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > B'loney. The cake buyers have freedom from religion if they choose another baker to bake their cake. Instead, they are trying to impose their Statist Secular Relgion on a Christian.
> ...




Your concept of freedom is that someone must give up their profession in order to practice his religion?

What a totalitarian creep you are.


----------



## mdk (Dec 26, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



What on earth are you talking about? I am okay with refusing any customer for any reason. Why would you think I would force someone to do business with an unruly customer? Of the two of us, only you have all sorts of little self-serving loopholes when it comes to this issue. You're fine with the government forcing folks to do business with each other, so long as that group meets whatever arbitrary standard you're peddling today.


----------



## WEATHER53 (Dec 26, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> > If you craft one of the centerpieces of the event then you have participated in the event . Participation in the event should be voluntary and Not mandatory
> ...


Does not mean they are obligated to make a “”We will fu*k tonight” decorated cake.
Because you own a business does  not void your personal or religious discretions


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 26, 2018)

If you know beyond a shadow of a doubt the person buying the gun is going to commit murder yes otherwise no.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 27, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Your concept of freedom is that someone must give up their profession in order to practice his religion?
> 
> What a totalitarian creep you are.



Um, yeah, that's the reality. It's why I don't have to put up with a coworker trying to tell me all day what a great guy Jesus is... because that's not what he's being paid for.  

If your silly bronze age superstitions mean you can't fulfill the promises you make as a business, then you'd probably be happier doing something else.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 27, 2018)

WEATHER53 said:


> Does not mean they are obligated to make a “”We will fu*k tonight” decorated cake.
> Because you own a business does not void your personal or religious discretions



Nobody asked this baker to do this.  

They asked for the same wedding cake that Straight people get.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Dec 27, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Your concept of freedom is that someone must give up their profession in order to practice his religion?
> ...



Sorry that's not what the First Amendment says. You don't like it, take your totalitarian self somewhere else. Maybe China. They hate Christians there too. You'll love the pollution I"m sure


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 27, 2018)

WEATHER53 said:


> Does not mean they are obligated to make a “”We will fu*k tonight” decorated cake.
> Because you own a business does  not void your personal or religious discretions


That’s what the Court found the last time the LGBT cult agitators tested the waters with this baker. 

Oh look. Sparky is back posting again...


----------



## sparky (Dec 27, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



True that we've freedom _of _religion, not _from _it ,ergo discrimination against those of '_alternate faith_' is discriminatory 

A christian cake rates no more or less than a satanic cake , straight, gay, or martian cake.....

They are all viewed EQUALLY

~S~


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 27, 2018)

^ you’re not even trying to hide the sock anymore.



JoeB131 said:


> Nobody asked this baker to do this.
> 
> They asked for the same wedding cake that Straight people get.



Yes Sparky. But the trouble is that just some deviant sex behaviors decriminalized behind closed doors don’t have legal weight to throw around & for others to participate in their ideas & rituals.

If you say that this is not true, the 14th Amendment requires that you give a complete listing of all deviant sex kinks that bakers must be forced to promote. Don’t forget polygamy!


----------



## SweetSue92 (Dec 27, 2018)

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Are you talking to your hand? How is this in any way a response to what I said?


----------



## sparky (Dec 27, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > SweetSue92 said:
> ...



Perhaps then you could expand on your 1st amd '_take_' Sue.....~S~


----------



## SweetSue92 (Dec 27, 2018)

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...



I don't have to. I didn't even reference Christianity. You were talking to your hand....again


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 27, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> Sorry that's not what the First Amendment says. You don't like it, take your totalitarian self somewhere else. Maybe China. They hate Christians there too. You'll love the pollution I"m sure



the First Amendment is not a license to break other laws.  

you are perfectly free to hate on gay people if your Minister or Priest tells you to.  In 50 years, they won't, and they'll look back at this with the kind of embarrassment they had when someone reminds them they all supported Segregation 50 years go.  

What you aren't free to do is break other laws, like Public Accommodation Laws. 



Silhouette said:


> That’s what the Court found the last time the LGBT cult agitators tested the waters with this baker.
> 
> Oh look. Sparky is back posting again...



The courts found they shouldn't have made fun of his beliefs while pointing out he was in violation of the law. Really, nothing more than that. 



Silhouette said:


> Yes Sparky. But the trouble is that just some deviant sex behaviors decriminalized behind closed doors don’t have legal weight to throw around & for others to participate in their ideas & rituals.
> 
> If you are that this is not true, the 14th Amendment requires that you give a complete listing of all deviant sex kinks that bakers must be forced to promote. Don’t forget polygamy!



Sure. Any sex act between consenting adults who aren't related is perfectly okay.  I have no problem with polygamy.  Some guys are just alpha male studs.  We already have polygamy in this country.  One is called "the wife' and the other is called "the Mistress".  Just ask your Trumpenfuhrer. 

Bakers should provide the services they promise regardless of who asks for them.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Dec 27, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry that's not what the First Amendment says. You don't like it, take your totalitarian self somewhere else. Maybe China. They hate Christians there too. You'll love the pollution I"m sure
> ...



Right now the public accommodation laws are in conflict with the 1st Amendment. I believe you are going to lose, and I believe you know it


----------



## sparky (Dec 27, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> What you aren't free to do is break other laws, like Public Accommodation Laws.





JoeB131 said:


> Bakers should provide the services they promise regardless of who asks for them.




I've run my own biz for decades , and can honestly say i've worked for '_waste of skin_' sorts i absoluely loathed

I just aim _high_ , and can't understand why _butchers, bakers and candelstick_ makers can't either

~S~


----------



## sparky (Dec 27, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > SweetSue92 said:
> ...



So you've actually read the 1st?

~S~


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 27, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> The courts found they shouldn't have made fun of his beliefs while pointing out he was in violation of the law. Really, nothing more than that.
> ....Bakers should provide the services they promise regardless of who asks for them.


The Court said a man can’t be expected to ditch his faith in the marketplace. Your spin on that pivotal slap to your cult isn’t going to save the day Sparky.

True, a baker should bake a cake for anyone who asks with a couple of exceptions. 1.  An unruly customer & 2. A customer who just informed them that the cake is to celebrate an ideal or ritual repugnant to the baker’s moral code.

This is how the Court will further clarify its last Ruling regarding this baker & Colorado establishing an official cult by selective enforcement of value systems. Brace yourself Sparky.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Dec 27, 2018)

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



When you have no point to make, or you've been defeated already, you put up really dumb red herrings. I don't play, Sparky, or not for long. I'm not playing.

_*“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”*_


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 27, 2018)

sparky said:


> I've run my own biz for decades , and can honestly say i've worked for '_waste of skin_' sorts i absoluely loathed
> 
> I just aim _high_ , and can't understand why _butchers, bakers and candelstick_ makers can't either



Shh.... according to Sil you are me, even though you've been here three years longer and don't post nearly as much and we are both here at the same time.  

I also have my own business, and I work with all sorts of people.  People I might disagree with politically or morally or religiously, but when they come to me, I really am just there to help them with their problem.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 27, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> When you have no point to make, or you've been defeated already, you put up really dumb red herrings. I don't play, Sparky, or not for long. I'm not playing.
> 
> _*“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”*_



Where does it say in there "I can break any law I don't like because my Magic Sky man says so."  

Masterpiece Baker argues that his baking of cakes is an expression of his religion.  It's an absurd argument on its face.  

He just hates gay people and doesn't like they can get married now.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Dec 27, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > When you have no point to make, or you've been defeated already, you put up really dumb red herrings. I don't play, Sparky, or not for long. I'm not playing.
> ...



If the Supreme Court thought it was an "absurd argument on its face" they never would have taken it up. You lose again, Joe.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 27, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> The Court said a man can’t be expected to ditch his faith in the marketplace. Your spin on that pivotal slap to your cult isn’t going to save the day Sparky.
> 
> True, a baker should bake a cake for anyone who asks with a couple of exceptions. 1. An unruly customer & 2. A customer who just informed them that the cake is to celebrate an ideal or ritual repugnant to the baker’s moral code.



I have no problem with 1. 

2 is ridiculous. 'Moral code' can be anything you want.  What if my moral code is I hate black people.  Or Mormons?


----------



## hadit (Dec 27, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry that's not what the First Amendment says. You don't like it, take your totalitarian self somewhere else. Maybe China. They hate Christians there too. You'll love the pollution I"m sure
> ...



Why set the bar at related? In this day of cheap, reliable BC and readily available abortion at any time for any reason, why prevent brothers and sisters from getting married?

We have the legal means to prevent and destroy any babies created from such unions, so what's your reluctance?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 27, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> If the Supreme Court thought it was an "absurd argument on its face" they never would have taken it up. You lose again, Joe.



Except they didn't rule on that point, they just ruled that the Commission was mean to him.  

and really, I kind of don't care what SCOTUS says..  If they strike down the law, just pass another that says the same thing a little different.  The bakers will run out of money before the states do.  

Big business has already slapped down states that have tried to codify homophobia as okay.  End of the day, even the Churches will look all hang-dog when you bring this subject up.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Dec 27, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > If the Supreme Court thought it was an "absurd argument on its face" they never would have taken it up. You lose again, Joe.
> ...



Right you don't care what the SC says because you know you will lose in the SC. Just like I said.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 27, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > The Court said a man can’t be expected to ditch his faith in the marketplace. Your spin on that pivotal slap to your cult isn’t going to save the day Sparky.
> ...


Your moral code may be “I hate black people” but because race has specific protection & deviant sex addictions don’t, the point is moot. You can’t force people to promote behaviors, ideals or rituals.

Until you give the Court a complete listing of all deviant sex addictions & convince the Court that that still- incomplete list of the potential for repugnant behaviors wanting freedom from regulation by the majority gets a special pass, you’re going to have to accept that Lawrence v Texas doesn’t grant you rights outside your bedroom. Its bastard child Obergefell is born from a false premise.

Good luck pitching your arguments to a much more intelligent, focused & investigative USSC. And for your sake, I wouldn’t keep comparing race to butt sex in front of Justice Thomas...


----------



## sparky (Dec 27, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> The Court said a man can’t be expected to ditch his faith in the marketplace




That they_ did,_ tiebreaker Kennedy's supreme _word salad w/croutons._..>>>>
Opinion analysis: Court rules (narrowly) for baker in same-sex-wedding-cake case [Updated] - SCOTUSblog


> *On the one hand*, society has recognized that “gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” and their rights are protected by the Constitution. *On the other hand*, “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”


_<<<<snip>>>>_


> It is clear, Kennedy continued, that in at least some scenarios sincerely held religious beliefs can trump such laws – for example, a member of the clergy who objects to same-sex marriage cannot be required to perform such marriages. *But at the same time, Kennedy explained, the exception cannot be allowed to swallow the rule, with the result that “a long list” of people* would be allowed to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages


_<<<<snip>>>>_


> But the majority left open the *possibility that a future case could come out differently,* particularly if the decisionmaker in the case considered religious objections neutrally and fairly.


_<<<<snip>>>>_



> Using strong language, Gorsuch emphasized that, in the United States, *“the place of secular officials isn’t to sit in judgment of religious beliefs, but only to protect their free exercise.* Just as it is the ‘proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence’ that we protect speech that we hate, it must be the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs that we find offensive.”


_<<<<snip>>>>_


> In short, today’s ruling seemed to leave open as least as many questions as it resolved. *The only thing we can be sure of is that these issues will return to the courts, and in all likelihood the Supreme Court, before long.*



when's IM2's bday?


----------



## sparky (Dec 27, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> And for your sake, I wouldn’t keep comparing race to butt sex in front of Justice Thomas.








_slice?_

~S~


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 27, 2018)

Joe, that cake you just posted is one I wouldn’t serve Justice Thomas just before the hearing on this matter that is pending.


vv I bet since "Sparky" just agreed with me below, that he "isn't" the same poster as Joe!  That settles it then...    You blew it on Christmas at that hour Joe to pull in your sockophant.  Too late now.


----------



## sparky (Dec 27, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Joe, that cake you just posted is one I wouldn’t serve Justice Thomas just before the hearing on this matter that is pending.



probably_ not _a good idea......~S~


----------



## boedicca (Dec 27, 2018)

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




And if someone want a satanic cake, he can find someone who is willing to make it instead of forcing a Christian to do so.

Take your choice (you can only pick one):  

1) Freedom to be left alone to do your own thing

2) Forced compulsion at the point of a gun to perform labor against your will (i.e. slavery) for others

Freedom does not mean that the government takes away the freedom of others because your FEELZ are hurt.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 27, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Your concept of freedom is that someone must give up their profession in order to practice his religion?
> ...




Hey stupid, the government has NO input into what your coworker tells you about Jesus.

You're a brain dead moron. "Freedom of religion means you can close your business if you don't want to bake a cake for homosexuals" are you kidding me

Not to mention the obvious freedom of religion isn't even the point here because an atheist also has the right to refuse service to gays if he simply doesn't like gays.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 27, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > The Court said a man can’t be expected to ditch his faith in the marketplace. Your spin on that pivotal slap to your cult isn’t going to save the day Sparky.
> ...




That's the point, queers such as yourself also should have the right to discriminate. It's YOUR business.


----------



## hadit (Dec 27, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Your concept of freedom is that someone must give up their profession in order to practice his religion?
> ...



It's legal for a company to allow employees to talk about their faith. As you like to say about business owners, if you don't like where you've agreed to work, you are free to work elsewhere. IOW, you can accommodate others just like you want to force them to accommodate you.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 27, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


You are wrong. Individuals who arent unruly will be served.  But once they announce an intent for a product to be used to celebrate an idea, behavior or ritual that is repugnant to the merchant’s moral code, the merchant can opt out of service. 

It doesn’t matter what you say about stupid this or stupid that. That is how the Court will Rule. Ready yourselves folks.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 27, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


Against individuals, no; unless they are unruly.  If against rituals or ideals or behaviors?  Yes.


----------



## WEATHER53 (Dec 27, 2018)

The thought police want your thoughts to be limited to their thoughts and any actions that don’t match their thoughts (feelings really) must Never be put into play.   It’s called totalitarianism and if the bakers utilize evaluation as to whom they will provide work for, and even if there is an element of discrimination in it, that is Far Better for society than totalitarianism.


----------



## sparky (Dec 27, 2018)

boedicca said:


> 2) Forced compulsion at the point of a gun to perform labor against your will (i.e. slavery) for others



And so i can openly inform any _religion_, any _gender_, any _race_ , to go *pound sand* if they want _my _services ,based on _my _religion Boe?

That's_ where _this is going....

_your _serve...

~S~


----------



## sparky (Dec 27, 2018)

WEATHER53 said:


> The thought police want your thoughts to be limited to their thoughts and any actions that don’t match their thoughts (feelings really) must Never be put into play.   It’s called totalitarianism and if the bakers utilize evaluation as to whom they will provide work for, and even if there is an element of discrimination in it, that is Far Better for society than totalitarianism.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 27, 2018)

sparky said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > 2) Forced compulsion at the point of a gun to perform labor against your will (i.e. slavery) for others
> ...




Sounds fine to me.   In a free society, people who turn down customers will lose out to their competition.   

I'd rather preserve my Freedom To Be Left Alone than to be forced against my will into servitude for others.   As I have no desire to force others to serve me against their wills, I am quite happy to give my commerce to willing vendors instead.


----------



## sparky (Dec 27, 2018)

boedicca said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Don't you see that's just the tip of our civil rights _iceberg_ Boe? 

Look, i don't mean to be a hardazz over it, but you need to realize your in a _minority _opening _advocating_ discrimination 

~S~


----------



## boedicca (Dec 27, 2018)

sparky said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...




If your definition of Civil Right consists of forcing others to do things against their wills, then I'll pass.

I'm advocating for Freedom, which includes Freedom of Association.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 27, 2018)

sparky said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...




Advocating the right to discriminate is not the same thing as advocating for discrimination. Unless you are a simpleton.

This is why I support the right of gays to marry even though I'm not gay. My principles demand it, the government doesn't have the right to tell consenting adults they can't marry.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 27, 2018)

boedicca said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...




I hope your postings can be traced back to see that you were against the ban on gay marriage.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 27, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...




SRSLY?  What a crappy have you quit beating your wife type of post.


----------



## WEATHER53 (Dec 27, 2018)

Not equality but rather full embracement of lifestyle  so bake my cake or else
Cake crybabies


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 27, 2018)

sparky said:


> And so i can openly inform any _religion_, any _gender_, any _race_ , to go *pound sand* if they want _my _services ,based on _my _religion Boe?
> 
> That's_ where _this is going...
> 
> ~S~


No JoeB, you’re trying to weave that stuff together & the Court is going to use a fine carding comb to separate those fibers.

Gender & race will protect individuals. Customs, behaviors, ideals & rituals will not be able to be forced on others to promote or participate in.  In the final carding, the Court will separate the fibers of innate traits vs behaviors in the public accommodation lawsuits.

And that’s gonna be a day that will be a rude awakening for the deviant sex addiction cult.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 27, 2018)

boedicca said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



What? I was just saying I hope to see that you one of the people who truly value freedom rather than one who loves them some authoritarianism. Because there are quite a few on both sides who want THEIR freedoms but are quite happy to use the government to oppose people they don't like enjoying THEIR freedoms.. It's sad.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 27, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...




I don't recall ever advocating for authoritarian / anti-liberty policies, other than the occasional musings that people who drive 55 in the fast lane should be chemically castrated.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 27, 2018)

boedicca said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



And that is all I was asking. I'm not sure what the "have you quit beating your wife" comment was all about.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 27, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> What? I was just saying I hope to see that you one of the people who truly value freedom rather than one who loves them some authoritarianism. Because there are quite a few on both sides who want THEIR freedoms but are quite happy to use the government to oppose people they don't like enjoying THEIR freedoms.. It's sad.


Rest assured that if Harris requires people of faith are disqualified for suspected impartiality, Ginsburg will instantly have to be impeached for a proven lack of impartiality.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 27, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



Your comment was rather accusatory.  If you wish to trace my posting history to see if I've said what you are insinuating, then get to it.  I'm not going to undergo an inquisition.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 27, 2018)

boedicca said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



I beg your pardon? One question is hardly an inquisition.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 27, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...




It's the nature of the comment:

"I hope your postings can be traced back to see that you were against the ban on gay marriage."


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 27, 2018)

What, you think Dandy Donovan might be a sock puppet?  He certainly is stumping to make this topic about individual discrimination to pull a win for LGBT on the down low.  

However, that's not how the Court will find.  It will find the right to discriminate against others' ideals, behaviors and rituals.  And the key will be the customer informing the merchant of the intent of use of the product.


----------



## Papageorgio (Dec 27, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> One thing to consider, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever been killed with a wedding cake.



Yes, Man tries to rescue his friend at Wedding Cake Rock | Daily Mail Online  LOL!


----------



## sparky (Dec 27, 2018)

What i'm reading here seems to orbit '_my freedom_' , or individual freedom ,if you will.

Unless one is a _hermit _on a desert island, this metric is _moot_ in any civilized society

This is because '_freedom_' in any collective situation is a common denominator existing among all participants. 

For example, deny _one_ individual the freedom to {_______}  , and the entire collective is summarily _deprived _by proxy.

~S~


----------



## WEATHER53 (Dec 27, 2018)

Yes and the gays if sincere have the freedom to obtain their cakes at a variety of places and circumstances. Instead they shit fit over the one that chooses not to bake. Thus, they are not sincere but just trying to stir up a ruckus.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 27, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> Right you don't care what the SC says because you know you will lose in the SC. Just like I said.



Doesn't matter if we do or not.  We can still bring the homophobes to their knees (no pun intended) through litigation and new regulations.  

But it's unlikely SCOTUS will open a can of worms of "You can ignore this law if the voices in your head says you can."


----------



## WEATHER53 (Dec 27, 2018)

Your civil right to force one baker to bake for you
There is NO such civil right


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 27, 2018)

WEATHER53 said:


> Yes and the gays if sincere have the freedom to obtain their cakes at a variety of places and circumstances. Instead they shit fit over the one that chooses not to bake. Thus, they are not sincere but just trying to stir up a ruckus.



And I'm sure the folks in Montegeomry should have been happy riding on the back of the bus..


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 27, 2018)

WEATHER53 said:


> Your civil right to force one baker to bake for you
> There is NO such civil right



There are no 'rights' at all. Any fool who thinks he has 'rights' needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".  

What we have are privileges and laws.  And the underlying basis of most of our commerce law is "the Customer is always right."


----------



## sparky (Dec 27, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> And the underlying basis of most of our commerce law is "the Customer is always right."


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Dec 27, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?


That’s got to be one of stupidest attempts at analogy ever. _Ever_.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 27, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> There are no 'rights' at all. Any fool who thinks he has 'rights' needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".
> 
> What we have are privileges and laws.  And the underlying basis of most of our commerce law is "the Customer is always right."


Not always.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 27, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > There are no 'rights' at all. Any fool who thinks he has 'rights' needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".
> ...


Fuck political correctness


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 27, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > There are no 'rights' at all. Any fool who thinks he has 'rights' needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".
> ...





Rustic said:


> Fuck political correctness


You can't force people to contribute their talent to rituals, ideals or behaviors that are repugnant to their core value system, religious or not.  That is what the Court WILL FIND.  They've already said in the last Opinion on this that a man can't be forced to abandon his faith in the marketplace.

So...again deviant sex cultists....brace yourselves.  That's what the Opinion really said when you boil it way down to the bottom of the pan.  It said "brace yourselves deviant sex cultists..our next Ruling if forced to make it will be much more comprehensive and favoring faith as a personal right".  They will, naturally, also have to make the distinction about an informed merchant and what one is born as vs what behaviors one practices addictively.


----------



## WEATHER53 (Dec 27, 2018)

I can’t discrininate about you working for me but I can decide if I want to work for you


----------



## deanrd (Dec 27, 2018)

Discriminate against the gays today

and tomorrow

Some Mexicans don't rape

A Mexican can't be a good judge

That's why we need to defeat Republicans.  Their racism and hatred makes them stronger and more animated.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 28, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> You can't force people to contribute their talent to rituals, ideals or behaviors that are repugnant to their core value system, religious or not. That is what the Court WILL FIND. They've already said in the last Opinion on this that a man can't be forced to abandon his faith in the marketplace.



So how do you do this without letting the racists throw black people out of their stores?  I promise you, there are racists who hate black people with all the same fury you hate gays... 



Silhouette said:


> So...again deviant sex cultists....brace yourselves. That's what the Opinion really said when you boil it way down to the bottom of the pan. It said "brace yourselves deviant sex cultists..our next Ruling if forced to make it will be much more comprehensive and favoring faith as a personal right". They will, naturally, also have to make the distinction about an informed merchant and what one is born as vs what behaviors one practices addictively.



Actually, what the ruling said is 'Man, we don't want to rule on this, because we don't want to open this can of worms.  Can you all go back and work it out?"  

But no. The gays are getting pretty sick of putting up with Christian homophobes...


----------



## sparky (Dec 28, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> They've already said in the last Opinion on this that a man can't be forced to abandon his faith in the marketplace.



two gays _refused_ at a pharmacy.......resturaunt....airport.....




WEATHER53 said:


> I can’t discrininate about you working for me but I can decide if I want to work for you



yup....




JoeB131 said:


> So how do you do this without letting the racists throw black people out of their stores? I promise you, there are racists who hate black people with all the same fury you hate gays...





JoeB131 said:


> Actually, what the ruling said is 'Man, we don't want to rule on this, because we don't want to open this can of worms. *Can you all go back and work it out*?"



Kennedy's cleverly worded dissertation did _exactly _that.  This is what happens when we _stack_ the supreme deck w/ rwingers.

And so, by proxy of the collectivist common freedom denominator, we_ all_ go down a notch 

because of religmo's , who's ideal _goal_ is the American crusades 

~S~


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes and the gays if sincere have the freedom to obtain their cakes at a variety of places and circumstances. Instead they shit fit over the one that chooses not to bake. Thus, they are not sincere but just trying to stir up a ruckus.
> ...



Except that they had to ride in the back of ALL the busses. Inconvenient detail, but true. To make a valid comparison, you'd have to have ONE bus driver who made them ride in the back, while the others let them sit wherever they wanted.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 28, 2018)

WEATHER53 said:


> I can’t discrininate about you working for me but I can decide if I want to work for you



Well obviously you should also be able to discriminate about who works for you. And you can, except for a few reasons. Which of course affords certain classes extra protections which violates the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 28, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Well obviously you should also be able to discriminate about who works for you. And you can, except for a few reasons. Which of course affords certain classes extra protections which violates the 14th Amendment.


You really need to get comfortable with the difference between innate traits like race or gender vs acquired ones like behaviors, ideals & rituals.

The Court will soon make everyone except LGBT comfortable with this.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 28, 2018)

The 14th Amendment is about to be scrutinized with a scanning electron microscope.


----------



## WEATHER53 (Dec 28, 2018)

Liberals must still believe in slavery if they want people to be forced to work for people against their will. I guess it’s not surprising as they started slavery.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 28, 2018)

WEATHER53 said:


> Liberals must still believe in slavery if they want people to be forced to work for people against their will. I guess it’s not surprising as they started slavery.


Well it all depends on innate things vs behavioral.  You can't discriminate based on race or gender.  You can on behaviors ideals and rituals.  That's the long and the short of the story.


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 28, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> One thing to consider, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever been killed with a wedding cake.



To the best of my knowledge, a gun has never killed anyone.


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 28, 2018)

Asclepias said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> > does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?
> ...



As a black BOY, the only view you're allowed to have is the one you're given.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 28, 2018)

hadit said:


> Except that they had to ride in the back of ALL the busses. Inconvenient detail, but true. To make a valid comparison, you'd have to have ONE bus driver who made them ride in the back, while the others let them sit wherever they wanted.



Um, no, it's actually a valid comparison.  Some people actually enforced the law, some were a little more lax.  The guy who called the cops on Rosa Parks was a specifically nasty turd.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 28, 2018)

WEATHER53 said:


> Liberals must still believe in slavery if they want people to be forced to work for people against their will. I guess it’s not surprising as they started slavery.



Nope.  If the homophobic baker doesn't want to bake a cake for gay people, they can do something else in life besides be bakers.


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 28, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Except that they had to ride in the back of ALL the busses. Inconvenient detail, but true. To make a valid comparison, you'd have to have ONE bus driver who made them ride in the back, while the others let them sit wherever they wanted.
> ...



She violated the law.    Why do you support breaking the laws?


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 28, 2018)

Conservative65 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > One thing to consider, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever been killed with a wedding cake.
> ...


Damn dude, that's one long shakey semantic limb you are climbing out on.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 28, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals must still believe in slavery if they want people to be forced to work for people against their will. I guess it’s not surprising as they started slavery.
> ...


That’s not what the Court found nor indicated. 

 Behaviors aren’t race. Brace yourself...


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 28, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Nothing to do with semantics.  It has to do with the fact that no gun have ever killed anyone.   Can you provide a video of a gun growing arms/legs, walking to where it fires, and pulling its own trigger?   

Better luck next time, BOY.


----------



## WEATHER53 (Dec 28, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals must still believe in slavery if they want people to be forced to work for people against their will. I guess it’s not surprising as they started slavery.
> ...


No, in fact, the cake seekers are the party who can go elsewhere.


----------



## WEATHER53 (Dec 28, 2018)

If you follow liberal thinking it’s pretty much the following:
Girl Scouts come to my door selling their cookies and I buy some
The Transgender Alliance comes to my door and I don’t buy their cookies. Liberals want to know what I’m thinking about not buying and buying  and if it does not match their thoughts(feelings) then I should be in trouble.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 29, 2018)

Conservative65 said:


> She violated the law. Why do you support breaking the laws?



Because laws that are stupid and evil deserve to be violated... 

Today Rosa is considered a hero.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 29, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> That’s not what the Court found nor indicated.
> 
> Behaviors aren’t race. Brace yourself...



Why, you guys have already lost.  Roberts is already being more moderate beause he knows that if the Court goes too far to the right, there will be reactions. 



WEATHER53 said:


> No, in fact, the cake seekers are the party who can go elsewhere.



Um, no. Commerce law MUST favor the consumer by definition. The burden is on the seller, not the buyer, to comply with the law. 

_Caveat Vendor_!


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 29, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals must still believe in slavery if they want people to be forced to work for people against their will. I guess it’s not surprising as they started slavery.
> ...





WEATHER53 said:


> No, in fact, the cake seekers are the party who can go elsewhere.


Unless the rejection is about race or gender.  But behavior, ideals, rituals?  Yeah, nobody can force other people to promote those if they go against their moral structure.




JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > That’s not what the Court found nor indicated.
> ...


Moderates expect their moral structure to be respected and their 1st Amendment rights preserved.  The reaction from the far left is irrelevant since moderates swing the elections.  No worries there.  And the conservatives on the Court know this from the reaction in 2016 to the "T" element of the LGBT cult forcing little girls in school to undress in front of deranged boys.  That's a moderate rejection you'll never be able to bridge; not even by force...​


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 29, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Unless the rejection is about race or gender. But behavior, ideals, rituals? Yeah, nobody can force other people to promote those if they go against their moral structure.



It's a fucking cake, dude.  

It has nothing to do with 'ritual". Wedding Cakes aren't even a Christian thing, they are a pagan Roman Tradition. If they bakers wanted to be "Traditional", they should make cakes that look like dicks and vaginas, just like the Romans did.  



Silhouette said:


> Moderates expect their moral structure to be respected and their 1st Amendment rights preserved. The reaction from the far left is irrelevant since moderates swing the elections. No worries there. And the conservatives on the Court know this from the reaction in 2016



Uh, guy the Democrats won by 3 million votes in 2016 and 10 million votes in 2018...  There's no OH MY GOD THE TRANNIES ARE COMING movement.  

When Trump wrecks the economy this year, the GOP will be sent so far back into the corner we will never see them again, and you homophobes can go with them. If you are really lucky, we won't send you to Tolerance Camp.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 29, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Unless the rejection is about race or gender. But behavior, ideals, rituals? Yeah, nobody can force other people to promote those if they go against their moral structure.





JoeB131 said:


> It's a fucking cake, dude.
> 
> It has nothing to do with 'ritual". Wedding Cakes aren't even a Christian thing, they are a pagan Roman Tradition. If they bakers wanted to be "Traditional", they should make cakes that look like dicks and vaginas, just like the Romans did.


Actually a "gay wedding cake" is a ritual celebrating two males perverting the natural idea of marriage.  It doesn't have to do with the bible.  An atheist can object to participation in any ritual he finds morally offensive to his person.  The 1st Amendment isn't going to be dissolved so the deviant sex addiction cult can force it's value system on others.

Rituals, ideals or behaviors cannot be forced on others to promote.  Informing the merchant that a product he produces will go to celebrate a repugnant ritual is key.  Once informed, the merchant has the right to say no to any ritual he finds repulsive.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 29, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Actually a "gay wedding cake" is a ritual celebrating two males perverting the natural idea of marriage. It doesn't have to do with the bible. An atheist can object to participation in any ritual he finds morally offensive to his person. The 1st Amendment isn't going to be dissolved so the deviant sex addiction cult can force it's value system on others.
> 
> Rituals, ideals or behaviors cannot be forced on others to promote. Informing the merchant that a product he produces will go to celebrate a repugnant ritual is key. Once informed, the merchant has the right to say no to any ritual he finds repulsive.



I'm just laughing because the Ad Generator put a Gay Cruise advertisement on Sil's Post, which is kind of appropriate.  

Okay, let's break this down. 

Cakes aren't part of the ritual for straights or gays.  They are mentioned nowhere in the bible.  

Atheists can object all they want, but if they a running a public accommedation, they are still required to provide the services they offer.  

Once informed, the mechant has the option of closing up shop and finding something else to do for a living, which is what we did to Memories Pizza and Melissa's Sweet Cakes.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 29, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, let's break this down.
> 
> Cakes aren't part of the ritual for straights or gays.
> 
> ...


1. Cakes are absolutely part of the nuptial ceremony/ritual

2. Once informed the merchant has the right to say "no" to participating in or contributing to a ritual, ideal or behavior he or she finds morally offensive.

This is how the Court will rule.  It has already indicated this Sparky by telling you last time that a merchant cannot be punished for carrying his faith into his trade.  Individuals of race or gender are actually born that way so they cannot be excluded.  Behaviors, rituals and ideals are optional to contribute to.

So if not unruly, a woman, black guy, gay guy walks in and wants a cake, mentions no ritual it is connected to, they sell them the cake.  If it's a wedding cake the gay guy still can just say "make a basic wedding cake" (he might be buying it for a normal couple).  But once he says "make it Steve loves Bruce" or "two grooms" or "man loves man", that is in indication of a ceremony a Christian (or other) baker would/might find offensive.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 29, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> 1. Cakes are absolutely part of the nuptial ceremony/ritual



Really?  Is the cake in the church?  So is the chicken dance part of the ritual?  What about the Hokey-Pokey?  

You see how absurd you sound? 



Silhouette said:


> 2. Once informed the merchant has the right to say "no" to participating in or contributing to a ritual, ideal or behavior he or she finds morally offensive.





Silhouette said:


> This is how the Court will rule. It has already indicated this Sparky by telling you last time that a merchant cannot be punished for carrying his faith into his trade.



Again, the Court won't open that can of worms... Once you say it's okay to discriminate against gays because of "religion", then you say it's okay to discriminate against blacks or Mormons or Jews or anyone else you think is 'immoral' in your whacky religious view.  



Silhouette said:


> So if not unruly, a woman, black guy, gay guy walks in and wants a cake, mentions no ritual it is connected to, they sell them the cake. If it's a wedding cake the gay guy still can just say "make a basic wedding cake" (he might be buying it for a normal couple). But once he says "make it Steve loves Bruce" or "two grooms" or "man loves man", that is in indication of a ceremony a Christian (or other) baker would/might find offensive.



Okay, what if it's a black guy and a white chick, and the baker finds that morally offensive?


----------



## hadit (Dec 29, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Except that they had to ride in the back of ALL the busses. Inconvenient detail, but true. To make a valid comparison, you'd have to have ONE bus driver who made them ride in the back, while the others let them sit wherever they wanted.
> ...



No, not valid, as I showed. The law does NOT prevent all gay people from getting wedding cakes, so it fails right there.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 29, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, what if it's a black guy and a white chick, and the baker finds that morally offensive?



Loving v Virginia said that race means they can marry. A man & woman as was allowed in that state.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 30, 2018)

hadit said:


> No, not valid, as I showed. The law does NOT prevent all gay people from getting wedding cakes, so it fails right there.



And not every bus driver enforced the "You got to move back" rule when more white people showed up. 



Silhouette said:


> Loving v Virginia said that race means they can marry. A man & woman as was allowed in that state.



Obergefell said a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman.  You have no leg to stand on.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 30, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Obergefell said a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman.  You have no leg to stand on.


Except that Obergefell was an illegal Hearing because one of the Justices was required by law to recuse herself & didnt.. and a dozen other serious legal flaws in the rationale. 

You can’t violate law to bind 300 million people against their will to a cult ideal.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 30, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Except that Obergefell was an illegal Hearing because one of the Justices was required by law to recuse herself & didnt.. and a dozen other serious legal flaws in the rationale.



Yes I'm sure you tell yourself that and it's not because of your irrational hatred of gay people. 

Hopefully, they will find a treatment for your homophobia some time soon. 



Silhouette said:


> You can’t violate law to bind 300 million people against their will to a cult ideal.



You know what, most of those 300 million are just fine with gay folks.  It's going to be homophobes like you who are increasingly in the minority. 

Once again, stand on your desk tomorrow and scream out your opinions on gays out loud. Make sure you have a cardboard bankers box at the ready to clean out your desk.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 30, 2018)

OK Sparky, keep telling yourself that..


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 30, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Except that *Obergefell was an illegal Hearing because one of the Justices was required by law to recuse herself & didnt*.. and a dozen other serious legal flaws in the rationale.
> ...



I'm saying that because it is cold hard fact.  Ginsburg announced to the nation in media weeks in advance of the Hearing that she felt despite how so many states were opposed that gay marriage was something that America is ready for.  That's announcing pure, distilled bias, with the intent to thwart the will of the People using her judicial seat.​


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 30, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> I'm saying that because it is cold hard fact. Ginsburg announced to the nation in media weeks in advance of the Hearing that she felt despite how so many states were opposed that gay marriage was something that America is ready for. That's announcing pure, distilled bias, with the intent to thwart the will of the People using her judicial seat.



Except the will of the people was to legalize it.  That was the point she was making.  You see, they wouldn't have been ready for that ruling when it was just Massachusetts... but when all but five states had legalized it through legislation or the courts... 

Um. Yeah. The people were ready.  

I mean, you aren't.  

Here's the real reason why Gay Marriage is the law of the land. 

Because at the end of the day, all the homophobes had to argue was they thought it was icky.  

when it was two dudes, anyway. When it's two chicks, it was kind of "Can I watch?"


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 30, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > I'm saying that because it is cold hard fact. Ginsburg announced to the nation in media weeks in advance of the Hearing that she felt despite how so many states were opposed that gay marriage was something that America is ready for. That's announcing pure, distilled bias, with the intent to thwart the will of the People using her judicial seat.
> ...


Yeah, except the most liberal state in the Union had recently voted it down twice and it was illegal in the majority of states at the time Obergefell was Heard.  Sorry.  Even if the majority of people in states had been for gay marriage, which was most factually not the case, a Justice overseeing state powers or sovereignty in all states under her watch cannot speak in favor of an idea those alleged minority states clearly rejected; an issue of sovereignty pending before her in the Court just weeks away...  Obergefell was an illegal hearing.  Cut and dried.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 30, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Yeah, except the most liberal state in the Union had recently voted it down twice and it was illegal in the majority of states at the time Obergefell was Heard.



Um... no. Sorry, at the time it was heard, it was legal in most of the states. 






Blue is where it was legal.  



Silhouette said:


> Even if the majority of people in states had been for gay marriage, which was most factually not the case, a Justice overseeing state powers or sovereignty in all states under her watch cannot speak in favor of an idea those alleged minority states clearly rejected; an issue of sovereignty pending before her in the Court just weeks away... Obergefell was an illegal hearing. Cut and dried.



Um, no, she made an obvious observation that when 80% of the country had already approved it, it was time to make a ruling.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 30, 2018)

In California at that time it was and still is illegal in their Constitution. An initiative in that state can only be undone by the People. That has never happened.

Perhaps you forgot to mention that Obergefell’s illegal ruling retroactively gave the stamp of approval to the one gay judge from SF performing judicial fiat on Prop 8?  You know, the guy who was retiring anyway who at the time wanted to marry his boyfriend?

Other state legislators heavily packed/influenced pro gay despite their constituents’ wishes to the opposite performed similar acts of tyranny. So that explains quite a few blue states doesn’t it?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 31, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> In California at that time it was and still is illegal in their Constitution. An initiative in that state can only be undone by the People. That has never happened.



Yet tens of thousands of gay people are married in CA... Funny, that. 



Silhouette said:


> Perhaps you forgot to mention that Obergefell’s illegal ruling retroactively gave the stamp of approval to the one gay judge from SF performing judicial fiat on Prop 8? You know, the guy who was retiring anyway who at the time wanted to marry his boyfriend?



No, didn't forget it...  Just pointing out that at the time it was passed, it was already legal in most of the country.  Because after a long national discussion, we found, "Homophobes think it's icky" wasn't a good legal reason. 



Silhouette said:


> Other state legislators heavily packed/influenced pro gay despite their constituents’ wishes to the opposite performed similar acts of tyranny. So that explains quite a few blue states doesn’t it?



Doesn't matter, guy.  The thing is, you've lost this issue.  which is why you are whining so hard about, "But don't make me bake a cake!!!!"  

Too bad. Gays can get married, you got to bake the fucking cake.  Deal with it.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 31, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Doesn't matter, guy.  The thing is, you've lost this issue.  which is why you are whining so hard about, "But don't make me bake a cake!!!!"
> 
> Too bad. Gays can get married, you got to bake the fucking cake.  Deal with it.


Illegal judicial fiat does matter when it steals state sovereignty. Obergefell & it’s myriad of underling judicial & legislative chicanery overturned in just two short years Windsor’s 56 affirmations that marriage definition belongs to the state’s.  And it did so without valid citation of a Condtitutional basis in rationale. There is no category in the Constitution written or implied that just some deviant sex addictions but not others have equal footing to race, gender & country of origin. 

As the much distressed & late Justice Scalia said not long before he was found dead at his favorite resort with a pillow over his head, Obergefell was a voodoo Ruling.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 31, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Illegal judicial fiat does matter when it steals state sovereignty. Obergefell & it’s myriad of underling judicial & legislative chicanery overturned in just two short years Windsor’s 56 affirmations that marriage definition belongs to the state’s. And it did so without valid citation of a Condtitutional basis in rationale. There is no category in the Constitution written or implied that just some deviant sex addictions but not others have equal footing to race, gender & country of origin.



Actually, they had a valid affirmation in the 14th Amendment, as found by dozens of lower courts.  

But here's the REAL reason why you guys lost on this one.  Because big corporations have decided that this is no longer a fight they want to fight, not even to keep stupid white people from voting against their own economic interests.  





Silhouette said:


> As the much distressed & late Justice Scalia said not long before he was found dead at his favorite resort with a pillow over his head, Obergefell was a voodoo Ruling.



are you saying the gays killed Scalia?   Can we get them to whack Uncle Thomas, too?  But not until after the 2020 election and Trump is thrown out on his can.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Dec 31, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?


no


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Dec 31, 2018)

*Forcing people to do something that is against their religion is a violation of their 1st amendment rights.
It's like forcing a Muslim merchant to sell beer or forcing a Jewish Deli to sell ham.
BTW has everyone else noticed that the Left never tries to force Muslim Bakers to make gay wedding cakes?*


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 31, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > In California at that time it was and still is illegal in their Constitution. An initiative in that state can only be undone by the People. That has never happened.
> ...



Right-wingers seem never to be able to come up with a legally valid argument for their stands on social issues. All they do is try to state their ideological views in legally neutral terms. This is why we need judicial officials who are willing and able to see through this nonsense.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 31, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Illegal judicial fiat does matter when it steals state sovereignty. Obergefell & it’s myriad of underling judicial & legislative chicanery overturned in just two short years Windsor’s 56 affirmations that marriage definition belongs to the state’s. And it did so without valid citation of a Condtitutional basis in rationale. There is no category in the Constitution written or implied that just some deviant sex addictions but not others have equal footing to race, gender & country of origin.
> ...


However, dozens of lower courts owned by the left do not trump Windsor’s 56 affirmations that marriage definition is up to the states and not the fed. 

Two years later, a little smoke & mirrors & voodoo rationale citing language that simply doesn’t exist in the Constitution, Obergefell ripped that sovereignty away for just some deviant sex addictions, but not others...get this...citing the 14th Amendment (of blind comprehensive & inclusive equality) as support for their incomplete list of new additions to the Constitution...added by the judicial branch in violation of separation of powers.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 31, 2018)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Forcing people to do something that is against their religion is a violation of their 1st amendment rights.
> It's like forcing a Muslim merchant to sell beer or forcing a Jewish Deli to sell ham.
> BTW has everyone else noticed that the Left never tries to force Muslim Bakers to make gay wedding cakes?



Muslim bakers aren't the ones making a stink.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 31, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> However, dozens of lower courts owned by the left do not trump Windsor’s 56 affirmations that marriage definition is up to the states and not the fed.



Except that the Fed already decided that they have the authority with Loving v. Virginia striking down mixed marriage laws.  Try again. 



Silhouette said:


> Two years later, a little smoke & mirrors & voodoo rationale citing language that simply doesn’t exist in the Constitution, Obergefell ripped that sovereignty away for just some deviant sex addictions, but not others...get this...citing the 14th Amendment (of blind comprehensive & inclusive equality) as support for their incomplete list of new additions to the Constitution...added by the judicial branch in violation of separation of powers.



again, sometimes you need the Judicial branch to get the Legislative branch off it's ass.  

Not seeing a problem here.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 31, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> Right-wingers seem never to be able to come up with a legally valid argument for their stands on social issues. All they do is try to state their ideological views in legally neutral terms. This is why we need judicial officials who are willing and able to see through this nonsense.


Why not just coronate a king or queen & dispense with the interim march towards the destruction of democracy?

You understand that the Congress only can change the Constitution; not judicial tyrannists, yes?


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 31, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> again, sometimes you need the Judicial branch to get the Legislative branch off it's ass.
> 
> Not seeing a problem here.


So you don’t see a problem with flagrant judicial overreach when it suits your cult agenda Sparky?  Why am I not shocked?  

Do you support judicial overreach in the new conservative Court?  Say on issues like illegal aliens or transgender crap?  No?  Then a court’s powers should be reined in, right?


----------



## SweetSue92 (Dec 31, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Would you also force Muslim bakers to serve gay weddings? Because that will happen.

Or do Muslims get special rights.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Dec 31, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Forcing people to do something that is against their religion is a violation of their 1st amendment rights.
> ...



I just asked this of our resident Greek non-goddess. 

You should know that there are plenty and plenty of gay conservatives now that would be thrilled to go into Muslim bakeries and force them to make a gay wedding cake. What say you? Happy? Good for the Christians, good for the Muslims, Joey?


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 31, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Muslim bakers aren't the ones making a stink.


Muslim bakers most certainly are refusing gay wedding cakes. 

Define “making a stink”?


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 31, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I don't understand what your obsession with Muslims is, but at any rate, normally a baker does not attend the event in question. Everybody has to do his or her damned job or get out of the business. You fundies always want special rights, and whine loudly if you don't get them, so you have no right to talk.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Dec 31, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



Didn't answer the question. Should the MUSLIM baker be forced to bake the same cake you want the Christian bakers to be forced to make?

I'm going to consider a dodge a "no, I think Muslims should have special rights".


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 31, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> Didn't answer the question. Should the MUSLIM baker be forced to bake the same cake you want the Christian bakers to be forced to make?
> 
> I'm going to consider a dodge a "no, I think Muslims should have special rights".



Exactly.


----------



## mdk (Dec 31, 2018)

Only certain people are allowed to refuse service. The rest of you peasants have to bake the cake.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 31, 2018)

mdk said:


> Only certain people are allowed to refuse service. The rest of you peasants have to bake the cake.


Not if it means you are being forced to contribute something to behaviors ideals or rituals you find fundamentally repugnant to your moral code. That would be the State establishing a religion.  And violation of 1st Amendment civil rights.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 31, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?


Baking a cake for someone marrying for the third or fourth time is participating in adultery.  But this never seems to bother the so-called Christian bible-compliant bakers.

When a Kentucky clerk has been married married four times herself while she refuses to sign a state marriage license for a couple marrying the first time is apparently a blessed act.

Jesus said nothing about gays, but he said a helluva lot about hypocrites.


]


----------



## g5000 (Dec 31, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Only certain people are allowed to refuse service. The rest of you peasants have to bake the cake.
> ...


*
Matthew 19:9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."




*


----------



## g5000 (Dec 31, 2018)




----------



## g5000 (Dec 31, 2018)

Vote Trump Family Values™, but for GOD'S SAKE DON'T BAKE A CAKE FOR A HOMO!


----------



## mdk (Dec 31, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Only certain people are allowed to refuse service. The rest of you peasants have to bake the cake.
> ...



I find people that violate the 1st Commandment fundamentally repugnant and yet I still have to serve them regardless of my moral code. You want the right to refuse service for you and people you like, but the rest of us are afforded no such luxury. You get have your cake and eat it too. It should come as no surprise to anyone that you’re a raging hypocrite.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 31, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Baking a cake for someone marrying for the third or fourth time is participating in adultery.  But this never seems to bother the so-called Christian bible-compliant bakers.
> 
> When a Kentucky clerk has been married married four times herself while she refuses to sign a state marriage license for a couple marrying the first time is apparently a blessed act.
> 
> Jesus said nothing about gays, but he said a helluva lot about hypocrites.



This isn't just about Jesus or Christianity.  It's about anyone's fundamental belief system.  Nobody can be forced to celebrate behaviors, ideals or rituals they find morally wrong.  1st Amendment.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 31, 2018)

mdk said:


> I find people that violate the 1st Commandment fundamentally repugnant and yet I still have to serve them regardless of my moral code. You want the right to refuse service for you and people you like, but the rest of us are afforded no such luxury. You get have your cake and eat it too. It should come as no surprise to anyone that you’re a raging hypocrite.


Then you'll be happy to know that how the new Court will find on this, you no longer will have to promote any ideals, behaviors or rituals you disagree with.  Now if you simply refuse to sell food to someone because of their religion, you're fucked.  Just like if you refuse to sell food to someone who is gay.  But if you refuse to bake an easter cake or refuse a same sex wedding cake, you'll all be good to go.

That's how the Ruling will be.  It solves many, many problems.  Behavioral vs innate.  And you'll recall long ago mdk I told you this is how it would all eventually wash out.  You had a good run selling behaviors "as race".  But that game is over.  And like I said, I'd be darned careful before I paid lawyers to argue in front of Justice Thomas about how butt sex is equal to his noble race..


----------



## mdk (Dec 31, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > I find people that violate the 1st Commandment fundamentally repugnant and yet I still have to serve them regardless of my moral code. You want the right to refuse service for you and people you like, but the rest of us are afforded no such luxury. You get have your cake and eat it too. It should come as no surprise to anyone that you’re a raging hypocrite.
> ...



Some deeply held religious beliefs are more equal than others. Not shockin that your standards seeming only ever apply to fags and exempt everyone else.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 31, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Baking a cake for someone marrying for the third or fourth time is participating in adultery.  But this never seems to bother the so-called Christian bible-compliant bakers.
> ...


Except you, I, and everyone else knows this has nothing to do with religion.  It is about hate, and nothing but hate.  It is about hypocrites using the bible as a shield for their hate.  Just like their KKK predecessors.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 31, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Except you, I, and everyone else knows this has nothing to do with religion.  It is about hate, and nothing but hate.  It is about hypocrites using the bible as a shield for their hate.  Just like their KKK predecessors.


No for me it’s the same as how I feel about necrophiliac kinks. I feel revulsion, shock & pity for someone doing that. When I see what AIDS does to gay men’s population, you can add alarm. But hate just isn’t in that lineup.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> So you don’t see a problem with flagrant judicial overreach when it suits your cult agenda Sparky? Why am I not shocked?
> 
> Do you support judicial overreach in the new conservative Court? Say on issues like illegal aliens or transgender crap? No? Then a court’s powers should be reined in, right?



When the courts restrict rights, they should be reigned in. 

Yes. 

But since I consider Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to be illegal appointments, nothing they say interests me.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> Didn't answer the question. Should the MUSLIM baker be forced to bake the same cake you want the Christian bakers to be forced to make?
> 
> I'm going to consider a dodge a "no, I think Muslims should have special rights".



Can you cite a case where one refused?


----------



## Karl Rand (Jan 1, 2019)

This nonsense over a cake has gone of far too long without anyone asking why any self respecting gay couple would want to have their wedding cake made by a pair of bigoted so called Christians. I don’t get it.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Jan 1, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't answer the question. Should the MUSLIM baker be forced to bake the same cake you want the Christian bakers to be forced to make?
> ...



What does that matter? There are increasingly gay conservatives all over the place, that will find Muslim bakers, florists, photographers and FORCE them to serve their weddings. Are you equal opportunity, Joe? If it's good enough to force Christians is it good enough to force Muslims? Or do Muslims get special rights?

This is an easy question.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2019)

Karl Rand said:


> This nonsense over a cake has gone of far too long without anyone asking why any self respecting gay couple would want to have their wedding cake made by a pair of bigoted so called Christians. I don’t get it.



I don't think it's a matter of wanting THAT particular cake from that particular baker. 

I think its a matter of assuring that they have access to goods, services and products, just like everyone else does.  

Here's how the Christian Bakers could solve their problem.  Put up a big sign in their store that says, *"We consider gay marriage to be immoral, but we will comply with public accommodation laws. However, please be advised that all proceeds from a Gay Wedding Cake will be donated to Gay Conversion Therapy clinics*."


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> What does that matter? There are increasingly gay conservatives all over the place, that will find Muslim bakers, florists, photographers and FORCE them to serve their weddings. Are you equal opportunity, Joe? If it's good enough to force Christians is it good enough to force Muslims? Or do Muslims get special rights?
> 
> This is an easy question.



Not really... since by your own admission, no one has ever found a Muslim Baker committing the offenses you say, then it's kind of a moot point.  

Most Muslims in this country keep their heads down because the last thing they want to do is give any white bigot an excuse to go after them.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Jan 1, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > What does that matter? There are increasingly gay conservatives all over the place, that will find Muslim bakers, florists, photographers and FORCE them to serve their weddings. Are you equal opportunity, Joe? If it's good enough to force Christians is it good enough to force Muslims? Or do Muslims get special rights?
> ...



So your inability to address the point means you think Muslims should be excluded then. Correct? Muslims photographers should not be forced to photograph gay weddings; only Christians should.

Okay, then, Joe, we know where you stand. That's just straight up bigotry against Christians.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> So your inability to address the point means you think Muslims should be excluded then. Correct? Muslims photographers should not be forced to photograph gay weddings; only Christians should.



Again, where is the case where this happened?   

We have SPECIFIC Cases of Christians refusing service to gays, that's what we are litigating here.. not something that didn't happen.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> Okay, then, Joe, we know where you stand. That's just straight up bigotry against Christians.



Again, not the issue here.  The issue is what the laws are and how they should be applied.  When you have a specific case of Mulsims refusing service to ANYONE, then I will address it.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Jan 1, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > So your inability to address the point means you think Muslims should be excluded then. Correct? Muslims photographers should not be forced to photograph gay weddings; only Christians should.
> ...



Muslims would be living under the VERY SAME precepts set out for Christians, and BELIEVE me, there are gay conservatives just waiting to test that out. Believe it. You haven't answered Joe, and that means you're not okay with that, right? _*You don't want to force Muslims to serve gay marriages*_, just Christians. Which I understand about Leftists. Believe me.

My animus is not toward the Muslims who, like Christians, have mostly sincere moral opposition to gay marriage. 

It's with you seething hypocrites who can't even say, "yes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander", so bigoted you are against Christians. And so blinded by the "diversity glamour" of Muslims, which is sad. Like middle school girls with crushes on anything in a hijab or with brown skin. It's intellectually so weak a position, it's reprehensible. 

I understand this, Joe. A lot of us do. Understanding it does not make it any more acceptable.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Jan 1, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, then, Joe, we know where you stand. That's just straight up bigotry against Christians.
> ...



You can't address it only because you have an inconsistent, hypocritical stance, which anyone can see. You have no problem addressing any other hypotheticals in other situations. 

This is absolutely cowardly and anyone can see it, Joe. You might as well come out and say what you mean: Muslims can refuse service and I'd be fine with that. It's schoolyard games you're playing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> Muslims would be living under the VERY SAME precepts set out for Christians, and BELIEVE me, there are gay conservatives just waiting to test that out. Believe it. You haven't answered Joe, and that means you're not okay with that, right? _*You don't want to force Muslims to serve gay marriages*_, just Christians. Which I understand about Leftists. Believe me.



Again, bring me a case, and I will evaluate the merits..  until then, you are talking out of your backside.



SweetSue92 said:


> It's with you seething hypocrites who can't even say, "yes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander", so bigoted you are against Christians. And so blinded by the "diversity glamour" of Muslims, which is sad. Like middle school girls with crushes on anything in a hijab or with brown skin. It's intellectually so weak a position, it's reprehensible.



Here's the difference.. in this country, Muslims aren't trying to impose their value system on the rest of us.  in their own countries, that's kind of not our problem. 

You give me a case where a Muslim violated the law, I'll be just as keen on making sure they get the same punishment that the Christians got.

I kind of look at other countries like Star Trek's Prime Directive. It's not our place to interfere, because, frankly, we'll probably make things worse.  A lot of the fundamentalism you see in the Islamic World today is a reaction to Western imperialism.



SweetSue92 said:


> I understand this, Joe. A lot of us do. Understanding it does not make it any more acceptable.



No, most of us won't buy into your racism because you try to dress it up in a "progressive" suit. Nobody really thinks you care about Islamic women or gays.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Jan 1, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Muslims would be living under the VERY SAME precepts set out for Christians, and BELIEVE me, there are gay conservatives just waiting to test that out. Believe it. You haven't answered Joe, and that means you're not okay with that, right? _*You don't want to force Muslims to serve gay marriages*_, just Christians. Which I understand about Leftists. Believe me.
> ...



"Islam" isn't a race, it's a choice. It's an ideology. Or is it okay if I call you "racist" because you hate Christianity? Hey, that would be a whole new start to the new year wouldn't it, Joe?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> "Islam" isn't a race, it's a choice. It's an ideology. Or is it okay if I call you "racist" because you hate Christianity? Hey, that would be a whole new start to the new year wouldn't it, Joe?



It would be kind of a retarded start.  I am assuming you didn't make a resolution to sound less retarded this year.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Jan 1, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > "Islam" isn't a race, it's a choice. It's an ideology. Or is it okay if I call you "racist" because you hate Christianity? Hey, that would be a whole new start to the new year wouldn't it, Joe?
> ...



Joe, at least I don't call gays _*"Old Dykes in habits"*_, do I?

Are You Going to Hell?

You know, I'm really less and less impressed with Leftists as I go here. You best not ever, and I mean ever, accuse me of "hating gays" ever again Joe.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 1, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, where is the case where this happened?
> 
> We have SPECIFIC Cases of Christians refusing service to gays, that's what we are litigating here.. not something that didn't happen.


There was a specific case YouTubed of a Muslim baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for two men.


----------



## hadit (Jan 1, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Baking a cake for someone marrying for the third or fourth time is participating in adultery.  But this never seems to bother the so-called Christian bible-compliant bakers.
> ...



In today's culture, Political Correctness trumps anything so archaic as the law.


----------



## hadit (Jan 1, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > So you don’t see a problem with flagrant judicial overreach when it suits your cult agenda Sparky? Why am I not shocked?
> ...



Yet their opinion on cases means a whole lot, while your's means, well, nothing. That's the problem when your wishes conflict with reality.


----------



## hadit (Jan 1, 2019)

Karl Rand said:


> This nonsense over a cake has gone of far too long without anyone asking why any self respecting gay couple would want to have their wedding cake made by a pair of bigoted so called Christians. I don’t get it.



It's easy to understand when you realize their actual motivation. If all they wanted was a cake, they would have simply go down the street to another bakery., but that's not what the Christophobes were after. They wanted to harass. When you realize that, it's easy to understand.


----------



## hadit (Jan 1, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > SweetSue92 said:
> ...



Christophobes are like that.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jan 1, 2019)

I support gay marriage quite fully.

That being said, there is a fine line between the right to equal accommodation and the right to free expression.  

If a gay couple were to walk into a bakery, spot a cake and ask to purchase it for their wedding, the baker should not be allowed to refuse them service.

If the same gay couple were to walk into the same baker and require certain art work or words be created just for their cake, the baker should be allowed to refuse.


----------



## Karl Rand (Jan 1, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Karl Rand said:
> 
> 
> > This nonsense over a cake has gone of far too long without anyone asking why any self respecting gay couple would want to have their wedding cake made by a pair of bigoted so called Christians. I don’t get it.
> ...


Interesting idea unless Gay ‘Conversion’ Therapy is illegal in that state which in my view it should be.


----------



## Karl Rand (Jan 1, 2019)

g5000 said:


> Except you, I, and everyone else knows this has nothing to do with religion.  It is about hate, and nothing but hate.  It is about hypocrites using the bible as a shield for their hate.  Just like their KKK predecessors.


They’ll come back at you with ‘Love the sinner, not the sin’.
The elephant in the room is the use of a so called holy book to justify certain behaviours.
Centuries of mistranslation, forgery and misinterpretation of scripture have been used to justify homophobia when modern biblical studies reveal that text as used by ’true believers' today is anything but The Word of God. The danger comes with fundamentalism which deliberately ignores the last several years of biblical studies. The obsession with what others do in the bedroom appears even more peculiar if we examine the hundreds of other prohibitions (sins) listed in the bible that fundamentalists choses to totally ignore.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 1, 2019)

Karl Rand said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Except you, I, and everyone else knows this has nothing to do with religion.  It is about hate, and nothing but hate.  It is about hypocrites using the bible as a shield for their hate.  Just like their KKK predecessors.
> ...


The Bible will not be consulted in any Court proceedings on this issue. Behaviors, ideals & rituals of any sort will not be allowed to be forced on anyone whose personal moral code conflicts.  Be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, agnostic or atheist. 

An atheist, for example, may have very strong personal convictions on a marriage contract binding kids away from either a mother or father for life.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> Joe, at least I don't call gays _*"Old Dykes in habits"*_, do I?
> 
> Are You Going to Hell?
> 
> You know, I'm really less and less impressed with Leftists as I go here. You best not ever, and I mean ever, accuse me of "hating gays" ever again Joe.



Oh, please... I'm not the one who wants to deprive them of basic human rights because the One Percenters have played on your sexual fears.  

Although Sister Mary Butch was pretty scary, come to think of it. 

The problem with these women weren't that they were gay, it was that they were unable to come to terms with it and inflicted their misery on kids. 

Then again, if you are a lesbian and you get locked up with a bunch of other lesbians and you can't touch, you could get frustrated pretty quickly.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> I support gay marriage quite fully.
> 
> That being said, there is a fine line between the right to equal accommodation and the right to free expression.
> 
> ...



No, he shouldn't, unless he refuses to put writing on anyone's cake.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Jan 2, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Joe, at least I don't call gays _*"Old Dykes in habits"*_, do I?
> ...



No, what you do is worse. You assume their sexuality and call them names.

I typed you a long response in the other thread.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> No, what you do is worse. You assume their sexuality and call them names.
> 
> I typed you a long response in the other thread.



Yeah, and it was retarded deflection.  

Guess what, a Church that molests kids, burns heretics and collaborates with Nazis have no business telling me what is moral.  Full Stop.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Jan 2, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > No, what you do is worse. You assume their sexuality and call them names.
> ...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > SweetSue92 said:
> ...



So we should get over Clergy sexual abuse?   Really?  Is this what you are claiming?


----------



## SweetSue92 (Jan 2, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I'm claiming YOU should get over your personal animus. That you have been carrying around for 40 years....wow


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 2, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > No, what you do is worse. You assume their sexuality and call them names.
> ...


I don't know what the issue is you're having that this isn't a question of gays vs Christians.  It's a question of ideology vs ideology.  Since gay is not innate, it's a behavior.  As such it falls under acquired attributes of a person.  It's in the same category as addiction, ideals or rituals.

As such "gay" (what I've quite accurately coined as "the Cult Of LGBTQ etc. etc.") has zero rights to force others to participate in its theology.  ANYONE else.  Including Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, agnostics, atheists etc.  It's each individual person's moral code that is in question here, no matter if done at a building on Friday, Saturday, Sunday or what have you.

This is how the Court must examine the issues and this is how it will examine the issues.

At the end of the day, the Court will find that if a merchant is informed a product is going to serve a repugnant behavior, ideal or ritual he finds morally offensive, religious or not, that service can be legally denied to said customer.  I've given the example of an agnostic or atheist having strong convictions that no contract should exist that banishes a child from a mother or father for life.  No religion necessary but fundamental belief intact.  That too will be legally respected and no person can be forced via financial threats or jail to abandon that fundamental belief.

So, enjoy your terrorism and your targeting of Christians, Christophobes.  It's all for naught.  You will NOT force any American to convert to your religion.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> I'm claiming YOU should get over your personal animus. That you have been carrying around for 40 years....wow



When the religious nutters stop trying to tell the rest of us how to live, I will get past it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> I don't know what the issue is you're having that this isn't a question of gays vs Christians. It's a question of ideology vs ideology. Since gay is not innate, it's a behavior. As such it falls under acquired attributes of a person. It's in the same category as addiction, ideals or rituals.



Religion is more of a behavior than sexuality.. 

One more time, WHEN did you decide to be straight.  If you claim that sexual orientation is a choice, then there had to be a point where you decided on one or the other.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 2, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Religion is more of a behavior than sexuality..
> 
> One more time, WHEN did you decide to be straight.  If you claim that sexual orientation is a choice, then there had to be a point where you decided on one or the other.


You’re getting good at this!

No gay baker has to bake normal sexual (sex in biology evolved to procreate = male+female) people a wedding cake if the idea of promoting such an abomination to him runs against his grain. 

See how easy this is?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 3, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> You’re getting good at this!
> 
> No gay baker has to bake normal sexual (sex in biology evolved to procreate = male+female) people a wedding cake if the idea of promoting such an abomination to him runs against his grain.
> 
> See how easy this is?



No gay baker would turn down good money.


----------



## hadit (Jan 3, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what the issue is you're having that this isn't a question of gays vs Christians. It's a question of ideology vs ideology. Since gay is not innate, it's a behavior. As such it falls under acquired attributes of a person. It's in the same category as addiction, ideals or rituals.
> ...



Of course, it happens right about the time you discover that girls aren't icky after all and your body starts changing. That's why it's extremely difficult to believe someone who says they knew they were gay when they were three.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 3, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> I don't know what the issue is you're having that this isn't a question of gays vs Christians. It's a question of ideology vs ideology. Since gay is not innate, it's a behavior. As such it falls under acquired attributes of a person. It's in the same category as addiction, ideals or rituals.





JoeB131 said:


> Religion is more of a behavior than sexuality..
> 
> One more time, WHEN did you decide to be straight.  If you claim that sexual orientation is a choice, then there had to be a point where you decided on one or the other.





hadit said:


> Of course, it happens right about the time you discover that girls aren't icky after all and your body starts changing. That's why it's extremely difficult to believe someone who says they knew they were gay when they were three.



Yep.  They say "I always knew I was attracted to my same gender."  ALL CHILDREN ARE NATURALLY DRAWN TO THEIR SAME GENDER.  As friends!  The introduction of a sexual component to that natural anthropological fact in gender segregation well known in children is an adult add-on.  So, somewhere an adult has inappropriately coerced a child to believe that their natural affinity for their own gender at that age is somehow sexual.  Which is child psychological tampering or put more simply, child sexual abuse.

So, they aren't "born that way" sexually.  They are made that way by tampering, by interference, by inappropriate influence at pivotal ages.  The fact that in that CDC survey published in Psychiatry Today of 3,000 (early 2005) gay men found their having been molested (inappropriately tampered with by adults) was "an epidemic" (words not chosen lightly by the CDC) is the underscore and bold italics on that point. 

And somehow we as a society should force others to promote that DAMAGE to a person "as normal" under threat of financial penalty?  Not on my watch.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 4, 2019)

hadit said:


> Of course, it happens right about the time you discover that girls aren't icky after all and your body starts changing. That's why it's extremely difficult to believe someone who says they knew they were gay when they were three.



Oh, I don't know, I've seen kids at that age where I've said, "Yup, that kid's going to grow up to be queer" and they did.  



Silhouette said:


> And somehow we as a society should force others to promote that DAMAGE to a person "as normal" under threat of financial penalty? Not on my watch.



Sorry, buddy.  Gays are accepted now, and it's you homophobes who are going to have to hide in the closet, now.


----------



## hadit (Jan 4, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, it happens right about the time you discover that girls aren't icky after all and your body starts changing. That's why it's extremely difficult to believe someone who says they knew they were gay when they were three.
> ...



What you're describing is effeminate, not gay. Gay is sexual attraction, something that does not develop until puberty. You may also be describing transgenderism, which is not the same as gay.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 4, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, it happens right about the time you discover that girls aren't icky after all and your body starts changing. That's why it's extremely difficult to believe someone who says they knew they were gay when they were three.
> ...



You're not alone.  Many people are adept at spotting the signs of tampering or molestation in children.  Too bad the kid you saw wasn't refereed to counseling when there was still time to reach him before he was imprinted for life with an addiction to HIV-sex.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 4, 2019)

hadit said:


> What you're describing is effeminate, not gay. Gay is sexual attraction, something that does not develop until puberty. You may also be describing transgenderism, which is not the same as gay.



yet the effeminate kid at 4 often ends up being the gay kid at 16.  Funny how that works.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 4, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > What you're describing is effeminate, not gay. Gay is sexual attraction, something that does not develop until puberty. You may also be describing transgenderism, which is not the same as gay.
> ...


Yes, signs of molestation in children often do a full bloom of tampering-effect by the time they're adolescents.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 4, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> Yes, signs of molestation in children often do a full bloom of tampering-effect by the time they're adolescents.



Wouldn't know... that wasn't what I was describing. 

Now, what I will note is that often these were boys who didn't have fathers or had fathers who were only marginally involved in their lives.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 4, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, signs of molestation in children often do a full bloom of tampering-effect by the time they're adolescents.
> ...


So you believe that fathers are necessary in boys' lives.  I guess you're not in favor of lesbian weddings?  

And, you seem to be suggesting that a lack of a father means that another creeper dude has easier access to the unprotected boy.  Either way, you noticed signs of "gayness" (sexual qualities) in a young boy.  That should've been your immediate red flag to get the boy to help.


----------



## hadit (Jan 4, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > What you're describing is effeminate, not gay. Gay is sexual attraction, something that does not develop until puberty. You may also be describing transgenderism, which is not the same as gay.
> ...



That's stereotyping. You know, not very PC.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 5, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> So you believe that fathers are necessary in boys' lives. I guess you're not in favor of lesbian weddings?



Nope, never said that... but that's okay. 

I don't consider growing up gay to be the end of the world.  

Incidently, I knew of two lesbians who raised three kids, they all turned out fine and straight. 



hadit said:


> That's stereotyping. You know, not very PC.



When did I ever say I was "PC"?  I am about as un-PC as you get.  



Silhouette said:


> And, you seem to be suggesting that a lack of a father means that another creeper dude has easier access to the unprotected boy. Either way, you noticed signs of "gayness" (sexual qualities) in a young boy. That should've been your immediate red flag to get the boy to help.



I suggested nothing of the sort, and you really need to stop projecting your latent homosexuality into the world.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 5, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> So you believe that fathers are necessary in boys' lives. I guess you're not in favor of lesbian weddings?





JoeB131 said:


> Nope, never said that... but that's okay.
> 
> I don't consider growing up gay to be the end of the world.
> 
> Incidently, I knew of two lesbians who raised three kids, they all turned out fine and straight.



You actually did say that a boy that was unusually effeminate probably didn't have a father.  People can look at the last page you know...

And, two lesbians, three kids all normal?  Kind of shoots the old "born that way" theory in the kneecap a little bit more, eh?  I mean if one of the dykes were the kids' mom you'd think a genetic predisposition might show up in one of them?  BTW, which lesbian played the feminine one and which played the butch/man/father one that the feminine one for some reason is attracted to...as a lesbian?...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 5, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> You actually did say that a boy that was unusually effeminate probably didn't have a father. People can look at the last page you know...



And?  



Silhouette said:


> And, two lesbians, three kids all normal? Kind of shoots the old "born that way" theory in the kneecap a little bit more, eh?



No, it just means they all got the "Straight" gene when their mothers were pretending to be straight.  



Silhouette said:


> BTW, which lesbian played the feminine one and which played the butch/man/father one that the feminine one for some reason is attracted to...as a lesbian?...



Oh, they were definitely a "Butch/Fem" couple.  In fact, the first time I met her girlfriend, I thought she was a dude.  (I only saw her from the neck up driving a car.)


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 5, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > You actually did say that a boy that was unusually effeminate probably didn't have a father. People can look at the last page you know...
> ...


So what if they’re pretending to be gay?  If a woman is attracted to someone who on all appearances looks like a man, is she not closeted hetero? 

The confusion is rampant. Born that way?  Nope.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 5, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> So what if they’re pretending to be gay? If a woman is attracted to someone who on all appearances looks like a man, is she not closeted hetero?



Um... no.  But I'm sure you have convinced yourself that tranny you picked up in a bar made you totally hetero....


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 6, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > So what if they’re pretending to be gay? If a woman is attracted to someone who on all appearances looks like a man, is she not closeted hetero?
> ...


Ad hominem. So you are in a corner again. 

You know that behaviors that are waffling, in denial & confused cannot possibly have the same legal footing in the 14th Amendment as static things like race or gender.  So ad hominem is all you have.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 6, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> Ad hominem. So you are in a corner again.
> 
> You know that behaviors that are waffling, in denial & confused cannot possibly have the same legal footing in the 14th Amendment as static things like race or gender. So ad hominem is all you have.



Well, we all agree, you are in denial about your latent homosexuality... how's "Praying Away the Gay" working for ya, buddy?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 6, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Ad hominem. So you are in a corner again.
> ...


OK, a diversion works also to foil that you're losing ground...

The topic is the gay marriage wedding cake issue and how the Court will likely rule.  Do you think they will find that an incomplete listing of waffling, confused, in-denial sexual addictions are on the same legal footings as to protections with race and gender via the 14th?  Or not?

Even your ad hominems betray your failure in argument.  You're talking about "latent" this and that.  As I can point out many latent HETEROsexual tendencies in gays.  All of which paint a very muddy picture of a very uncertain genesis of a most definite BEHAVIORAL origin adopted after birth.  I mean, you're going to give just your pet favorite deviant behaviors special class protection or do ALL deviant behaviors get protection then under the 14th?

You understand how the 14th works, right?  

Lawrence v Texas decriminalized sodomy in the privacy of one's home.  Not in the County clerk's office or at your local baker.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 6, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> OK, a diversion works also to foil that you're losing ground...
> 
> The topic is the gay marriage wedding cake issue and how the Court will likely rule. Do you think they will find that an incomplete listing of waffling, confused, in-denial sexual addictions are on the same legal footings as to protections with race and gender via the 14th? Or not?



Yup, they will because you can't undo 50 years of PA laws by saying there's a religious exemption to obeying a law you are otherwise stuck with.  

Otherwise, every racist, anti-Semite, anti- whatever can use that as an excuse.  Not a can of worms the court will open. 



Silhouette said:


> Even your ad hominems betray your failure in argument. You're talking about "latent" this and that. As I can point out many latent HETEROsexual tendencies in gays. All of which paint a very muddy picture of a very uncertain genesis of a most definite BEHAVIORAL origin adopted after birth. I mean, you're going to give just your pet favorite deviant behaviors special class protection or do ALL deviant behaviors get protection then under the 14th?



Yes, yes, we get that... you only pick up pre-op trannies in bars who are dressed like women, so that makes you totally not gay.  Just keep telling yourself that. I know you really need to believe it.  I'm sure all your visits to gay porn sites and the collection of gay porn you keep posting here is pure research....  I know you really need to believe that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 6, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> Lawrence v Texas decriminalized sodomy in the privacy of one's home. Not in the County clerk's office or at your local baker.



Quite right.  Lewd acts in public are always against the law, no matter who performs them...  I'm sure that if a straight couple did anal in a bakery, they'd have issues with that , too.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 7, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> ...you can't undo 50 years of PA laws by saying there's a religious exemption to obeying a law you are otherwise stuck with.
> 
> Otherwise, every racist, anti-Semite, anti- whatever can use that as an excuse.  Not a can of worms the court will open.


The Court actually can uphold the 1st Amendment when it comes to behaviors, ideals & rituals that others, belonging formally to a religion or not, do not want to promote or participate in.

The key will be “did the client inform you this was for a behavior, ritual or ideal you find morally offensive?” 

And, the Courts have undone 100 years of slavery laws & discrimination based on innate things like race or gender. So the amount of time a custom has been unconstitutional for has no effect on Rulings.

There is nothing written or implied in the Constitution about just some deviant sex kinks but not others. The “but not others” is in direct violation of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 7, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> The Court actually can uphold the 1st Amendment when it comes to behaviors, ideals & rituals that others, belonging formally to a religion or not, do not want to promote or participate in.



Um, no, they've already ruled on this with the Piggy Park decision, when some racist cracker tried to claim his religion said he didn't have to serve black people. 

If you don't want to participate in an activity... you have a remedy. Do something else for a living. 



Silhouette said:


> And, the Courts have undone 100 years of slavery laws



Actually, the courts did nothing of the sort.  Dred Scott. The constitution allowed for slavery and that was it.  It took a constitutional amendment to end slavery.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 7, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Um, no, they've already ruled on this with the Piggy Park decision, when some racist cracker tried to claim his religion said he didn't have to serve black people.
> 
> If you don't want to participate in an activity... you have a remedy. Do something else


You do have a reading problem. Race is innate & isn’t a ritual or ideal or behavior. It has nothing to do with deviant sex addicts. And as I warned before, I would advise against making the comparison in front of Justice Thomas.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 7, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> You do have a reading problem. Race is innate & isn’t a ritual or ideal or behavior. It has nothing to do with deviant sex addicts. And as I warned before, I would advise against making the comparison in front of Justice Thomas.



I don't worry about Uncle Thomas, he's a fucking idiot.  

You have 8 other justices who know that once you allow a religious exemption to laws, you'll have people claiming that they can murder people because they are worshiping Quetzalcoatl


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 7, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> I don't worry about Uncle Thomas, he's a fucking idiot.
> 
> You have 8 other justices who know that once you allow a religious exemption to laws, you'll have people claiming that they can murder people...


The justices are sophisticated enough to delineate a person’s right to passive refusal to participate vs an illegal act of violence they try to justify doing to another.  Also to sift out innate classes from a partial list of adopted deviant sex kinks. 

Trying to get favor with the Court by calling Justice Thomas “Uncle Tom”?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 7, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> The justices are sophisticated enough to delineate a person’s right to passive refusal to participate vs an illegal act of violence they try to justify doing to another. Also to sift out innate classes from a partial list of adopted deviant sex kinks.
> 
> Trying to get favor with the Court by calling Justice Thomas “Uncle Tom”?



Oh, I didn't know i was personally pleading it...  I must have missed that part.  

Yeah, Clarance is an "Uncle Tom".  

Sorry, man, once you start saying, "This law doesn't count if I'm really sincere about my sky fairy", you've pretty much eliminated law.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 7, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Sorry, man, once you start saying, "This law doesn't count if I'm really sincere about my sky fairy", you've pretty much eliminated law.


When you say sky fairy you are talking about any deeply held convictions & faith.  

Thing is, YOU can’t eliminate the 1st Amendment. In the last Ruling with this baker the court says a person can’t be punished for maintaining their faith in the marketplace.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 8, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> When you say sky fairy you are talking about any deeply held convictions & faith.



Again, those Aztecs who were sacrificing people had deeply held convictions and faith, too.  








Silhouette said:


> Thing is, YOU can’t eliminate the 1st Amendment. In the last Ruling with this baker the court says a person can’t be punished for maintaining their faith in the marketplace.



Sure you can.  You can believe any backward ass bronze age superstitions you want, as long as they don't effect anyone else. 

If your backward ass bronze age superstitions prevent you from providing the services you offered for sale, then you need to find something else to do for a living.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 8, 2019)

Those practices are just as legitimate as two dudes forcing kids to not ever know a mother via contract. Just as barbaric. 

And all you said doesn’t change that the Court has already found that a person can’t be punished in the marketplace for refusing to celebrate rituals, ideals or behaviors they find morally repugnant.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 9, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> Those practices are just as legitimate as two dudes forcing kids to not ever know a mother via contract. Just as barbaric.



Uh, dude, 50% of marriages end in divorce... By your logic, people should be kept in marriages as long as there are kids involved.  

Never gonna happen. 



Silhouette said:


> And all you said doesn’t change that the Court has already found that a person can’t be punished in the marketplace for refusing to celebrate rituals, ideals or behaviors they find morally repugnant.



No, the court just found they shouldn't have said mean things about his bronze age superstitions...


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 9, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Those practices are just as legitimate as two dudes forcing kids to not ever know a mother via contract. Just as barbaric.
> ...


Courts in divorce spend over half the time making settlement guaranteeing kids continue to get their benefit from the contract in contact continuing with both mother and father; unless there is a safety issue. 

 Next?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 9, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> Courts in divorce spend over half the time making settlement guaranteeing kids continue to get their benefit from the contract in contact continuing with both mother and father; unless there is a safety issue.




That's why we have so many deadbeat and absentee dads, because the courts are doing a bang up job.  

Hey, here's a crazy idea, before you tell the gays what they should or shouldn't be doing, maybe get your own house in order.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 9, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Courts in divorce spend over half the time making settlement guaranteeing kids continue to get their benefit from the contract in contact continuing with both mother and father; unless there is a safety issue.
> ...


I don’t have a contract banning children from a father or mother for life.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 10, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> I don’t have a contract banning children from a father or mother for life.



Sure you do. It's called "No Fault Divorce".  You can walk away from a marriage free and clear, if you want to. 

So I think it's hysterical that you get all upset that a few gay people who get married might adopt kids when you have millions of kids who by your weird definition, are being harmed by divorce.  

Reality.  Kids are usually fine.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 10, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > I don’t have a contract banning children from a father or mother for life.
> ...


Divorce by gays are harming too.  So all things equal we return to the topic, which is what children got out of marriage (and divorce): a mother and father both.  Like you had.  Like I had. That benefit was stolen from them illegally in 2015 without their participation at the negotiation table.  Indeed the Court went to lengths to ban them and "speak for them" on their behalf.  Even to the point of denying those with gay parents the right to submit amicus briefs about their unpleasant experiences being legally denied either a mother or father for life.

The Hearing was rigged against kids while using kids as rationale to deprive kids of their key benefit of marriage.  It was like tying up a rape victim and then screaming above their screams _"they LOVE this!....this is GOOD for them!!"..._


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 11, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> Divorce by gays are harming too. So all things equal we return to the topic, which is what children got out of marriage (and divorce): a mother and father both. Like you had. Like I had. That benefit was stolen from them illegally in 2015 without their participation at the negotiation table.



Yeah, but you see, my parents wanted to stay married.  no one forced them to stay married.  When my eldest sister was born out of wedlock, no one forced her sperm donor to marry my mom.  It's called "Freedom", something you guys are all for when applied to white straight people. 

I know gay couples who've done a fine job, and I know straight couples who have the parenting skills of feral wolves.  



Silhouette said:


> That benefit was stolen from them illegally in 2015 without their participation at the negotiation table. Indeed the Court went to lengths to ban them and "speak for them" on their behalf. Even to the point of denying those with gay parents the right to submit amicus briefs about their unpleasant experiences being legally denied either a mother or father for life.



Yeah, they need to work out their daddy issues somewhere else.  I hear that Polekatz is hiring. 








Silhouette said:


> The Hearing was rigged against kids while using kids as rationale to deprive kids of their key benefit of marriage. It was like tying up a rape victim and then screaming above their screams _"they LOVE this!....this is GOOD for them!!"..._



AGAIN, no one is forcing straight people to stay in bad marriages,and gay folks were having kids LONG before Obergefell.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 11, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> AGAIN, no one is forcing straight people to stay in bad marriages,and gay folks were having kids LONG before Obergefell.



Your strawmen are nice. But we don’t set standards based on exceptions. Sorry your childhood sucked. We set standards based on the propensity of data that shows kids over all do best with both a mother & father. I’m sure some kids who never wear seat belts come out just fine. But that’s not the standard we set. 

There have never been two people of the same gender who have made kids together. There is always a father & mother.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 11, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> Your strawmen are nice. But we don’t set standards based on exceptions. Sorry your childhood sucked. We set standards based on the propensity of data that shows kids over all do best with both a mother & father. I’m sure some kids who never wear seat belts come out just fine. But that’s not the standard we set.



I'm debating reporting you for attacking my family. 

Okay, let's look at that.  50% of marriages end in divorce. That's actually the "Norm".  People stay married long enough to realize what a bad idea it was.  (This is why I'm all for gay marriage. Why should just the straights have to suffer.) 



Silhouette said:


> There have never been two people of the same gender who have made kids together. There is always a father & mother.



No, there's always been a mother and a sperm donor.  Not every sperm donor deserves to be called a father.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 11, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> I'm debating reporting you for attacking my family.....
> No, there's always been a mother and a sperm donor.  Not every sperm donor deserves to be called a father.


Be sure to report your own post #546 when you do. I was responding to your tale of woe in your family.

Again, you seem to be trying to set standards from exceptions, not the rule. Just because some kids have survived not wearing seatbelts, doesn’t mean we change the standards we know suit all children best.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 11, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> Be sure to report your own post #546 when you do. I was responding to your tale of woe in your family.



Okay... reported.  Gave you a chance to apologize, you didn't. 



Silhouette said:


> Again, you seem to be trying to set standards from exceptions, not the rule. Just because some kids have survived not wearing seatbelts, doesn’t mean we change the standards we know suit all children best.



um, no, i don't think i want the government regulating households the way they regulate traffic.  I don't think you do, either.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 11, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Again, you seem to be trying to set standards from exceptions, not the rule. Just because some kids have survived not wearing seatbelts, doesn’t mean we change the standards we know suit all children best.
> ...


Driving requires a license. Marriage requires a license. There are qualifiers for both. Blind people or those who don’t agree to strap kids in safety belts don’t get a license. Two people seeking a contract to banish kids involved from a mother or father for life don’t get a license in most states prior to illegal Obergefell.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 12, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> Driving requires a license. Marriage requires a license. There are qualifiers for both. Blind people or those who don’t agree to strap kids in safety belts don’t get a license. Two people seeking a contract to banish kids involved from a mother or father for life don’t get a license in most states prior to illegal Obergefell.



Um, actually, prior to Obergefell, the country looked like this. 






It was already legal in most states.  

Sorry, here's the thing.  The ability to have kids and marriage licenses are TWO SEPARATE THINGS.   

Lots of people get married with absolutely NO INTENT to have kids. 

Lots of people have kids with no intents to get married.  

Nobody stays in an unhappy marriage because of the kids unless they are stupid.  They actually do more damage that way.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 12, 2019)

Which states by legislative or judicial fiat?  I know for a fact CA still has gay marriage as illegal in the state Constitution. Once Obergefell’s plethora of fatal legal flaws are revisited, states where democracy on the question was stolen, like CA, will have standing to reverse the theft.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 12, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> Which states by legislative or judicial fiat? I know for a fact CA still has gay marriage as illegal in the state Constitution. Once Obergefell’s plethora of fatal legal flaws are revisited, states where democracy on the question was stolen, like CA, will have standing to reverse the theft.



You keep telling yourself that guy, but here's what I keep explaining to you. 

Big Corporations, the TRUE MASTERS of the right, have decided this is no longer a fight they want to have.   They've told the politicians and the judges this is no longer a fight they want to have. 

The Court isn't going to undo millions of marriages to make a few religious bigots happy.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 12, 2019)

Overturning illegal Obergefell will not nullify the current motherless/fatherless marriage contracts. Divorce will take care of that via attrition. It will however return the power to the individual states & restore Windsor as the law of the land. 

California & many other states will then have to turn back to the voters and ask their permission.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> Overturning illegal Obergefell will not nullify the current motherless/fatherless marriage contracts. Divorce will take care of that via attrition. It will however return the power to the individual states & restore Windsor as the law of the land.
> 
> California & many other states will then have to turn back to the voters and ask their permission.



Naw, guy, Obergefell won't be overturned because the court won't declare that they are just another political body, whose decisions can be turned to meet a political need. 

I don't think you want to give it back to the voters...  It would be very bad for you...

Poll: Approval of same-sex marriage in U.S. reaches new high


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 13, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, guy, Obergefell won't be overturned because the court won't declare that they are just another political body, whose decisions can be turned to meet a political need.


Well see now that’s funny. Because that is what the Court did with Windsor using Obergefell just two short years later. So a fundamental reversal of powers governing gay marriage nationwide has already happened. And with light speed.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> Well see now that’s funny. Because that is what the Court did with Windsor using Obergefell just two short years later. So a fundamental reversal of powers governing gay marriage nationwide has already happened. And with light speed.



Most sensible people saw Windsor setting the stage for Obergefell, but I'm sure that you really need to believe that homophobia is still popular even though even the Right wants the issue to go away.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 13, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Well see now that’s funny. Because that is what the Court did with Windsor using Obergefell just two short years later. So a fundamental reversal of powers governing gay marriage nationwide has already happened. And with light speed.
> ...


How do 56 reiterations in Windsor saying states exclusively have the power to regulate marriage & the fed does not...turn into “setting the stage” for the Court to say now just five unelected federal lawyers have all the power taken from states” to grant just some deviant sex behaviors (but not others) the “right” to marry”...citing the all-inclusive 14th Amendment?

That’s like saying Roe v Wade was setting the stage to make abortion illegal.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> How do 56 reiterations in Windsor saying states exclusively have the power to regulate marriage & the fed does not...turn into “setting the stage” for the Court to say now just five unelected federal lawyers have all the power taken from states” to grant just some deviant sex behaviors (but not others) the “right” to marry”...citing the all-inclusive 14th Amendment?
> 
> That’s like saying Roe v Wade was setting the stage to make abortion illegal.



Well, since you want to use THAT comparison, let's play. 

There's actually a whole lot of stuff in Roe v. Wade that allows the states to set limits on abortions...  Almost all of which were set aside by Doe. v. Boland, which stated that the health of the mother overruled any concerns for the fetus. The court realized what they had done, as they issued both rulings on the same day. 

Now, by comparison, Windsor did leave the states some wiggle room, but essentially declared that for Federal purposes, if one state recognized a gay marriage, all the other states had to as well. Just like you an marry your first cousin in Texas or a 14 year old in Virginia. 

So pretty much after Windsor, all the lower courts started ruling in favor of gay marriage and setting aside state laws. That's pretty much what the court was setting it up for.


----------



## deanrd (Jan 13, 2019)

The people who really hate gays. 
The people who really hate blacks.
The people who really hate Hispanics. 
The people who really hate Muslims. 
The people who really hate women’s rights.
 The people who really hate education. 

 Odd how they all ended up in the Republican Party.


----------



## hadit (Jan 13, 2019)

deanrd said:


> The people who really hate gays.
> The people who really hate blacks.
> The people who really hate Hispanics.
> The people who really hate Muslims.
> ...



You need to get out more.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 13, 2019)

deanrd said:


> The people who really hate gays.
> The people who really hate blacks.
> The people who really hate Hispanics.
> The people who really hate Muslims.
> ...


Women’s rights?  You mean the right to privacy to undress in their segregated personal hygiene chambers without deranged males getting naked right next to them?

That’s a republican platform?  Really?

And how about the right to compete against just their own gender in sporting events?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> Women’s rights? You mean the right to privacy to undress in their segregated personal hygiene chambers without deranged males getting naked right next to them?
> 
> That’s a republican platform? Really?
> 
> And how about the right to compete against just their own gender in sporting events?



Oh, noes, a man competed in a sport no one cares about that we only have because feminists insisted we should have it!!!!  

This is a national tragedy, I tell you.  Making the Lesbians play with the trans men!!!


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 13, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, noes, a man competed in a sport no one cares about that we only have because feminists insisted we should have it!!!!
> 
> This is a national tragedy, I tell you.  Making the Lesbians play with the trans men!!!


How about turning that into a singsong & before every debate in 2020 the democrats can play it over a loudspeaker?

Please?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> How about turning that into a singsong & before every debate in 2020 the democrats can play it over a loudspeaker?
> 
> Please?



Trust me, by the time Trump is done messing up the economy, the Dem Canidate could come out in Ed Wood level bad drag and still win. Easily.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 13, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Trust me, by the time Trump is done messing up the economy, the Dem Canidate could come out in Ed Wood level bad drag and still win. Easily.


Actually Dick Cheney destroyed our economy; which has remained destroyed for over a decade now.

I doubt Trump will be running in 2020.   If you are still having trannies win in women’s sports & entering their showers, dems are dead in the water no matter what year it is.

I think dem strategists should not believe me. They should keep up the tranny drumbeat.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> Actually Dick Cheney destroyed our economy; which has remained destroyed for over a decade now.
> 
> I doubt Trump will be running in 2020. If you are still having trannies win in women’s sports & entering their showers, dems are dead in the water no matter what year it is.
> 
> I think dem strategists should not believe me. They should keep up the tranny drumbeat.



Actually, unless he is impeached and removed, Trump is the candidate in 2020.  

But again, the economy will be in full recession by then, and funny thing about Willie Christian White Trash.  When the economy is bad, he puts his checkbook over his bible and he votes Democratic.  Happened in 1992, happened in 2008.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> and funny thing about Willie Christian White Trash.  When the economy is bad, he puts his checkbook over his bible and he votes Democratic.  Happened in 1992, happened in 2008.


That was before girls in school were ordered to undress in front of boys. 

Wanda-mamma blue collar of several races puts their common sense over their checkbook & votes conservative. Men taking wins from every women-only sporting club is going to be the icing on the cake.


----------



## hadit (Jan 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Women’s rights? You mean the right to privacy to undress in their segregated personal hygiene chambers without deranged males getting naked right next to them?
> ...



Yes, we know you have contempt for girls and women and that you have no substantive response. This is a gaping hole in your insane argument that you cannot deal with.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> That was before girls in school were ordered to undress in front of boys.
> 
> Wanda-mamma blue collar of several races puts their common sense over their checkbook & votes conservative. Men taking wins from every women-only sporting club is going to be the icing on the cake.



Nobody cares about this issue but you hard core homophobes... 

trust me, when people's 401K are crashing, they aren't going to give a fuck.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > That was before girls in school were ordered to undress in front of boys.
> ...


So they would vote for the party famous for levvying more taxes who also want to force girls to shower with boys in school?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> So they would vote for the party famous for levvying more taxes who also want to force girls to shower with boys in school?



Uh, yeah, dummy.  Most people think the rich should pay their fair share. and they don't obsess about gays 24/7 like you do because they are well adjusted in their sexuality.


----------



## hadit (Jan 15, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > So they would vote for the party famous for levvying more taxes who also want to force girls to shower with boys in school?
> ...



Interesting that you cannot distinguish between homosexuality and transgenderism.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 15, 2019)

hadit said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


Yes. Because if he admitted what he knows about trannies....that many remain sexually attracted to women, then the sell to force women & girls to shower next to them would be much harder.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> Yes. Because if he admitted what he knows about trannies....that many remain sexually attracted to women, then the sell to force women & girls to shower next to them would be much harder.



Meh, I still would not give a fuck.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 15, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. Because if he admitted what he knows about trannies....that many remain sexually attracted to women, then the sell to force women & girls to shower next to them would be much harder.
> ...


However, women do. And one woman in particular who will likely be sitting soon on the Court will give a fuck.  Unless late-80s Ginsburg pulls out of her nosedive.


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2019)

basquebromance said:


> does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "Christian" gun store owner participated in the murder?



I dunno. But if you have a gun for sale, and you think a potential buyer is a psychopath, should you be able to refuse?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> However, women do. And one woman in particular who will likely be sitting soon on the Court will give a fuck. Unless late-80s Ginsburg pulls out of her nosedive.



More masturbation....   

Trump isn't getting any more court picks.. He's done.


----------



## hadit (Jan 16, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. Because if he admitted what he knows about trannies....that many remain sexually attracted to women, then the sell to force women & girls to shower next to them would be much harder.
> ...



Which illustrates your lack of integrity and your misogyny and is why no one takes you seriously.


----------



## hadit (Jan 16, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > However, women do. And one woman in particular who will likely be sitting soon on the Court will give a fuck. Unless late-80s Ginsburg pulls out of her nosedive.
> ...



Literally false. Any openings in the next two years he gets to fill because he has the Senate. The only thing the democrats can do is scream bloody murder and pretend they're significant. Oh, and of course assassinate the character of anyone he appoints. They'll do that anyway. 

Do you honestly think Buzzy holds on for two more years?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 16, 2019)

hadit said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Yes. Many gay men are woman haters. They see “breeders” as competition for the dick they’re after. 

Sure like other scheming women, they’ll emulate the pretty ones, lisp, call them honey & go shopping with them.  It it’s just to get the right angle gauged for the knife they’ll stick in their back later. 

Sparky doesn’t care how women feel about deranged men taking over women’s sports or communal showers. Women were merely a vehicle for the gay male activists to gain a toehold on voter sympathy. That’s why them taking trannies into their plan was a serious miscalculation. 

So their new response  is simply “get used to it breeders” or “meh I don’t give a fuck”.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2019)

hadit said:


> Literally false. Any openings in the next two years he gets to fill because he has the Senate. The only thing the democrats can do is scream bloody murder and pretend they're significant. Oh, and of course assassinate the character of anyone he appoints. They'll do that anyway.
> 
> Do you honestly think Buzzy holds on for two more years?



Yeah, I think she does... 

And after Trump crashes the economy this year, he's pretty much done.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> Yes. Many gay men are woman haters. They see “breeders” as competition for the dick they’re after.



You'd know all about being a gay man, Sil.  It's been SCIENTIFICALLY established most homophobes are latent gays. 



Silhouette said:


> Sparky doesn’t care how women feel about deranged men taking over women’s sports or communal showers. Women were merely a vehicle for the gay male activists to gain a toehold on voter sympathy. That’s why them taking trannies into their plan was a serious miscalculation.



Okay, Sparky's a different person who joined 3 years before I did and has about a quarter the number of posts.  

Here's the thing.  Trannies are less than 0.3% of the population (including ladies who think they're dudes).   You not wanting them to exist doesn't mean they don't 

Where do you think they are peeing now?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 16, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Where do you think they are peeing now?


If they are men, in the men’s bathroom or individual unisex bathrooms. 

Just because a man thinks he is a woman doesn’t mean he is & can impose on women-only hygiene areas.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> If they are men, in the men’s bathroom or individual unisex bathrooms.



I'm sure you can comfort yourself in thinking that... but I promise you, most people aren't doing Junk Checks at the bathroom door.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 16, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > If they are men, in the men’s bathroom or individual unisex bathrooms.
> ...


They are doing Adam’z apple & 5 o’clock shadow checks though. And in the showers & locker rooms you’d better believe there’s a junk check.


----------



## dblack (Jan 16, 2019)

Silly & Wet - you still having those tranny nightmares?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2019)

Silhouette said:


> They are doing Adam’z apple & 5 o’clock shadow checks though. And in the showers & locker rooms you’d better believe there’s a junk check.



You go checking everyone's junk in the locker room?  Why am I not surprised.  

Okay, that was mean.  

You do realize that most trannies don't sport 5 oclock shadow, right?


----------

