# Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 4, 2018)

AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.

This will have a massive effect.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 4, 2018)

It wasn't the act of baking a cake that was denied to a customer.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 4, 2018)

Local laws are local laws in some cases the court sides with the business and in some cases the customer.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 4, 2018)

Interesting.  I think this is a good decision because few bakeries will turn down business for this reason.  Gays don't need that protection as they are not at risk of not being able to have their cake.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> 
> This will have a massive effect.



A link to the decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

A quick scan of it makes me think this isn't a 100% win for the baker. Their case goes back to the commission that made the original ruling, but the SC directs the commission they have to take into account the baker's religious beliefs, something they did not think the commission originally did.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 4, 2018)

7-2 decision.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 4, 2018)

I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
PA laws are fascist bullshit.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 4, 2018)

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court *didn’t* uphold liberty or the 1st Amendment in this case. What they essentially ruled on was that the _process_ was “wrong” in this case against the baker.

Hopefully, citizens will continue to fight for our 1st Amendment rights until the Supreme Court does actually rule in favor of baker’s and other companies exercising their *rights*.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 4, 2018)

martybegan said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> ...



Yup.  Those beliefs were discounted in the original case.  Now the free exercise clause must be applied.  It's quite a significant decision in the overall order of things.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> 
> This will have a massive effect.


That's fine....now let everyone know who a business will not serve.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 4, 2018)

TNHarley said:


> I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
> PA laws are fascist bullshit.


As long as PA laws are gone for ALL instances.    All instances.


----------



## Zander (Jun 4, 2018)

*Supreme Court rules *_narrowly_* for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake*

The lyin' media calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"...

 

Here's your cake!


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 4, 2018)

JoeMoma said:


> Interesting.  I think this is a good decision because few bakeries will turn down business for this reason.  Gays don't need that protection as they are not at risk of not being able to have their cake.


The owner offered to sell them other cakes, just not a wedding cake, I wonder if he does that to fornicators, adulterers or inter-racial relationships?


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 4, 2018)

Religion is just another tool of discrimination.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2018)

The 7-2 ruling returns the case to the commission directing them to review and take into consideration the religious views of the baker.

The commission, apparently, did not take those views into consideration in the original ruling.

The original law probably did not require such consideration, but considering the 1st Amendment's protection of religious belief, the commission should have at least mentioned why they were giving the PA requirements preference.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



The key is will the commission do the right thing, or double down on persecution.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> ...



This was never about point of sale items, as you are falsely implying. It was about a contracted service for an event the owner found to be immoral based on his beliefs. 

All this does is make the commission take this into account, and not ignore it like they did previously.


----------



## DJT for Life (Jun 4, 2018)

Not much to the link.  This has just happened.

5 or 6 year old case where Baker refused, on religious grounds and beliefs
that he wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  SCOTUS
overruled all the other courts in this case.

Notice one thing about the link, which is from CNN.  Their wording.  "A narrow
decision."  lol.  In SCOTUS rulings 7-2 isn't narrow, it's a fucking rout.

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> The 7-2 ruling returns the case to the commission directing them to review and take into consideration the religious views of the baker.



Pretty much how i read it. It also goes into a lot of opinion of where the line is to be established. 

I can see point of sale items being not covered under this, but contracted items covered in narrow situations, like a wedding ceremony.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Jun 4, 2018)

This is huge. Up until this point this guy had lost every legal battle but he finally won in the Supreme Court. There is hope for this country.

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

I use that link because it was hilarious they said they ruled narrowly in favor. It was a 7-2 to vote it wasn't even close


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 4, 2018)

No, he said he refused to sell them a wedding cake but offered to sell them other types of cakes...Plus there is already a thread on the subject.


----------



## Polishprince (Jun 4, 2018)

Glad to see a return to Freedom of Religion under Donald J. Trump's leadership.

Its the 500th Day of the Trump era, things are really moving along


----------



## dblack (Jun 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
> ...



Exactly. I haven't read the decision yet, but it sounds like this is another carve-out - special rights for special people. Refusing to serve another person, regardless of the reason, should be considered a basic human right. If this is just an exemption for government-approved religious beliefs, it misses the point entirely.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jun 4, 2018)

This is not the profound moment many anti-gay activists are looking for.

If you "think" we actually have any rights, look up "Civil Forfeiture", then get back to us.

Your rights have become subjective, depending on who is violating them and which judge hears the case.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Zander said:


> *Supreme Court rules *_narrowly_* for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake*
> 
> The lyin' media calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"...
> 
> ...



The 7-2 part is mostly that the commission erred in not considering the religious aspect of the situation.

The opinion on what the outcome should be after the commission decides again is far more narrow.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
> ...



No need to remove all PA laws, when they apply to an actual PA.

And the laws have to take into account the religious beliefs on any party involved.

To me this is the narrow decision that was needed, no more, no less.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 4, 2018)

JoeMoma said:


> Interesting.  I think this is a good decision because few bakeries will turn down business for this reason.  Gays don't need that protection as they are not at risk of not being able to have their cake.


But, can they have it and eat it, too?


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
> ...


Every damn one of them.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 4, 2018)

DJT for Life said:


> Not much to the link.  This has just happened.
> 
> 5 or 6 year old case where Baker refused, on religious grounds and beliefs
> that he wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  SCOTUS
> ...





DJT for Life said:


> Not much to the link.  This has just happened.
> 
> 5 or 6 year old case where Baker refused, on religious grounds and beliefs
> that he wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  SCOTUS
> ...



Basically it seems like they ruled in favor of the baker, but NOT in favor of all religious people who want to discriminate.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 4, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> Religion is just another tool of discrimination.


To some, the governments abuse of power is a religion.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> > Not much to the link.  This has just happened.
> ...



What they said is the religious beliefs of the people in question cannot be ignored, and have to be taken into account when deciding cases like this.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 4, 2018)

TNHarley said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Religion is just another tool of discrimination.
> ...


and the use of a religion to a human is like a drug..


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 4, 2018)

Opens up a can of worms allowing business to use religious beliefs to discriminate against anyone ....not just gays


----------



## S.J. (Jun 4, 2018)

Wow, 7-2.  Boy, that sure was a close one!


----------



## Pete7469 (Jun 4, 2018)

It's one thing to not provide services based on hating queers, but it shouldn't be illegal.

It's a whole other thing to not want to be involved in a gay wedding. Even just doing the cake, or catering, or being the photographer. It forces you to be somewhere you don't want to be.

RegressiveParasite is cutting and pasting furiously right now.


.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 4, 2018)

martybegan said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



If so, the legal path will be repeated.


----------



## dblack (Jun 4, 2018)

TNHarley said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Yep. If this is just an exemption for "sincerely held religious beliefs" (ie if this allows Christians to discriminate against gays, but not vice-versa) then it is not a victory for freedom.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



More than likely, and then the issue is how will the lower courts treat any appeals?


----------



## Pete7469 (Jun 4, 2018)

martybegan said:


> What they said is the religious beliefs of the people in question cannot be ignored, and have to be taken into account when deciding cases like this.



That's the only thing that should have been taken into account.

The words "Married / Gay" aren't even written in the constitution.

Freedom of Religion is. 


.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> The 7-2 ruling returns the case to the commission directing them to review and take into consideration the religious views of the baker.
> 
> The commission, apparently, did not take those views into consideration in the original ruling.
> 
> The original law probably did not require such consideration, but considering the 1st Amendment's protection of religious belief, the commission should have at least mentioned why they were giving the PA requirements preference.



The first amendment only states that congress shall make no law  respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

As far as I can tell there was no law made that prohibited the baker from exercising his religion.

Unless of course the baker provided the quote from his religious text that expressly says baking a cake for sinners is itself a sin


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Pete7469 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > What they said is the religious beliefs of the people in question cannot be ignored, and have to be taken into account when deciding cases like this.
> ...



A person's right to commerce has to be taken into account as well. What can't happen, as what happened with the CRC, is the religious aspect cannot be ignored.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jun 4, 2018)

Zander said:


> *Supreme Court rules *_narrowly_* for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake*
> 
> The lyin' media calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"...
> 
> ...



"Narrow" doesn't refer to the number of judges, it refers to the opinion itself.

The opinion is "narrow" in terms of the precedent it sets.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Jun 4, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> > Not much to the link.  This has just happened.
> ...



The SC ruled that the commission didn't consider the bakers religious beliefs and was very intolerant in their treatment of the baker.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The 7-2 ruling returns the case to the commission directing them to review and take into consideration the religious views of the baker.
> ...



It's not up to the government to decide how a person exercises their religion, unless there is a compelling government interest involved.

Saying "my religion allows me to murder people" is a compelling government interest. 

To me enforcing equality in point of sale transactions is a compelling government interest.

Asking a couple to spend 15 minutes finding another baker for a non time sensitive, non nessasary, easily replaceable service is not a compelling government interest.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

LordBrownTrout said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > DJT for Life said:
> ...



The gist of it is just that. Commissions like this cannot ignore a person's religious beliefs and their right to free exercise.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

martybegan said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You can argue that all you want but doesn't the bible tell Christians how to  practice their religion?

I'm just asking where in the bible it says it is a sin to bake cakes for sinners


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2018)

The commission is going to have inspect the inference that the bakers were interpreting their religious belief.

What happens if the government provides evidence of other Christian bakers who happily make cakes for gay and lesbian couples?


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 4, 2018)

Interesting development.

I think I'm beginning to smell the butthurt across the land.


----------



## Circe (Jun 4, 2018)

dblack said:


> Exactly. I haven't read the decision yet, but it sounds like this is another carve-out - special rights for special people. Refusing to serve another person, regardless of the reason, should be considered a basic human right. If this is just an exemption for government-approved religious beliefs, it misses the point entirely.



Good point. I entirely agree: we should all be free to limit who we sell to just as employers are generally able to fire anyone for any reason or no reason. Not being legally able to refuse to serve undesirables has led to a lot of trouble and degradation of public areas. 

It seems to me the burden should be on the customers: act right, don't be weird, and get to buy more stuff and go more places. Be criminal, be perverted, and not be wanted in decent stores and other businesses. 

The current meme seems to be that anyone can be as criminal and revolting as they want, and everyone still is supposed to pretend they're normal and treat it all as just fine. Well, it's NOT just fine. Most of us do whatever we have to, to get away from the aggressives, the criminals, and the perverted. 

The recent flap at Starbucks is a good example. Two black males came in, were NOT customers, wanted the code for the bathroom (both at once!!) either for homosexual activity or for a drug sale. Very properly, the staff called police when they refused to leave. So now all the Starbucks people are being trained to turn Starbucks into public accommodations, like libraries where all the homeless hang out. Will that spread to all the McDonalds, the Kentucky Fried Chicken places, everywhere, so that druggies and homeless and homosexuals take over completely and there are no fast food places for normals?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

This whole cake thing is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.

If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then the baker is a sinner because we all know he still bakes cakes for thieves, rapists, adulterers, murderers etc


----------



## Circe (Jun 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> The commission is going to have inspect the inference that the bakers were interpreting their religious belief.
> 
> What happens if the government provides evidence of other Christian bakers who happily make cakes for gay and lesbian couples?




Naaaah, that's not relevant. Too many varieties of religion: one per person, in this sort of case.

I don't like it. I want libertarian freedom, not this religious exception thing.

I suppose it's better than nothing: People grossed out by men marrying men at least have SOME recourse --- they can lie that it's against their religious beliefs. I don't much like lying. I'd rather we were free to do without the business of people we don't want around.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

Is baking a cake for a morbidly obese person a sin since by doing so the baker is approving of gluttony?


----------



## BookShaka (Jun 4, 2018)

This whole situation is ridiculous. The gay couple didn’t HAVE to go to that bakery to get a cake.


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> Religion is just another tool of discrimination.







Indeed it is, and you will never see a gay couple try and do this to a Islamic fundamentalist baker either.  I wonder why they only pick on christians?


----------



## usmcstinger (Jun 4, 2018)

It is the Law of the Land. Argue all you want. It will not change any thing.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> This whole cake thing is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.
> 
> If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then the baker is a sinner because we all know he still bakes cakes for thieves, rapists, adulterers, murderers etc





Skull Pilot said:


> If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then the baker is a sinner because we all know he still bakes cakes for thieves, rapists, adulterers, murderers etc



you're saying, if Al Capone and Ma Barker wanted a cake baked  celebrating the St Valentines Day Massacre, they should be out of luck?


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 4, 2018)

usmcstinger said:


> It is the Law of the Land. Argue all you want. It will not change any thing.


What is?


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



It considers homosexuality to be a sin. One doesn't have to jump that far to assume a wedding celebrating a homosexual union is a no-go. 

And in none of these cases was there a denial of point of sale services, it was for a specific cake for a specific event.


----------



## dblack (Jun 4, 2018)

usmcstinger said:


> It is the Law of the Land. Argue all you want. It will not change any thing.



Heh.. well, no. When it comes to politics, arguing is central to changing things.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> The commission is going to have inspect the inference that the bakers were interpreting their religious belief.
> 
> What happens if the government provides evidence of other Christian bakers who happily make cakes for gay and lesbian couples?



It's a moot point because government can't get involved in the internal workings of religion, or the differences in different sects of religions, without a compelling government interest.

Even then they can only resolve the conflict using the least intrusive method possible.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> This whole cake thing is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.
> 
> If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then the baker is a sinner because we all know he still bakes cakes for thieves, rapists, adulterers, murderers etc



How many people ask for a cake celebrating murder, thievery, or rape?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 4, 2018)

LordBrownTrout said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > DJT for Life said:
> ...



I may be wrong, I’ve only heard this on the radio, but wasn’t the focus about the commissioner who expressed bias about religion in the first place?

If so, future cases could also reflect this and commissioner social posts better be as clean as the driven snow.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> 
> This will have a massive effect.



No it won't. Please learn what happened and then comment.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> 7-2 decision.



And that means nothing.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > This whole cake thing is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.
> ...



Wouldn't it be a sin to bake a cake for them since baking a cake is an acceptance of their lifestyle?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jun 4, 2018)

Zander said:


> *Supreme Court rules *_narrowly_* for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake*
> 
> The lyin' media calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"...
> 
> ...



The decision was narrow. Meaning very narrow legally. Not the vote count. 

I love how stupid you are and how proud you are to tell everyone.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jun 4, 2018)

DJT for Life said:


> Not much to the link.  This has just happened.
> 
> 5 or 6 year old case where Baker refused, on religious grounds and beliefs
> that he wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  SCOTUS
> ...



Another one. Awesome.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jun 4, 2018)

airplanemechanic said:


> This is huge. Up until this point this guy had lost every legal battle but he finally won in the Supreme Court. There is hope for this country.
> 
> Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake
> 
> I use that link because it was hilarious they said they ruled narrowly in favor. It was a 7-2 to vote it wasn't even close



One more who doesn't understand what narrow means in legal opinions.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

martybegan said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



So if a person who is 600 lbs overweight wants a cake is it a sin to bake it for him?
Gluttony is one of the big seven sins so baking a cake for a glutton is endorsing gluttony is it not?

This baker is just one more hypocrite


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Might work for Al and Ma.

how about baking a cake for the Boston Strangler?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jun 4, 2018)

S.J. said:


> Wow, 7-2.  Boy, that sure was a close one!



And another.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2018)

Nope, the point is not moot, marty.  Inspecting the consistency of the baker's religious opinion is the point.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 4, 2018)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...



Does it need a file baked inside?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...



same thing isn't it?

If baking a cake for gays is endorsing and accepting their lifestyle isn't baking a cake for any sinner an endorsement of their particular sin or sins?


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2018)

Good for the Supremes for doing the right thing.

They determined that freedom of religion is greater than the freedom of a queer to demand services from someone that doesn't want to provide the services.

I am glad SCOTUS decided to apply strict scrutiny to freedom of religion.  They also need to do that for the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The best part of the decision was the admonishment to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for acting like Politically Correctness Nazis.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jun 4, 2018)

westwall said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Religion is just another tool of discrimination.
> ...



Oh my. You are persecuted.  It's horrible.


----------



## GreenBean (Jun 4, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> Local laws are local laws


Local Laws ?  You mean like Dred Scott ?  Oh My...


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Only if the cake was designed to celebrate gluttony, and even then government shouldn't be calling people out on their religious beliefs. 

The baker is exercising their constitutional rights. They were on record saying they are not contesting point of sale items, just specific items for a specific ceremony.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

martybegan said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



If the glutton was going to eat the cake then the baker is complicit in the sin of gluttony

And FYI a wedding cake is not for the wedding ceremony it is for the party after the ceremony


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Again, government shouldn't get involved in it. It's up to the person's own beliefs. 

And your second statement is splitting hairs. the party after the ceremony is part of the same celebration, honoring the same thing as the ceremony. 

Are you such an anti-religious bigot that you have to make other's miserable to satisfy your own hatred?

And use government to do your dirty work?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



how are they supposed to know who the Boston Strangler is?

He killed for years before he was caught.

same with rapists, etc.

their pictures aren't generally posted on the from page like Al and Ma's were.

If a Jewish bakery can refuse to bake a cake honoring Hitlers Birthday, why can't a Christian refuse to bake a Gay Wedding cake?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

martybegan said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I really don't care if people deny service.  I have said that before it's just that the reason this guy gives is flat out ridiculous

This guy shouldn't be in business at all if he thinks baking a cake for a sinner is a sin

How much do you want to bet if he was denied service because he is a christian that he would be suing over it?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...



It doesn't matter.  If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin, then it's up to the baker to make sure he isn't committing a sin isn't it?


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



So he want's to not bake a cake in one narrow situation and thus can't bake any cakes ever?

The reason is his own, it's based on his religion, and in this country that is protected.

And your theoretical is just that, an assumption in an attempt to create and "Oh yeah? so's your mother" situation.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



nope

just follow his teachings.


----------



## pismoe (Jun 4, 2018)

GOOD for the Baker !!


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Glad to see a return to Freedom of Religion under Donald J. Trump's leadership.
> 
> Its the 500th Day of the Trump era, things are really moving along



You mean now public businesses now have rights over individuals, yes that is great.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Jun 4, 2018)

A bakery had a right to refuse to bake a child's birthday cake because the baker didn't like the child's name.

Child named after Adolf Hitler is refused cake request


----------



## Crixus (Jun 4, 2018)

*Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case*


*Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics*


*The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection.

The ruling was 7-2.
*
*Hmm, wonder who the two were? Likely Gorsich and Thomas.*


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

martybegan said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Like I said IDGAF if he bakes a cake I am saying that if he lived by his reasoning in this case that it would be impossible to bake any cakes for any sinners without committing a sin


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...


But this baker obviously believes the teachings include that baking a cake for a sinner is a sin so if baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then it is up to the baker to follow the teachings and not bake cakes for sinners


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Only if the cake was in celebration of said sinful purpose, and again, government shouldn't care unless it has a compelling interest.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



To the baker participating in the celebration via providing a cake for THAT EXPLICIT PURPOSE was the issue. 

The baker admitted he would not deny point of sale items to gay couples or anyone else for that matter.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2018)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Crixus (Jun 4, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA





7-2 and they call it narrow!


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

martybegan said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



That's not what the baker said he said baking a cake for a gay wedding is an endorsement of their lifestyle

It is the lifestyle he has a problem with not the celebration


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

martybegan said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...



But the baker is not participating in the celebration.  The people at the party are participating.  He'll be at home reading his bible like a good boy.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

*U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple - Reuters
*
I agree with the ruling..on the narrow grounds states..it is clear that the commission that originally ruled against the baker was openly hostile towards religion..and had ruled differently in three other cases when religion was not the issue:

Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips’ religious rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

But the justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution’s free speech guarantee.

“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote.

But Kennedy also stressed the importance of gay rights while noting that litigation on similar issues is likely to continue in lower courts.

_*“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” Kennedy wrote.*_

The case marked a test for Kennedy, who has authored significant rulings that advanced gay rights but also is a strong advocate for free speech rights and religious freedom.

The case’s outcome hinged on the actions of the Colorado commission. In one exchange at a 2014 hearing cited by Kennedy, former commissioner Diann Rice said that “freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.”

*‘OPENLY ANTAGONISTIC’ *
Kennedy noted that the commission had ruled the opposite way in three cases brought against bakers in which the business owners refused to bake cakes containing messages that demeaned gay people or same-sex marriage.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



No, it's providing the cake for a celebration that promotes the lifestyle.

Again, he didn't say he never wanted to serve gay people across the board. just this one unique item in this one unique situation.

All this decision says is any regulating body has to take the person's religious beliefs into account, as per the 1st amendment.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Providing a specific item such as a custom cake for that purpose can be seen as celebrating with them. 

Do you hate Religion so much that you have to press on this over and over?

Get a grip.


----------



## Defiant1 (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




Neither government nor society has the right to tell a person what sins they can choose to commit.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Crixus said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> ...


Narrow grounds..dimwit. Means that the issue is not resolved in a over-reaching manner..but rather applies solely to the case.

Perhaps you might..i dunno..read the decision?


----------



## blastoff (Jun 4, 2018)

Crixus said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> ...


...Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker...

They’re not referring to the 7-2 drubbing.


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

Tipsycatlover said:


> A bakery had a right to refuse to bake a child's birthday cake because the baker didn't like the child's name.
> 
> Child named after Adolf Hitler is refused cake request








I disagree with that, when you open your doors to the public you accept them all.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> 
> This will have a massive effect.


Nope..very narrow ruling..effects the case only...the larger question remains open--

*U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple - Reuters
*
I agree with the ruling..on the narrow grounds states..it is clear that the commission that originally ruled against the baker was openly hostile towards religion..and had ruled differently in three other cases when religion was not the issue:

Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips’ religious rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

But the justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution’s free speech guarantee.

“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote.

But Kennedy also stressed the importance of gay rights while noting that litigation on similar issues is likely to continue in lower courts.

_*“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” Kennedy wrote*_.

The case marked a test for Kennedy, who has authored significant rulings that advanced gay rights but also is a strong advocate for free speech rights and religious freedom.

The case’s outcome hinged on the actions of the Colorado commission. In one exchange at a 2014 hearing cited by Kennedy, former commissioner Diann Rice said that “freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.”

*‘OPENLY ANTAGONISTIC’ *
Kennedy noted that the commission had ruled the opposite way in three cases brought against bakers in which the business owners refused to bake cakes containing messages that demeaned gay people or same-sex marriage.


----------



## Crixus (Jun 4, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...





I don’t get it. Denver Colorado is about as full of awesome bakers as a town can be. Why these to fags couldn’t just go down the street is beyond me. This was nothing but an expensive political stunt and I hope the fags get sued for damages.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 4, 2018)

Get rid of all PA laws...and any business can reject anyone based on religion, race, handicap or gender.    Wooot!


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2018)

Penelope said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > A bakery had a right to refuse to bake a child's birthday cake because the baker didn't like the child's name.
> ...



Then no more not serving cops, people wearing Trump hats and attire, MAGA clothing etc.

You damn loons keep forgetting that end of it


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

martybegan said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...



I hope no gays even shop at his store.  If their money is ok for whatever else he sells, and not ok for a wedding cake, then boycott his store altogether.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2018)

Crixus said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...



Targeted


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Of course, the baker never refused to bake the cake. His objection was, and correct me if I’m wrong, was being forced to attend the event.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

martybegan said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



So it's not a sin to bake a cake for people who live in sin and commit sodomy regularly but it is a sin to bake a cake for a party thrown before the sodomy occurs?

Look if baking a cake for anything that "celebrates " sin is a sin then isn't it up to the baker to ask what every cake he bakes is for?

Shouldn't protect his immortal soul by making absolutely sure he isn't sinning by baking a cake?


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 4, 2018)

Well it is a victory of sorts for their argument that Co didn't consider the religious objection of the baker, but it still goes back to Colorado for the next round.


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



Yes everyone should be served. I agreed and yet you are calling me a loon.


----------



## Crixus (Jun 4, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...





Big time.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Was he being forced to attend?

I've been to a lot of weddings and the guy who baked the cake was never forced to attend


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Penelope said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Let them at it. Just keep government out of it.


----------



## Crixus (Jun 4, 2018)

BlindBoo said:


> Well it is a victory of sorts for their argument that Co didn't consider the religious objection of the baker, but it still goes back to Colorado for the next round.





The baker was pretty clear about what he will and will not do. Like Halloween cakes and so on. The homos tried to make it like it was just them personally. Meh, Colorado is more red then many think. The homos will lose again.


----------



## Fang (Jun 4, 2018)

As a Catholic I actually felt the baker should just bake the cake for anyone. I also don't like the idea of any business being able to withhold service. But, the Left has had such Trump Derangement Syndrome over the past 2 years and has been so unreasonable that I find myself happy for the Baker. The Left can't be reasoned with. Good for the Baker.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jun 4, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Opens up a can of worms allowing business to use religious beliefs to discriminate against anyone ....not just gays



No it doesn't the Supreme Court decided it is a case by case basis. There is a balance and it can't be just one way or the other. This is a matter of conscience, I believe that respect for religion and for homosexuals can be achieved if both sides are reasonable. 

It seems the court decide that to.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



I don’t care what the fine is, no one should be forced to attend sodomy.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Not up to you to decide, and not up to government unless there is a compelling interest. 

The 1st amendment protects free exercise, it doesn't force a person to justify said exercise.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

Defiant1 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...



Never said they should

I am questioning the reasoning of the baker  that is all.

If baking a cake for sinners is a sin then he is committing a sin every time he bakes a cake for a sinner


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




The Supremes said "his business, his choice".  That is a good thing.

Now if they would just do that with other things then it would be even better.

We don't need the government, especially a filthy ass Civil Rights Commission, telling us how to lead our lives, do we?


----------



## TheDude (Jun 4, 2018)

Religion or not, a person shouldn't be forced to contribute into an absurd idea like a gay wedding.  If you want a fake wedding, get a fake cake to suit.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but he was willing to bake the cake, just not deliver.


----------



## Crixus (Jun 4, 2018)

Fang said:


> As a Catholic I actually felt the baker should just bake the cake for anyone. I also don't like the idea of any business being able to withhold service. But, the Left has had such Trump Derangement Syndrome over the past 2 years and has been so unreasonable that I find myself happy for the Baker. The Left can't be reasoned with. Good for the Baker.





The whole point is, if you don’t like that baker, go to another one. Simple.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

martybegan said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Oh so that makes this bakers reasoning sound?

I think he should have to point to where it says in the bible that it is a sin to provide services to a sinner


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



it makes the baker's reasoning none of the government's fucking business in this case. 

Government cannot compel people to spell out what their free exercise will be, that impinges on free exercise.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I don't know.  But even delivering the cake is not being forced to attend the event.

My mother was a baker and I delivered many wedding cakes.  Usually the cake is delivered to the reception venue hours before the reception even starts


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

martybegan said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I'm not talking about the government.

I'm talking about this baker's flawed reasoning


----------



## Fang (Jun 4, 2018)

Crixus said:


> Fang said:
> 
> 
> > As a Catholic I actually felt the baker should just bake the cake for anyone. I also don't like the idea of any business being able to withhold service. But, the Left has had such Trump Derangement Syndrome over the past 2 years and has been so unreasonable that I find myself happy for the Baker. The Left can't be reasoned with. Good for the Baker.
> ...



Given the Left's propensity to totally ruin people's live who disagree with them, I agree with you.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 4, 2018)

TNHarley said:


> I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
> PA laws are fascist bullshit.



Every time you guys post this, I read it as "Pennsylvania laws" .


----------



## boedicca (Jun 4, 2018)

Crixus said:


> Fang said:
> 
> 
> > As a Catholic I actually felt the baker should just bake the cake for anyone. I also don't like the idea of any business being able to withhold service. But, the Left has had such Trump Derangement Syndrome over the past 2 years and has been so unreasonable that I find myself happy for the Baker. The Left can't be reasoned with. Good for the Baker.
> ...




Indeed.  This agenda in which one person's beliefs are violated to serve the contrary beliefs of another person is anti-Liberty.


----------



## Crixus (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




It doesn’t say that anywhere in the Bible at all. Take the temple as an excample. It was built with the finest cedars from Lebanon, (not Jewish?) and all through the Bible the Hebrews are admonished to treat travelers well and not to cheat them. This isn’t a biblical thing at all, it’s a principle. It is this bakers perogative. Dont like it? Dont go there.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 4, 2018)

Praise Jesus!  The SCOTUS affirmed our liberty and our 1st Ammendment right.


frigidweirdo said:


> Basically it seems like they ruled in favor of the baker, but NOT in favor of all religious people who want to discriminat


LOL. Wanna bet?    The decision applies to everyone, not just that baker.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


LoL...St.Peter to baker.."Sorry, you're going to hell..you baked a cake for gay people"

Too funny!!


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 4, 2018)

Crixus said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Well it is a victory of sorts for their argument that Co didn't consider the religious objection of the baker, but it still goes back to Colorado for the next round.
> ...



Just have to wait and see.

If you're going to have protected persons, homophobes shouldn't be allowed to use religious "sinners" as a tool to discriminate unless they have a history of discriminating against all sinners.  Since we're all sinners, nobody get cake.

Everybody loves Cake.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 4, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting.  I think this is a good decision because few bakeries will turn down business for this reason.  Gays don't need that protection as they are not at risk of not being able to have their cake.
> ...



Did they loudly and publicly proclaim that they were fornicators, adulterers or in inter-racial relationships?

How did the baker find out that it was for a gay wedding without being told?


----------



## bodecea (Jun 4, 2018)

The fun part is that everyone in that city will know that baker doesn't serve gay people......let it be known far and wide.   I'm sure his business will do well.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



It's flawed to you maybe, but again, you don't have a say in it, and neither should government.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

AvgGuyIA said:


> Praise Jesus!  The SCOTUS affirmed our liberty and our 1st Ammendment right.
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Perhaps you might actually read the decision? Very narrow ruling..with Justice Kennedy making sure to point out the importance of protecting gay rights. This decision was all about the Colorado commission and their open hostility to religion. They got slapped down..and rightfully so.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 4, 2018)

Flash said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Nah, not what they said.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > Praise Jesus!  The SCOTUS affirmed our liberty and our 1st Ammendment right.
> ...



You're trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear, dude


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2018)

BlindBoo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Read the part where Kennedy (in the majority opinion) admonished the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for way over stepping their authority to interfere with the man's business.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 4, 2018)

martybegan said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




BINGO.  The government should not be a way for one group to punish others for (in their viewpoint) NoGoodBadThink.


----------



## 52ndStreet (Jun 4, 2018)

This is a correct decision by the supreme court. Its time that these Homosexuals and other deviants accept that everyone does not have to accept, or be forced to accept their perverted lifestyle.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 4, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


You must be confusing this with another bake-a-cake case.  This baker DID refuse to make the cake, saying it was a creative work of art and it was inappropriate to force him to create artwork that violates his beliefs.
However, the Court didn't like how he was treated by the Civil Rights Commission and therefore his case was upheld.
It didn't solve anything.  The argument can continue.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> This whole cake thing is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.
> 
> If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then the baker is a sinner because we all know he still bakes cakes for thieves, rapists, adulterers, murderers etc




How does the baker know that if they do not come right out and proclaim it?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



You'll lose....like we told you would from the get go


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Jun 4, 2018)

The gay couple certainly deserves some responsibility.  They went to every bakery but muslim bakeries in 120 miles.   All of those bakeries would have baked the cake but the couple was looking for a test case to take to court.

r/CringeAnarchy - So apparently the gay couple went out of their own way to target the Christian bakery.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2018)

Tipsycatlover said:


> The gay couple certainly deserves some responsibility.  They went to every bakery but muslim bakeries in 120 miles.   All of those bakeries would have baked the cake but the couple was looking for a test case to take to court.
> 
> r/CringeAnarchy - So apparently the gay couple went out of their own way to target the Christian bakery.



Exactly and they end up getting stuffed. Karma


----------



## Fang (Jun 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> The fun part is that everyone in that city will know that baker doesn't serve gay people......let it be known far and wide.   I'm sure his business will do well.



The mistake your side made is you tried to ruin people's lives over this. The Baker has a religious belief that even I don't agree with, but I have no interest in shutting his bakery down. Even when I agree with your side I still have to applaud the SCOTUS decision because I have no interest in taking it to the level the Left does.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



You don't think 600 lbs people could not have a medical condition which causes their excessive weight and not because they are gluttons?


----------



## boedicca (Jun 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> The fun part is that everyone in that city will know that baker doesn't serve gay people......let it be known far and wide.   I'm sure his business will do well.




Well, that's a lie.  The baker sells his regular products to everyone.  He just doesn't want to do custom work for things which violate his religious beliefs.  The couple could have bought a regular cake.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jun 4, 2018)

Tipsycatlover said:


> The gay couple certainly deserves some responsibility.  They went to every bakery but muslim bakeries in 120 miles.   All of those bakeries would have baked the cake but the couple was looking for a test case to take to court.
> 
> r/CringeAnarchy - So apparently the gay couple went out of their own way to target the Christian bakery.



Someone said so on Reddit. Must be true.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Again, how will you know?


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 4, 2018)

Flash said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...



The 7-2 decision sends the case back to Co. with an explicit order to take the baker's religious objection into consideration.  That is where the next decision will come from.  As has been pointed out by several posters, the baker is inconsistent with the sins he objects too.  Remember there is precedent against using religion as a tool to discriminate.

I think the Co. Commission will again rule in the couples favor.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 4, 2018)

GreenBean said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Local laws are local laws
> ...



Dred Scott was a person, not a law.


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

Crixus said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Well it is a victory of sorts for their argument that Co didn't consider the religious objection of the baker, but it still goes back to Colorado for the next round.
> ...



Sounds like a crazy zealot.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Jun 4, 2018)

How many threads on this forum did I say that there was no way making this guy bake this cake was legal. I'm pretty sure I said if it went to the SCOTUS the baker would win.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2018)

BlindBoo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



And they will get stuffed again, Constitutional law takes precedent over dumbass PA laws


----------



## task0778 (Jun 4, 2018)

boedicca said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



+1.   Apparently that gay couple weren't looking for a cake, they were looking for a fight.


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

Flash said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Then he needs to close his door to the public.


----------



## Polishprince (Jun 4, 2018)

Tipsycatlover said:


> A bakery had a right to refuse to bake a child's birthday cake because the baker didn't like the child's name.
> 
> Child named after Adolf Hitler is refused cake request




As well it should be.   If the Triple K brought they sheets down to an African American cleaner to have them dry cleaned and pressed, the cleaners would have the right to turn down the business if they wanted.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Where did you acquire the omnipotence to see into a sinner's heart, and judge them to be a sinner without their knowledge?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2018)

Penelope said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Let the public decide and cease being the Gaytapo


----------



## Polishprince (Jun 4, 2018)

task0778 said:


> +1.   Apparently that gay couple weren't looking for a cake, they were looking for a fight.



That's obvious.    If the baker had said "sure" when the homosexuals came in, the homosexuals would have said "never mind"

They wanted a court case, not a wedding cake.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 4, 2018)

52ndStreet said:


> This is a correct decision by the supreme court. Its time that these Homosexuals and other deviants accept that everyone does not have to accept, or be forced to accept their perverted lifestyle.




That's a rather narrow viewpoint.  The proper one is that the government cannot discriminate against someone based on his religious beliefs.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

BlindBoo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Why does government get to decide about someone's religious consistency?


----------



## GreenBean (Jun 4, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


The Bakers were people and the fags were semi human as well - The reference to Dred Scott refers to a case , a legal decision  that addressed local laws.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 4, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > A bakery had a right to refuse to bake a child's birthday cake because the baker didn't like the child's name.
> ...



No dice,  the KKK are not designated as protected by Co. laws.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > AvgGuyIA said:
> ...


Not I...I agree with the ruling..as written. I'm just a bit amazed at all the false interpretations that are being attributed to it. I would think that you would cheer..as do I ...the Justices recognizing the religious hostility of the Colorado Commission..and re-affirming our religious freedom. That they did so..while still upholding Gay rights...was a rare breath of sanity, IMO. 7-2 is a SCOTUS landslide, these days.
This was a finely nuanced decision--and not likely to settle the larger matters.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Have you been to these person's gay wedding?  That is the only one applicable.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

Penelope said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



When it cam to public transactions there wasn't an issue with serving or not serving. Only in the specific case of a same sex wedding, which this guy found morally objectionable. 

How about we make Jewish and Islamic butchers carry pork products all the time?


----------



## boedicca (Jun 4, 2018)

task0778 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




Indeed.  It's sad to see people who a couple of decades ago were fighting for tolerance of their differences to now want to persecute others for being different from them.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...



Yeah sure....you lost


----------



## GreenBean (Jun 4, 2018)

BlindBoo said:


> I think the Co. Commission will again rule in the couples favor.


Depends on how deep the left stacks the case and steers it to a favorable adjudicator


----------



## OldLady (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> 
> This will have a massive effect.





airplanemechanic said:


> This is huge. Up until this point this guy had lost every legal battle but he finally won in the Supreme Court. There is hope for this country.
> 
> Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake
> 
> I use that link because it was hilarious they said they ruled narrowly in favor. It was a 7-2 to vote it wasn't even close


SC dodged the question and decided the case based on the baker's treatment by the Civil Right's Commission.  This is what Justice Kennedy said:
_“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”_

They're not saying 7-2 is a narrow ruling.  They are saying the circumstances of the case are very narrow, specific only to this case.  The Court did not look at the underlying, important questions here.  For 50 years, they have upheld PA laws that prohibit discrimination, and they have not reversed that yet.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> So if a person who is 600 lbs overweight wants a cake is it a sin to bake it for him?
> Gluttony is one of the big seven sins so baking a cake for a glutton is endorsing gluttony is it not?
> 
> This baker is just one more hypocrite



Nope, totally different.

Gluttony is the act of overeating. Not being fat. You can commit the sin of gluttony and be skinny as a bean pole and never have committed it and be a tub of lard. Being overweight does not indicate gluttony.

Baking a cake for a fat person is not endorsing him overeating it. He has to exercise self control. But taking your thought process, why sell food to a fat person? Why stop at a wedding cake? Why give them ANYTHING? Or what is allowed? Can they have cheese? Bread? Tacos? Spinach?

A cake by itself is not endorsing gluttony. But a wedding cake FOR A GAY COUPLE can easily be seen as directly against Christianity. But another baker might ask the Lord for forgiveness and bake the cake because he needs the money. But that choice is up to the person, not the fags and most certainly NOT the gov't.


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

boedicca said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > The fun part is that everyone in that city will know that baker doesn't serve gay people......let it be known far and wide.   I'm sure his business will do well.
> ...



I hope that couple never spends money at his store.  All civil right advocate should boycott him.  It doesn't affect me but what about my grandchildren, I'm sure L. Ingraham never planned on her brother being gay nor Dick Cheney ever thought one of his daughters would be a lesbian.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

52ndStreet said:


> This is a correct decision by the supreme court. Its time that these Homosexuals and other deviants accept that everyone does not have to accept, or be forced to accept their perverted lifestyle.


Not what they said dude..but your homophobia is noted..and laughed at.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 4, 2018)

Penelope said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




Ain't freedom grand?   The couple should have just gone to another bakery that would have welcomed their business.  Instead, they decided to ruin the life of the baker.

How Tolerant!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Why do you keep posting a fallacy?  Numerous people have shot down this argument, yet you plug your ears and scream, "LA LA LA LA" at the top of your lungs so you can pretend you don't see that you are simply wrong?


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

airplanemechanic said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > So if a person who is 600 lbs overweight wants a cake is it a sin to bake it for him?
> ...



Its not one of the commandments and so Paul overrules the words of Jesus. By the baker anything goes by the way one interprets the bible.  How fortunate for him he can pick and choose who he bakes for.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Do you know that was a fact in this case?  My guess is that you are spitballing!


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2018)

Penelope said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



The Bible is explicit....homosexuality is a sin


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



You don't get to judge their reasoning!


----------



## airplanemechanic (Jun 4, 2018)

It wasn't a refusal to bring the cake to the reception it was a refusal to bake it in the first place.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 4, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > 7-2 decision.
> ...



The implications of the ratio are enormous, especially considering that Trump is likely to get at least two additional appointments to the SCOTUS within his presidency.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

GreenBean said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...


Dred Scott, is it? LOL! You reference what is commonly considered to be one of the three worst SCOTUS decisions of all time? The one that affirmed a slave owners right to retrieve his 'property' even outside the jurisdictions where slavery was legal?

You think that applies here?


----------



## Death Angel (Jun 4, 2018)

TNHarley said:


> I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
> PA laws are fascist bullshit.


They aren't bigots. They just don't recognize and will not participate in a new definition of marriage.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 4, 2018)

BlindBoo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



And as stated earlier, the case will follow a similar path to the SCOTUS.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


I neither won nor lost...perhaps you need to get out more..and clear your head..as you seem to be suffering from some confusion. Your post had nothing to do with what i said..why is that? If anything...not that i really thought about it..i won..as did every American did...with a balanced SCOTUS decision.


----------



## Polishprince (Jun 4, 2018)

BlindBoo said:


> No dice,  the KKK are not designated as protected by Co. laws.




Maybe, maybe not.   The Triple K uses a cross, they might qualify as a religion, and free practice of religion is guaranteed, no?


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 4, 2018)

martybegan said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...



They have a compelling interest in being fair.  Being able to selectively decide which sinner you will not serve, but will continue to provide that service to all others in a business open to the public, would set an unfair precedent in a state that has decided to protect Gay Civil Rights.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 4, 2018)

GreenBean said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



I was addressing the fact that many people use that argument without knowing what they are talking about.  Your post indicated you had no clue that it was a person.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...



You realize of course I consider you an idiot, right?

You lost this one, like we told you that you would long ago


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 4, 2018)

Penelope said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




This is obviously written by someone who has never cracked a Bible in their miserable existence.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

BlindBoo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



The "right" to a specific cake should not override automatically the right to free exercise. In the specific case of a cake for a SSM celebration there is no harm other than butthurt to the couple in question. they have plenty of other options to choose from.

The State cannot blindly deny free exercise, which is what happened in this case. the Commission was actively hostile to the religious beliefs of the baker.

The bakers themselves agreed they could not deny point of sale items, nor did they want to. They just wanted to deny participation via provision of a product in this one specific instance.

That progressives such as yourself can't even compromise in this one specific case shows what a bunch of miserable busybodies you are.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 4, 2018)

Reading thru the posts, the fascist left are very unhappy.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 4, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > No dice,  the KKK are not designated as protected by Co. laws.
> ...



Using religion as a weapon of discrimination violates the rights of other.   Burning crosses and lynching black folks is not protected under the 1st Amendment.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > This whole cake thing is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.
> ...



Doesn't matter.

If the baker wants to live a life free of sin it is up to him to make sure he is not baking cakes for sinners


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Sure all fat people have a condition

But then again it would still be up to the baker to make sure he wasn't baking a cake for a sinner.  So he should ask that 600 lb person for a note from his Dr to make sure it is an actual medical condition and not just gluttony


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Huh...you calling me an idiot is like a badge of honor. You do realize that I consider you a low IQ brainwashed religious zealot who reveals her ignorance with every post, right?
Just to get our positions out there. There is no 'we'--I was told nothing cogent..especially by you..a person who has the ridiculous audacity to think she represents any point of view other than that of the ignorant.

Not that you will listen..as you are impervious in your stupidity..but, once again, i agree with the decision..and the decision decided nothing..on the merits of the original case.

Back to Colorado.

If I had my way..everyone would see that this is moot, and just let it go.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...



Again it doesn't matter.

It's up to the baker to make sure he isn't committing a sin by baking a cake for a sinner so he should  vet all of his customers so he can deny service to all the sinners only then will his immortal soul be safe


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...



Go bug someone else with you nonsense. You're just annoying, I don't read your garbage


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2018)

BlindBoo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




The Supremes told them to go back and get it right this time.  That is done quite often in these cases.

The part where Kennedy  says the Colorado Civil Right Commission were jerks in siding with the queers is the way of  Supreme Court telling the idiots in Colorado to go back and get it right.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I'm not judging anyone

It is up to the baker to make sure he is not baking cakes for sinners so he is the one who has to find out if the person who walks into his shop is indeed a sinner so he can deny service in order to protect his immortal soul.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Reading thru the posts, the fascist left are very unhappy.


Yup..and the alt/right homophobes are celebrating way too prematurely--this case decided nothing--about the actual merits. Both sides knees are just a-jerkin'!

Amazed at how many, on both sides of the issue, choose to comment without reading the decision..must suck to show their asses in such an ignorant way.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



How do you propose he find out everyone's sins? This has been debunked to death


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2018)

Death Angel said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
> ...




They just applied the concept of strict scrutiny to freedom of religion.  Freedom of religion trumps a queer's demand to have somebody serve them.,


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


And yet, you answered..like the ignorant knee jerk puppet that you are. I understand..since you cannot reason your way to actually rebut anything i say..far better to run and hide.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2018)

This is what the commission and the Supremes must answer: "If baking a cake for gays is endorsing and accepting their lifestyle isn't baking a cake for any sinner an endorsement of their particular sin or sins?"  How will the commission or the Supremes know.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 4, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Reading thru the posts, the fascist left are very unhappy.


Nope.  Just sorry it still hasn't been decided.  The SC upholding PA laws still stands in all cases unless the Civil Rights Commission has been biased.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 4, 2018)

In the past week, I've been thinking about "right" and "wrong" in a few different situations that I would normally expect there not to be any disagreement.   But there is.  If somehow I was asked to be part of that "wrong-ness " in a direct way, I would not like it either and would probably refuse.  If I were forced, for some reason, to participate in it, I'd be very upset.
I suppose we all need to remember that to the folks who strongly disagree with gay marriage or even gay lifestyle, they have as deep convictions about that as we do about other things that we consider fundamentally wrong.

Geez, it's hard though.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 4, 2018)

Flash said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...



Again, as much as you'd like it to be, that is not what was ruled.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> ...


They were willing to make a cake, just not a cake with pervert bullshit on it.


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...



Give me some quotes from it. We do not live under the law of Moses, what the 213 commandments , if we did most of the people in the US would be stoned, including Trump, and Jesus never said a word, are you even aware of what the bible says.  The only one was Paul and he said not to even get married unless you can't control yourself.


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



He needs to become a priest and have a confessional before he sells to anyone. LOL.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> This is what the commission and the Supremes must answer: "If baking a cake for gays is endorsing and accepting their lifestyle isn't baking a cake for any sinner an endorsement of their particular sin or sins?"  How will the commission or the Supremes know.



The government doesn't have to answer that question, and the bakers don't have to answer it. 

The simple question is about the right to free exercise, and if it is allowed, or not, based on the situation at hand.


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...



Give me the quotes, only Paul said it, I kid you not and Christians do not follow the laws of Moses. Now give me some quote of the NT???  I suspect you have not studied  the bible.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 4, 2018)

Penelope said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



You should at least learn something about that which you criticize.


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



He is a sinner himself, since he is sitting in judgement of someone, and Jesus said to not do that. Does Jesus override Paul and Moses for a Christian? Ask the baker, he should know.


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...




Give me some quotes , and not from Moses or Paul. Can't do it can you????


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2018)

Penelope said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



It's clear if you don't know homosexuality is a Biblical sin YOU have never studied the Bible.

Good grief


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 4, 2018)

I wish the baker had just baked the damn cake.

And I wish that, once they knew the baker didn't want to serve them, the couple would have just let it go, gone somewhere else, to someone who is not bigoted.

Not really fond of either character in this story.
.


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

Tel Aviv the gay capital of the globe, and that is a jewish city, so even they do not go by Moses, and Christians are not suppose to follow Jewish laws and most Jews do not as well.


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



Give me a quote and not from Moses or Paul.  You have never studied the bible. In Eze 16 it says why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and homosexuality was not the reason.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 4, 2018)

airplanemechanic said:


> This is huge. Up until this point this guy had lost every legal battle but he finally won in the Supreme Court. There is hope for this country.
> 
> Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake
> 
> I use that link because it was hilarious they said they ruled narrowly in favor. It was a 7-2 to vote it wasn't even close


I think they were referring to the parameters of the decision. They ruled for the baker because the comission showed such hostility to the man and his religious beliefs.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 4, 2018)

Grampa Murked U said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


And he had baked for them before. He simply drew the line because he believes in traditional marriage. 

Like Obama and Hillary did.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2018)

Penelope said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Listen whackjob if you had the first clue you'd know what is immoral on the Old Testament is also immoral in the New Testament.

You're fucking clueless


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> This is what the commission and the Supremes must answer: "If baking a cake for gays is endorsing and accepting their lifestyle isn't baking a cake for any sinner an endorsement of their particular sin or sins?"  How will the commission or the Supremes know.



and better yet how will the baker know if he is waiting on a sinner or not?


----------



## Stormy Daniels (Jun 4, 2018)

Zander said:


> *Supreme Court rules *_narrowly_* for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake*
> 
> The lyin' media calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"...
> 
> ...



Don't be so quick to wet your pants.  Narrow decisions refer to the scope of applicability, not the vote count.  The Oberfell case was a broad decision; it established a broadly applicable precedent.  The court wasn't addressing the broad question of whether the bakery has a general constitutional right to discriminate against gay couples.  They narrowly ruled that the commission committed procedural errors and therefore needed to reconsider after correcting those errors.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Jun 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> The commission is going to have inspect the inference that the bakers were interpreting their religious belief.
> 
> What happens if the government provides evidence of other Christian bakers who happily make cakes for gay and lesbian couples?



There are many flavors of Christianity. An Episcopalian will have far fewer restrictions than a Pentecostal, but both are Christian.


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



So give me a quote, and Christians do not live by the laws of Moses, sweetheart.  Now give me some quotes that marriage should be between a man and a women in the NT, I will ask until you do, because you can't. *The baker is sinning more than the homosexuals that are getting married, according to the words of Jesus.*


----------



## TomParks (Jun 4, 2018)

Hopefully one day the headline will read “Supreme Court overturns obama gay marriage law”


----------



## Tresha91203 (Jun 4, 2018)

Penelope said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > This is what the commission and the Supremes must answer: "If baking a cake for gays is endorsing and accepting their lifestyle isn't baking a cake for any sinner an endorsement of their particular sin or sins?"  How will the commission or the Supremes know.
> ...



Is this a regional thing? My baker actually attended my wedding: setting up during the service, there at the cutting, and boxed the topper for the bride & groom for their anniversary dinner. Do y'all not do this?

That would be a huge difference, IMO.  If the bakers are not there for the wedding, what is the problem with the client placing the same-sex figurines on top rather than the baker? Would that be a workable solution for all?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Reading thru the posts, the fascist left are very unhappy.
> ...


"The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.”

And why do you call Obama and Hillary  homophobes?


----------



## task0778 (Jun 4, 2018)

Tresha91203 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



It would and should have been a workable solution for all, but that's not what the gay couple wanted.   They wanted a public fight, in court,  with as much publicity as they could get to trumpet their cause  =>  gay rights.


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2018)

For those people that are confused about what the ruling said here is opinion.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable
pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his
religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as
despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetori-
cal—something insubstantial and even insincere. The
commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’
invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses
of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappro
priate for a Commission charged with the solemn respon-
sibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-
discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on
the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

airplanemechanic said:


> It wasn't a refusal to bring the cake to the reception it was a refusal to bake it in the first place.



So it wasn't the baking and decorating, but the delivery for the reception.  Wow.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Jun 4, 2018)

Penelope said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Most Christians are lot literalists. Many Christians believe Jesus is the Word of God, but many believe the Bible is the Word of God. When discussing beliefs with a Southern Baptist, I often have to say, "I'm Catholic." That ends the discussion around these parts, unless you've got a newly saved literalist.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 4, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon



Of course they can, and do.

You can't deny rights to other citizen based on your religious beliefs.  Especially not from the OT.  You can't sell your daughter as a slave anymore either.


7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.

10 “If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. 11 If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 4, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > 7-2 decision.
> ...


Isn't there a name of a mental illness for this sort of reaction?  ^^^


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 4, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> One more who doesn't understand what narrow means in legal opinions.


 We know where you're going with this. The opinion of the Supreme Court does not allow a baker or any business to refuse to sell cakes to gays. Nobody is arguing that and nobody had a problem with that...including the baker.  You just can't compell them to participant in an activity against their religious beliefs.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2018)

task0778, the gays want their cause to be equal with hetero rights, nothing more.

The problem is both prog left and recessive right won't budge to a recognition of equal rights.

Dschrute3's commentary below is an excellent reprisal of one side of the problem.


----------



## Dschrute3 (Jun 4, 2018)

I tried to tell Communists/Democrats, 'Gay Rights' aren't the only rights protected in our country. Folks' religious rights are to be respected and protected as well. And even two Democrats on the Court had to agree.

Now hopefully these people can get their lives back. They lost everything. The 'Gay Mafia' forced them out of business. It was wrong. Hopefully they'll be justly compensated. I'm prayin for em.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jun 4, 2018)

Match this with the recent 'rule' that hospitals and doctors of the Catholic persuasion I believe can refuse service to any patient that is in discord with their religious beliefs. 

The Christian Taliban has arrived. Watch now, this is going to get ugly as every single batshit fake Christian that owns a doughnut shop will be allowing some people in while barring others. It is so blatantly unAmerican and reminds one of the denial of service and business to Jews in the 1930s. Think that too harsh? Wait a while, see the effect this will generate. 

It would be so much better to just break the country up into two, three, or four smaller countries where this whacko religious fanatacism that rivals Isis can go have their Christian Caliphate because it is wholly unsuited for a democracy. Go all you phony Christians, go have your own walled in televangelist paradise and stop demanding that everyone else live your fake religion. It's fake because you are not Christians.


----------



## Dschrute3 (Jun 4, 2018)

IsaacNewton said:


> Match this with the recent 'rule' that hospitals and doctors of the Catholic persuasion I believe can refuse service to any patient that is in discord with their religious beliefs.
> 
> The Christian Taliban has arrived. Watch now, this is going to get ugly as every single batshit fake Christian that owns a doughnut shop will be allowing some people in while barring others. It is so blatantly unAmerican and reminds one of the denial of service and business to Jews in the 1930s. Think that too harsh? Wait a while, see the effect this will generate.
> 
> It would be so much better to just break the country up into two, three, or four smaller countries where this whacko religious fanatacism that rivals Isis can go have their Christian Caliphate because it is wholly unsuited for a democracy. Go all you phony Christians, go have your own walled in televangelist paradise and stop demanding that everyone else live your fake religion. It's fake because you are not Christians.



You could always leave. In America we have a Constitution that protects religious rights. Sorry bout that. Bon Voyage.


----------



## dblack (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> This whole cake thing is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.
> 
> If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then the baker is a sinner because we all know he still bakes cakes for thieves, rapists, adulterers, murderers etc



The specific excuses for not serving someone are irrelevant.


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2018)

So, a civil rights commission was violating someone's civil rights? Only in America!


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Dang..you almost had a cogent post..and then you just had to throw Obama and Hillary into the mix.

I agree with the bolded.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Flash said:


> For those people that are confused about what the ruling said here is opinion.
> 
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
> ...


Get it right..you posted a part of the opinion...one that i agree with---but don't leave out Justice Kennedy's defense of Gay rights. That's part of the opinion as well. The commission was wrong..but the larger questions still remain unresolved.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...


You're the one calling people who believe in traditional marriage childish names, just reminding you who your childish hate is aimed at.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 4, 2018)

BlindBoo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon
> ...


Yes you can, and we did.
Have a nice day.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Dschrute3 said:


> I tried to tell Communists/Democrats, 'Gay Rights' aren't the only rights protected in our country. Folks' religious rights are to be respected and protected as well. And even two Democrats on the Court had to agree.
> 
> Now hopefully these people can get their lives back. They lost everything. The 'Gay Mafia' forced them out of business. It was wrong. Hopefully they'll be justly compensated. I'm prayin for em.


Nope..just as they chose whom to serve and whom not to...people are free to choose where they spend their money. Perhaps...they should have just baked the damn cake?

So..they took a religious stand? OK...stands have consequences..often unforeseen.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Hate? Odd choice of words. I hate very few..and none that I don't know. I'll not even buy into whatever weird logic you seem to have as regards Obama, Hillary and this issue..it really does not matter. Reading these posts..seeing the words fag, cum-guzzler,..etc., etc. leads me to have used the term homophobic. you disagree..that's your right..just calling it as I see it.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> 
> This will have a massive effect.


Which baker?
Anita Baker?


----------



## mudwhistle (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> 
> This will have a massive effect.


The media called it a "Narrow Win".

7-2 is not a narrow win.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Jun 4, 2018)

Mud you do know that your sig avatar pic has a typo right?


----------



## Penelope (Jun 4, 2018)

TomParks said:


> Hopefully one day the headline will read “Supreme Court overturns obama gay marriage law”





Weatherman2020 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



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.

-------------------------
He is not an establishment of religion and he is allowed to practice his religious beliefs as long as it does not impose those beliefs onto others.  Meaning he can go to a church of his choice and sin no more  according to his beleifs, those who come into his shop, bakery, have rights as well.  This is not a Christian nation.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...


You're pretty famous for your hatred, your use of childish name calling validates it.
And your inability to even comprehend your childish name calling targets almost every Democrat at some point as well.


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Jun 4, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> Religion is just another tool of discrimination.


Oh well. We didn't write the "song lyrics" no matter how they do or don't sound. The Lord is who wrote them. All that certain people are guilty of is singing them and not trying to change them like other people try to.

God bless you always!!!

Holly


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


I'm famous??? Hmmm...gotta think that one through.

Here's the thing..I'll engage on any level you wish...I prefer the intellectual..but I'll roll in the gutter as  well.

I do hate the haters though. I realize the inherent contradiction in my stance..but being human...I'm as irrational as the next guy, from time to time.

All that aside..I don't think calling people who use the term fag or homo or cum guzzler etc, homophobic, childish at all. I think I hit the nail square on the head. Now, I'd be happy to debate that...but i find that many here, while secure in their hatred and prejudices, are reluctant to defend those stances intellectually...they prefer to insult and deflect. Usually when Hillary or Obama come up..it's a deflection, IMO.

A last word on name calling and insults here in general. I go to many boards in the course of a week..and this is one of the very worse for name-calling and insults. I've read some truly vile remarks here..and when called on it..all they say is but Obama..blah, blah...It's not me, it's you...the Dems...blah, blah, blah....Deep State..blah, blah...fuck you!

So yeah....I'm going to respond in kind--don't like it? Prove me wrong using your intellect and facts..or STFU!


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...


Sure you prefer the intellectual.  That's why you call people who disagree with you childish names.

Your intellect is that of a pissed off 5 year old.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Thank for being so prompt to prove my point. You don't address my post or my points at all--just a whiny plaint, a cheap insult and a repetition of your previous post, ***yawn***

One could disagree with me, get their point across..and not use pejorative terms for gay men and women..yet they choose not to..this choice is indicative of homophobia, IMO. Not sure as to why you see this term as a 'childish name'--I've yet to hear a child use it..although I get a bit of a laugh out of imagining it, "Hey Billy..you're a homophobe!"
Billy, 'Huh?"


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...







Not me sweetcheeks.  I could care less about baking a cake for a gay couple.  i personally think the baker is a moron for not doing the job.  However...this is the USA and it is his RIGHT to be a fool.  So long as he doesn't harm anyone, he can be as dumb as he wants to be.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2018)

Using terms like "fag" or "homo" or "cum guzzler" are expressions of childish homophobia.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> This guy shouldn't be in business at all if he thinks baking a cake for a sinner is a sin


How stupid your statement is. I guess we can assume rightly that you have no guiding principles that you would not compromise in service to others. Whether you believe in God or some other supreme being of your choice or not, other people do and it is arrogant of you think your guiding principles or lack thereof trump the religious beliefs of others.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Using terms like "fag" or "homo" or "cum guzzler" are expressions of childish homophobia.


Well..homophobia for sure. Childish? Nah..kids are not naturally homophobic. It take adults to program that into them.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 4, 2018)

TNHarley said:


> I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
> PA laws are fascist bullshit.


*bigots yes
discrimination no*


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...


Why should I allow you to ignore your childish name calling?  I’m going to rub your nose in your pile of crap every chance I get.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 4, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Then no more not serving cops, people wearing Trump hats and attire, MAGA clothing etc


You would lose in court BIGLY


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2018)

It is arrogant for you to think your "guiding principles", AVgGuyIA, are any more imperatives than those of Skull Pilot.

Judge not lest ye be judged.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 4, 2018)

Flopper said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
> ...


Maybe to a fascist


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


ROTFLMAO! This is your idea of the height of intelligence and wit? A constant repetition of the same term..a total refusal to actually engage? You're nothing but a garden-variety troll! I gave you entirely too much time and credit. 

My bad..please troll though--


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jun 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> ...



Destroying businesses because of the religion of the owner has happened before. Let's not let it happen again.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 4, 2018)

DJT for Life said:


> Not much to the link.  This has just happened.
> 
> 5 or 6 year old case where Baker refused, on religious grounds and beliefs
> that he wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  SCOTUS
> ...


*They use the term narrow decision because it has limited application except to the parties in the lawsuits.  The court criticized the state civil rights commission for being hostile.  Some decisions such as the gay marriage decision is described as broad because it is applicable to any gay marriage.*


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> The fun part is that everyone in that city will know that baker doesn't serve gay people......let it be known far and wide.   I'm sure his business will do well.


Learn to debate honestly.


----------



## dblack (Jun 4, 2018)

Flopper said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
> ...



Discrimination is a daily activity for everyone. This is about biases that government has targeted for suppression.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jun 4, 2018)

westwall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Somehow, I don't think you can remain consistent on that POV.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jun 4, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Incorrect.


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2018)

There are two villains in this case.

First are the queers that were so arrogant that they tried to make this man do something that was again his religion.  Just because they are queers doesn't mean other people are required to kiss their asses.

Second is that despicable Colorado Civil Rights Commission that was hostile to the baker's religious views.

This country was founded upon the concept of religious freedom and if those assholes on the commission don't like it then they go someplace and live.  We sure don't need them here.


----------



## dblack (Jun 4, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Faulty


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > For those people that are confused about what the ruling said here is opinion.
> ...




Did you not read the opinion?  Filthy gay rights ended where the baker's religious views started.  He won.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...


There you go again - a pissed off 5 year old kicking and screaming in a busy public setting.

My apologies to pissed off 5 year olds for the analogy.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 4, 2018)

AvgGuyIA said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > The fun part is that everyone in that city will know that baker doesn't serve gay people......let it be known far and wide.   I'm sure his business will do well.
> ...


The left can't debate because their positions are always wrong. So it's just a bunch of name calling and stupid strawmen arguments.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Flash said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


I did read the ENTIRE decision. The case is returned to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for another ruling, with an admonition not to trample on the Baker's religious rights. That's all..period.
His win is transitory..the commission could still choose to rule against him. The court took no stance on the larger issues.

BTW..your homophobia is noted..and deplored.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


You are so funny..the guy who just trolls and never debates..deploring the left for not debating!


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Do you ever actually consider what you must look like..to an objective reader? I read my posts..and then your responses---how can you not cringe when considering how lame your responses are?


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...




It was returned because that filthy ass commission was hostile to the baker's religious views.  Hello?

I am sorry but just because you are a queer don't mean I have to bake a cake for you.  Bake your own cake or go find another  queer to bake one for you.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 4, 2018)

It will be interesting to see if the Commission gets it right this time.

Reasonable accommodation laws are important to curb the extreme of some prejudices, but the entire issue is one of intent.

It was the intent of the gay couple to force someone to violate their religious convictions, or did they have other recourse to procuring a wedding service?  As I understood it, it wasn't about baking the cake but having to participate in the wedding in some manner.   However, even if it WAS just to bake a cake if the couple had other places within a reasonable distance to perform the service or provide the tangible asset, then the real crime here lies with the couple.  

Then the question becomes, do protected groups have the right to deliberately, maliciously, and with purposeful intent, force someone to act against their principles?

I think we haven't seen the end of this legal battle just yet.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> 
> This will have a massive effect.


Interesting ruling. 

I may not entirely agree with it- but it is the ruling of the Supreme Court and I will not pretend the Court ruling is not valid.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Flash said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


You can bake..who knew?

In a funny parody of life and the net..my grand-kids are in the kitchen as we speak..baking a cake.

I'm not gay..but you needn't bake me a cake..i got my  own.


----------



## Crixus (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> ...





As well as Halloween and other Holliday’s the baker finds offensive. The reason you homos always lose this fight is because you find it nessicarey to lie.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Crixus said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



**ouch*** Spellcheck is your friend.

Why do you insist in thinking that because one is not homophobic..they're Gay? Very odd.

I don't find it 'nessicarey' to lie at all..and I defy you to find where I did!


----------



## Crixus (Jun 4, 2018)

Penelope said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




Don’t like it? Take your business elsware. It’s the American way.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Crixus said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...


Now that..I agree with. Vote with your wallet..it works.


----------



## Crixus (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...





Lied by omission. Did also won’t bake cakes for druids, or these folks who copy the religious crap from the show Vikings, you know your type. This wasn’t about a guy not making cakes for fags like your self. It was about his freedom of expression and his ability to run his business as he sees fit.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Crixus said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...


I'd almost respect your position..if you didn't feel the need to express your homophobia with the homosexual insults..why do you do that/ It brands you as a lower sort.

As far as freedom of expression and his ability to run his business as he sees fit--well..that ship sailed a long time ago. Our nation has laws..agree or not..break them at your peril. In any event, this story has a long way to go..do not be surprised if the Colorado commission rules against him again..you know how petty bureaucrats feel about being overruled.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 4, 2018)

The entire issue can be summed up in the first paragraph of the ruling:

"In 2012 a same-sex couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Colorado, to make inquiries about ordering a cake for their wedding reception. The shop’s owner told the couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages—*marriages the State of Colorado itself did not recognize at that time."*


The ruling sharply chastised the Colorado "Civil Rights" Commission for its publicly expressed hostility toward religious belief -- something the Commission is also tasked with protecting.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> ...




You do know this is about perverts rights vs religious rights?

It appears gay rights don't triumph Christian rights


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 4, 2018)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > *Supreme Court rules *_narrowly_* for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake*
> ...




Say what?


They write to readers like a 6th grader


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jun 4, 2018)

bear513 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



I'm not sure what you mean. Who writes to readers like a 6th grader?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 4, 2018)

theDoctorisIn said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...




The newspapers , the news outlets, it's well known..they write to US on a 6th grade level. They know most people just read headlines and listen to newsbites to form an opinion .


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jun 4, 2018)

bear513 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



That's probably not far from the truth. What does that have to do with what I posted?


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Using terms like "fag" or "homo" or "cum guzzler" are expressions of childish homophobia.
> ...


Bullshit.  Any normal boy would be offended, even sickened, at the thought of having sex with another male.  That doesn't take training to be homophobic because it's not homophobic.  It's being normal.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 4, 2018)

theDoctorisIn said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...




https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1969.tb00854.x

*Abstract*
This paper is based on a study of American newspaper readability in metropolitan and non‐metropolitan areas.

The results indicated that there was a significant difference between front page readability level of metropolitan and non‐metropolitan newspapers. There was a significant difference in readability level between metropolitan and non‐metropolitan newspaper articles. With the exception of the local news, the non‐metropolitan means were higher for each of these classifications.

There was no significant difference between metropolitan and non‐metro‐politan Associated Press articles. However, there was a significant difference between United Press International metropolitan and non‐metropolitan articles. United Press International articles in non‐metropolitan papers were more difficult to read.


----------



## asaratis (Jun 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> ...


Those signs are from yesteryear.  Nice try!


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jun 4, 2018)

bear513 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



As I said, you're probably right about the 6th grade reading level thing.

What's your point? What does that have to do with what I said?


----------



## asaratis (Jun 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> The 7-2 ruling returns the case to the commission directing them to review and take into consideration the religious views of the baker.
> 
> The commission, apparently, did not take those views into consideration in the original ruling.
> 
> The original law probably did not require such consideration, but considering the 1st Amendment's protection of religious belief, the commission should have at least mentioned why they were giving the PA requirements preference.


At the time of the refusal to bake the cake for the gay gents, gay marriage was not legal.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...


The baker refused to serve their wedding based on his religious beliefs.  The Colorado Commission can't force him to bake a cake no matter how you want to twist it.


----------



## asaratis (Jun 4, 2018)

martybegan said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


I don't think this particular commission can do anything.  It has already condemned the baker's religious beliefs.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

AvgGuyIA said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Bullshit. Homophobia is not about wanting or not wanting to have sex with another male. It's about hating some else for their decisions or who they are. What does it matter to you what someone else chooses to do with another consenting adult?
Homophobia is not natural..and it is declining rapidly in the US. That is what bothers many here on this board...their prejudices are not being passed on to the next generation.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

AvgGuyIA said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Force him to..well, of course not. Sanction him for not doing it...still remains to be seen. Upon their decision rests a lawsuit or two I bet.


----------



## task0778 (Jun 4, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



Not exactly.   The ruling basically says that "The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," and that their decision against the cake baker was tainted by an anti-religion bias.   Which it definitely was.   But the Court also said they were not deciding whether other business owners have a right to refuse to take part in gay weddings, saying those issues "must await further elaboration in the courts."

IOW, it is still to be determined whether a Christian cake baker can deny service to a gay couple based on religious freedom.   What if the baker says "yeah, I'll sell this cake over here or I'll make you a wedding cake that is undecorated but I won't decorate a cake for you."   What then, that ain't the same as saying I won't sell you a cake at all.   Where's the line that says I have to do this if I want to be open to the public but not that?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2018)

asaratis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The 7-2 ruling returns the case to the commission directing them to review and take into consideration the religious views of the baker.
> ...


Does not matter.  Read task0778's post immediately above this.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2018)

AvgGuyIA said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


You are stretching.


----------



## task0778 (Jun 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The case in question was in Colorado, not Pennsylvania, and at the time gay marriage was not legal, I think.   Now it is.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Bullshit. Homophobia is not about wanting or not wanting to have sex with another male. It's about hating some else for their decisions or who they are. What does it matter to you what someone else chooses to do with another consenting adult?


Wrong.  What pisses you off is that men puke at the thought of sucking dick.  And because men deplore it and think it is abnormal, they are called homophobic.  I don't hate gays but I'll bet you would say I'm homophobic.


----------



## Crixus (Jun 4, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...




It’s much more simple then that. Today I saw a black man refused service at a store because he was dressed in a hospital gown and that’s about it.


Take it a step further, you run a Jewish bakery. I come in clad in a black jacket, jack boots with my red laces and I want a cake that’s a rebel flag with swastikas in the middle of every star. Should that Jewish baker have to make the cake? No, he would be well within his rights to tell the skinheads to go pound sand.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2018)

Fallacy that, Crixus, of false equivalency.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

AvgGuyIA said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit. Homophobia is not about wanting or not wanting to have sex with another male. It's about hating some else for their decisions or who they are. What does it matter to you what someone else chooses to do with another consenting adult?
> ...


Dunno about whether you are or not. I do know this..that while I have no desire for sex with another man...I don't care if other men chose to engage in sex  with each-other.

If I'm reading you correctly..you are saying that 'real' men are homophobic..and that's absurd. Not wanting to engage in Gay sex is not homophobic...just means you're hetero. To you, that's another word for normal..to me..it's just a fact..with no moral implications, one way or the other--just like being gay.

What pisses me off...is prejudice of all forms..sexual being one of them.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Crixus said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


But so very stupid....he should charge them double..at least!

Then piss in the batter..lol!


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 4, 2018)

SCOTUS' ruling was very limited to THIS case only.  That's because SCOTUS found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commision may have made prejudicial statements regarding the baker's religion.   This is not a 'blanket' ruling and, in fact, if a gay couple were to go to his bakery today and request a wedding cake they could start the whole process over again.   That being said, the baker is NOT baking wedding cakes right now and, I for one, don't blame him.


----------



## Crixus (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...





Pfsthppppt RACIST! Seriously, it is a business owners perogative to tell whomever to go get what they need some place else. The men who filed this sute went shopping for this guy, who, by the way makes stuff for gay people all the time. He just won’t do a wedding cake. That’s his business. The two gay dudes should just get a cake from a gay guy and move on and be happy they got eachother.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 4, 2018)

Crixus said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




You never heard of no shoes, no shirt no service? 



.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 4, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



That can be said to be a a health-code regulation.  Like employees having to wash their hands.


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2018)

asaratis said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...




That is not exactly true.

From the ruling

The Commission holds a public
hearing and deliberative session before voting on the case.
If the Commission determines that the evidence proves a
CADA violation, it may impose remedial measures as
provided by statute. See §24–34–306(9). Available reme-
dies include, among other things, orders to cease-and-
desist a discriminatory policy, to file regular compliance
reports with the Commission, and “to take affirmative
action, including the postingof notices setting forth the
substantive rights of the public.” §24–34–605. Colorado
law does not permit the Commission to assess money
damages or fines. §§24–34–306(9), 24–34–605.



The thing that is despicable to me is what sicko legislature would give a commission of Moon Bats authority like that?  That kind of authority is asking for trouble.  No wonder they were admonished by the SC for being assholes.


----------



## hjmick (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> 
> This will have a massive effect.




Not so fast, it may not. It seems to be a rather narrow ruling, applying only to the case in question and how the state applied the law to this particular baker and bakery...


----------



## asaratis (Jun 4, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Opens up a can of worms allowing business to use religious beliefs to discriminate against anyone ....not just gays


....as does the allowing of a theocracy to do the same.  Radical Islam is not a religion...it is a maniacal theocracy...one that Obama did his best efforts to enable.


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> [
> 
> 
> BTW..your homophobia is noted..and deplored.



You say that like it is a bad thing.

There is nothing wrong with what the Moon Bats call homophobia.


----------



## asaratis (Jun 4, 2018)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > *Supreme Court rules *_narrowly_* for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake*
> ...


It correctly limits itself to that case.  In that regard, all decisions should be considered "narrow".  Oftentimes when they point out unconstitutional behavior that is applicable to other cases, they are not "narrow"....such as Roe v. Wade.


----------



## asaratis (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I think it is not a sin, but it is wrong to try to force a baker to do so.  To attempt to force an artistic baker to provide a cake extolling the virtues of gay marriage is akin to demanding that an accomplished portrait artist paint a portrait of one's fully nude wife with her legs spread wide.

The gay couple's agenda was to gain notoriety and acclamation from the gay community.  They were not so interested in obtaining the baker's cake as they were in feigning victim status.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 4, 2018)

BookShaka said:


> This whole situation is ridiculous. The gay couple didn’t HAVE to go to that bakery to get a cake.


Why should they have to find a bakery that doesn’t discriminate?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 4, 2018)

The Supreme Court basically whiffed on their decision

They set no precedent and failed to enforce guidelines for business that were established 50 years ago


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 4, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> BookShaka said:
> 
> 
> > This whole situation is ridiculous. The gay couple didn’t HAVE to go to that bakery to get a cake.
> ...



Why should an artist be forced to create art that offends his religious beliefs?


----------



## asaratis (Jun 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> The commission is going to have inspect the inference that the bakers were interpreting their religious belief.
> 
> What happens if the government provides evidence of other Christian bakers who happily make cakes for gay and lesbian couples?


What if this? What if that?

Not all Christians hold the same beliefs.   The couple could easily have gone to any other baker, Christian or not, that happily makes cakes for same sex marriage ceremonies.


----------



## Doc1 (Jun 4, 2018)

It's settled law. You'll just have to live with it.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > BookShaka said:
> ...



Because the 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law

You are in business......you don’t discriminate


----------



## asaratis (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Exactly!  It is for the CELEBRATION OF THE GAY WEDDING!


----------



## asaratis (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


He offered to sell them any other cakes.  They could have had it redecorated by someone else....or polished their own skills instead of each other's knobs and done it themselves.


----------



## toobfreak (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> 
> This will have a massive effect.




This is real bad news for Tommy Tanaint who thinks everything is going the way of gays.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 4, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Indeed.  Ergo, the customer's rights end where the provider's begin.


----------



## asaratis (Jun 4, 2018)

Tipsycatlover said:


> A bakery had a right to refuse to bake a child's birthday cake because the baker didn't like the child's name.
> 
> Child named after Adolf Hitler is refused cake request


Shame on the parents for naming their innocent child after a notorious murdering despot.


----------



## asaratis (Jun 4, 2018)

Crixus said:


> *Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case*
> 
> 
> *Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics*
> ...


Wrong!  It was Ruth Bader and some other idiot.


----------



## asaratis (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


If one objects to a lifestyle, one certainly objects to the celebration of it.


----------



## asaratis (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


He would have been participating by providing his work of art as the centerpiece.


----------



## skews13 (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> 7-2 decision.



Have you read the premise of the decision on scotusblog? No?

This was one of the most anticipated decisions of the term, *and it was relatively narrow: *

Although Phillips prevailed today, the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy rested largely on the majority’s conclusion that the Colorado administrative agency that ruled against Phillips treated him unfairly by being *too hostile to his sincere religious beliefs. *

The opinion seemed to leave open the possibility that, 
*
in a future case, a service provider’s sincere religious beliefs might have to yield to the state’s interest in protecting the rights of same-sex couples,* 

and the majority did not rule at all on one of the central arguments in the case – *whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech.*

Kennedy, the author of some of the court’s most important gay-rights rulings, began by explaining that the case involved a conflict between two important principles. 

_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.” _

But even if those objections are protected, Kennedy explained,

*the Supreme Court’s precedents make clear that in some cases the right to the free exercise of religion is not absolute and can instead be limited by neutral laws that apply to everyone. *

_Kennedy observed, the “neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised” _

*But the majority left open the possibility that a future case could come out differently, *

particularly if the decision maker in the case considered religious objections neutrally and fairly. Other cases, the majority emphasized, “must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.

Opinion analysis: Court rules (narrowly) for baker in same-sex-wedding-cake case [Updated] - SCOTUSblog


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 4, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> The Supreme Court basically whiffed on their decision
> 
> They set no precedent and failed to enforce guidelines for business that were established 50 years ago



Justice Thomas wanted a decisive decision.


rightwinger said:


> The Supreme Court basically whiffed on their decision
> 
> They set no precedent and failed to enforce guidelines for business that were established 50 years ago



Every SCOTUS decision can be a precedent.


----------



## asaratis (Jun 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> The fun part is that everyone in that city will know that baker doesn't serve gay people......let it be known far and wide.   I'm sure his business will do well.


He doesn't refuse to serve gay people. He refuses to decorate a gay wedding cake.  Kudos to him!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> 
> I would not get to wild eyed over this:
> In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple
> ...


----------



## asaratis (Jun 4, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > This whole cake thing is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.
> ...


I doubt that he would decorate a cake extolling any of these.


----------



## asaratis (Jun 4, 2018)

BlindBoo said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


Neither were the engaged men at the time of the refusal to decorate their cake.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 4, 2018)

skews13 said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > 7-2 decision.
> ...



Yes.  Media was labeling it a narrow vote, which it was not.  A narrow decision?  Yes, of course.



skews13 said:


> Kennedy, the author of some of the court’s most important gay-rights rulings, began by explaining that the case involved a conflict between two important principles.
> 
> _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.”_



Indeed, but again, "Your rights end where mine begin."  The unmovable object versus the irresistible force.



skews13 said:


> *the Supreme Court’s precedents make clear that in some cases the right to the free exercise of religion is not absolute and can instead be limited by neutral laws that apply to everyone. *



It is quite clearly absolute as written in the 1st Amendment.  "Congress shall make no law" could not be more clear.  Case law and precedent do not have authority to amend the Constitution.



skews13 said:


> *But the majority left open the possibility that a future case could come out differently,*



Of course, and that case will likely follow a similar path to the SC.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > BookShaka said:
> ...


Because he is offering his product in public commerce.

I am curious to see what the Commission will do.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2018)

asaratis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The commission is going to have inspect the inference that the bakers were interpreting their religious belief.
> ...


So you can't answer the question.  OK.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Aren't we all?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2018)

Doc1 said:


> It's settled law. You'll just have to live with it.


Nope.  It was returned to the Commission to look at again.


----------



## Polishprince (Jun 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Because he is offering his product in public commerce.
> 
> I am curious to see what the Commission will do.




Gay Wedding cakes isn't a product that's on his list of services.

Just like Roast Pork isn't on the local Jihadi restaurant's Iftar buffet.

But I'm not going to sue them to put it on their menu.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 4, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


*There are two definitions of discrimination.
1. Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another

2. The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

 The 1st definition is normal human behavior.  The 2nd is normal behavior for Racists.*


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 4, 2018)

Leo123 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Supreme Court basically whiffed on their decision
> ...



They passed on a real decision and sent it back to a lower court


----------



## Doc1 (Jun 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Doc1 said:
> 
> 
> > It's settled law. You'll just have to live with it.
> ...



Your sex life is your business, I won't bake a cake for you Jake. You have the "right" to your faggotry.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 4, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yeah they kicked the can down the road basically because of the staunch leftists on the court.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2018)

Doc1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Doc1 said:
> ...


You make me laugh out loud.  The insecurity in their sexuality is so apparent in so many of the alt right.


----------



## Gracie (Jun 4, 2018)

I'd be afraid to eat it after forcing them to bake it. Don't piss off the chef before you order...just sayin'.

Anyway...instead of fighting this person..why not go to a gay baker who would love to have the business???


----------



## asaratis (Jun 4, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...


Though you often hit the point dead on, homophobia is not hatred of homosexuals,  It is fear of homosexuality.  It generates the hatred, but is not defined by it.  Some who hate homosexuals are not homophobic.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jun 4, 2018)

*never never never eat a cake that you had to sue someone to make for you*


----------



## Flopper (Jun 4, 2018)

AvgGuyIA said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


*Normal is just a set of rules devised by people out of fear of others that are different than themselves.  It is a favorite word of bigots, racists, bullies, and hatemongers.  Which are you?
*


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2018)

We need to tell the queers to just shut the fuck up.  Nobody needs to be made to accept that vile lifestyle. Not in a country where we suppose to have Liberty.


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2018)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *never never never eat a cake that you had to sue someone to make for you*




If the baker was smart he would have made a turd pie for the fudge packers.  That would have been appropriate.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 4, 2018)

Flash said:


> We need to tell the queers to just shut the fuck up.  Nobody needs to be made to accept that vile lifestyle. Not in a country where we suppose to have Liberty.


I guess you don't see the contradiction in calling us a country that's supposed to have liberty....and denying it to some because you don't like their sexual practices?

You see..we ARE a country that has liberty...thus we tolerate many weirdos..hey..we even allow you to spew your hate and discontent. Ain't American great!


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Doc1 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



But Jake, you seem to envision yourself as non biased yet you seem to lean toward pro homosexuality.   Why?   Can you deny that heterosexuality is, by far, the overwhelming scientific definition of sex?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Is there no level of idiocy to which you will not stoop?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 4, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Repeating your idiocy just makes you look even more stupid.

When dd this sudden streak of liberalism hit you?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 4, 2018)

Penelope said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



I suspect, no check that, I know you are either an idiot or brain damaged.  Which is it?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 4, 2018)

Penelope said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



When did I say it was?  Why do you have to make up things I have said in order to have a discussion?  Homey don't play that!


----------



## airplanemechanic (Jun 4, 2018)

Hey Ad, can you combine your replies into one? Believe it or not its not hard to do, doesn't take that long, and makes the thread easier to follow. Having 4 replies in a row is a bit much. You don't need your own reply for each thing, just lump them all into one.

Of course if you're just looking to pad your post count....


----------



## task0778 (Jun 4, 2018)

Gracie said:


> I'd be afraid to eat it after forcing them to bake it. Don't piss off the chef before you order...just sayin'.
> 
> Anyway...instead of fighting this person..why not go to a gay baker who would love to have the business???



They wanted to provoke a fight with a Christian baker.   They could've gone to a number of other bakeries if all they wanted was a cake.


----------



## dblack (Jun 4, 2018)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Prejudicial treatment of different categories of people is daily human behavior. What we're talking about with these laws isn't the removal of bias from human interaction. It's only bias that government has targeted for suppression. This isn't about equal rights. It's a social engineering project attempting to change the hearts and minds of people by force. And it's backfiring badly.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 4, 2018)

Thanks for the link on page 1 Marty!  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

The crux: (page 12 of the Opinion of the Court)

_There were, to be sure, responses to these arguments that the State could make when it contended for a different result in seeking the enforcement of its generally applicable state regulations of businesses that serve the public. And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.  But, nonetheless, *Phillips was entitled to the neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.*_

_The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here, however.  *The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection*. That hostility surfaced at the Commission’s formal, public hearings, as shown by the record.  On May 30, 2014, the seven-member Commission convened publicly to consider Phillips’ case.* At several points during its meeting, commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community. One commissioner suggested that Phillips can believe “what he wants to believe,” but cannot act on his religious beliefs “if he decides to do business*_

******

OK folks.  Here's the writing on the wall.  The Court could've written their decision on one sentence:_ "People doing certain behaviors and claiming an identity from those behaviors cannot punish, sue or exclude from the business sphere people of faith who object to those behaviors."_

Behaviors

Behaviors

Behaviors.

Annnndd… Dunno if you caught it, but the Court was signaling to Phillips, and any other Christian so told "your beliefs better stay in the closet", that he and they have GROUNDS FOR A CIVIL SUIT FOR VIOLATION OF THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS.

FINALLY the USSC got it right.  I guess they had trouble finding language in the Constitution about "protection of a deviant sex cult's rights to force people of faith to abdicate their faith".  They searched, but they just couldn't find it.  

Wonder how that's going to play out in Michigan in Dumont v Lyon, the case where lesbians are seeking to punitively remove food directly from the mouths of orphans (they're not even shy about seeking to do this) in order to punish people of faith for screening them based on their homosexual "marriages".  That means that the lesbians have declared as a matter of public record that they celebrate putting the agendas of adults before the needs of kids.  That's the #1 question on any adoption application by the way.  So suing, they have disqualified themselves from being able to adopt.

Also, a homosexual marriage, unique among all parenting situations, carries a contract that promises to banish a child from either a mother or father for life.  So not only would religious orphanages have a right to object, but any orphanage that has psychologists on staff who are aware of the deleterious effects of boys never having a father or girls never having a mother.  Oopsies.

Behaviors

Behaviors

Behaviors

Edit: Sotomayor & Ginsburg dissented.  Sotomayor was the Justice doing the can-can dance on New Year's Eve n Times Square NY just after twerking Miley Cyrus performed.  Ginsburg gave an interview a month before she Heard Obergefell, to a hotly divided American public clearly in the majority against states being forced to assent to gay marriage that "gay marriage is a thing that America is ready for".  She also was openly officiating at gay weddings before Obergefell.  Both things violated her Oath to remain impartial in the eyes of the American Public as required (not suggested) of her High Office.

December 31, 2013





Ginsburg officiating at a gay wedding as she knew Obergefell was heading her way:  August 2013.


----------



## Polishprince (Jun 4, 2018)

Gracie said:


> I'd be afraid to eat it after forcing them to bake it. Don't piss off the chef before you order...just sayin'.
> 
> Anyway...instead of fighting this person..why not go to a gay baker who would love to have the business???



It doesn't even have to be a homosexual baker, or even a liberal one.

I am entertained by High Camp, and there is nothing which is more of a farce than a guy in a dress pretending to marry another guy.   I'd bake it in the shape of a man's butt which would be appropriate for the event.


----------



## task0778 (Jun 4, 2018)

“To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs.” But the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not fairy review Phillips’ position. They were unfair to the Christian, publicly hostile to him and the religion, and biased in favor of the gay couple, Kennedy explained. 

Important to take away from this decision is that the court recognized the legal interests of the gay couple and stated that businesses cannot deny selling all goods and services to protected groups. 

“… if a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter and the State would have a strong case under this Court’s precedents that this would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public and is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public accommodations law.” 


*Phillips’ case is different, Kennedy wrote, because he was asked to use “his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation,” which is narrower in scope and specifically invokes the First Amendment. *

With the Supreme Court’s decision, both Christians and gays received protection from the Court for their beliefs. This decision was fair and balanced in its analysis, protective of all.  

JUSTICE for the Christian Cake Baker! Supreme Court Rules Colorado Was Unfair and Hostile


I hafta wonder if this case goes back to that Colorado Commission, could they still rule against the baker?   I dunno, in this case it sounds like the baker did not deny service for all goods and services, which he cannot legally do.   But he can legally deny the use of his artistic skills if his religious beliefs are compromised.


----------



## task0778 (Jun 4, 2018)

Then there's this:
.
.
_" Had Kennedy stopped his opinion at that point, Phillips’s victory would have been important, but profoundly limited. The obvious response would be for the commissioners to reconsider the case, cleanse their rhetoric of outright hostility, deliver the same result on a cleaner record, and put the more difficult free-speech claim right back in the Court’s lap. But Kennedy didn’t stop. He found a separate ground for concluding that Colorado was motivated by anti-religious animus, and that separate ground will make it difficult for states to take aim at “offensive” religious exercise, even when it occurs in a commercial context.

It turns out that the state of Colorado had protected the right of bakers to refuse to create cakes with explicitly anti-gay messages. Here’s Kennedy again:

On at least three other occasions the Civil Rights Division considered the refusal of bakers to create cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text. Each time, the Division found that the baker acted lawfully in refusing service.  It made these determinations because, in the words of the Division, the requested cake included “wording and images [the baker] deemed derogatory.”

But wait. Can the state make those distinctions? Can it protect the right of one baker to refuse an “offensive” message without extending protection on an equal basis to other bakers? Kennedy’s words are key:

A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of these two instances cannot be based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness.  Just as “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943), it is not, as the Court has repeatedly held, the role of the State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive. . . . The Colorado court’s attempt to account for the difference in treatment elevates one view of what is offensive over another and itself sends a signal of official disapproval of Phillips’ religious beliefs."_

Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling: Religious Liberty Victory | National Review

In other words, the Court not only prohibited favoritism, it imposed a high cost on censorship.


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...








Feel free to use the wayback machine and you will find that that has ALWAYS been my position.  I am in favor of gay marriage, I always have been.  I believe that the Declaration of Independence covers that aspect of human life when it states that we are free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.  Marriage is certainly a part of that pursuit.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 4, 2018)

Flash said:


> We need to tell the queers to just shut the fuck up.  Nobody needs to be made to accept that vile lifestyle. Not in a country where we suppose to have Liberty.


*In American a person is entitled to live any lifestyle they choose providing it's legal.  How gays lead their life is up to them.  No one says you have to associate with gays, go to gay bars, watch gay movies or read gay books. What they do behind closed doors is their business not yours just as what you do is your business.*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 5, 2018)

Leo123 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Doc1 said:
> ...


I lean toward civil liberties and avoid fallacies of false speculation.  Heteroes and homosexuals have the same liberties.  Why do you deny the Constitutional protections guaranteed to all Americans?


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > We need to tell the queers to just shut the fuck up.  Nobody needs to be made to accept that vile lifestyle. Not in a country where we suppose to have Liberty.
> ...







Agreed.  Which is why gay people should not be allowed to impose their lifestyle on others.  Bakers as a for instance.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 5, 2018)

Flopper said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...


Well, that is an outright bigoted view.

Normal behavior is behavior that can be observed by the majority of a species.  The 'hardwired drive to procreate" is normalized by that very need.  Evolution is predicated upon this 'normalized' behavior.

I Myself don't care.  Evolution will always attempt divergence and many behaviors lead to evolutionary dead ends or the extinction of a species.  Homosexuality is one of these blind evolutionary paths and survives only because the 'normalized' behavior of humans to have relations with the opposite sex keeps us going.  These are not agenda driven rules devised by people, but nature acting in accordance with natural laws.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 5, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > We need to tell the queers to just shut the fuck up.  Nobody needs to be made to accept that vile lifestyle. Not in a country where we suppose to have Liberty.
> ...


Correct.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 5, 2018)

martybegan said:


> A quick scan of it makes me think this isn't a 100% win for the baker. Their case goes back to the commission that made the original ruling, but the SC directs the commission they have to take into account the baker's religious beliefs, something they did not think the commission originally did.



Yup... they said that they said bad things about his Bronze Age superstitions and they shouldn't have. 

the problem  here is that any bigot, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe POS can claim a religious exemption from Public Accommodation laws if they gave in to this baker.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 5, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Because the 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law
> 
> You are in business......you don’t discriminate


There is no way a lower court can rule against a business who refuses to participate in a gay wedding anymore and also force the business to participate.  The SCOTUS will always have to rule in favor of the business. So time for the gays to move on.  There are plenty of businesses to help you out.  

SCOTUS ruled 7-2 the Free exercise of  religion is supreme over any PA law.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 5, 2018)

dblack said:


> Prejudicial treatment of different categories of people is daily human behavior. What we're talking about with these laws isn't the removal of bias from human interaction. It's only bias that government has targeted for suppression. This isn't about equal rights. It's a social engineering project attempting to change the hearts and minds of people by force. And it's backfiring badly.



i think it's working just fine.  The bigots are outing themselves and we all get to laugh at them.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 5, 2018)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *never never never eat a cake that you had to sue someone to make for you*


They would find a dark fudge center.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 5, 2018)

Leo123 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Leo123 said:
> ...


The Supreme Court had a chance to set a precedent 

Instead, they punted


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 5, 2018)

If the gays think this decision is ultimately good for them, then why did Ginzberg and Sotomayer dissent?  The intent of the majority may be found in the dissent's remarks.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 5, 2018)

asaratis said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



They can when he baker again denies service based on his religious beliefs.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 5, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > A quick scan of it makes me think this isn't a 100% win for the baker. Their case goes back to the commission that made the original ruling, but the SC directs the commission they have to take into account the baker's religious beliefs, something they did not think the commission originally did.
> ...



Religious beliefs are protected by the 1st amendment, precisely to protect them from neanderthal atheist assholes like you.

Not so. The ruling doesn't say they have to accept all religious reasonings in all cases, just that they have to take them into account. That also means they have to use the least intrusive method to resolve the situation, not "fine them into oblivion"


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 5, 2018)

bodecea said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
> ...


Naah, you don't actually believe that.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 5, 2018)

DJT for Life said:


> Not much to the link.  This has just happened.
> 
> 5 or 6 year old case where Baker refused, on religious grounds and beliefs
> that he wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  SCOTUS
> ...


You do not understand what you posted.


----------



## Flash (Jun 5, 2018)

This is the LGBT that I support:


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 5, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> the problem  here is that any bigot, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe POS can claim a religious exemption from Public Accommodation laws if they gave in to this baker.



That's not true. You can get in big trouble for discriminating against someone for the race they were born, their country of origin, their actual gender or the faith they adhere to. 

It's right there in the Constitution. Colorado violated the baker's civil rights. Habitual behaviors outside spirituality aren't mentioned as protected in th US Constitution. Nowhere. I've scanned it numerous times & I can't find a line about those endless possibilities anywhere.


----------



## Taz (Jun 5, 2018)

SCOTUS should have declared that there's no such thing as a gay cake, because well... there is no such thing, so how can you refuse to bake one?


----------



## Taz (Jun 5, 2018)

Flash said:


> This is the LGBT that I support:


You support gay guns?


----------



## Flash (Jun 5, 2018)

Taz said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > This is the LGBT that I support:
> ...




All my guns are heterosexual.  How about yours?


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 5, 2018)

Flash said:


> All my guns are heterosexual.  How about yours?



It's true. Guns don't work unless you put the right bullet through the right chamber.


----------



## Circe (Jun 5, 2018)

DigitalDrifter said:


> Interesting development.
> 
> I think I'm beginning to smell the butthurt across the land.



I can't tell if this poster is right or left.  So far, he's just obscene and disgusting. Well, I'll wait and see if he is able to post anything coherent that isn't communist or dirty.


----------



## Circe (Jun 5, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Is baking a cake for a morbidly obese person a sin since by doing so the baker is approving of gluttony?



Agreed --- religion is a useless excuse for trying to get what we really want, which is freedom to do business how and with whom we please.


----------



## Circe (Jun 5, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Get rid of all PA laws...and any business can reject anyone based on religion, race, handicap or gender.    Wooot!




That would be great, and how it should be.  But what does "PA" mean?


Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
> ...




So did I. I have no idea what it is supposed to mean, if it's not Pennsylvania. I wish people communicated more clearly. Without mystery acronyms.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 5, 2018)

Circe said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Get rid of all PA laws...and any business can reject anyone based on religion, race, handicap or gender.    Wooot!
> ...


Public accommodation 
Its just so many letters and people are lazy! lol


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 5, 2018)

Circe said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Get rid of all PA laws...and any business can reject anyone based on religion, race, handicap or gender.    Wooot!
> ...



Public accommodation.  Being forced to accept that which you normally would not.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 5, 2018)

Nobody has any control of their race or permanent skin color. And there is no religious support for a GOD who holds anyone accountable for the race they have been given by Him (and HIM alone). Everyone is responsible for their actions. There is no religious or Biblical support that says anyone must engage in sex and that any kind of sex is acceptable. Sorry, but gay sex in not a religious right. And marriage is a gift from GOD and not to be taken lightly.

The primary cause for the Civil War was a religious confrontation regarding the interpretation of the Bible and Judeo/Christian values towards who is our neighbor and how we should treat them. Anyone who does any research concerning the Civil War will have to come to the conclusion that religious fervor was a major contributing factor. And Christianly was the driving force that ended slavery in England. The song Amazing Grace was written by a man who was once a slave trader but came to know Christ as his person Savor.

The entire gay movement is founded on sexual indulgence of any sort and is neither necessary nor divinely inspired. Fornication, adultery, incest, and sodomy are highly condemned and have been Biblically demonstrated not to promote wholesome attitudes, a virtuous life, nor a moral tone to set as an example before children.


----------



## Circe (Jun 5, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Why should I allow you to ignore your childish name calling?  I’m going to rub your nose in your pile of crap every chance I get.



That's one solution, but the one I'm trying is just deleting every leftist obscenity/insult poster. The whole world is hunting us for our attention 24/7. Why give it to all these leftwing parasites and predators? They are here for the one purpose of destroying us: but we can get rid of them on our forum feed. 

So far, this is working well for me. Feels a bit like the Augean Stables and me the Hercules with the shovel, but little by little it gets more civil.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 5, 2018)

Circe said:


> That's one solution, but the one I'm trying is just deleting every leftist obscenity/insult poster. The whole world is hunting us for our attention 24/7. Why give it to all these leftwing parasites and predators? They are here for the one purpose of destroying us: but we can get rid of them on our forum feed.
> 
> So far, this is working well for me. Feels a bit like the Augean Stables and me the Hercules with the shovel, but little by little it gets more civil.


Tell me about it.  I've been hammering on about the false premise (behaviors do not = race) for about 13 years now with 100s of thousands of posts during that time on various political sites.  For the first 9 years or so I was literally in the top 10 most prolific and beaten up poster on the internet calling this perverted emperor out for not actually having any clothes on.  

This indeed has been a long shovel-out of a heavily manured bullshit load.  But the USSC's decision this week FINALLY calls out the false premise.  No, Christians do NOT have to be forced to abdicate their faith for BEHAVIORS they cannot abide by.  Thanks for setting the premise straight USSC.  Jesus it took long enough!


----------



## Flash (Jun 5, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> [
> 
> Yup... they said that they said bad things about his Bronze Age superstitions and they shouldn't have.
> 
> the problem  here is that any bigot, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe POS can claim a religious exemption from Public Accommodation laws if they gave in to this baker.



What is wrong with that?  It is called freedom.  Why should the oppressive government force me to accept your filthy life style?

Liberals are really hung up on having the oppressive government to force people to do what they don't want to do, aren't you?  It is despicable, isn't it?


----------



## Circe (Jun 5, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> Normal behavior is behavior that can be observed by the majority of a species.  The 'hardwired drive to procreate" is normalized by that very need.  Evolution is predicated upon this 'normalized' behavior.
> 
> I Myself don't care.  Evolution will always attempt divergence and many behaviors lead to evolutionary dead ends or the extinction of a species.  Homosexuality is one of these blind evolutionary paths and survives only because the 'normalized' behavior of humans to have relations with the opposite sex keeps us going.  These are not agenda driven rules devised by people, but nature acting in accordance with natural laws.



I'm not so sure that's true. It seems clear to me the world is becoming grossly overpopulated, and worse and worse, fast. Presto, up pops legalized homosexuality, which is anti-natalist, against population growth.

I expect it's an instinctive reaction of an overcrowded species. Mate with unproductive partners, don't make more humans. Overcrowded species also do a lot more violence and wars in the case of people: killing each other also works.

I suppose homosexuality may be one of the Four Horsemen, like war and famine and disease that Malthus pointed out restrict endless and infinite reproduction: Death. It can be death, often is, what with AIDS.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 5, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > That's one solution, but the one I'm trying is just deleting every leftist obscenity/insult poster. The whole world is hunting us for our attention 24/7. Why give it to all these leftwing parasites and predators? They are here for the one purpose of destroying us: but we can get rid of them on our forum feed.
> ...


_Christians do NOT have to be forced to abdicate their faith for BEHAVIORS they cannot abide by._
That is not the decision the SC made; I wish they'd made a decision one way or the other, too, but they didn't.
Try reading a few pages of this thread, or the SC decision.  Or a news article.


----------



## Circe (Jun 5, 2018)

Jarlaxle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



It used to be that way, I can remember. These "serve all, no matter how disruptive and despicable" laws are very recent. Used to be you could limit sales of housing, rentals, hotels, restaurants, everything. You took a hit on income by not allowing some customers, maybe, but gained a lot in respectability and safety. 

I want that back. That freedom was a lot better, and put the burden where it belongs: on the customer to act right. Be civilized.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 5, 2018)

No shirt no shoes, no service.

I remember the good old days...


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 5, 2018)

Circe said:


> That's one solution, but the one I'm trying is just deleting every leftist obscenity/insult poster. The whole world is hunting us for our attention 24/7. Why give it to all these leftwing parasites and predators? They are here for the one purpose of destroying us: but we can get rid of them on our forum feed.
> 
> So far, this is working well for me. Feels a bit like the Augean Stables and me the Hercules with the shovel, but little by little it gets more civil.





Silhouette said:


> Tell me about it.  I've been hammering on about the false premise (behaviors do not = race) for about 13 years now with 100s of thousands of posts during that time on various political sites.  For the first 9 years or so I was literally in the top 10 most prolific and beaten up poster on the internet calling this perverted emperor out for not actually having any clothes on.
> 
> This indeed has been a long shovel-out of a heavily manured bullshit load.  But the USSC's decision this week FINALLY calls out the false premise.  No, Christians do NOT have to be forced to abdicate their faith for BEHAVIORS they cannot abide by.  Thanks for setting the premise straight USSC.  Jesus it took long enough!


_


OldLady said:



			Christians do NOT have to be forced to abdicate their faith for BEHAVIORS they cannot abide by
		
Click to expand...

_


OldLady said:


> That is not the decision the SC made; I wish they'd made a decision one way or the other, too, but they didn't.
> Try reading a few pages of this thread, or the SC decision.  Or a news article.



I did read the SC decision.  Go back to page 39 and read my post there.  The USSC "said" that LGBT was a behavior because they "said" a Christian could object to it and not serve them a "gay" wedding cake.  What the USSC was saying is "some people for reasons of faith do not have to respect "gay" marriage".  If regular people doing gay sex stuff had special protections, this would not be the Decision of the court.  Imagine if a black couple walked into a bakery and the clerk said_ "we don't believe in ni**er marriage, so no cake for you!"_  The decision would've been QUITE different.

But since the premise was about BEHAVIORS/habitual lifestyles and not something actually protected, like race or faith, then the USSC found as it did.​


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 5, 2018)

AvgGuyIA said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Because the 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law
> ...


Court ruled 7-2 that they don’t want to deal with it


----------



## Circe (Jun 5, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> No shirt no shoes, no service.
> 
> I remember the good old days...




"No colors" signs on the doors of bars in the country, to avoid motorcycle gang fights. 

Can places of business restrict ANY bad behavior these days? I'm not sure they can say "no shirt no shoes no service" anymore, or "no colors, no identifying costumes."  Maybe any amount of illegal, gross behavior is supposed to be all right in the name of diversity. Consider the mobs fighting and shooting each other on Black Fridays.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 5, 2018)

Circe said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Normal behavior is behavior that can be observed by the majority of a species.  The 'hardwired drive to procreate" is normalized by that very need.  Evolution is predicated upon this 'normalized' behavior.
> ...


Homosexuals never had children before, won’t have them now
Nothing will change


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 5, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Court ruled 7-2 that they don’t want to deal with it



Liar.  That's the spin on the left.  The New York Times also called the Decision "narrow".  Yeah, since when is 7-2 "narrow"?  That's more than twice the thumping of the minority opinion.

They dealt with it covertly.  They said that they expect regular men and women who belong to the not-Constitutionally protected cult of LGBT that they must respect other people's moral objections to their habitual behaviors/lifestyles.  And they did this because they checked the US Constitution (it's in their job description) and could not find any protections for deviant sex behaviors-as-identity.

They dealt with it.  Their Opinion will be cited in future cases.  They set a precedent.


----------



## LOki (Jun 5, 2018)

Well, there goes the neighborhood.

Now Jewish bakeries can refuse to bake cakes commissioned by skinheads to celebrate Adolph Hitler's birthday.

Where's the justice in that? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 5, 2018)

Here's the headline from the lion of the liberal journalism spin-machine:  In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

*In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple*

It was 7-2 for fuck's sake.  And in 2008 related-news: "a majority of Californians support gay marriage.  Prop 8 predicted to be defeated in a landslide".


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 5, 2018)

LOki said:


> Well, there goes the neighborhood.
> 
> Now Jewish bakeries can refuse to bake cakes commissioned by skinheads to celebrate Adolph Hitler's birthday.
> 
> Where's the justice in that? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Or as Chris L hilariously put it on the only thread allowed on this subject in the much-viewed "politics" column:  BTW, when will USMB mods un-dungeon this thread to where more people will view it?  Nice trick.


_If I want bacon, should Muslims be forced to cook it up for me?_  _Of course! It's bacon!   Your rights end where my rights to bacon begin_.  ​


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 5, 2018)

Circe said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


I'm sorry, but I wasn't actually addressing you.


----------



## BookShaka (Jun 5, 2018)

So they can get a wedding cake.



rightwinger said:


> BookShaka said:
> 
> 
> > This whole situation is ridiculous. The gay couple didn’t HAVE to go to that bakery to get a cake.
> ...


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 5, 2018)

BookShaka said:


> So they can get a wedding cake.


Not from a Christian who objects.  

When will the probation period for this thread being dungeoned here at the low-view forum be up?  When will its title be allowed in politics or current events?


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 5, 2018)

Mission accomplished.  Comments on this thread have slowed down to nothing.  Way to go USMB.


----------



## dblack (Jun 5, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> The Supreme Court had a chance to set a precedent
> 
> Instead, they punted



That's the hallmark of the Roberts Court.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 5, 2018)

westwall said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


*Buying a cake does not imposes the buyer's lifestyle on the seller.  I doubt selling a wedding cake to a gay couple would result in contracting their gayness or exposure to homosexual sex.   *


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2018)

Flopper said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...








It does if you require him to put his artistic talent into it.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 5, 2018)

westwall said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


*So that's going to make the baker gay or cause him to have evil homosexual thoughts, go home and watch gay porn or go to a gay bar.*


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 5, 2018)

Flopper said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Correct, if the gay couple just bought a pre-made cake it would have been no problem.  They wanted the cake makers to participate which they could not do because of their religious beliefs.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 5, 2018)

Flopper said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Not the point.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2018)

Flopper said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...







Stop having temper tantrums.  That is not the point and you know it.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 5, 2018)

Hey a little theater!  "Looks" like people actually know this topic exists now!  (when are you going to move it to politics?  Before or after its conspicuous absence becomes an embarrassment for USMB?)


----------



## task0778 (Jun 5, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Hey a little theater!  "Looks" like people actually know this topic exists now!  (when are you going to move it to politics?  Before or after its conspicuous absence becomes an embarrassment for USMB?)



Dude, you're getting a little too annoying.   If you got that much of a problem with the Mods here then maybe you should consider posting somewhere else.   Kindly stick to the topic, the constant bitching is ridiculous.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 5, 2018)

task0778 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Hey a little theater!  "Looks" like people actually know this topic exists now!  (when are you going to move it to politics?  Before or after its conspicuous absence becomes an embarrassment for USMB?)
> ...


Or they can just un-dungeon the thread.  Hey, aren't you supposed to be a banter buddy for this thread?  Now you're speaking for the mods?  Which is it?


----------



## task0778 (Jun 5, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Don't know what a banter buddy is, and I do not speak for anybody but myself and definitely not the Mods.   They do not need any assistance from me, that's for sure.   I'm just saying that the constant bitching is getting really old, so I'd appreciate it if you would cease and desist.   There are other forums out there, so go find one if you think the USMB is so bad.


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 5, 2018)

Remember my thread anyone??? it was in "legal'. Well well, the "B" is back(me) to tell you all: "I told you so!" HA!  AND this thread is well placed in where it is: "breaking news" because- uh- it is so obvious this is breaking news. In addition this case decision by Scotus is not a "punt", it is a carefully considered complex case that is what it is, not broad nor narrow. The baker hauled the arses of the ironically bigoted civil rights el groupo all the way to the top court because he is a man wth strong convictions (no doubt) and the decision clearly informs future US law and society that governmental commissions Shall NOT/CAN NOT use their power in a biased way against persons. The Supremes clearly topped the Colorado CRC by emphasizing freedom of religion as part of the US Consitution (a right) weighing federal authority over a messed up state governmental body. There is precedent in that. The decision is final. This case DOES NOT go back to the Colorado commission. In other words, the baker got the Supreme "not guilty" verdict in a way. The baker's rights are affirmed by the Supreme Court and the US Constitution and he is finally FREE to go home and lead his life and work his business again (after many years) like he did a long time ago. There were MANY irregularities made by the Colorado CRC and those combined with the fact that as the baker stated he refused to create a wedding cake for a same sex ceremony IN Colorado, there never existed "gay marriage" at that time/that year. In addition, there is an underlying concern that perhaps the baker was targeted for a "stunt"/case, and that the "civil rights" commission in sum total supplied a whole lot of ANIMUS that sank their arrogant arses in the end.- AZ gal: I told y'all so that the baker would win!- thanks I'll be congratulating myself for days....and...


   SEE: Politics & Policy
*Christian Baker 1, Officious Bureaucrats 0 *
*By* *Rich Lowry*


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 5, 2018)

Oh for God's sake...you too?


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 5, 2018)

_"Masterpiece_ states an important ideal. But the Supreme Court has not been good over the years at identifying government bias or hostility that is the least bit shrouded. In a case without smoking-gun expressions of hostility, objectors will need evidence of inconsistent treatment of tester cases." from







Douglas Laycock and Thomas Berg Guest

Posted Tue, June 5th, 2018 3:48 pm

Bio & Post Archive »
*Symposium: Masterpiece Cakeshop — not as narrow as may first appear*


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 5, 2018)

By Jeff Jacoby  Globe Columnist   June 05, 2018

The Supreme Court’s decision Monday in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was not a legal landmark. It broke no constitutional ground. It affirmed no important new principle in the interpretation of the First or Fourteenth Amendments. The justices ruled 7-2 in favor of Jack Phillips, the owner of the specialty cake shop who was punished for refusing to design a cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage. But their verdict was widely downplayed as a temporary stopgap, limited to the somewhat unusual facts of Phillips’s case, and holding out little reassurance to other vendors with religious objections to gay marriage.

I think that misses the point.

It’s true that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion sidestepped the hard questions posed by this litigation. Can someone who opposes gay marriage be compelled to support it through his work? Is the artistry involved in designing a cake a form of speech under the First Amendment? When should claims of religious liberty trump the principle of nondiscrimination? The resolution of those issues, Kennedy wrote, “must await further elaboration in the courts.” By and large, conservatives and religious-liberty advocates saw little to celebrate in Monday’s ruling — “empty calories,” the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro called it — while those who opposed Phillips rejoiced in the narrowness of the decision. “We lost a battle, but won the war,” gloated David Cole of the ACLU, which represented the gay Colorado couple in the case.

Yet the real significance of the ruling, and of the fact that only two justices dissented, isn’t the narrowness of its legal grounds. It is the sharpness of its rebuke to the members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for their bigoted comments when Jack Phillips was summoned to a hearing before them. After the baker explained that his Christian faith does not allow him to use his creative talent to celebrate same-sex marriage, one of the commissioners dismissed his plea for freedom of conscience as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric.” No other commissioner objected as he lectured Phillips that “freedom of religion” is just a pretext that has been used to “justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history,” including slavery and the Holocaust.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Hey a little theater!  "Looks" like people actually know this topic exists now!  (when are you going to move it to politics?  Before or after its conspicuous absence becomes an embarrassment for USMB?)






Probably never.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 5, 2018)

AvgGuyIA said:


> If the gays think this decision is ultimately good for them, then why did Ginzberg and Sotomayer dissent? The intent of the majority may be found in the dissent's remarks.



You can keep telling yourself that, but the fact is, they didn't want THIS case to be precedent on the parameters of Public Accommedation.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 5, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> That's not true. You can get in big trouble for discriminating against someone for the race they were born, their country of origin, their actual gender or the faith they adhere to.



But that's the problem you don't seem to get.  If you can say, "I won't serve you because your gay because my Imaginary Friend in the SKy said so", it's not a big leap to "I won't serve you because you are black, because my imaginary friend in the sky said so!" 

In fact, racists in the 1960's used THESE EXACT ARGUMENTS, which is why PA Laws were written to start with.



Silhouette said:


> It's right there in the Constitution. Colorado violated the baker's civil rights. Habitual behaviors outside spirituality aren't mentioned as protected in th US Constitution. Nowhere. I've scanned it numerous times & I can't find a line about those endless possibilities anywhere.



Dude, you are like the vegetarian who can't stop talking about steak.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 5, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Your business doesn't have a religion.  Your business operates under the laws of the state.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 5, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



My business is my business.  You don't have a clue.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 5, 2018)

Flopper said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Participation


JoeB131 said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...


It is not the "States" business. It is that of the owner. And if the owner wishes to be closed on Sundays, because it is the LORD's day, it is not for the "State" to insist that the business remain open. Likewise, if the owner feels that supporting Gay unions with cake (or any other form of assistance) is a form of participation, then it is not for the "State" to insist it is nothing of the sort. Christians are not to worship the State.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 5, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > That's not true. You can get in big trouble for discriminating against someone for the race they were born, their country of origin, their actual gender or the faith they adhere to.
> ...


Sir, again you are missing the entire point. GOD designed red, yellow, black and white. Satan and the sinner are the only ones who can lay claim to the creation of Homosexuality and gay marriage. The fact is you are trying to force the vegetarian to serve steak, and there is no reason that he should.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 5, 2018)

Leo123 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


*Participate??  They expect him to be a ring bearer? I fail to see how putting a little plastic stature of 2 guys on a cake with names and Best Wishes violates ones religious beliefs.  Well, considering what passes for religion today, maybe it would.  Seems pretty stupid to me, but then I don't go to a church that teaches hate and intolerance.    *


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 5, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Hey a little theater!  "Looks" like people actually know this topic exists now!  (when are you going to move it to politics?  Before or after its conspicuous absence becomes an embarrassment for USMB?)




Translation ~ you want to burry the story and hopes it goes away..just like the same reason you want to take down Democrat statues. ..


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> It is not the "States" business. It is that of the owner. And if the owner wishes to be closed on Sundays, because it is the LORD's day, it is not for the "State" to insist that the business remain open. Likewise, if the owner feels that supporting Gay unions with cake (or any other form of assistance) is a form of participation, then it is not for the "State" to insist it is nothing of the sort. Christians are not to worship the State.



Quite the contrary. If you don't want to be open on Sundays to praise your imaginary friend in the sky, that's your business, since the business is closed to everyone. 

When you say, "I'm not going to serve gays or blacks or unmarried women because my imaginary friend in the sky says so", that's breaking the law.  This isn't complicated.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jun 6, 2018)

*Supreme Court Drags Nation Into Dystopian Nightmare In Which Business Owners Can Openly Practice Their Faith*
Supreme Court Drags Nation Into Dystopian Nightmare In Which Business Owners Can Openly Practice Their Faith

"WASHINGTON, D.C.—By issuing a ruling in favor of a Christian baker in the _Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission_ case this morning, the Supreme Court dragged the nation right into a dystopian nightmare in which business owners can openly practice their faith and run their businesses in a manner consistent with their personal beliefs, somber sources reported Monday. . . . "


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 6, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> *Supreme Court Drags Nation Into Dystopian Nightmare In Which Business Owners Can Openly Practice Their Faith*
> Supreme Court Drags Nation Into Dystopian Nightmare In Which Business Owners Can Openly Practice Their Faith
> 
> "WASHINGTON, D.C.—By issuing a ruling in favor of a Christian baker in the _Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission_ case this morning, the Supreme Court dragged the nation right into a dystopian nightmare in which business owners can openly practice their faith and run their businesses in a manner consistent with their personal beliefs, somber sources reported Monday. . . . "


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 6, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > It is not the "States" business. It is that of the owner. And if the owner wishes to be closed on Sundays, because it is the LORD's day, it is not for the "State" to insist that the business remain open. Likewise, if the owner feels that supporting Gay unions with cake (or any other form of assistance) is a form of participation, then it is not for the "State" to insist it is nothing of the sort. Christians are not to worship the State.
> ...


Who made up the law? If you don't wish to believe in GOD that's your mistake. You wish to make the lawyer and judges your gods --- they are not mine. They are no better than anyone else. I want a society that is safe for children and families. I don't see that as YOUR goal. You are trying to make out that blacks and gays are one and the same. Nothing could be further from the biblical truth. Natural physical appearance is not the same as choice or personal hygiene.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 6, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> *Supreme Court Drags Nation Into Dystopian Nightmare In Which Business Owners Can Openly Practice Their Faith*
> Supreme Court Drags Nation Into Dystopian Nightmare In Which Business Owners Can Openly Practice Their Faith
> 
> "WASHINGTON, D.C.—By issuing a ruling in favor of a Christian baker in the _Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission_ case this morning, the Supreme Court dragged the nation right into a dystopian nightmare in which business owners can openly practice their faith and run their businesses in a manner consistent with their personal beliefs, somber sources reported Monday. . . . "


Nonsense, when you have a party at  your home, is everyone invited? I dare say that you select who you wish to entertain in your home. I see no reason to imagine that a good businessman cannot be selective in who he hires, fires, and decides to service. The proof is in the bottom line. Not every person who shows up at the dance club is admitted.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 6, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Do you even attend church? And if you do -- what criteria do you consider sacred? Is it more important to please GOD or man? And do you think churches should be made to officiate gay weddings? I mean, "all" it is are two guys in suits kissing each other at the end of the ceremony (to hear you tell it).


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 6, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> Is it more important to please GOD or man?


Man


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 6, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> And do you think churches should be made to officiate gay weddings?


Hell no! And I will add that even bringing that up is idiotic. Who the hell would want to get married in a place or by a person who is hostile to the union. Ya think that it might case a pale over their future? Most people would.


----------



## task0778 (Jun 6, 2018)

Here's a question:   should it make a difference in a case like this if it's obvious that the gay couple went out of their way to pick a fight with a Christian baker?   If there were other bakers who were willing to do the cake but these guys deliberately went to this guy just so they could sue him and raise a stink about it?   Do you think that intolerance should work both ways, who got harmed the most here?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 6, 2018)

task0778 said:


> Here's a question:   should it make a difference in a case like this if it's obvious that the gay couple went out of their way to pick a fight with a Christian baker?   If there were other bakers who were willing to do the cake but these guys deliberately went to this guy just so they could sue him and raise a stink about it?   Do you think that intolerance should work both ways, who got harmed the most here?


Possibly? But there is no indication that they did.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 6, 2018)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg pens angry dissent from Supreme Court bakery ruling







Ginsburg wrote: “I strongly disagree with the Court’s conclusion that Craig and Mullins should lose this case.”
Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.

Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.

“When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding — not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings — and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied


----------



## task0778 (Jun 6, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a question:   should it make a difference in a case like this if it's obvious that the gay couple went out of their way to pick a fight with a Christian baker?   If there were other bakers who were willing to do the cake but these guys deliberately went to this guy just so they could sue him and raise a stink about it?   Do you think that intolerance should work both ways, who got harmed the most here?
> ...



I read somewhere that the gay couple bypassed other bakeries to go to this guy.   Did they in fact go out of their way to start trouble with this guy cuz they found out he would refuse them and they wanted to make a federal case out of it?   But anyway the question is still a valid one:   if there are other bakeries nearby then how much harm is done to the gay couple?   Who is the more intolerant here, a baker who will sell them anything else but a decorated wedding cake or a gay couple that could go anywhere else to get their cake?


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 6, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ruth Bader Ginsburg pens angry dissent from Supreme Court bakery ruling
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ruth seems to have ignored the baker’s religious beliefs which is why the original decision was overturned.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 6, 2018)

task0778 said:


> read somewhere that the gay couple bypassed other bakeries to go to this guy. Did they in fact go out of their way to start trouble with this guy cuz they found out he would refuse them and they wanted to make a federal case out of it?


We do not know that for a fact.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 6, 2018)

task0778 said:


> if there are other bakeries nearby then how much harm is done to the gay couple? Who is the more intolerant here, a baker who will sell them anything else but a decorated wedding cake or a gay couple that could go anywhere else to get their cake?


How much hard would you feel is done to you if you were refused good or service because you were Irish, or Jewish, or Catholic, or anything at all that the proprietor disapproved of and you were embarrassed, humiliated or just inconvenienced by not getting the same treatment as others.? And maybe there is not another service of what ever kind you need that you feel will meet your needs and desires


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 6, 2018)

Leo123 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Ruth Bader Ginsburg pens angry dissent from Supreme Court bakery ruling
> ...



Seven members of the court seemed to ignore the fact  that  some people have adapted a bastadised and distorted view of religious beliefs and religious freedom

*Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:*

*1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice. *

*2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others. *

_
1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers, 
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


* The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. *Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship. _

_2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

* In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed*. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.


*One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6*. _

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm
:


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 6, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> The owner offered to sell them other cakes, just not a wedding cake, I wonder if he does that to fornicators, adulterers or inter-racial relationships?


Let's hope so. Them fornicators are the worst, aren't they! OMG, next thing ya know they'll be dogs and cats.. living together!


----------



## task0778 (Jun 6, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > read somewhere that the gay couple bypassed other bakeries to go to this guy. Did they in fact go out of their way to start trouble with this guy cuz they found out he would refuse them and they wanted to make a federal case out of it?
> ...



IF it were true would it make a difference to you?


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 6, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



There is no such thing as a “sexual minority” in real life.  The sexes are clearly and scientifically defined as male and female...there is no other sex.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 6, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > *Supreme Court Drags Nation Into Dystopian Nightmare In Which Business Owners Can Openly Practice Their Faith*
> ...


*You are comparing apples oranges.  You can give a party in your home and exclude anyone.  However, if that party is open to the public and you decide to deny entrance based on sex, race, religion, country of origin, or sexual preference, then you're going to be violating law. 

You are not a good businessman if you base your hiring practice on illegal discrimination in hiring or selecting customers.    *


----------



## dblack (Jun 6, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *You are not a good businessman if you base your hiring practice on illegal discrimination in hiring or selecting customers.*



Are you suggesting that's a reason to make it illegal?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 6, 2018)

task0778 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


Yes, no one should be setting people up like that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 6, 2018)

Leo123 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Leo123 said:
> ...


Sexual minority does not just refer to physical gender, but I suspect that you knew that already.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 6, 2018)

Flopper said:


> You are not a good businessman if you base your hiring practice on illegal discrimination


Good businessman? Those who deliberately break the law are generally called criminals  


> synonyms: lawbreaker, offender, villain, delinquent, felon, convict, malefactor, wrongdoer, culprit, miscreant;
> thief, burglar, robber, armed robber, gunman, gangster, terrorist;
> _informal_crook, con, jailbird, hood, yardbird, perp;
> malfeasant


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 6, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > *Supreme Court Drags Nation Into Dystopian Nightmare In Which Business Owners Can Openly Practice Their Faith*
> ...



Hasty generalization
False equivalency
Non sequitur 
Red herring
Appeal to ignorance

Congratulations! You packed FIVE (5) logical fallacies into one short paragraph!  YOU are the winner!


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 6, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Scientifically it does.  There is no provable other sexes.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 6, 2018)

Leo123 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Leo123 said:
> ...


Actually there is but I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you about that. But I will say that "sexual minorities " also refers  to those with a sexual orientation that is in the minority. And don't try to tell us that scientifically they don't exist either. They exist legally and that is what matters


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 6, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > And do you think churches should be made to officiate gay weddings?
> ...


So, why would you want a person who is "hostile"  (as you call it) to make cakes for individuals that they pity?


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 6, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Well, hopefully incestual couples, and sex with children in presently in the minority --- but you can never know what 20 years may bring.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 6, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Pity ? Really? Actually that is a pretty good point. But that does not change the fact that it is discrimination and that they are not entitled to a religious exemption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 6, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Leo123 said:
> ...



Red herring,slipper slope logical fallacy horseshit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Geaux4it (Jun 6, 2018)

JoeMoma said:


> Interesting.  I think this is a good decision because few bakeries will turn down business for this reason.  Gays don't need that protection as they are not at risk of not being able to have their cake.



However, they want their cake and eat it too

-Geaux


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 6, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Actually there is but I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you about that. But I will say that "sexual minorities " also refers  to those with a sexual orientation that is in the minority. And don't try to tell us that scientifically they don't exist either. They exist legally and that is what matters



Actually there is no other sex other than male and female.  If you have proof of a 3rd sex please provide it.  You don't have to 'educate' anyone just provide scientific proof.


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 6, 2018)

SORE LOSER DUMB ASS:
Opinion
Supported by

*After Masterpiece, It’s Time to Change the ConstitutionAfter Masterpiece, It’s Time to Change the Constitution itstimeto itstimeto uh uh uh gawd !!!*



By Jennifer Finney Boylan

Ms. Boylan is a contributing opinion writer.


June 4, 2018


----------



## dblack (Jun 6, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


I think you mean "illegal discrimination".

I don't mean to nitpick. It's just that not all discrimination is illegal.


----------



## task0778 (Jun 6, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Actually, the question of an entitlement to a religious exemption has not yet been adjudicated.   We have here an issue of someone's right to equal treatment vs someone else's right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 6, 2018)

Leo123 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Ruth Bader Ginsburg pens angry dissent from Supreme Court bakery ruling
> ...





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ruth Bader Ginsburg pens angry dissent from Supreme Court bakery ruling
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But Christians and Orthodox Jews do not believe that they (the homosexuals buying the cake) are capable of consummating a marriage. They are in fact living a lie that this baker had no intention of sharing with them. Living a lie and forsaking one's personal convictions to appease the government or society is not the right thing to do.

It was a total failure in Nazi Germany and Mrs. Ginsburg should recognize the continuous push to make individuals conform to governmental tyranny.


----------



## dblack (Jun 6, 2018)

task0778 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


That's no such thing as a "right to equal treatment".


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 6, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> SORE LOSER DUMB ASS:
> Opinion
> Supported by
> 
> ...



There is no such thing as a 3rd sex so whatever you call it....queer, lbgtq....etc. is essentially scientifically meaningless.  Sex wise they are fetishes.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 6, 2018)

dblack said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Correct, somehow lefties have conflated equal opportunity with equality of outcome.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 6, 2018)

Timeline

Many questions and contradictions...


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 6, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > if there are other bakeries nearby then how much harm is done to the gay couple? Who is the more intolerant here, a baker who will sell them anything else but a decorated wedding cake or a gay couple that could go anywhere else to get their cake?
> ...


I'd do it myself. I tend to be self reliant and self sufficient. And if only Christians can bake cakes or do anything homosexuals can't ---- it doesn't say much for the homosexuals.


----------



## task0778 (Jun 6, 2018)

dblack said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



I think you know what I meant.   Is there a better way to say we have the right not to be discriminated against?   Feel free to suggest or correct what I said.


----------



## dblack (Jun 6, 2018)

Leo123 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


There's no such thing as equal opportunity either. The only equality government is responsible for is equality under the law. That means that, regardless of who or what you are, everyone - black, white, rich, poor, or Mad King Donald himself - must to follow the same rules.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 6, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > You are not a good businessman if you base your hiring practice on illegal discrimination
> ...


And government officials who pass LAWs to make criminals out of *average* modest citizens to manipulate social norms are known as traitors and dictators.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 6, 2018)

dblack said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


I discriminate when I select a flavor of ice cream to buy.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 6, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


According to the Supreme Court the baker is not guilty of breaking the law. And this was decided by a large majority of the judges. And the simple fact is that a gay man who only has sex with men is discriminating in his sexual preference (try to deny that).


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 6, 2018)

dblack said:


> There's no such thing as equal opportunity either. The only equality government is responsible for is equality under the law. That means that, regardless of who or what you are, everyone - black, white, rich, poor, or Mad King Donald himself - must to follow the same rules.



Maybe not in so many words however, the Constitution defers to a higher power (Creator) who, among other truths, guarantees the pursuit of happiness.  Now, you can try to spin that however, basically it means equal opportunity.  That being said, without basic Judeo-Christian morals and values, there can be no overall guarantee of any equality whatsoever.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> Who made up the law? If you don't wish to believe in GOD that's your mistake.



No, I just refuse to believe in a God who can fix all the world's ills, and refuses to do so.  

Such a being would truly be evil. 



LittleNipper said:


> You wish to make the lawyer and judges your gods --- they are not mine. They are no better than anyone else.



Well, you mean other than they spend a lot of time studying the law and the rest of us don't?  I kind of like living in a nation of laws, but at the end of the day, I kind of want experts working ont he problem harder than I am. 



LittleNipper said:


> I want a society that is safe for children and families. I don't see that as YOUR goal.



How do gays make the world worse for children and families? 

I mean other than your own sexual insecurities. 



LittleNipper said:


> You are trying to make out that blacks and gays are one and the same. Nothing could be further from the biblical truth. Natural physical appearance is not the same as choice or personal hygiene.



Okay, here's the problem... people once argued for segregation and slavery just as passionately and they quoted the bible to justify it.  

So here's the question I ask all homophobes. Do you have any argument against gays other than "I think it's icky" and "My imaginary friend in the sky says it's bad?"


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2018)

task0778 said:


> Here's a question: should it make a difference in a case like this if it's obvious that the gay couple went out of their way to pick a fight with a Christian baker? If there were other bakers who were willing to do the cake but these guys deliberately went to this guy just so they could sue him and raise a stink about it? Do you think that intolerance should work both ways, who got harmed the most here?



Do you have any proof of that?  

The thing is, if you run a business, you have to be ready for any customer, and the way you do that is follow the law just as it is written.  IF you offer a service, offer it to everyone, and don't make promises you can't keep.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 6, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> IF you offer a service, offer it to everyone, and don't make promises you can't keep.


Businesses have the *right* to decide for themselves who they engage in commerce with. Not even a little sorry that your hateful, envious, fascist ass doesn’t like it.

They are *not* an extension of government no matter how much you _wish_ they were.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 6, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> How do gays make the world worse for children and families?


Well for starters, homosexuals cannot have families. You are the poster child for why children should stay in school. Just the simple things like missing Sex Ed have had a profoundly negative effect on your life. You don’t even realize that two members of the same sex cannot procreate.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 6, 2018)

Leo123 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Actually there is but I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you about that. But I will say that "sexual minorities " also refers  to those with a sexual orientation that is in the minority. And don't try to tell us that scientifically they don't exist either. They exist legally and that is what matters
> ...



Sure when I have nothing better to do than to play special ed. teacher. Meanwhile, you might want to learn how to use Google


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 6, 2018)

task0778 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


I addressed that earlier. There is the traditional interpretation of religious freedom and the new , contrived view that religious freedom means imposing your religious views on others.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 6, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> The thing is, if you run a business, you have to be ready for any customer, and the way you do that is follow the law just as it is written.  IF you offer a service, offer it to everyone, and don't make promises you can't keep.



The Court is leaning in the direction of letting shop owners do as they please and letting the market decide.  Sorry to be the one to break it to you.  Now if it was about the stuff protected in the Constitution like race, actual gender, country of origin; static stuff that people simply cannot help no matter what, then it might be a different story.  But religions and lifestyles have no dominance one over the other.  That's what the Court just found.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 6, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I addressed that earlier. There is the traditional interpretation of religious freedom and the new , contrived view that religious freedom means imposing your religious views on others.



You mean like the gay cult imposing its religious views on Christians in the marketplace under threat of financial punishment?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 6, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Well for starters, homosexuals cannot have families.


That is complete horseshit ! Thay can and do have families . I doubt that you believe your own clap trap, but if you do, it does not speak well for you level of intellectual development


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 6, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



1. The SCOTUS does not decide guilt or innocence... they interpret the  law and  decide issues of constitutionality

2. Regarding gay men and how they "discriminate", you are dishonestly, or perhaps ignorantly conflating two meanings of " discrimination. There is a difference between discriminating in terms of your preferences in your personal relationships and discriminating AGAINST others in the public arena. Is it remotely possible that you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand that?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Businesses have the *right* to decide for themselves who they engage in commerce with. Not even a little sorry that your hateful, envious, fascist ass doesn’t like it.
> 
> They are *not* an extension of government no matter how much you _wish_ they were.



Quite the contrary...  businesses are subject to business law, which is why that hamburger you had for lunch wasn't smeared with feces like the kid who heard your ranting about how they only deserved min wage wanted to do. 

I kind of want government making sure the businesses I deal with follow the law, and so do you. 



P@triot said:


> Well for starters, homosexuals cannot have families. You are the poster child for why children should stay in school. Just the simple things like missing Sex Ed have had a profoundly negative effect on your life. You don’t even realize that two members of the same sex cannot procreate.



Uh, dude, gays have families.  Family is more than biology. My oldest sister wasn't the biological daughter of my dad, but he treated her just like he did the four kids who were.  Gay folks adopt, they have kids in failed attempts at heterosexuality.... and they are mostly just fine. 

If pro-creating were the only requisite for "family", we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have with deadbeat dads.  

Do you want to keep saying stupid things? Because I can do this all day.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> The Court is leaning in the direction of letting shop owners do as they please and letting the market decide. Sorry to be the one to break it to you. Now if it was about the stuff protected in the Constitution like race, actual gender, country of origin; static stuff that people simply cannot help no matter what, then it might be a different story. But religions and lifestyles have no dominance one over the other. That's what the Court just found.



The only thing they found was that the Commission was rude to the cake maker... 

Saying that discrimination is a religious right is going to cause all sorts of problems.


----------



## task0778 (Jun 6, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



That is bullshit.   The baker guy doesn't want to impose his religious views on anybody, but he also does not want somebody telling him he isn't entitled to act on his own religious views and convictions either.   There's nothing new or contrived about that.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 6, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Because I can do this all day.
> ...


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 6, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> The only thing they found was that the Commission was rude to the cake maker...
> 
> Saying that discrimination is a religious right is going to cause all sorts of problems.



Actually they found that 1st Amendment protections extend to the marketplace.  And that the city violated the bakers Constitutional rights by punishing him for practicing his faith at his business.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 6, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *You are not a good businessman if you base your hiring practice on illegal discrimination in hiring or selecting customers.*
> ...


*I'm saying if you avoid hiring or discouraging customers that are  Gay, Latino, Black, Foreign, or Women you are most likely making a bad business decisions. *


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Actually they found that 1st Amendment protections extend to the marketplace.



No, they found nothing of the sort.  

here's the thing, by the logic the homophobes have constructed on this one, I could cut the heart out of people I don't like if I can sincerely claim to be a follower of Quezacoatl.... 

You know a "God" who fed on the hearts of his worshiper's enemies.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 6, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *I'm saying if you avoid hiring or discouraging customers that are  Gay, Latino, Black, Foreign, or Women you are most likely making a bad business decisions. *


I like how you almost seamlessly wove the word "gay" into the list of other categories that actually are Constitutionally protected. 

And if you argue next that sexual orientation is protected, I'll ask you to list them all. And; why some could be excluded.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 6, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Actually they found that 1st Amendment protections extend to the marketplace.
> ...


Passively refusing to promote another faith's (cult of buttsex's) values is not equivalent to murder.

The Court said government needs to be neutral and respectful towards the baker's benign resistance.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 6, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


*We ran into that in the 60's when whites in the south were forced to serve blacks in restaurants.  You bet they were unwelcome but over time businesses saw the value of having more customers.  Overcoming bigotry and racism takes time, not years but decades.*


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Passively refusing to promote another faith's (cult of buttsex's) values is not equivalent to murder.



And how does this effect you?


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 6, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Passively refusing to promote another faith's (cult of buttsex's) values is not equivalent to murder.
> ...


You mean "affect"? 

It means if I have deep convictions that two men can't use each other's assholes as artificial vaginas in a weird quasi-hetero deviant sex fetish & befoul the word marriage with that lifestyle then I'm free in the marketplace to passively refuse to promote that abomination.

I hope that answers your question?


----------



## task0778 (Jun 6, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing they found was that the Commission was rude to the cake maker...
> ...



Not sure that's totally correct, I thought what the SCOTUS did was rule that the state was biased and unfair in their treatment of the baker, thereby violating his right to an impartial decision.   So they threw out the case against the baker because it was not adjudicated properly.   They really didn't address the baker's rights to freedom of speech and religion relative to the gay couple's protections against discrimination.   Sooner or later they're going to have to rule on that problem.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 6, 2018)

Yeah they did. Kennedy said that he could not be punished for exercising his faith at his business.  That's another way of saying a mans faith never leaves him and as such he cannot be made to even temporarily suspend it as a state requirement to stay in or join the marketplace.

A lot of people seemed to have skimmed over that Trojan horse in the recent Opinion.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jun 6, 2018)

task0778 said:


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




You didn't read that excerpt from the AP article on the 1st page.


----------



## task0778 (Jun 6, 2018)

Marion Morrison said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



I don't see any excerpt on the 1st page.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 6, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *I'm saying if you avoid hiring or discouraging customers that are  Gay, Latino, Black, Foreign, or Women you are most likely making a bad business decisions. *
> ...


*It is protect but not in the US Constitution.  There is blanket protection against sexual orientation and gender discrimination in 19 states, one of the them being Colorado.  In addition, 2 states have laws against sexual orientation discrimination only, and 12 states have communities that have passed laws.
https://lifehacker.com/this-map-shows-which-states-protect-lgbt-people-from-di-1793305575*


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 7, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Since homosexuality is not a scientific fact (there is no 3rd sex) then it is only a belief.  Belief can be construed as religion so, apparently, the gay couple were trying to impose their gay, religious dogma on the baker.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 7, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> It means if I have deep convictions that two men can't use each other's assholes as artificial vaginas in a weird quasi-hetero deviant sex fetish & befoul the word marriage with that lifestyle then I'm free in the marketplace to passively refuse to promote that abomination.
> 
> I hope that answers your question?



Probably more than you realize... 

I always find it amusing that you homophobes describe male gay sex in such graphic terms, the kind you'd find in slashfic porn.  

It's like the vegetarian who JUST CAN'T STOP TALKING ABOUT STEAK. 

I also notice that in your weird little obsessions, you never describe lesbian sex in such graphic terms. 

Here's the thing, 37% of heterosexuals have tried anal sex.  It's just not that big of a deal.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 7, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Yeah they did. Kennedy said that he could not be punished for exercising his faith at his business. That's another way of saying a mans faith never leaves him and as such he cannot be made to even temporarily suspend it as a state requirement to stay in or join the marketplace.
> 
> A lot of people seemed to have skimmed over that Trojan horse in the recent Opinion.



Because it really wasn't an issue of his faith... it was an issue of his bigotry.  

By that same logic, he should refuse service to women who wear pants, braids, jewelry, men who have tattoos, couple who live together before marriage, women who aren't virgins on their wedding nights or a whole lot of other things the Bible says are bad.  

For that matter, why not allow people to refuse service to anyone who doesn't belong to their church, since they are obviously getting it wrong! If they said, "We don't Serve Mormons Here!" people would be having a shit fit!


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 7, 2018)

.>


I wonder if I owned a barbecue restaurant, call it "Piggie Park Enterprises", and refused to rent my banquet room to an interracial couple because my personal religious beliefs were such that I believe interracial couples shouldn't marry.

Would we be having a different discussion.

.>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 7, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> According to the Supreme Court the baker is not guilty of breaking the law. And this was decided by a large majority of the judges.



No, that wasn't what the court decided.

The court decision was the bias on the Commission tainted the process and reversed the decision.  They specifically didn't answer the question of whether Mr. Phillips should be exempt from generally applicable laws because of his claim of religious belief, they left that for a future case.



LittleNipper said:


> And the simple fact is that a gay man who only has sex with men is discriminating in his sexual preference (try to deny that).



Who you decide (or have an innate attraction to isn't against the law.

Under PA laws refusing to sell normally offered goods and services based on certain characteristics of the customer (race, religion, national origin, sex, and (in some states - sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status, etc.) is against the law.


.>>>>


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 7, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Who made up the law? If you don't wish to believe in GOD that's your mistake.
> ...


GOD has fixed all the worlds ill in a way that provides each of us an opportunity for a absolutely wonderful eternity with Him. The way you wish it would require eliminating everyone and creating robots. And yes, homosexuality has been proven to be unsanitary, highly suspect as cancer causing, and seriously damaging to the anus. So GOD even thousands of years ago knew what He was talking about when He says don't do it.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

task0778 said:


> I thought what the SCOTUS did was rule that the state was biased and unfair in their treatment of the baker, thereby violating his right to an impartial decision. So they threw out the case against the baker because it was not adjudicated properly. They really didn't address the baker's rights to freedom of speech and religion relative to the gay couple's protections against discrimination.


Correct and well said.


task0778 said:


> Sooner or later they're going to have to rule on that problem.


Maybe not. I fail to see how federal law need bother with bigoted bakers just because one claims religious freedom to discriminate or express their bigotry in the "free market" by refusing a service for a legally secular celebration . The State of Colorado clearly didn't see it worthy of reconsidering. The case never warranted SC review.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

Btw, someone early on claimed this was not a point of sale (POS) transaction. I've seen nothing to indicate it was anything but. The couple walked walked into the shop and the baker refused to bake them a wedding cake. No writing ordered on the cake. Nothing indicating delivery or any need for personal involvement in their particular ceremony whatsoever. Just a baker being asked to bake a cake for an every day secular ceremony.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

Flopper said:


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



"Protection"?  You mean like from wolf attacks or chiggers?  The gay lifestyle has no protection that makes anyone else accept it or promote it. The Court says religion has to have respect in the marketplace & cant be penalized there for passive refusal to promote other value systems


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> .>
> 
> 
> I wonder if I owned a barbecue restaurant, call it "Piggie Park Enterprises", and refused to rent my banquet room to an interracial couple because my personal religious beliefs were such that I believe interracial couples shouldn't marry.
> ...


Yes. We would be having a different discussion. Race is innate. Butt sex addiction isn't. One has protections. The other doesn't. You're catching on!


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

If the two men were straight, not homosexual (and yes, that is completely legal), and the Baker refused service because his religious belief was that marriage was between a man and women, what law would have been broken?


----------



## P@triot (Jun 7, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Well for starters, homosexuals cannot have families.
> ...


What a dumb post. Two people of the same gender *cannot* reproduce. Stop pretending like you don’t understand.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> If the two men were straight, not homosexual (and yes, that is completely legal), and the Baker refused service because his religious belief was that marriage was between a man and women, what law would have been broken?


None.  People really should carefully read the decision in this matter linked on page 1 midway down.

This Decision said that lifestyles cannot use force to make other people play along.  They particularly said that states or PA laws cannot punish a person of faith in the marketplace for practicing their faith in the marketplace.   Or more simply put: lifestyles have no Constitutional protections.  But they did say that people of faith have 1st Amendment protections that follow the man out of church, down the steps, down the street and into the marketplace where he has his shop.

Even more simply put, the Court found in favor of people of faith vs PA laws forcing them to abdicate faith, even temporarily (to qualify for running a business) to pander to the cult of LGBT.  The Court also found that PA laws that coddle the cult of LGBT while punishing other lifestyles and faiths are a form of the state declaring an unofficial official religion.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


In PP's defense, a thing I rarely do, I'll say that he probably meant that the cult of LGBT do the baby-on-demand (child trafficking) with each other's eggs and sperm so that kids will be dragged into their fatherless or motherless perverse homes where a man officiates "as the mother" and a woman officiates "as the father".  Like a real life charade where kids actual psyches are involved; and they know the difference when they see the normal parents of their friends.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 7, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> .>
> 
> 
> I wonder if I owned a barbecue restaurant, call it "Piggie Park Enterprises", and refused to rent my banquet room to an *interracial couple* because my personal religious beliefs were such that I believe interracial couples shouldn't marry.
> ...





Silhouette said:


> Yes. We would be having a different discussion. Race is innate. Butt sex addiction isn't. One has protections. The other doesn't. You're catching on!




Choosing to marry someone of a different race is not innate.  It is a choice.


.>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> If the two men were straight, not homosexual (and yes, that is completely legal), and the Baker refused service because his religious belief was that marriage was between a man and women, what law would have been broken?




The Colorad Public Accommodation law which also restricts discrimination based on sex.

So if you want to ignore the fact that it was based on the sexual orientation of the customers and play word games, then he would have still violated the law.

Will sell wedding cakes to Male / Female couples.
Will not sell wedding cakes to Male / Male or Female / Female couples.

Discrimination based on sex.


.>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > If the two men were straight, not homosexual (and yes, that is completely legal), and the Baker refused service because his religious belief was that marriage was between a man and women, what law would have been broken?
> ...



What word games WW. Are you trying to claim that two straights marrying is illegal?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > If the two men were straight, not homosexual (and yes, that is completely legal), and the Baker refused service because his religious belief was that marriage was between a man and women, what law would have been broken?
> ...



No, it's not based on sex, it's based on his religious belief that marriage is a Man and a Woman. He could care less on the sexuality of the two. He would deny whether they were Homosexual or Straight.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Choosing to marry someone of a different race is not innate.  It is a choice.
> 
> 
> .>>>>


That's fine, but race has Constitutional protections.  If the baker declined on issues of race (his objections to one race marrying another race), then he'd be in trouble.  But if the black man has a penis and the white woman has a vagina, the baker simply would bake them a cake for their wedding.  Otherwise he'd be in trouble.  Two men playing at "man and wife" is a thing utterly and fundamentally different.  And this is from the New Testament's Jude 1 and Romans 1.  It is not just a venial or minor sin.  It is major and lands the offender an eternity in the pit of fire for enabling in any way in any culture whatsoever.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > .>
> ...



Choosing to marry someone of the same sex is not innate. It is a choice.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

What people in the gay cult need to understand is that their requiring a person of faith to bake them a "wedding" cake is the same as walking into a kosher Jewish deli owned by an Orthodox Jew and forcing him to stand still while you shove raw ground pork down his throat with a piping bag, and then following that up with a shellfish chaser.  Or requiring him to sell pork.  I mean, he's advertising that it's a deli, serving other types of meat.  Why the bigotry towards pork?


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Choosing to marry someone of the same sex is not innate. It is a choice.


Well it does sort of have its roots in innateness.  A man choosing another man as his "wife" means he's using that instinct for a vagina and via a habitual deviant kink, substitutes another man's asshole.  But that doesn't mean it's normal or that others should be forced to play along; especially children the cult of LGBT manufacture and traffic among each other with sperm and egg donations.

Their quasi-hetero skewed normal drives are not our mandate to promote; nor children's to be forced to live with.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Choosing to marry someone of the same sex is not innate. It is a choice.


Marriage is not innate period.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Choosing to marry someone of the same sex is not innate. It is a choice.
> ...



It is a choice. Period


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

Right. Period.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 7, 2018)

Leo123 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


Ya know, Bubba....I hate to break  it to you, but it is only you and the dwindling numbers of bigots and homophobes who are still ruminating about why people are gay. The courts have not concerned themselves with the issue and have long held that it is an immutable characteristic . You might also want to study up on the difference between  sexual orientation and gender identity as well as the well documented, underlying biological factors that have been identified in relation to both sexual orientation and gender identity. I'm sure that you won't though. You are to afraid that you might learn something that challenges your ridiculous beliefs.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Right. Period.



The color of the participants is not a choice. You kind of missed that point.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Right. Period.
> ...


You kind of presume nonsense then. Glad to see you still sporting that gun control advocate avatar though


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts thinks race is the same as behavior.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ya know, Bubba....I hate to break  it to you, but it is only you and the dwindling numbers of bigots and homophobes who are still ruminating about why people are gay. The courts have not concerned themselves with the issue and have long held that it is an immutable characteristic . You might also want to study up on the difference between  sexual orientation and gender identity as well as the well documented, underlying biological factors that have been identified in relation to both sexual orientation and gender identity. I'm sure that you won't though. You are to afraid that you might learn something that challenges your ridiculous beliefs.



What sexual orientations are covered under the US Constitution and which aren't?  Please give a detailed list.  Thanks.  Also are there any other orientated behaviors that are covered there?  Would compulsive handwashers have protections for their behaviors that others must accommodate via PA laws?  And so on.  Please give a detailed answer that the Courts can understand.​


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



Not at all. That would be you.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Sorry you've fallen and can't regain coherence.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



I'm the one still standing goofball.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


My condolences, if that's your real name.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



I see you've failed to examine the difference between a skin tone and a sex act.

Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I see you providing zero evidence to back your accumulating smear.

Why am I not surprised?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Jesus fucking Christ you are aggravating! I am not pretending anything. I know perfectly well the two people of the same gender cannot reproduce without-shall we say" third party assistance" JUST LIKE MANY HEEROSEXUAL COUPLES CANNOT for various  reasons .  YOU are pretending to not understand the fact that that DO HAVE FAMILIES and are parents to the children in their care. By saying that your "pretending to not understand" I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. The alternative is that you're just that fucking stupid.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



Evidence that skin color is different than an act?

You really require that? What, you in junior high?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Right. Period.
> ...


Trump chooses to be Orange.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Some vs. ALL is a HUGE difference


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



Which is not protected. Thanks


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Jesus fucking Christ you are aggravating! I am not pretending anything. I know perfectly well the two people of the same gender cannot reproduce without-shall we say" third party assistance" JUST LIKE MANY HEEROSEXUAL COUPLES CANNOT for various  reasons .  YOU are pretending to not understand the fact that that DO HAVE FAMILIES and are parents to the children in their care. By saying that your "pretending to not understand" I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. The alternative is that you're just that fucking stupid.



A little out of sorts today PP?

You didn't answer this vv on the last page so I'll ask again...



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ya know, Bubba....I hate to break  it to you, but it is only you and the dwindling numbers of bigots and homophobes who are still ruminating about why people are gay.* The courts have not concerned themselves with the issue and have long held that it is an immutable characteristic .* You might also want to study up on the difference between  sexual orientation and gender identity as well as the well documented, underlying biological factors that have been identified in relation to both* sexual orientation* and gender identity. I'm sure that you won't though. You are to afraid that you might learn something that challenges your ridiculous beliefs.





What sexual orientations are covered under the US Constitution and which aren't?  Please give a detailed list.  Thanks.  Also are there any other orientated behaviors that are covered there?  Would compulsive handwashers have protections for their behaviors that others must accommodate via PA laws?  And so on.  Please give a detailed answer that the Courts can understand.​


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

> The couple filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Commission) pursuant to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which prohibits, as relevant here, discrimination based on sexual orientation in a “place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services . . . to the public.” Under CADA’s administrative review system, the Colorado Civil Rights Division first found probable cause for a violation and referred the case to the Commission. The Commission then referred the case for a formal hearing before a state Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who ruled in the couple’s favor. In so doing, the ALJ rejected Phillips’ First Amendment claims: that requiring him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed and would violate his right to the free exercise of religion. Both the Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed.


For the numb, that says the State DID INDEED CONSIDER (and reconsider) the baker's "First Amendment claims" and "rejected" them, ultimately finding in favor of the plaintiffs' cited civil rights, i.e. "discrimination based on sexual orientation". The Supremes then decided, clearly based on zero evidence other than the baker's word for it, that this cake order involved


> using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs.


Was he asked to endorse anything? Express some message? Make this wedding cake unlike any other? Did they even request that he make the cake himself? Doesn't appear to matter to the bulk of Supremes! Fortunate they end up remanding it back to the State.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

For now.  But they did say that a man's 1st Amendment protections extend into his shop in the marketplace and cannot be punished by the state.  So enjoy the "ambiguity" while it lasts.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> For now.  But they did say that a man's 1st Amendment protections extend into his shop in the marketplace and cannot be punished by the state.  So enjoy the "ambiguity" while it lasts.


There's no actual punishment or ambiguity. There's just religious bigotry which has no place in secular jurisprudence.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > For now.  But they did say that a man's 1st Amendment protections extend into his shop in the marketplace and cannot be punished by the state.  So enjoy the "ambiguity" while it lasts.
> ...


The Court recognized that it's one lifestyle vs another (faith).  So they're on even playing field as such.  Except that lifestyles don't have Constitutional protections and faith does.  And the Court says faith does clear into the marketplace.
Ouchies.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 7, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Ya know, Bubba....I hate to break  it to you, but it is only you and the dwindling numbers of bigots and homophobes who are still ruminating about why people are gay. The courts have not concerned themselves with the issue and have long held that it is an immutable characteristic . You might also want to study up on the difference between  sexual orientation and gender identity as well as the well documented, underlying biological factors that have been identified in relation to both sexual orientation and gender identity. I'm sure that you won't though. You are to afraid that you might learn something that challenges your ridiculous beliefs.
> ...



You might have noticed that I ignore you for the most part because your questions are so idiotic.. However, I will humor you on this one. None one ever claimed that sexual orientation is specifically protected by the Constitution. However, many rights are implied or unremunerated  In addition , many state laws provide such protections and undoubtedly would be upheld by the constitution under the equal protection and due process clauses. As for marriage - sexual orientation is clearly protected since Obergefell removed the consideration of the parties respective gender from marriage. Lastly, you bringing up compulsive had washing and comparing it to homosexuality is a moronic logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency and a red herring and a good example of why you are to aggravating to bother with.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You might have noticed that I ignore you for the most part because your questions are so idiotic.. However, I will humor you on this one. None one ever claimed that sexual orientation is specifically protected by the Constitution. However, many rights are implied or unremunerated  In addition , many state laws provide such protections and undoubtedly would be upheld by the constitution under the equal protection and due process clauses. *As for marriage - sexual orientation is clearly protected* since Obergefell removed the consideration of the parties respective gender from marriage. Lastly, you bringing up compulsive had washing and comparing it to homosexuality is a moronic logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency and a red herring and a good example of why you are to aggravating to bother with.



And your list of sexual orientations protected is?  Excluded?  And the reasons for both?  I'll await your complete reply.  Would you explain what in the eyes of blind justice and equality makes just same-sex sexual orientation special above all others?  

Don't forget people oriented towards other compulsive behaviors like OCD handwashing and the like.  Do they get covered under PA laws too?  Why or why not?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

> In 2015, the Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that *the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples* by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to *the United States Constitution* and required all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.


Oh, how it continues to burn.. some..


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 7, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You might have noticed that I ignore you for the most part because your questions are so idiotic.. However, I will humor you on this one. None one ever claimed that sexual orientation is specifically protected by the Constitution. However, many rights are implied or unremunerated  In addition , many state laws provide such protections and undoubtedly would be upheld by the constitution under the equal protection and due process clauses. *As for marriage - sexual orientation is clearly protected* since Obergefell removed the consideration of the parties respective gender from marriage. Lastly, you bringing up compulsive had washing and comparing it to homosexuality is a moronic logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency and a red herring and a good example of why you are to aggravating to bother with.
> ...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Should heterosexuals who cannot or just do not reproduce children have fewer rights than those who do?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Cannot would indicate a disability, and we do not hold disability against those that with a disability. As far as rights go, no one is denying homosexuals any different rights than heterosexuals.

As I stated before, the Baker in this thread would have denied the cake to a same sex heterosexual couple as well. 

His right to practice his Religion is just as compelling as the couples right to a cake.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 7, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


 
So there is no 3rd sex.  Thanks


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> same sex heterosexual couple


_Say whaa?!_


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

Point of sale means all the items you sell are described on a menu or are all identical to others in that brand or category on that shelf. "CUSTOM DESIGNED ARTISTIC" hand crafted by an ARTIST is not point of sale GrumbleBernie. Also: weddings have NOT been all "secular" as there is a very long tradition of weddings being both religious AND mostly heterosexual for thousands of years.  
"Btw, someone early on claimed this was not a point of sale (POS) transaction. I've seen nothing to indicate it was anything but. The couple walked walked into the shop and the baker refused to bake them a wedding cake. No writing ordered on the cake. Nothing indicating delivery or any need for personal involvement in their particular ceremony whatsoever. Just a baker being asked to bake a cake for an every day secular ceremony."


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

Gay woman walks into a bake shop.
Orders a generic wedding cake.
Baker asks "Are you gay?"
Woman replies "Does it matter?"
Baker says "Does to me!"
Woman asks "How so?"
Baker says "I don't bake cakes for gay weddings."
"Religious thing, you understand!"
Woman says "K, got it. In that case I'm not gay."
Baker bakes her a wedding cake.
Woman pays the baker then adds on her way out:
"Thanks, but it's for my son's wedding and he is."


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> Point of sale means all the items you sell are described on a menu or are all identical to others in that brand or category on that shelf. "CUSTOM DESIGNED ARTISTIC" hand crafted by an ARTIST is not point of sale GrumbleBernie.


Because you say so. Understood. Meanwhile..


> The point of sale is often referred to as the point of service because it is not just a point of sale but also a point of return or customer order.


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumbe: Do they normally have cakes like this as "point of sale" items at your Vermont grocery store in quantities of several just waiting to go into the grocery store cart??? or could this be an ARTISTIC creation?


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

The modern wedding cake as we know it now would originate at the 1882 wedding of Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany; his wedding cake was the first to actually be completely edible.[11]    from Wikipedia


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > same sex heterosexual couple
> ...



You realize that's completely legal, right?

Or are you going to now going to argue that only gays can marry when they are same sex, or that Sex is now actually important to Marriage?

Can't wait to hear this!


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Gay woman walks into a bake shop.
> Orders a generic wedding cake.
> Baker asks "Are you gay?"
> Woman replies "Does it matter?"
> ...



Is there a point?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> View attachment 197132 Grumbe: Do they normally have cakes like this as "point of sale" items at your Vermont grocery store in quantities of several just waiting to go into the grocery store cart??? or could this be an ARTISTIC creation?


Could be fancy. Could be plain. I think most would want theirs fresh as possible though so no thanks on the shelf stuff.



> The point of sale is often referred to as the *point of service* because it is not just a point of sale but also a point of return or customer order.


{As in, ya know, where the baker takes the order, possibly bakes the cake and all. Point being, where the baker refused to serve the gay couple in question... and wasn't being asked to go anywhere else necessarily as some here have clearly imagined}


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

*THE COURT HAS A POINT: 
                                                         "Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case."*


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


_Say whaa?_


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

Are they sketching designs and baking the custom wedding cakes right there at the point of sale cash registers now in Vermont meanwhile offering the unhappy couple a stiff drink to distract them from all the quick frenzy....oh yeah- it is like a Food Network competition: bake that custom cake and sell it in under an hour!


----------



## tigerred59 (Jun 7, 2018)

*I'm with the fuckin baker, damit if the guy don't want your fuckin business, move on......I'm sick of gays thinking they have to have their way....take your hard earned money and spend it else where...same with black people....white anti gay/black mf's don't want your fuckin money find a place that does....this shit should have never made it to the supreme courts.*


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> Are they sketching designs and baking the custom wedding cakes right there at the point of sale cash registers now in Vermont meanwhile offering the unhappy couple a stiff drink to distract them from all the quick frenzy....oh yeah- it is like a Food Network competition: bake that custom cake and sell it in under an hour!


Generic wedding cakes.
and they take as long as they take. The customer may then pick them up FRESH at the POS. But never let logic stifle such an overachieving imagination!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

tigerred59 said:


> this shit should have never made it to the supreme courts.


We agree on that much anyway!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Is there a point?


Nope. Just some ARTISTIC EXPRESSION. Protected though. Or so I hear.


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

not good to rush a specialty cake...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

There ya go. Keep "rush"ing to judgement.. and execution!


----------



## OldLady (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Btw, someone early on claimed this was not a point of sale (POS) transaction. I've seen nothing to indicate it was anything but. The couple walked walked into the shop and the baker refused to bake them a wedding cake. No writing ordered on the cake. Nothing indicating delivery or any need for personal involvement in their particular ceremony whatsoever. Just a baker being asked to bake a cake for an every day secular ceremony.


I don't know where you heard that, but the gay couple clearly requested he create a wedding cake for them.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Btw, someone early on claimed this was not a point of sale (POS) transaction. I've seen nothing to indicate it was anything but. The couple walked walked into the shop and the baker refused to bake them a wedding cake. No writing ordered on the cake. Nothing indicating delivery or any need for personal involvement in their particular ceremony whatsoever. Just a baker being asked to bake a cake for an every day secular ceremony.
> ...


Yep?


----------



## OldLady (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


The very first sentence of the Opinion.  Link on page 1 of this thread.
_Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., is a Colorado bakery owned and operated by Jack Phillips, an expert baker and devout Christian. In 2012 he told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages_


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Are you suggesting that indicates he was asked to do something beyond the POS or what?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

> Put aside the plausible objection that treating cakes as speech — especially cakes without writing, as in the Masterpiece case — abuses the First Amendment. And put aside the even more plausible objection that whatever “speech” is involved is clearly that of the customers, not of the baker: As law professors Dale Carpenter and Eugene Volokh explain in a Masterpiece brief, “No one looks at a wedding cake and reflects, ‘the baker has blessed this union.’ ” After all, that objection is arguably just as applicable to the Bible-cake case.
> 
> Finally, put aside the objection that “It’s just cake!” That could be said to any of the parties in these disputes, and it doesn’t alter the deeper rationale for anti-discrimination laws, which are about ensuring equal access in the public sphere — not just for cakes, flowers, and frills, but for a wide range of vital goods and services.
> 
> ...



He would not *sell them a wedding cake* at all - because they were gay. Period.


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

He refused to custom design an original wedding cake that celebrated a same sex marriage in a state (CO) that didn't even have a legal version of/ actually forbade same sex marriages at the time.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Cannot would indicate a disability, and we do not hold disability against those that with a disability. As far as rights go, no one is denying homosexuals any different rights than heterosexuals.


I thought that you people consider gays as having a disability- mental illness.

Not being denied rights? They do not have the right to not be discriminated against in housing, employment or public accommodation in many states and at the federal level. Some states are fucking their right to adopt children.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 7, 2018)

Leo123 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Leo123 said:
> ...



That is not what I said. If you think that it's what I said it is only because your ridged, concrete thought process does not allow you to see the intricacies and nuances of an issue. You can  only deal with yes and no answers and all or nothing concepts.

The fact is that biological gender -like sexual orientation exists on a continuum . Most people are either male or female but some fall in between. Look it up. Do the research like I did if you're really interested in learning. Again, I'm sure that you aren't . You content to ignorantly blather and bloviate about that which you know nothing.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> He refused to custom design an original wedding cake that celebrated a same sex marriage in a state (CO) that didn't even have a legal version of/ actually forbade same sex marriages at the time.


And where ya pullin' this "custom design" BS from now? And you think the State's civil rights commission wasn't "legal" and "forbade same sex marriages at the time"? Yet, that's who the Supremes returned the case to anyway? Incredible!


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

google the story over the 6 years of the bakers ordeal...a half a dozen of misery thank you and a coffee to go...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> google the story over the 6 years of the bakers ordeal...a half a dozen of misery thank you and a coffee to go...


Ah, the poor bigot... got a couple phone calls from wackos    Meanwhile, the gay couple? Ah, who cares amiright!


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

Meanwhile the gay couple refused to patronize a gay or gay friendly business at first.


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

GoF-$ME are bigots:


*by **Ryan Fitzgerald*  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  April 27, 2015     12 Comments
*Left-wing activists have worked to shut down a fundraising campaign for a bakery defending itself against the gay agenda*

...GoFundMe then closed the fund, issuing the following statement:

After careful review by our team, we have found the “Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa” campaign to be in violation of our Terms and Conditions. The money raised thus far will still be made available for withdrawal. While a different campaign was recently permitted for a pizzeria in Indiana, no laws were violated and the campaign remained live. However, the subjects of the “Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa” campaign have been formally charged by local authorities and found to be in violation of Oregon state law concerning discriminatory acts. Accordingly, the campaign has been disabled.

A new fund started by a Christian group is now up. The Kleins' business now operates out of the family's home, as it had to close its storefront because of financial trouble.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> Meanwhile the gay couple refused to patronize a gay or gay friendly business at first.


You think they were aggressively targeting a known Christian business with the premeditated intent of ruining the guy for a political statement and "example to others"?

No!


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

Extremely troublesome is how one of the 2 men of the couple was in deep with the Matthew Shepherd Foundation long before by "chance" they found this baker.

Matthew Shepard Foundation
Non-profit organization in Denver, Colorado

Everyone feels bad about what happened to Matthew. Yet this one of the couple was already a seasoned activist.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> The color of the participants is not a choice. You kind of missed that point.



Sure it is, in an interracial marriage you have to choose.


.>>>>


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

"the color _of the participants" not the mix of colors in a partnership._


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



Hmmm, so if a gay male married a gay female = Baker bakes the cake

straight male married a straight female = Bakes the cake

Straight male marries a straight male = no cake

Gay male marries a gay male = no cake

Everyone is treated equally

Nope, the refusal is not based on sexuality


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > The color of the participants is not a choice. You kind of missed that point.
> ...



Sure, but they both could appear white, the DNA would however show a difference.

Same with Gays?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a point?
> ...



As it should be. Those artists and their sensibility? but whatcha gonna do?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Cannot would indicate a disability, and we do not hold disability against those that with a disability. As far as rights go, no one is denying homosexuals any different rights than heterosexuals.
> ...



The children have rights as well, they have diminished capability and we need to seek what's best for them, not the adult.

And if you want to claim a reproductive disability, which would be the claim a hetro couple could make, THEN YOU TRULY DO HAVE A MENTAL ISSUE!

You can't make this shit up folks, you simply can't!


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > The color of the participants is not a choice. You kind of missed that point.
> ...



You have to choose what color your partner, who has no control of what her DNA is, is?

This needs some 'splainin


----------



## P@triot (Jun 7, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I know perfectly well the two people of the same gender cannot reproduce without-shall we say" third party assistance".


So they *can't* have families - just like I said. Going out and adopting is NOT "_having_ a family".


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...





> same-sex
> _adjective_
> 
> relating to or involving people of the same sex.
> "same-sex friendships"





> het·er·o·sex·u·al
> ˌhedərəˈsekSH(o͞o)əl/
> _adjective_
> 
> ...





> cou·ple
> ˈkəpəl/
> _noun_
> 
> ...


"people of the same sex" + "sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex" + "two people who are married, engaged, or otherwise closely associated romantically or sexually" = sorry, does not compute = _"Say whaa?"_


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I know perfectly well the two people of the same gender cannot reproduce without-shall we say" third party assistance".
> ...


They adopt kids and become what then? What do they "have"?


----------



## P@triot (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


When a woman is in labor - she is *having* a baby. A woman who goes out and adopts is *not* _having_ a baby.

Homosexuals cannot _have_ a family. All they can do is take in someone else’s children and attempt to traumatize them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 7, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> GOD has fixed all the worlds ill in a way that provides each of us an opportunity for a absolutely wonderful eternity with Him. The way you wish it would require eliminating everyone and creating robots. And yes, homosexuality has been proven to be unsanitary, highly suspect as cancer causing, and seriously damaging to the anus. So GOD even thousands of years ago knew what He was talking about when He says don't do it.



So when he said to kill your neighbors for working on sunday, he was totally right about that?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


So you have no answer. Figures. Was just making sure.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> So you have no answer. Figures. Was just making sure.


Uh...I just answered. YOU have no response.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 7, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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



The Court never mentions 'lifestyle'.

You are just lying again.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 7, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile the gay couple refused to patronize a gay or gay friendly business at first.
> ...



Well you would think that. 

Despite absolutely no evidence that they were.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I know perfectly well the two people of the same gender cannot reproduce without-shall we say" third party assistance".
> ...



Really- so Bob Hope and his wife didn't have a family?


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

Syriusly said:


> The Court never mentions 'lifestyle'.
> 
> You are just lying again.



If the baker refused to bake a cake for them because they were black, do you think the Court would've told the city in Colorado to remain "neutral and respectful" towards the baker?  

They sent a message about the distinction between something static and protected and something that isn't static and has no enumerations in the US Constitution.  It's about time you got the message.  Because you will soon enough in plain English.  LGBT is a lifestyle.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Shame that you think that adoptive parents don't have a family. 

Adoptive parents- good adoptive parents- in my mind- are among the real heroes in America.

They take the kids cast off by their biological parents, often traumatized by their parents drug use and abuse, and open their homes and hearts to them- offering to be the parents that the kids own biological parents- denied them. 

And I speak of those adoptive parents- straight or gay- I applaud all of them who volunteer to be those good parents.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



The dictionary is not the law dimwit


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 7, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > The Court never mentions 'lifestyle'.
> ...



Reading the Court's opinion that is exactly what the court would have done. 

Because according to Colorado law- refusing to sell a cake to someone because they are black or because they are gay- is absolutely the same. 

If the baker had said his religious faith compelled him to not create a cake for a mixed race couple- the court response likely would have been the same.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

Syriusly said:


> Because according to Colorado law- refusing to sell a cake to someone because they are black or because they are gay- is absolutely the same.
> 
> If the baker had said his religious faith compelled him to not create a cake for a mixed race couple- the court response likely would have been the same.



Uh huh.  Sure it would have.  Anyone else believe this?  Race is enumerated in the Constitution.  Gay lifestyles are not.  You're familiar with the document that the Supremes work from, right?

Gay lifestyles (non enumerated) were tested against faith (enumerated) and they came out underneath.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 7, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > The Court never mentions 'lifestyle'.
> ...



"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market,"


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 7, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Because according to Colorado law- refusing to sell a cake to someone because they are black or because they are gay- is absolutely the same.
> ...



Race is not protected in the Constitution. 

See the difference between myself and you- is that I have read the Constitution. 

A baker cannot refuse to serve a black couple because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- not because of the Constitution. 

In Colorado, those protections include not only black Americans but gay Americans.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

Syriusly said:


> A baker cannot refuse to serve a black couple because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- not because of the Constitution.
> 
> .



You're aware that in Hively v Ivy Tech the 1964 Civil Rights Act was found to not cover gay lifestyles?  When did Congress enact the Gay Lifestyles Act?  Can you point me to a date or a link?

You are aware of the part of the Constitution that outlines how new Acts and Amendments must be ratified?  Not by the Judicial.  It takes the Legislature.

2016 in A: FindLaw's United States Seventh Circuit case and opinions.

_"Hively fails to thwart the motion to dismiss for the simple reason that this circuit has undeniably declared that claims for sexual orientation are not cognizable under Title VII."_

In B:

_"Whatever deference we might owe to the EEOC's adjudications, we conclude for the reasons that follow, that Title VII, as it stands, does not reach discrimination based on sexual orientation."_

You know Syriusly it's funny.  The plaintiff Hively tried the same word manipulation you are trying saying "gay sexual orientation and gay lifestyle are not the same thing!"  They accused Hively of "bootstrapping" "shoehorning" language to fit an agenda, just like you do:

In C:

_The court expressed concern that the plaintiff had “significantly conflated her claims,” and because the court could not discern whether the allegedly discriminatory acts were motivated by animus toward her gender or her sexual orientation, it deemed the acts beyond the scope of Title VII and upheld the motion for summary judgment in the salon's favor. Id. Several other courts likewise have thrown up their hands at the muddled lines between sexual orientation and gender non-conformity claims and simply have disallowed what they deem to be “bootstrapping” of sexual orientation claims onto gender stereotyping claims...._

_…  noting that the Price Waterhouse theory could not allow plaintiffs to “bootstrap protection for sexual orientation into Title VII because not all homosexual men are stereotypically feminine, and not all heterosexual men are stereotypically masculine.”..._

_…  “Sexual orientation discrimination is not actionable under Title VII, and plaintiffs may not shoehorn what are truly claims of sexual orientation discrimination into Title VII by framing them as claims of discrimination based on gender stereotypes, as Plaintiff at times attempts to do here.”
_
So I'll ask you again Syriusly, when was the "Gay Lifestyle Protection Act" passed by Congress?


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 7, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > A baker cannot refuse to serve a black couple because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- not because of the Constitution.
> ...



Hively v. Ivy Tech didn't mention gay lifestyles. It mentioned sexual orientation- you will lie about anything.

The Colorado case was not about the 1964 Civil Rights Act- what I pointed out that your lie about the Constitution preventing discrimination against blacks by shopkeepers was of course a lie- that the 1964 Civil Rights Act does that across the entire United States.

In Colorado- the discrimination statutes include sexual orientation- along with race.

So yes- in this case- if the plaintiffs had been black- the issue would have been exactly the same.


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

This case and the decision on this case has far more "precedent" and impact than most of the media is hollering on about in silly conclusions of "narrow" or ready to be overturned by following cases. WHY? well first of all: Kennedy was angered and bold in his oral statements at the Scotus hearings and he fashioned his concern about the unfairness of the Colorado commission into the prominent voice of the majority written opinion. The decision is not "narrow" in numbers of judges in the majority *and not "narrow"* in the consideration of the US Constitution's prioritizing protection of religion or religious conscience if there is demonstrated a vital sincerely held religious belief. The government has evolved to allow conscientious objectors to military service if there is proof of deeply held belief against war. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood and Little Sisters of the Poor -Catholic sisters sidestepped providing certain birth control under the force of the Health Care mandate by a Supreme Court victory. A Muslim prisoner won his right to keep his beard in a Scotus case in his favor. The Boy Scouts were not ordered to accept gay scout leaders by the government, but instead changed their policies of their own management negotiations (now "the Scouts"). A very important case is when a St. Patrick's Day parade won in the Supreme Court against a gay pride entry because the st. Patrick's Day parade asserted that the Pride people did not have the same MESSAGE as the parade. The wedding florist may or may not get a hearing at the Supreme court, but she clearly told her gay friend: I am sorry to hurt your feelings, but "because of my relationship with Jesus, I cannot..." provide flowers to your gay wedding. WE SHALL all just have to be tolerant BOTH WAYS in our complex society. Just like denying gays the happiness of same sex marriage in Obergefell was wrong, denying Phillips his right to his deeply held religion was wrong. The hostilities Phillips endured were obvious and wrong as well. He was going to be persecuted by the Commission's regulations or lose his livelihood in the end being punished for his religious beliefs by a governmental agency that should have taken everyone's rights into consideration and should have understood the federal protection of freedom of religion. 

"Phillips too *was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims* in all the circumstances of the case.*That consideration was compromised*, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. *The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case."*


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

Syriusly said:


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


Not much "lifestyle", innit!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> And if you want to claim a reproductive disability, which would be the claim a hetro couple could make, THEN YOU TRULY DO HAVE A MENTAL ISSUE!


No I do not what to claim a reproductive disability for gays . You totally misconstrued and misrepresented my point


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> The children have rights as well, they have diminished capability and we need to seek what's best for them, not the adult.


Yes of course! Children have right . I'm so glad that you brought that up. Here is something that I wrote a while back"
*Children are Also Victims When Gay and Lesbian Parents and Potential Parents are Discriminated Against by Progressive Patriot (Undated)
*


I am decidedly weary people of who use children and child rearing issues as pawns in the failed attempts to derail same sex marriage. Those children, who more than anything, need a stable, secure and loving home have a major stake in the issue. Yet, there are those who persist in claiming that children need a mother and a father to the exclusion of all other considerations in order to assail same sex marriage. They will point to bogus and faulty studies that purportedly show that the developmental and emotional outcomes for children of same sex couples is inferior to that of other children. My purpose here to not to debunk those studies-I have done that elsewhere- but rather to address the fact that regardless of what studies show, it is a ludicrous and logically fallacious argument to make against same sex marriage. In plain English, it makes no sense. It's the wrong argument.


Why? For one thing, people of all kinds will have children, regardless of the ability to marry. In addition, even if the outcomes for children raised in same sex household were in fact different than other children Consider this: If we are to base our policies as to who can marry on who does the best jobs with children, perhaps we should be taking a hard look at certain socio-economic or ethnic groups who produce children who's development and wellbeing can be contrasted to that of other groups . Maybe we should look at inner city vs. suburban parenting outcomes to set marriage policy? Is anyone willing to go there?

And how about this: It is known that Asian American children tend to be higher achievers than non Asians, so maybe we should prohibit marriage by white Americans in order to discourage child rearing since whose children might not do as well.

The fact is that there are a couple of million kids already in the care of gay people and couples. Many are the biological children of a gay person. Those children can benefit greatly if their parent is able to marry and the non-biological parent is able to adopt as a second parent. There are many economic, legal and social benefits to doing so. Not allowing the adults to marry only serves to punish those children and place them at a disadvantage.

In some cases gay people adopt children through agencies. Yes, the idea that gay people can adopt has been way out ahead of gay marriage. My home state of New Jersey has been allowing joint adoption by same sex couples since 1997, the first state to do so. These are children who had NO parents until these gay folks stepped up. Maybe someone would like to compare the long term outcomes for children who grow up as wards of the state with those raised by same sex couples. Gay people can and will adopt children regardless of whether or not the parent(s) can marry so why deprive the children the advantages-discussed above- of having married parent

Lastly, perhaps the smallest number of children who are in the care of gay and lesbian parents are those who were conceived with the use of surrogacy, or artificial insemination. These are children who, arguably would not have been born at all While there are those who may believe that their souls might have otherwise been born into a more advantageous environment, we really don’t know that, What we do know is that those children are real, and once again, those children will benefit from having married parents.

So, I ask. What do we do, even if the highly questionable assertion that gay parenting is inferior is correct? Do we discourage or even prohibit gays from having children in their care? Or do we adapt policies to support them and maximize their ability to care for those children? Do we enact complex policies regarding which groups will be encouraged and which will be discouraged from having children based on some measure of their parenting ability which will, most assuredly be disputed. Or, do we treat everyone equally.

And lastly, I submit to you that yes, it is possible that the number of additional children living with gay parents will increase as the result of same sex marriage

Some will adopt and some will have children with medical/ scientific intervention. But those children, like countless others in the care of gay couples, will have two legal parents who are married. A tremendous advantage. And those adopted children had no parents and the ones who were conceived with help, would not have been born at all


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

Perhaps while the LGBTQ movement screams "help me we are such victims" the "movement" really has just been exposed for using hateful tactics.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> Perhaps while the LGBTQ movement screams "help me we are such victims" the "movement" really has just been exposed for using hateful tactics.


Justice Thomas warned them.  And they didn't listen.  You're aware that they're arrogantly as we speak trying to remove food from the mouths of orphans in Michigan just to prove yet another iron-fist point in their cult agenda right?  Dumont v Lyon.  You can search it here.  I have a couple of threads on it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


What the fuck are you talking about!?? Take someone else's children. How are they doing that? Steeling them? You are just pulling that shit out of your ass. It's extremely hateful and ignorant. Describe a case where gay people just "took other peoples children" where those  children actually had loving, non abusive, caring parents. If two people of the same sex are caring for children, regardless of how they were conceived, or came to be in their care HOW THE FUCK DO THEY NOT HAVE A FAMILY?


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

The win for the baker is also a win for artists. Only the fearful assume this is a scary decision.


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

Adoption cases should and most likely will go well for gays and lesbians. No worries there. I myself do not agree with trans whatever "medicine" but I fully support gays and lesbians enjoying parenthood as long as there is a healthy family dynamic. In Arizona a lesbian woman must share custody of her biological child with her female partner after their divorce. She did not want to but the other "mother" cares for the child too.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> Adoption cases should and most likely will go well for gays and lesbians. No worries there.* I myself do not agree with trans whatever "medicine" but I fully support gays and lesbians enjoying parenthood as long as there is a healthy family dynamic*. In Arizona a lesbian woman must share custody of her biological child with her female partner after their divorce. She did not want to but the other "mother" cares for the child too.



Would you consider a "healthy family dynamic" having a contract that banishes all hope forever of the children involved having either a mother or father?

I presume you've had even a bit of exposure to the tomes of studies done on the deleterious effects of boys not having a father and girls no mother?  Everybody always talks about children so vaguely and dismissively in these questions as if they are suitcases or patio furniture.  They are human beings; perhaps the most important human being class in our society since they are still malleable and in formative stages.  And we act like we can trample them like ants underfoot in these elephantine adult debates.  Like "oh yeah, you know, those things...those little afterthoughts"...  Like hell.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 7, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> Perhaps while the LGBTQ movement screams "help me we are such victims" the "movement" really has just been exposed for using hateful tactics.


What hateful  tactics are you referring to ? Political activism ? Public protest? Calling out bigots for what they are ? What "hatful tactics" have gays used that blacks, women, other minorities have not used. ? You wont say because you don't want to be called a racist or a misogynist, but you wear the badge of anti gay proudly.

Did blacks and women use "hateful tactics" to gain voting rights and other rights? I do not see much difference. When people are oppressed they do what they have to do. When   hate is directed at people they have a right to respond proportionately . I know your kind, hater have to hate. It is just a matter of who is the more convenient target that you can get away with - or think that you can get away with- at any point in history.


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

No, I wear the badge of seeing through the LGBTQ games bullshit very well.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 7, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> No, I wear the badge of seeing through the LGBTQ games bullshit very well.


Please elaborate


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

Maybe the LGBTQ agendaites should realize that there is a renewed Women's movement too

afloat that has concerns as frivolous as rape, sexual harassment, real discrimination in jobs, oppression that prevents girls and women from obtaining an education, children, aging, and breast cancer - RATHER THAN in a society abundant with shopping choices - WHERE TO BUY A FuKING CAKE !!! so there and good day...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 7, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> Maybe the LGBTQ agendaites should realize that there is a renewed Women's movement afloat that has concerns as frivolous as rape, sexual harassment, real discrimination in jobs, and breast cancer - RATHER THAN WHERE TO BUY A FuKING CAKE !!!


Like women and racial minorities, LGBT are " beset by much more than where to by a cake. But that does not diminish or trivialize the fact that being turned away from a business  open to the public because of sexual orientation is discrimination.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 7, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe the LGBTQ agendaites should realize that there is a renewed Women's movement afloat that has concerns as frivolous as rape, sexual harassment, real discrimination in jobs, and breast cancer - RATHER THAN WHERE TO BUY A FuKING CAKE !!!
> ...



Yeah, everyone has to be a 'victim' typical neo-Marxist crap.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > And if you want to claim a reproductive disability, which would be the claim a hetro couple could make, THEN YOU TRULY DO HAVE A MENTAL ISSUE!
> ...



So that’s why you left out your argument?

The omission is incredible and purposeful obviously 

You are mentally disabled, aren’t you?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> The dictionary is not the law dimwit





Pop23 said:


> same sex heterosexual couple


Then by all means show us some law containing the phrase "same sex heterosexual couple" genius...

... Meanwhile


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

The bullshit is calling everything "discrimination" so much and then USING hateful discrimination against others meanwhile really targeting these innocent people who will not be crushed under unreasonable demands. Over a fukin CAKE. CAKE CAKE CAKE how immature is that! The hateful LGBTQ agenda to persecute Christians has and always will backfire on them- bakery stunts from idiots.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> What a dumb post. Two people of the same gender *cannot* reproduce. Stop pretending like you don’t understand.



So by that logic, we should deny marriage to infertile couples and not let old folks marry...


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 7, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Like women and racial minorities, LGBT are " beset by much more than where to by a cake. But that does not diminish or trivialize the fact that being turned away from a business  open to the public because of sexual orientation is discrimination.



What year was the LGBT Lifestyle Protection Act passed by Congress?

You're aware that in Hively v Ivy Tech the 1964 Civil Rights Act was found to not cover gay lifestyles?

You are aware of the part of the Constitution that outlines how new Acts and Amendments must be ratified? Not by the Judicial. It takes the Legislature.

2016 in A: FindLaw's United States Seventh Circuit case and opinions.

_"Hively fails to thwart the motion to dismiss for the simple reason that this circuit has undeniably declared that claims for sexual orientation are not cognizable under Title VII."_

In B:

_"Whatever deference we might owe to the EEOC's adjudications, we conclude for the reasons that follow, that Title VII, as it stands, does not reach discrimination based on sexual orientation."_

The 7th circuit Court accused Hively of "bootstrapping" "shoehorning" language to fit an agenda:

In C:

_The court expressed concern that the plaintiff had “significantly conflated her claims,” and because the court could not discern whether the allegedly discriminatory acts were motivated by animus toward her gender or her sexual orientation, it deemed the acts beyond the scope of Title VII and upheld the motion for summary judgment in the salon's favor. Id. Several other courts likewise have thrown up their hands at the muddled lines between sexual orientation and gender non-conformity claims and simply have disallowed what they deem to be “bootstrapping” of sexual orientation claims onto gender stereotyping claims...._

_… noting that the Price Waterhouse theory could not allow plaintiffs to “bootstrap protection for sexual orientation into Title VII because not all homosexual men are stereotypically feminine, and not all heterosexual men are stereotypically masculine.”..._

_… “Sexual orientation discrimination is not actionable under Title VII, and plaintiffs may not shoehorn what are truly claims of sexual orientation discrimination into Title VII by framing them as claims of discrimination based on gender stereotypes, as Plaintiff at times attempts to do here.”_

So I'll ask you again, when was the "Gay Lifestyle Protection Act" passed by Congress?  No city can cite a properly-enacted federal Gay Lifestyle Protection Act that could compete with the potency of the 1st Amendment on faith.  So this is why PA laws are not valid, that are forcing Christians to abdicate their faith for a non federally protected lifestyle.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > The dictionary is not the law dimwit
> ...



Cool, so you think same sex only means homosexual?

I guess there goes the whole marriage is marriage argument that was the whole basis against civil unions. 

Thanks


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > What a dumb post. Two people of the same gender *cannot* reproduce. Stop pretending like you don’t understand.
> ...



Sure, run with that and don’t wonder why the Dems never win another election in the next 200 years


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 7, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > According to the Supreme Court the baker is not guilty of breaking the law. And this was decided by a large majority of the judges.
> ...


Grown men who have an innate attraction for boys are sick. Whether or not it is against the law seems to be under the control of people like you at present...


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 7, 2018)

Stick around folks, this is about to get fun.


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

Then airhead far left pretend news chimes in with the expected silly "stories" like this:

Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Has Little in Common With Most Americans 
Stephanie Mencimer *EXCEPT that he is an American stupid...*


----------



## P@triot (Jun 7, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > What a dumb post. Two people of the same gender *cannot* reproduce. Stop pretending like you don’t understand.
> ...


1. If everything is done properly, *nobody* (including the couple) would know that they are “infertile” until _after_ they were married.

2. There is a monumental difference between a legitimate health problem and going against nature.

You tried this idiotic argument before Joe and I placed you over my knee when you did and turned you into my bitch. Why would you go back to it?


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 7, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > What a dumb post. Two people of the same gender *cannot* reproduce. Stop pretending like you don’t understand.
> ...


If you did that Isaac, Samson, and John the Baptist would not have been born. However, there are no miraculous births of children to any gay couple ever recorded.


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)

horrible religious fanatics


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 7, 2018)




----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

> *Jefferson and the Bill of Rights[edit]*
> Main articles: Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Cool, so there goes your "same sex heterosexual couple" fantasy?
You never have an honest, let alone intelligible, response that follows logically from much of anything here?
You're just a smartypants in gun control advocate garb and the actual "dimwit"?
Well, no surprise, but fine admission at long last.
Thanks!


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 8, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> The bullshit is calling everything "discrimination" so much and then USING hateful discrimination against others meanwhile really targeting these innocent people who will not be crushed under unreasonable demands. Over a fukin CAKE. CAKE CAKE CAKE how immature is that! The hateful LGBTQ agenda to persecute Christians has and always will backfire on them- bakery stunts from idiots.


The Communists have discovered the quickest way to destroy our society is thru the gay agenda.  They have already succeeded destroying the Boy Scouts after trying since the early part of last century with no success, but once they forced gay scout leaders on the organization it has gone downhill.  Last week the Boy Scouts of America finally committed suicide.

The Communists have found their weapon.  It is no coincidence that we have all of a sudden had to deal with:

transgenders,
dozens of sexes,
89+ gender pronouns we must use or get sued,
gay marriage
shutting down bakeries (they are not thru with Christians)
Oh yeah, paternity leave


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Sure, run with that and don’t wonder why the Dems never win another election in the next 200 years



You miss the point, dummy...  Maybe you need to call Evil Space Lord Xenu and have him explain it to you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 8, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> If you did that Isaac, Samson, and John the Baptist would not have been born. However, there are no miraculous births of children to any gay couple ever recorded.



None of those people actually existed...  Well, maybe John the Baptist did, but there's no evidence his mom was old. 

again, this same book claimed that snakes can talk, so you have to take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



Have you come up with the State law yet that shows where a state requires the assertion of sexuality prior to issuing a marriage license?

No?

Get to work dimwit.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 8, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> 2016 in A: FindLaw's United States Seventh Circuit case and opinions.
> 
> _"Hively fails to thwart the motion to dismiss for the simple reason that this circuit has undeniably declared that claims for sexual orientation are not cognizable under Title VII."_


You lie as usual!!  The decision in 2016 was handed down by a three judge panel of the 7th circuit. In 2017, it was heard by the full court and reversed!!

Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College

*April 4, 2017* In groundbreaking 8-3 decision, the full Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation violates federal civil rights law.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 8, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > If you did that Isaac, Samson, and John the Baptist would not have been born. However, there are no miraculous births of children to any gay couple ever recorded.
> ...


And you know this for a fact ----HOW exactly? Your say so is not enough. What proof do you offer? Next you may say Jesus and Pontius Pilate never existed. How do I know you exist! There are historical books. The simple reality is that you have to throw GOD under the bus in order to try to substantiate your behavior. What else are you willing to do to "live" your life's choices and what eternal hope do they avail you? The serpent was possessed by Satan. And so Satan was doing the talking, and the serpent was used to gain & hold Eve's attention. The Bible must be applied to understanding the Bible. One cannot depend on "FEELINGS".


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 8, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> What year was the LGBT Lifestyle Protection Act passed by Congress?


This is just another one of you dishonest bullshit games. You know that there is no such thing as the LGBT Lifestyle Protection Act and you know that I know there is no such thing as the LGBT Lifestyle Protection Act.  The Equal Rights Amendment for women was never passed either, but  that does not mean that they do not have rights.

You little moronic quip does not negate LGBT people have indeed gained rights at the state and federal level as I have documented.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 8, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> You are aware of the part of the Constitution that outlines how new Acts and Amendments must be ratified? Not by the Judicial. It takes the Legislature.


Your aware that case law- AKA binding precedents - carry the force of law. You continue to show your pathetic ignorance of Constitutional law, and how our legal  system actually works-


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Have you come up with the State law yet that shows where a state requires the assertion of sexuality prior to issuing a marriage license?


Hey, here's an idea! Since you're the only one interested.. run, run, RUN along now and pursue that crazy research project! Genius!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dishonest bullshit games





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> pathetic ignorance


Methinks the latter informs the former


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 8, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > 2016 in A: FindLaw's United States Seventh Circuit case and opinions.
> ...


To be revisited again....  Thanks in no small part to this case and others like it all doing a war dance around_ "we can no longer just take the LGBT word-salad and bootstrap it onto other existing laws, there must be delineated federal protections or else faith and deep moral objections to that lifestyle must prevail."  _Keyword:  LIFESTYLE.  Stay tuned.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you come up with the State law yet that shows where a state requires the assertion of sexuality prior to issuing a marriage license?
> ...



I love it when a Progressive is proven wrong and then tries to save face in this way!

So Grumblenuts, why would the government have a compelling interest in the denial of a right to straights which would make them unequal to gays?

Got an answer, or are you just the coward you appear to be?

hummmmmm?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, run with that and don’t wonder why the Dems never win another election in the next 200 years
> ...



If you feel so strongly about hetros that can't have children being not allowed to marry, why don't you make that a focus of the upcoming election?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

I just have to laugh my ass off when gay right supporters question if it's legal now for two straight men, or two straight women for that matter, to legally marry?

Stupid as it may sound, there is nothing that makes it illegal.

So if the Baker only denies baking a cake for same sex couples, straight or gay, he is not discriminating based on sexuality.

RLMOA


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> I just have to laugh my ass off when gay right supporters question if it's legal now for two straight men, or two straight women for that matter, to legally marry?
> 
> Stupid as it may sound, there is nothing that makes it illegal.
> 
> ...


You know that's a good point.  But even so, "sexual orientation" is nothing but a habitual lifestyle, like drug addiction.  If they're claiming protections for "sexual orientation", they'll first have to outline which ones (all, some, none? & why?) and then tell us how other habitual lifestyles are left out in the cold; like polygamy as just one example of thousands or even millions.

The Court warned about this in this case where LGBT cult litigants are (annoyingly, as in "knock it the fuck off") trying force people of faith to their knees to abdicate their values.  AZGal made a good point on my thread in politics.  She reminded me of "Kristalnacht" where the Nazis went around busting up the shop windows of jews to put them out of business for refusing to abdicate their faith and instead embrace Nazism.

If we could time-travel and in 20 years find bands of lisping thugs with rainbow armbands guarding concentration camps of "unworkable Christians" getting gassed in the showers and made into drawstring lamps; let's just say I wouldn't be totally shocked.  I mean just browse the web today and read the seething, foaming, boiling hatred this cult has for people of faith and the values that say "buttsex ain't cricket with God".  They're beyond rageful.  And, so were the Nazis in the late 1930s.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > I just have to laugh my ass off when gay right supporters question if it's legal now for two straight men, or two straight women for that matter, to legally marry?
> ...



Don't you find it strange that the assumption that marriage (at least governmental marriage) is still assumed to be about Love, Sex, Companionship? Even after Windsor said it can be based simply on Financial reasoning?

Does the left now actually want in based on Love? I guess than we would need the State Legislators to define what Love is? To develop a "Love Test" of some kind?

Or do they wan't the State Legislatures to define what qualifies as sanctioned sex? How much Sex would be required to keep a valid license? Would a women in a male/female marriage be forced to engage in anal sex?Can you imagine the Utah legislature debating what qualifies? And if sex is a requirement, then wouldn't a man forcing himself on his wife be sanctioned as well?

Interesting stuff really.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


That's it, sonny, keep settin' up them straw men and blastin' 'em away with that Red Ryder pop gun!
Be sure to wipe it down every night. But be careful.. 'cause some day.. sure as can be..
Gonna shoot your eye out with that thing!


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



And you still keep running.

Ain't it strange that I am the true Progressive in this, and you are the Conservative.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 8, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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


Wow! Sounds like you're really loosing it with that boat load of blather!! Can't stand to be proven wrong, can you? 

Yes it will be revisited . The Trump DOJ has filed appeals in 4 cases in 4 circuit courts that have ruled in favor of including gay folks in the civil rights act. The have a long road ahead, and unless there is a circuit split, SCOTUS will probably not take the case. Have a nice day


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> I just have to laugh my ass off when gay right supporters question if it's legal now for two straight men, or two straight women for that matter, to legally marry?
> 
> Stupid as it may sound, there is nothing that makes it illegal.


Who, exactly questioned it? Of course it's legal. There is no "gay test " to marry someone of the same sex. YOU make ME laugh


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> So if the Baker only denies baking a cake for same sex couples, straight or gay, he is not discriminating based on sexuality.


No, he would be discriminating based on gender


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 8, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes it will be revisited . The Trump DOJ has filed appeals in 4 cases in 4 circuit courts that have ruled in favor of including gay folks in the civil rights act. The have a long road ahead, and unless there is a circuit split, SCOTUS will probably not take the case. Have a nice day



SCOTUS cannot add language or meaning to the intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  In the 2016 Decision on Hively, the Opinion said that in no way at the time had its crafters anticipated a sexual orientation other than hetero and sexual orientation wasn't even part of the wording. "Sex" is NOT equal legally to "sexual orientation".  The 1964 Civil Rights Act meant "the gender one is actually born as".

No Court can add language to that Act.  Congress has to.  And this is what the 2016 Opinion said on it.  It will take an act of Congress to elevate gay lifestylists to equal status with race, faith, country of origin and actual gender.




TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > So if the Baker only denies baking a cake for same sex couples, straight or gay, he is not discriminating based on sexuality.
> ...



Thank you for making that distinction.  It's the same distinction Hively 2016 pointed out: that sexual orientation isn't covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Sex (gender) is.  But not what one DOES with one's equipment.  Behavior.  Action.  Habitual Lifestyle.  NOT innate.​


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > So if the Baker only denies baking a cake for same sex couples, straight or gay, he is not discriminating based on sexuality.
> ...



Nope, he would still bake cakes for gay women marrying straight men, or straight women marrying straight men.

Sorry, he just doesn't bake cake for same sex marriage, regardless of sexuality. All are treated equally


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > I just have to laugh my ass off when gay right supporters question if it's legal now for two straight men, or two straight women for that matter, to legally marry?
> ...



Just the most conservative member of this board Grumblenuts


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Don't you find it strange that the assumption that marriage (at least governmental marriage) is still assumed to be about Love, Sex, Companionship? Even after Windsor said it can be based simply on Financial reasoning?
> 
> Does the left now actually want in based on Love?


The Left wants what now? LOL! 
"Windsor said"..? Who the hell cares?
Robbing banks "can be based simply on Financial reasoning"
Whatever you're smoking?.. Gotta try that some day!


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you find it strange that the assumption that marriage (at least governmental marriage) is still assumed to be about Love, Sex, Companionship? Even after Windsor said it can be based simply on Financial reasoning?
> ...



Bank robbers don't ask for Governmental sanctioning. Are you really that stupid?

Are you still arguing that the Government has the right to restrict Marriage based on Sexuality?

Whaaaaaaatttttttttttt?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 8, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> SCOTUS cannot add language or meaning to the intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In the 2016 Decision on Hively, the Opinion said that in no way at the time had its crafters anticipated a sexual orientation other than hetero and sexual orientation wasn't even part of the wording. "Sex" is NOT equal legally to "sexual orientation". The 1964 Civil Rights Act meant "the gender one is actually born as".
> 
> No Court can add language to that Act. Congress has to. And this is what the 2016 Opinion said on it. It will take an act of Congress to elevate gay lifestylists to equal status with race, faith, country of origin and actual gender.


You can bloviate all that you want. Four (4) Federal circuit courts said differently. Forget about the 2016 Hively decision already, it was superseded by the same court the following year.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


If only you could quote me doing so...
Might almost resemble an honest discussion...


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Breaking News - Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

Want more?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Are you still arguing that the Government has the right to restrict Marriage based on Sexuality?


Never did, son. Gotta breathe now and then. Perhaps put down that pipe once in a while?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you still arguing that the Government has the right to restrict Marriage based on Sexuality?
> ...



But you wanted cites to laws that allowed same sex heterosexuals to Marry legally.

Hiding behind stupidity just makes you look even more stupid.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


More what?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



Links to your stupidity


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, I didn't. Clearly all I wanted was for you to find a single instance of _your_ phrase "same sex heterosexual couple" written in any legal jurisprudence.. since _you_ had previously demanded some use of legal jargon. Now just admit it,... still haven't found it, have you? And what does that make you?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



Why would it be there in the first place dumbass? Then, why ask for something you knew wouldn't exist unless you didn't think heterosexuals being legally able to marry was legal?

You do not cover your ass well (and just the thought of your uncovered ass would make anyone vomit)


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> why ask for something you knew wouldn't exist unless you didn't think heterosexuals being legally able to marry was legal?


Asked and answered already. To be crystal, it's obviously always been a distinct possibility and rare occurrence. Question remains, why get married simply for money where chasing the almighty dollar already likely consumes most of people's free time? What's there to formally unite and celebrate over? Your mutual greed? Why not just live together?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > why ask for something you knew wouldn't exist unless you didn't think heterosexuals being legally able to marry was legal?
> ...



None of that is relevant, and you know this.

Heterosexuals are JUST AS legally able to marry those of the same sex as homosexuals are under the current standard. And the Baker is treating Homosexuals equally to Heterosexuals. There is no discrimination in this case.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > why ask for something you knew wouldn't exist unless you didn't think heterosexuals being legally able to marry was legal?
> ...



This is maybe the funniest post of all ^^^^^^^^

You question why anyone would want to marry another. Same argument was made a few years ago. Why would one man want to marry another?

You can't make this bigoted shit up if you tried! And from a marriage equality supporter none the less!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Heterosexuals are JUST AS legally able to marry those of the same sex as homosexuals are under the current standard. And the Baker is treating Homosexuals equally to Heterosexuals. There is no discrimination in this case.


If that's all you meant to assert, could've saved a lot of time just saying so in the first place! The baker treated two homosexuals like crap in this case. Obviously. Speculating about how he may treat two same sex heterosexuals instead is just that.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I hear you accusing and guffawing like an idiot there as usual. And still no actual substance to offer...


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Heterosexuals are JUST AS legally able to marry those of the same sex as homosexuals are under the current standard. And the Baker is treating Homosexuals equally to Heterosexuals. There is no discrimination in this case.
> ...



The policy would be the same regardless. And yes, I stated that a dozen times


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Why would one man want to marry another?


We've covered love, sex, and greed so far. What else you wanna plop on the table?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



What substance did you require except the Law? Which you tried to deny existed?

You are a funny lil conservative.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would one man want to marry another?
> ...



Being dishonest by not including the entire quote I see.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> What substance did you require except the Law? Which you tried to deny existed?


Again with vacuous accusations. Try addressing the questions?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Dishonest would be misquoting you. Focusing upon one of your questions is just that.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > What substance did you require except the Law? Which you tried to deny existed?
> ...



You seem to not understand the concept here. If you quote the entire post, then the question would appear. You didn't, so it doesn't.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > What substance did you require except the Law? Which you tried to deny existed?
> ...



The question wasn't relevant, but since you are too lazy to repost it, then I will.

Here's the link:

Breaking News - Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

"We've covered love, sex, and greed so far. What else you wanna plop on the table?"

It's not relevant because love, sex or greed are NOT REQUIRED BY THE STATE TO ENTER INTO A MARRIAGE.

Do you get it now?

I would think, being a so called marriage equality type, this would not come as a surprise to you.

But there I go, being the more progressive in this thread again. Bernie would be so sad for you.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> "We've covered love, sex, and greed so far. What else you wanna plop on the table?"
> 
> It's not relevant because love, sex or greed are NOT REQUIRED BY THE STATE TO ENTER INTO A MARRIAGE.
> 
> Do you get it now?


No. Relevant to what exactly? What is your argument? You can do it!


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > "We've covered love, sex, and greed so far. What else you wanna plop on the table?"
> ...



You don't know? Of course you do. You're simply afraid of it, and honestly, if I were you, I'd be a bit afraid myself, cuz it shows the Baker was just treating everyone equally.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jun 8, 2018)

Baker - "I'm sorry I only sell Jesus cakes now, and as we all know he was VERY intolerant and encouraged all of mankind to judge their fellow man."


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

IsaacNewton said:


> Baker - "I'm sorry I only sell Jesus cakes now, and as we all know he was VERY intolerant and encouraged all of mankind to judge their fellow man."



Except he never said he wouldn't sell cake to Gays. Heck he would even, and probably has, sold wedding cakes to gay couples when they were opposite sex couples.

He refuses to sell cake to same sex couples regardless if they are Heterosexual or Homosexual.

EQUALITY BABY! Got to love it!


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Baker - "I'm sorry I only sell Jesus cakes now, and as we all know he was VERY intolerant and encouraged all of mankind to judge their fellow man."
> ...



Take the toaster out of the bathtub.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

IsaacNewton said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...



Is that where you keep it? I keep mine in the Kitchen. But if there ever is a time that I find it in there, I'll take it out.

Now, to the question at hand. If the Baker treats all sexuality's the same, then how is he discriminating, or are you just bitching so cuz you got your feelings hurt?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Is that where you keep it? I keep mine in the Kitchen. But if there ever is a time that I find it in there, I'll take it out.
> 
> Now, to the question at hand. If the Baker treats all sexuality's the same, then how is he discriminating, or are you just bitching so cuz you got your feelings hurt?



You would just change the charged from "sexual orientation", we all know it's about the sexual orientation of the men in question, but you want to play work games.

OK...

The law also limits the ability to discriminate based on the sex of the customers.

Baker provides goods & services to man/woman couples.  No violation of the law.

Baker refuses to provide the same goods and services to man/man or woman/woman couples.  Same goods and services but refuses based on the sex of the customers.  Still in violation of the same law, just a different aspect of it.


.>>>>


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Except he never said he wouldn't sell cake to Gays.


True. Whether by "he" you're referring to the baker or the carpenter.


Pop23 said:


> Heck he would even, and probably has, sold wedding cakes to gay couples when they were opposite sex couples.


Pure speculation, thus irrelevant. We know the baker's never done so on purpose. Why not stick to what can easily be backed with evidence? Stated intent is relevant.


Pop23 said:


> He refuses to sell cake to same sex couples regardless if they are Heterosexual or Homosexual.


Evidence? We know he offered to sell cake to the gay couple in question. Just not wedding cake.


Pop23 said:


> EQUALITY BABY! Got to love it!


What equality? How about ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION BABY!


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Is that where you keep it? I keep mine in the Kitchen. But if there ever is a time that I find it in there, I'll take it out.
> ...



OK, now define which sex he is discriminating against.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Baker provides goods & services to man/woman couples.  No violation of the law.

Baker refuses sell to provide the same goods and services to man/man or woman/woman couples.  Same goods and services but refuses based on the sex of the customers.  Still in violation of the same law, just a different aspect of it.



The decision is on the sex composition of the customers - but you knew that.


.>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Except he never said he wouldn't sell cake to Gays.
> ...



Speculation? Hell your entire argument is speculation.

Do you have a scientific method to determine sexuality?

You'd make a mint!

And if you don't, how the hell would a Baker?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



So he serves all, but discriminates to all?

You do understand that, to discriminate against a race, you discriminate against the race as an entirety, Right?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Speculation? Hell your entire argument is speculation.


What argument?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> So he serves all, but discriminates to all?



Couple, not individual.



Pop23 said:


> You do understand that, to discriminate against a race, you discriminate against the race as an entirety, Right?



No you discriminate against individuals based on a refused transaction.

If a shop owners sells to black people all the time, but refuses service to an individual because that individual is black - past sales do not exempt him from refusing service to this customer on the basis that the person is black.  (Of course the owner can refuse service for other reasons, but if he's dumb enough say "I'm not serving you because your black".  That's his own stupidity.)


.>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Speculation? Hell your entire argument is speculation.
> ...



Yeah, I know


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Me too.


> *Hypothesis Contrary to Fact*
> 
> (also known as: counterfactual fallacy, speculative fallacy, "what if" fallacy, wouldchuck)
> 
> ...


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > So he serves all, but discriminates to all?
> ...



You may not discriminate based on Color (race) which would make his decision racially biased. I'm not seeing someone who is racially biased singling out an individual to extend that bias to, and not the race itself.

In this case, a homosexual same sex couple is being treated EXACTLY as a heterosexual same sex couple would be. He doesn't, never before, and never since, offered that service. It is against his religious beliefs regardless of the sexuality of the couple.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



My claim was supported by existing law. Yours? Not so much.


----------



## dblack (Jun 8, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Of course the owner can refuse service for other reasons, but if he's dumb enough say "I'm not serving you because your black".  That's his own stupidity.



This is, yet another, example of how these laws violate the First Amendment. What's illegal isn't the discrimination - anyone can get away with that by simply not divulging their reasons. It's the expression of bias that makes it illegal. If the bakers had merely said - sorry, I can't help you, instead of stating the views that inform their bias, they'd never have been prosecuted.

That's not just a technical detail, it's the core purpose of theses laws - they seek to suppress certain kinds of bias that government has deemed dangerous or undesirable.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



What bias does the baker have against males?

What bias does the baker have against females?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

dblack said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the owner can refuse service for other reasons, but if he's dumb enough say "I'm not serving you because your black".  That's his own stupidity.
> ...



The Baker, like everyone else based the statement on assumption. That assumption is that the new and improved marriage laws only applies to Gays.

Sorry to break everyone's bubble, but it does not.

The Baker believes that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. It's what he based his entire Wedding business model on, and started advertising that product because it didn't violate his religious belief. He never EVER offered wedding cakes to same sex couples REGARDLESS of sexuality.

I would bet you, had this same couple requested the cake, stating that they were *Heterosexual*, he would have denied the product as well as it would conflict with his Religious belief and would be a product never before offered in his store.

And that ^^^^^^ my friends is truly PROGRESSIVE thinking!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> In this case, a homosexual same sex couple is being treated EXACTLY as a heterosexual same sex couple would be. He doesn't, never before, and never since, offered that service. It is against his religious beliefs regardless of the sexuality of the couple.


K, little review of pertinent facts:


> The two men were going to be married in Massachusetts, and they were looking for a wedding cake for a reception in Colorado.
> 
> Mr. Phillips turned them down, saying he would not use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage *at odds with his religious faith*. Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig said they were humiliated by Mr. Phillips’s refusal to serve them, and they filed a complaint with Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission, saying that Mr. Phillips had violated a state law barring *discrimination based on sexual orientation.*
> 
> Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig won before the commission and in the state courts.


No hint they ever asked him to "use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage". They walked into a cake shop and asked to buy a wedding cake. He obviously turned them down because they had somehow communicated that they were *gay* and planning to marry each other, i.e. *based on sexual orientation.* No idea how he'd treat "a heterosexual same sex couple" ordering a wedding cake unless they claimed to be gay.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > In this case, a homosexual same sex couple is being treated EXACTLY as a heterosexual same sex couple would be. He doesn't, never before, and never since, offered that service. It is against his religious beliefs regardless of the sexuality of the couple.
> ...



No idea? After he said: "saying he would not use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage *at odds with his religious faith*."

His faith states plainly that marriage is between a man and a women. There is no speculation required. His faith would NOT allow him to bake a wedding cake for same sex PERIOD.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Then you should be able to find and supply pertinent quotes from him to that effect. You speculating all over the place here is just being silly.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



ummm, dipshit, you supplied the quote!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Quote of "You speculating all over the place here" and "just being silly"? Sure, they keep piling up!


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



You get loonier by the minute. Damn, maybe you are the dude in your Avatar.

I'm not sure you even know what you are talking about. Nope, I'm positive you don't.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Watch the video subtitled "Jack Phillips explains his reasons for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding" knucklehead and commence weeping:
1:16 "I believe that the Bible teaches *that homosexuality is wrong* and to participate in, uh, (unclear) is wrong for me."


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 8, 2018)

'Jesus Would Have Baked That Cake': Pastor Weighs in on Local Baker's Supreme Court Case -


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Supreme Court Christian Cake Baker Ruling Leads Homophobic Store Owner to Put Up a 'No Gays Allowed' Sign – Again -
LOL!


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 8, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware of the part of the Constitution that outlines how new Acts and Amendments must be ratified? Not by the Judicial. It takes the Legislature.
> ...


Well oddly enough AKA didn't come into play when slaves were emancipated nor when women received the right to vote. So, I guess I am ignorant of how the Constitution works or everyone else is...


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 8, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> 'Jesus Would Have Baked That Cake': Pastor Weighs in on Local Baker's Supreme Court Case -


Where is the Bible passage that this so called minister of God bases his sign on. I see no Chapter or Verse sited. And Jesus was raised in the family of a carpenter, not a baker. Jesus is certainly an individual of love and understanding;however, He always upheld the scriptures.
Matthew 10:14-16
14 And if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. 16 Look, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves; therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.…


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Was Jesus gay? Probably


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 8, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


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


yes you are , and some others  as well.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 8, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > 'Jesus Would Have Baked That Cake': Pastor Weighs in on Local Baker's Supreme Court Case -
> ...


I don't know or care. He is addressing the philosophical Jesus . Something  that you dogmatic theocrats have lost site of.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 8, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> 'Jesus Would Have Baked That Cake': Pastor Weighs in on Local Baker's Supreme Court Case -


Not according to Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament.  Jesus would've gone to hell for an eternity.  Because of the relatively few mortal (unforgivable) sins, aiding and abetting the spread of the homosexual lifestyle or practices in any society lands you eternity in the Pit of Fire.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 8, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > 'Jesus Would Have Baked That Cake': Pastor Weighs in on Local Baker's Supreme Court Case -
> ...


God does not engage in sex. The only unforgivable sin is denying that Jesus is the Savior, the Messiah, the only eternal Son of the Living GOD. That is unforgivable or everyone would be going to heaven. There is no sin that can separate anyone from GOD but the denial and nonacceptance of Christ.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 8, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > 'Jesus Would Have Baked That Cake': Pastor Weighs in on Local Baker's Supreme Court Case -
> ...





LittleNipper said:


> God does not engage in sex. The only unforgivable sin is denying that Jesus is the Savior, the Messiah, the only Son of the Living GOD. That is unforgivable or everyone would be goring to heaven. There is no osin that can separate anyone from GOD but the denial and nonacceptance of Christ.



No, I'm pretty sure Jude 1 and Romans 1 speak for themselves.  Jude was the personal daily servant of Jesus; and in his passage he recounts his master reiterating a rare Old Testament intolerance for certain human BEHAVIORS.  He didn't plead with Jude to remember how God put the people of Sodom to death for no reason.  He reminded him that to aid or abet especially the spread of homosexuality "as normal" with a culture is a mortal sin.  There are other sins of course enumerated in the New Testament; venial ones that are forgivable under the eyes of God upon contrition and repentance.  But helping to spread homosexuality isn't one of them.

I've written about this in depth before.  But mainly I think the problem is that it fucks up God's matrix for the lessons we are here to learn.  Solid roles in society are blurred by homosexuality.  And a solid framework is what we need in which to learn our lessons.  Blurring the lines of reality itself is what the gay cult is all about.  So that really isn't cool with the Big Plan.  I think it has less to do with sex and more to do with the perversion of the reality of sex.

Making matters worse, I'm pretty sure that God is aware of "monkey see, monkey do"; especially when it comes to formative children.  If a child grows up seeing homosexuality as normal, then he himself will never see it as the sin it is.  So that child cannot learn his lessons properly if he embraces "anything goes" sinful lifestyles.  He cannot be blamed and the life lesson is utterly defunct.  So the life must start over.  I think that's why God destroyed every last man, woman and child in that society "and others like it" (paraphrased from Jude 1).  Because in those matrixes nobody can learn a damn clear thing about right and wrong.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

*Does Jude condemn gays?*
*Does Romans 1:26-27 condemn homosexuals?*


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 8, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


You don't know or care????? Then what possible logic can one glead from a made up philosophical view of Jesus that lacks biblical support?

II Timothy 4:2-4

2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and encourage with every form of patient instruction. 3 For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires. 4 So they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.…


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> *Does Jude condemn gays?*
> *Does Romans 1:26-27 condemn homosexuals?*


The marriage between a man and a woman is not sin. The marriage between a man and a man is. And the promotion and encouragement of sin is also sin.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> the gay cult


Knock, knock...
The Christian Right Has A New Strategy On Gay Marriage
Meanwhile,
Half of LGB Americans Identify As Christian


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > *Does Jude condemn gays?*
> ...


You've failed to cover a few things there, no? Between a woman and a woman?, bi vs bi?, trans...


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 8, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Watch the video subtitled "Jack Phillips explains his reasons for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding" knucklehead and commence weeping:
> 1:16 "I believe that the Bible teaches *that homosexuality is wrong* and to participate in, uh, (unclear) is wrong for me."



He objects because marriage is between a man and a woman (as it applies to a wedding cake numbnuts) and as such, he would not serve straight same sex as well. 

But I think you knew that. If you didn’t, you’re simply stupid.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2018)

Looking... looking.... still not seeing "straight same sex as well"... I must be stupid...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 8, 2018)

dblack said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the owner can refuse service for other reasons, but if he's dumb enough say "I'm not serving you because your black".  That's his own stupidity.
> ...




Good point..

I can picture what happened now in my brain, gays were flaunting,  and the backer flaunted back saying his religion prevented him..


Youre right he should of just said no, I am busy.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 9, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Looking... looking.... still not seeing "straight same sex as well"... I must be stupid...



That’s not on the bakery.


----------



## dblack (Jun 9, 2018)

bear513 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I'm not saying that. I don't think he should have to hide his beliefs. The fact the law requires him to remain silent is a clear violation of the First Amendment.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Looking... looking.... still not seeing "straight same sex as well"... I must be stupid...
> ...


True, but exactly equivalent to what the baker actually said in reference to selling any *gay* couple a wedding cake.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2018)

dblack said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Noticed that myself. Seems bear513 was only responding to WorldWatcher, not you. I will respond to you. Fact is the law doesn't require him to remain silent. He doesn't have to hide his beliefs in his own store. What he has to do is provide equivalent service to all comers if he wants to continue selling to "the public" in Colorado.First Amendment arguments are complete crap in this case. The baker outright denied them service before any cake decorating or writing ("art") could even be discussed. And, again, he was allowed to express his opinions to the customers and did -- like an idiot, just as WorldWatcher noted.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2018)

That said, the argument that he should have just said he was too busy falls short in the long run if it becomes noticed as a pattern for denying minorities service. Class action lawsuit now instead of just one. It's parallel to arguing for institutional racism to replace slavery.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 9, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


I was answering a simple question by pulling up the SC decision.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 9, 2018)

I guess I am changing my mind on this a person goes into a store and asks can you bake me a cake because  I am getting married..  

The baker says fine


The guy says " it's not a traditional marrige", could you please put on the frosting it's a marriage with me and james..


I am a sure the baker would say fine ok, ..


This has to deal with more in your face obnoxious confrontation's then anything else..


----------



## OldLady (Jun 9, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> > He refused to custom design an original wedding cake that celebrated a same sex marriage in a state (CO) that didn't even have a legal version of/ actually forbade same sex marriages at the time.
> ...


I believe the "custom design" was the basis of the baker's legal argument.  An artistic expression and therefore protected by the First Amendment?


----------



## dblack (Jun 9, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Fact is the law doesn't require him to remain silent. He doesn't have to hide his beliefs in his own store. *What he has to do is provide equivalent service to all comers if he wants to continue selling to "the public" in Colorado*.



This is simply not true. First of all, as we've already established, he can discriminate all he wants as long as he keeps his reasoning to himself. Second, the law only prohibits a few kinds of discrimination - those on the "protected classes" list. Everything else is fair game. Businesses can discriminate against people because of their looks, their accent, their clothes. They can discriminate against people because they're poor, fat, stupid, or pretty much any other bias that isn't on the list.

These laws don't ensure that all customers are treated equally. And they don't ensure that any particular groups won't get discriminated against. They simply prevent the business from claiming any of the prohibited reasons when they discriminate. And that's not a technicality. That's the point. The laws are trying to keep bigotry from spreading.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 9, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



Dishonest Dishonest Dishonest. 

The baker had made cakes for gays for years. He had never made a same sex wedding cake for straight or gay.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2018)

dblack said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Fact is the law doesn't require him to remain silent. He doesn't have to hide his beliefs in his own store. *What he has to do is provide equivalent service to all comers if he wants to continue selling to "the public" in Colorado*.
> ...


Say I agree completely, and I do appreciate the thoughtful response, are you suggesting that a government taking steps to "keep bigotry from spreading" is automatically a bad thing?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 9, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> And you know this for a fact ----HOW exactly? Your say so is not enough. What proof do you offer?



again, it's not my job to prove that someone didn't exist, it's your job to prove that they did and they were the result of magical births...    If your proof is the bible, the problem there is that same book has giants and talking snakes.  



LittleNipper said:


> Next you may say Jesus and Pontius Pilate never existed.



Pontius Pilate existed... Jesus probably didn't.  in fact, quite the contrary, there's a lot of evidence he was fabricated as a character in the 2nd century... 



LittleNipper said:


> How do I know you exist!



Because I'm answering you back... Oh, never mind...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


He said what he said. Listen to it yourself if you don't believe me.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


What question were you answering?


----------



## dblack (Jun 9, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



Not necessarily. In fact, government has a responsibility to make sure it doesn't infect our laws (eg Jim Crow). But it's no excuse for violating fundamental individual rights in the process.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > AZGAL said:
> ...


Which again is nonsense in this case since he clearly rejected them before any "custom design" could even be discussed - as argued by their attorney by the way and ignored in favor of the baker's fantasy version of events.  They could have just wanted a plain wedding cake that they could then "custom design" themselves later. We'll never know... didn't allow them to even ask.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 9, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


You having some kind of problem reading the thread?  What are you actually getting at?


----------



## OldLady (Jun 9, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


You ever seen a wedding cake?  Bakers don't make them up ahead of time and put them in the display case.  They are all created one at a time using the specifications of the customer.  If they wanted a plain old sheet cake, they would have gone to the supermarket.  Or baked it themselves and used Betty Crocker Decorator Icing in a tube.

It seems you are trying to make the baker out to be more of a monster than he is, same as some people are making the gay couple out to be monsters.  Neither argument is going to solve this problem.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Since it seems you've inexplicably simply grown hostile, I won't bother any more. Sorry I asked you a question!


----------



## OldLady (Jun 9, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


I certainly didn't mean it as hostile.  Sorry you took it that way.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 9, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



What’s important is what he said about same sex heterosexual couples. 

Got that quote dimwit?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 9, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



I see no hostility at all.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 9, 2018)

OldLady said:


> You ever seen a wedding cake?  Bakers don't make them up ahead of time and put them in the display case.  They are all created one at a time using the specifications of the customer.  If they wanted a plain old sheet cake, they would have gone to the supermarket.  Or baked it themselves and used Betty Crocker Decorator Icing in a tube.
> 
> It seems you are trying to make the baker out to be more of a monster than he is, same as some people are making the gay couple out to be monsters.  Neither argument is going to solve this problem.



Well the baker didn't go to their business trying to destroy them financially with fines and a lawsuit did he?  So you're either going to have to face the reality that these activists...I mean "couples" are targeting Christians to "conform or be cast out of the marketplace".  The Court said they shouldn't do that.  But they are.  And everybody but a brain dead toad knows it.


----------



## Rocko (Jun 9, 2018)

This issue is never going away


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 9, 2018)

Rocko said:


> This issue is never going away


But it will stay forever lodged in "Breaking News" in USMB though.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Forgiven in any case. But baking a generic wedding cake is neither rocket science nor unheard of in any sense. And honestly never could find  what "simple question" you were supposedly addressing from the beginning. Not for lack of trying...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Yes, no hostility at all and you're "The Decider" - got all that months ago.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 9, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > You ever seen a wedding cake?  Bakers don't make them up ahead of time and put them in the display case.  They are all created one at a time using the specifications of the customer.  If they wanted a plain old sheet cake, they would have gone to the supermarket.  Or baked it themselves and used Betty Crocker Decorator Icing in a tube.
> ...


I don't see that at all.  Conforming is something society compels on us all, to a certain extent.  If someone's religious beliefs are so opposed to society's, they have the option of forming and living in their own insular communities like the Amish.  I can see both sides of this argument; you are going to great lengths to demonize the gay community.  Yes, there are activists out there on both sides, like the group that has defended the baker pro bono.  I don't see that the approach is helping in the least.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 9, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



Guess you should be the decider? Hell no, you can’t even make an argument about a baker in Colorado without bringing in a hardware store in Tennessee.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 9, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


*You said, *
Btw, someone early on claimed this was not a point of sale (POS) transaction. I've seen nothing to indicate it was anything but. The couple walked walked into the shop and the baker refused to bake them a wedding cake. No writing ordered on the cake. Nothing indicating delivery or any need for personal involvement in their particular ceremony whatsoever. Just a baker being asked to bake a cake for an every day secular ceremony.
*I said, *
I don't know where you heard that, but the gay couple clearly requested he create a wedding cake for them.
*You said,*
Yep?

I guess you think I missed your point.  I thought you were saying, from that first post, that you thought the guys came in and were refused service outright for being gay.  You were actually inserting a strawman (not meant hostilely) that the couple requested a "cake for an every day secular ceremony."  That is not the case when it comes to this baker.  He did not see it as an every day secular ceremony, but a sin against God that he would not take any part in.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 9, 2018)

This is a messy question.  I come down on the side of PA laws, because I believe in treating people equally and fairly, and for sure in the public sphere.   I also have no religious beliefs and no opposition to homosexuality, so all that is easy for me to say.   But however passionately I believe in anti-discrimination laws, I can put myself in the shoes of Christians who really, truly believe homosexuality/gay marriage is a bad, bad thing that they should stay well clear of, because there are things I believe are "wrong," too, and would not want to be forced to get involved in them.

I just hope everyone can give some respect to the other side here.  There are two sides and they both feel they are perfectly within their rights.  If they had a previous relationship with the baker, it is all the more unfortunate that this had to happen, since the baker hadn't discriminated against them in any way until he was faced with the wedding.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 9, 2018)

OldLady said:


> This is a messy question.  I come down on the side of PA laws, because I believe in treating people equally and fairly, and for sure in the public sphere.   I also have no religious beliefs and no opposition to homosexuality, so all that is easy for me to say.   But however passionately I believe in anti-discrimination laws, I can put myself in the shoes of Christians who really, truly believe homosexuality/gay marriage is a bad, bad thing that they should stay well clear of, because there are things I believe are "wrong," too, and would not want to be forced to get involved in them.
> 
> I just hope everyone can give some respect to the other side here.  There are two sides and they both feel they are perfectly within their rights.  If they had a previous relationship with the baker, it is all the more unfortunate that this had to happen, since the baker hadn't discriminated against them in any way until he was faced with the wedding.



Reasonably put. 

And in the end, it’s about a cake. There are far more important things to make a stand on. 

This whole issue is simply silly.


----------



## dblack (Jun 9, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> > This issue is never going away
> ...



Hmmm.... at what point does it become "Broken News"?


----------



## OldLady (Jun 9, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > This is a messy question.  I come down on the side of PA laws, because I believe in treating people equally and fairly, and for sure in the public sphere.   I also have no religious beliefs and no opposition to homosexuality, so all that is easy for me to say.   But however passionately I believe in anti-discrimination laws, I can put myself in the shoes of Christians who really, truly believe homosexuality/gay marriage is a bad, bad thing that they should stay well clear of, because there are things I believe are "wrong," too, and would not want to be forced to get involved in them.
> ...


Ah, it has nothing to do with the cake, Pop.   For any of them--the Court, the Commission, the baker or the gay couple.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 9, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Ah, it has nothing to do with the cake, Pop.   For any of them--the Court, the Commission, the baker or the gay couple.


Have to agree with the Old Lady here Pop.  It's about if lifestyles have rights to push people of faith around and force them to abdicate core values in order to stay in the market place.

Though the Court did not scream "NO!!!", it whispered "no.."


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 9, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, it has nothing to do with the cake, Pop.   For any of them--the Court, the Commission, the baker or the gay couple.
> ...



For some reason it appears need to destroy religion to boost their cause. That’s plain as day, and it’s already losing steam and support.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 9, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> *For some reason it appears need to destroy religion to boost their cause. That’s plain as day*, and it’s already losing steam and support.



To be fair, the Devil did disclose that at the start of his campaign...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 9, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Does the left now actually want in based on Love? I guess than we would need the State Legislators to define what Love is? To develop a "Love Test" of some kind?
> 
> Or do they wan't the State Legislatures to define what qualifies as sanctioned sex? How much Sex would be required to keep a valid license? Would a women in a male/female marriage be forced to engage in anal sex?Can you imagine the Utah legislature debating what qualifies? And if sex is a requirement, then wouldn't a man forcing himself on his wife be sanctioned as well?



I find it amazing that you guys want to redefine even love if you don't get your way on things. 

Okay, one more time, tell me how gays being able to get married effects your life in any way, shape or form.  

Thanks.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 9, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Well the baker didn't go to their business trying to destroy them financially with fines and a lawsuit did he? So you're either going to have to face the reality that these activists...I mean "couples" are targeting Christians to "conform or be cast out of the marketplace". The Court said they shouldn't do that. But they are. And everybody but a brain dead toad knows it.



Except no one proved this guy was selected specifically because of his beliefs.  They went to his store, started talking business, and then this idiot decided to start ranting bible verses at them.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 9, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Does the left now actually want in based on Love? I guess than we would need the State Legislators to define what Love is? To develop a "Love Test" of some kind?
> ...



Tell me one more time why you think I care.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 9, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Tell me one more time why you think I care.



Because you are on a thread ranting about it... that's why I think you care.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 9, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Does the left now actually want in based on Love? I guess than we would need the State Legislators to define what Love is? To develop a "Love Test" of some kind?
> ...



Not the point now was it. 

Do you want State Legislators to define love and/or sex? And what qualifies to be married?

As I stated earlier, neither are required to be legally married. And as it applies to this subject, because such is not a requirement, nor is sexuality, heterosexual same sex marriage is perfectly legal.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 9, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me one more time why you think I care.
> ...



Where? I’ve made no such statement. 

You smoking something?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


No, but from the beginning I haven't seen this "question" you've claimed to be simply answering... A quote of said "question" remains most welcome...? 


> I thought you were saying, from that first post, that you thought the guys came in and were refused service outright for being gay.


Close. In any case, they were refused *(a)* service outright. That service being *selling* them a wedding cake. Refused outright *because they were gay. *Just the facts, ma'am... (not simply my opinion) easily distilled directly from the court report.


> You were actually inserting a strawman (not meant hostilely) that the couple requested a "cake for an every day secular ceremony."


You've inferred wrong. Not meant hostilely. Wasn't putting words in anyone's mouth. Just injecting my opinion that weddings are basically every day secular ceremonies. Been through two of them myself. No religion required. Just adds extra noise and expense. Unlike the State which is required for one to be legal...  as in, you know, "the law"... which is the realm we should be logically confined to here? I mean, how about, for a change, we actually stick to known facts instead of this modern norm of wasting time entertaining speculations from everyone's personal point of view... projected upon the parties involved from everywhere under the Sun. _What is legally required? What should selling "the public" a wedding cake legally require at a minimum? What is the verifiable essence of the case?_ Those sort of questions are all I'm interested in here.


> That is not the case when it comes to this baker.  He did not see it as an every day secular ceremony, but a sin against God that he would not take any part in.


How he may or may not have viewed his duty to serve the public is irrelevant. The State granted him a license to sell directly to the public. He accepted and signed off on those conditions. Be it hot dog, medical marijuana, or wedding cake. Same deal. Minimal requirements must be met to retain said license. They weren't. No excuses. Case closed. Laws can't logically be crafted to satisfy individual tastes, particularly those of majority class members, at the expense of a minority's basic civil rights. Just because Christians cry "Woe is me!" louder than any doesn't mean they actually suffer compared to most.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 9, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Not the point now was it.
> 
> Do you want State Legislators to define love and/or sex? And what qualifies to be married?
> 
> As I stated earlier, neither are required to be legally married. And as it applies to this subject, because such is not a requirement, nor is sexuality, heterosexual same sex marriage is perfectly legal.



Okay, Lord Zenu, you're spinning yourself in circles here...you might have a meltdown... 






I suppose there could be two guys who might play out the real life version of this movie... 





But then again, there are people who get married for Green cards.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 9, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



This individual taste, as you put it, is constitutionally protected. 

Nice try at minimizing that fact though.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 9, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Not the point now was it.
> ...



So you are implying hetro same sex marriage is illegal?

Now prove it.

This should be funny.

It is legal, and it does not matter whether anyone has ever used it, is not relevant. The baker would deny his services as it would violate his religious belief AND be a product he’s never offered.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jun 9, 2018)

Some people would be correct to recognize that the Supreme Court missed the whole point. Here's a great discussion on it. 

''While many conservatives may cheer what appears to be a victory for their cause, the Supreme Court ruling missed the central point -- property rights -- in favor of a highly subjective "deeply held views" test. The decision is very shaky territory even for social conservatives -- who gets to decide which views are "deeply-held"? -- and it is little help at all for libertarians. 

We look at the pros and cons of the decision in today's Liberty Report:''


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 9, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> 
> This will have a massive effect.




Kicks the Stalinists right in their non-descended nuts.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 9, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > AZGAL said:
> ...




That's what I read also, he wasn't. Just a baker

It's like a Jerry sienfield episode..they wanted the best.
No soup for you..


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> But then again, there are people who get married for Green cards.


Good point. Bet they generally go for the generic wedding cake.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2018)

bear513 said:


> That's what I read also, he wasn't. Just a baker


Me too. Cautionary tale. Don't believe everything you read.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


He just quoted you on that. Clearly obsessed with anything imaginable going on in the privacy of another's home. Otherwise oblivious. Typical of the Christian Right perceived victim here. Like peas in a pod.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 9, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Clearly obsessed with anything imaginable going on in the privacy of another's home. Otherwise oblivious. Typical of the Christian Right perceived victim here. Like peas in a pod.


Well let's see, the baker's shop isn't the privacy of the two gay lifestylists' home.  The lewd sex acts they perform "in pride" in public (where they anticipate children will be watching and even inviting children to march in these parades) aren't done in the privacy of the LGBT homes.  So, you're chasing a strawman there pal.

Nice to see the thread finally un-dungeoned.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 9, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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


*What you are referring to as a gay lifestyle is basically a stereotype.  Just as there is no heterosexual lifestyle, there is no homosexual lifestyle. *


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 9, 2018)

Flopper said:


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



There is a Christian lifestyle. They can't be forced to bake cakes that disgust them.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 9, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> This case and the decision on this case has far more "precedent" and impact than most of the media is hollering on about in silly conclusions of "narrow" or ready to be overturned by following cases. WHY? well first of all: Kennedy was angered and bold in his oral statements at the Scotus hearings and he fashioned his concern about the unfairness of the Colorado commission into the prominent voice of the majority written opinion. The decision is not "narrow" in numbers of judges in the majority *and not "narrow"* in the consideration of the US Constitution's prioritizing protection of religion or religious conscience if there is demonstrated a vital sincerely held religious belief.



It was very 'narrow' in the scope of this ruling and is not a precedent that says any person, any time, can refuse service to gays by claiming his religious beliefs says he cannot serve a gay person.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 9, 2018)

Flopper said:


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



Silhouette just uses the term 'lifestyle' to lie about- well everything.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 9, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


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



Like a wedding cake for a mixed race couple......


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 9, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> No, I wear the badge of seeing through the LGBTQ games bullshit very well.


How do you see anything through your thick partisan blinders?


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 9, 2018)

Syriusly said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Ours was very simple. Black girl and white guy.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 9, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *What you are referring to as a gay lifestyle is basically a stereotype.  Just as there is no heterosexual lifestyle, there is no homosexual lifestyle. *



Tell it to the judges after they've viewed like 100 reels of gay pride parades over the years.

In fact, if LGBTs are SO proud of their lifestyles then we should require every single court case with gay litigants in it to have reels of gay pride parades shown to the judges or Justices as the opening argument for the gay litigants.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 9, 2018)

Syriusly said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> > This case and the decision on this case has far more "precedent" and impact than most of the media is hollering on about in silly conclusions of "narrow" or ready to be overturned by following cases. WHY? well first of all: Kennedy was angered and bold in his oral statements at the Scotus hearings and he fashioned his concern about the unfairness of the Colorado commission into the prominent voice of the majority written opinion. The decision is not "narrow" in numbers of judges in the majority *and not "narrow"* in the consideration of the US Constitution's prioritizing protection of religion or religious conscience if there is demonstrated a vital sincerely held religious belief.
> ...



Of course not, and no savvy businessman would do so.  But certain requests that would require an exercise of an expression of acceptance on the part of the person of faith can be rejected on the basis of free expression.

Try going into a halal restaurant and demand a bacon sandwich.  With extra bacon.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 9, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > AZGAL said:
> ...


Or a Jewish deli, for that matter.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 9, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Aba Incieni said:
> ...



Had a family in my school with that description.  Foreign Service agent guy (white) and medical whiz (black).  Not sure where in Africa she was from but she was really black, like indigo black.  Three beige kids.  Very nice, intelligent, great people.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 9, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


I'm pretty dark, but not midnight. We have 4 grown children. 35th anniversary this month.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 9, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Aba Incieni said:
> ...



Wow, Congrats!


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 9, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> > Adoption cases should and most likely will go well for gays and lesbians. No worries there.* I myself do not agree with trans whatever "medicine" but I fully support gays and lesbians enjoying parenthood as long as there is a healthy family dynamic*. In Arizona a lesbian woman must share custody of her biological child with her female partner after their divorce. She did not want to but the other "mother" cares for the child too.
> ...



Except there is no such situation. Except in your bigoted little mind.

Remember- the leading cause for a child not to have a mother or father- is divorce. 

And regardless of whether or not a child is adopted by a single parent, or two same gender parents, the child still can have a biological parent in their lives. 

I know- I have known of exactly that situation- two grandparents who adopted their daughter's kids, and the biological father was in their lives.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 9, 2018)

Syriusly said:


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


You're the bigot who wants government enforced labor. Guess what. The SCOTUS disagrees with you.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 9, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



There ya go. 

Looking to destroy religion will somehow make homosexuality more acceptable. 

Ain’t going to work and the electoral map will continue to get more red because of it. 

You had your time in the spotlight. It’s over. You’ve become boring and annoying


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 9, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Bi-sexuality is proof that homosexuality isn't all it is reputed to be and is still fornication. Transgender is taking a human with natural GOD given sexual abilities and turning them inside out into a mere facade that lacks any procreative purpose. Women with women can only play with toys that mimic what they themselves claim to abhor. The entire rationalization is hypocrisy and abuse of nature.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 9, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> Bi-sexuality is proof that homosexuality isn't all it is reputed to be and is still fornication. Transgender is taking a human with natural GOD given sexual abilities and turning them inside out into a mere facade that lacks any procreative purpose. *Women with women can only play with toys that mimic what they themselves claim to abhor. The entire rationalization is hypocrisy* and abuse of nature.



Yes, and don't forget men using each other's lower digestive tracts as artificial vaginas.  No little amount of closeted heterosexuality in the LGBT cult for sure.  Also always seems to be a butch and femme in any of their couples..  

You wonder if any of this goes through the heads of the Justices while they're hearing these cases?  The confusion-factor has to play into how they deliberate on "innate vs behavioral" in all this.  And I think it's why they are starting to "break the news" to the LGBT camp that lifestyles cannot command people of faith with real, actual Constitutional protections into abdicating their faith to promote the new Rainbow-Religion...


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 9, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Bi-sexuality is proof that homosexuality isn't all it is reputed to be and is still fornication. Transgender is taking a human with natural GOD given sexual abilities and turning them inside out into a mere facade that lacks any procreative purpose. *Women with women can only play with toys that mimic what they themselves claim to abhor. The entire rationalization is hypocrisy* and abuse of nature.
> ...


The reality is that those justices don't have to deal with the consequences. They have a cushy job that affords them the ability to send their children and grandchildren to private institutions or have paid tutors. They don't care about healthcare or retirement because they have it all. It is the working classes that are stuck with all the red tape and endless worries, while government officials can simply shut their doors and retreat to their summer estates...


----------



## jillian (Jun 9, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> 
> This will have a massive effect.


That’s not exactly what the ruling was. The ruling was that it had to go back to the state because the law had changed subsequent to the ruling and Kennedy thought they were too derisive of religious beliefs. 

You might want to try reading the decision


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 9, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> The reality is that those justices don't have to deal with the consequences. They have a cushy job that affords them the ability to send their children and grandchildren to private institutions or have paid tutors. They don't care about healthcare or retirement because they have it all. It is the working classes that are stuck with all the red tape and endless worries, while government officials can simply shut their doors and retreat to their summer estates...



Well I tend to agree with you Nipper.  But even the Justices cannot carry on with grotesque miscarriages of justice based on what is clearly being revealed as a false premise.  They do have to justify their paychecks & perks at some point.  The behavior-factor is beginning to cross their minds and this case is their first tentative heads-up that the foolishness is coming to an end.  Especially when the behaviors justify pummeling faith to promote their own Rainbow-dogma.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 9, 2018)

jillian said:


> That’s not exactly what the ruling was. *The ruling was that* it had to go back to the state because the law had changed subsequent to the ruling and Kennedy thought *they were too derisive of religious beliefs. *
> 
> You might want to try reading the decision



You might want to read between the lines.  Think:_ "1st Amendment prevailed"_...


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 9, 2018)

jillian said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> ...


The majority decision ruled they didn't take the baker's religious beliefs into account. Kennedy just wrote it. 7-2.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 9, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


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



You are the bigot that wants anyone to be able to refuse business to blacks, jews or gays by saying it is against their religion.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 9, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > That’s not exactly what the ruling was. *The ruling was that* it had to go back to the state because the law had changed subsequent to the ruling and Kennedy thought *they were too derisive of religious beliefs. *
> ...



Silhoutte is big into relying on her intuition rather than the actual words of the decision.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 9, 2018)

Syriusly said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Which religious texts say race is an abomination?


----------



## jillian (Jun 9, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


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


What consequences other than what bigots do to hurt others?


----------



## P@triot (Jun 9, 2018)

jillian said:


> You might want to try reading the decision


You might want to try reading the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## dblack (Jun 9, 2018)

jillian said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > The reality is that those justices don't have to deal with the consequences. They have a cushy job that affords them the ability to send their children and grandchildren to private institutions or have paid tutors. They don't care about healthcare or retirement because they have it all. It is the working classes that are stuck with all the red tape and endless worries, while government officials can simply shut their doors and retreat to their summer estates...
> ...


I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm certainly not saying bigots should be allowed to hurt people. Refusing to bake someone a cake isn't hurting them. It's just refusing to make them a cake.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 9, 2018)

jillian said:


> What consequences other than what bigots do to hurt others?


Oh I don’t know jillian - how about grown men watching little girls get naked because asshole progressives like _you_ get turned on by sexual deviance? Idiot.

Seattle man tests transgender rule by undressing in women's locker room


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 9, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Why did God create bisexuality?


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 9, 2018)

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Same reason He "created" murder. So people would know what not to do.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 9, 2018)

P@triot said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > What consequences other than what bigots do to hurt others?
> ...



Wait you mean like Donald Trump did? You contards love assholes who make a point of watching little girls get naked

_"I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, ‘Oh my god, there’s a man in here,’ " said Mariah Billado, the former Miss Vermont Teen USA._

_Trump, she recalled, said something like, "Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before."_

_Three other women, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of getting engulfed in a media firestorm, also remembered Trump entering the dressing room while girls were changing. Two of them said the girls rushed to cover their bodies, with one calling it "shocking" and "creepy." The third said she was clothed and introduced herself to Trump.

Well, I'll tell you the funniest is that I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone's getting dressed and ready and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere. And I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it. You know, I'm inspecting, I want to make sure that everything is good. 

You know, the dresses. ‘Is everyone okay?’ *You know, they're standing there with no clothes. *‘Is everybody okay?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that. But no, I've been very good.
_


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 9, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And 'looking to destroy religion' apparently means asking Christians to follow the same law everyone else is expected to follow.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 9, 2018)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



The right is protected in the constitution. 

Nice try, but your attempt at its destruction has been defeated, as were your political party in 2016. 

As soon as the loses continue to mount, even the Dems will discover their mistake, and you will be thrown under their bus.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 9, 2018)

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



For confused idiots.


----------



## dudmuck (Jun 10, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 10, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> So you are implying hetro same sex marriage is illegal?
> 
> Now prove it.
> 
> This should be funny.



Naw, man, I don't care one way or the other. If Chuck and Larry want to get married for the health benefits, I'm totally fine with that, just like I'm fine with Dora getting married for a green card.  



Pop23 said:


> It is legal, and it does not matter whether anyone has ever used it, is not relevant. The baker would deny his services as it would violate his religious belief AND be a product he’s never offered.



But that's the problem, it's really not his place to determine who is "sincere" in their beliefs when they order a wedding cake.  If you are selling wedding cakes, then you sell a wedding cake to whoever wants it. 

The first commandment of business. 

The Customer is Always Right. 

The second commandment of business. 

Nobody ever won an argument with a customer.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 10, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Well let's see, the baker's shop isn't the privacy of the two gay lifestylists' home. The lewd sex acts they perform "in pride" in public (where they anticipate children will be watching and even inviting children to march in these parades) aren't done in the privacy of the LGBT homes. So, you're chasing a strawman there pal.



He wasn't asked to participate in a parade.  He was asked to bake a cake for a wedding ceremony. 

But if Lewd Behavior bothers you, I don't see you complaining about Madris Gras


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 10, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Tell it to the judges after they've viewed like 100 reels of gay pride parades over the years.
> 
> In fact, if LGBTs are SO proud of their lifestyles then we should require every single court case with gay litigants in it to have reels of gay pride parades shown to the judges or Justices as the opening argument for the gay litigants.



I'm sure you have reels and reels of them to show people..  and a bottle of baby lotion and kleenex... 



Pop23 said:


> Looking to destroy religion will somehow make homosexuality more acceptable.
> 
> Ain’t going to work and the electoral map will continue to get more red because of it.



Guy, 2016 was a fluke... not a trend.  The trend is going against you because even the Churches are realizing Homophobia is something they are going to be really embarrassed about in 20 years.  

Kind of like the Churches are embarrassed about their role in slavery and segregation now.  



LittleNipper said:


> Bi-sexuality is proof that homosexuality isn't all it is reputed to be and is still fornication. Transgender is taking a human with natural GOD given sexual abilities and turning them inside out into a mere facade that lacks any procreative purpose. Women with women can only play with toys that mimic what they themselves claim to abhor. The entire rationalization is hypocrisy and abuse of nature.



Guy, here's the thing... just because these things don't float your boat, doesn't mean other people can't enjoy them.  

If you want to be a killjoy because you think your Imaginary Friend in the Sky (you know, the one with omnipotent power who won't save starving children or moms with cancer) will be angry, that's on you. 

But leave the rest of us the fuck alone.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 10, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Yes, and don't forget men using each other's lower digestive tracts as artificial vaginas. No little amount of closeted heterosexuality in the LGBT cult for sure. Also always seems to be a butch and femme in any of their couples..



Okay, one more time. 

99% of straights engage in Fellatio and Cunnilingus... and 37% of straights engage in Anal sex.  



Silhouette said:


> You wonder if any of this goes through the heads of the Justices while they're hearing these cases? The confusion-factor has to play into how they deliberate on "innate vs behavioral" in all this. And I think it's why they are starting to "break the news" to the LGBT camp that lifestyles cannot command people of faith with real, actual Constitutional protections into abdicating their faith to promote the new Rainbow-Religion...



Oh, I don't think the justices are the ones with the problem.  They wrote a very narrow ruling that actually set a much higher bar for the next bigot who tries to hide his homophobia behind religion.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 10, 2018)

jillian said:


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


Do you believe that those Justices and Senators send their children to public schools. When the Bible was removed from public school where do you imagine Caroline and Jon Jon attended school --- public or parochial?  Do you honestly imagine that these individuals go out of their way to hire homosexual gardeners, maids and cooks? When was the last time any of them instituted a pay cut for themselves! Do you believe that they actually pay for their healthcare? Do they wonder if they are not above everyone else --- smarter, nobler, better educated, special? When was the last time they took the back pew?

You imagine that Christians and religious people are out to hurt gays?  Honestly, until all the hoopla, I didn't even know what a homosexual was! The man beating up a "gay" in a bar was either a drunkard or some gang member. Most Christians I know would not even frequent a bar much less get into fights.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 10, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Tell it to the judges after they've viewed like 100 reels of gay pride parades over the years.
> ...


 And that is the point of Christian business people. Let them alone. They honestly don't need or want your business nor your attitude that comes alone with it.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 10, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Well let's see, the baker's shop isn't the privacy of the two gay lifestylists' home. The lewd sex acts they perform "in pride" in public (where they anticipate children will be watching and even inviting children to march in these parades) aren't done in the privacy of the LGBT homes. So, you're chasing a strawman there pal.
> ...


I've never been to New Orleans and frankly, I do not see Mardis Gras as anymore than a secular perversion. It doesn't honor Christ and it isn't worthy of my time. I doubt most of them in the picture even attend church, and likely view Christmas as Santa Claus/gift Day.  I'm not impressed and I'll stay away. Just don't bring it to my neighborhood.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 10, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> I've never been to New Orleans and frankly, I do not see Mardis Gras as anymore than a secular perversion. It doesn't honor Christ and it isn't worthy of my time. I doubt most of them in the picture even attend church, and likely view Christmas as Santa Claus/gift Day.  I'm not impressed and I'll stay away. Just don't bring it to my neighborhood.



Just so some know...

"*Mardi Gras* (/ˈmɑːrdi ˌɡrɑː/), or *Fat Tuesday*, refers to events of the Carnival celebration, beginning on or after the Christian feasts of the Epiphany (Three Kings Day) and culminating on the day before Ash Wednesday (known as Shrove Tuesday). _Mardi Gras_ is French for "Fat Tuesday", reflecting the practice of the last night of eating richer, fatty foods before the ritual fasting of the Lenten season."

*"Lent* (Latin: *Quadragesima*: _Fortieth_) is a solemn religious observance in the Christian liturgical calendar that begins on Ash Wednesday and ends approximately six weeks later, before Easter Sunday. The purpose of Lent is the preparation of the believer for Easter through prayer, doing penance, mortifying the flesh, repentance of sins, almsgiving, and self-denial.[1] "

Mardi Gras - Wikipedia
Lent - Wikipedia


.>>>>


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 10, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> And that is the point of Christian business people. Let them alone. They honestly don't need or want your business nor your attitude that comes alone with it.



That all works fine and good, until you put out a sign that said, "I offer this service".  Then you kind of aren't asking to be left alone.  You are asking for someone to come in and give you money to provide this service. 



LittleNipper said:


> I've never been to New Orleans and frankly, I do not see Mardis Gras as anymore than a secular perversion. It doesn't honor Christ and it isn't worthy of my time. I doubt most of them in the picture even attend church, and likely view Christmas as Santa Claus/gift Day. I'm not impressed and I'll stay away. Just don't bring it to my neighborhood.



I think you are missing my point.  Silhoette seems to think that lewd behavior on a certain day invalidates people. But the fact is, Madris Gras is a big old party that started the day before Ash Wednesday when Lent begins.... So party hardy because for the next 40 days you'll be fasting. 

Except no one really fasts on Lent anymore, so it's just an excuse for a lewd party and has been for a long time. 

As for Christians, They'll impress me a lot more when they stop trying to yank school lunches out of the mouths of hungry kids to give tax breaks to billionaires.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 10, 2018)

dudmuck said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



I guess you are an accomplished Googler.  Good job!  I guess that is better than actually putting your own words into a discussion.

Now, what does any of that which you posted have to do with that particular person's beliefs?  I didn't say they were right or wrong.

I believe most religions have stupidity written all over them, but that is between them and their God.  It's cafeteria religion.  They can pick and choose their beliefs.  You don't get to decide. for them.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 10, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> He wasn't asked to participate in a parade.  He was asked to bake a cake for a wedding ceremony.
> 
> But if Lewd Behavior bothers you, I don't see you complaining about Madris Gras



If you read my posts you'd see me complaining about both.  The difference with Fat Tuesday is that it is a known  parade of debauchery (not "Pride!") where parents know or should know to not bring their children.  What a difference the theme of a parade makes...

And acts of indecency and nudity should be handled in those parades the same as any other public display.  One or two arrests would send a message to the participants to keep it to the bright colors and keep the flesh tones well hidden.

The problem for the baker, among many with gay lifestylists wanting to sully the word "marriage" is that the baker has heard of the gay pride parades as culture.  It's a culture he cannot abide hijacking the sacred word "marriage".  You act as if people make complex decisions on faith in infantile compartmentalized ways.  The baker knows the rest of the iceberg under the water when "two innocent gays just want to get married and have their cake"..


----------



## dblack (Jun 10, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> As for Christians, They'll impress me a lot more when they stop trying to yank school lunches out of the mouths of hungry kids to give tax breaks to billionaires.



Something tells me they're not trying to impress you.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 10, 2018)

jillian said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> ...


Great terse summary! And Kennedy strayed far off the mark due to being generally full of beans.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 10, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


_A quote of said "question" remains most welcome...? _
_
*You said,*
Yep?
_
Your move.

Of course, I agree with your summary paragraph, but obviously if it were that simple, it would not have made it to the Supreme Court.  The right to freely practice your religion is the kick off sentence of the First Amendment, which we hold as self evident.  This particular case is an instance where that freedom is interfering with another citizen's rights, but whose rights are actually greater?

If it were simply about the PA laws, which clearly seem to need to be upheld, why didn't the SC just issue a decision on it, then?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 10, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > So you are implying hetro same sex marriage is illegal?
> ...



And he is not obligated therefor to provide a service that he has never provided prior to the request.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> Something tells me they're not trying to impress you.



NO, they are trying to impose their backward-ass bronze age superstitions on my by claiming a magic sky man is going to awful things to me.  



Silhouette said:


> The problem for the baker, among many with gay lifestylists wanting to sully the word "marriage" is that the baker has heard of the gay pride parades as culture. It's a culture he cannot abide hijacking the sacred word "marriage". You act as if people make complex decisions on faith in infantile compartmentalized ways. The baker knows the rest of the iceberg under the water when "two innocent gays just want to get married and have their cake"..



Okay, here's the thing.  How is it that a loving gay couple who has been together for years "sullies" the sacred institution of marriage, but some idiot who does a drunken Las Vegas wedding that is annulled the next week doesn't? 

If the Baker wants to be a social engineer, he needs to close down his bakery and open a church...


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 10, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Of course, I agree with your summary paragraph, but obviously if it were that simple, it would not have made it to the Supreme Court.  The right to freely practice your religion is the kick off sentence of the First Amendment, which we hold as self evident. * This particular case is an instance where that freedom is interfering with another citizen's rights, but whose rights are actually greater?*
> 
> *If it were simply about the PA laws, which clearly seem to need to be upheld, why didn't the SC just issue a decision on it, then?*



They did.  Pretty directly too.  They said that people, gays and cities passing PA laws need to be respectful and even handed when it comes to Christian business people.  Kennedy said a man's faith follows him into his workshop.  Which of course we all knew or it wouldn't pass the test of "earnestly held convictions" would it?  I mean if everyone suspended their earnestly held convictions on behaviors whenever a dime was to be made, we'd have bars, brothels and casinos on every streetcorner; even right next to elementary schools all run by "otherwise devout Christians". 

I think this gay-militant yes "Krystallnacht" being practiced with the state acting as thug-enforcer for the LGBT cult is just like a spinoff of The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis.  (A book that every US Supreme Court Justice should read by the way.)  It's the clever extermination of faith values being enacted by insidious agents or otherwise anesthetized vectors with the end goal being "free for all!" in human values.  The Devil hates deep and soberly held convictions of morality.  HATES THEM.  They must go.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 10, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, here's the thing.  *How is it that a loving gay couple who has been together for years "sullies" the sacred institution of marriage*, but some idiot who does a drunken Las Vegas wedding that is annulled the next week doesn't?
> 
> If the Baker wants to be a social engineer, he needs to close down his bakery and open a church...



Because a man expressing (behavior) latent hetero tendencies using another man's asshole as an artificial vagina and kids having to accept that "bottom" "as the only  mom I'll know for life via contract" is a grotesque defilement of the thousands-years-old IDEAL (not the failures, but the brass ring society sets for itself) of the sublime thing that is marriage.

You suggesting that a person of faith needs to leave the marketplace because of their deep convictions means you are attempting to violate that person's Constitutional rights.  I caution you to be careful.  In this Matter, the Court just sent a message that this is so.  Practitioners of violation of Constitutional rights beware.  The Supremes ain't gonna fuck around much more in this question of "lifestyles vs faith".  You're going to be schooled very soon on which one has top dominance in any legal challenge.  Buckle up buttercup.

You are entitled to your twisted lifestyle.  But your entitlement stops when you try to force society to promote it with you.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 10, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Of course, I agree with your summary paragraph, but obviously if it were that simple, it would not have made it to the Supreme Court.  The right to freely practice your religion is the kick off sentence of the First Amendment, which we hold as self evident.  This particular case is an instance where that freedom is interfering with another citizen's rights, but whose rights are actually greater?



In Newman v. Piggie Park, the court found that religious beliefs were not an exemption to generally applicable PA laws.

Then there is the case Bob Jones University where the University could not practice discrimination because of religious beliefs.

Then there is Employment Division v. Smith were the court ruled that religious beliefs do not exempt one from generally applicable laws.




OldLady said:


> If it were simply about the PA laws, which clearly seem to need to be upheld, why didn't the SC just issue a decision on it, then?



#1 I disagree, IMHO PA laws violate rights of association and property rights.  PA laws in general (again IMHO) should be repealed.  A KKK baker should be able to discriminate against blacks.  A Muslim baker should be able to discriminate against Jews.  A gay baker should be able to discriminate against evangelical Christians.  A redneck baker should be able to discriminate against Mexicans.

#2  To answer your question, the acts and comments of the Commission tainted the case due to public displays of hostility against religion.  Therefore the court reversed the lower court judgement on that narrow issue and specifically left Colorado's PA law in place and punted on the main question.  They want a "clean" case to make a ruling on religious exemptions to generally applicable laws.

#3  On issue that has not been address is the unequal treatment under the law.  If they grant an exemption for religious beliefs of the baker we end up with a situation where a baker can deny gays and claim religious beliefs, but a gay baker would still be in violation of the law for refusing full and equal service to an evangelical Christian (or Muslim or Jewish person) because of the customers religious views.  Clearly unequal treatment under the law.


.>>>>


----------



## OldLady (Jun 10, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *What you are referring to as a gay lifestyle is basically a stereotype.  Just as there is no heterosexual lifestyle, there is no homosexual lifestyle. *
> ...


_Tell it to the judges after they've viewed like 100 reels of gay pride parades over the years._
This case has nothing to do with Gay Pride parades or children or anything else, Sil.  That is your own personal offendedness.   If you find those types of celebration offensive, don't attend them and don't avidly follow pics of them on social media.  It's pretty simple


----------



## OldLady (Jun 10, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I've known more lesbians than male homosexuals over the years, and many of them are faithful church goers.  One, as a matter of fact, was a minister who started a small church and did a lot of good in the recovery community.

This is not an either-or situation.  Or at least it doesn't have to be.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 10, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> *This case has nothing to do with Gay Pride parades or children or anything else,* Sil.  That is your own personal offendedness.   If you find those types of celebration offensive, don't attend them and don't avidly follow pics of them on social media.  It's pretty simple



Oh but see, that's the thing.  It DOES have to do with the 2/3rds of the iceberg under the water with the LGBT lifestylists.  The Court is recognizing that this LGBT thing is behavioral.  Odd that it took this long to see the elephant in the living room but hey, better late than never.  And that's where the 100% unanimity within the "Pride" community comes into play here.  

These judges aren't looking at marriage in a vacuum.  They understand that children for example, share the contract and its benefits.  They understand it has been radically changed in recent years in an untested way.  They understand that the thousands-year-old benefits were to children in providing them with BOTH vital mother and father in the contract's terms.  Even divorce struggles to maintain these benefits until the children are of age.

...And perhaps, just perhaps...they are wise enough to be shocked by the realization that if the 100% unified sex cult can back "Pride" parades in public, performing lewd and graphic sex acts in front of where they hope and invite children to attend...that maybe...JUST MAYBE...worse might be going on behind closed doors where children are involved... I know it's a HUGE stretch and EXTREMELY PARANOID to imagine worse behind closed doors.  But where children are concerned you can never be too careful...

Your cult keeps trying to compartmentalize your fragmented agenda in this or that court until you can compile the whole disgusting montage into one "full victory!" where society and children are subjugated to your shifting perverse whims to affect society from a minority position until your lifestyles become the majority.  We know this is going on; a progressive social takeover.  Unless you're blind as a bat.  The Supremes have noticed it too.  You fucked up when your cult brought Krystallnacht to Christian businesses.  Suddenly something inside the Supremes woke up.  And now they're looking at ALL of your values to determine if your LIFESTYLES can FORCE Christians TO THEIR KNEES.

It's as if this bullish move startled the Supremes and they're now thinking "hey, this feels less like gay rights and more like a unified cult trying to stamp out all opposing views on lifestyles".  Krystallnacht in slow-motion.


----------



## August West (Jun 10, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> 
> This will have a massive effect.


The SC ruled against Dred Scott with a 7-2 majority but we no longer have slavery. You can put your ticker tape parade on hold for now.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 10, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > AZGAL said:
> ...


_Try going into a halal restaurant and demand a bacon sandwich.  With extra bacon.[/QUOTE]_
For the umpteen-hundredth time, the government does not require anyone to serve a certain product.   But if you DO serve that product, you have to serve it to ALL, including those in the protected classes.  The baker has actually taken that tack, and no longer sells wedding cakes to anyone.  Problem solved.


----------



## Bush92 (Jun 10, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


For the umpteen-hundredth time, the government does not require anyone to serve a certain product.   But if you DO serve that product, you have to serve it to ALL, including those in the protected classes.  The baker has actually taken that tack, and no longer sells wedding cakes to anyone.  Problem solved.[/QUOTE]
Obamacare forced you to buy a product. Roberts was a ding-dong for citing enumerated powers.


----------



## dblack (Jun 10, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Something tells me they're not trying to impress you.
> ...



No doubt they'd like to.  But that's not what was going on with the baker deal. He just refused to bake a cake. No imposing.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 10, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > *This case has nothing to do with Gay Pride parades or children or anything else,* Sil.  That is your own personal offendedness.   If you find those types of celebration offensive, don't attend them and don't avidly follow pics of them on social media.  It's pretty simple
> ...


What can I say, but 
Bullshit.
Sorry, Sil, that's all I got for all of that.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 10, 2018)

Bush92 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Obamacare forced you to buy a product. Roberts was a ding-dong for citing enumerated powers.[/QUOTE]
That has nothing to do with PA laws or discrimination, Bush.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 10, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Because a man expressing (behavior) latent hetero tendencies using another man's asshole as an artificial vagina and kids having to accept that "bottom" "as the only mom I'll know for life via contract" is a grotesque defilement of the thousands-years-old IDEAL (not the failures, but the brass ring society sets for itself) of the sublime thing that is marriage.



Guy, the thing is, most of the "Thousands of Years" ideal was the woman being little more than fucking property.  The idea of a marriage being between two equals is a relatively recent one. 

Not to mention stoning women if their hymen wasn't intact on their wedding nights, or making a woman marry her rapist if he paid her father 50 sheckels.  (How much is that in American money?)  

Oh, 37% of straights do anal... it's just not that big of a deal. 



Silhouette said:


> You suggesting that a person of faith needs to leave the marketplace because of their deep convictions means you are attempting to violate that person's Constitutional rights. I caution you to be careful.



No, I'm saying if you can't reconcile your backwards ass religious beliefs with providing the services you promised and advertised as providing, you probably need to rethink what you do for a living.  If you grant a widespread exemption for not doing your job on religious bases, you end up with chaos in the market place. 









Silhouette said:


> In this Matter, the Court just sent a message that this is so. Practitioners of violation of Constitutional rights beware. The Supremes ain't gonna fuck around much more in this question of "lifestyles vs faith". You're going to be schooled very soon on which one has top dominance in any legal challenge. Buckle up buttercup.



actually, the court equally sent a warning that you guys who want to hide your Homophobia behind religion aren't going to fly.  If you really want to go down that path, I'm sure we can find a whole bunch of religious rules that these bakers and florists violate in doing commerce. How many of them are open on Sunday?  How many of them sell things that aren't Kosher?  Which customers in a state of sin do they have no problem doing business with?  

It's a knife that cuts both ways.  



Silhouette said:


> You are entitled to your twisted lifestyle. But your entitlement stops when you try to force society to promote it with you.



Dude, my lifestyle is straight vanilla and kind of boring... that wasn't the point here.  

The point is, my ability to get goods and services should not be impeded by the religious stupidity and hypocrisy of the people behind the counter.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


It's not about the cake and if the decision is in favor of the baker's conscience, gays can be legally discriminated against in any public business.  They can be refused buying the home of their choice, be refused a stay in a B&B, refused a job.  Because once the SC says we have the right to discriminate based on our individual consciences, all hell will break loose.


----------



## Bush92 (Jun 10, 2018)

OldLady said:


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


Gerrymandering is part of the process. Districts must be of equal numerical proportion...not party ideology.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 10, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Because a man expressing (behavior) latent hetero tendencies using another man's asshole as an artificial vagina and kids having to accept that "bottom" "as the only mom I'll know for life via contract" is a grotesque defilement of the thousands-years-old IDEAL (not the failures, but the brass ring society sets for itself) of the sublime thing that is marriage.
> ...


Great meme, Joe!


----------



## Bush92 (Jun 10, 2018)

OldLady said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


My fault I thought you were talking about _Baker v. Carr 1962. _This is about private ownership. Well if the baker doesn’t want to serve them he shouldn’t have to.


----------



## Bush92 (Jun 10, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Because a man expressing (behavior) latent hetero tendencies using another man's asshole as an artificial vagina and kids having to accept that "bottom" "as the only mom I'll know for life via contract" is a grotesque defilement of the thousands-years-old IDEAL (not the failures, but the brass ring society sets for itself) of the sublime thing that is marriage.
> ...


Joe B meme is dumb.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 10, 2018)

OldLady said:


> * This case has nothing to do with Gay Pride parades or children or anything else,* Sil.  That is your own personal offendedness.   If you find those types of celebration offensive, don't attend them and don't avidly follow pics of them on social media.  It's pretty simple



*Oh but see, that's the thing.  It DOES have to do with the 2/3rds of the iceberg under the water with the LGBT lifestylists*.  The Court is recognizing that this LGBT thing is behavioral.  Odd that it took this long to see the elephant in the living room but hey, better late than never.  *And that's where the 100% unanimity within the "Pride" community comes into play here. *

*These judges aren't looking at marriage in a vacuum*.  They understand that children for example, share the contract and its benefits.  They understand it has been radically changed in recent years in an untested way.  They understand that the thousands-year-old benefits were to children in providing them with BOTH vital mother and father in the contract's terms.  Even divorce struggles to maintain these benefits until the children are of age.

...And *perhaps, just perhaps...they are wise enough to be shocked by the realization that if the 100% unified sex cult can back "Pride" parades in public, performing lewd and graphic sex acts in front of where they hope and invite children to attend...that maybe...JUST MAYBE...worse might be going on behind closed doors where children are involved... I know it's a HUGE stretch and EXTREMELY PARANOID to imagine worse behind closed doors.  But where children are concerned you can never be too careful..*.

Your cult keeps trying to compartmentalize your fragmented agenda in this or that court until you can compile the whole disgusting montage into one "full victory!" where society and children are subjugated to your shifting perverse whims to affect society from a minority position until your lifestyles become the majority.  We know this is going on; a progressive social takeover.  Unless you're blind as a bat.  The Supremes have noticed it too.  You fucked up when your cult brought Krystallnacht to Christian businesses.  Suddenly something inside the Supremes woke up.  And now they're looking at ALL of your values to determine if your LIFESTYLES can FORCE Christians TO THEIR KNEES.

It's as if this bullish move startled the Supremes and they're now thinking "hey, this feels less like gay rights and more like a unified cult trying to stamp out all opposing views on lifestyles".  Krystallnacht in slow-motion.​


OldLady said:


> What can I say, but
> Bullshit.
> Sorry, Sil, that's all I got for all of that.



Yeah that's what I'd say if the opposing arguments stunned my shit into silence.  Nice diversion.  Couldn't come up with a cop out anymore original than that?


----------



## OldLady (Jun 10, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > * This case has nothing to do with Gay Pride parades or children or anything else,* Sil.  That is your own personal offendedness.   If you find those types of celebration offensive, don't attend them and don't avidly follow pics of them on social media.  It's pretty simple
> ...


I probably won't shut up, if anyone offers anything intelligent here.  But your naked bigoted opinion which is full of vile misrepresentations and bile against a group that has never done a single thing to you is not intelligent, imho.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 10, 2018)

OldLady said:


> I probably won't shut up, if anyone offers anything intelligent here.  But your naked bigoted opinion which is full of vile misrepresentations and bile against a group that has never done a single thing to you is not intelligent, imho.


Sounds like you're a bit defensive about post #895.  You're transparent.  There's nothing unintelligent about post #895.  In fact it is steeped in logic.  A fact that bothers you into stooping to ad hominem to escape its direct blow upon your person.

Like Justice Thomas said (paraphrased) "the time for coddling snowflakes and crybullies is at an end"....


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Wrong, he refused to* sell* two gays a wedding cake. The baking is clearly all irrelevant. Even if he had one freshly baked and all ready for a customer who just called cancelling the order, he would not have sold them that cake! His excuse being, since it's a *wedding* cake, the Bible tells him he can't "engage" in their ceremony, past, present, or future. Correct? And these are not simply "people", but members of a persecuted minority class attempting to celebrate their recent decision to formally and legally commit to taking care of one another long term. Marriage. So you would not be "hurt" if both you and a partner went to buy a wedding cake and the store owner told you "Sorry, I can't service _your kind_. The Bible tells me so."? Sure you wouldn't. "not saying bigots should be allowed to hurt people"? Yes, you are.


----------



## dblack (Jun 10, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> So you would not be "hurt" if both you and a partner went to buy a wedding cake and the store owner told you "Sorry, I can't service _your kind_. The Bible tells me so."? Sure you wouldn't. "not saying bigots should be allowed to hurt people"? Yes, you are.




Ok, I guess I wasn't entirely clear. By "hurt" I meant actual harm, or the threat thereof. Not simply hurting someone's feelings.


----------



## dblack (Jun 10, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Because once the SC says we have the right to discriminate based on our individual consciences, all hell will break loose.



Really? Utter chaos and anarchy eh? Seriously, do you really believe our society is replete with bigots, just waiting to go apeshit as soon as it's legally allowed?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 10, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Wrong, he refused to* sell* two gays a wedding cake. The baking is clearly all irrelevant. Even if he had one freshly baked and all ready for a customer who just called cancelling the order, he would not have sold them that cake! His excuse being, since it's a *wedding* cake, the Bible tells him he can't "engage" in their ceremony, past, present, or future. Correct? And these are not simply "people", but members of a persecuted minority class attempting to celebrate their recent decision to formally and legally commit to taking care of one another long term. Marriage. So you would not be "hurt" if both you and a partner went to buy a wedding cake and the store owner told you "Sorry, I can't service _your kind_. The Bible tells me so."? Sure you wouldn't. "not saying bigots should be allowed to hurt people"? Yes, you are.


No, actually the baker did offer to bake various other things for their wedding, just not  the wedding cake.

He was totally willing to sell things to homos.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Because once the SC says we have the right to discriminate based on our individual consciences, all hell will break loose.
> ...



Yes, that most of our society is bigoted if not all of it, is a central assumption of today's liberalism.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 10, 2018)

JimBowie1958 said:


> No, actually the baker did offer to bake various other things for their wedding, just not  the wedding cake.
> 
> He was totally willing to sell things to homos.



Knowledge is key here.  If the gay militants...er..I mean couple targeting...er..I mean "innocently visiting without pre-knowledge" the Christian baker had said "we want four dozen cupcakes and a 100 chocolate eclairs to go, the baker would've packaged them up and sent them out the door.  But if they said they wanted those things for their gay wedding, the baker would have to refuse on principle.  He CANNOT act to promote in ANY WAY the spread of homosexuality throughout a culture.  Paramount of that would be their hijacking the word 'marriage" which to a Christian ALWAYS AND ONLY can mean the holy union of man and woman as father and mother to the blessed nuclear family.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 10, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



It may be a small group of activists that seek this destruction, like the two making a fuss over the cake, but their existence is obvious and destructive to their own cause. And also to the political party supporting them.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 10, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Yet, he would bake the cake for two homosexual, opposite sex, with no problem. 

He does not offer same sex wedding cakes regardless if the couple is straight or gay.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Because once the SC says we have the right to discriminate based on our individual consciences, all hell will break loose.
> ...


Homosexuals are not the only protected class, are they?  Why should there be any distinction, once we can discriminate based on our conscience?    I've talked to plenty of blacks who tell me bigotry lives.  I've talked to Jews who say the same.  I'm a woman, so I know there are still men out there who are unwilling to view women as equals.   "Utter chaos and anarchy" are your words, not mine.  I don't agree that if we ditch anti-discrimination laws that the "market place" will correct the situation.  It didn't prior to the Civil Rights Act and it won't now..


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 10, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Homosexuals are not the only protected class, are they?  Why should there be any distinction, once we can discriminate based on our conscience?    .


Because one is an adopted, shifting behavior with closeted hetero tendencies and the other was something someone was born as: race.

You can try to run away from this round and round the mulberry bush but it's coming.  So, buckle up.


----------



## dblack (Jun 10, 2018)

OldLady said:


> "Utter chaos and anarchy" are your words, not mine.


 Heh... Yeah, your words were "all hell will break loose". I clearly misrepresented your view. My bad.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > "Utter chaos and anarchy" are your words, not mine.
> ...


You planning on answering my question?  Or just poking?


----------



## dblack (Jun 10, 2018)

OldLady said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Which one?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 10, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Knowledge is key here.  If the gay militants...er..I mean couple targeting...er..I mean "innocently visiting without pre-knowledge" the Christian baker had said "we want four dozen cupcakes and a 100 chocolate eclairs to go, the baker would've packaged them up and sent them out the door.  But if they said they wanted those things for their gay wedding, the baker would have to refuse on principle.  He CANNOT act to promote in ANY WAY the spread of homosexuality throughout a culture.  Paramount of that would be their hijacking the word 'marriage" which to a Christian ALWAYS AND ONLY can mean the holy union of man and woman as father and mother to the blessed nuclear family.



I’d make a cake for a same-sex wedding, but Colorado baker Jack Phillips shouldn’t have to

The popular criticism of this wildly unpopular view is that turning down a custom cake order from a same-sex couple is no different from turning African-Americans away from the lunch counter under Jim Crow.

But Phillips does not and cannot turn anyone away. *He does sell brownies and tortes and anything else in his pastry case to gay customers and creates special-order cakes for them, too, for birthdays and other non-nuptial occasions.*

Yet in those three cases of the bakers who wouldn’t bake wedding cakes with Christian messages on them, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that since they had served Christians in other contexts, they hadn’t discriminated, but that Phillips, who likewise serves gay couples in other contexts, had.

A lawyer for Phillips argued that his “friends on the other side...would compel an African-American sculptor to sculpt a cross for a Klan service or force a gay opera singer to perform at Westboro Baptist” because he’d also done so at the National Cathedral.

And the case does hinge in part on whether a baker is enough of an artist to be entitled to creative expression. Or is he instead a merchant, who like any hotelier or restaurant owner has to rent a room or prepare a table for all comers? Phillips, who also draws and paints, creates his cakes based on his sketches and then hand paints them. He definitely sees himself as a designer whose raw materials happen to be flour and sugar.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 10, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Homosexuals are not the only protected class, are they?  Why should there be any distinction, once we can discriminate based on our conscience?    I've talked to plenty of blacks who tell me bigotry lives.  I've talked to Jews who say the same.  I'm a woman, so I know there are still men out there who are unwilling to view women as equals.   "Utter chaos and anarchy" are your words, not mine.  I don't agree that if we ditch anti-discrimination laws that the "market place" will correct the situation.  It didn't prior to the Civil Rights Act and it won't now..



And yet it is perfectly legfal for me to ahve a private club that only admits red head white males and they only may buy things sold within the club.

But few actually do such crap because it is a pathetic business model.

There is no profit  incentive to discriminate, which is the biggest reason few businesses do.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 10, 2018)

JimBowie1958 said:


> And yet it is perfectly legfal for me to ahve a private club that only admits red head white males and they only may buy things sold within the club.
> 
> But few actually do such crap because it is a pathetic business model.



I agree it's a crappy business model.

However if you are doing it on a for profit basis or as a means of evading public accommodation laws, no it's not perfectly legal.


Courts interpreting similar statutes have considered the following factors in making that determination:

the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
the history of the organization;
the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
the purpose of the club's existence;
whether the club advertises for members;
whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.)
Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not? - FindLaw


.>>>>


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 10, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


The question you originally alluded to... long before that one? Never mind, not important.


> Of course, I agree with your summary paragraph, but obviously if it were that simple, it would not have made it to the Supreme Court.


Seems the Supremes now actually prefer mulling over the simple stuff and making a mess of it. They refuse all the tough cases. Too much work and backlog.


> The right to freely practice your religion is the kick off sentence of the First Amendment,


It goes more like this:


> 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.


That limits Congress's power to enact laws interfering with the rights listed of the people, churches, and the press. One of those rights being of the people to petition Government (through the courts obviously) for a redress of grievances. However, none of _that_ instructs the Supreme Court to do anything, let alone intervene in the acts or laws of individual States.


> which we hold as self evident.  This particular case is an instance where that freedom is interfering with another citizen's rights, but whose rights are actually greater?


First, you finish by oddly injecting a phrase from the Declaration of Independence. Then, thankfully, limit your First Amendment arguments to speech and religion.

Just to refresh my own memory in order to focus appropriately, the "original intent" regarding religion was to keep government out of it so that no sect or "faith" could establish itself as being sanctioned by the state as had happened in England and elsewhere. Also, as a direct result of firmly separating church from state, the people and various "faiths" would be free to pick from whichever, whenever with all acknowledged as equals. As a little aside though,  and as history has proven, "the people" was never really intended to mean all of the people back then. They meant European white people "of property" which vastly meant men. Similarly, though the language simply specifies "religion" they were really just considering the various sects or "faiths" of Christianity because that's pretty much all they'd ever been exposed to. Ignorant, so didn't give a fig about Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. From thus clearly spring the "conservative" (meaning only regressive here) constant pleadings of "original intent" from the most racist, homophobic, sexist, and religiously intolerant among us, the (Christian or) Religious Right, amply demonstrated here in this thread, but I digress.

You assert "The right to freely practice your religion". Well, you must be alluding to this baker's supposed right to somehow freely "practice" his religion in his bakery faced with a simple request for a wedding cake from two people whose supposed right to "practice" their religions in his bakery are notably granted absolutely zero similar consideration. That's enough already to expose the argument as a complete farce.

And then you don't actually even bother with a speech argument. As some have noted, property rights are suggested by the circumstances. Not religion. And the only speech that logically mattered was his refusal to serve them like others because of their sexual identity and orientation. Discriminated against due to both.


> If it were simply about the PA laws, which clearly seem to need to be upheld, why didn't the SC just issue a decision on it, then?


I've been presuming "PA laws" refers to Pennsylvania laws, but have no idea. However, I stopped presuming the Supremes still had much of a clue about anything back around when Bork somehow got on there.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 10, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> 1.......the "original intent" regarding religion was to keep government out of it so that no sect or "faith" could establish itself as being sanctioned by the state as had happened in England and elsewhere. Also, as a direct result of firmly separating church from state, the people and various "faiths" would be free to pick from whichever, whenever with all acknowledged as equals.
> 2.….......You assert "The right to freely practice your religion". Well, you must be alluding to this baker's supposed right to somehow freely "practice" his religion in his bakery faced with a simple request for a wedding cake from two people whose supposed right to "practice" their religions in his bakery are notably granted absolutely zero similar consideration. That's enough already to expose the argument as a complete farce.
> 3. ...….And the only speech that logically mattered was his refusal to serve them like others because of their sexual identity and orientation. Discriminated against due to both.



1.  Yes, so the Court told the city in Colorado that they cannot refuse to punish the Rainbow Religion while simultaneously punishing the Christian baker.  They are to be "neutral" with application of their PA laws.

2.  You left out the part that practicing faith means 24/7.  You say it has to stop at the marketplace.  Kennedy and the others disagree with you.

3.  Sexual orientation is a behavior that like any other habitual behavioral orientation has no protections or even allusions to protections in written federal law.  If one majority-rejected habitual behavior (aka "orientation") gets special status, then they all do.  And obviously that can't happen, because the gamut of those behaviors are nearly limitless.  We'd have to discard penal systems across the country.  So the baker doesn't have to promote the behaviors or dogma of another person if that behavior or dogma fundamentally puts his soul at risk....Which according to Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament, it does, in spades.  Those passages state that for a Christian to promote the takeover of the homosexual culture of any culture (using the potent icon of marriage the epitome of said sin), they have committed a mortal and unforgiveable sin that sentences them to the Pit of Fire forever.

All in all the baker made the right and proper call.  His immortal soul is more important than the gay lifestylists refusal to walk down the street to another bakery.  The Court broadly hinted that this is the future conclusion.  Or, long story short, you're going to have to get used to people of conviction not promoting your lifestyle taking over our culture using incremental inroads that undermine the 1st Amendment.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 10, 2018)

JimBowie1958 said:


> actually the baker did offer to bake various other things for their wedding, just not the wedding cake.
> 
> He was totally willing to sell things to homos.


Well don't be shy since it's now clear you must have been there taping the entire exchange. Show us all the footage!


----------



## emilynghiem (Jun 10, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> ...


Dear bodecea
Businesses must still serve any type of PERSON but do not have to serve all types of BEHAVIOR OR ACTIVITIES.

Same sex marriage, weddings, relations and events count as BEHAVIOR.

As an INDIVIDUAL, whether you identify as gay, straight, transgender, Christian, Atheist, Muslim etc. you should still be treated the same as any other customer walking into a store.

But if you are asking for certain expressions or activities to be served by a business, that is different.

Even if a STRAIGHT person came into the store and asked for a gay wedding cake,
that person would get turned down. so it wasn't discriminating against the person's orientation but the type of service they were asking for that was in conflict with the faith and consent of the business provider.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jun 10, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Links forthcoming.
> ...



FINALLY!
this ruling and the Wording/Acknowledgement that the punishment decision was biased with HOSTILITY toward people of beliefs against same sex marriage
actually RENEWED my faith that the courts/judges COULD get something right.

After going TOO FAR with "creating a new right to marriage" through courts instead of legislation voted on by actual people, I was truly worried we had lost our court system to liberal bias political agenda.

At least this points back on track with sticking with PROCEDURE and govt duty to remain NEUTRAL.

Thanks to Justice Kennedy for reconfirming that, and I hope this ruling catches on
and re-establishes what courts and govt are supposed to be doing, not pandering to politics
but sticking with  principles and process, regardless of the content of the two sides' beliefs in conflict.

Thanks EvilEyeFleegle for posting the content of the ruling
that contains the wording I think is necessary to really get what is going on and going wrong here!

FINALLY!!!


----------



## emilynghiem (Jun 10, 2018)

Penelope said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Exactly Penelope
why not invest in LGBT owned and operated wedding services?

or if you insist on making political statements while ordering same sex wedding cakes,
why not go to a Buddhist or Muslim bakery that doesn't believe in that either but
won't discriminate against customers and are glad they would patronize their business!


----------



## emilynghiem (Jun 10, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting.  I think this is a good decision because few bakeries will turn down business for this reason.  Gays don't need that protection as they are not at risk of not being able to have their cake.
> ...



Dear Moonglow cc rightwinger Grumblenuts
1. Your beliefs can be against same sex marriage but not against other types of marriages.
Hindus may refrain from consuming beef, but allow for pork;
while Muslims refrain from pork, but allow for beef.  Just because Vegans or some Buddhists refrain from
all meat doesn't mean people of other faiths have to do the same as Vegans.

2. race is different from sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is known to change, but not race which is genetic and decided even before birth
what the gene pool is going to be between two parents based on their genetics.

No one has ever claimed to change their physical race from what their genes are from birth.

You can claim a change in culture or behavior, but that's not the same as genetically determined race.

If orientation is determined before birth, it could be based on conditions in the womb
that affect neural development and gender/orientation identity. but spiritual healing
therapy, that has been used to change orientation, has never been used to change someone's race!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 10, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > And yet it is perfectly legfal for me to ahve a private club that only admits red head white males and they only may buy things sold within the club.
> ...




Well that club, if it truly wanted to remain all male, should not have admitted the woman, but once in, she should have the same rights as any man.  The way around that is to have varying levels of membership defined in the clubs charter. So there would be charter members, the original founders, senior members, voted to said status by existing senior members plus charter members, and then provisional members.

Anyway, the primary points of that article :

The former member argued that the club was a "place of public accommodation" because, among other things, Meadowlands advertised to promote non-member use of its facilities for parties, receptions, fashion shows, and golf and tennis tournaments. Had this argument succeeded, the club would have been found to be a "place of public accommodation" subject to the PHRA's anti-discrimination measures, and the club would have been faced with justifying other allegedly discriminatory practices, such as restricted tee times, voting rights and dining facility access. Because the case settled, a judicial determination of whether the club was in fact a "place of public accommodation" was avoided.

The PHRA defines public accommodation as follows:

The term "public accommodation . . ." means any accommodation . . . which is open to, accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public, including but not limited to inns, taverns, roadhouses, hotels, motels, whether conducted for the entertainment of transient guests or for the accommodation of those seeking health, recreation or rest, or restaurants or eating houses, or any place where food is sold for consumption on the premises, buffets, saloons, barrooms or any store, park or enclosure where spirituous or malt liquors are sold, ice cream parlors, confectioneries, soda fountains and all stores where ice cream, ice and fruit preparations or their derivatives, or where beverages of any kind are retailed for consumption on the premises, . . . bathhouses, swimming pools, barber shops, beauty parlors, retail stores and establishments, . . . gymnasiums, shooting galleries, billiard and pool parlors, . . . but shall not include any accommodations which are in their nature distinctly private.

The "public" versus "distinctly private" accommodation distinction makes critical an understanding of what factors courts will consider to determine if a club is public or private for purposes of the PHRA. Courts interpreting similar statutes have considered the following factors in making that determination:


the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
the history of the organization;
the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
the purpose of the club's existence;
whether the club advertises for members;
whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.).
Although no one factor controls the determination, the two that have been found most significant are: (1) the club's selectivity with respect to membership, and (2) the use of the club's facilities by nonmembers. If all of the above factors, when considered together, indicate that a club is private in name only, and is really a "place of public accommodation," the anti-discrimination statutes like the PHRA will apply.

Other states have rendered or attempted to render this analysis moot by enacting anti-discrimination laws that specifically apply to private clubs. These states include New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and Connecticut.​


----------



## emilynghiem (Jun 10, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> Religion is just another tool of discrimination.



News to Moonglow:
People have preferences of behavior and discriminate all the time.
If you are biased negative towards religion, you are biased also.

If govt is supposed to include all people of all views,
this means including people who don't believe in each other's beliefs.
govt cannot force anyone to change their beliefs.

Isn't it unfair that nonchristians would sue to remove Christian references from schools and
public institutions, then "complain" when LGBT beliefs and biases can't be forced on anyone either?

Shouldn't govt remain NEUTRAL and neither "establish nor prohibit" 
the free choice and exercise of any set of beliefs, creeds or biases.
Regardless if we agree with that or not, how can govt be abused to force anyone to change their beliefs?


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 10, 2018)

emilynghiem said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Religion is just another tool of discrimination.
> ...


I never said they should be forced to change I merely avered a fact.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 10, 2018)

emilynghiem said:


> *News to Moonglow:
> People have preferences of behavior and discriminate all the time.
> If you are biased negative towards religion, you are biased also*...
> .....*Isn't it unfair that nonchristians would sue to remove Christian references from schools and*
> ...


Emily is knocking it out of the park today.  Notice how the LGBT lifestylists HAVE forced their dogma into schools.  Imagine if we had courses taught to children in PUBLIC schools on JUST "famous Christians throughout history"?    I think that needs to be the next lawsuit re: neutrality and the state.  Immediately.  Citing this case directly.


​


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 10, 2018)

emilynghiem said:


> After going TOO FAR with "creating a new right to marriage" through courts instead of legislation voted on by actual people, I was truly worried we had lost our court system to liberal bias political agenda.


Dear emilyn, 
"We"? Have any gays actually done you direct harm? If so, do you blame them all for the acts of one or a few? Life is short. Why waste a moment of it publicly hating on whole bunches of people? Have you somehow convinced yourself that being "Christian" means spreading "the good word" of hatred toward historically persecuted minorities. Doesn't it ever strike you as just cowardly and meanspirited? If many other Christians told you you're wrong one day would you reconsider your views or just go on preaching _your_ gospel like the Energizer Bunny?


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 10, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > After going TOO FAR with "creating a new right to marriage" through courts instead of legislation voted on by actual people, I was truly worried we had lost our court system to liberal bias political agenda.
> ...


Why are you wasting your life bashing Christians? Have any Christians actually done you harm, and if so do you blame all of Christianity? Every historically persecuted minority (even Christians) can become Christians. 

But enough of your nonsense. Here's some good news:

*Masterpiece Cakeshop is Back in the Wedding Cake Business!*

Colorado baker Jack Phillips and Kristen Waggoner, an attorney at the legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom, spoke on the Todd Starnes Radio Show about Phillips’ recent Supreme Court victory.

“I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Phillips said. “It was ordained by God, and it’s a special union. When I bake a cake, I believe that I’m part of that message.”

Masterpiece Cakeshop is Back in the Wedding Cake Business! | Todd Starnes


----------



## emilynghiem (Jun 10, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Dear Aba Incieni 
Perhaps it's all due to spiritual karma, because people learn from experience.

For the longest time, Christians rejected and persecuted gays,
so now the tables  turned where both sides started playing the opposite roles.

the side that had suffered persecution and rejection became the
oppressors, abusing govt to push their agenda to validate it as the norm.

To paraphrase the Native American proverb, you should not criticize
your neighbor until you walk a mile in his moccasins.

Or in other words, when the shoe is on the other foot...

the best way to learn why people act as they do is to walk in their shoes.
if the liberals can understand "they mean well" when they take their
beliefs and impose them on everyone else, maybe they can understand
why Christians seem to impose their beliefs without tolerance either.

How can you criticize Christians for imposing beliefs through govt,
and justify LGBT advocates doing that?
If LGBT advocates demonize dissenters who oppose or believe differently,
how can Christians blame atheists or secular thinkers for believing differently?

this whole exercise seems to be in teaching people
what it feels like to be on the other side of a conflict over beliefs.

If it's not okay to exclude LGBT why is it okay to exclude Christians?
If it's wrong to demonize atheists for not believing the same thing as Christians,
why is it okay to demonize and namecall Christians for not believing in gay marriage?


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 10, 2018)

emilynghiem said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Jews and muslims call homos an abomination, as well. It's their religious belief. Should they defy their God for some homo to sin?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 11, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


Dear Aba,
Sorry to burst your bubble but while I do express criticism of select Christians upon occasion, I do not "bash Christians" wholesale like you and your disgusting clique of gay bashers have been doing here all week. Talk about hurting people? Stop kidding yourselves. You do it quite deliberately and proudly so own it, Don't think for a moment you fool any thinking person with these lame attempts to shift the blame for your class hatreds onto others or on fictions from popular old books. Most Christians adamantly disagree with your analyses and interpretations, because no real Jesus would attract committed haters like you. His character became popular because he was depicted as so unusually generous, understanding, and tolerant. Not the sicko, gay bashing freak you apparently imagine at all.

I bash all of religion (not religious people) because I'm an atheist. Duh! I don't believe in anything supernatural. And, by the way, I did attend some Christian school, many church services, and something called Christian Brigades I think,.. until a pastor grabbed and lifted me by the collar demanding I  "Accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior (or some such crap) right now or else!"  And you bet that did physically hurt, not to mention being publicly humiliated in front of my peers, but mostly just convinced me to utterly abandon any further efforts to test or accept all such nonsense like nothing else. So I thank that guy actually. Undoubtedly shaved many years off my desperately trying to fit in, assimilate, just be cool,.. like most kids go through.

No, it really made me stop  and focus upon what I truly believed most important and meaningful in life like never before. And that was (still is) what makes sense because it's verifiable. You, on other hand, learned that others require a bunch fantasies pounded into them because that's exactly how you became indoctrinated. You were taught to hate others simply for having different convictions or no religious belief at all. My condolences. Sorry you had to endure all that. Stop repeating the same pattern of abuse.

Muslims make a wonderful journey to Mecca during their lifetime. All wear plain white attire and worship as equals. But you know why they really travel all that way, often across the globe? The true origin of all religion. Our common fascination with magic.


> On the eastern corner of the Kaaba, to the left of the door, is the Black Stone, which according to Muslim tradition *fell from heaven at the time of Adam and Eve*. During Hajj pilgrims try to kiss the stone, emulating the kiss the Prophet Muhammad is believed to have placed on it.


Interestingly, you've probably read about genies, Sinbad, and his famous carpet..


> the Magi. Matthew reports that they came "from the east" to worship the "king of the Jews".[2] The gospel never actually mentions the number of Magi, but most western Christian denominations have traditionally assumed them to have been three in number, based on the statement that they brought three gifts.[3] In Eastern Christianity, especially the Syriac churches, the Magi often number twelve.[4] Their identification as kings in later Christian writings is probably linked to Psalms 72:11, "May all kings fall down before him".[5][6]


Well,


> *Magi* (/ˈmeɪdʒaɪ/; singular *magus* /ˈmeɪɡəs/; from Latin _magus_) denotes followers of Zoroastrianism or Zoroaster. The earliest known use of the word Magi is in the trilingual inscription written by Darius the Great, known as the Behistun Inscription. Old Persian texts, pre-dating the Hellenistic period, refer to a Magus as a Zurvanic, and presumably Zoroastrian, priest.
> 
> Pervasive throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia until late antiquity and beyond, _mágos_, was influenced by (and eventually displaced) Greek _goēs_ (γόης), the older word for a practitioner of magic, to include astrology, alchemy and other forms of esoteric knowledge. This association was in turn the product of the Hellenistic *fascination for* (Pseudo‑)Zoroaster, who was perceived by the Greeks to be the "Chaldean", "founder" of the Magi and "inventor" of both astrology and* magic, a meaning that still survives in the modern-day words "magic" and "magician".*


And the Black Stone is just the remains of a  meteor


> a small body of matter from outer space that enters the earth's atmosphere, becoming incandescent as a result of friction and appearing as a streak of light.
> synonyms: falling star, shooting star, meteorite, meteoroid, bolide
> "legend has it that he traveled to Earth on the tail of a meteor"


But it's also an impressive hunk of lodestone


> A *lodestone* is a naturally magnetized piece of the mineral magnetite.[1][2] They are naturally occurring magnets, which can attract iron. The property of magnetism was first discovered in antiquity through lodestones.[3] Pieces of lodestone, suspended so they could turn, were the first magnetic compasses,[3][4][5][6] and their importance to early navigation is indicated by the name _lodestone_, which in Middle English means 'course stone' or 'leading stone',[7]from the now-obsolete meaning of _lode_ as ‘journey, way’.


See "magnet" --- "magic" way back then, coincidentally at the dawn of Abrahamic religion. What, still here!? Never mind all this making actual sense of stuff. You don't care. It's tons more hating and fantasy worship for you. Get back to work!


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 11, 2018)

Sorry  Grumblenuts. Christians don't get to rewrite the New Testament to suit their desires to stay on speaking terms with their LGBT contacts. Jude was the personal daily servant of Jesus. Jude1 recounts how Jesus reminded Christians direly of the destruction of Sodom by God & why it happened. To promote the spread of homosexual lifestyles in any culture on Gods earth is a mortal sin. Christians simply are not allowed to do that and make it to Heaven.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 11, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...





Grumblenuts said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble but while I do express criticism of select Christians upon occasion, I do not "bash Christians" wholesale like you and your disgusting clique of gay bashers have been doing here all week. Talk about hurting people? Stop kidding yourselves.



Sure, say that, then post paragraph after paragraph justifying your hate. You are a ridiculous individual. Not only do you reveal yourself, but by doing so in this manner, you out yourself as someone without the courage of your own conviction.

Now back to the question at hand.

The baker in question was presented the opportunity of adding a new line of product that would be available for sale on a specific date:

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia



> Decided on June 26, 2015, _Obergefell_ overturned _Baker_ and requires all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.



Did you read the quote? It says nothing about the couples in question being gay. In fact, it states that governments must, as of June 16, 2015, recognize *same-sex* marriages. There simply is no such thing as "gay marriage" recognized under existing law.

The Baker then has to decide if he provides something to the customer that he has never provided previous to June 16, 2015. Right or wrong, he opted not to.

Again, note the Obergfell decision, it applies to everyone, heterosexual and homosexual alike. The Baker in question makes no distinction when he opts out of this new concept of marriage, he elects not to supply cakes, regardless of sex or sexuality, to same sex marriage.

He does not supply this service for couples that are male heterosexual couples, female heterosexuals, male homosexual couples or female homosexual couples. He makes no distinction, he does not offer that service in his establishment. PERIOD

When it comes to traditional wedding cakes I see no evidence that he makes any distinction as well. I've heard nothing that would make me believe that he cares about the sexuality of the opposite sex couples. They could both be straight, they could both be gay. One could be gay and the other straight, or both be bisexual, as long as they are opposite sex, be provides the service equally.

So you can rest easy about this, he treats everyone equally, even when he does not offer a particular service in his store.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 11, 2018)

Even if he was rejecting them based on their sexuality, it's allowed because of Jude 1 and Romans 1 in the New Testament. (and the 1st Amendment applying 24/7 to a person of faith, into the marketplace).  Participating in a "gay wedding" guarantees a Christian will never get into Heaven.  It's a mortal sin.  One of few that aren't forgivable.  Jude was the daily personal servant of Jesus; probably closer to him than anyone else on a day to day basis.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 11, 2018)

JimBowie1958 said:


> PHRA's anti-discrimination measures


Thank you! At long last... someone doesn't just simply allude to "PA laws" as though that might mean something other than "Pennsylvania laws." 
PHRA = Pennsylvania Human Relations Act


> the Pennsylvania equivalent to federal anti-discrimination statutes. The PHRA prohibits discrimination against individuals based on certain protected characteristics including race, color, religious creed and sex.
> 
> Cases brought under the PHRA typically involve an employee suing his or her employer for alleged discrimination in the workplace. The PHRA also applies, however, to discriminatory denial of access to "places of public accommodation."


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 11, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Sure, say that, then post paragraph after paragraph justifying your hate. You are a ridiculous individual. Not only do you reveal yourself, but by doing so in this manner, you out yourself as someone without the courage of your own conviction.


So I "hate" and lack "courage" because I disbelieve and often say so, eh? You make about as much sense as tits on a bull and often, as here, attempt to bully instead of reason. This is not a contest. Discuss or continue simply guffawing and disrupting. I don't care. Never will.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 11, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Sure, say that, then post paragraph after paragraph justifying your hate.





Pop23 said:


> nothing about the couples in question being gay.





Pop23 said:


> The Baker in question makes no distinction





Pop23 said:


> He does not supply this service for couples that are male heterosexual





Pop23 said:


> I see no evidence that he makes any distinction





Pop23 said:


> I've heard nothing


Again,


Grumblenuts said:


> Watch the video subtitled "Jack Phillips explains *his reasons for refusing to make a cake* for a same-sex wedding" knucklehead and commence weeping:
> 1:16 "*I believe* that the Bible teaches *that homosexuality is wrong* and to participate in, uh, (unclear) is wrong for me."


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 11, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, say that, then post paragraph after paragraph justifying your hate.
> ...



So then you have proof that this Baker would make this cake for a same sex Heterosexual couple then. If so, present it.

From what I see, you have nothing.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 11, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> So then you have proof that this Baker would make this cake for a same sex Heterosexual couple then. If so, present it.
> 
> From what I see, you have nothing.


Way to argue with yourself!
Hmmm, between the two of us, which one ever argued "that this Baker would make this cake for a same sex Heterosexual couple"? Gee, I dunno..that's a toughie!..


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 11, 2018)

> A same-sex couple kissing.







Pssst... um,... I think that really means they're gay!
(certainly limited to the U.S. which, oddly enough, happens to be the entire pertinent context here)


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 11, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > So then you have proof that this Baker would make this cake for a same sex Heterosexual couple then. If so, present it.
> ...



Case closed then, the Baker did nothing wrong.

Thanks


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 11, 2018)

Case closed then, the Baker did nothing wrong you (continue to) have nothing.

Thanks


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 11, 2018)

Pop23 school:


> *Homosexuality* is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."[1][2]





> This article is about gay as an English-language term. For the sexual orientation, see Homosexuality. For other uses, see Gay (disambiguation).
> 
> _*Gay*_ is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual.


"Jack Phillips explains *his reasons for refusing to make a cake* for a same-sex wedding"
1:16 "*I believe that *the Bible teaches that *homosexuality is wrong* and to participate in, uh, (unclear) is wrong for me."


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 11, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Case closed then, the Baker did nothing wrong you (continue to) have nothing.
> 
> Thanks



You seem to post a lot without much to say sport. Tired of losing?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 11, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Case closed then, the Baker did nothing wrong you (continue to) have nothing.
> ...


I see you never tire of projecting. Try offering something, perhaps even try to learn something, instead of just repeating these wild, unsupportable speculations and feeble personal attacks..


> *Projection* is a form of *defense* in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of *projection* occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts: Freud.
> *Projection | psychology | Britannica.com*
> *Projection | psychology*


----------



## WEATHER53 (Jun 11, 2018)

Just another tantrum. We lost the election-investigate.  One guy out of 10 others in the area won’t bake a cake for me-tantrum


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 11, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



I thought you would be pleased that this Baker won't bake a cake for Heterosexual same sex couples the same way he won't bake a cake for Homosexual same sex couples?

No, then you haven't the slightest clue as to what equality really is.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 11, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 school:
> 
> 
> > *Homosexuality* is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."[1][2]
> ...



You can quote that until the cows come home you dimwit, but this Baker is following the law by treating Homosexuals EXACTLY the same way he treats Heterosexuals.

The Supreme Court created a NEW marketplace that a BAKER could ENTER INTO. This BAKER CHOSE NOT TO.

He has (and having to repeat this a dozen times is getting old) NEVER OFFERED SAME SEX WEDDING CAKES.

Not to Homosexuals

Not to Heterosexuals

Not to Anyone

So, unless you can find a case, where he HAS BAKED A SAME SEX WEDDING CAKE FOR HETEROSEXUALS, you got nothing.

The Supreme Court created Same Sex Marriage, NOT GAY MARRIAGE.

Your problem, not his.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 11, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> You can quote that until the cows come home you dimwit, but this Baker is following the law by treating Homosexuals EXACTLY the same way he treats Heterosexuals.
> 
> The Supreme Court created a NEW marketplace that a BAKER could ENTER INTO. This BAKER CHOSE NOT TO.
> 
> ...




So he violated the sex provision of the law instead of sexual orientation.

Still a violation of the same law.



.>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 11, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> So he violated the sex provision of the law instead of sexual orientation.
> 
> Still a violation of the same law.
> 
> ...



Still there was that problematic wording in the USSC Decision that said "respectful" in addition to "neutral".  Now what was that all about?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 11, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Jude was the daily personal servant of Jesus; probably closer to him than anyone else on a day to day basis.



Jude was a catcher and Jesus was a pitcher...


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 11, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Jude was the daily personal servant of Jesus; probably closer to him than anyone else on a day to day basis.
> ...


mohammed married a baby. What's your point.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 11, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> mohammed married a baby. What's your point.



Why, you'd clearly miss it. 

"Oh my Gosh, I didn't say anything Islamophobic today!!!"


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 11, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > mohammed married a baby. What's your point.
> ...


But you did manage to fear Jews and Christians, who, along with muslims, refuse to decorate cakes for homos.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 11, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> But you did manage to fear Jews and Christians, who, along with muslims, refuse to decorate cakes for homos.



Because Christians keep trying to impose their religious stupidity on us and the Jews keep getting us into wars...  

On the other hand, if we just left the Muslims alone, we probably wouldn't have any problems with them.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 11, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > You can quote that until the cows come home you dimwit, but this Baker is following the law by treating Homosexuals EXACTLY the same way he treats Heterosexuals.
> ...



Nope, treats all exactly the same. Won’t even bake a cake for heterosexual same sex couples. Fact is, the service is simply not offered

Male, female, all treated equally.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 11, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > But you did manage to fear Jews and Christians, who, along with muslims, refuse to decorate cakes for homos.
> ...


Your phobias want them all to be forced to decorate gay cakes. That's a problem for them.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 11, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You just proved that he violated the law based on sex (not sexual orientation - heterosexual or homosexual isn't a factor in what you just proved.

If the customers are Man/Woman - Wedding Cake orders accepted.

If the customers are Man/Man or Woman/Woman - Wedding Cake order refused.


The refusal is based on the sex of the customers - good job you just showed he was in violation of the law.


Ya try that "the service was not offered" with a Judge.  Sorry judge I didn't discriminate against black people we just don't serve Black Hamburgers here we only serve White Hamburgers so the "service was not offered".  The fact is that Mr. Phillips confirmed to the courts that the service (making Wedding Cakes) was part of the services offered and refused to make them based on the sex composition of the customers involved.


.>>>>


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 11, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Which religious texts claim race...or hamburgers...are an abomination?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 11, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Specifically. 

Which sex?

If all, golly gosh. The service is just not offered. 

Must be a bias toward a sex somewhere. 

Hamburger? 

Sorry judge, I don’t serve hamburger to blacks, that is correct, of course, I don’t serve em to whites either. 

Are you under some impression that their really is “Gay Marriage”?

Cuz, legally, there isn’t.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 12, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> this Baker won't bake a cake for Heterosexual same sex couples


So, as expected, still doubling down on the same crazy, unsupportable speculations. Zero substance at all. But there is a fine admission hidden in there. Notice you're reduced to speculating "won't bake" instead of being able to verifiably claim _has- or hasn't- baked, _which would likely still make zero difference in regard to this case, still being irrelevant, but at least it would be substantive.

See problem is anyone could make up such excuses after the fact if all it took to thwart the law was to claim _Jesus made me do it! Because I'm religious I get to ignore any law that strikes me as contrary to my indoctrination! Freedumb baby! Suck it all you nonbelievers! God made us sinful so those of us who kiss His ass and beg His forgiveness at least once during our lifetimes can be saved! Screw the law! We get to go to Heaven regardless and you don't. You go straight to Hell, neener neener!
_
Many, but one guy in particular, someone I'd worked with daily for at least a year and had grown to consider a pretty solid friend,.. yes, even though he was a devout Christian,... one bright, sunny day, finally got around to asking me dead seriously, "Why don't you just kill yourself? Or go rob a bank?"  Never forget that incident because it initially left me so speechless. All I thought was "WTF?" That's the insane product of such indoctrination. Religion has continued to spread because it's the easiest way to turn otherwise smart, caring people into compliant, babbling idiots.



> When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 12, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > But you did manage to fear Jews and Christians, who, along with muslims, refuse to decorate cakes for homos.
> ...


Christians clearly have an obligation (albeit a desire) to keep you informed of the Gospel, we do not impose our religion on you as much as you impose your demands on us. As for Muslims, they are nothing like the Amish.


----------



## sparky (Jun 12, 2018)




----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 12, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > this Baker won't bake a cake for Heterosexual same sex couples
> ...


I would say your co-worker's choice of woods was over the top, but the reality is that without GOD there is honestly no purpose. This becomes more apparent as one ages. You either see heaven at the end of a series of worldly struggles or you just die and that is it! The Christian will see his Christian friends and family in heaven. The atheist will not even be remembered eventually --- and will not know it even if is is!

And that is the truth of eternity. The unsaved (according to the Bible) will have nothing but remorse of what could have been (the worm dieth not). The Saved will not remember anything that would bring them sadness. In fact, it is likely they will only live in the NOW of heaven quite amazed for all eternity...
*Revelation 21:4*
4 "He will wipe every tear from their eyes (no more crying or pain) for the old order of things has passed away.”


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 12, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> Christians clearly have an obligation (albeit a desire) to keep you informed of the Gospel, we do not impose our religion on you as much as you impose your demands on us. As for Muslims, they are nothing like the Amish



If we were constantly bombing the Amish, they'd be just like the Muslims.  

Our problem with the Islamic world has nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with our idiotic policies.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 12, 2018)

sparky said:


>


I love Dark Double Dutch Chocolate Cake --- rainbow cake is for little kids! Which is another issue regarding "gays". It's the Peter Pan mentality! They are insecure and need constant reassuring (which is likely why they are so obsessed with getting _seemingly_ full support from every aspect of society). It's all they have to go on!  As for this cake, it is as unreal as their marriages and all sugar!


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 12, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Christians clearly have an obligation (albeit a desire) to keep you informed of the Gospel, we do not impose our religion on you as much as you impose your demands on us. As for Muslims, they are nothing like the Amish
> ...


The Muslims bombed the Israelites first on numerous occasions. Those that bless the Jews will receive blessings and those that curse the Jews will receive a curse. Our policies (to some degree) are founded on biblical principles and not public opinion or fads.


----------



## sparky (Jun 12, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


~S~


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 12, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> ....Christians keep trying to impose their religious stupidity on us and the Jews keep getting us into wars...
> 
> On the other hand, if we just left the Muslims alone, we probably wouldn't have any problems with them.



Let me translate that from Crybully to English:  Christians are an easy mark for lgbt activist-strikes because they really are a passive faith.  Jews are too controversial to hit because the outcry of WWII is still too fresh. 

And LGBT activists leave Muslims alone because if they sued a Muslim baker trying to force him to promote butt sex lifestyles, they would need life insurance.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 12, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > this Baker won't bake a cake for Heterosexual same sex couples
> ...





Grumblenuts said:


> Notice you're reduced to speculating "won't bake" instead of being able to verifiably claim _has- or hasn't- baked, _which would likely still make zero difference in regard to this case, still being irrelevant, but at least it would be substantive.



What speculation? That he won't bake a cake for same sex weddings? Well, I guess when he does bake a same sex wedding cake that would clear that up. Just let us know when you have proof that he has. Then, at least then, you would have proof he discriminates instead of that he just doesn't provide that service. The burden of proof is not on the accused. Maybe in Cuba it's different, But here in the United States, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty.

You are still under the false assumption (Naive as it is) that there is a law creating something known as "Gay Marriage". Do some homework G-Nuts and you will find, that simply does not exist. Again, what the SCOTUS created was "Same-Sex" Marriage. That gives EQUAL ACCESS to Marriage to Heterosexuals as it does to Homosexuals.

You should know this shit, it's your side that fought so hard for this.

Funny, you folks created this, and you have the hardest time coming to grips with its realities?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 12, 2018)

Yes or No, Pops, did the baker in this case discriminate against the two men in any way?
If so, how?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 12, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Yes or No, Pops, did the baker in this case discriminate against the two men in any way?
> If so, how?



Nope, he did not as that would be impossible as he does not provide the requested service.

Not to males, females, straights or gays.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 12, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Yes or No, Pops, did the baker in this case discriminate against the two men in any way?
> ...



Mr. Phillips did not dispute that he made and sold wedding cakes.  Now, he refused to sell wedding cakes to some customers but not others, but that doesn't change the fact that the goods and services offered were part of Masterpiece Cakeshop's business model as there is no difference in the construction of a wedding cake for a different-sex couple and one for a same-sex couple.

Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece CakeShop - Decision


.>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 12, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



The new market was created in 2015. He chose not to participate in such. 

Obergfell simply created a market that the baker could partake in. It did not create a gay wedding market, it created a same sex wedding market. 

He opted not to serve this market. In doing so he refused service to all within the market. 

You may claim he did so because he didn’t want to serve gays, but he doesn’t serve straights as well. And the traditional market he does serve? Treats gays and straights, males and females equally.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 12, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Truly "the greatest bullshit story ever told." This "all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest." Awe inspiring, but really no wonder once one really thinks about it long and hard. That's why such a high percentage of atheists are religious scholars and former clergy. They've had that opportunity. To think about it long and hard. Most people remain (are deliberately kept actually) too busy and distracted their entire lives to really give it a second thought. _Git 'em while they're young and they'll never look baaack!_

How's this for a "revelation"? Don't worry. Nothing divine or shocking except perhaps in the reverse sense of being astoundingly simple or common sense. As in stuff right under your nose the whole time that you've somehow never noticed... Probably  because almost nobody talks about it... It's that mundane. You have to try and clear your mind a bit so come back when you're feeling no stress and ready to focus on nothing else...

Good. Now imagine you were born say in what many now call "The Holy Land" an eon ago. You're advanced beyond hunter gathering so enjoy a somewhat sedentary existence, tending some livestock and trading olives for all the other stuff you need. Of course there's no electricity so you must at least keep some embers glowing to light whatever oil lamps you may use inside to see at night. You get your water from a shallow well with a pot or basket on a rope when there is any. Otherwise you have to get it from the nearest stream down the hill and about a half mile away.

No TV! No internet, computers, phones, radios, newspapers, cars, paved roads, glasses, telescopes,... Not even books!

So what do you do at night? It's pretty arid and warm. Firewood is scarce so you generally just use it to cook and heat water. The house is tiny, cramped, and your bed is no more comfortable than laying on some piled hay outside... Odds are you spend a lot of time out there, just looking up at the stars. Pondering... Connecting the dots... Discovering recurring patterns in them that sort of look like animals, ladles, and stuff... What's it all about? Whenever friends drop by you wow each other with stories of giant serpents, falling stars, all manner of magical things you've seen or imagined seeing...

Gardening one day, someone finds that big meteor everyone's been yammering about .. Someone else notices that metal stuff flies straight to it when dropped from quite a distance - real magic! Right here in River City! With a capital M that rhymes with.. hmm?

And so began religion.

Hmm, thank you very much!


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 12, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> The new market was created in 2015. He chose not to participate in such.
> 
> Obergfell simply created a market that the baker could partake in. It did not create a gay wedding market, it created a same sex wedding market.
> 
> ...




Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation.  Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

Yes he did discriminate based on sex when he would sell wedding cakes to man/woman couples but not man/man (or woman/woman).  The SCOTUS reversed the decision to the hostile actions of the Commission.  Because of that he got a pass from the court on a narrowly applied ruling.  The court did not however invalidate Colorado's PA law and if he continues to violate the law going forward he would be subject to the proceeding starting over again and this time you can bet the Commission will watch their p's and q's.  And your silly word games if tried in court would be laughed out of the room.

(Although Arlene’s Flowers Inc v. Washington is still in the SCOTUS pipe-line awaiting determination if the SCOTUS will take the case which is basically the same as Mr. Phillips case - i.e. speech and religion - so he wouldn't have to wait years if they take the Arlene's Flowers case and actually rule instead of punting it.)


.>>>>


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 12, 2018)

_Afterword_ - Many, certainly the Greeks, began really figuring stuff out despite all the noise and carrying on about religion. Then along came Isaac Newton who really kicked us into high gear despite the Church's efforts to shut him up. Then came Tesla who figured so much out that we seemingly have centuries to go before most catch up. Then Einstein went nuts, doubling down, much like Pops here, on his ridiculous "curved space" notions and everything came to crashing halt. Now we're so mired in the religious delusions of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics we'll likely never escape. None of us to Heaven or Hell anyway, that's for sure!


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 12, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > The new market was created in 2015. He chose not to participate in such.
> ...





WorldWatcher said:


> Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.



It is a new market that never existed before. It's a bit like saying that Car Company "A" must make electric cars because that market has still become fashionable.

But lets drill this down:

A Baker opens a Bakery in which he makes a number of decisions. One of which is, can I invest a ton of Money into a shop AND at the same time, be able to run it in such a way that does not violate my Religious views?

The Baker looks at current Law and decides that he can do this without Violating his religious belief. He even goes so far as to deny those who seek a Halloween Cake as his participation in such would be actively violating his religious belief. I can support that.

As for Wedding Cakes, he see's Same Sex Marriage being unlikely as State after State after State votes it down, so he decides to make wedding cakes. He doesn't care of the sexuality of those that order these cakes as his religious view is that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, and two Homosexuals would not be violating this norm as long as a female Lesbian Marries a Male Homosexual. 

Now the Baker is faced with the SCOTUS redefinition of Legal Marriage which is hostile with his ability to run his business in a way that doesn't conflict with his religious belief.

However, SCOTUS did not simply make "gay marriage" legal, in fact it made marriage between any two people, with only a few exceptions legal. Now, Straights of the same sex can Marry another Straight , and Homosexuals of the same sex can Marry another Homosexual of the same sex. HELL, Lets face facts, a Straight can Marry a Homosexual of the same sex (Weird I know, but true non the less).

He decides, the only way that he can avoid a conflict with his religion is to NOT PROVIDE WEDDING CAKES FOR SAME SEX COUPLES REGARDLESS OF SEX OR SEXUALITY. This decision is not based on a bias of either sex, nor a bias of a sexuality, if it is, what bias? He has made Wedding Cakes for Men. He has Made Wedding Cakes for Women. He's made wedding cakes for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, of this there is no doubt.

Now, lets examine the Virginia case you reference. The Baker that you would reference could make no argument that baking a cake for an interracial couple is in conflict with his Religious principles as Marriage is simply between a Man and a Woman. The Bible, as I understand it, makes no racial distinction, so he would have no case.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 12, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> _Afterword_ - Many, certainly the Greeks, began really figuring stuff out despite all the noise and carrying on about religion. Then along came Isaac Newton who really kicked us into high gear despite the Church's efforts to shut him up. Then came Tesla who figured so much out that we seemingly have centuries to go before most catch up. Then Einstein went nuts, doubling down, much like Pops here, on his ridiculous "curved space" notions and everything came to crashing halt. Now we're so mired in the religious delusions of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics we'll likely never escape. None of us to Heaven or Hell anyway, that's for sure!



I'm glad you finally figured out who the true progressive is in this discussion. Here's a clue.........

It ain't you conservatard!


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 12, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> It is a new market that never existed before. It's a bit like saying that Car Company "A" must make electric cars because that market has still become fashionable.
> 
> But lets drill this down:
> 
> ...




As to the last part you don't get to measure the validity of someones personal religous beliefs.

As a matter of fact that is spelled out in Federal law:

(7) *Religious exercise*
(A) *In general*
The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

42 U.S. Code § 2000cc–5 - Definitions


.>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 12, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > It is a new market that never existed before. It's a bit like saying that Car Company "A" must make electric cars because that market has still become fashionable.
> ...



The last part is less a part of the argument than the first however, and the Baker likely would not use religion as his defense, if so, it would be challenged and likely a lost cause.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 12, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


*I think he would still be in violation of Colorado law.  I don't see how it makes any difference whether the couple is male or female.  It is still discrimination based on sexual preference.  Whether he refuses to write best wishes Mary and Betty or John and Bill on the cake, yet will write Best Wishes Mary and John, it's still discrimination because the law does not allow you to discriminate based on sexual preference.*


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 12, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Can you discriminate against everyone? If so, it's simply the product is not offered.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 12, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


An artist should be able to discriminate concerning any messages he makes/communicates with his art.


----------



## WEATHER53 (Jun 12, 2018)

A veil of tears over nothing
Go find someone who will joyfully bake your cake you damn perpetually offended  attention whore


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 12, 2018)

JoeMoma said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Actually, would he be a true artist if he did anything in contrary to your post?


----------



## Flopper (Jun 12, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


*You can't discriminate based on a person's sexual preference in Colorado.  If the baker says the product is not offered upon learning the cake is for a gay wedding and yet sells cakes for a heterosexual wedding, it's discrimination based on sexual preference.*


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 12, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Which sexual preference is he discriminating against when he denies making a wedding cake for same sex couples? He would deny the product for a Heterosexual same sex couple as well as a Homosexual couple. Again, he is treating all sexualities equaly.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 12, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Can you discriminate against everyone? If so, it's simply the product is not offered.




Mr. Phillips never tried to claim he didn't sell the product, he freely admits to providing wedding cakes.

You can even view his catalog on his website.


>>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 12, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you discriminate against everyone? If so, it's simply the product is not offered.
> ...



He has same sex wedding cakes in his catalog? 

Link?


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 12, 2018)

YES Phillips considers his wedding cake artistry to be an extension and an exercise of his sincerely held religious beliefs.

 As a matter of fact that is spelled out in Federal law:

(7) *Religious exercise*
(A) *In general*
The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

42 U.S. Code § 2000cc–5 - Definitions


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 12, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




The product is wedding cakes.

Not the people buying them.


But you knew that.


.>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 12, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



He sells wedding cakes, just not same sex wedding cakes

But you knew that

Same sex wedding cakes, is a new product, not needed until 2015, well after he started his Bakery and well after he made the decision to open his Bakery in such a way that his business would not conflict with his religious beliefs.

But you knew that as well.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 12, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Heterosexual same sex couple





Pop23 said:


> same sex wedding cakes


Hear ye, hear ye!
Fresh baked from the oven, folks! 
Poppin' fresh!
Git 'em while they're hot!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 12, 2018)

> The Court concludes that “the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ religious objection did not accord with its treatment of [the other bakers’] objections.” Ante, at 15. See also ante, at 5–7 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). But the cases the Court aligns are hardly comparable. The bakers would have refused to make a cake with Jack’s requested message for any customer, regardless of his or her religion. And the bakers visited by Jack would have sold him any baked goods they would have sold anyone else. The bakeries’ refusal to make Jack cakes of a kind they would not make for any customer scarcely resembles Phillips’ refusal to serve Craig and Mullins: Phillips *would not sell* to Craig and Mullins, *for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others. When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding—not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings—and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied.* Cf. ante, at 3–4, 9–10 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). Colorado, the Court does not gainsay, prohibits precisely the discrimination Craig and Mullins encountered. See supra, at 1. Jack, on the other hand, suffered no service refusal on the basis of his religion or any other protected characteristic. He was treated as any other customer would have been treated—no better, no worse.3 The fact that Phillips might sell other cakes and cookies to gay and lesbian customers  4 was irrelevant to the issue Craig and Mullins’ case presented. What matters is that Phillips would not provide a good or service to a same-sex couple that he would provide to a heterosexual couple. In contrast, the other bakeries’ sale of other goods to Christian customers was relevant: It shows that there were no goods the bakeries would sell to a non-Christian customer that they would refuse to sell to a Christian customer. Cf. ante, at 15. Nor was the Colorado Court of Appeals’ “difference in treatment of these two instances . . . based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness.” Ante, at 16. Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it. The three other bakeries declined to make cakes where their objection to the product was due to the demeaning message the requested product would literally display. As the Court recognizes, a refusal “to design a special cake with words or images . . . might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all.” Ante, at 2.5 The Colorado Court of Appeals did not distinguish Phillips and the other three bakeries based simply on its or the Division’s finding that messages in the cakes Jack requested were offensive while any message in a cake for Craig and Mullins was not. The Colorado court distinguished the cases on the ground that Craig and Mullins were denied service based on an aspect of their identity that the State chose to grant vigorous protection from discrimination.


etc. GINSBURG, J., dissenting


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 12, 2018)

JoeMoma said:


> An artist should be able to discriminate concerning any messages he makes/communicates with his art.



Yes.  And preparing food for catering, photography, designing wedding clothes, invitations and the whole wedding layout are all forms of artful expression as well.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 12, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Your logic is flawed, because The Romans, Greeks,and Egyptians all developed religious beliefs --- not to forget the Aztec and Mayan civilizations. And their cultured logic were very similar in nature. They had a group of gods that were essentially super humans --- each controlling various aspects of nature and rewarding a happy place in the afterlife to their adherents by the believers being good enough.

ONLY the Judeo/Christian scriptures present GOD who reveals the inability of man to save himself and why! And that GOD HIMSELF provides salvation to those who freely accept this and trust in GOD alone. This GOD is ultimately revealed to be TRIUNE in nature --- unlike any humanly conceived explanation of GOD. And man is revealed to be TRIUNE having a BODY, SOUL, and SPIRIT. The Body is what is seen. The Soul being that essence that makes an individual unique and different. And a SPIRIT that embodies the goal of that individual and what the person desires and wants and his directive.

Oddly, the Romans saw Christians as being *atheists* because they didn't see Caesar as being a god or that there was a pantheon of gods... This blew their minds that these Christians would not respect their gods.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 12, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Heterosexual same sex couple
> ...



If your waiting for that cake......

He don’t offer that service, so your wait will be lengthy


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 12, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Jewish delis sell sandwiches as their product. muslim delis sell falafels. Request extra bacon and ham on yours.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 12, 2018)

.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 12, 2018)

Look, anyone can dream up laws. Example: make a law that says it is illegal not to give 20% of your income to the government. But why? Ultimately it's the government who is benefiting. And I could say, that this is wrong and not pay 20% and I'd have to go to jail and perhaps have my property confiscated. However, is it a proper law because they wrote it? When the Nazi government said one cannot shop in Jewish businesses, was that legal? I'd have to say that if it was signed into law by the officials of that government that in fact it was legal ----- but was it right? Now at the Post War trials it was ascertained that there are "natural laws" that some would argue these are GOD's LAWs. However, if one doesn't believe in GOD then such reasoning goes out the window... It is very hard to argue the point that humans are unnatural and so survival of the fittest becomes appropriate and governments can essentially make up any law that suits them and help those they wish and hurt those they want.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 12, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




Sure love bacon and ham, if the Jewish or Muslim deli sells it I'd order it with extra bacon.

But if they don't offer it on the menu though I'm SOL.  PA laws do not mandate what goods and services a business offeres, only that if they choose to offer them they cannot refuse service based on certain characteristics of the customers.  Like the baker did.  The difference is, under your silly attempt at a gotcha, is the Baker, buy his own admission sells wedding cakes.


But you are barking up the wrong tree, I think PA laws as applied to private business entities should be repealed and private business owners able to refuse service for any reason they want equally.  The law as it is though is unequal - IMHO - because the baker wants an exemption to discriminate against gays because of his religious beliefs but a gay shop owner would be held in violation of the law if they discriminate against a religious person for their religious beliefs.

If the baker can discriminate against gays because of their religious beliefs - gays should be able to discriminate against the baker for those religious beliefs.
The KKK baker should be able to discriminate against blacks.
The Jewish deli owner against Muslims.
The Muslim deli owner against Jews.
The redneck baker against Mexicans, 
etc.
etc.


>>>>


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 12, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> > The Court concludes that “the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ religious objection did not accord with its treatment of [the other bakers’] objections.” Ante, at 15. See also ante, at 5–7 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). But the cases the Court aligns are hardly comparable. The bakers would have refused to make a cake with Jack’s requested message for any customer, regardless of his or her religion. And the bakers visited by Jack would have sold him any baked goods they would have sold anyone else. The bakeries’ refusal to make Jack cakes of a kind they would not make for any customer scarcely resembles Phillips’ refusal to serve Craig and Mullins: Phillips *would not sell* to Craig and Mullins, *for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others. When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding—not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings—and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied.* Cf. ante, at 3–4, 9–10 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). Colorado, the Court does not gainsay, prohibits precisely the discrimination Craig and Mullins encountered. See supra, at 1. Jack, on the other hand, suffered no service refusal on the basis of his religion or any other protected characteristic. He was treated as any other customer would have been treated—no better, no worse.3 The fact that Phillips might sell other cakes and cookies to gay and lesbian customers  4 was irrelevant to the issue Craig and Mullins’ case presented. What matters is that Phillips would not provide a good or service to a same-sex couple that he would provide to a heterosexual couple. In contrast, the other bakeries’ sale of other goods to Christian customers was relevant: It shows that there were no goods the bakeries would sell to a non-Christian customer that they would refuse to sell to a Christian customer. Cf. ante, at 15. Nor was the Colorado Court of Appeals’ “difference in treatment of these two instances . . . based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness.” Ante, at 16. Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it. The three other bakeries declined to make cakes where their objection to the product was due to the demeaning message the requested product would literally display. As the Court recognizes, a refusal “to design a special cake with words or images . . . might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all.” Ante, at 2.5 The Colorado Court of Appeals did not distinguish Phillips and the other three bakeries based simply on its or the Division’s finding that messages in the cakes Jack requested were offensive while any message in a cake for Craig and Mullins was not. The Colorado court distinguished the cases on the ground that Craig and Mullins were denied service based on an aspect of their identity that the State chose to grant vigorous protection from discrimination.
> 
> 
> etc. GINSBURG, J., dissenting


I believe that any person should be able to believe anything he or she wishes, as long as it doesn't physically harm another individual. I don't feel that all values or opinions are equal. And I do feel that more flies are gathered with honey than vinegar. However, I do not see how any service or product which can be produced by most anybody should become a platform for lawsuits under the guise of discrimination. Discrimination is a fact. It is not unnatural. Everyone discriminates in one way or another by where they shop, eat, what they believe (or not), who they vote for, where they choose to live, what music they listen to, what they read, etc., etc., etc...

The Ginsburg's of this world often don't believe Jews can be Christians. Is that a discriminatory thought/opinion? YOU BET IT IS!!!! But is there anything wrong with the opinion other than I believe it is flawed and WRONG? I certainly don't believe Mrs. Ginsburg should be sued or thrown out of her position. But this is what is happening to those who feel that catering to those living in sin is reinforcing such misguided beliefs ---- that what is occurring is OK --- when it isn't acceptable to everyone, and needs to be QUESTIONED!  And that QUESTIONING needs to be open and aboveboard and not in some closet.

People should frequent establishments of their choice based on their values and opinions. They should not force establishments to cater to them. This is what free enterprise is all about, and separates one entrepreneur from another. If I visit Lancaster County, I go to see Amish living Amish --- I don't expect them to change to accomodate me ---- otherwise, who would desire to visit Amish driving cars and dressing like everyone else? If you don't like Christians, don't support them, but don't threaten them. Simply explain your view and then walk away. That is the Christian way!


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 12, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



If, as in your example, the gay truly believes his soul will burn in hell forever by doing business with the Baker, should the Government force that choice on the Gay. 

If that’s not duress, I’m not sure what is?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 12, 2018)

Conservatives used to bang on endlessly about "State's rights", federal overreach, and so forth. Until decisions like this that is. As the disposition and composition of The Supremes has moved steadily right you'd think these screams would only grow louder than ever. Suddenly, instead of taking for granted that those closest to the action should have the highest decision making power, now it's The Supremes. Can you say "hypocrites"? I knew you could!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 12, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> I believe that any person should be able to believe anything he or she wishes, as long as it doesn't physically harm another individual.


Pssst,... I think they already do, even the physical harm kind. But imagine - killing people with your beliefs... Perhaps some day real soon... What an advance, eh?


LittleNipper said:


> Discrimination is a fact. It is not unnatural.


Please remind me, who argued it was?


LittleNipper said:


> I certainly don't believe Mrs. Ginsburg should be sued or thrown out of her position. But this is what is happening to those who feel that catering to those living in sin is reinforcing such misguided beliefs


Dunno about that, but in this case the two men were discriminated against for their combined sex and sexual orientation, not their beliefs. Apples and oranges.


LittleNipper said:


> People should frequent establishments of their choice based on their values and opinions.


Yeah, again, pretty sure they already can and mostly do. There's also trying something new. You know, being spontaneous? Sort of carefree? Fun? 


LittleNipper said:


> They should not force establishments to cater to them.


Again, don't think they actually can yet in terms of preventing other's beliefs, but neat how you managed to slip the word "cater" in there knowing full well that the two gay men were granted no opportunity to even request catering, nor any design in this case other than "wedding". They were, in fact, more or less forced to listen to the owner's personal beliefs about them instead


LittleNipper said:


> Simply explain your view and then walk away. That is the Christian way!


Don't forget explaining your view of all those whose appearance irrationally disturbs you while rejecting their business  
.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 13, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


*I don't think you understand.  This is not a case of sexual discrimination.  It is a case of discrimination based on sexual preference, a big difference.  For example:

If I deny Sarah or Mary a job because of their sex, that is sexual discrimination.

If I deny Sarah and Mary a wedding cake because of their sexual preference(they prefer females to males sexually), that is discrimination based on sexual preference which is illegal in Colorado but not everywhere.  It is immaterial whether the victims are males or female or what their sexual preference might be. The way the law reads, if the I denied a wedding cake to a heterosexual couple because of their sexual preference, I would be guilty of sexual preference discrimination.


Another term for sexual preference discrimination is sexual orientation discrimination.*


----------



## Flopper (Jun 13, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > > The Court concludes that “the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ religious objection did not accord with its treatment of [the other bakers’] objections.” Ante, at 15. See also ante, at 5–7 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). But the cases the Court aligns are hardly comparable. The bakers would have refused to make a cake with Jack’s requested message for any customer, regardless of his or her religion. And the bakers visited by Jack would have sold him any baked goods they would have sold anyone else. The bakeries’ refusal to make Jack cakes of a kind they would not make for any customer scarcely resembles Phillips’ refusal to serve Craig and Mullins: Phillips *would not sell* to Craig and Mullins, *for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others. When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding—not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings—and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied.* Cf. ante, at 3–4, 9–10 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). Colorado, the Court does not gainsay, prohibits precisely the discrimination Craig and Mullins encountered. See supra, at 1. Jack, on the other hand, suffered no service refusal on the basis of his religion or any other protected characteristic. He was treated as any other customer would have been treated—no better, no worse.3 The fact that Phillips might sell other cakes and cookies to gay and lesbian customers  4 was irrelevant to the issue Craig and Mullins’ case presented. What matters is that Phillips would not provide a good or service to a same-sex couple that he would provide to a heterosexual couple. In contrast, the other bakeries’ sale of other goods to Christian customers was relevant: It shows that there were no goods the bakeries would sell to a non-Christian customer that they would refuse to sell to a Christian customer. Cf. ante, at 15. Nor was the Colorado Court of Appeals’ “difference in treatment of these two instances . . . based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness.” Ante, at 16. Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it. The three other bakeries declined to make cakes where their objection to the product was due to the demeaning message the requested product would literally display. As the Court recognizes, a refusal “to design a special cake with words or images . . . might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all.” Ante, at 2.5 The Colorado Court of Appeals did not distinguish Phillips and the other three bakeries based simply on its or the Division’s finding that messages in the cakes Jack requested were offensive while any message in a cake for Craig and Mullins was not. The Colorado court distinguished the cases on the ground that Craig and Mullins were denied service based on an aspect of their identity that the State chose to grant vigorous protection from discrimination.
> ...


*There is nothing wrong with discrimination itself.  In fact it's a necessary survival skill.  However, not all  discrimination is beneficial to society such as denying a person a job based solely on the color of their skin.  That was very controversial 60 years ago but not so much today. 

All federal civil rights protection is based on a very simple concept, people should be treated based on who they are as individuals; that is they should be judged based on their own merits.

Laws protecting the individual from sexual orientation discrimination are state laws, not federal laws.  These laws are based on the belief that ones sexual preference should not be a consideration in hiring. Most states have such laws.  In some states such as Colorado, it has been extended beyond just hiring practices.   *


----------



## Flopper (Jun 13, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that any person should be able to believe anything he or she wishes, as long as it doesn't physically harm another individual.
> ...


*In Colorado, the general rule was, and remains, that the First Amendment does not allow business owners to deny members of the community equal access to goods and services.  It seems unlikely that court will in the future overturn the law.  In one case a state law that required employees to work on Sunday was overturn because it clearly force the employee to violate a commandment of the church. Other cases in which the Jehovah Witness Church claimed laws violated the free exercise clause they lost because the statues actually did not violated the persons right to worship; that is they did violate a commandment or precept of the church.  For example, in this case the the baker would have to prove to the court that baking a wedding cake for a gay couple made him complicit in a act that specifically violated the religious doctrine of the church that members were expected to adhere to. *


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 13, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> The Muslims bombed the Israelites first on numerous occasions. Those that bless the Jews will receive blessings and those that curse the Jews will receive a curse. Our policies (to some degree) are founded on biblical principles and not public opinion or fads.



Funny, when the Germans were throwing Jews into the Gas Chambers, they quoted the bible and wore belt buckles that said, "God's with us" (Gott mit Uns) . You can justify any kind of shitty behavior on "Biblical Principles"  

And, no, the Zionists all lived in Europe before they started stealing Arab land.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 13, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Let me translate that from Crybully to English: Christians are an easy mark for lgbt activist-strikes because they really are a passive faith. Jews are too controversial to hit because the outcry of WWII is still too fresh.
> 
> And LGBT activists leave Muslims alone because if they sued a Muslim baker trying to force him to promote butt sex lifestyles, they would need life insurance.



You know, funny thing, I've never met a "Muslim baker'.  i guess there are some, but they probably specialize in ethnic things i wouldn't eat. 

But funny thing.  There is a mosque right down the street from me, and the folks who worship there have never tried to blow anything up or threaten anyone.  They need an iron gate around their building to protect it from the bigots.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 13, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Aba Incieni said:
> ...




My examples of the gay owner, KKK owner, and Redneck owner being able to deny service have nothing to do with personal religious views.

They have to do with equal treatment under the law, recognition of personal property rights, and right of association.


.>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 13, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Neat, now explain which sexual preference the Baker has a bias against.

The law that created same sex marriage isn’t even about sexual orientation. Marriage, in it self, is simply a contract binding two people together for what ever reason the two elect to be bound. Sexual relationships are not necessary.

Next.

Marriage is to the law as Seinfeld is to Network programming.

Marriage binds two people together based on whatever reason the two want. Understand this. It has nothing, as law, that requires love, sexual contact. It simply is for the distribution of benefits. It is nothing like what you think it is.

Just like Seinfeld was a show about nothing, so is marriage a law about nothing except a perception not based On what it is.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 13, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Cool, so the gay in my example, believing that doing business with the Baker will end with him spending eternity burning in hell. And you believe that the Government should compel the gay to do something that would make him burn in hell for eternity 

Got it. 

I call that governmental overreaching


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 13, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *
> If I deny Sarah and Mary a wedding cake because of their sexual preference(they prefer females to males sexually), that is discrimination based on sexual preference which is illegal in Colorado but not everywhere.
> *


Actually if the Colorado law is tested against the bakers 1st Amendment protections & fails, it no longer is Colorado law. We understand how the USSC decisions are binding below, yes?  No state may have a law that violates someone's Constitutional protections.  The Court in this case broadly hinted that Colorado has quite likely violated the baker's 1st Amendment protections. The Court ordered Colorado to "fix your law or else".

What's especially important to remember is the Court said that ideologies or behaviors must be able to be rejected by any or punished to all who don't play along. Do you suppose they would say this if the couple who wanted the cake were rejected because they were black?  Remember in Hively 2016, the Court said that gay lifestylists are not allowed to "bootstrap" behaviors onto the Civil rights Act's protection for mere static gender.   Actions are not states of being.

The Colorado law requires everyone to condone everyone else's behaviors. That is absurd.  For instance, what about cleptomaniac- Americans?  If their stealing feels compulsive since birth, can shopkeepers be sued for throwing them out?  Can Colorado discriminate arbitrarily from one compulsive-behavior lifestyle to the other if others also "cannot be helped" or "feels innate" (subjectively)?  I spoke about the false premise (behaviors = static) fatality long ago.  Now we see that fatality come to fruition . What would happen to penal codes across the country if a suspect can subjectively claim "innateness" to their drive to do (fill in the blank)?

REMEMBER Colorado Law cannot arbitrarily discriminate one" innate"-driven group from another; not and survive a future USSC test they can't.  Doing a theoretical test say cleptos vs gay lifestylists.  Arguments against cleptos would say they steal and this behavior impacts society negatively: hence why their innate-feeling behavior cannot be tolerated "and therefore has no civil rights protection".  Then the opposition would argue "well what about the teenager with the surfboard rash on the back of his legs who sits on the bus seat to the beach where a gay guy with sphincter-rupture just sat and his HIV bloody feces smear just came into contact with the boy's open rash?  Or HIV massively entering into hospital environments, the blood supply, other surfaces just touched with blood smears coming into contact with other's nicks and scrapes?  Isn't death far more of an impact than just having some sundries nicked now and then?  Why does HIV/AIDS epidemic super-risk lifestyles and behaviors trump just losing a pair of jeans or a clock radio off your store shelf now and then?  In a purely legal "impact to society" sense?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 13, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Cool, so the gay in my example, believing that doing business with the Baker will end with him spending eternity burning in hell. And you believe that the Government should compel the gay to do something that would make him burn in hell for eternity
> 
> Got it.
> 
> I call that governmental overreaching




Oh jeeze stop making shit up.

What part of the below that you quoted implies that I think the business owner should do something that would make him burn in hell for eternity.  My actually comments are exactly opposite of what you stated.


If the baker can discriminate against gays because of their religious beliefs - gays should be able to discriminate against the baker for those religious beliefs.
The KKK baker should be able to discriminate against blacks.
The Jewish deli owner against Muslims.
The Muslim deli owner against Jews.
The redneck baker against Mexicans,
etc.
etc.


.>>>>


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 13, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that any person should be able to believe anything he or she wishes, as long as it doesn't physically harm another individual.
> ...


I am one of those "terrible" individuals who, when the couple ready with a briefcase, tracts, and smiles (Jehovah Witnesses) come to my door, I respectfully run and get my Bible and witness_* to them*_ on my doorstep! All they need to do was walk away. And frankly, I feel that it would be helpful to businesses to play recorded Christian hymns as background music throughout their establishments ---- I sure some might just take the hint... We now live a society that is trying it's best to be sterile and non offensive to everyone. The reality is the Founding Father never promised that.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 13, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Cool, so the gay in my example, believing that doing business with the Baker will end with him spending eternity burning in hell. And you believe that the Government should compel the gay to do something that would make him burn in hell for eternity
> ...



*1. ) If the baker can discriminate against gays because of their religious beliefs - gays should be able to discriminate against the baker for those religious beliefs.* Neither I nor him likely would have a problem with this with the exception of Governmental interaction, which is EXACTLY why this case got thrown out of court.

*2.) The KKK baker should be able to discriminate against blacks.*

No, That would be discriminating against the entire race due to bias, and you have yet to explain which sexuality or sex the Baker discriminated against when he simply does not make same sex wedding cakes regardless of the sex or sexuality of the couple. Back to the question at hand. A black individual cannot control it's color, but we know that sexuality is often fluid, your color is not.

*3. )The Jewish deli owner against Muslims.*

In appropriate circumstances, absolutely. If the argument was that the Jewish Deli Owner offers product specific to a religion, and the Muslim's case was that, since he offered a product specific to one religion, he must satisfy all, then I would back the Jewish Deli owner every time.

*4. )The Muslim deli owner against Jews.*

See #3.

5. )*The redneck baker against Mexicans,
*
See #1

I am amazingly consistent

Now, what shit did I make up. Be specific, because I'm not a mind reader as you appear to be.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 13, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



Wow, excellent point in bold.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Other cases in which the Jehovah Witness Church claimed laws violated the free exercise clause they lost because the statues actually did not violated the persons right to worship; that is they did violate a commandment or precept of the church. For example, in this case the the baker would have to prove to the court that baking a wedding cake for a gay couple made him complicit in a act that specifically violated the religious doctrine of the church that members were expected to adhere to.


Wouldn't put it past some here to try it. They'd quick draw a cake, add a dirty human butt and act out making love to it. Yes, they are exactly that dumb.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> I am one of those "terrible" individuals who, when the couple ready with a briefcase, tracts, and smiles (Jehovah Witnesses) come to my door, I respectfully run and get my Bible and witness_* to them*_ on my doorstep! All they need to do was walk away.


I used to argue some. Now I just say "No thanks." In all cases, they've ended up just walking away.


LittleNipper said:


> I feel that it would be helpful to businesses to play recorded Christian hymns as background music throughout their establishments ---- I sure some might just take the hint...


Agreed.


LittleNipper said:


> We now live a society that is trying it's best to be sterile and non offensive to everyone. The reality is the Founding Father never promised that.


Yeah, this is not really about that.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 13, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Now, what shit did I make up. Be specific, because I'm not a mind reader as you appear to be.



This is what you said:  "And you believe that the Government should compel the gay to do something that would make him burn in hell for eternity"

Which is exactly opposite of my statement.

You believe in government overreach as the previous post shows (Post #1016) because you support PA laws and government telling private businesses owners who they can and cannot refuse service to - well - as long as you agree with the business owner.

On the other hand I think that ALL private businesses owners should have their rights of property and association respected and be able to refuse service to anyone whether I agree with them or not.  PA laws should only apply to government entities and limit their ability to enter into contracts with and purchase goods and services from private entities since government agencies use taxpayer dollars.


You support government overreach - when it's not your ox being gored, I support getting the government out of the game.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 13, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > We now live a society that is trying it's best to be sterile and non offensive to everyone. The reality is the Founding Father never promised that.
> ...



It absolutely IS all about that.  Grumblenuts, is LGBT a lifestyle or innate?  (don't forget the cult's term "gender-fluid".....)


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 13, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Now, what shit did I make up. Be specific, because I'm not a mind reader as you appear to be.
> ...



What ox of mine do you believe I own that is being gored?

I support both the idea that people should not be discriminated against when...........

*1. )* *What they are is not their fault and that what they are is static*. A female can't change. We have tests that will always show she is female. A Minority will always be a minority. We have tests for that as well.

*2.) What I want from commerce does not conflict with the Owners right to practice his/her/their religion*. *This is especially true when the service provided is non-essential. I support the ideal that essential goods and services are exempt from religious or spiritual exemption *

Again, I am amazingly consistent


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 13, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




I'm not saying you aren't consistent.  I'm saying you support PA laws when you agree with them, and want special rights for folks to claim religion and thereby be exempt from the laws.  

Such a position results in unequal treatment under the law.  The religious baker can refuse service because of the religious bakers religious beliefs, but the gay baker cannot refuse service to the religious baker because of the bakers religious beliefs.

By respecting rights of property and association you take religion out of the equation and treat both the religious baker and the gay baker the same under the law - both can refuse service for whatever reason they choose (or for no reason at all).

Your position supports government overreach - but only for the things  you agree with.  My position is that PA laws as applied to private business are government overreach and should be repealed.


.>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 13, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You do understand that we agree far more than we disagree on what you wrote, right?

Here's the main problem. Government gets involved:

1. In areas they should not get involved in. Case in point, Marriage. Governments that want to allow two individuals to bind themselves to each other, no matter what sex, no matter what sexuality, should not be using a document with religious overtones to accomplish this. The document should be as Sterile as possible. The term CIVIL UNION should be used IN ANY UNION THAT SEEKS TO BIND TWO PEOPLE TO EACH OTHER IN A DOMESTIC UNION THAT THE COUPLE WANTS SANCTIONED BY THE STATE.

Now, lets look at the Baker. If the Baker makes a CIVIL UNION CAKE for one CIVIL UNION, then, even if PA Laws exist, he must make it for all. IT'S PURELY A COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WITH NO RELIGIOUS OVERTONES.

2. The Government will create law in an attempt to right wrongs. Unless those laws are for essential goods and services, they become cumbersome and serve as political footballs, nothing more, nothing less. They divide us far more than they unite us.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jun 13, 2018)

Notice that the Left never chooses to attack Muslim bakers for not baking gay wedding cakes.
This is a big clue that it's not really about principles, it's about the Left's disdain for Christians.
They choose to attack the Christian bakers on purpose. That is what the USSC has more or less said.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 13, 2018)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Notice that the Left never chooses to attack Muslim bakers for not baking gay wedding cakes.
> This is a big clue that it's not really about principles, it's about the Left's disdain for Christians.
> They choose to attack the Christian bakers on purpose. That is what the USSC has more or less said.



"What do you think happens when a gay, like SUPER gay Crowder tries to get a super gay wedding cake baked at a Muslim bakery? I’m pretty sure you can guess, but you might as well watch this week’s adventure to Dearborn, MI to find out!"


Only problem is Michigan does not include sexual orientation in their Public Accommodation law.  So discriminating against gays in business is not illegal there like it is in Colorado.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 13, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Only problem is Michigan does not include sexual orientation in their Public Accommodation law.  So discriminating against gays in business is not illegal there like it is in Colorado.
> 
> 
> >>>>



It isn't illegal in Michigan nor Colorado if their laws conflict with the 1st Amendment.  1st Amendment wins.  And I think that was painted well between the lines in this recent decision.  Think of the word "respect" the Supremes used to warn those handling Christians in the marketplace....


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 13, 2018)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Notice that the Left never chooses to attack Muslim bakers for not baking gay wedding cakes.
> This is a big clue that it's not really about principles, it's about the Left's disdain for Christians.
> They choose to attack the Christian bakers on purpose. That is what the USSC has more or less said.



I have a feeling that even if the guy informed the Baker that they were two Straights that only wanted to Marry for financial benefit, he still would have been turned away.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> I have a feeling that even if the guy informed the Baker that they were two Straights that only wanted to Marry for financial benefit, he still would have been turned away.


Logic dictates:
1. Speculative argument used to dispute documented fact is clearly fallacious by definition.
2. Worse, asserting "I have a feeling that" means you don't know and indeed can't even produce one verifiable example.
3. Therefore, the sample would be vanishingly small by comparison so insufficient even if you could.
4. Two people uniting as in "marriage" or "civil union" for "financial benefit" _alone_ have no reason to formally celebrate, much less buy a wedding cake, revealing the argument to be desperate and ridiculous from the start.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 13, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > I have a feeling that even if the guy informed the Baker that they were two Straights that only wanted to Marry for financial benefit, he still would have been turned away.
> ...



Dimwit, it was the expression of an opinion. But then, I do enjoy the free rent I am getting inside your head!

And then you speculate that two people uniting in a Marriage has no reason to formally celebrate? That is simply not your call pinhead, they would have just as much reason as any "same sex" couple would have.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 13, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


They don't sell it because of their religion. Same as the baker won't decorate a gay cake because of his religion.

This is one of those either/or deals. It can't be both.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 13, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> They don't sell it because of their religion. Same as the baker won't decorate a gay cake because of his religion.
> 
> This is one of those either/or deals. It can't be both.




And Piggie Park wouldn't sell to blacks because of the owners personal religious views.

.>>>>


----------



## task0778 (Jun 13, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > They don't sell it because of their religion. Same as the baker won't decorate a gay cake because of his religion.
> ...



That would be IMHO a very hard sell to any court of law, all the way up to and including the SCOTUS.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 13, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > They don't sell it because of their religion. Same as the baker won't decorate a gay cake because of his religion.
> ...


Which religious texts define race as an abomination?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 13, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Aba Incieni said:
> ...



Under Federal law personal religious beliefs do not have to be defined by the dogma of an established religious text.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 13, 2018)

task0778 said:


> That would be IMHO a very hard sell to any court of law, all the way up to and including the SCOTUS.




I agree, hence part of my problem with PA laws.

Personal religious beliefs about not selling to black people = Not good enough.

Personal religious beliefs about not selling to gay people = exception granted.

In addition, a Gay shop owner does not have the right to discriminate against the personal religious beliefs of a customer and refuse them service.  If they do they are then in violation - on grounds of religious discrimination - under both State AND Federal PA laws.


.>>>>


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 13, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


A simple "none" would have sufficed.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 13, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Aba Incieni said:
> ...



No, it's important to point out that under federal law you implication that religious beliefs that diverge from established dogma written in a book are invalid.

Federal law says otherwise.


>>>>


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 13, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Cool. Tell Shlomo I want extra bacon on my sub and let Abdul know I want extra ham on my falafel.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 13, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Aba Incieni said:
> ...



Tell him yourself.

Of course if bacon isn't on the menu you are SOL as PA laws don't require that shop owners provide specific products as part of their business model - only that if such products are stocked or sold to the public that customers can't be refused for certain reasons such as race, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation or national origin.

But you would know that if you understood what Public Accommodation laws actually do instead of just trying to throw shit around the internet.


.>>>>


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 13, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Gay cake decorations aren't on the menu. Forced labor is.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 13, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Aba Incieni said:
> ...



Per Mr. Phillips there was never any discussion of cake decorations.

Piggie Park owners agree about the "forced labor" bit I bet.

.>>>>


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Really, genius? You mean 'asserting "I have a feeling that" really means you don't know? You've just been expressing your groundless, "desperate and ridiculous" opinions from the start? Hwell then... I'm shocked! SHOCKED I yells ya! Fine admission!


> And then you speculate that two people uniting in a Marriage has no reason to formally celebrate? That is simply not your call pinhead, they would have just as much reason as any "same sex" couple would have.


Go ahead then, Mr. Smartypants, don't be shy! Do tell the world why two people uniting [as in "marriage" or "civil union" for "financial benefit" _alone_] have reason to formally celebrate or buy a wedding cake?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2018)

Ahh,


WorldWatcher said:


> Public Accommodation laws


= "PA laws"
 Doh!

eta: My excuse? I happen to live in PA so Google never suggested that within the first several pages of search results. Still,... heard it enough - should have known


----------



## task0778 (Jun 13, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > That would be IMHO a very hard sell to any court of law, all the way up to and including the SCOTUS.
> ...



" Personal religious beliefs about not selling to gay people = exception granted."

I wouldn't go that far, not in all cases.   I might grant an exception to selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, but any other product?   NO.   It's hard to see the harm done to a gay couple if they are denied the wedding cake but there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it.   

I can't see any justification, religious or otherwise for denying full access to goods and services to black people.   Also hard to see any justification for a gay business owner to deny full access to goods and services to well, anybody.   Religious discrimination?   Not seeing it.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 13, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


*Actually the Colorado law was tested against the bakers 1st Amendment protections and the court refused to overturn the law but rather sided with the Baker because of prejudicial actions of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.




			The Colorado law requires everyone to condone everyone else's behaviors.
		
Click to expand...

The law is specific and does not even address behavior.  The baker business is to supply wedding cakes, not to make judgement on his customers.  

The following is from the Colorado Dept of Regulatory Services:

Prohibited discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation must be based on certain protected classes and include these adverse actions: denial of service, terms and conditions, unequal treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation.

Protected classes for places of public accommodation are: Race, Color, Disability, Sex, Sexual Orientation (including transgender status), National Origin/Ancestry, Creed, Marital Status and Retaliation

The way I look at it is the merchant can plead his case and seek relief but it there is no law the gay couple cannot.  They can be denied food, shelter, and services that should be available to all because of their real or perceive homosexuality.   

Treatment based on perceived membership in a certain group or category, in a way that is worse than the way other people are usually treated is just plain wrong and most Americans support this belief.  Anti-discrimination laws help prevent the unfair treatment this gay couple received.  

People today don't want to go back to the days when a merchant was free to say, "We don't serve your kind of people". *


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 13, 2018)

task0778 said:


> " Personal religious beliefs about not selling to gay people = exception granted."
> 
> I wouldn't go that far, not in all cases.   I might grant an exception to selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, but any other product?   NO.   It's hard to see the harm done to a gay couple if they are denied the wedding cake but there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it.



How about anniversary cakes?

Cupcakes for a bridal shower?

How about a cake for a baby shower for a same-sex set of parents expecting a child?




task0778 said:


> I can't see any justification, religious or otherwise for denying full access to goods and services to black people.   Also hard to see any justification for a gay business owner to deny full access to goods and services to well, anybody.   Religious discrimination?   Not seeing it.



It doesn't matter if you see it or not.  The owners of Piggie Park Restaurants claimed it was against their religion to  serve black people.  Bob Jones University (a private university) claimed racial discrimination was against their religion.  Then there were Muslim taxi drivers in Minnesota that claimed servicing people with service dogs violated their religion.

Why are the personal religious views of bakers more important than those that want to discriminate against blanks, interracial couples, and dog owners more important?


And why should a gay shop owner be subject to unequal treatment under the law when a baker can refuse them service but the gay shop owner cannot refuse a customer for their religious views?


>>>>


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2018)

task0778 said:


> It's hard to see the harm done to a gay couple if they are denied the wedding cake but there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it.


You mean "when" there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it? Suppose there aren't, what then? Harmful discrimination, correct? So this supposed distinction demands gay purchasers geographically test the area for retailers offering fresh wedding cake to all comers before going shopping. An additional burden. And having to advertise that you discriminate on the basis of sexual preference doesn't seem to fit the bill either.


----------



## task0778 (Jun 13, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > " Personal religious beliefs about not selling to gay people = exception granted."
> ...



I doubt if anyone would win their case for an exemption to PA laws based on religious views against black people.   Nor do I think Muslim taxi drivers or anyone else is going to get an exemption for servicing people with service dogs.   They can ask, but I don't think they're going to get it.   You're going to have to make quite an argument to convince most people, including a judge that you should be allowed to discriminate against blacks, interracial couples, and dog owners for religious reasons.  I'd like to see a link if any of those cases you described were successful.

Ditto for a gay business owner, what grounds would his religious objection be based on?   They do it to us so we'll do it to them doesn't cut it IMHO.   

This is all my personal view, okay?   If the SCOTUS throws it back to the states and says okay guys it's up to you to formulate your own rules about PA laws and the enforcement thereof as long as all parties are fairly and impartially treated, I'm cool with that.  If the state says look gay people, there's a freakin' bakery just down the effing street that'll bake your cake for you, so no harm no foul.   Or if they say to the baker you gotta bake the effing cake but you don't have to decorate it, I'm good with that too.   But what I'm not good with is a couple of activists who deliberately search out somebody to attack for their religious views and persecute them for it.   I'm just not okay with PA laws totallly trumping freedom of religion and expression.


----------



## task0778 (Jun 13, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > It's hard to see the harm done to a gay couple if they are denied the wedding cake but there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it.
> ...



Test the area?  Bullshit, are you trying to tell me these guys didn't deliberately target the one Christina baker they KNEW would turn them down for a same-sex wedding cake?  It was purely a coincidence that they just happened to walk into that one bakery?   They weren't testing for who would do it, they were testing for who wouldn't, and that's who they went to.   And that's bullshit.   Don't be screaming about your civil rights when you created the problem yourself.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2018)

task0778 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


Evidence?

eta: not to mention, you failed to address the actual question.


----------



## task0778 (Jun 13, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



Of what?   You can google bakeries in Denver and see for yourself how many there are.   They're all over the place, so are you trying to tell me it was pure happenstance that they walked into the only one that was run by a Christian baker who would deny them their wedding cake?   Bullshit.   If you want to believe it was all totally innocent, fine by me.  I'm done here.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2018)

task0778 said:


> so are you trying to tell me it was pure happenstance that *they walked into* *the only one that was run by a Christian baker who would deny them their wedding cake*?


Obviously not. I have no idea and remain thoroughly disinterested, but I see your evidence for *that claim* as well is notably absent. I can't help thinking one should try very hard to stick to backing such claims immediately with verifiable (i.e. unfalsifiable) evidence whenever discussing legal stuff. It's not like "Calls for speculation" has gone lacking as an objection in TV courtroom drama. Why should scientific method not inform legal argument and vice-versa?


----------



## WEATHER53 (Jun 13, 2018)

Perpetually offended attention whores
Go to the next damn store and get your pretend wedding cake baked


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 13, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Republicans fought a war to stop Democrats' forced labor.

They stopped them once, they can stop them again.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 13, 2018)

WEATHER53 said:


> Perpetually offended attention whores
> Go to the next damn store and get your pretend wedding cake baked


The homos don't NEED to get married.
The homos don't NEED a wedding cake.
The homos don't NEED that particular baker to bake them a cake.
They WANT him to.

I WANT bacon on my falafel from that falafel maker.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 13, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


I'm sorry that Pop23 wasn't very polite towards you. But the reality is that 2 guys could get married for purely financial reasons and simply play act. It is kinda like the movie _*Some Like It Hot*_.  Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon were pretending to be women but in fact were not Transsexuals, gay, or transvestites in the true sense of the word. They were doing what they were doing to get out of town... The rest made for a very funny movie.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 13, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > " Personal religious beliefs about not selling to gay people = exception granted."
> ...


*Under the Colorado Public Accommodations law, the sex of the person being discriminated against is irrelevant as is the Sexual Orientation of the owner of the accommodation.  A gay baker discriminating against a straight couple wanting a wedding is a violation of the law the same as if the baker was straight and the couple were gay.*

Public Accommodations Discrimination | Department of Regulatory Agencies


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 13, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *Under the Colorado Public Accommodations law, the sex of the person being discriminated against is irrelevant as is the Sexual Orientation of the owner of the accommodation.  A gay baker discriminating against a straight couple wanting a wedding is a violation of the law the same as if the baker was straight and the couple were gay.*
> 
> Public Accommodations Discrimination | Department of Regulatory Agencies




Never said any different.


.>>>>


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> the reality is that 2 guys could get married for purely financial reasons and simply play act.


The operative word being "could" not "would", only..


LittleNipper said:


> kinda like the movie


is also like for the purpose of professionally producing some fictional portrayal of reality, also


LittleNipper said:


> to get out of town...


And, agreed, it's: 


LittleNipper said:


> a very funny movie.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> > Perpetually offended attention whores
> ...


9 out of 10 haters agree, haters hating together in public is simply hilarious!


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 13, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > WEATHER53 said:
> ...


Those were the same poll numbers Hillary had. They turned out to be pretty funny.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 13, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



Dimwit, it’s ok, people have a RIGHT to express opinion. Even those who’s opinion is different than yours. 

They can celebrate for what ever damn reason they want shit for brains. 

And if they wish a same sex wedding cake to do so.......

He AIN’T selling

Got it fuck nuts?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 13, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



G-Nuts is under the false impression that same sex means same sex, but only if gay. 

Problem is, it does not. 

PERIOD


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 13, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > the reality is that 2 guys could get married for purely financial reasons and simply play act.
> ...



Could/would/can are the operative words you dimwit


----------



## task0778 (Jun 13, 2018)

Flopper said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...



The law might read that way, but I think the enforcement of that law might not be the same between one case and the other.   Their civil rights commission will more than likely be a little less forthcoming about their opinions on the matter, but in some places there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment.   Colorado appears to be one of those places.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 14, 2018)

task0778 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


*I use to live there and have never noticed that.  Most people in Colorado seem to be pretty laid back, not terrible liberal or conservative but there are of course some real extremist on both sides.   I was a little surprised that Colorado is among the 20 states that have public accommodations laws that outlaws sexual orientation discrimination.

Incidentally, there are no state civil rights enforcement police.   If you have a complain you file in 30 to 60 days with the state.  If it's like civil rights complains in education, the DOE tries do some arbitration so it doesn't end up in court.  However, I think this gay couple and baker had no intent other than going to court.*


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Actually if the Colorado law is tested against the bakers 1st Amendment protections & fails, it no longer is Colorado law. We understand how the USSC decisions are binding below, yes? No state may have a law that violates someone's Constitutional protections. The Court in this case broadly hinted that Colorado has quite likely violated the baker's 1st Amendment protections. The Court ordered Colorado to "fix your law or else".



sil, all they said was that they had to take his religion into account.  

Easy way around that. 

"Mr. Baker, do you sell cakes to women who aren't virgins on their wedding nights?"

"Do you sell cakes towomen wearing pants?" 

"Do you sell cakes to women wearing Jewelry and Braids?" 

"Do you sell cakes to men with Tattoos? 

Oh, wait, you sell to people who do all these things, even though the Bible says they are wrong?  You must not be as committed as you claim you are.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2018)

task0778 said:


> The law might read that way, but I think the enforcement of that law might not be the same between one case and the other. Their civil rights commission will more than likely be a little less forthcoming about their opinions on the matter, but in some places there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment. Colorado appears to be one of those places.



Uh, guy, the only anti-Christian sentiment is "Sick of you trying to impose your stupidity on the rest of us."


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 14, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > The law might read that way, but I think the enforcement of that law might not be the same between one case and the other. Their civil rights commission will more than likely be a little less forthcoming about their opinions on the matter, but in some places there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment. Colorado appears to be one of those places.
> ...



And that is what the board did. Case thrown out.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Dimwit, it’s ok, people have a RIGHT to express opinion. Even those who’s opinion is different than yours.


Nah, really, Genius? Even lil ole me? Who'd a thunk it?


Pop23 said:


> They can celebrate for what ever damn reason they want shit for brains.


Sure, but why _*would*_ anyone want shit for brains?


Pop23 said:


> G-Nuts is under the false impression that same sex means same sex, but only if gay.


Mr-Know-It-All remains under the false impression that, practically speaking, and at least here in the U.S., same sex doesn't mean gay.
Put another way: Genius here ,.. simply can't wrap his massive head around the concept that, though possible of course, and aside from his inability to provide a single, verifiable example thus far, the statistical probability of any couple here in the U.S.actually celebrating their decision to formally, publicly, and legally unite (marry) for reasons other than sex and romantic attraction to one another remains so vanishingly small as to render the entire line of argument feeble at best; desperate, ridiculous, way out of touch, and thoroughly ignorable in any case. Oh well. Poor guy.... Sure must suck to be him!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2018)

task0778 said:


> in some places there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment. Colorado appears to be one of those places.


Not just Colorado nor Christian by a long shot... but you do appear to cry about it far more than any other.


----------



## Taz (Jun 14, 2018)

So SCOTUS ruled that gay cakes exist and people don't have to bake them. Did they provide a recipe on how to make a cake gay?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 14, 2018)

Taz said:


> So SCOTUS ruled that gay cakes exist and people don't have to bake them. Did they provide a recipe on how to make a cake gay?




No that's not what the decision was.  The SCOTUS punted on the main question and delivered a ruling based on hostile acts of the Commission.


.>>>>


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 14, 2018)

Taz said:


> So SCOTUS ruled that gay cakes exist and people don't have to bake them. Did they provide a recipe on how to make a cake gay?



Lots of fudge


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 14, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Dimwit, it’s ok, people have a RIGHT to express opinion. Even those who’s opinion is different than yours.
> ...



1. Of course you have a right to express an opinion, and it is my right to point out how wrong your opinion is. Even more so, it is equally the right of Heterosexual same sex couples to Marry as it is Homosexual same sex couples. That however is FACT and not opinion.

2. Still trying the "it's never happened" that a heterosexual same sex couple has never married gambit? Then he tries to legitimize something about a same sex heterosexual not celebrating the union because this union isn't predicated on romantic attraction?

Huh, G-Nuts has obviously not read the law. Where in the law (hows this for being secular G-Nuts?) is a romantic attraction a qualification for Marriage? And while you are at it, give us that link to the State Statute that tests the couple for Romantic attraction?

Are you seriously saying that Marriage is never and has never been solely between individuals uniting for financial benefit? Are you really that stupid? Marrying for Money or Power is as old as the institution itself, and yes, most of those have celebrated the union with a party. The institution may have changed, but the fact that Gold-diggers still exist has not.

And I would remind G-Nuts, that their is no less expensive way to convey property or money than a $50 marriage licence. Or a dying widowed Man who has a pension with survivors benefit? Marry your buddy without a pension, and he will live a better life because he simply signed a piece of paper.

Does it happen, neither G-Nuts or Pop23 could actually know now can we? Check out your marriage license applications. There is no line on them referencing sexuality now is there.

You want to also question why a same sex heterosexual couple would want to celebrate such a union. Well, I suppose if I were the recipient of the Property or the Pension, SURE AS SHIT I'D WANT TO THROW A PARTY!

And Wedding Cake? You mean that symbol that historically was broken over the head of the Bride and Groom to ensure fertility? Seems every bit as  appropriate at a same sex hetero Marriage as it does a same sex homosexual Marriage, wouldn't you agree?

Then there is the point that G-Nuts questions the reasoning that a Heterosexual same sex couple would want to Marry in the first place? Those that question the reasoning a Homosexual couple would even want to Marry were called Homophobes. What kind of Phobe are you G-Nuts? Must be some kind, right?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 14, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > The law might read that way, but I think the enforcement of that law might not be the same between one case and the other. Their civil rights commission will more than likely be a little less forthcoming about their opinions on the matter, but in some places there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment. Colorado appears to be one of those places.
> ...



lol, you forget this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise"


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 14, 2018)

] 





JoeB131 said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > The law might read that way, but I think the enforcement of that law might not be the same between one case and the other. Their civil rights commission will more than likely be a little less forthcoming about their opinions on the matter, but in some places there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment. Colorado appears to be one of those places.
> ...





> "lol, you forget this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise"



Key here is that Joe & company believe that the clause doesn't apply in the marketplace.  They believe that the free exercise of religion stops at the marketplace.  The argument will be discrimination.  It would have teeth if it was about racial discrimination or gender, things that are innate.  But "gender fluid" lifestyles will find no traction firm enough to push up against a Christian's fears of going to Hell forever for promoting another lifestyle that is an abomination to his God.

They tried to find traction in Hively v Ivy Tech 2016 but the Court accused them of trying to "bootstrap" behaviors onto the word "gender" in the Civil Rights Act.  This accusation will come again and again until finally the false premise and wrongfulness of previous court findings based on false-innateness of LGBT will finally be exposed.  The sooner the better too because what a rat's nest that is going to be to unravel.  And hello Justices if you're reading here....LGBT is not the ONLY repugnant lifestyle that will clamor for rights in the future based on today's wrong findings.  Have you heard of polygamy?  Yeah, thought you might have....

They'd better stop this shit cold in its tracks in Dumont v Lyons because Obergefell from which it attempts to derive its arguments is a decision that mark my words (and I swear on Scalia's grave) MUST be overturned to preserve the integrity of American due process.  It may be that another Obergefell could come along and be tried properly.  But Obergefell was not and it is a fiendish erosion of American's trust in its judicial system.  More properly put, it was a direct blow to civil unrest: the type that can cause upheavals that end countries.  That interview Ginsburg did just weeks before Obergefell was a kick in the crotch to the Public's view of the Judicial as impartial.  That's a dangerous perception in a country that relies on the image at least of democracy and fairness.


----------



## dblack (Jun 14, 2018)

Silhouette - re: the 'innate' business. Are you in favor of removing all the protected classes that aren't based on innate traits? (religion, citizenship, veteran status, gender etc... )


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 14, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> ]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The reality is that everyone has the right to be judged by those with an open mind. I wonder how this will be applied to future cases. Does this open the door to searching the Board Members social media accounts to see if those that sit in judgement are free of bias?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 14, 2018)

dblack said:


> Silhouette - re: the 'innate' business. Are you in favor of removing all the protected classes that aren't based on innate traits? (religion, citizenship, veteran status, gender etc... )



Being the devils advocate here.

There is only one of those on your list that isn't verifiable by either scientific test or documentation, and that one is protected by the Constitution.


----------



## dblack (Jun 14, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette - re: the 'innate' business. Are you in favor of removing all the protected classes that aren't based on innate traits? (religion, citizenship, veteran status, gender etc... )
> ...



Yeah. I'm not clear on the point of all the innate/immutable/whatever excuses. As far as religion goes, it's not protected from discrimination by other citizens. It's protected from preferential legislation. This is the classic liberal inversion of applying Constitutional limitation to citizens. It's not supposed to work that way. The Constitution is rules for government to follow. Not the rest of us.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 14, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> . Are you in favor of removing all the protected classes that aren't based on innate traits? (religion, citizenship, veteran status, gender etc... )
> .


I answered the question before.  If race or gender are discriminated against, there is nothing a person can do about the very final and immutable way they were born.  In the gender-fluid lifestyle camp however, it is behavioral and people cannot be forced to condone or promote a behavior they find wholly repugnant to their value system.  That would be the state siding with one ideology over another.  And the Court just warned Colorado about that.

I would not be in favor of removing any class; only establishing a logical means by which discrimination can be tested regarding the different classes.  Innate cannot be helped so it is the purest of protected forms.  Behavioral can be helped; but we have established that religious behavior has protections while mere lifestyles do not.  I'm unware of a God that LGBT prays to or some unifying faith; although it can be argued they function as a semi-fluid cult that welcomes & even evangelizes (see my signature) initiates but despises defectors.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 14, 2018)

dblack said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Lets face reality in most of this. These are more likely to divide us than to unite us. Political footballs


----------



## dblack (Jun 14, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Of course. The entire concept of PA laws is bad medicine. As you suggested, the impetus for these laws is understandable, particularly with the legacy of slavery. But the concept is flawed at its core and it's time to admit that.


----------



## dblack (Jun 14, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> but we have established that religious behavior has protections while mere lifestyles do not.



Took me awhile surfing through your word salad - but there's bullshit core of it, right there. The First Amendment does not require anything from, not impose any restrictions on, non-governmental entities. It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. Nothing about discrimination by other citizens or business.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 14, 2018)

dblack said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Bad law often ends poorly. The concept is flawed, in many of these as they rely on Boards who's make up are purely political. I actually think the SCOTUS ruling brought that to light. We all have a right to fair trial of our peers. These Boards will begin to be scrutinized and their members past opinions will be an integral part of this process from now on. It does not bode well for their existence in the first place


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 14, 2018)

dblack said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > but we have established that religious behavior has protections while mere lifestyles do not.
> ...



Let me see if I'm reading you right. And please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Government is prohibited in denying the right of the citizen from freely excising their religious beliefs. Publicly, Privately or in Commerce.

Am I reading you correctly?


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 14, 2018)

dblack said:


> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. Nothing about discrimination by other citizens or business.



But the USSC did just say something about state-neutrality on questions of promoting or favoring one ideology over another.  See my signature for details.


----------



## dblack (Jun 14, 2018)

Pop23 said:


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



That's how I read it, yes.


----------



## dblack (Jun 14, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. Nothing about discrimination by other citizens or business.
> ...



The USSC also endorsed ACA's individual mandate, along with, historically, many other bad decisions.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 14, 2018)

dblack said:


> [
> 
> 
> The USSC also endorsed ACA's individual mandate,* along with*, historically, *many other bad decisions*.


You mean like Obergefell?  Even you have to admit that one of the Justices publicly declaring her bias for gay marriage just weeks before the Hearing is disallowable.  That the Decision must be revisited therefore with Ginsburg recusing herself.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 14, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. Nothing about discrimination by other citizens or business.
> ...



Not to butt in, but I read your signature and my answer is, either both must be allowed, or neither.

We are making to many, non verifiable assumption in either case. There is no independent, scientific test that can independently verify one is either Christian or what Sexuality one is.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 14, 2018)

dblack said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Then the Board ruling itself is beyond the scope allowed in the 1st Amendment.


----------



## task0778 (Jun 14, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > in some places there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment. Colorado appears to be one of those places.
> ...



I just love personal attacks, it makes it so much easier to put somebody on Ignore.   Bye.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 14, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. Nothing about discrimination by other citizens or business.
> ...





Pop23 said:


> Not to butt in, but I read your signature and my answer is, either both must be allowed, or neither.
> 
> We are making to many, non verifiable assumption in either case. There is no independent, scientific test that can independently verify one is either Christian or what Sexuality one is.



Butt in all you like.  I do all the time.  We're less about having conversations with each other than with the topic. 

I agree.  It must be both or neither.  Which is why it's illegal for public schools to be removing any and all reference to faith ideologies while simultaneously forcing the children to associate deviant sex behaviors with a person's accomplishments as a required course.  The Court if it said nothing else, said that a state must remain neutral with respect to ideological lifestyles.  That is the opposite of what's going to happen in CA public schools this Fall unless someone steps in and puts a stop to it.


----------



## dblack (Jun 14, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > The USSC also endorsed ACA's individual mandate,* along with*, historically, *many other bad decisions*.
> ...



No. I mean the USSC is sometimes wrong, and later corrected.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 14, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


*I know a couple, two women in their 40's who both have kids and live together and plan to marry.  They certainly have a close relationship but I doubt they are homosexual, possible bisexual would be a better label.  There're a lot advantages to marriage over just living together such as: *

*Joint tax filings *
*Spouse inherits their partners estate. *
*Married partners are allowed to make important medical decisions for their spouses.  *
*Some employers provide family benefits exclusively to families. *
*Spouses can make final arrangements in case of death. *
*The divorce process helps to ensure a fair division of assets and resolution of custody disputes when a married couple separates.  *
*Married couples can apply for family rates for health insurance plans. *
*The government can't force married spouses to disclose confidential information privately discussed during a marriage. *
*Married spouses have visiting rights in jails, prisons, hospitals, and other places that provide visiting rights only to immediate family.*
*If the couple has kids, the marriage provides a more stable environment than just living together which is important when you're raising youngsters.*
*Regardless of sexual orientation of a couple, if they have a close permanent personal relationship, marriage is likely a better option than just living together.  
Marriage provides many benefits to same-sex couples*


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 14, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



ABSOLUTELY!

It's a practical solution for many, like these women, to complicated problems. And all for a price of roughly $50!

I've made the above case many times. And even if we change your preamble just slightly, making both of these women Heterosexual and not Bi-sexual, under the current law, these Marriages are legal.

Do yo agree?


----------



## Flopper (Jun 14, 2018)

dblack said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > but we have established that religious behavior has protections while mere lifestyles do not.
> ...


*The free exercise clause which you are quoting has not been interpreted consistently by the Supreme Court so there is plenty of room for debate.  The question to be answered is when does the actions of the state constitute, prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  When the state passed a law requiring employees to be available to work 7 days a week, the law clearly violated the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment.  

However, in the case of the Colorado baker, the question is does making a wedding cake for a gay wedding constitute a violation of his right of free exercise of his religion or does it just violate his personal beliefs and opinions.  That's a tough call for a court because the decision rests on exactly what the person's religion teaches and whether the baker's action would prohibit  exercising his religion.

As I understand the issue, the bakers religion forbids homosexual acts.  So does providing a wedding cake for a gay wedding facilitate a homosexual act or is it just incidental to act?     *


----------



## Flopper (Jun 14, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


*Sexual preference is irrelevant legally speaking.

Today there are many people of the same sex that marry.  They may be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual transsexual, or even asexual.   It just doesn't matter legally any more.  The only thing that is important is that the two people care for each other and want to share their lives.*


----------



## dblack (Jun 14, 2018)

Flopper said:


> However, in the case of the Colorado baker, the question is does making a wedding cake for a gay wedding constitute a violation of his right of free exercise of his religion or does it just violate his personal beliefs and opinions.  That's a tough call for a court because the decision rests on exactly what the person's religion teaches and whether the baker's action would prohibit  exercising his religion.



You misread. We were talking about whether religion should be a protected class. Silhouette claimed that the salient criteria for protected classes status was whether the trait in question is 'innate'. I pointed out that religion was also not, 'innate'. If sexual orientation should not be on the protected classes list because it isn't 'innate', then neither should religion.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2018)

task0778 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


"Personal"? Which are you, Colorado or all Christians?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 14, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > However, in the case of the Colorado baker, the question is does making a wedding cake for a gay wedding constitute a violation of his right of free exercise of his religion or does it just violate his personal beliefs and opinions.  That's a tough call for a court because the decision rests on exactly what the person's religion teaches and whether the baker's action would prohibit  exercising his religion.
> ...



Maybe, but there is a clear difference in this subset as well, that being generational discrimination. 

In the case of Religion, the Subject of the discrimination inherits decades and centuries of the bias. This is very similar to the bias to Race, Ethnicity, and Gender.

This is simply not the case with Sexuality. With these cases, they are more static and applies to only the subject.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 14, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



Colorado is a State, a land Mass, Christians are Groups of people. A personal attack is one made about a person, or associated with a group of people.

But you knew this. It's you're simpleton way of deflection.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 14, 2018)

Flopper said:


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


Does the getaway driver facilitate the bank robbery or is he just incidental?


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 14, 2018)

dblack said:


> You misread. We were talking about whether religion should be a protected class. Silhouette claimed that the salient criteria for protected classes status was whether the trait in question is 'innate'. I pointed out that religion was also not, 'innate'. If sexual orientation should not be on the protected classes list because it isn't 'innate', then neither should religion.


I gave you a list before.

Innate is the purest form of discrimination.  It is something that someone absolutely is born with and can never be changed and isn't fluid at all.  Sexual orientation is fluid, adopted after birth and is a lifestyle.  Religion when tested against race or gender cannot prevail.  So you cannot say "I won't bake you a cake because of something you were born as and cannot change even if your life depended on it."  Most religions I know of believe that God makes no mistakes in His creations. 

Lifestyles are adopted after birth and often habituated.  In LGBT's case they even advertise they are "fluid" (changeable) as in "gender fluid".  When LIFESTYLE comes up against religion, religion prevails because it actually has written protection in the Constitution whereas lifestyle does not.  Saying "I wont' bake you a cake because your lifestyle choice of "marriage" directly conflicts with my deeply held convictions about lifestyles" is kosher and allowed.


----------



## task0778 (Jun 14, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > You misread. We were talking about whether religion should be a protected class. Silhouette claimed that the salient criteria for protected classes status was whether the trait in question is 'innate'. I pointed out that religion was also not, 'innate'. If sexual orientation should not be on the protected classes list because it isn't 'innate', then neither should religion.
> ...



I am not aware that homosexuality has been definitively determined to be a choice rather than a genetic trait.   It may or may not be adopted, and therefore could be innate.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> A personal attack is one made about a person, or associated with a group of people.
> 
> But you knew this. It's you're simpleton way of deflection.


You mean like calling someone a Dimwit, Genius?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> lol, you forget this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise"



This isn't a congressional law...   it's a state one...  

Here's the thing, dummy.  What if an atheist baker who just hates gays didn't want to make a cake?  He wouldn't have a leg to stand on... and neither should Christians.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 14, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > lol, you forget this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise"
> ...



I would be on his side Junior. And yes, the Christian Baker HAS more than a leg to stand on, he has the Constitution, and believe it or not, Local and State Government are not allowed to Violate Constitutionally protected rights.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 14, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > A personal attack is one made about a person, or associated with a group of people.
> ...



Oh, I've never shied away from admitting I called you a dimwit.

Deal with IT and own up to IT when you do IT


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 14, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing, dummy.  What if an atheist baker who just hates gays didn't want to make a cake?  He wouldn't have a leg to stand on... and neither should Christians.


Well gay is a lifestyle so anyone is free to accept it or reject it.   Nobody can be forced to condone or promote behaviors.

Race or gender is another story.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2018)

> *Faith and Reason*
> *Is faith a virtue? Nah...*
> {snip}
> What about this insane idea that somehow we live in a hyper-rational society which is already too burdened by the triumph of reason? If we are, it is hard to distinguish such society from a hyper-irrational one dominated by faith. This conceit that too much reason is bad is a leftover from the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment, the so-called “age of reason” (which lasted much too briefly, and during which time reason was heard, but hardly dominated human affairs). If one wants to have a good measure of how little reason plays into our society, one only has to listen for a day to what most of our politicians say, or to what most of our journalists write, not to mention of course the often surprisingly frightening experience of simply overhearing people’s conversations on the subway or at work.


...or internet political forums, especially all those emanating from the U.S.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 14, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> > *Faith and Reason*
> > *Is faith a virtue? Nah...*
> > {snip}
> > What about this insane idea that somehow we live in a hyper-rational society which is already too burdened by the triumph of reason? If we are, it is hard to distinguish such society from a hyper-irrational one dominated by faith. This conceit that too much reason is bad is a leftover from the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment, the so-called “age of reason” (which lasted much too briefly, and during which time reason was heard, but hardly dominated human affairs). If one wants to have a good measure of how little reason plays into our society, one only has to listen for a day to what most of our politicians say, or to what most of our journalists write, not to mention of course the often surprisingly frightening experience of simply overhearing people’s conversations on the subway or at work.
> ...


America First. It's a whole new concept.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Oh, I've never shied away from admitting I called you a dimwit.


Oh, you poor victim!... even though, in reality, no one ever asked you to...


Aba Incieni said:


> America First. It's a whole new concept.


Hardly.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 14, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I've never shied away from admitting I called you a dimwit.
> ...


Then why haven't you heard of it before.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 14, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I've never shied away from admitting I called you a dimwit.
> ...



Go away, you’ve had nothing worthwhile to say for what? 80 years?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 15, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Because you both simply hate whole groups of people. Folks you don't know from Adam. In this instance, simply because they're attracted to their own sex instead of the opposite one. You and others here have made that abundantly clear. Bully for you.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 15, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> The Baker then has to decide if he provides something to the customer that he has never provided previous to June 16, 2015. Right or wrong, he opted not to.


Wrong. Read your own link.


> Prior to _Obergefell_, thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam already issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[3]


The law and norm already established in most the country. Like you, this baker had, and and continues to have, no such blissful ignorance excuse.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 15, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Key here is that Joe & company believe that the clause doesn't apply in the marketplace. They believe that the free exercise of religion stops at the marketplace. The argument will be discrimination. It would have teeth if it was about racial discrimination or gender, things that are innate. But "gender fluid" lifestyles will find no traction firm enough to push up against a Christian's fears of going to Hell forever for promoting another lifestyle that is an abomination to his God.



A few problems with this argument, buddy. 

The first is that religion should be an excuse to ignore contract and commerce law.

For instance, what if I said I wasn't going to pay my bank and credit card back because the bible says Usury is a sin.

_Exodus 22:24 (25)—If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest. 
Leviticus 25:36— Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee._

It's right there in the bible. Charging me interest on a loan is  violation of God's will. If I pay interest on a loan that you gave me, I'm totally at risk of going to Hell. 

Funny how the bible thumpers totally forget THIS is in the bible.

You could come up with all sorts of chaos if you replace established business law with whatever weird interpretation of the _*Big Book of Bronze Age Fairy Tales*_ you manage to pull out of your ass. 

The second problem with your argument is that there are a whole bunch of moral rules that we ignore now, that the Baker would have no problem baking a cake for.

Living with your fiance before marriage?  67% of couples who get married do.  But that's a big no-no in the Bible. 

I promise you, Mr. Bible Baker isn't asking that question, because he'd lose 67% of his business.  We could also talk about Brides who have braids or wear pants or men who have tattoos, which are considered sins in the bible.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 15, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> I would be on his side Junior. And yes, the Christian Baker HAS more than a leg to stand on, he has the Constitution, and believe it or not, Local and State Government are not allowed to Violate Constitutionally protected rights.



No rights are being violated. this is a commerce rule, not a rule on what you should believe.  You are totally free to keep hating on gay people if you want to, you just can't deny them service.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 15, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> _Exodus 22:24 (25)—If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest.
> Leviticus 25:36— Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee._
> 
> It's right there in the bible. Charging me interest on a loan is violation of God's will. If I pay interest on a loan that you gave me, I'm totally at risk of going to Hell.
> ...


Eggzzzzactly!

Yes, never mind the truly rich owners behind the big banks, insurance conglomerates, big oil, WalMart, Amazon, the MIC,... screwing everyone while doing their damnedest to destroy all life on this planet daily,... _somewhere, somehow, someone's still having FUN in the privacy of their own bedroom, I JUST KNOW IT!_


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Key here is that Joe & company believe that the clause doesn't apply in the marketplace. They believe that the free exercise of religion stops at the marketplace. The argument will be discrimination. It would have teeth if it was about racial discrimination or gender, things that are innate. But "gender fluid" lifestyles will find no traction firm enough to push up against a Christian's fears of going to Hell forever for promoting another lifestyle that is an abomination to his God.
> ...



Paying the credit card bill makes you the consumer, not the bank, dimwit.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > I would be on his side Junior. And yes, the Christian Baker HAS more than a leg to stand on, he has the Constitution, and believe it or not, Local and State Government are not allowed to Violate Constitutionally protected rights.
> ...



His right is being violated.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > The Baker then has to decide if he provides something to the customer that he has never provided previous to June 16, 2015. Right or wrong, he opted not to.
> ...



Tsk tsk. 

The baker refused in 2012

Colorado legalized in 2015. 

You didn’t know this Einstein?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 15, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Paying the credit card bill makes you the consumer, not the bank, dimwit.


Duh!, still involved in the "sin", Genius!


Pop23 said:


> His right is being violated.


Because you say so? And who are you to say so again? Some gun nut still sporting that avatar of a guy who's advocated for gun control since the 70's. RRRrright, that clearly means you're the presumed expert of everything. Why don't you just go away until you've grown up enough to discuss serious issues amongst adults instead just trying to bully everyone you disagree with like a petulant child? Try backing up your assertions or buzz off, Archie Bunker. 


Pop23 said:


> The baker refused in 2012


Yes, your point: Petulant children think alike? Blissful ignorance is often forwarded as an excuse? No kidding, dimwit.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Paying the credit card bill makes you the consumer, not the bank, dimwit.
> ...



When I point out your obvious mistake, just say "Thank You". Otherwise it is you that express "Blissful ignorance" and act like a "petulant child".

Dimwit, it is the lender that is sinner, not the recipient when he pays. Re-read the quote.

Because I point out your stupidity and destroy your arguments does not make me a bully, it makes me the voice of reason.

If you disagree, then make an argument, even once, that is backed in reality and not disingenuous.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 15, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> No rights are being violated. this is a commerce rule, not a rule on what you should believe.  You are totally free to keep hating on gay people if you want to, you just can't deny them service.



You can deny them service when it comes to your faith & convictions because AGAIN, nobody can be forced to condone or promote BEHAVIORS or ideologies they find spiritually repugnant.

What gays are asking Christian bakers to do by participating in their "weddings" is the spiritual equivalent of asking Christians to take a shit on the altar during the middle of mass. And actually that isn't quite accurate because taking the shit would be a venial sin, still forgivable.

It's too bad you folks believed your own legally unworkable false premise because if we were talking about a static thing like race or gender, this would be a different conversation

And newsflash:  Christians follow the New Testament.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > No rights are being violated. this is a commerce rule, not a rule on what you should believe.  You are totally free to keep hating on gay people if you want to, you just can't deny them service.
> ...



This, in a way, reminds me of smoking bans. The Owner didn't care and thought he had a right to allow smoking, the smoker thought he had a right because it was a legal product that the Owner was OK with him enjoying with his meal, but in the end, the right of the customer that thought his "right" to clean air, was superior to the "right" of the Owner.

The courts obviously found one "right" Health, superior to another "right" Property.

In this case, the "right" to not burn in eternal flames should be superior to a "fertility symbol" being supplied to a same sex couple.


----------



## dblack (Jun 15, 2018)

Pop23 said:


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



Once we concede to play this game, to grant government the power to decide what is 'reasonable' discrimination and what isn't, we've lost. Splitting hairs over the various "ranks" of discrimination, and trying to sort out what trumps what, is just pathetic.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

dblack said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



I completely agree, don't get me wrong, but we still have to deal with what we have today, and that is what right is superior to another. That simply creates chaos and political footballs.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 15, 2018)

dblack said:


> Once we concede to play this game, to grant government the power to decide what is 'reasonable' discrimination and what isn't, we've lost. Splitting hairs over the various "ranks" of discrimination, and trying to sort out what trumps what, is just pathetic.



Which is EXACTLY why I said YEARS ago that using the false premise of "behavior = race" was going to become an unworkable legal nightmare.  Why do JUST LGBT lifestyles have special status while other repugnant behaviors like polygamy and other "orientations" of all types and descriptions remain in the legal shadows?  They too will have their day in court where "behaviors are elevated above majority rule".....

The penal system in the country will unravel.  As it already is starting to.  Obergefell was a nightmare for this and many other reasons.  Scalia's "sudden death" in Texas has roots in utter despair and horror at what happened in his Court.  I have a feeling he left a note too.  But we'll never see it because if we did...


----------



## dblack (Jun 15, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Once we concede to play this game, to grant government the power to decide what is 'reasonable' discrimination and what isn't, we've lost. Splitting hairs over the various "ranks" of discrimination, and trying to sort out what trumps what, is just pathetic.
> ...


*wooosh*


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 15, 2018)

Sorry dblack.  It not only didn't go over my head, I caught it mid-flight and sent it right back over the top of your head.  You obviously don't want to discuss what it means to be inequal in application of law from one lifestyle to another.  But it will be discussed in future lawsuits.  So why not discuss it now?


----------



## dblack (Jun 15, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Sorry dblack.  It not only didn't go over my head, I caught it mid-flight and sent it right back over the top of your head.  You obviously don't want to discuss what it means to be inequal in application of law from one lifestyle to another.  But it will be discussed in future lawsuits.  So why not discuss it now?



Because I'm not interested in using government to divvy up privilege in society. I think it's a mistake. I think it's wrong. I'm not interested in trying to use it to benefit myself, or push my values on others.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 15, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Sorry dblack.  It not only didn't go over my head, I caught it mid-flight and sent it right back over the top of your head.  You obviously don't want to discuss what it means to be inequal in application of law from one lifestyle to another.  But it will be discussed in future lawsuits.  So why not discuss it now?





dblack said:


> Because I'm not interested in using government to divvy up privilege in society. I think it's a mistake. I think it's wrong. I'm not interested in trying to use it to benefit myself, or push my values on others.


Then we are in exact agreement when it comes to lifestyles and ideologies.  Do you believe for instance that LGBT lifestylists gets a special elevation from government while polygamists do not?  That clearly violates the spirit of the 14th Amendment at its core.  Just the favorites of the USSC in 2015 get to marry outside one man and one woman?  The word "two" is sacred in marriage but the words "both mother and father" are not?  Who subjectively decided that for society?  Oh, that's right, five liberal lawyers in DC decided that mothers and fathers are no longer relevant in a married family.  Talk about divvying up privilege!  

One of those Justices openly declared her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

dblack said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry dblack.  It not only didn't go over my head, I caught it mid-flight and sent it right back over the top of your head.  You obviously don't want to discuss what it means to be inequal in application of law from one lifestyle to another.  But it will be discussed in future lawsuits.  So why not discuss it now?
> ...



The good news Dblack, is that Obergfell might just accomplish what you wish. It was poorly thought out and implemented.  It opens the door for litigation that could eventually get Government out of Marriage.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 15, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> The good news Dblack, is that Obergfell might just accomplish what you wish. It was poorly thought out and implemented.  It opens the door for litigation that could eventually get Government out of Marriage.



I'd go a step further and say that Obergefell already accomplished that.  Polygamists and any other combination that sees fit may now walk into their County courthouse and demand a marriage license based on Obergefell.  Their case would be won so quickly it would make your head spin.  Because the only opposing argument to polygamy is "it would be bad for kids involved".  And at that precise moment in time the court would admit that kids' counsel should've been briefing the courts at every step of the gay marriage crusade because of the radical change that Obergefell forces them to endure: a contract banishing them for life from the hope of ever having either a mother or father.

Too embarrassing to face that mistake in due process, the Courts would quickly grant polygamists etc. their win and children's interests in marriage would once again get the shove under the carpet.  Which is Machiavellian because children are the most important elements of the nuclear family.  Their formative environment is the seed of society's formative environment into the future. They should've been briefing all along on ANY proposed revision of the contract Obergefell itself said/admitted they share benefits to.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > The good news Dblack, is that Obergfell might just accomplish what you wish. It was poorly thought out and implemented.  It opens the door for litigation that could eventually get Government out of Marriage.
> ...



Agree entirely. I would ask those that disagree, what compelling State interest, based on Obergfell, coult the State use to defend?

Answer:  NONE

That ship has sailed

And it's not like we didn't warn about this earlier.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 15, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> The good news Dblack, is that Obergfell might just accomplish what you wish. It was poorly thought out and implemented.  It opens the door for litigation that could eventually get Government out of Marriage.



I'd go a step further and say that Obergefell already accomplished that.  Polygamists and any other combination that sees fit may now walk into their County courthouse and demand a marriage license based on Obergefell.  Their case would be won so quickly it would make your head spin.  Because the only opposing argument to polygamy is "it would be bad for kids involved".  And at that precise moment in time the court would admit that kids' counsel should've been briefing the courts at every step of the gay marriage crusade because of the radical change that Obergefell forces them to endure: a contract banishing them for life from the hope of ever having either a mother or father.

Too embarrassing to face that mistake in due process, the Courts would quickly grant polygamists their win and children's interests in marriage would once again get the shove under the carpet.  Which is Machiavellian because children are the most important elements of the nuclear family.  Their formative environment is the seed of society's formative environment into the future.



Pop23 said:


> Agree entirely. I would ask those that disagree, what compelling State interest, based on Obergfell, coult the State use to defend?
> 
> Answer:  NONE
> 
> ...



All that's needed is for polygamists or any other child-hostile weirdo-combination to walk into a courthouse anywhere in the US and demand marriage.  I say we make that happen to drive the point home.  Like yesterday.  Every time I brought up polygamy pre-Obergefell, the LGBT nazis here on the board kept saying "that would be terrible for the children!!"  Meanwhile they pushed on to revise the contract to systematically-deprive "the poor children!!" of either a mother or father for life.

Imagine being a boy and your only "father" role model you get from the marriage contract is a nasty mannish dyke you accidentally walk in on wearing a strap-on dildo with his mom (who for some reason is sexually attracted to those mannish trappings)?  You think that a boy like that isn't going to grow up fucked up in the head?  Oh, and "Happy Father's Day" to all the kids bound by a lesbian-marriage contract for life....


----------



## dblack (Jun 15, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> The good news Dblack, is that Obergfell might just accomplish what you wish. It was poorly thought out and implemented.  It opens the door for litigation that could eventually get Government out of Marriage.



That's not my 'wish'. Ideally, yes, government shouldn't be dictating terms on marriage. But that's not my interest in these discrimination threads. My wish is that we come to recognize that our approach to civil rights legislation has some serious flaws (eg 'protected classes', 'public accommodations'), and, at this point, is causing more problems than it solves.

I realize most people here accept the premise: Government is the 'decider' in all things. And that it all boils down to manipulating government to serve your own ends. It's that premise that I'm fighting against. Using the government to score perks for 'your side' might feel like a win, but it's not. It's simply legitimizing that system that keeps us all at each others throats.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > The good news Dblack, is that Obergfell might just accomplish what you wish. It was poorly thought out and implemented.  It opens the door for litigation that could eventually get Government out of Marriage.
> ...



Consider this:

A man walks into the courthouse with 4 women and requests a marriage licence for him and the 4 women. He is denied for the reason that the State does not want to sanction a relationship that is bad for the children that might be produced in this relationship. Fair enough, right?

They leave and 5 heterosexual males walk in and want the same. The argument the State has is????

Yep, that would do it.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 15, 2018)

dblack said:


> That's not my 'wish'. Ideally, yes, government shouldn't be dictating terms on marriage. But that's not my interest in these discrimination threads. My wish is that we come to recognize that our approach to civil rights legislation has some serious flaws (eg 'protected classes', 'public accommodations'), and, at this point, is causing more problems than it solves.
> 
> I realize most people here accept the premise: Government is the 'decider' in all things. And that it all boils down to manipulating government to serve your owns ends. It's that premise that I'm fighting against. Using the government to score perks for 'your side' might feel like a win, but it's not. It's simply legitimizing that system that keeps us all at each others throats.


So dblack, how do you feel about polygamy-marriage?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

dblack said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > The good news Dblack, is that Obergfell might just accomplish what you wish. It was poorly thought out and implemented.  It opens the door for litigation that could eventually get Government out of Marriage.
> ...



We agree, but to get this changed, in Marriage first, then across the board, the danger has to be EXPLICIT, or it will be ignored. This could be what tips that scale in the right direction. We agree, but our methods are simply different.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 15, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Consider this:
> 
> A man walks into the courthouse with 4 women and requests a marriage licence for him and the 4 women. He is denied for the reason that the State does not want to sanction a relationship that is bad for the children that might be produced in this relationship. Fair enough, right?
> 
> ...



I appreciate your example and your logical reasoning.  Very much.  However, it isn't "fair enough" and I've been arguing that for some time.  A child's interest in the marriage contract was never taken into consideration in gay marriage.  That mistake shouldn't be "fair enough" in future miscarriages of justice on children's behalf re: their interests in their benefits from the marriage contract. And as to "explicit" danger to children, what could be more of a psychological danger to a boy than being told "there's a contract that extinguishes any hope you have of a father in your life".

Other than that, yes, I see your example and how the State has ZERO argument once the mistake is set in stone (Obergefell).


----------



## dblack (Jun 15, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > That's not my 'wish'. Ideally, yes, government shouldn't be dictating terms on marriage. But that's not my interest in these discrimination threads. My wish is that we come to recognize that our approach to civil rights legislation has some serious flaws (eg 'protected classes', 'public accommodations'), and, at this point, is causing more problems than it solves.
> ...



I don't.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 15, 2018)

DODGE ^^


----------



## dblack (Jun 15, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No, I don't agree.


----------



## dblack (Jun 15, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> DODGE ^^



No, it's not. Unlike you, i'm not preoccupied with trying to tell other people how to live. I don't give one rat's ass how other people form families. That's your agenda, not mine.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

dblack said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You will get your way anyway, but it will happen through my example.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 15, 2018)

dblack said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > DODGE ^^
> ...


So then you are absolutely and totally for polygamy marriage.  Thanks for answering the question.  And as I have said, using the 14th Amendment as a guideline, polygamy marriage IS ALREADY LEGAL in all 50 states.

Let me repeat that:  Obergefell + The equality-mandate of the 14th Amendment = any lifestyle that so chooses may marry and involve children in that marriage.  It cannot be any other way without rewriting federal laws on "equal rights and privileges".  What makes gay marriage objectively superior to any other non man/woman marriage?  Nothing.  It was a subjective elevation by 5 unelected lawyers in DC.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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



The same Government that created this paradox will need to attempt to, somehow fix it. But with any paradox, no solution will fix the unfixable. They will need to drop the institution entirely, or do exactly as the law demands, allow everyone and anyone to enter it, regardless of number of participants, or how closely related.

Which do you think this Government would do?

I think they simply walk away from the institution.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

dblack said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > So then you are absolutely and totally for polygamy marriage.  Thanks for answering the question.
> ...



You do not understand the entire concept do you? Being someone who wants to marry multiple partners is not necessarily doing so as might have been common in the days of Utah.

Your statement was ignorant and actually Bigoted.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 15, 2018)

^^ Pop, I reported his post...





Pop23 said:


> *The same Government that created this paradox will need to attempt to, somehow fix it. But with any paradox, no solution will fix the unfixable. They will need to drop the institution entirely, or do exactly as the law demands, allow everyone and anyone to enter it, regardless of number of participants*, or how closely related.
> 
> Which do you think this Government would do?  I think they simply walk away from the institution.



Well, we are the government and that's why we should've stuck with Windsor's 56-reiterations that "the definition of marriage rests with the states".  Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?  That Obergefell relied on Windsor and found that marriage isn't the authority of the states is one of the biggest forms of judicial-gaslighting I've ever heard of.  No wonder Scalia called it "voodoo"..

And as to the paradox you mention, this is why Scalia "suddenly died" in Texas just after he lost his shit over Obergefell.  I for one would like to see any note he might have left.  But you know we never will...

WE decide if as a country we "walk away from defining marriage"..not five fucking unelected lawyers in DC.  (one of which openly declared her bias to the press just weeks before the Obergefell Hearing).


----------



## dblack (Jun 15, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> ^^ Pop, I reported his post....



Of course you did. That's the theme of the thread - using the rules to get one over on people you don't like.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

dblack said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > ^^ Pop, I reported his post....
> ...



I disagree, you took reality, that being that their is no rational basis to not allow polygamy to the extreme. And did so in a way to accuse a fellow citizen of being a hideous criminal.

Understand, neither I nor Sil created the "rules" that either will, or must lead to Polygamy (unless you can produce s rational legal basis that it cannot happen), but you chose to sidestep that critical step just because you think we are mean?

That in no way is rational.


----------



## dblack (Jun 15, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Understand, neither I nor Sil created the "rules" that either will, or must lead to Polygamy (unless you can produce s rational legal basis that it cannot happen), but you chose to sidestep that critical step just because you think we are mean?



I don't think you're 'mean'. I think you're hypocrites. You're the kind of "conservatives" who are all in on big, intrusive government when it's promoting your agenda. And then tilt 'libertarian' when it's not. I've been watching this dance for thirty years. You guys are a greater threat to freedom than the 'progressives' you're habitually whining about.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

dblack said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Understand, neither I nor Sil created the "rules" that either will, or must lead to Polygamy (unless you can produce s rational legal basis that it cannot happen), but you chose to sidestep that critical step just because you think we are mean?
> ...



HUH? Pointing out that Big Government screwed the pooch is somehow being in favor of Big Government?

Are you mental?


----------



## mdk (Jun 15, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Well, we are the government and that's why we should've stuck with Windsor's 56-reiterations that "the definition of marriage rests with the states". Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal? That Obergefell relied on Windsor and found that marriage isn't the authority of the states is one of the biggest forms of judicial-gaslighting I've ever heard of. No wonder Scalia called it "voodoo"..
> 
> And as to the paradox you mention, this is why Scalia "suddenly died" in Texas just after he lost his shit over Obergefell. I for one would like to see any note he might have left. But you know we never will...
> 
> WE decide if as a country we "walk away from defining marriage"..not five fucking unelected lawyers in DC. (one of which openly declared her bias to the press just weeks before the Obergefell Hearing).





Remember when you claimed Scalia committed suicide over Obergefell? I do.  

Did Obergefell Kill Justice Scalia?  Or What?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

Look dblack , Lets drill this down as to what Government did to us. I am going to use "Loving" and it's opening up Interracial Marriage and the arguments against it, and why the arguments were bogus, and "Obergfell" and why some arguments against it are not bogus.

1. "Loving" would lead to Polygamy.

Bogus, as marriage remained an institution in which it remained "one man and one woman, not too closely related" Thus still limiting the number to 2 because the children raised with in the relationship would have the stability of only having two parents and sex was implied by the limiting factor of "not too closely related". There is a rational legal basis for limiting the number to 2, and that they not be too closely related

Not Bogus: In Obergfell, the rational legal basis for limiting the number or that they "not be too closely related" lost this as same sex couples cannot have offspring, no matter how hard they try, or no matter how many participate. The argument that Marriage must be limited to a set number of participants fails. Then the argument is, we can't allow this because opposite sex multi partner units might want the same right. See the folly of the argument. You just denied a right, based on nothing more than that other unit can procreate? Isn't this the failed argument in Obergfell? What is the States Compelling Interest would their be in denial of this right>

2. "Loving" will lead to Incest. Those too closely related marrying

Bogus: See #1 

Not Bogus. In Obergfell, much like above, the rational legal basis, limiting Marriage to "One Man and One Woman, not too closely related" also lost the rational legal basis. Two same sex individuals cannot produce offspring, whether related to closely or not. But then the argument could be made that, because two opposite sex, closely related individuals can have children, we can deny the same sex couple. See the folly? It again is denying a right to one set based on the ability for another sets to have offspring. Again, the exact same failed argument in Obergfell.

Additionally, you need to come to grips with another reality. Marriage does not require sex to be a recognized union, nor Love, nor much else. Marriage is simply defined as what the couple wants it to be. And as it applies to Sexual Incest, it can still remain Illegal within a marriage as marriage is not predicated on Sex.

State sanctioned "Marriage" is, in actuality, a pretty sterile legal entity, not much different than two family members creating an S.Corp or an LLC.

Neither Sil or I advocate for Polygamy nor Incestuous Marriage, but neither of us, having analysed this, can come up with the rational legal basis that either CAN BE DENIED under current law.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 15, 2018)

^^ That and 56 times in Windsor the Court averred that marriage is wholly up to the individual states to define...and that marriage in no way shape or form was up to the federal government (subjectively, favoring some but not others) to define....


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 15, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> When I point out your obvious mistake, just say "Thank You". Otherwise it is you that express "Blissful ignorance" and act like a "petulant child".
> 
> Dimwit, it is the lender that is sinner, not the recipient when he pays. Re-read the quote.


You clearly mean this one, Foghorn Leghorn:


> A few problems with this argument, buddy.
> 
> The first is that religion should be an excuse to ignore contract and commerce law.
> 
> ...


 Which clearly went _woosh!_ way over your beak. Never fear, dear Foggy, I'm here to gently hold your claw and guide you to actual reason, whether you ever get 'round to thanking me for it or not. See, the analogy is thus: 

Christian argues: _Gay couples all go to Hell for the presumed "sin" of having sexual relations with zero possibility of reproducing nor intent to do so. Marriage or no. Cake or no._
Christian baker cries: _Heck, if I sell gay couples wedding cakes I'll go straight to Hell for entangling myself in whatever private "sin" I can imagine they do! Ew, yuck! I can't do it!_

Christian "God" argues: _If you've got money to spare, lend some, "even to" those who need it, then charge them interest, guess what?_ Straight to Hell? _You got it! _
Christian lendee should argue:  _Hell, if I borrow money from one of them Usury "sinners"_ _I'll go straight to Hell for entangling myself in their public "sin"! Ew, yuck! I can't do it!
_
Christian lendee does not argue the above,... 'cause that's hypocrisy!... Having your cake and eating it too!

Side note: Today "Usury" only means charging an unusually high rate of interest,... 'cause that's capitalism!... Having your cake and mine and eating it all too!


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > When I point out your obvious mistake, just say "Thank You". Otherwise it is you that express "Blissful ignorance" and act like a "petulant child".
> ...



Dear Dimwit, their is nothing in your rant that stipulates that the person that accepted the Loan, didn't knowingly know that he would burn in hell. What the teaching was aimed at the Lender so that he wouldn't tempt those into supporting the sin.

The Baker did the exact opposite that the Borrower did.

You REALLY screwed the pooch on that one you old fart.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 15, 2018)

So dblack, how do you feel about polygamy-marriage?  



dblack said:


> I don't.


But you do, by forcing people to labor for certain privileged groups (homos only, it appears).


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 15, 2018)

dblack said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > ^^ Pop, I reported his post....
> ...


Common infantile "BEHAVIOR" in every one of these annoyingly americentric political forums. This one is actually a bit less prone to take tattlers seriously from what I've seen, thank goodness, but good luck arguing with the Mod...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 15, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> nothing in your rant that stipulates that the person that accepted the Loan, didn't knowingly know


Try coherent English. The "lendee" didn't what now?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > nothing in your rant that stipulates that the person that accepted the Loan, didn't knowingly know
> ...



LOL, you thought you hit a home run, but actually hit into a triple play!

Yourrrrrr outttttttt


----------



## dblack (Jun 15, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


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



It's also the behavior of our government and elected leaders. And that's the problem. Authoritarian gasbags on a message board don't bother me so much. The one's we elect to office are another story. They do real damage.


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 15, 2018)

*"The Colorado law requires everyone to condone everyone else's behaviors." well well...*It is extremely clear that the Supreme Court makes the Constitution and the nation's rights to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience and freedom of speech a HIGHER STANDARD than a bunch of hypocrites in Colorado that pretend to protect "civil rights" by preferring some "civil rights" over others "civil rights". So...THE WHOLE CAKE SCAM BLEW UP IN ALL THEIR LYING FACES. So there. Maybe no one wanted a cake. Or if they did they tried to get a cake through coercion and targeted making an example out of someone who they felt disdain for- kind of like a set up. Huh.

*coercion - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com*
The World's Fastest Dictionary : Vocabulary.com is making something happen by force, like when bullies use coercion to make kids give them their lunch money.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 15, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> thought you hit a home run, but actually hit into a triple play!


Ah, man, that's sad.. used to have much better..
Here <- memory refresh, Foggy!
Just a tiny sample:


> “Nice boy but he’s got more nerve than a bum tooth”
> “I say, boy, pay attention when I’m talkin’ to ya, boy”
> “Pay attention, boy, I’m cuttin’ but you ain’t bleedin’!”
> “Smart boy, got a mind like a steel trap – full of mice”
> ...



Heh, that Trump! So dumb he thinks Mexico's gonna pay for his wall!”


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > thought you hit a home run, but actually hit into a triple play!
> ...



Still batting .000

Don't worry, you could a looked like this dude!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 15, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Still batting .000
> 
> Don't worry, you could a looked like this dude!


Yep, that's what I said!
May be a bit overweight.
Beats being a huge, fat, loudmouth chicken any day


----------



## Rustic (Jun 15, 2018)

The right to refuse service to anybody... should be the law of the land


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 15, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Still batting .000
> ...



The chicken crows "Cock a doodle do"

G-Nuts crows "Any ol cock will do"


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 15, 2018)

Once upon a time in the USA we respected and were grateful for these things: our country, our businesses, our president, our honesty, our news, our integrity, our safety, our future...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 15, 2018)




----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 15, 2018)




----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 15, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


>


This is the much better french version (La Mer)


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 15, 2018)

*Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker*

the SC has been giving many good opinions 

that are blowing the leftists out of the water 

Free Speech wins in anti free speech laws in Minnesota 


the text 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1435_2co3.pdf


----------



## Flopper (Jun 16, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > No rights are being violated. this is a commerce rule, not a rule on what you should believe.  You are totally free to keep hating on gay people if you want to, you just can't deny them service.
> ...


*in 20 states that have public accommodations laws that say you can not discrimination based on sexual orientation the baker can not deny service to a gay couple seeking a wedding cake.

First amendment rights, that is the free excise clause of the 1st amendment only comes into play if the baker is prevented from excising his right to worship.  The bakers opinion of homosexuality is not relevant.  Assuming his religion outlaws homosexual sex, then the question become does making a cake for the wedding of a gay couple constitute homosexual sex or does it facility it?
Does making a wedding cake for a gay couple promote homosexual sex and if it does, does it prevent the baker from excising his religion?  *


----------



## Flopper (Jun 16, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > The good news Dblack, is that Obergfell might just accomplish what you wish. It was poorly thought out and implemented.  It opens the door for litigation that could eventually get Government out of Marriage.
> ...


*If you haven't heard, this is not the 1950s, one third of all families are single parent families. There have been numerous studies that have shown that two adults regardless of their sex are able to do a better job raising kids that a single parent.

Families led by two adults of the same sex are not regarded by the kids as Mon and Dad but rather Mom or Dad and John or Susan who have become part of the family.  They help pay the bills, share in the work to maintain the home, take the kids to to soccer practice, dancing lessons, go to parent teacher night, help the kids with homework, takes them camping, etc.  It's not about sex.  It's about raising kids and maintaining the family.*


----------



## Flopper (Jun 16, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> *"The Colorado law requires everyone to condone everyone else's behaviors." well well...*It is extremely clear that the Supreme Court makes the Constitution and the nation's rights to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience and freedom of speech a HIGHER STANDARD than a bunch of hypocrites in Colorado that pretend to protect "civil rights" by preferring some "civil rights" over others "civil rights". So...THE WHOLE CAKE SCAM BLEW UP IN ALL THEIR LYING FACES. So there. Maybe no one wanted a cake. Or if they did they tried to get a cake through coercion and targeted making an example out of someone who they felt disdain for- kind of like a set up. Huh.
> 
> *coercion - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com*
> The World's Fastest Dictionary : Vocabulary.com is making something happen by force, like when bullies use coercion to make kids give them their lunch money.


*No one is forcing the baker to make cakes for the public.  However, when he decides to serve the public, he must serve the public.  He can't just make cakes for Christians or Jews, or Whites, or Blacks, or Heterosexuals or 
Homosexuals.  When you hang a sign on your door, that says Open, your business is open to all, not just who you want to serve.*


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 16, 2018)

Yep, the nerve.
_Oh sure, I'd make the same profit. Hell maybe even more! But damn it, Jesus told me to discriminate against His people. Likely his own kind! 
Oh sure, my sign said you don't got to have no membership card to get inside, but paybacks are a bitch!
Oh sure, kids suffer wherever haters hate, but it's all about protecting the children. You understand.
Oh sure, secular law and "separation of Church and State." That just means only religious people can get away with murder by blaming it on Jesus._


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 16, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *No one is forcing the baker to make cakes for the public.  However, when he decides to serve the public, he must serve the public.  He can't just make cakes for Christians or Jews, or Whites, or Blacks, or Heterosexuals or
> Homosexuals.  When you hang a sign on your door, that says Open, your business is open to all, not just who you want to serve.*


Well floppy the problem is that the marketplace is the public and the baker does not take a day off or a minute off from his faith. The Court just indicated that Colorado cannot punish Christians in the marketplace. So what that boils down to is gay lifestyles vs faith. Faith is the only of the two that has expressed written Constitutional protections. 

Besides, lifestyles run the gamut. Where would it stop?  The Court has to think about LGBT terms like "gender fluid etc. etc". Why should ONLY LGBT lifestyles get to force their ideologies on Christians when others equally repugnant do not?  The Court knows what it decides today will be used as a wedge for tomorrow. And the "lifestyles as race" wedge is already becoming the unworkable & unfair (to other repugnant lifestyles left arbitrarily out in the cold) rats nest I predicted it would be. 

Plus the baker isn't asking each customer what they're going to do with that cookie or that eclaire or that sheet cake. It's when two men walk in & tell him they want a cake for their "wedding". At that moment the baker knows his talents will be utilized to promote a forbidden spiritual abomination. He cannot participate in the spread of homo values in any culture or he faces eternal fire for the mortal sin. (Jude 1). Marriage is THE epitome of a social icon. So long story short he can't be clipped from the public/marketplace for knowing if he participates in certain aspects of it his eternal soul will perish.  People must be "respectful" of his passive refusal according to the edicts of his faith. 

This applies only to other ideologies & lifestyles that are behavioral. Race & gender are innate & cant be punished. The Court is discovering this important distinction & we are going to hear more about it.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 16, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Yep, the nerve.
> _Oh sure, I'd make the same profit. Hell maybe even more! But damn it, Jesus told me to discriminate against His people. Likely his own kind!
> Oh sure, my sign said you don't got to have no membership card to get inside, but paybacks are a bitch!
> Oh sure, kids suffer wherever haters hate, but it's all about protecting the children. You understand.
> Oh sure, secular law and "separation of Church and State." That just means only religious people can get away with murder by blaming it on Jesus._



Of all the feeble rants we see

Yours might be the lamest


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 16, 2018)

Yep. Somebody is butthurt about this USSC Decision.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 16, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Yep. Somebody is butthurt about this USSC Decision.




Don't worry.  Someday you will get over Lawrence, Hollingsworth, Windsor, and Obergefell.

If you are referring to me, not "butthurt" at all.  The SCOTUS ruled that the open hostility by the Commission was unconstitutional and left the law in place.  My only butthurt is that I think they should have recognized rights of property and association and overturned all Public Accommodation laws as applied to provide businesses so that the religious shop owner could refuse gays, the racist shop owner refuse blacks, the redneck shop owner refuse Mexicans, the Muslim shop owner refuse Jews, the pacifist shop owner refuse members of the military, patriotic shop owners the pacifist, and anyone refuse a single parent keeping the child from having a mother and a father.

.>>>>


----------



## mdk (Jun 16, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Yep. Somebody is butthurt about this USSC Decision.



She added while still whining about Obergefell almost three years later. Too funny.


----------



## Lysistrata (Jun 16, 2018)

Didn't our idiot AG just quote the guy who claimed to have met Jesus, and whom some claim actually spoke for the Supreme Being,as saying:

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order,” said Sessions.​So yes or no? This supposed "Christian" baker did not obey the law. 

What Sessions did, in forgetting his role and an officer of the U.S. Government and dragging in his personal religious beliefs into the political arena to justify the policies that he and his minions have put into place, is highly inappropriate and serves only to highlight his disrespect for the Constitution. But his doing so raises an interesting point about the adherents to his particular brand of religion.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 16, 2018)

Flopper said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> > *"The Colorado law requires everyone to condone everyone else's behaviors." well well...*It is extremely clear that the Supreme Court makes the Constitution and the nation's rights to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience and freedom of speech a HIGHER STANDARD than a bunch of hypocrites in Colorado that pretend to protect "civil rights" by preferring some "civil rights" over others "civil rights". So...THE WHOLE CAKE SCAM BLEW UP IN ALL THEIR LYING FACES. So there. Maybe no one wanted a cake. Or if they did they tried to get a cake through coercion and targeted making an example out of someone who they felt disdain for- kind of like a set up. Huh.
> ...


The Baker makes cakes for anyone. He chooses not to decorate wedding cakes for parties celebrating what "said baker" believes is not a biblical GOD ordained wedding and regards doing such as supporting fraud and blatant sin. The bakery is not owned by the state or government. It is not supported by tax money. It is a private business and therefore is under no obligation to tow the line as regarded by the state.  Religious Christian institutions of higher learning present both that the Bible is inerrant and that Creationism is viable. They are under no obligation to disregard what they believe is foundational to their faith. The baker is not taking any money from anyone he doesn't make wedding cakes for, nor does the baker deny the ability of those involve to seek their cake elsewhere.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Paying the credit card bill makes you the consumer, not the bank, dimwit.



But that's the point.  I can claim that usury is against my religion, therefore i'm not obligated to pay back interest.  

See how that works, when you can pull something out of your ass like that? 



Silhouette said:


> You can deny them service when it comes to your faith & convictions because AGAIN, nobody can be forced to condone or promote BEHAVIORS or ideologies they find spiritually repugnant.



Then they should find something else to do for a living.  Again, I'm sure that baker served all sorts of people who engage in behavior he found morally repugnant. If you stuck to a strict bible standard, he shouldn't sell a cake to ANYONE who had sex before marriage.  That would be, oh, just about everyone these days.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> What gays are asking Christian bakers to do by participating in their "weddings" is the spiritual equivalent of asking Christians to take a shit on the altar during the middle of mass. And actually that isn't quite accurate because taking the shit would be a venial sin, still forgivable.



Again, how is that any different than backing a cake for people who are cohabiting outside of marriage? Isn't that also a mortal sin?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> This, in a way, reminds me of smoking bans. The Owner didn't care and thought he had a right to allow smoking, the smoker thought he had a right because it was a legal product that the Owner was OK with him enjoying with his meal, but in the end, the right of the customer that thought his "right" to clean air, was superior to the "right" of the Owner.
> 
> The courts obviously found one "right" Health, superior to another "right" Property.
> 
> In this case, the "right" to not burn in eternal flames should be superior to a "fertility symbol" being supplied to a same sex couple.



Okay, little problem with that. 

There's is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that smoke causes cancer, lung disease, and a bunch of other stuff.  

There's no scientific evidence at all that there is a place you go after you die where you burn for all eternity even though you no longer have a physical body to burn.  

Now, if the Baker could provide scientifically verified evidence of a Hell that you will burn in for not following all the rules in the Big Book of Jewish Fairy Tales, he might have a leg to stand on.  

But in fact, you can't find a reference to a wedding cake anywhere in the bible.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Then we are in exact agreement when it comes to lifestyles and ideologies. Do you believe for instance that LGBT lifestylists gets a special elevation from government while polygamists do not? That clearly violates the spirit of the 14th Amendment at its core.



I personally would have no problem with Polygamists getting the bigamy laws overturned. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, no problem.


----------



## dblack (Jun 16, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *No one is forcing the baker to make cakes for the public.  However, when he decides to serve the public, he must serve the public.  He can't just make cakes for Christians or Jews, or Whites, or Blacks, or Heterosexuals or
> Homosexuals.  When you hang a sign on your door, that says Open, your business is open to all, not just who you want to serve.*



This is the sales pitch. And if it were even remotely true, I wouldn't find the whole mess so hypocritical. But it's not. These laws don't require business owners to treat everyone equally. Or even to serve everyone. The laws don't prevent them from discriminating. They simply prohibit them from expressing certain kinds of biases when they do. They can discriminate all they want as long as they don't offer up a reason that's been banned.


----------



## Lysistrata (Jun 16, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > AZGAL said:
> ...



SOME Christian institutions teach that the bible is inerrant and creationism is a viable theory. These theories do not entitle anyone to disregard the law, and even your Paulie said this. This guy is required to "tow the line" as a condition of holding a business license.

Incidentally, I wonder which of the marriages of the multi-marrieds is "ordained" by "God"?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

dblack said:


> This is the sales pitch. And if it were even remotely true, I wouldn't find the whole mess so hypocritical. But it's not. These laws don't require business owners to treat everyone equally. Or even to serve everyone. They simply prohibit them from expressing certain kinds of biases when they do. They can discriminate all they want as long as they don't offer up a reason that's been banned.



How would that work?  I guess they could lie and say they are booked that day.  There are all sorts of ways you can put a customer off. "Oh gee, I'm sorry, I'm totally booked that day".  

You'd be in trouble if you made that claim and couldn't prove it, though.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Paying the credit card bill makes you the consumer, not the bank, dimwit.
> ...




The teaching is about charging interest, not making payment. The customer AGREES to the sin. He is not being forced to it.


----------



## dblack (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > This is the sales pitch. And if it were even remotely true, I wouldn't find the whole mess so hypocritical. But it's not. These laws don't require business owners to treat everyone equally. Or even to serve everyone. They simply prohibit them from expressing certain kinds of biases when they do. They can discriminate all they want as long as they don't offer up a reason that's been banned.
> ...



They could just not offer a reason.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > But you did manage to fear Jews and Christians, who, along with muslims, refuse to decorate cakes for homos.
> ...


Only stupid fuckers believe that... Muslims are the most violent people to ever exist on this planet


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


This represents Muslims 
This is all you need to know about Muslims and their Islam... shit for brains

THE CRIMES OF THE FALSE PROPHET MUHAMMAD

Muslims are sanctified by the blood of murdered kafirs. If the prophet of Islam, Mohammed, was alive today he would be sitting on death row somewhere waiting for his execution.

What is important to understand is that none of these depraved and criminal acts are seen as crimes to Muslims, except if they are committed by someone else. They are all holy, divine acts that their own prophet indulged in and therefore they have been given the stamp of validation as the moral code to be emulated by all Muslim men. They are all Sunna [The traditional portion of Muslim law based on Muhammad’s words or acts, accepted (together with the Koran) as authoritative by Muslims].


Molested his wife – six-year-old Baby Aisha. One of Baby Aisha’s wifely duties was to clean semen stains from the prophet’s clothes. The prophet would take a bath with Baby Aisha and ‘thigh’ with Baby Aisha, meaning she was too small to be penetrated so he would take his penis and rub it up and down her thighs and against her vagina.  Being a man of ‘mercy’ he did not penetrate Baby Aisha until she was nine.

Raped Baby Aisha when she was nine (texts have altered her age when Muslims could not explain why their prophet married and consummated the marriage with a small child. Koranic texts makes it clear that Mohammed married her when she was six years old. For a marriage to be legally deemed valid it had to be sexually consummated. The Hadith clearly proves that Mohammed was a notorious pedophile).  Advocated sex with baby girls.

Raped a retarded woman. Murdered a woman.  Had sex with his dead aunt.

Captured women and raped them. Kept women as sex slaves.  Muhammad had sex with 61 women: many he raped. There is no consensual sex between a child girl and a man. There is no consensual sex between a master and his sex slave.  There is no consensual sex between a woman conquered in war and her husband conqueror.  All such sexual acts are rape.  RAPE IS RAPE.

Had eleven wives at one time. Sexually abused his wives. Raped his wives. Forced sex during their menstruation including Baby Aisha. Mentally abused his wives.  Can you imagine taking a child (or any aged woman) and molesting with your hand/fist her menstruating vagina?

Beheaded his enemies. 600/900 Jewish men at one massacre.  Had Jewish boys as young as 13 years old beheaded after pulling down their pants and inspecting groin for pubic hair.

Ordered the murder, torture, terrorization of Christians and Jews if they did not convert to Islam.  Forced Christians and Jews from Saudi Arabia (the mass exile).

Assassinated people for insulting him or Islam.  Established totalitarian rule. Had followers and their families burnt alive in their homes for missing prayer.

Ordered the extermination, torture and terrorization of kafirs.  Instigated 60 massacres and personally participated in 27 of them.

Owned and sold slaves.  Enslaved women and children.

Called his black slaves pug noses and compared them to Satan.

Treated his black slaves as beasts of burden.

Lied and cheated. Mohammed encouraged his men to lie to deceive someone in order to get what he wanted.

Caused division and hatred. Ordered no befriending with Christians and Jews.

Subjugated and oppressed Muslim women.  Required them to cover their faces.

Married his daughter–in–law.

Approved prostitution.

Encouraged the rape of women in front of their husbands.

Recommended wife beating.  Hit his wife – Baby Aisha.

Murdered prisoners of war.  Committed acts of terror.

Advocated suicide attacks.

Executed apostates and homosexuals.

Beat children who didn’t pray.  Abolished adoption.

Honor killings of Muslim women and children.

Beat alcoholics.  Lied.

Stoned adulators to death.  Stoned a woman to death after she had given birth.

Ordered thief’s hands/feet chopped off.

Tortured a man out of greed.

Looted and plundered.

Preached hate for people of other religions.

Extorted money from other religions

Forced conversions to Islam

Allowed his companions to execute, behead, rape and enslave.
.

References to prophet Mohammed’s crimes: 

Hat tip to our reader Craig for the due diligence in providing the references to these claims.

— Muhammad’s marriage to 6yr old Aisha-(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234 and 236).

— Aisha cleans Muhammad’s semen stains-(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229-233),

— Muhammad fondling Aisha during her ‘Menses’- (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 298-300, Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 1, Number 0270)

— Muhammad liked to have intercourse with Aisha and his other wives when they were menstruating (Sahih Muslim, Book 003, Number 0577-0579),

— He also loved to recite the Quran when his wives were in Menses while lying between their legs!-(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 296), (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 639)

— Muhammad married his adopted Son’s wife called ‘Zaynab’ after lusting for her and then banned Adoption in Islam- (Surah 33:37,Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 305, Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3330, Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 516,The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein, 1997], Volume VIII, pp. 2-3)

— Muhammad having sex with his dead Aunt in the Grave-( “Kanz Al Umal” (The Treasure of the Workers, by Ali Ibn Husam Aldin, commonly known as Al-Mutaki Al-Hindi. He based his book on the hadiths and sayings listed in “Al-Jami Al-Saghir,” written by Jalal ul-Din Al-Suyuti.)

— ‘I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I slept with her in her coffin (grave) that I may lessen the pressure of the grave. She was the best of Allah’s creatures to me after Abu Talib’… The prophet was referring to Fatima , the mother of Ali. “The Arabic word used here for slept is “Id’tajat,” and literally means “lay down” with her. It is often used to mean, “Lay down to have sex.”

— Muhammad and the Quran sanctioned sex with your wives and ‘married’ slave girls-(Quran – 70:22-30, 23:5,6, 4:24, 33:50), — Muhammad speaks of sex with Slave Girls- (Sahih Bukhari – Volume 3, #432, Volume 9, #506, Volume 5, #637, Sahih Muslim, Volume 2, #3371)

— Muhammad disagreed with ‘coitus interruptus’ with slave girls- he supported RAPE.

— Muhammad forces a 17 yr old Jewish girl called Safiyyah to marry him and rapes her on the same day her husband and family are killed in the battle of Khaibar (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 522, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367).

— Al Tabari reported in his (‘The History of al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam’, Translated by Michael Fishbein) that even some of Muhammad’s wives and companions were shocked that he forced Safiyyah to marry him after beheading her husband, brother and father.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 16, 2018)

Well floppy the problem is that the marketplace is the public and the baker does not take a day off or a minute off from his faith. The Court just indicated that Colorado cannot punish Christians in the marketplace. So what that boils down to is gay lifestyles vs faith. Faith is the only of the two that has expressed written Constitutional protections.

Besides, lifestyles run the gamut. Where would it stop? The Court has to think about LGBT terms like "gender fluid etc. etc". Why should ONLY LGBT lifestyles get to force their ideologies on Christians when others equally repugnant do not? The Court knows what it decides today will be used as a wedge for tomorrow. And the "lifestyles as race" wedge is already becoming the unworkable & unfair (to other repugnant lifestyles left arbitrarily out in the cold) rats nest I predicted it would be.

Plus the baker isn't asking each customer what they're going to do with that cookie or that eclaire or that sheet cake. It's when two men walk in & tell him they want a cake for their "wedding". At that moment the baker knows his talents will be utilized to promote a forbidden spiritual abomination. He cannot participate in the spread of homo values in any culture or he faces eternal fire for the mortal sin. (Jude 1). Marriage is THE epitome of a social icon. So long story short he can't be clipped from the public/marketplace for knowing if he participates in certain aspects of it his eternal soul will perish. People must be "respectful" of his passive refusal according to the edicts of his faith.

This applies only to other ideologies & lifestyles that are behavioral. Race & gender are innate & cant be punished. The Court is discovering this important distinction & we are going to hear more about it.



Silhouette said:


> Yep. Somebody is butthurt about this USSC Decision.





WorldWatcher said:


> Don't worry.  Someday you will get over Lawrence, Hollingsworth, Windsor, and Obergefell.



Actually Windsor I don't have much problem with; other than individual states not inviting children into the contract-revisions they were attempting to make new terms that extinguish hope for life for beneficiaries to both a mother and father.  But the 56 times Windsor averred that marriage is solely up to the states to define is a sound principle.

Too bad Obergefell pretended to draw from Windsor while ignoring the essence of Windsor (the reason she won: "states only define, not feds").  Talk about having your cake and eating it too!  (since we're on a cake theme).  Check out the 56 quotes from Windsor here: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > And you know this for a fact ----HOW exactly? Your say so is not enough. What proof do you offer?
> ...


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> *Does Jude condemn gays?*
> *Does Romans 1:26-27 condemn homosexuals?*


Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 19 - New International Version


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> 'Jesus Would Have Baked That Cake': Pastor Weighs in on Local Baker's Supreme Court Case -


Na, Jesus was a carpenter


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > If you did that Isaac, Samson, and John the Baptist would not have been born. However, there are no miraculous births of children to any gay couple ever recorded.
> ...


Lol
Says an atheist...


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps while the LGBTQ movement screams "help me we are such victims" the "movement" really has just been exposed for using hateful tactics.
> ...


“Gay” is a choice...


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > And if you want to claim a reproductive disability, which would be the claim a hetro couple could make, THEN YOU TRULY DO HAVE A MENTAL ISSUE!
> ...


Sure you do...
You’re obviously mentally unstable


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> The teaching is about charging interest, not making payment. The customer AGREES to the sin. He is not being forced to it.



Except all the 'teachings' about the gay sex are about the guys involved in it... not the guys they interact with in business. 

See how that works? You can pull anything out of your ass using the bible. 



dblack said:


> They could just not offer a reason.



They could... but they'd look stupid doing it.  And if they suddenly "discovered" that they didn't want to provide the service only after they found out the client was gay, one can draw ones own conclusions.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Gay woman walks into a bake shop.
> Orders a generic wedding cake.
> Baker asks "Are you gay?"
> Woman replies "Does it matter?"
> ...


That is why the right to refuse serve to anyone is the best policy for all concerned...
That way no one is controlled by someone else


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ruth Bader Ginsburg pens angry dissent from Supreme Court bakery ruling
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Like I said, the best policy is the right to refuse service to anybody… That way no one is controlling someone else


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Na, Such things are none of the federal government business. Just like firearm ownership it’s none of their fucking federal government business


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Then we are in exact agreement when it comes to lifestyles and ideologies. Do you believe for instance that LGBT lifestylists gets a special elevation from government while polygamists do not? That clearly violates the spirit of the 14th Amendment at its core.
> ...


That's not how the law reads, nor what you are defending.

A person cannot be discriminated against because of his/her sexual preference. There is no "as long as" addition to the law.

His sexual preference is to marry as many wives as he likes, regardless of the spouse's opinion.

Why would you deny him this most crucial civil right?

We know why. We just want you to say it. Because to you, the law only applies to homos.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > We need to tell the queers to just shut the fuck up.  Nobody needs to be made to accept that vile lifestyle. Not in a country where we suppose to have Liberty.
> ...


Gays can do whatever they want most people don’t give two shits, That is why the right to refuse service to anybody is a good policy. That way no one is forcing their shit on someone else


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

Gracie said:


> I'd be afraid to eat it after forcing them to bake it. Don't piss off the chef before you order...just sayin'.
> 
> Anyway...instead of fighting this person..why not go to a gay baker who would love to have the business???


Yep, There is some common sense...


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> They could... but they'd look stupid doing it.  And if they suddenly "discovered" that they didn't want to provide the service only after they found out the client was gay, one can draw ones own conclusions.



Well discovering someone is gay means a behavior is being pushed in your face.  And by the way, nobody can be forced to condone or promote behaviors.  Did you know that?  That's the state establishing an official ideology; which is prohibited by Law.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> The Supreme Court basically whiffed on their decision
> 
> They set no precedent and failed to enforce guidelines for business that were established 50 years ago


Lol
Gay is best kept to oneself, That way you are not forcing your shit on someone else


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...


Your political correctness makes you look like a pussy


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Well discovering someone is gay means a behavior is being pushed in your face. And by the way, nobody can be forced to condone or promote behaviors. Did you know that? That's the state establishing an official ideology; which is prohibited by Law.



uh, no, when your state has a law that says you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation. 

Period.  

This isn't complicated.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> That's not how the law reads, nor what you are defending.
> 
> A person cannot be discriminated against because of his/her sexual preference. There is no "as long as" addition to the law.
> 
> ...



again, I have no problem with polygamy as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. 

the thing is, there probably aren't enough polygamist or polygamist wannabees to create a movement for it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Plus the baker isn't asking each customer what they're going to do with that cookie or that eclaire or that sheet cake. It's when two men walk in & tell him they want a cake for their "wedding". At that moment the baker knows his talents will be utilized to promote a forbidden spiritual abomination. He cannot participate in the spread of homo values in any culture or he faces eternal fire for the mortal sin. (Jude 1). Marriage is THE epitome of a social icon. So long story short he can't be clipped from the public/marketplace for knowing if he participates in certain aspects of it his eternal soul will perish. People must be "respectful" of his passive refusal according to the edicts of his faith.



So I am a worshiper of Quezacoatl, the Winged Serpent of Aztec belief. 

Do I have a right to go around cutting out the hearts of my enemies, in my belief that we need to do so to keep the Sun God happy?  Clearly by not doing so I risk the threat of being consigned to rivers of blood in Mictlan... so your silly murder laws should not apply to me, as my beliefs take precedence. 

See how silly your argument sounds now?


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Get rid of all PA laws...and any business can reject anyone based on religion, race, handicap or gender.    Wooot!


Your position is that you want to control people you disagree with… You are not fooling anybody


----------



## task0778 (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Plus the baker isn't asking each customer what they're going to do with that cookie or that eclaire or that sheet cake. It's when two men walk in & tell him they want a cake for their "wedding". At that moment the baker knows his talents will be utilized to promote a forbidden spiritual abomination. He cannot participate in the spread of homo values in any culture or he faces eternal fire for the mortal sin. (Jude 1). Marriage is THE epitome of a social icon. So long story short he can't be clipped from the public/marketplace for knowing if he participates in certain aspects of it his eternal soul will perish. People must be "respectful" of his passive refusal according to the edicts of his faith.
> ...



Talking about silly, you are equating murder with an effing wedding cake that any other bakery would bake.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

Tipsycatlover said:


> A bakery had a right to refuse to bake a child's birthday cake because the baker didn't like the child's name.
> 
> Child named after Adolf Hitler is refused cake request


Lol
Yep, the lefts hypocrisy knows no end...


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> The commission is going to have inspect the inference that the bakers were interpreting their religious belief.
> 
> What happens if the government provides evidence of other Christian bakers who happily make cakes for gay and lesbian couples?


You misunderstand the whole issue, it’s not about baking cakes for whoever. It’s all about control. Why do you want to control everybody you disagree with? Are you fucked up in the head that way or just mentally unstable?


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Opens up a can of worms allowing business to use religious beliefs to discriminate against anyone ....not just gays


That is the right to refuse service to anybody is good policy, that way no one can control someone else


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

task0778 said:


> Talking about silly, you are equating murder with an effing wedding cake that any other bakery would bake.



Not at all. 

We have laws against murder.
We have laws against discrimination. 

If someone was an atheist baker who just hated gays because they think the butt-sex is icky, we would not be having an argument here. 

So what you guys are arguing is that there should be a right to ignore a law you don't like because you believe in an imaginary friend in the sky who is going to do horrible things to you in an unproven afterlife if you obey the law.  

Quezacoatl wants his fucking hearts, man!   How dare you oppress my sincerely held beliefs?


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > Talking about silly, you are equating murder with an effing wedding cake that any other bakery would bake.
> ...


Why do you want to control people you disagree with? Why do you want to force your shit on other people? Why do you worship the federal government/deep state?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Rustic said:


> You misunderstand the whole issue, it’s not about baking cakes for whoever. It’s all about control. Why do you want to control everybody you disagree with? Are you fucked up in the head that way or just mentally unstable?



No, it isn't about cakes, and it isn't about control. 

It's about the right of people to utilize public accommodations regardless of their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.  

I really can't fix what is wrong with people like Sil whose hatred of gay people clearly occupies every waking moment of his life.  But we can protect gay folks from him abusing them when they seek to live their lives.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Why do you want to control people you disagree with? Why do you want to force your shit on other people? Why do you worship the federal government/deep state?



Do you have some reading comprehension deficiency.  

Here's the thing. I really, really, really fucking hate Mormons.  something about their cult being started by a child molesting con man and trying to pass their crazy off as a legitimate religion.  

But if a Mormon comes into my place of business, he or she should expect the same courteous service everyone else gets at my place of business because that's the law!  

If you don't like the law in Colorado, then get the law changed.  The reality, though is that a lot of people think the law is just fine as written.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > You misunderstand the whole issue, it’s not about baking cakes for whoever. It’s all about control. Why do you want to control everybody you disagree with? Are you fucked up in the head that way or just mentally unstable?
> ...


The best way to protect anyone on this issue is to have “the right to refuse service to anyone” that way no one is controlling anyone else. Getting along is way overrated...

Why force anyone to bake an Adolf Hitler cake, Carl Marx cake, a Saddam Hussein cake, a Jimmy Carter cake, a Muslim cake, a Islam cake, a Buddhist cake, a transgender cake, a Christian cake, a gay cake.... etc?
What you speak of serves no purpose


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > What gays are asking Christian bakers to do by participating in their "weddings" is the spiritual equivalent of asking Christians to take a shit on the altar during the middle of mass. And actually that isn't quite accurate because taking the shit would be a venial sin, still forgivable.
> ...



If asked to bake a cake celebrating cohabitation outside of Marriage, I think he should have every right to deny. 

You?


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you want to control people you disagree with? Why do you want to force your shit on other people? Why do you worship the federal government/deep state?
> ...


I agree with you about Mormons they are a cult of child rapist/molesters.. mitt Romney is one of them.
Why even have a law that forces people into shit they want nothing to do with?
The collective has never known what is best for the individual… In fact the opposite is true.
Now if someone wants to serve everybody, so be it it’s none of the federal governments business…


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > The teaching is about charging interest, not making payment. The customer AGREES to the sin. He is not being forced to it.
> ...



The interest is not forced on the person, it is agreed to. The customer is participating in the sin WILLINGLY. 

The Baker IS BEING FORCED TO PARTICIPATE. 

if you don’t see the difference, you are a whacko!


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


See that’s the problem with the collective they think they know what’s best for the individual when they never have... ever!!!!


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Well discovering someone is gay means a behavior is being pushed in your face. And by the way, nobody can be forced to condone or promote behaviors. Did you know that? That's the state establishing an official ideology; which is prohibited by Law.
> ...


Why are you force your shit on to somebody else?


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > That's not how the law reads, nor what you are defending.
> ...


The law is already in place. You can't discriminate based on sexual preference.

Somebody's sexual preference is towards pedophilia. There is no "as long as everyone involved" appendix.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 16, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


As neither is the baker who first AGREES to sell to THE PUBLIC then reneges selectively claiming Jesus. Seriously. Get help. You are dangerously pigheaded and dim.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 16, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



It’s ok g-nuts. 

Some can, and will, actively participate in Sin. 

Others refuse too. 

What a beautiful world.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Says someone that wants to control everybody he disagrees with.
Why not have the right to refuse service to anybody, that way no one is controlling anybody else…


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 16, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


The law is actually written in the Jewish holy book, although Jesus does refer to Gomorrah.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


...and the Bible is just gibberish if not taken as a whole. Nowhere in the Bible does it except homosexual marriage…


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> If asked to bake a cake celebrating cohabitation outside of Marriage, I think he should have every right to deny.
> 
> You?



I think he should insist on having them stoned like the Bible says the should be.  

You? 



Pop23 said:


> The interest is not forced on the person, it is agreed to. The customer is participating in the sin WILLINGLY.
> 
> The Baker IS BEING FORCED TO PARTICIPATE.
> 
> if you don’t see the difference, you are a whacko!



Then the baker shouldn't be in that line of work.  This isn't complicated.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 16, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Yes. Just pushing back against the lie that it is somehow Christianity at fault, when in fact both Jews and muslims carry similar beliefs regarding homos.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Rustic said:


> I agree with you about Mormons they are a cult of child rapist/molesters.. mitt Romney is one of them.
> Why even have a law that forces people into shit they want nothing to do with?



Because everyone should have access to goods and services, that's why. 

Even Mormons.  



Rustic said:


> The collective has never known what is best for the individual… In fact the opposite is true.
> Now if someone wants to serve everybody, so be it it’s none of the federal governments business…



All law is a balance between individual liberty and collective good.  

The fact is, most laws are based on the majority knowing what is good for the rest of us, which is why we have drug laws, prostitution laws, regulations on traffic, and so on.  

The question is, is protecting individuals from discrimination from other individuals in the collective interest.  

Yes, it is.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > If asked to bake a cake celebrating cohabitation outside of Marriage, I think he should have every right to deny.
> ...


 The New Testament does not change what is and is not a sin in the Bible.
It may determine what the earthly punishment for such things are but it certainly does not go against the Old Testament.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with you about Mormons they are a cult of child rapist/molesters.. mitt Romney is one of them.
> ...


Lol
The right to refuse service to anybody hurts nobody... except for control freaks


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with you about Mormons they are a cult of child rapist/molesters.. mitt Romney is one of them.
> ...


Then stand strong for the pedophiles, one of the most oppressed sexual preferences of them all.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Yes the Clintons know all about pedophilia


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Rustic said:


> The best way to protect anyone on this issue is to have “the right to refuse service to anyone” that way no one is controlling anyone else. Getting along is way overrated...
> 
> Why force anyone to bake an Adolf Hitler cake, Carl Marx cake, a Saddam Hussein cake, a Jimmy Carter cake, a Muslim cake, a Islam cake, a Buddhist cake, a transgender cake, a Christian cake, a gay cake.... etc?
> What you speak of serves no purpose



First, can you learn to use the quote feature properly?  Thanks.  

Secondly, this isn't about forcing someone to make a cake they normally wouldn't make.  

The guy at Masterpiece Bakery also didn't do Halloween Cakes, because that was unchristian and he was too much of a religious ignoramus to realize the religious history of Halloween (or "All Hallow's Eve"). 

That's perfectly fine. He didn't provide Halloween cakes for anyone. No discrimination involved.  If you want a Halloween cake, that was not the place to go.  

He did however, offer the sale of Wedding Cakes (also, something that has nothing to do with the Bible, the Wedding Cake is actually a left over Roman Pagan tradition that got carried over.)  The law says that if you provide a service to straights, you provide that same service to gays.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Then stand strong for the pedophiles, one of the most oppressed sexual preferences of them all.



As well they should be.  

You see, the thing is, a child can't "consent" to having sex. That's why it's oppressed.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > The best way to protect anyone on this issue is to have “the right to refuse service to anyone” that way no one is controlling anyone else. Getting along is way overrated...
> ...


They didn't want the bride and groom topping he provided.

But they were free to buy the hetero cakes he offered to everyone.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Then stand strong for the pedophiles, one of the most oppressed sexual preferences of them all.
> ...


But that's his sexual preference, you bigot.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Because everyone should have access to goods and services, that's why.
> 
> Even Mormons.



If a Mormon wanted a Christian baker to build a cake celebrating that God handed down Divine edicts on Golden Tablets to Mr. Smith or whoever, and the baker politely refused to do that, the baker would be within his rights.  That's because the Mormon would have no state-enforced recourse to compel a Christian to condone or promote an ideology that flies directly in the face of his beliefs.  If the state stepped in and told the Christian to bake the cake anyway, it would be a form of the state adopting one favorite religion over another.

Let's say a customer walked into a Mormon bakery and asked for a cake to celebrate drinking Coca-Cola.  The Mormon could politely decline to do that as well.  If the state forced the Mormon to build that cake, that would be the state elevating one ideology over another that is directly opposed to it.

Neither baker can be punished for practicing their faith in the public/marketplace when it comes to refusing to condone or promote other repugnant ideologies; because the state would have to "take sides" on ideologies re: enforcement-to-play-along; which is disallowed re: this USSC Ruling.

This is why this USSC Decision is a win for people of faith.  The Court told Colorado "you either punish equally or respect equally".  If the state opted for "punish equally" that means the state could compel a gay graphic designer to build a billboard for a busy highway that reads "homosexuality is a sin unto God" or the state could force a Christian baker to build a cake that says "Fuck God in the Ass".

You'll notice that none of this is about innate race or gender.  It's about behaviors, lifestyles and ideologies...categories that the US Constitution tells us we don't have to condone or promote if we don't want to.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > The best way to protect anyone on this issue is to have “the right to refuse service to anyone” that way no one is controlling anyone else. Getting along is way overrated...
> ...


Na, not really it should be up to the individual on what they want to do. Why force somebody into shit they want nothing to do with what purpose would that serve? Except for control... the collective loves to control people they disagree with. That’s why there is no such thing as any sort of freedom and individuality in the collective.

It’s laws like this is the reason why we have no real freedom in this country...
BTWChristianity is not a religion…


----------



## dblack (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> The question is, is protecting individuals from discrimination from other individuals in the collective interest.



Nope. Because all you're really doing is making the government the chief discriminator. You're taking the power of moderating social interactions away from individuals, who must do so without resorting to force, and assigning to the state, which has no such limitation.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

dblack said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The question is, is protecting individuals from discrimination from other individuals in the collective interest.
> ...


Yep, Forcing someone to make baked goods for somebody else is ridiculous


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> If a Mormon wanted a Christian baker to build a cake celebrating that God handed down Divine edicts on Golden Tablets to Mr. Smith or whoever, and the baker politely refused to do that, the baker would be within his rights. That's because the Mormon would have no state-enforced recourse to compel a Christian to condone or promote an ideology that flies directly in the face of his beliefs. If the state stepped in and told the Christian to bake the cake anyway, it would be a form of the state adopting one favorite religion over another.



Well, no, the Baker would be within his rights because he doesn't offer Joseph Smith Cakes to anyone.  





"Weeee... I'm a General!"  

So if the baker doesn't make that kind of cake, it isn't discrimination if he doesn't make it for a Mormon.  

On the other hand, if the Baker makes wedding cakes, then he has to provide them to anyone who wants to buy them.  

This isn't complicated.  



Silhouette said:


> Let's say a customer walked into a Mormon bakery and asked for a cake to celebrate drinking Coca-Cola. The Mormon could politely decline to do that as well. If the state forced the Mormon to build that cake, that would be the state elevating one ideology over another that is directly opposed to it.



I don't think Mormons actually have a problem with drinking Coca-Cola.  

Can Mormons Drink Coca-Cola?

But again, if the Mormons made all sorts of Coke Cakes for themselves and refused to sell them to Evangelicals, then you might actually have a discrimination issue to argue.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

dblack said:


> Nope. Because all you're really doing is making the government the chief discriminator. You're taking the power of moderating social interactions away from individuals, who must do so without resorting to force, and assigning to the state, who has no such limitation.



Well, no, I'm making the state the final arbiter, not discriminator. 

So let's be honest, most people get service they don't like, they aren't going to ever shop there again, they might write a nasty Yelp review, and they'll find someone who will do business with them, and that's fine. 

But there should be redress if someone discriminates, because you certainly don't want to go back to THIS shit.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> They didn't want the bride and groom topping he provided.
> 
> But they were free to buy the hetero cakes he offered to everyone.



I'm sure he didn't put the same two little figures on every cake.  

Some of his cake didn't have any figures at all on them.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> *Well, no, I'm making the state the final arbiter, not discriminator.*
> 
> So let's be honest, most people get service they don't like, they aren't going to ever shop there again, they might write a nasty Yelp review, and they'll find someone who will do business with them, and that's fine.
> 
> But there should be redress if someone discriminates, because you certainly don't want to go back to THIS shit.


But when asking the state to enforce one ideology, behavior or lifestyle over another, you have just asked the state to favor a behavior, lifestyle or ideology over another, which the state CANNOT DO.  By Law.  Behaviors, lifestyles and ideologies are in a different category than innate race or gender.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Yep, Forcing someone to make baked goods for somebody else is ridiculous



so if I refuse to serve any food to a black person, that should be okay, then? 

Or a Mormon? 

How about if I'm a tow truck driver and I realize the person stranded on the side of the road I was sent to pick up is Jewish... should I just leave him stranded?  

Where does "It's okay to discriminate" end?


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > They didn't want the bride and groom topping he provided.
> ...


Nor decorations. He refuses to be forced to labor.

Whether it's decorating cakes or picking cotton, you lefties gotta be forcing people to work for you.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, Forcing someone to make baked goods for somebody else is ridiculous
> ...


First of all you should educate yourself... Catholics represent Catholics they speak for Catholics and only Catholics.

That’s why I say the right to refuse service to anybody hurts nobody, except for control freaks. That way you get rid of all control...


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > If asked to bake a cake celebrating cohabitation outside of Marriage, I think he should have every right to deny.
> ...



You mean he should be FORCED out of business


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Just like a politically correct control freak, if they can’t control you they will destroy you…


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> You mean he should be FORCED out of business



That works, too.  



Rustic said:


> First of all you should educate yourself... Catholics represent Catholics they speak for Catholics and only Catholics.
> 
> That’s why I say the right to refuse service to anybody hurts nobody, except for control freaks. That way you get rid of all control...



I'm sure you pine for these Good Old Days... 
















Ah, whenever you hear one of these guys talking about "Freedom" what they really mean is 'White Male Christian Privilege"


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > You mean he should be FORCED out of business
> ...


Your Democrat signs prove our point. Blacks were forced to labor by Democrats against their will, too.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > You mean he should be FORCED out of business
> ...


Lol
You do realize I’ve lived in a socialist controlled environment my whole adolescence, it’s called the pine ridge Indian reservation... being 100% Oglala Sioux


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Rustic said:


> L9l
> You do realize I’ve lived in a socialist controlled environment my whole adolescence, it’s called the pine ridge Indian reservation... being 100% Oglala Sioux



Sure you are Chief Running Gag.  



Aba Incieni said:


> Your Democrat signs prove our point. Blacks were forced to labor by Democrats against their will, too.



Um, no, those signs were put up by business owners you want to have free range to discriminate.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > L9l
> ...


Democrat business owners from the south during the Dem's Jim Crow heyday.

The same people who forced blacks to pick cotton and enter through back doors and drink from different fountains and force others to bake cakes.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > L9l
> ...


Lol
See you just made my point you can’t stand not being in control...


----------



## Flopper (Jun 16, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Well floppy the problem is that the marketplace is the public and the baker does not take a day off or a minute off from his faith. The Court just indicated that Colorado cannot punish Christians in the marketplace. So what that boils down to is gay lifestyles vs faith. Faith is the only of the two that has expressed written Constitutional protections.
> 
> Besides, lifestyles run the gamut. Where would it stop? The Court has to think about LGBT terms like "gender fluid etc. etc". Why should ONLY LGBT lifestyles get to force their ideologies on Christians when others equally repugnant do not? The Court knows what it decides today will be used as a wedge for tomorrow. And the "lifestyles as race" wedge is already becoming the unworkable & unfair (to other repugnant lifestyles left arbitrarily out in the cold) rats nest I predicted it would be.
> 
> ...


*The Free Exercise Clause of the 1st amendment reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals.  If the state was forcing the baker to commit or facilitate a homosexual act and in so doing prevents the baker from exercising his religious beliefs then one could argue that the law violates his constitutional rights.  However, that is not what happened. The gay couple only asked the baker to sell them a cake to celebrate their marriage.  They never asked the baker to create a cake or participate in their marriage.  The simple act of selling a wedding cake to a gay couple would in no way involve the baker in any homosexual acts.  If that were the case, the agent that rented the couple a limousine, the real estate agent that rented them their apartment, the grocery store that sells them food would all be facilitating homosexual acts which would be ridiculous.

BTW, there is no gay lifestyle just as there is no straight lifestyle.  Gays are as diverse in the ways they lead their lives as anyone else. The phrase "gay lifestyle" is used to denigrate lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.  

Commentary: Here’s Why the Supreme Court Wedding Cake Case Is So Complicated
*


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Well floppy the problem is that the marketplace is the public and the baker does not take a day off or a minute off from his faith. The Court just indicated that Colorado cannot punish Christians in the marketplace. So what that boils down to is gay lifestyles vs faith. Faith is the only of the two that has expressed written Constitutional protections.
> ...


Why force the baker into the whole situation that they find absolutely repugnant? What are you some type a fucked up control freak? Why force that repugnant shit on people that want nothing to do with it?

Progressives in your collective are so fucked in the head they can’t even see that the right of refuse service to anyone helps everybody… It takes away all unnecessary control


----------



## dblack (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> I'm sure you pine for these Good Old Days...



No excuse for a bad law. You do get that, right? There are bad laws that need to be corrected. Happens all the time. That doesn't mean those who want them corrected are miscreants or want some terrible outcome. You're just clinging to a strawman.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Plus the baker isn't asking each customer what they're going to do with that cookie or that eclaire or that sheet cake. It's when two men walk in & tell him they want a cake for their "wedding". At that moment the baker knows his talents will be utilized to promote a forbidden spiritual abomination. He cannot participate in the spread of homo values in any culture or he faces eternal fire for the mortal sin. (Jude 1). Marriage is THE epitome of a social icon. So long story short he can't be clipped from the public/marketplace for knowing if he participates in certain aspects of it his eternal soul will perish. People must be "respectful" of his passive refusal according to the edicts of his faith.
> ...


*The Supreme Court has never defined religion but the courts do not in general uphold religious beliefs as a justification for crime unless the person is brainwashed or is criminally insane.  Where things get murky is when one constitution right, the freedom to worship is claimed to result in the violation of another person's constitutional right.

I'm always amazed how some people seem to believe the constitution was divinely inspired; that is the founding fathers always selected the right word of phrase and their beliefs are all as valid today as they were then.  Constitutional scholars labor over the intended meaning of each phrase just as religious scholars labors over each verse in the bible.  *


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > You mean he should be FORCED out of business
> ...



Nope, none of those are “fluid”


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 16, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Well floppy the problem is that the marketplace is the public and the baker does not take a day off or a minute off from his faith. The Court just indicated that Colorado cannot punish Christians in the marketplace. So what that boils down to is gay lifestyles vs faith. Faith is the only of the two that has expressed written Constitutional protections.
> ...



If heterosexual lifestyle is not demeaning, then why would homosexual lifestyle be?

Issues perhaps? But then again, I don’t care.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

Flopper said:


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


People just interpret the Bible, they do not determine its meaning...That’s up to an higher power.
It’s like these dumbasses that think that the old and New Testament are opposed to each other in anyway. If the Bible is not taken as an whole it’s gibberish.
It’s a Christian thing some may not understand


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 16, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *The Supreme Court has never defined religion but the courts do not in general uphold religious beliefs as a justification for crime unless the person is brainwashed or is criminally insane.  Where things get murky is when one constitution right, the freedom to worship is claimed to result in the violation of another person's constitutional right.
> 
> *



Lifestyles don't have Constitutional rights.  But a person does have the right to their deep spiritual convictions.  Passively refusing to condone or promote another lifestyle is not "a crime".  The baker didn't whip the gay lifestyle men with a cat 'o nine tails or throw a brick in their face.  He merely said "no, my deeply held convictions will not allow me to do that."

The courts just began to clear away the murkiness by saying others must be "respectful" of the baker's passive pass on baking a "gay wedding" cake.  Making the repugnant (see gay pride parades put on in anticipation of children attending for details) gay lifestyle more special than others was a miscarriage of justice and unconstitutional.  It was subjective and done by just 5 unelected lawyers in DC; one of which who was telling the press weeks before the Hearing about her clear and undeniable bias on the case...

Gay is a lifestyle.  We will come back to this point again and again until it sinks in.  If one repugnant lifestyle gets special rights and privileges then all repugnant lifestyles must.  Are you wholly unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment and how it works?  What is more repugnant than a group that loosely identifies their lifestyles by deviant sex acts and who celebrate that lifestlye by performing those deviant sex acts in a public "pride" parade, hoping children will be watching?  No, I mean really.  What is more repugnant than that?  If that clears the bar, then they all do.  Will a Christian have to condone and promote ALL of the potential lifestyles or face banishment from the marketplace?


----------



## Flopper (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, Forcing someone to make baked goods for somebody else is ridiculous
> ...


*Most assuredly, no.  A tow truck driver that offers his services to public, will certainly be opening himself up for a discrimination law suit either based on State Accommodates laws or federal civil rights laws if he refuses a tow based on his religion beliefs.

Some people have the mistaken idea that they can discriminate based on race, religion, age, sex, etc if they can find a verse in some holy book that appears to say it's ok.  It's been tried over and over and rarely works such as the girl who claimed prostitution was part of her religion, an ancient Egyptian sect.  Jehovah Witness has tried many times to get favorable court rulings based on violation of 1st amendment rights.  Most of the time it failed. Judges aren't dummies.  They can usually determine if the action required by law prevents free exercise of religion. However in some case, such as the baker, determining whether the action would prevent free exercise of religion is not clear.   *


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

Flopper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


You are proving my point, no one is hurt by the right to refuse service to anybody. It’s all about control with you guys isn’t it?


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 16, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *  They can usually determine if the action required by law prevents free exercise of religion. However in some case, such as the baker, determining whether the action would prevent free exercise of religion is not clear.   *


Jude 1 of the New Testament makes it crystal clear.  If a Christian allows gays to hijack the paramount social icon of marriage (thus uber-normalizing that lifestyle in his society), most absolutely he knows his soul will burn in hell for an eternity.  The Big Guy doesn't like "blending" of the basic social fabric (with its random flaws) He created.  In other words, He doesn't want the entire fabric to be flawed by attrition that always comes when perverse social trends run amok (Obergefell) and escalates over a generation or three.  No soul alive then will have the faintest clue what God's basic fabric used to be.

Scalia was right for secular reasons:.  Obergefell is a grave, grave fuck up.  But it's a fuck up for even more important reasons as well.  Hence why the Christian must be left to passively refuse.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 16, 2018)

Flopper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



The Bible does not abhor towing cars.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 16, 2018)

Flopper said:


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


Also amazing how the most "original intent" / "strict constitutionalist" blowhard always winds up being the first to change everything once granted the power.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 16, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> I don’t care.


Yet keep coming back for some reason... "Issues perhaps?" Insanity, what is it?


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


There’s nothing constitutional about forcing a baker to make baked goods for someone else


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 16, 2018)

Rustic said:


> There’s nothing constitutional about forcing a baker to make baked goods for someone else


Great, if only you could actually show one being forced to bake a thing...
.Your choice to live in some dream world is just that.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 16, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > There’s nothing constitutional about forcing a baker to make baked goods for someone else
> ...


The right to refuse service to anyone is the best policy, that way no one is controlling someone else


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 16, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > I don’t care.
> ...



Why don’t you include the entire post?

Because you practice dumbfuckery?

That’s my best guess


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 16, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > There’s nothing constitutional about forcing a baker to make baked goods for someone else
> ...



Duress and fines are considered force.

I thought all adults knew that.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 16, 2018)

Rustic said:


> The right to refuse service to anyone is the best policy, that way no one is controlling someone else


Iow, you can't show a baker/proprietor being physically forced or threatened with violence to bake a damn thing here in the U.S.. Big surprise.
People have always created or accepted government control when population growth naturally made the group unmanageable otherwise. Most understand (almost innately) that no person, government, or law can suit everyone. A more perfect union.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 16, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Duress and fines are considered force.
> 
> I thought all adults knew that.


See, you thought. Clearly no help to be found there! Stop doing that.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jun 16, 2018)

Rustic said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > AvgGuyIA said:
> ...


I suspect that appearances may be deceiving..LOL! I note you did not actually address what I said..and I doubt that what I said is 'politically correct' as much as it is simply correct.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

dblack said:


> No excuse for a bad law. You do get that, right? There are bad laws that need to be corrected. Happens all the time. That doesn't mean those who want them corrected are miscreants or want some terrible outcome. You're just clinging to a strawman.



except this is a perfectly fine law.  If you are a homophobic baker, then you have options. 

1) Do the service you promised to do.
2) Find something else to do for a living where you won't have to deal with icky, icky, gay folks.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> 1) Do the service you promised to do.
> 2) Find something else to do for a living where you won't have to deal with icky, icky, gay folks.


I'd suggest running for office, but... then again, probably need support from at last some of them icky, gay folks...
What a bummer, huh? People - can't live with 'em - can't live without 'em!


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Lifestyles don't have Constitutional rights.



Being gay isn't a lifestyle... it's a sexual orientation.  No matter how hard to pray away the gay, you are still queer... I'm telling you this for your own good, before you end up next to a rent-boy and a pile of blow..  



Silhouette said:


> But a person does have the right to their deep spiritual convictions.



So If I deeply believe I need to cut out my enemies' hearts to appease the Winged Serpent, you are okay with that, right?  



Silhouette said:


> The courts just began to clear away the murkiness by saying others must be "respectful" of the baker's passive pass on baking a "gay wedding" cake. Making the repugnant (see gay pride parades put on in anticipation of children attending for details) gay lifestyle more special than others was a miscarriage of justice and unconstitutional. It was subjective and done by just 5 unelected lawyers in DC; one of which who was telling the press weeks before the Hearing about her clear and undeniable bias on the case...



Yup, because here's the thing. 

When you get right down to it, all your fucked up homophobic arguments boil down to two things. 

1) You think it's icky. (In fact, you think it's so fucking icky you can't stop talking about it.) 

2) Your Imaginary Friend in the sky says it's bad. (Although he says a lot of things are bad, and I don't see you running around stoning people who work on Sunday.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Jude 1 of the New Testament makes it crystal clear. If a Christian allows gays to hijack the paramount social icon of marriage (thus uber-normalizing that lifestyle in his society), most absolutely he knows his soul will burn in hell for an eternity.



1) SHow me where Jude 1 is in the constitution.
2) Prove to me that Hell actually exists

thanks.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 16, 2018)

No constitutional provision provides anyone to practice any particular living.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 16, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *The Supreme Court has never defined religion but the courts do not in general uphold religious beliefs as a justification for crime unless the person is brainwashed or is criminally insane.  Where things get murky is when one constitution right, the freedom to worship is claimed to result in the violation of another person's constitutional right.
> ...


*Let’s get something straight. Lifestyle is not the issue. Courts do not rule on lifestyles.  The only issue is whether the baker has the right to violate the state public accommodation law because doing so would keep him from practicing his religion. 

Since you are so intent on discussing the gay lifestyle and apparently have knowledge of such, how about telling the rest of us about that lifestyle.    *


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 16, 2018)

Flopper said:


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


It's full of the aids, degradation, and death. To call it gay is like saying that abortion is for the children.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 16, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


*His business is a public accommodation. If he can't accommodate the public, then his business should not be open to the public.  There is always the option of a private business, i.e. a private club.  As long as membership is not open to the public and it's intent is not to avoid the law, the baker can discriminate all he likes within the club.  He could also sell his cakes to church members operating with the church organization and not be subject to the law.    *


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 16, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


I'm sure there are many cakes he would refuse to decorate. Say, a grown man sexually abusing children, or Dems celebrating another KKK lynching of a black man.

Let's force him to, since they're part of the public, too.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 16, 2018)

Lifestyles don't have Constitutional rights.  But a person does have the right to their deep spiritual convictions.  Passively refusing to condone or promote another lifestyle is not "a crime".  The baker didn't whip the gay lifestyle men with a cat 'o nine tails or throw a brick in their face.  He merely said "no, my deeply held convictions will not allow me to do that."

The courts just began to clear away the murkiness by saying others must be "respectful" of the baker's passive pass on baking a "gay wedding" cake.  Making the repugnant (see gay pride parades put on in anticipation of children attending for details) gay lifestyle more special than others was a miscarriage of justice and unconstitutional.  It was subjective and done by just 5 unelected lawyers in DC; one of which who was telling the press weeks before the Hearing about her clear and undeniable bias on the case...

Gay is a lifestyle.  We will come back to this point again and again until it sinks in.  If one repugnant lifestyle gets special rights and privileges then all repugnant lifestyles must.  Are you wholly unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment and how it works?  What is more repugnant than a group that loosely identifies their lifestyles by deviant sex acts and who celebrate that lifestlye by performing those deviant sex acts in a public "pride" parade, hoping children will be watching?  No, I mean really.  What is more repugnant than that?  If that clears the bar, then they all do.  Will a Christian have to condone and promote ALL of the potential lifestyles or face banishment from the marketplace?
*


Flopper said:



			Let’s get something straight. Lifestyle is not the issue. Courts do not rule on lifestyles.  The only issue is whether the baker has the right to violate the state public accommodation law because doing so would keep him from practicing his religion. 

Since you are so intent on discussing the gay lifestyle and apparently have knowledge of such, how about telling the rest of us about that lifestyle.
		
Click to expand...

*
The Courts would rule on lifestyle when they understand that is the premise of the entire LGBTQ etc. etc. argument.  Because theirs is a lifestyle.  It shifts, it's "fluid" and behavioral under quite a wide umbrella loosely knitted around deviant sex behaviors and mental problems surrounding the acceptance of reality on its terms between the legs.

Since LGBTQ etc. etc. is a lifestyle, or more properly a neo-cult, it doesn't have any expressed protections under the Constitution.  Like I said before, any group of adults who lump their deviant sex behaviors under an umbrella and then march in public flaunting those deviant sex acts where they hope children will be watching as they do so "in pride", is a repugnant minority behavior.  Once you allow one of the most vile repugnant behavioral lifestyles to do such things as subjectively special and privileged, then all deviant minority lifestyles must be able to enjoy same protections.  And this is legally unworkable.  So eventually the Court will have to rule on lifestyles having special rights and privileges vs the written and secure rights of people of faith to passively refuse to condone, participate in or promote such repugnant lifestyles.



Flopper said:


> *His business is a public accommodation. If he can't accommodate the public, then his business should not be open to the public.  There is always the option of a private business, i.e. a private club.  As long as membership is not open to the public and it's intent is not to avoid the law, the baker can discriminate all he likes within the club.  He could also sell his cakes to church members operating with the church organization and not be subject to the law.    *



Nope.  The Court just said that a Christian cannot be penalized for their faith 24/7, even into the public marketplace.  Read the Opinion carefully.  Kennedy said that a person of faith carries those deeply held convictions with them 24/7 and to force them to abdicate those values to enter or stay in the marketplace is a violation of their 1st Amendment rights.  That is discrimination and the baker now actually has a lawsuit against the city in Colorado who punished him for exercising his 1st Amendment rights; sending him a clear punitive message that if he wanted to continue to do business, he had to give up those rights at least temporarily to accommodate a non-protected repugnant lifestyle.  If this was about racial discrimination or gender discrimination this conversation would be vastly different because they are static and innate; immutable and have nothing at all to do with a lifestyle or secular ideologies.

PA laws on the gay lifestyle question just lost.  It will take you awhile to assimilate that fact.  But it is a fact nevertheless.

*Jake vv  People can read the Opinion and understand for themselves that Kennedy said exactly what I just summarized about faith being 24/7 into the marketplace.  The rest is the inevitable rendering of the future jousts that will come and force the final reduction of logic on whether or not (just some but not other) repugnant lifestyles get "special protections and privileges".*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 16, 2018)

Your opinion, Sil, does not match the law.

It does not matter what you think about it, in terms of reality in the law.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 16, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *  They can usually determine if the action required by law prevents free exercise of religion. However in some case, such as the baker, determining whether the action would prevent free exercise of religion is not clear.   *
> ...


*And where in Jude 1 is there a mention of marriage much less being sent to hell for hijacking it.  And where is the definition of "strange flesh".  It would seem that term could well be referring to cross race relationships, bestiality, anal sex, a french kiss, or any of number of acts performed by hetro and homosexual couples.  In fact, just about any sexual act that deviates from what was considered normal at the time would probably qualify.

In ancient times, most any sexual act that was performed without the goal of propagation was at best considered frivolous and at worst, a one way tick to hell.  The reason of course is the strength of the tribe or nation was measured by size.  This was certainly true of the Jews whose enemies often out numbered them. 

With the formation of the church, anything that hampered the growth of the family which would certainly include homosexuality, contraception, abortion, and even the preference to save the life of the child over the mother  was all aimed at producing large families and thus growth of the family, church, and the nation.

Today growth of population is not universally considered good and in many places discouraged, thus taboos and laws to promote large families are dying which include includes homosexuality, divorce, and abortion. By the end of the century when populations are pushing near 12 billion, these taboos will be as out of dated as eating the dead.*


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 16, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *And where in Jude 1 is there a mention of marriage much less being sent to hell for hijacking it.  And where is the definition of "strange flesh".  It would seem that term could well be referring to cross race relationships, bestiality, anal sex, a french kiss, or any of number of acts performed by hetro and homosexual couples.  In fact, just about any  sexual act that deviates from what was considered normal at time would probably qualify.
> 
> *



My bad.  I forgot to tell you the prelude to Jude 1.  It's Romans 1 where it talks about men lying with men and women lying with women.  Jude 1 references the destruction of Sodom for the "strange flesh" obsessions its residents espoused.  You're aware that to the present day the term "Sodomy" refers to having sex with the same gender.

You can play dumb and do word salad until the cows come home but it ain't going to change that Kennedy just said that a Christian cannot be punished for carrying his faith 24/7 into the public marketplace.  And that includes the dire warnings in Jude 1 for promoting the spread of homosexuality in any culture using any vehicle.  Most especially the paramount one: marriage.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 16, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


*Keep in mind there is nothing to indicated that the baker was asked to create a cake with any sexual explicit decorations.  In fact, the evidence of the trial suggest that the gay couple simply said they wanted to buy a wedding cake and there was no discussion of design because the baker refused the couple.

If the baker's policy was to put nothing sexually explicit on any cake he would be within his rights to accept the order from the gay couple but refuse any sexually  originated decorations.  As long as his policies are same for all, there's no problem and that is the key rule for any business in regard to discrimination.  Keep your policies uniform and follow them.  Most businesses have no problem with that because they don't want to turn any customers away.   *


----------



## bodecea (Jun 16, 2018)

Rustic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Get rid of all PA laws...and any business can reject anyone based on religion, race, handicap or gender.    Wooot!
> ...


Nope...if we are going to let people discriminate against others....lets get rid of PA laws across the board.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 16, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *And where in Jude 1 is there a mention of marriage much less being sent to hell for hijacking it.  And where is the definition of "strange flesh".  It would seem that term could well be referring to cross race relationships, bestiality, anal sex, a french kiss, or any of number of acts performed by hetro and homosexual couples.  In fact, just about any  sexual act that deviates from what was considered normal at time would probably qualify.
> ...


*I'm not going to get into a discussion of the bible because, I'm not a biblical scholar.  However, one thing you said is incorrect. Sodomy both now and in the past refers to sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation.  In religious text in also includes bestiality.

Since people have always mistakenly thought anal and oral sex as being exclusively homosexual sex, some people do use the word Sodomy for homosexual intercourse, although it is not correct.

A study of 24,000 gay men revealed that only 35% routinely practice anal sex or oral sex, slightly more for oral and slightly less for anal.   A study of 8,000 heterosexual couples released last year showed that 29% have participated in oral sex and 23% participated in anal sex in the last 30 days.  Clearly anal and oral sex is not an exclusive activity of homosexual couples.

The most common form of sexual activity among both homosexual and heterosexual couples was kissing, hugging, and petting.

Since anal and oral sex is common among both homosexual and heterosexual couples, why do heterosexuals consider the activity so revolting if practices by same sex couples but ok if practiced by opposite sex couples?  *


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 16, 2018)

We dont  have to bake no Gawd Damned cakes, libtards!

roflmao


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 16, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Duress and fines are considered force.
> ...



I’m sorry, this whole time I thought you were an adult. 

My bad


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > No excuse for a bad law. You do get that, right? There are bad laws that need to be corrected. Happens all the time. That doesn't mean those who want them corrected are miscreants or want some terrible outcome. You're just clinging to a strawman.
> ...



Should a song writer, ask to write a song about something he can’t relate to be forced to quit writing songs about things he can?

Interesting


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 16, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> I’m sorry, this whole time I thought you were an adult.
> 
> My bad


Thanks. Apology accepted. Way beyond merely adult. 
Now take my advice and stop trying to think..
Mark my words. You'll soon knock your eye out with that thing!


----------



## Flopper (Jun 17, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*A song writer is not a public accommodation so the law does not apply to him. In fact, public accommodations laws only applies to businesses open to public.*


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 17, 2018)

JimBowie1958 said:


> We dont have to bake no Gawd Damned cakes, libtards!



Actually, you still do.... or we put you out of business. 

This is a good thing.



Pop23 said:


> Should a song writer, ask to write a song about something he can’t relate to be forced to quit writing songs about things he can?
> 
> Interesting



Did he offer to write songs about things he knows nothing about? I mean, if he says, "I don't know enough about Quantum Physics to find words that Rhyme", that might be a valid excuse.  Of course, a good writer would simply work with the client to find out more about the subject they want him to write about.

For those playing along at home, I have a very nice resume writing business. I am frequently called upon to write resumes for industries I've never worked in.  (Although at this point, I've pretty much written at least one for every industry out there.) Do you know what I do?

I work with the client to find out more about his job.  I do some online research into those companies and industries. 

What I don't do as a writer... Say that a Magic Man in the Sky is totally opposed to what you do for a living so I can't write about it.  Because that would be stupid.

It doesn't mean that I don't tell people things they don't want to hear. I often have to tell people certain things have no place in a resume. (Hobbies, why it was totally not your fault you got let go from a job, and so on.) 

So going back to the whole cake thing and how it applies. A gay wedding cake is pretty much just the same thing as a straight wedding cake.  I guess you still have to special order those two plastic dudes on the top.




*"oh, my God, the horror, the horror of it all!" *

But the point is, there's really nothing to keep a baker from making it. He could make it if world peace or the second coming depended on it.. He just does't want to because he's a terrible bigot trying to use religion as an excuse.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 17, 2018)

Happy Father's Day all you fellow mothaf'ers, everyone else too!


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 17, 2018)

Yes happy Father's Day for all the kids bound in a lesbian marriage contract. Sorry this day will never involve you!


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 17, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Yes happy Father's Day for all the kids bound in a lesbian marriage contract. Sorry this day will never involve you!



Again, they are better off than the millions of marriages where the sperm donor took off and was never heard from again.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 17, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Yes happy Father's Day for all the kids bound in a lesbian marriage contract. Sorry this day will never involve you!
> ...



Not really because those kids still have hope of a father. Kids of lesbian "marriages" have had that hope extinguished for life per contract.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 17, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Not really because those kids still have hope of a father.



Um, yeah... Hope.  Okay, buddy, here's the thing, if you are hoping that a guy who knocked up your mom and ran off on her is going to come back, you are living on false hope.  

Probably better to have a second parent who is a woman who will actually be there.  Just saying. 



Silhouette said:


> Kids of lesbian "marriages" have had that hope extinguished for life per contract.



There is no parenting contract, buddy.  If there was, then we should outlaw divorce for all families with children in the house.  

Nobody is going to do that.


----------



## mdk (Jun 17, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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



Are you ever going to provide a father in your own household? Or does _hope_ spring eternal?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 17, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > We dont have to bake no Gawd Damned cakes, libtards!
> ...



You equating resume writing to songwriting is precious. 

Here is a website dedicated to advertising THE BUSINESS OF SONGWRITERS 

Now, should an artist who cannot relate to same sex relationships be FORCED to create ART he CANNOT relate to?

It’s really not that difficult to answer.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 17, 2018)

JimBowie1958 said:


> We dont  have to bake no Gawd Damned cakes, libtards!
> 
> roflmao


Well, congratulations.   I guess trumpanzees will take what little victories they can get.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 17, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> You equating resume writing to songwriting is precious.
> 
> Here is a website dedicated to advertising THE BUSINESS OF SONGWRITERS
> 
> ...



Meh, I'd argue writing resumes is a lot tougher than writing songs...  

all out to do is rhyme.   I guess "banal" rhymes with "anal", but what rhymes with "cunnilingus"?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 17, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > You equating resume writing to songwriting is precious.
> ...



I don’t care how highly you think of yourself, but I doubt their will be a resume museum ever built.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 17, 2018)

bodecea said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > We dont  have to bake no Gawd Damned cakes, libtards!
> ...


I'd hardly call the USSC telling states they cannot take sides with LGBT against Christians' passive refusal to condone, participate in or promote LGBT lifestyles in the public marketplace "a little victory"...

YUGE victory #1: that the Court believes Christians' 1st Amendment protections go with them into the public marketplace and

YUGE victory #2: (the YUGEST of all) that the Court considers lifestyles like LGBT to be legally inferior to classes with actual protections.  If this was about innate things like race or gender, the Court would've found that Colorado was right.  The Court so acting as it did in this case means that it considers LGBT lifestyles as "less protected than" race or gender.  (Hively v Ivy Tech 2016 found this too)  And certainly not dominant to religious objections to play along.

Now you will argue that _"the Court didn't say that.  They said that Colorado has to treat LGBT and Christians equally; requiring either both of them to create items for the marketplace wholly offensive to their core ideologies or allow both of them to passively refuse to do that".
_
But the extreme of that "have to" scenario...and you'd better believe the extreme will be tested as it always is in homo sapiens... is that a Christian would then have to bake a cake that says "Fuck God!" on it or a gay baker would have to bake a cake that says "AIDS is endemic in the US thanks to gay men".  Stuff like that.  So what really happened, and Colorado knows it and is squirming in its seat about, is that the Court said "Christians can object to any participation in a gay wedding because it is wholly repugnant to their core beliefs".  You call that victory "little"?   Pretty sure the Kleins of Oregon aren't thinking so.

By the way.  I was wondering about the new classification of the LGBT lifestyle; given that they unanimously line up behind "pride" parades.  You know, the parades where they put on graphic acts of deviant sex hoping kids will be watching or even marching just behind them?  With such a repugnant lifestyle gaining special protections, which lifestyles wouldn't qualify for the same, and why?  Put on your thinking caps.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 17, 2018)

Any takers on the last question above?  Which lifestyles wouldn't qualify for same status, and why?


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 17, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


His policy is the same for all.

See thread title.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 17, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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


*The children in most lesbian families do have fathers from a previous marriage and in most cases they are a lot better off now than in a family headed by dysfunctional parents in a highly conflicted relationship. 

Multiple studies have show that on average, kids with two moms seem to be more confident and less aggressive than those raised by a mom and a dad. They are open-minded, affectionate and less susceptible to anxiety and depression. *
The 7 habits of highly effective lesbian families


----------



## Rustic (Jun 17, 2018)

Flopper said:


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


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 17, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *The children in most lesbian families do have fathers from a previous marriage and...*



Wait...what?

"Lesbians"?  Innate?  Well thanks for settling the USSC future deliberations on lifestyle/choice/behavioral vs innate.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 17, 2018)

New CIA video leak reveals amazingly consistent final communication attempt by lemmings the world over immediately prior to death due to short fall off high cliff:




Many mofoing fathers among them. So sad.
If lemmings understood much of anything they'd stop leading each other off cliffs.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 17, 2018)

In California, according to Windsor 2013, gay marriage is still outlawed.  CA's Constitution too says "marriage is only between a man and a woman".  To this day, 2018.  Windsor said 56 times that the definition of marriage is up to the individual states.  Obergefell overturned Windsor while simultaneously citing it as its justification for forcing (just gay but arbitrarily not other exceptions) marriage on the 50 states.  Yet one can only feel forced if one chooses to respect an illegal Verdict from the USSC.  One of the Justices openly advertised her bias on Obergefell to the press weeks before the Hearing.

So states really are free to not allow "gay marriage" until that little problem is cleared up.  That and a dozen others..


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 17, 2018)

*lets examine WHY THE SUPREME COURT set the BAKER FREE  based on federal and state law, etc.:*
"As neither is the baker who first AGREES to sell to THE PUBLIC then reneges selectively claiming Jesus. Seriously. Get help. You are dangerously pigheaded and dim."- grumble...There was a "crime" committed by the baker.- flop...

BOTH *WRONG*! why? because this baker operated his Christian themed business in a manner similar to a CHRISTIAN church gift shop. His effort at glorifying his God was clear in his artistry celebrating marriage as both HE understood it from his sincerely held long term religious beliefs (obviously heterosexual unions of 2 people) AND AS THE STATE OF COLORADO defined marriage at the time (not same sex according to Colorado law at that time) and HE WAS TRUE to both his FAITH and his citizenship in his STATE of Colorado.
*

 *
*Colorado Same-Sex Marriage Developments*

In 2006, Colorado voters passed, by 55-45, Amendment 43, which added a new section 31 to Article II of the Colorado Constitution, reading: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

C.R.S. 14-2-104(1)(b) similarly prohibits same-sex marriages between gay or lesbian couples, by specifying that a marriage is between one man and one woman.

In March 2013, the Colorado governor signed into law SB 13-011, the Colorado Civil Union Act, which added a new Article 15 to Title 14 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.  Colorado has now become one of the growing number of states (18, as of March 2013) that provides for either same-sex marriages, or civil unions.
2009 thru 2012 *and beyond: same sex marriages PROHIBITED in Colorado*

*ACLU case* description:

David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in July 2012, with Charlie’s mother, to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. Dave and Charlie planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate with family and friends back home in Colorado. But bakery owner Jack Phillips informed them that the bakery wouldn’t sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples.

from *COLORADO LAW*:
14-2-104. Formalities.
Statute text
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section, a marriage is valid in this state if:
(a) It is licensed, solemnized, and registered as provided in this part 1; and
(b) It is only between one man and one woman.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 14-2-112, any marriage contracted within or outside this state that does not satisfy paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not be recognized as valid in this state.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 17, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


*LGBT lifestyle is a fictional concept.  It's as silly as the hetro lifestyle or the left-handed lifestyle.  I have yet to see any federal court ruling about the "LGBT Lifestyle"

Most people use the term, LGBT lifestyle to refer to the gay scene, promiscuous activities, gaudy clothing and jewelry, extravagant mannerisms in body and speech, and outrageous sexual gestures. But this is only a tiny part of the lives of some LGBTs and non-existent in most.         
Most are quietly respectable and law abiding, just like most people.  They work in same jobs as other people, live in the same neighborhoods, eat at the same restaurants, send their kids to the same schools, and are no more sexual active than heterosexuals.  The term LGBT lifestyle makes no more sense than the Black lifestyle, the Jewish lifestyle, or Catholic lifestyle.

The simple fact is all people are different.  They are individuals, not cardboard characters in a racist fantasy.*


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 17, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> AS THE STATE OF COLORADO defined marriage at the time (not same sex according to Colorado law at that time) and HE WAS TRUE to both his FAITH and his citizenship in his STATE of Colorado.


No argument with that bit. Agree with this USSC ruling sending it back down to the State as well. Disagree with those painting it as a win for homophobes in general. That homophobe got his appeal and won continued judicial review due to timing details you mention. No broad win for haters here no matter how you spin it.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 17, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *
> The simple fact is all people are different.  They are individuals, not cardboard characters in a racist fantasy.*



Gender is fixed.  Yes, it is.  Race is fixed.  LGBT is a habitual lifestyle.  Just one repugnant lifestyle of a zillion out there.  According to the 14th Amendment, how is it that just one lifestyle may order Christians around to agree with it while others cannot?  Please be specific.  And remember that LGBT pride parades perform deviant sex acts with the anticipation that children will be watching.  Just in case you're going to try to firm up an argument around _"some lifestyles are just not (subjectively) acceptable for special privileges etc."_


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 17, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Gender is fixed. Yes, it is. Race is fixed. LGBT is a habitual lifestyle. Just one repugnant lifestyle of a zillion out there.



First, you really haven't offered any proof that sexual orientation is innate. 

So I ask you the simple question. When did you decide to be "Straight"? 

Second, just because it's repugnant to you, (which again, seems to indicate self-loathing gay man theory about you), doesn't mean anyone else cares. 



Silhouette said:


> According to the 14th Amendment, how is it that just one lifestyle may order Christians around to agree with it while others cannot? Please be specific.



Very simple. In some states sexual orientation is protected by Public Accommedation laws.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 17, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> In California, according to Windsor 2013, gay marriage is still outlawed.  CA's Constitution too says "marriage is only between a man and a woman".  To this day, 2018.  Windsor said 56 times that the definition of marriage is up to the individual states.  Obergefell overturned Windsor while simultaneously citing it as its justification for forcing (just gay but arbitrarily not other exceptions) marriage on the 50 states.  Yet one can only feel forced if one chooses to respect an illegal Verdict from the USSC.  One of the Justices openly advertised her bias on Obergefell to the press weeks before the Hearing.
> 
> So states really are free to not allow "gay marriage" until that little problem is cleared up.  That and a dozen others..


*And there are 12 other states that haven't changed their laws to allow gay marriage either.  The Mississippi Miscegenation Law that forbids the marriage of blacks and whites is still on the books. Many of the anti-black voting laws are still on the books of a number of states.

Once the federal courts overturn a state law, the law is invalid and many state legislature never bother to remove it because it can not be enforced.  Every so often, state legislators will do a clean up bill that deletes or change old laws that are no longer needed, or invalid.*


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 17, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> LGBT is a habitual lifestyle


If "lifestyle," that would be 4 distinct ones. Obviously.


Silhouette said:


> how is it that just one lifestyle may order Christians around


So do the math. That would actually yield 4 "lifestyles" against 1 "lifestyle." You'd still lose. Now stop whining. Suck it up.


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 17, 2018)

*US FEDERAL LAW: THE FIRST AMENDMENT*

The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. It established a separation of church and state that prohibited the federal government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” It also prohibits the government, in most cases, from interfering with a person’s religious beliefs or practices.

The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, extended religious freedom by preventing states from enacting laws that would advance or inhibit any one religion.


_THE NEW YORK TIMES
_
*Supreme Court Rejects Contraceptives Mandate for Some Corporations*
By Adam Liptak
June 30, 2014
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act violated a federal law protecting religious freedom. It was, a dissent said, “a decision of startling breadth.”

The 5-to-4 ruling, which applied to two companies owned by Christian families, opened the door to many challenges from corporations over laws that they claim violate their religious liberty.

The decision, issued on the last day of the term, reflected what appears to be a key characteristic of the court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. — an inclination toward nominally incremental rulings with vast potential for great change.

The contraceptive coverage requirement was challenged by two corporations whose owners say they try to run their businesses on Christian principles: Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, which makes wood cabinets. The requirement has also been challenged in 50 other cases, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented Hobby Lobby.

Justice Alito said the requirement that the two companies provide contraception coverage imposed a substantial burden on their religious liberty. Hobby Lobby, he said, could face annual fines of $475 million if it failed to comply.
Justice Alito said he accepted for the sake of argument that the government had a compelling interest in making sure women have access to contraception. But he said there were ways of doing that without violating the companies’ religious rights.

The government could pay for the coverage, he said. Or it could employ the accommodation already in use for certain nonprofit religious organizations, one requiring insurance companies to provide the coverage. The majority did not go so far as to endorse the accommodation.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined the majority opinion.

Justice Ginsburg, joined on this point by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said the court had for the first time extended religious-freedom protections to “the commercial, profit-making world.”

“The court’s expansive notion of corporate personhood,” Justice Ginsburg wrote, “invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faiths.”

She added that the contraception coverage requirement was vital to women’s health and reproductive freedom. Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan joined almost all of her dissent, but they said there was no need to take a position on whether corporations may bring claims under the religious liberty law.

The two sides differed on the sweep of the ruling.

“Although the court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations,” Justice Ginsburg wrote, “its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private.” She added that corporations could now object to “health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work.”


----------



## Flopper (Jun 17, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


*How utterly ridiculous.  You seem to know so little about what you're saying, you can't even articulate what you meant by their lifestyle.  Have you ever been to a gay rights parade?  Do you know anything about LGBT people other than what you read on the net?

For years, people have express their dissatisfaction with the LGBT community’s propensity for over-the-top parades and flamboyant displays of pride. Admittedly, I too used to be uncomfortable with Pride parades, and even just Pride in general. My own impressions of these events came from stereotypical images shown throughout mainstream media; pictures of half-naked individuals and extravagant drag queens. I knew these parades scared certain people, even some of those trying to be more open-minded, so I thought, why alienate them further with displays of gayness?  

I guess what I really never gave much thought to was most LGBT people have spent the majority of their lives hiding their true identities, ashamed and worried about what the public, the family, and friends might think if they knew who they really were.  Gay pride is about coming out, expressing yourself, thumbing your noise at traditions that have destroyed million lives over the year.  

The media concentrates on the most over the top behavior but what you don't see in the media are tens of thousands of people, gay and straight, adults, kids, and families taking a stance against discrimination and violence toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Many of these marchers have kids, brothers, and sisters, and friends that been victims violence, abuse, and discrimination. These people are marching to promote self-affirmation, dignity and equality,  pride as opposed to shame. *


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 17, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *How utterly ridiculous.  You seem to know so little about what you're saying, you can't even articulate what you meant by their lifestyle.  Have you ever been to a gay rights parade?  Do you know anything about LGBT people other than what you read on the net?*



You act as if people don't know how to use search engines for "images" on "gay pride parades".  What's being done is being done in anticipation that children will be in attendance watching.

That's what I know about the lifestyle and what they're proud of.  You know what they say, pictures are worth a thousand words.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 17, 2018)

Flopper said:


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


How many homosexuals have died of AIDS? How many homosexuals have committed suicide? How many of those who committed suicide also had AIDS? Not all behavior patterns are dignified. And not all behaviors are equally productive. I'm sorry that some find that their only mode of expression is sexual in nature --- I find that rather limited.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 17, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> *US FEDERAL LAW: THE FIRST AMENDMENT*
> 
> The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. It established a separation of church and state that prohibited the federal government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” It also prohibits the government, in most cases, from interfering with a person’s religious beliefs or practices.
> 
> ...


Now that decision is truly horrible.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 17, 2018)

Flopper said:


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


Lol
They should stay in the shadows, instead of forcing their shit on everyone else you dumbass motherfucker


----------



## Rustic (Jun 17, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


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


All LGBT people Are fucked in the head… sure it’s their choice.
They should just keep to themselves


----------



## Rustic (Jun 17, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> > *US FEDERAL LAW: THE FIRST AMENDMENT*
> ...


Lol
Why would you want to force your repugnant shit on other people you dumbass motherfucker


----------



## Flopper (Jun 17, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *How utterly ridiculous.  You seem to know so little about what you're saying, you can't even articulate what you meant by their lifestyle.  Have you ever been to a gay rights parade?  Do you know anything about LGBT people other than what you read on the net?*
> ...


*What exactly are you talking about?  I've been to several gay pride parades and have not seen anything that would get an X rating, maybe a few R ratings but mostly PG and G.  Lots of men and women kissing, hugging, cross dressing, a few men dressed up like a penis, and women carrying a giant Vagina. I don't see any nudity or sex acts.  Hell, you can see worst that this every night on cable, total nudity, horrible violence, and every type of sex.

Here's a link to hundreds of gay pride images. Of course there're all outrageous images. That's what the event is all about.  They don't show the thousands of adults and families walking in the parades carrying signs that support LBGT rights wearing nothing more suggestive than a silkscreen T-shirt. I have a dozen grand-kids and there is nothing in any of these images that would shock them.  Frankly, I think you're just being a bit a prude.

gay pride parade images - Google Search:*


----------



## Rustic (Jun 17, 2018)

Flopper said:


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


Lol
Keep your fucking gay parades to yourself you fucking morons


----------



## Flopper (Jun 18, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


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


*Their only mode of expression is sexual.   LBGTs are heavy into art, music, and drama and just as diverse in expressing themselves as heterosexuals.

The fact that sexual preference is what separates homosexuals from heterosexuals causes people to assume that sex is their only interest and activity and it dominates their lives.  Studies have show that gays and lesbians are no more or less sexually active than heterosexuals. The fact is there are many homosexuals that are essential asexual with little or no interest in sexual activity.  They just prefer those of their own sex.*


----------



## Rustic (Jun 18, 2018)

Flopper said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Well they should keep themselves in the shadows then... Stead of trying to spread that shit in the schools


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 18, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Here's a link to hundreds of gay pride images.



Dude, giving Sil a link to Pride Parade images is like giving an alcoholic a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20!!!!  

You know he's going to be wanking off to them all night.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 18, 2018)

Rustic said:


> They should stay in the shadows, instead of forcing their shit on everyone else you dumbass motherfucker





Rustic said:


> They should just keep to themselves





Rustic said:


> Why would you want to force your repugnant shit on other people you dumbass motherfucker





Rustic said:


> they should keep themselves in the shadows


Wow, we got a one man parade! Incredible how following his own advice never seems to occur to him. Brilliant!


----------



## Rustic (Jun 18, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > They should stay in the shadows, instead of forcing their shit on everyone else you dumbass motherfucker
> ...


Illegal is illegal, they are illegal aliens they have no constitutional right to be here. So fuck them


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 18, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Illegal is illegal, they are illegal aliens they have no constitutional right to be here. So fuck them


Now you've gone and wandered entirely off topic. Best check those Depends and get back in bed. Consider promoting world peace with a long dirt nap...


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 18, 2018)

Flopper said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Then they should embrace the similarities and reject that which is of no use or productive or at the very least not either flaunt it publicly nor demand everyone else to provide amenities in support of their sexual business (which is no one elses business so long as the LGBT community keep it among themselves).
I am well aware that actors & actresses, comedians, makeup artists, hair dressers, and artists are capable of living heterosexual lifestyles, as well as, one which is homosexual in nature (that is true in all professions)---- that's why it is considered a choice by many. No one needs to be homosexual in order to fulfill their destiny --- and they certainly will not have any children behaving as such. And I find nothing wrong with celibacy. It can be a gift from GOD or a very lonely road if one rejects GOD.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 18, 2018)

Rustic said:


> [
> Lol
> Keep your ----- gay parades to yourself you ----- -------


 I don't find this constructive in the least! Your rants only stir up hard feelings.  An individual with issues needs an arm around his shoulder and someone to direct him or her in the right direction. Such taunts merely create more trouble and shut the ears of men and women who might otherwise be considering and reconsidering their future! Please at least try to be understanding and respectful. For GOD's sake desist with the foul language ---- it demonstrates no brains! I find it repugnant.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 18, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > LGBT is a habitual lifestyle
> ...



Heterosexual and Non-Heterosexual. That equals two


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 18, 2018)

So flopper admits LGBT is a lifestyle. He admits that gay pride parades are parades of sexuality in public where kids are anticipated to be watching. (Which by the way is illegal in both content & intent).  Still he seems aghast at why anyone would object to condoning, participating in or promoting that lifestyle.

In related news we have Syriusly lamenting as to how it's "unfair" that lgbts are being discriminated against in hiring at schools.  It's the school administrator's job to discriminate hiring through the filter of child protection.   Children come first in schools. People supporting or participating in parades of deviant sex acts in anticipation of children watching come second in the process of deliberating what staff to hire at a school.

It's like stepping into an episode of bizzaro world. It shows, beyond the deviant sex habits, a fundamental defect in processing reality.   The thing it reminds me of is watching addicts rationalize the insanity in order to keep a steady supply of drugs coming in. They'll twist any words, remake any truth, do. or say anything in order to keep the fix going.

Lgbts give us manifest proof of why they can't be trusted around kids. In millions of full color photos & video reel over how many decades?  Then they wonder why Christians & sane secularists object to their lifestyle & wont hire them at schools. When is someone going to grow a pair in the court system & notice the manifest issue upon its face x million + video footage x 4 decades?


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 18, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> how is it that just one lifestyle may order Christians around





Grumblenuts said:


> So do the math. That would actually yield 4 "lifestyles" against 1 "lifestyle." You'd still lose. Now stop whining. Suck it up.



That's not how the USSC will deliberate on the question Grumblenuts.  Remember, you were all about not having a majority rule a minority.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 18, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > how is it that just one lifestyle may order Christians around
> ...


California is a corrupt and bias state. It is paying for this through drought, fire, mudslides, and earthquakes; however, the liberal/atheistic element cannot put 2 & 2 together. They are as thick as one can get. Those at Pompeii and Herculaneum didn't get it either...


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 18, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> California is a corrupt and bias state. It is paying for this through drought, fire, mudslides, and earthquakes; however, the liberal/atheistic element cannot put 2 & 2 together. They are as thick as one can get. Those at Pompeii and Herculaneum didn't get it either...



Well I hope they can put together what's in my signature because otherwise they'll be in defiance of a USSC Court Ruling.  And you know how willing they are to suspend their citizen's laws to accommodate those USSC Rulings!  They wouldn't want the public to see that they might be biased toward a certain ideology over another.  That might result in some parents suing and some really expensive lawsuits that now California WILL lose because the highest court in the land just said they can't make students learn "important gays in history" without simultaneously teaching "important Christians in history"...

 We now know how the USSC feels about states playing favorites with ideologies....


----------



## Flopper (Jun 19, 2018)

LittleNipper said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


*Actually many homosexuals like heterosexuals have a very low sex drive.  In fact about 1% are asexual which raises an interesting question.  Do Christians that consider homosexuality a sin, consider a gay couple who are asexual and thus do not perform any sex acts sinful? *


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 19, 2018)

Flopper said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I would think the answer would be yes. 

If the couple “joins” to create a family unit. A man shall leave his..... and a woman shall leave her.......

There is an implied reasoning.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 19, 2018)

Flopper, you can play word salad & try to muddy what everybody knows is the issue.   Or you can accept that the USSC just told the country that states can't side with one ideology/lifestyle over another. 

As I said, the most important part of this decision is that the Court let everyone know they no longer consider LGBT innate. If the baker had turned away blacks because of how they were born, the decision would've been different. 

Now the Court is left with the sticky problem of how to turn away other lifestyles equally as repugnant as LGBT ones (pride parades hoping kids are watching) without violating the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 19, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper, you can play word salad & try to muddy what everybody knows is the issue.   Or you can accept that the USSC just told the country that states can't side with one ideology/lifestyle over another.
> 
> As I said, the most important part of this decision is that the Court let everyone know they no longer consider LGBT innate. If the baker had turned away blacks because of how they were born, the decision would've been different.
> 
> Now the Court is left with the sticky problem of how to turn away other lifestyles equally as repugnant as LGBT ones (pride parades hoping kids are watching) without violating the 14th Amendment.



It comes down to this as to what protected rights should be weighed as superior to others. 

Some of these "classes can be verified" and others cannot.

By way of example:

A body is found in the woods, even so decomposed that it is simply a skeleton. What is it that can be known through forensic science about that person found dead:

1. The sex
2. The race
3. The ethnicity
4. Physical Disability

What can't be determined

1. Religion
2. Sexuality

Obviously, things that can be known, and can't be "fluid" should demand greater protection than those that cannot be.

I will go back to what I posted yesterday, about a Christian Cafe Owner who refused to serve product that contained Bacon to a Muslim that demanded it. We saw nobody make a statement that the Cafe Owner should be found liable for his action due to the PA Laws. In fact, there was complete silence. AS IT SHOULD BE.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 19, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper, you can play word salad & try to muddy what everybody knows is the issue.   Or you can accept that the USSC just told the country that states can't side with one ideology/lifestyle over another.
> ...



You forgot one.

5. Whether or not the body tried to change its gender with amputation surgery.  "T" of the shifting and fuzzy boundaries of "LGBT".


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 19, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Obviously, things that can be known, and can't be "fluid" should demand greater protection than those that cannot be.


You admit/acknowledge too that if the couple was simple a hetero black couple or hetero mixed-race couple and the baker said "we don't bake wedding cakes where blacks are involved", this decision would've been very very different.  Even the LGBT payroll bloggers won't touch that one because they know.  They know the Court just made the distinction once and for all that LGBT is behavioral and not innate.  That was a HUGE blow to them because they have been ramrodding all their judicial-legislation through so far by convincing the judges and Justices that LGBT is innate.

This is the false premise and why Obergefell is so fucked up and wrong.  People of the 50 states cannot be forced to condone a repugnant lifestyle (while other equally-repugnant lifestyles arbitrarily have no privileges or protections from the majority).  And this case was just the tip of that "oopsies" mistake being found unworkable.  This time in a test against faith of a Christian.  But more tests will come.

For instance I am basically a secular agnostic.  But I have VERY strong convictions against a lifestyle that parades graphic acts of deviant sex in public "in pride" (defiance) where they welcome and hope children will be watching and even marching with them.  My rights to refuse to condone, participate in or promote such a lifestyle will have to be protected too.  You cannot be FORCED to play along with known child sex offenders.  And yes, that's what anyone who supports such a parade or participates in such a parade, or brings their children (!) to such a parade to watch are: child sex offenders in the purest and truest legal sense of the definition.

Don't believe me?  Go pull your pants down just outside a schoolyard at recess and have another guy mock butt-ram you in front of the kids and see how fast the cops are there to slap the cuffs on you.  Do that in front of the same schoolkids on a field trip on the sidelines waving rainbow flags "supporting gay rights!" and not a thing will happen to you.  Odd, don't you think?  But for me I don't see the distinction.  And those are MY deeply held convictions about protection of children.  Try to take those from me by force and I'll see your ass in court.

Obergefell:  _"Oh what a tangled web they spun when with a false premise they had begun".._.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 19, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



That however would be shown under forensic examination so it would still be under "what can't be determined" as we both know, it remains fluid. The examiner could not determine, even if their was a change to the skeleton, if the individual accepted the change made. A PARADOX!


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 19, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously, things that can be known, and can't be "fluid" should demand greater protection than those that cannot be.
> ...



Excellent post


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 19, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Excellent post



Thanks.  Yours too.  

So if you were a USSC Justice, what wording would you come up with in Opinion to promote just one repugnant lifestyle to "special protected status from the majority rule" over other equally repugnant lifestyles?  I mean, you know, given LGBTQs etc. line up in universal support of gay "pride" (defiance) parades that do graphic deviant sex acts hoping children will be in attendance watching down public mainstreets across the US since the 1970s to present?  What other lifestyles would be able to be turned away based on subjective "offensive" criteria by the USSC?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 19, 2018)

Left to their own devices for only a short while, the haters quickly reformed their tight circular pattern and resumed their characteristic frantic reciprocal gesticulation ritual, interspersed with mutual pets and slaps, each appearing to climax periodically in dribbles, fits, and spurts.. -- . = .. - ..

Curiously, and far less gross, only about a month prior,
*Bishop Michael Curry Joins Christian March To White House To ‘Reclaim Jesus’*


> Curry, a Chicago native and the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, emphasized the importance of love in a time when he believes the integrity of the Christian faith is at stake.
> 
> “Love your neighbor,” Curry said during the service. “Love the neighbor you like and the neighbor you don’t like. Love the neighbor you agree with and the neighbor you don’t agree with. Love your Democrat neighbor, your Republican neighbor, your black neighbor, your white neighbor, your Anglo neighbor, your Latino neighbor and your LGBTQ neighbor. Love your neighbor! That’s why we’re here!”


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 19, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Left to their own devices for only a short while, the haters quickly reformed their tight circular pattern and resumed their characteristic frantic reciprocal gesticulation ritual, interspersed with mutual pets and slaps, each appearing to climax periodically in dribbles, fits, and spurts.. -- . = .. - ..
> 
> Curiously, and far less gross, only about a month prior,
> *Bishop Michael Curry Joins Christian March To White House To ‘Reclaim Jesus’*
> ...



Love thy neighbor? Interesting?

Like the post I made yesterday about a Christian Cafe Owner that showed love and compassion toward a Muslim customer in such a way he violated the PA Law?

It went like this:

A customer came into a Cafe almost daily and ordered a BLT without Bacon. After a while the Cafe Owner asked him why he ordered that way. The customer, confirming what the Owner suspected, said he was Muslim and it was a violation of his religion to eat Bacon. This went on for months until one day the Muslim customer came in and ordered a BLT with Bacon. 

The Owner asked the customer if he really wanted Bacon, and the Customer confirmed that he did. The Cafe Owner asked him why? The Muslim answered that it was none of the Owners business and he demanded the Sandwich. The Owner Refused saying that it was his policy not to serve Bacon to people of the Muslim Faith. The Customer demanded again and stated " you make BLT's for other people but not me!

The Owner told the Customer that, to give him Bacon would not only Violate the Muslim faith, but that he would be participating in that violation, and he simply refused to knowingly do so.

Should the Cafe Owner be prosecuted under PA Law's that forbid discrimination based of Religion?


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 19, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Left to their own devices for only a short while, the haters quickly reformed their tight circular pattern and resumed their characteristic frantic reciprocal gesticulation ritual, *interspersed with mutual pets and slaps, each appearing to climax periodically in dribbles, fits, and spurts*.



You see, right there, when your ilk filters EVERYTHING through sex acts, you wonder why people object to your lifestyles.  Top that off with your ilk's unanimous support of "pride' parades of lewd sex acts where you hope children will be watching in attendance and marching with you, you folks wonder why people form tight circular patterns of resistance.

You can call resisting outward and manifest acts of graphic sex acts on parade in front of kids on purpose "hating".  But sane people call it, well, sanity.  Nobody can force anyone else to condone groups that promote in pride, graphic sex acts in public hoping kids will be watching.  It's illegal to condone that just straight out of the books in all 50 states.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 19, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> I will go back to what I posted yesterday, about a Christian Cafe Owner who refused to serve product that contained Bacon to a Muslim that demanded it. We saw nobody make a statement that the Cafe Owner should be found liable for his action due to the PA Laws. In fact, there was complete silence. AS IT SHOULD BE.




The Christian Cafe Owner who serves bacon as part of the normal goods and services offered and refuses based on his perception of religion of the customer would be in violation of the Public Accommodation laws.


.>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 19, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > I will go back to what I posted yesterday, about a Christian Cafe Owner who refused to serve product that contained Bacon to a Muslim that demanded it. We saw nobody make a statement that the Cafe Owner should be found liable for his action due to the PA Laws. In fact, there was complete silence. AS IT SHOULD BE.
> ...



His policy is not to serve any known Muslim Bacon.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 19, 2018)

Why so hard for many purporting to be "Christian" here to understand? Shut you disgusting pie holes for once and listen to the good Bishop!


> Love _{...}_ your LGBTQ neighbor. Love your neighbor! That’s why we’re here!”


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 19, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Why so hard for many purporting to be "Christian" here to understand? Shut you disgusting pie holes for once and listen to the good Bishop!
> 
> 
> > Love _{...}_ your LGBTQ neighbor. Love your neighbor! That’s why we’re here!”



Love does not equal participation in Sin.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 19, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Why so hard for many purporting to be "Christian" here to understand? Shut you disgusting pie holes for once and listen to the good Bishop!
> ...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 19, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> His policy is not to serve any known Muslim Bacon.




I get that, he's refusing service base on the religion of his customer.

Clearly a violation of Public Accommodation laws.  Now if he didn't offer bacon as a product - not an issue.

If his policy is to discriminate sales based on the religion of the customer, then he is in violation of the law.


.>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 19, 2018)

Look at grumblenuts insinuating violence if he doesn't win the argument the conventional way.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 19, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Look at grumblenuts insinuating violence if he doesn't win the argument the conventional way.



Wet noodle alert!


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 19, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > His policy is not to serve any known Muslim Bacon.
> ...



How exactly did he discriminate based on religious belief when he refused to serve something his religion requires he not eat?

Paradox a comin

Clue, if the religion forbids bacon, yet he doesn’t serve the customer bacon he’s not discriminating due to religion.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 20, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> How exactly did he discriminate based on religious belief when he refused to serve something his religion requires he not eat?
> 
> Paradox a comin
> 
> Clue, if the religion forbids bacon, yet he doesn’t serve the customer bacon he’s not discriminating due to religion.



I find it very nice that you keep asking me the same question when I've already supplied an answer.  Copy and paste saves so much time.

I get that, he's refusing service base on the religion of his customer.

Clearly a violation of Public Accommodation laws. Now if he didn't offer bacon as a product - not an issue.

*If his policy is to discriminate sales based on the religion of the customer, then he is in violation of the law.*


.>>>>


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Look at grumblenuts insinuating violence if he doesn't win the argument the conventional way.


You mean Pop's gun control "buddy" giving him the what for? OMG, insinuated violence! Talk about wet noodles... you two bake the cake!
"win the argument"?
"the conventional way"?!
So that's what you imagine you're doing here. If only transparent bores like you had the slightest clue... 

*To discriminate based on your presumptions of others is to violate the law.*
*Illegally discriminating is not minding your own business.*


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 20, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > How exactly did he discriminate based on religious belief when he refused to serve something his religion requires he not eat?
> ...



So, on what basis is someone, not serving customers a product that they cannot consume, discrimination. 

You realize that it’s ok to live a lifestyle in which you can’t participate in the consumption of a product, right?

And if you self declare?

Yes, it is the same question. And you continue to struggle with it.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> So, on what basis is someone, not serving customers a product _{...repetitive, boring, absurd, presumptive nonsense removed...}_ discrimination.


Btw, that's called a question, Pop. Try putting a question mark at the end of those. _Answer: {LISTEN!}_


> *Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public *- including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -*are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws.*


See, emphasis upon "accommodate," not "discriminate."
"Love," not "hate."
Horrors!


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 20, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > So, on what basis is someone, not serving customers a product _{...repetitive, boring, absurd, presumptive nonsense removed...}_ discrimination.
> ...



Not serving bacon to a declared Muslim is hate?

Please explain numbnuts.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Not serving bacon to a declared Muslim is hate?


Idiot still not listening says what?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 20, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Not serving bacon to a declared Muslim is hate?
> ...



I get it now, LOVE IS A CRIME!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

Not serving bacon is not minding your own business.
And serving repetitive, boring, absurd, presumptive nonsense is repetitive, boring, absurd, presumptive nonsense.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 20, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Not serving bacon is not minding your own business.
> And serving repetitive, boring, absurd, presumptive nonsense is repetitive, boring, absurd, presumptive nonsense.



Not serving bacon to someone

1. Who has demanded over and over he not be served bacon as it violates HIS religion

2. The Muslim gave no reason for the change.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Not serving bacon to someone
> 
> 1. Has demanded over and over he not be served bacon as it violates HIS religion
> 
> 2. The Muslim gave no reason for the change.


1. How utterly incoherent!
2. "Not serving" is "discriminating" not "accommodating" - OBVIOUSLY - thus connoting hate and illegality, not love.

Minding everyone else's business instead of your own.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 20, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Not serving bacon to someone
> ...



So not serving bacon to a Muslim is discrimination?

Explain.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> So not serving bacon to a Muslim is discrimination?
> 
> Explain.


"Not serving" is "discriminating" not "accommodating" - OBVIOUSLY - pretty simple stuff.
And being a repetitive bore is nothing more.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 20, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > So not serving bacon to a Muslim is discrimination?
> ...



So, a cafe owner facing the reality that Muslim religion requires its participants not eat bacon, MUST serve bacon to its Muslim customers in order to avoid discrimination. 

Is that the pile of shit you’re peddling?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> So, a cafe owner facing the reality that Muslim religion requires its participants not eat bacon, MUST serve bacon to its Muslim customers in order to avoid discrimination.
> 
> Is that the pile of shit you’re peddling?


No, that would be "the pile of shit you’re peddling" - OBVIOUSLY, boremeister.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 20, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > So, a cafe owner facing the reality that Muslim religion requires its participants not eat bacon, MUST serve bacon to its Muslim customers in order to avoid discrimination.
> ...



Muslim Customer: I want a BLT without Bacon

Owner: I'm sorry Sir we don't serve that Product

Muslim Customer: You don't understand, I'm a Muslim so I can't have Bacon

Owner: I'm sorry Sir, we don't serve LT's. our menu item is a BLT. I'f you like I can give you a BLT and you can Modify it as you like.

Muslim Customer: I don't want a BLT, even ordering Bacon would be wrong of me.

Owner: Well Sir, we have a lot of other things on our Menus without Bacon, I'd gladly serve you any of those.

Muslim Customer: I don't want any of those, I wan't a BLT with no bacon.

Owner: I've explained to you that we don't serve LT's, that I can give you a BLT and you can modify it, or choose another Menu item, but if none of those work for you I suggest you go somewhere that better fit's your needs.

See how that works?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Muslim Customer: I want a BLT without Bacon
> 
> Owner: I'm sorry Sir we don't serve that Product
> 
> ...


Yawn.

Customer: I want a BLT without Bacon

Owner: I'm sorry Sir we don't serve that Product

Customer: You don't understand, I can't have Bacon

Owner: I'm sorry Sir, we don't serve LT's. our menu item is a BLT. I'f you like I can give you a BLT and you can Modify it as you like.

Customer: I don't want a BLT, even ordering Bacon would be wrong of me.

Owner: Well Sir, we have a lot of other things on our Menus without Bacon, I'd gladly serve you any of those.

Customer: I don't want any of those, I wan't a BLT with no bacon.

Owner: I've explained to you that we don't serve LT's, that I can give you a BLT and you can modify it, or choose another Menu item, but if none of those work for you I suggest you go somewhere that better fit's your needs.

See how that works? Customer's religious beliefs are none of Owner's business. Owner makes honest effort to service ("accommodate") Customer's requests like any other. No service refused that's normally provided to others.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 20, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Muslim Customer: I want a BLT without Bacon
> ...





Grumblenuts said:


> Customer: I want a BLT without Bacon
> 
> Owner: I'm sorry Sir we don't serve that Product
> 
> ...



Customer: I want a Wedding cake for a same sex wedding

Owner: I'm sorry Sir we don't serve that Product

Customer: You don't understand, I need one for a same sex wedding

Owner: I'm sorry Sir, we don't serve Same Sex Wedding Cakes. our menu item is a Traditional Wedding Cake. I'f you like I can give you a traditional wedding cake and you can Modify it as you like.

Customer: I don't want a Traditional Wedding Cake or another Cake, even ordering one of those would be wrong of me.

Owner: Well Sir, we have a lot of other things on our Menu, I'd gladly serve you any of those.

Customer: I don't want any of those, I wan't a same sex wedding cake.

Owner: I've explained to you that we don't serve same sex wedding cake, that I can give you a cake and you can modify it, or choose another Menu item, but if none of those work for you I suggest you go somewhere that better fit's your needs.

See how that works? Customer's beliefs are none of Owner's business. Owner makes honest effort to service ("accommodate") Customer's requests like any other. No service refused that's normally provided to others


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

Lol.


Pop23 said:


> Customer: I want a Wedding cake for a same sex wedding


In your dreams!
Try "Customer: I want a Wedding cake."


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 20, 2018)

Gay Customer:  _I'd like a cake that says "gay pride" for our usual parade this Saturday in June._

Secular agnostic baker:  _Is that the parade where the penis float is right behind the S&M bondage group, just before naked dykes on bikes, followed by the local chapter of Boy Scouts?  All down Main Street at noon right?_

Gay Customer: _Yep that's the one_.

Secular agnostic baker:  _I'm sorry, I will not do or create anything that supports that event_.

Gay customer:  _That's discrimination. I saw the cake you made for the Elk's Lodge parade just last month!_

Secular agnostic baker:  _sorry. I don't condone or want any part whatsoever with an event that celebrates public sex acts put on where children are invited to watch, or would be watching. _

Gay customer:  _You're gonna hear from my lawyer!!_

Secular agnostic baker:  _ok. Just as long as I don't hear from my conscience._


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 20, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Lol.
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> ...



I want a BLT with no bacon


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

Yes, it's abundantly clear you both "want" to persist in making shit up after the fact to rationalize your continuing irrational hatred of and desire to discriminate against people you don't even know. Sorry, if you normally serve _only_ BLTs to all comers then that's what you must honestly attempt to continue serving all comers. Jesus never said "Hate thy neighbor!"


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 20, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Yes, it's abundantly clear you both "want" to persist in making shit up after the fact to rationalize your continuing irrational hatred of and desire to discriminate against people you don't even know. Sorry, if you normally serve _only_ BLTs to all comers then that's what you must honestly attempt to continue serving all comers. Jesus never said "Hate thy neighbor!"



He never refused to serve a BLT to anyone.

Face it old guy, you're lost.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

In this instance, the baker in question clearly refused to service (sell to) a customer requesting a wedding cake. Not a BLT.
Face it, gun control advocate face, you remain hopelessly lost.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 20, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> *Yes, it's abundantly clear you both "want" to persist in making shit up after the fact to rationalize your continuing irrational hatred of and desire to discriminate against people you don't even know. Sorry, if you normally serve only BLTs to all comers then that's what you must honestly attempt to continue serving all comers. Jesus never said "Hate thy neighbor!"*


It's gonna be OK  Grumble.

Jesus DID say to hate the sin.  Jesus said, "love the sinner but hate his sin".  That you cannot discern between the two is your problem, not people of faith's problem.  I'll give you a hint.  One is a noun and the other is a verb.  The Court will make this distinction too.

Ever marched in, supported or brought your kids to a typical gay pride parade Grumblenuts?  Just curious.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> No but Jesus DID say to hate the sin. Jesus said, "love the sinner but hate his sin".


No he didn't. Why do atheists always end up having to explain religion to the religious? Read and learn (<--LINK) your own damned gospel fur Chrissake!


Silhouette said:


> Ever been to, marched in, supported or brought your kids to a typical gay pride parade Grumblenuts? Just curious.


No, Bernie has, of course. But we've never actually had the pleasure since we don't live near a city big enough to have political parades normally. Probably would have otherwise. Why do you hate people? Just curious.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 20, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> In this instance, the baker in question clearly refused to service (sell to) a customer requesting a wedding cake. Not a BLT.
> Face it, gun control advocate face, you remain hopelessly lost.


Not according to the thread title.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > In this instance, the baker in question clearly refused to service (sell to) a customer requesting a wedding cake. Not a BLT.
> ...


Thread titles are hardly ever a good reference. In this case, the title actually says nothing about it, but the court's summary makes the baker's refusal to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple quite evident.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 20, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> How exactly did he discriminate based on religious belief when he refused to serve something his religion requires he not eat?
> 
> Paradox a comin
> 
> Clue, if the religion forbids bacon, yet he doesn’t serve the customer bacon he’s not discriminating due to religion.





WorldWatcher said:


> I find it very nice that you keep asking me the same question when I've already supplied an answer.  Copy and paste saves so much time.
> 
> I get that, he's refusing service base on the religion of his customer.
> 
> ...






Pop23 said:


> So, on what basis is someone, not serving customers a product that they cannot consume, discrimination.
> 
> You realize that it’s ok to live a lifestyle in which you can’t participate in the consumption of a product, right?
> 
> ...




He is refusing the sale of the normally supplied good or service based on his perception of the religion of the customer.

I'm not struggling at all, I think it's pretty easy.

If his policy is to discriminate sales based on the religion of the customer, then he is in violation of the law.



.>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 20, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Not serving bacon is not minding your own business.
> ...




No you are moving the goalposts.  If the customer ordered maple bacon donuts in the past - hold the bacon.  That is a different story.

Now the customer orders the maple bacon donut WITH bacon.  The baker askes if he's sure and the reply is yes, please include the bacon and the baker refused based on the religion of the customer.  Ya he's in violation of the law.


.>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 20, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > No but Jesus DID say to hate the sin. Jesus said, "love the sinner but hate his sin".
> ...


Quotes that address the discerning of hating the sin but bringing the sinners to salvation:  What Does the Bible Say About Hate The Sin Love The Sinner?


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 20, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


I don't mind you arguing when you lost. After all, your name IS grumblenuts.


----------



## mdk (Jun 20, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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



You have crafted numerous and retarded conspiracy theories blaming gays for a whole host of bullshit:

You blamed gays and gay marriage for Dylan Roof killing all those people in a church in South Carolina.

You blamed gays and gay marriage on Chris Mercer killing all those people in a community college in Oregon.  

You blamed gays for Steven Jones killing a college student in Arizona.

You blamed gays and gay marriage for Justice Scalia’s death. Going as far to claim he committed suicuide as a result of Obergefell.

You blamed gays and marriage for the terror alert rising near the Fourth of July in 2015. 

You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t believe your nonsense about “loving the sinner” when you spend so much time spreading anti-gay propaganda and conspiracies. As always, the only person you’re fooling is yourself.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 20, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Non Muslim Customer: I want a BLT without Bacon

Owner: Sure, no problem.

*********************************************************
Non Muslim Customer: I want a BLT but substitute turkey for bacon

Owner: Sure, no problem.

*********************************************************
Non Muslim Customer: I want a BLT without Mayo

Owner: Sure, no problem.

*********************************************************
Non Muslim Customer: I want a BLT without Lettuce

Owner: Sure, no problem.

*********************************************************
Muslim Customer: I want a BLT without Bacon

Owner: I'm sorry Sir we don't serve that Product

Muslim Customer: You don't understand, I'm a Muslim so I can't have Bacon

Owner: I'm sorry Sir, we don't serve LT's. our menu item is a BLT. I'f you like I can give you a BLT and you can Modify it as you like.

Muslim Customer: I don't want a BLT, even ordering Bacon would be wrong of me.

Owner: Well Sir, we have a lot of other things on our Menus without Bacon, I'd gladly serve you any of those.

Muslim Customer: I don't want any of those, I wan't a BLT with no bacon.



If the Owner applies a "no modifications/substitute" policy to all products then he's golden.  On the other hand if he does take modifications and substitutions for non-Muslim customers but refuses based on the religion of the customer then (s)he is in violation of the law.

No paradox.

See how that works.


.>>>>


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 20, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Hetero Couple: We want a gay themed wedding cake.

Baker: Sorry, I don't serve them to anybody.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 20, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Hetero Couple: We want a gay themed wedding cake.
> 
> Baker: Sorry, I don't serve them to anybody.



Exactly what Pop23's argument is.  The conscientious-objector can object to any lifestyle or ideology, or celebration thereof s/he finds wholly repugnant.  The sad reckoning of the false premise "gay is innate" just happened with the USSC.   And also there's this:

************

Gay Customer:  _I'd like a cake that says "gay pride" for our usual parade this Saturday in June._

Secular agnostic baker:  _Is that the parade where the penis float is right behind the S&M bondage group, just before naked dykes on bikes, followed by the local chapter of Boy Scouts?  All down Main Street at noon right?_

Gay Customer: _Yep that's the one_.

Secular agnostic baker:  _I'm sorry, I will not do or create anything that supports that event_.

Gay customer:  _That's discrimination. I saw the cake you made for the Elk's Lodge parade just last month!_

Secular agnostic baker:  _sorry. I don't condone or want any part whatsoever with an event that celebrates public sex acts put on where children are invited to watch, or would be watching. _

Gay customer:  _You're gonna hear from my lawyer!!_

Secular agnostic baker:  _ok. Just as long as I don't hear from my conscience._


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Gay customer: _You're gonna hear from my lawyer!!_
> 
> Secular agnostic baker: _ok. Just as long as I don't hear from my conscience._



Assholes unite over literal liturgical litigiosity!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Hetero Couple: We want a gay themed wedding cake.
> 
> Baker: Sorry, I don't serve them to anybody.


Heterosexual pair: Ah, we see. You promote the institutionalized bigotry of the heterosexual majority by discriminating against the gay minority. Big of you!
Meanwhile, our mom still needs a wedding cake...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 20, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Hetero Couple: We want a gay themed wedding cake.
> 
> Baker: Sorry, I don't serve them to anybody.




Except that Mr. Phillips agreed in court documents that there was never any discussion of design.  He refused services as soon has it because known who the customers were.


.>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 20, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Gay customer: _You're gonna hear from my lawyer!!_
> ...


Again, it's OK  Grumblenuts.  It's gonna be alright.

You had to know that when you folks wanted out of the closet, that it meant that all of your habits would be exposed to the light of day; the good, the bad and the ugly.  Have I mentioned pride parades put on in anticipation of kids watching?  Oh, right, I've mentioned that.  I wonder if the USSC Justices have ever seen a pride parade with kids watching?  Do you suppose they have?


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 20, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Hetero Couple: We want a gay themed wedding cake.
> ...


Nope. Just sell certain kinds of cakes, that's all. Do you want to force me to sell you something I don't, Herr Goebbels?


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 20, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Hetero Couple: We want a gay themed wedding cake.
> ...


Argue with the SCOTUS.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 20, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Nope. Just sell certain kinds of cakes, that's all.



Mr. Phillips maintains a catalog of wedding cakes on his web site.  He would not have sold a wedding cake to same sex customers even if they had picked one from the catalog.

There is no "certain kind" of cake.  They are the same cake the difference being who is buying it.




Aba Incieni said:


> Do you want to force me to sell you something I don't, Herr Goebbels?



Nope, I think Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and rights of property and association restored to private business owners.

But you don't get to lie and make up shit either.  You tried to infer it was refused because of design, that was false as Mr. Phillips and the customers never discussed design.


.>>>>


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 20, 2018)

Flopper said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


People who do not perform any sex acts cannot be considered sexual anymore than a child or a baby. Thinking about lying is not sinful. Telling a lie is. There is nothing wrong with love; however, the act of sex was created by GOD so that man might procreate.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 20, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Just sell certain kinds of cakes, that's all.
> ...


He doesn't sell certain cakes to anyone. Doesn't matter where they put their weiners.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 20, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Argue with the SCOTUS.



No need to argue with the SCOTUS, they did not rule that Mr. Phillips was exempt from the generally applicable Public Accommodation law.  They ruled that the Commission tainted the process -- that was it.  They even said that the fundamental issue of freedom of religion exempting one from generally applicable laws would have to wait for a later case.

As a matter of fact the SCOTUS as issued rulings that Public Accommodation laws are Constitutional and that religious reasons and free speech do not exempt one from generally applicable law.   See such cases as Employment Division v. Smith, Newman v. Piggie Park, letting the State court ruling stand in Elane Photography v. New Mexico, Bob Jones University v. United States.

There is another case that the SCOTUS has had since (IIRC) November called Arlene's Flowers v. Washington State, a case very similar to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case where the State Supreme Court ruled against a Florist.  A case without the same type of taint as the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.  It will be interesting to see if the SCOTUS accepts the writ of certiorari in that case (accepting it for review) or will let the State court ruling stand.


.>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 20, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> He doesn't sell certain cakes to anyone. Doesn't matter where they put their weiners.



If he didn't sell wedding cakes to anyone, then there would be no issue.

However Mr. Phillips did sell wedding cakes and refused base on who the customers were.


.>>>>


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 20, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Argue with the SCOTUS.
> ...


Yeah, I know what they ruled. Tainted it, you say. Tainted it how, exactly?


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 20, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > He doesn't sell certain cakes to anyone. Doesn't matter where they put their weiners.
> ...


Then Jewish delis and muslim falafel shops will be forced to sell pork.

Maybe you can force the darkies to pick cotton while you're at it.


----------



## BigTruck (Jun 20, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting.  I think this is a good decision because few bakeries will turn down business for this reason.  Gays don't need that protection as they are not at risk of not being able to have their cake.
> ...



What the hell does a fornicators cake look like? 

People’s religious beliefs are protected by the Constitution. If you don’t like that, go find a different country.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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


What you failed to respond to there was me poking fun at both speculative litigants. But hey, any excuse to spread more hatred and division amiright!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Aba Incieni said:
> ...


Ah, and I can see your cute little sign now too: "Whites only complimentary water-ice with any order over 1 dollar!" Nice touch!


----------



## jillian (Jun 20, 2018)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, he refused to* sell* two gays a wedding cake. The baking is clearly all irrelevant. Even if he had one freshly baked and all ready for a customer who just called cancelling the order, he would not have sold them that cake! His excuse being, since it's a *wedding* cake, the Bible tells him he can't "engage" in their ceremony, past, present, or future. Correct? And these are not simply "people", but members of a persecuted minority class attempting to celebrate their recent decision to formally and legally commit to taking care of one another long term. Marriage. So you would not be "hurt" if both you and a partner went to buy a wedding cake and the store owner told you "Sorry, I can't service _your kind_. The Bible tells me so."? Sure you wouldn't. "not saying bigots should be allowed to hurt people"? Yes, you are.
> ...


 Then they shouldn’t run a bakery.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Aba Incieni said:
> ...


Sure hope your life never ends up depending upon your reading comprehension.


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 20, 2018)

wedding cake emoji with tears next?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 20, 2018)

jillian said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Nothing to do with the unsourced inaccuracies asserted by JimBowie there. But agree, he clearly shouldn’t run a bakery (subject to PA laws) if he bakes wedding cakes but refuses to sell them to gays.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 20, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


*I didn't say they married, I just said they were a couple.
Every verse Christians have quoted to me are  condemnations of sexual acts between those of same sex.  So if there are no sexual acts, is love between two people of the same sex condemned in the bible?*


----------



## Flopper (Jun 20, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper, you can play word salad & try to muddy what everybody knows is the issue.   Or you can accept that the USSC just told the country that states can't side with one ideology/lifestyle over another.
> 
> As I said, the most important part of this decision is that the Court let everyone know they no longer consider LGBT innate. If the baker had turned away blacks because of how they were born, the decision would've been different.
> 
> Now the Court is left with the sticky problem of how to turn away other lifestyles equally as repugnant as LGBT ones (pride parades hoping kids are watching) without violating the 14th Amendment.


*The Colorado Accommodations Act and I assume others states are worded about the same, does not favor any protected class within the law.

 "It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry."

When you said, "USSC just told the country that states can't side with one ideology/lifestyle over another." are referring to the majority opinion in the Baker case?
*


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 21, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Then Jewish delis and muslim falafel shops will be forced to sell pork.



Nope, they can choose to not sell port to anyone.  Just as Mr. Phillips can choose not to sell wedding cakes.

I think a better solution is to repeal Public Accommodation laws as and restore rights of property and association for everyone.



Aba Incieni said:


> Maybe you can force the darkies to pick cotton while you're at it.



Do you join me in calling for the repeal of Public Accommodation laws?


.>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 21, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *The Colorado Accommodations Act and I assume others states are worded about the same, does not favor any protected class within the law.
> 
> "It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation *



Yes, and Colorado did play favorites though.  They did not punish gay bakers who turned away Christians who wanted certain anti-gay ideology messages iced onto their cakes.  This is why Colorado got in trouble.  They played favorites and the Court said they cannot do that.

Do you know why sexual-orientation as a behavioral group cannot get a protected or favored class status?  The answer is because an ideological group that advertises "pride" at doing deviant sex acts in public hoping kids will be watching or marching along CANNOT be legally dominant to any other equally repugnant behavioral group that subjectively tells the world "I've always felt like doing this stuff"..  The 14th Amendment forbids it.  So like this USSC decision, the day will come and soon that the Court will tell the world "yeah, either all 50 states let any behavioral ideology group do public acts of deviant sex in front of kids, or none of them can".  Or worse for your group, "yeah, we figured out that we can't immunize just one repugnant behavioral group from majority regulation while forcing all the rest to be regulated by the majority".  

You cannot cite the 14th Amendment as means to violate the 14th Amendment.  And that is why LGBT or any other repugnant behavioral group the majority rejects CANNOT be protected from majority regulation.  Obergefell will be overturned and Windsor (stating 56 times that marriage definition is up to the individual states) will once again be the law of the land.  Obergefell also in total irony, arrogance and hubris, cited Windsor's power as the basis for overturning Windsor and doing a power grab from a bench in DC with just 5 unelected lawyers.  No wonder Scalia died.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 21, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Ah, and I can see your cute little sign now too: "Whites only complimentary water-ice with any order over 1 dollar!" Nice touch!



Except you know that if this recent case was about a baker turning down a wedding cake because a black was involved, the decision would've been vastly different.  You would have us believe that the USSC would've told Colorado to be "respectful" of a baker refusing to bake for a black couple, wouldn't you?



No, this Decision was pivotal.  It demoted your LGBT "special status" from "equal to innate" to merely behavioral/ideological, on par with any other ideology.  And that is a DEVASTATING blow to your ilk.  Which is why you're so pissed off now on these forums, venting all over the related threads on the topic.  You know what happened.  You know.

But it gets worse.  Because there are ZERO protections for a non-religious behavioral group (that is a minority and unanimously lines up in "pride" at deviant acts of sex hoping kids are watching during high noon parades on main street across the US every year since the 1960s with literally millions of photos as proof), LGBT has no protections at all.

Worse still, no state can legally protect them.  And why?  Because of the recent decision.  It stressed "neutrality".  What that means is "equality".  All states must now treat any and all minority & repugnant behavioral groups with the same protections and privileges.  ALL OF THEM, not just a few pet favorites.

And if you're going to argue that "LGBT" is legal and others aren't...I would argue the opposite.  IT IS NOT LEGAL TO IDENTIFY IN 'PRIDE' WITH REGULAR PUBLIC PARADES DEPICTING YOUR GROUP'S IDEOLOGY AS PROMOTIONAL OF DOING DEVIANT SEX ACTS AT HIGH NOON DOWN MAIN STREET SINCE THE 1960S EVERY YEAR HOPING CHILDREN ARE WATCHING OR INVITING THEM TO MARCH ALONG WITH YOU.

So if that utterly disgusting, immoral, wrong and illegal edict of the LGBT ideological dogma is given a special pass, then please tell me what other group wouldn't/shouldn't be?  And don't cite "illegal" because again, it's illegal to do lewd acts in front of kids in public or private.  If we MUST accept, condone and promote that behavior, where is the line drawn on others and why?  (Cite the 14th Amendment in your answer)  How many arrests have been made at gay pride parades for lewd and graphic behavior in the presence of children?  How many arrests would be done if these same acts were done in front of a school yard at recess on any other day?

That's right.  No one group gets a free pass to break the law; especially where child-endangerment is involved.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 21, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, and I can see your cute little sign now too: "Whites only complimentary water-ice with any order over 1 dollar!" Nice touch!
> ...


Boy, you must really be the life of the party. Do you never just let it go? I mean after posting such hateful screeds here do you just continue foaming at the mouth to everyone within earshot all day long?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 21, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Do you join me in calling for the repeal of Public Accommodation laws?


I still can't tell if you keep saying this with tongue firmly in cheek or you're being serious. If serious, what's your core argument? Like John Stossel, do you just _feel_ "the market" will soon put all those who discriminate out of business? Do you think there's no longer any money to be made in spreading hatred and division?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 21, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



And I didn't claim you said they were married, so I will repeat:

I would think the answer would be yes.

If the couple “joins” to create a family unit. A man shall leave his..... and a woman shall leave her.......


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 21, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, and I can see your cute little sign now too: "Whites only complimentary water-ice with any order over 1 dollar!" Nice touch!
> ...



Have you noticed that the side that once argued that there was no such thing as a "slippery slope" are now arguing that there is one?

How do you trust them?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 21, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Hetero Couple: We want a gay themed wedding cake.
> ...



Obviously there were discussions on design, WEDDING IS A DESIGN!


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 21, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > How exactly did he discriminate based on religious belief when he refused to serve something his religion requires he not eat?
> ...



He had a self proclaimed religion. As noted the Owner had asked on previous visits why he didn't want bacon on the BLT because of his faith. And the policy was to not serve bacon to KNOWN Muslims.

Now I also posted another example, but for some reason you never quoted the post that you are referencing.

So, what part of the PA is the Cafe owner violating?


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 21, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Ah, and I can see your cute little sign now too: "Whites only complimentary water-ice with any order over 1 dollar!" Nice touch!



Except you know that if this recent case was about a baker turning down a wedding cake because a black was involved, the decision would've been vastly different.  You would have us believe that the USSC would've told Colorado to be "respectful" of a baker refusing to bake for a black couple, wouldn't you?



No, this Decision was pivotal.  It demoted your LGBT "special status" from "equal to innate" to merely behavioral/ideological, on par with any other ideology.  And that is a DEVASTATING blow to your ilk.  Which is why you're so pissed off now on these forums, venting all over the related threads on the topic.  You know what happened.  You know.

But it gets worse.  Because there are ZERO protections for a non-religious behavioral group (that is a minority and unanimously lines up in "pride" at deviant acts of sex hoping kids are watching during high noon parades on main street across the US every year since the 1960s with literally millions of photos as proof), LGBT has no protections at all.

Worse still, no state can legally protect them.  And why?  Because of the recent decision.  It stressed "neutrality".  What that means is "equality".  All states must now treat any and all minority & repugnant behavioral groups with the same protections and privileges.  ALL OF THEM, not just a few pet favorites.

And if you're going to argue that "LGBT" is legal and others aren't...I would argue the opposite.  IT IS NOT LEGAL TO IDENTIFY IN 'PRIDE' WITH REGULAR PUBLIC PARADES DEPICTING YOUR GROUP'S IDEOLOGY AS PROMOTIONAL OF DOING DEVIANT SEX ACTS AT HIGH NOON DOWN MAIN STREET SINCE THE 1960S EVERY YEAR HOPING CHILDREN ARE WATCHING OR INVITING THEM TO MARCH ALONG WITH YOU.

So if that utterly disgusting, immoral, wrong and illegal edict of the LGBT ideological dogma is given a special pass, then please tell me what other group wouldn't/shouldn't be?  And don't cite "illegal" because again, it's illegal to do lewd acts in front of kids in public or private.  If we MUST accept, condone and promote that behavior, where is the line drawn on others and why?  (Cite the 14th Amendment in your answer)  How many arrests have been made at gay pride parades for lewd and graphic behavior in the presence of children?  How many arrests would be done if these same acts were done in front of a school yard at recess on any other day?

That's right.  No one group gets a free pass to break the law; especially where child-endangerment is involved.


Grumblenuts said:


> Boy, you must really be the life of the party. Do you never just let it go? I mean after posting such hateful screeds here do you just continue foaming at the mouth to everyone within earshot all day long?



Does it come as a surprise to you that people would hate, reject or find repugnant a group of people who identify together in "pride" around public graphic acts of deviant sex where they invite and hope children will be watching?  Reality check.  Not only do people hate child predators, but they are compelled by law to protect children from them in all 50 states. 

You might want to brush up on your local statutes on lewd acts in front of kids.  If heros who protect children from predators and predatory lifestyles makes one "the life of the party", then yeah, I'm the life of the party.  And to that party child-predators and their apologists aren't invited.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 21, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> I still can't tell if you keep saying this with tongue firmly in cheek or you're being serious. If serious, what's your core argument? Like John Stossel, do you just _feel_ "the market" will soon put all those who discriminate out of business? Do you think there's no longer any money to be made in spreading hatred and division?



Here are my thoughts...

Three generations ago there were...

1.  Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.
2.  Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.
3.  Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.
4.  And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.
5.  Even segregation in the military.​
In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot.  There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc.  Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago.  And there are a number of factors that impact this:


1.  We are much more mobile society.  People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.

2.  We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts itself in terms of taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business.  In addition I fully support the ability of a community having access to information about businesses and their discriminatory practices.  News media (TV, Radio, Newspapers) and social media (email, texting, Facebook, etc.), and complaints filed with business licensing entities.  People should all be free to report and have customers report on discriminatory business practices so that the public can make an informed choice.

3.  The "corporatisation" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line.  With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.​

**************************************************


So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business.  With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone.  The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination.  I find my position aligned with what were called Goldwater Conservatives quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.

But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society.  Sure there will be isolated instances, that's the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues.  A burger joint says - I won't serve a black?  OK, walk across the street to Applebee's.  A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding?  OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all *FOR* keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government and who the government can do business with, but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other private individuals.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 21, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Obviously there were discussions on design, WEDDING IS A DESIGN!



Obviously you are wrong.  Court documents and the statements of Mr. Phillips are that there was never any discussion of design.  As soon as Mr. Phillips was introduced to both grooms he in formed them he wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same sex couple.

You can spin your own theory's, but you don't get to create your own facts.

.>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 21, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously there were discussions on design, WEDDING IS A DESIGN!
> ...



Informing the Muslim that LT's are not served in his Cafe is now a crime? Please explain


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 21, 2018)

I'm wondering what black people have to do with ideologies and behaviors?  Were they or were they not immutably born black without a single choice or active part in the matter?  How long will the LGBT carry on with the "innate" argument when clearly the USSC just laid that one to bed?  After all, if the baker had rejected the couple based on race, the decision would've been vastly different.  Race cannot be helped.  Ideologies and lifestyles are a choice.  And the one that does deviant sex stuff "in pride" hoping kids will be watching is a group that not only anybody can reject, but MUST reject as a principle of criminal law.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 21, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > I still can't tell if you keep saying this with tongue firmly in cheek or you're being serious. If serious, what's your core argument? Like John Stossel, do you just _feel_ "the market" will soon put all those who discriminate out of business? Do you think there's no longer any money to be made in spreading hatred and division?
> ...



The need is for essential goods and services. Housing, food, etc. What the PA's did were to trivialize what were essential law. Equating the need for Housing to the need for a specific decoration bastardizes the entire idea that created these laws in the first place and become overly political and cumbersome.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 21, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> He had a self proclaimed religion. As noted the Owner had asked on previous visits why he didn't want bacon on the BLT because of his faith. And the policy was to not serve bacon to KNOWN Muslims.



His policy violates both Federal and State violation laws based on discriminating by religion.  It makes not one wit of difference as to whether the owner had acknowledged that the customer had previously not ordered bacon.

Now to say "are you sure you want bacon on that BLT?" and if the customer replies in the affirmative and the owner refuses service based on the customers religion - his behavior is a violation of the law.



Pop23 said:


> Now I also posted another example, but for some reason you never quoted the post that you are referencing.



I have no idea what you are talking about here.  Go a post number for this other example you came up with.



Pop23 said:


> So, what part of the PA is the Cafe owner violating?



In response to a cafe owner refusing to sell bacon to Muslims, that would be federal and state Public Accommodation laws for refusing service based on the religion of the customer.


.>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 21, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> The need is for essential goods and services. Housing, food, etc. What the PA's did were to trivialize what were essential law. Equating the need for Housing to the need for a specific decoration bastardizes the entire idea that created these laws in the first place and become overly political and cumbersome.



I don't disagree.  I will note that anti-employment and anti-housing laws are different sections of the federal and state law and not Public Accommodation laws.


.>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 21, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > He had a self proclaimed religion. As noted the Owner had asked on previous visits why he didn't want bacon on the BLT because of his faith. And the policy was to not serve bacon to KNOWN Muslims.
> ...



The Owner is simply observing the religion that the customer has proclaimed as his own.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 21, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > I still can't tell if you keep saying this with tongue firmly in cheek or you're being serious. If serious, what's your core argument? Like John Stossel, do you just _feel_ "the market" will soon put all those who discriminate out of business? Do you think there's no longer any money to be made in spreading hatred and division?
> ...


Thanks so much for that thorough and thoughtful response! We agree and disagree on much there. I'll chew on it and get back to you...


----------



## dblack (Jun 21, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> The need is for essential goods and services. Housing, food, etc. What the PA's did were to trivialize what were essential law. Equating the need for Housing to the need for a specific decoration bastardizes the entire idea that created these laws in the first place and become overly political and cumbersome.



The problem here is the assumption that _need_ establishes something as a right. That's problematic because need is an entirely subjecting estimation. We end up with laws that force others to serve you, as long as you can rationalize whatever it is you're after as a 'need'.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 21, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously there were discussions on design, WEDDING IS A DESIGN!
> ...



The Court didn't spin their response to that.  They suggested Colorado remain "respectful" of the baker's faith.  Now what was that all about?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 21, 2018)

"So, what part of the PA is the Cafe owner violating?"
"that would be federal and state Public Accommodation laws for refusing service based on the religion of the customer."


Pop23 said:


> The Owner is simply observing the religion that the customer has proclaimed as his own.


So some new right to interpret another's religion for them grants you power to discriminate against them?  Gee, really gotta wonder what part of "refusing service based on the religion of the customer." you still don't grok?


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 21, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> "So, what part of the PA is the Cafe owner violating?"
> "that would be federal and state Public Accommodation laws for refusing service based on the religion of the customer."
> 
> 
> ...



Nope, he specifically told the Cafe Owner what the Religion demanded, and the Cafe Owner, knowing the "fluid" nature of Religion made a very well thought out policy, thus avoiding future issues.

It's all very considerate and kind of him.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 21, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Force them to pander to pedophiles, sicko.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 21, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > "So, what part of the PA is the Cafe owner violating?"
> ...


Says you, and obviously in direct violation of PA laws says everyone with two remaining healthy synapses to rub together.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 21, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Yours depends on your knowledge of humans. You start forcing religions to do the bidding of perverts and you're going to lose bigly.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 21, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> You start forcing religions to do the bidding of perverts and you're going to lose bigly.


Better tell Jesus.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 21, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > You start forcing religions to do the bidding of perverts and you're going to lose bigly.
> ...


Not to mention Yahweh and allah. You pervs are heavily outnumbered.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 21, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



"Say's you" is an argument forwarded by either a 12 year old or an adult with severe immaturity problem.

I'm thinking it's the latter with you.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 21, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> You start forcing religions to do the bidding of perverts and you're going to lose bigly.



Actually, nobody can force anyone to promote a culture of child public sex exhibitionists (gay pride parades).  There are laws against that in all 50 states.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 21, 2018)

Since some simply remain bent upon bouncing off the walls and non sequituring all over the place,... Richard Dawson says:
Survey says: "Americans Like Gays But Hate When Gays Act Gay" - a real like/hate relationship if there ever was one, lol
Richard Dawkins says: "homosexuality does not conflict with the evolutionary principle. In a talk at Kennesaw State University, he said that "[Evolution] is the explanation for why we exist. It is not something to guide our lives in our own society. […] What we need is a truly anti-Darwinian society--anti-Darwinian in the sense that we do not wish to live in a society where…the strongest suppress the weak…I want to live in a society where we take care of the sick, take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed."
Richard Darwin is known for his work on Star Trek: Beyond (2016), X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) and Lost in Space (1998), but otherwise had no comment.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 21, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> I want to live in a society where we take care of the sick, take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed."



Does taking care of the weak include children who must not be exposed to graphic deviant sex acts in public as a matter of "pride" by a behavioral group that strongly identifies with and supports such things?

I don't recall anywhere in the Bible or in any state law in the US that says _"Thou shalt condone & promote an ideology that includes and is synonymous with performing lewd graphic acts of deviant sex in public where they invite children to watch and march in that parade"_.  Can you point me to where Jesus (or state law) said that Christians (or anyone else) should do that?  Thanks!


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 21, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Since some simply remain bent upon bouncing off the walls and non sequituring all over the place,... Richard Dawson says:
> Survey says: "Americans Like Gays But Hate When Gays Act Gay" - a real like/hate relationship if there ever was one, lol
> Richard Dawkins says: "homosexuality does not conflict with the evolutionary principle. In a talk at Kennesaw State University, he said that "[Evolution] is the explanation for why we exist. It is not something to guide our lives in our own society. […] What we need is a truly anti-Darwinian society--anti-Darwinian in the sense that we do not wish to live in a society where…the strongest suppress the weak…I want to live in a society where we take care of the sick, take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed."
> Richard Darwin is known for his work on Star Trek: Beyond (2016), X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) and Lost in Space (1998), but otherwise had no comment.


First of all, evolution is not an explanation of why we exist. It is a theory on how we came to exist. There is no why to it.

The part about caring for others could have paraphrased any one of the Gospels.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 21, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Since some simply remain bent upon bouncing off the walls and non sequituring all over the place,... Richard Dawson says:
> ...



If you flipped the numbers. Make 95% of the population Gay, and 5% Straight, and all following generations are split 95% gay and 5% straight, you see that within a short period of time that there would be no population left for evolution to even have an effect on.

G-Nuts needs to cut the crap. Not only does Science find these arguments absurd, simple math does as well.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 21, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Without heteros there would be no homos.

#HeteroPride.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 21, 2018)

Eeeww, seems my little exploration of Richard Ds  has struck a noive or three!

Who knew simply mentioning 3 Dicks would drive y'all nuts?
All you devout haters, more pork knee-jerky, please!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 21, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Actually it was just a statement of fact. You said it. I said you said it. Quoted it and all! There's no "argument" to be had there,... but I've noticed how you never let facts ruin any apparent new opportunity to make a complete ass of yourself. Poor fella. Your gun control advocate face feels for ya, I can just tell.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 21, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



I was right, you have a severe immaturity problem.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 21, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Eeeww, seems my little exploration of Richard Ds  has struck a noive or three!
> 
> Who knew simply mentioning 3 Dicks would drive y'all nuts?
> All you devout haters, more pork knee-jerky, please!



You like 3 Dicks? I would'nt doubt that dude.


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 21, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Eeeww, seems my little exploration of Richard Ds  has struck a noive or three!
> ...


He's got room for one more.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 21, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > The need is for essential goods and services. Housing, food, etc. What the PA's did were to trivialize what were essential law. Equating the need for Housing to the need for a specific decoration bastardizes the entire idea that created these laws in the first place and become overly political and cumbersome.
> ...


*Might be a bit tough since 45 states have such laws.  The only ones that don't are as expected, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas.  They are still fighting the civil rights act.*


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 21, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > You like 3 Dicks? I would doubt that dude.
> ...


I guess that happens over time.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 21, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *Might be a bit tough since 45 states have such laws.  The only ones that don't are as expected, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas.  They are still fighting the civil rights act.*



How is it under the new USSC "neutrality" mandated on states that they can pick one repugnant subjectively-defined behavioral group that likes to do graphic deviant sex stuff in public parades where they invite kids to watch and other behavioral groups equally subjectively defined are given no protections at all?  Who decides?  According to the 14th is such favoritism in the "protected lifestyle" category legally-disallowed when paired with this recent USSC decision?

How many other lifestyles are included automatically (see : 14th)?  Which are disallowed?  Which are allowed?  Why?  I mean the bar has been set pretty low (see pride parades in front of kids).


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 21, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> The Court didn't spin their response to that.  They suggested Colorado remain "respectful" of the baker's faith.  Now what was that all about?




The court didn't say that the Colorado Commission and courts must side with the baker, only that the Commission could not be openly hostile.  Of note is the court specifically sayings that the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision did not rule on a religious exemption to generally applicable laws, that decision would have to be addressed in a later case.


.>>>>


----------



## dblack (Jun 21, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > The Court didn't spin their response to that.  They suggested Colorado remain "respectful" of the baker's faith.  Now what was that all about?
> ...



More Roberts' deflection. He's a master at finding excuses to avoid ruling on important issues.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 21, 2018)

dblack said:


> More Roberts' deflection. He's a master at finding excuses to avoid ruling on important issues.



The ruling was 7-2 and the opinion was written by Kennedy.


.>>>>


----------



## AZGAL (Jun 21, 2018)

Roberts still influenced the decision...Roberts: “wobbly.”


----------



## dblack (Jun 21, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > More Roberts' deflection. He's a master at finding excuses to avoid ruling on important issues.
> ...


Fair to say. But it's his Court, and they clearly like to punt on first down.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 21, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *Might be a bit tough since 45 states have such laws.  The only ones that don't are as expected, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas.  They are still fighting the civil rights act.*
> ...


*I wonder how many businesses actually have a problem with public accommodations laws. The purpose of business is to make money and you don't do that by refusing to serve your customers.

If you can't serve homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics, people with disabilities, etc.. then maybe your business should not be open to the public because you are not serving the public.  

It is possible to have a private business operated as a private club or through a religious or nonprofit organisation or to sell through retailers that do serve the public but to open your doors to the public and exude millions of people because of your personal prejudices, not in this country.*


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 21, 2018)

How is it under the new USSC "neutrality" mandated on states that they can pick one repugnant subjectively-defined behavioral group that likes to do graphic deviant sex stuff in public parades where they invite kids to watch and other behavioral groups equally subjectively defined are given no protections at all?  Who decides?  According to the 14th is such favoritism in the "protected lifestyle" category legally-disallowed when paired with this recent USSC decision?

How many other lifestyles are included automatically (see : 14th)?  Which are disallowed?  Which are allowed?  Why?  I mean the bar has been set pretty low (see pride parades in front of kids).
*


Flopper said:



			If you can't serve homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics, people with disabilities, etc.. then maybe your business should not be open to the public because you are not serving the public.
		
Click to expand...

*
Blacks, can't help or change their race.  Hispanics can't help or change their race.  Disabled, can't help or change their disability.  Homosexuals are "gender fluid" and have habitual behaviors they can and often do change.  Many harbor closeted hetero sexuality in that they still are sexually attracted to the trappings of the opposite gender.  It's a habitual lifestyle adopted after being born.  They aren't in the same class as static immutable genetic traits or permanent injury not chosen.

This will dawn on you as it has begun to dawn on the USSC.  You can't force people to condone, participate in or promote a lifestyle that embraces "in pride" lewd sex acts where they hope children will be watching, every year, in every city, down main street in the middle of the day since the 1960s.  That you would lump these people in with blacks, Hispanics and disabled is extremely insulting to those other groups.

Promoting groups that openly espouse and embrace child sex crimes as endemic to their "identity" is against the law.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 21, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *Might be a bit tough since 45 states have such laws.  The only ones that don't are as expected, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas.  They are still fighting the civil rights act.*
> ...


*The correct term is protected class not lifestyles but call it what you want.  It is illegal in Colorado for a retail business to discriminate because of race, religion, ethnic group, sex, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, or ancestry.  So if you are in the retail business in Colorado, you better follow the same policy in serving your customers. 

We are all members of a number of these classes.  Contrary to popular beliefs, public accommodation laws just like civil rights laws provides protection to everyone against discrimination.    *


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 21, 2018)

It's illegal to promote or condone groups who hold endemic to their identity deviant sex acts in public hoping kids will be watching.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 21, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Nothing to do with the unsourced inaccuracies asserted by JimBowie there. But agree, he clearly shouldn’t run a bakery (subject to PA laws) if he bakes wedding cakes but refuses to sell them to gays.


Look fuckface, the baker was selling baked goods to fagots, but he only refused to bake a fagot wedding cake.

Thats the truth and until you can provide some proof otherwise fuck you.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 21, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> It's illegal to promote or condone groups who hold endemic to their identity deviant sex acts in public hoping kids will be watching.


OK, can you repeat that in Engrish this time?


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 21, 2018)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > It's illegal to promote or condone groups who hold endemic to their identity deviant sex acts in public hoping kids will be watching.
> ...


It means that if LGBTs as a culture are proud of the illegal deviant-sex act parades they hold, hoping kids are watching (and sometimes even marching along), not one single soul on earth can be made to approve of or promote their culture in any way.


----------



## Slyhunter (Jun 21, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Aba Incieni said:
> ...


Without normal people there would be no genetic defected people. Gay is just another genetic abnormality.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 21, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> It's illegal to promote or condone groups who hold endemic to their identity deviant sex acts in public hoping kids will be watching.


*Link?*


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 22, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Do you kiss your mother with that mouth, junior?


My Mom is dead, thank you for bringing that up.























just kidding, she is alive, and I kiss my wife and kids with my mouth. How do you do it?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 22, 2018)

My apologies for mentioning family. I reported myself.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 22, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> My apologies for mentioning family. I reported myself.


Lol, dude, it's all good, no worries.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 22, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > I still can't tell if you keep saying this with tongue firmly in cheek or you're being serious. If serious, what's your core argument? Like John Stossel, do you just _feel_ "the market" will soon put all those who discriminate out of business? Do you think there's no longer any money to be made in spreading hatred and division?
> ...


Still chewin' on this, WW...


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 22, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> My apologies for mentioning family. I reported myself.


Good. You can report mdk next. He does that shit all the time.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 22, 2018)

I still say no law can compel you to condone or support a group in any way who has a proud endemic and advertised habit of supporting/doing deviant sex acts in public where they invite kids to watch & even March along with them.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 22, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *It is possible to have a private business operated as a private club...*




Yes but just calling yourself a "private club" does not mean you are exempt from Public Accommodation laws.  Is there any doubt that COSTCO, BJ's Warehouse, or Sam's Club - which function based on private membership for shopping - is not a for profit business?

So factors:

"The "public" versus "distinctly private" accommodation distinction makes critical an understanding of what factors courts will consider to determine if a club is public or private for purposes of the PHRA. Courts interpreting similar statutes have considered the following factors in making that determination:


the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
the history of the organization;
the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
the purpose of the club's existence;
whether the club advertises for members;
whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.)."

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not? - FindLaw


.>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 22, 2018)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing to do with the unsourced inaccuracies asserted by JimBowie there. But agree, he clearly shouldn’t run a bakery (subject to PA laws) if he bakes wedding cakes but refuses to sell them to gays.
> ...




Doesn't mean he still wasn't in violation of the law.  The law clearly says "full and equal" access to goods and services, not that some goods and services can be denied.


.>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 22, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Doesn't mean he still wasn't in violation of the law.  The law clearly says "full and equal" access to goods and services, not that some goods and services can be denied.
> 
> 
> .>>>>



Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.  You are still arguing as if the USSC didn't just indicate that it considers "LGBT" as a lifestyle and not innate.  And, nobody can be compelled to support or promote a lifestyle that for one thing, adheres itself in unanimity around "pride" in public graphic acts of deviant sex in front of kids it hopes will be watching.  

Instead of arguing civil code, you should be arguing penal code.  Abetting such a group is against the law in all 50 states.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 22, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Still chewin' on this, WW...




No problem, not all disagreements with Public Accommodation laws are based on hatred and bigotry.

Then there are those that agree with government overreach as long as it doesn't apply to the gays.

I think mine is a more reasoned opinion and strives for equal treatment under the law for all business owners not special rights to discriminate for those that would use religion as a shield from generally applicable laws.  There is something fundamentally wrong (opinion) about a law that functions the way some want it to function.  Religious shop owners should be able to discriminate against gays, but gay shop owners can discriminate a religious person for their beliefs.  That is unequal treatment under the law.


.>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 22, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> I think mine is a more reasoned opinion and strives for equal treatment under the law for all business owners not special rights to discriminate for *those that would use religion as a shield from generally applicable laws. *
> 
> 
> .>>>>



What do you think about a group that uses its "newly-favored/protected" lifestyle as a shield against being arrested in public for doing lewd deviant sex acts on a float down main street where the group hopes for and invites children to be watching?  Do the generally-applicable laws of sex crimes involving children apply?  Or do they get a special pass?  (The lack of arrests already tells us the answer to that question).

For instance, try those same acts in front of a schoolyard at recess on any other day and see how long that shield will protect you.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 22, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> ...




Just for future reference I've pretty much concluded over the years that you are a wack-job and have mental issues.  Mostly I just skip over any of your posts.  It's less stressful then reading your drivel and flat out lying about the law.

Have a nice day.


.>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 22, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Just for future reference I've pretty much concluded over the years that you are a wack-job and have mental issues.  Mostly I just skip over any of your posts.  *It's less stressful then reading your drivel and flat out lying about the law.*


So forced to support or condone a group that has regularly done graphic sex acts in public in parades since the 1960s hoping kids will be watching?  Yes or No.  That was a unique dodge.

You think there are or aren't laws on the books in all 50 states requiring that adults not participate in any behavior that condones or supports sex acts where kids are invited to watch in public?

Who has mental issues: 1. a person trying to stop those parades from happening? or 2. A person who supports them by chilling conversations against them using ad hominem?


----------



## mdk (Jun 22, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > My apologies for mentioning family. I reported myself.
> ...



It must really stink having to live by the same standards that you demand of others. I will continue to point out your rank hypocrisy whenever I wish. Don’t like it? Tough shit.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 22, 2018)

mdk said:


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


Sound a little testy today.  Is it this USSC decision that has you all out of sorts?  Are you grieving the finding that LGBTs are behaviors instead of innate?


----------



## mdk (Jun 22, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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



Hardly. Nobody is bound by whatever made up version of a Supreme Court ruling you’re peddling today.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 22, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Doesn't mean he still wasn't in violation of the law.  The law clearly says "full and equal" access to goods and services, not that some goods and services can be denied.


1. It has been estimated that all of us violate three federal laws daily on average. So this baker being in violation of the law does really not mean alot. Illegal aliens are in violation of the law and the feds help them to violate it.

2. The law is over-reaching when it attempts to compel people to violate their own conscience. These laws that try to force people to engage in activities that they believe to be immoral are tyrannical, foolish and will be eventually removed from due process or revolution.

3. When the law is ambiguous the assumption should favor innoscense and freedom.

4. Bad and immoral laws SHOULD be disobeyed as they are a tool of an evil vanguard.

5. Laws often times paint with a broad brush then rely on case law from court decisions to provide more granularity as appears to be the case here.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 22, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> I think mine is a more reasoned opinion ...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 22, 2018)

JimBowie1958 said:


> 1. It has been estimated that all of us violate three federal laws daily on average. So this baker being in violation of the law does really not mean alot. Illegal aliens are in violation of the law and the feds help them to violate it.



:shrug:

OK



JimBowie1958 said:


> 2. The law is over-reaching when it attempts to compel people to violate their own conscience. These laws that try to force people to engage in activities that they believe to be immoral are tyrannical, foolish and will be eventually removed from due process or revolution.



So any law that violates conscience is wrong.

Tell that to the owners of Piggie Park (Newman v. Piggie Park), the petitioner in Employment Division v. Smith, Bob Jones University, and the Muslim taxi drivers in Minnesota that lost when they wouldn't take fairs for people smelling of alcohol, were carrying alcohol, or 



JimBowie1958 said:


> 3. When the law is ambiguous the assumption should favor innoscense and freedom.



The is no ambiguity in the law.  It clearly spells out what characteristics cannot be discriminated against and the requirement is full and equal access to goods and services.



JimBowie1958 said:


> 4. Bad and immoral laws SHOULD be disobeyed as they are a tool of an evil vanguard.



That's fine.



JimBowie1958 said:


> 5. Laws often times paint with a broad brush then rely on case law from court decisions to provide more granularity as appears to be the case here.



Not really the case here is the SCOTUS did not rule on the fundamental question, do religious beliefs exempt one from generally applicable Public Accommodation laws.  In this case they reversed the lower court ruling not on that fundamental question but on the open hostility to religion by members of the reviewing Commission.  The specifically punted on the religious issue.

What is interesting is they denied the Elane Photography appeal of the New Mexico Supreme Court on the freedom of speech question and let the state ruling remain.  There is another case (Arlene's Flowers) from Washington state that has an appeal before the court and they have taken no action at conference to either accept or reject the case - probably pending the release of Mastepiece Cakeshop.  If they accept the case, they will have an opportunity to address religion as an excuse to violate generally applicable Public Accommodation laws.  If they reject the case and let the lower court ruling stand that sends a very clear message and it will be a couple of years before a new case makes it though on appeal.


.>>>>


----------



## Flopper (Jun 22, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> I still say no law can compel you to condone or support a group in any way who has a proud endemic and advertised habit of supporting/doing deviant sex acts in public where they invite kids to watch & even March along with them.


*There are so many things wrong with that statement I don't even know where to begin so I won't.  *


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 22, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > I still say no law can compel you to condone or support a group in any way who has a proud endemic and advertised habit of supporting/doing deviant sex acts in public where they invite kids to watch & even March along with them.
> ...


Sounds like a dodge to me.

What I hear you saying is instead is *"There are so many things traceable by search engines supporting your statement that I'm pretending to not even know how to address your observations so that I hope you stop alerting other people to them; all in hopes that they won't bother to use their search engines to find out what you're saying is true"*


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 22, 2018)

Slyhunter said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


There is no gay gene. But there is a gay Gene.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 22, 2018)

Aba Incieni said:


> There is no gay gene. But there is a gay Gene.


There are gay Genes and straight jeans.
Gay Jeanes and straight Queens
But where no gay genes? No straight ones either.


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 22, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > There is no gay gene. But there is a gay Gene.
> ...



Straight genes are why you and every other human being that lives, has ever lived and will ever live, exists. 

No other proof needed


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 22, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Aba Incieni said:
> ...


Gee, it's like I set a trap knowing you'd fall right in.
Well done, Genius. Well done indeed!


----------



## Flopper (Jun 22, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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


*I have no idea what you're trying to say and don't see how it relates to the topic.  Let's get back on topic.*


----------



## Pop23 (Jun 22, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



You didn’t know what I posted. And now you scramble to deflect from that. 

That’s funny


----------



## Aba Incieni (Jun 22, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> > There is no gay gene. But there is a gay Gene.
> ...


Because it's a choice which ones you like.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 22, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > I still say no law can compel you to condone or support a group in any way who has a proud endemic and advertised habit of supporting/doing deviant sex acts in public where they invite kids to watch & even March along with them.
> ...





Silhouette said:


> Sounds like a dodge to me.
> 
> What I hear you saying is instead is *"There are so many things traceable by search engines supporting your statement that I'm pretending to not even know how to address your observations so that I hope you stop alerting other people to them; all in hopes that they won't bother to use their search engines to find out what you're saying is true"*


*


Flopper said:



			I have no idea what you're trying to say and don't see how it relates to the topic.  Let's get back on topic.
		
Click to expand...

*
1. Gay pride parades have been going on as endemic to the LGBT culture every year across the US since about the 1960s.  Yes?  Correct.  Move to > 

2.  Gay pride parades feature many nude or almost nude adults doing mock acts of sex in at least a couple of their floats and subgroups.  Yes?  Correct.  Move to > 

3.  Gay pride parades invite families to attend with the expectation that children will be watching.  Lately they've been featuring children marching with them.  Yes?  Correct.  Move to > 

4.  No LGBT person that I know of has ever spoken out against the content of the gay pride parades, certainly no majority speaking out against them.  Not even a tiny fraction.  Yes?  Correct.  Move to > 

5.  The LGBT culture is supportive of and embraces "with pride" (no less) the acts of doing deviant sex acts in public in front of children.  Yes?  Correct.  Move to > 

6.  Therefore, condoning or supporting or participating in the LGBT culture is the same as condoning or supporting or participating in the embracing of doing deviant sex acts in public in front of kids.  Yes?  Correct.  Move to > 

7.  No person in the US can be compelled by law or any other means to condone, support or participate in the LGBT culture. <(THAT IS THE TOPIC)

End.


----------



## dblack (Jun 22, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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


I'm beginning to think the topic is repressed homosexuality.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 22, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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


*
1. Yes, I agree that gay pride parade are important to LGBTs.  They are an important expression of the individuals right to free express as to who they are, something that society has suppressed for centuries.

2. I have never seen a gay pride parade with total nudity, occasional partial nudity.  There are certainly sexual statements made in gay pride parades because the entire LGBT movement is about sex but certainly tame compared to what's on cable tonight.  Yet, I have never seen any sexual activity that my 4th grade grandson is not aware of.

3. Absolutely for families that support gay rights; they are encourage to march.  There is nothing really shocking in the parades for families where children learn about homosexuality in school and parents teach their children that people should be respected regardless of their sexual preference.  However, the parades are not for families that teach their kids that sex is taboo, not to be spoken of in mixed company, and any divination from perceived norms are to be hidden in shame.

4. I don't know of any gays or lesbians that speak out against gay rights parades.  In fact, I don't know anybody that does, but then most of the people I know are pretty open minded and judge people as individuals, not based on stereotypes and labels.

5. That has not been my experience.

6. Absolutely no.  Gay and lesbians I know do not participate in any form of public sex acts.  They are very private people.

7. I agree that no one should be compelled to go to a gay rights parade, attend a same sex wedding, watch gay and lesbian movies, or association with gays and lesbians.

I'm still waiting for you to describe the LBGT culture and lifestyle which you seem to have no knowledge of

BTW gay rights pride parades are now on national television.  I suggest you watch and learn.  Maybe then you will be able to intelligently discuss the subject.*


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 22, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Still chewin' on this, WW...
> ...


Thanks again, but no thanks. I'd much rather keep obvious discrimination illegal.

Now, finally, regarding the balance of post #1454

Okay, I think the first bit (everything before the "**************************" roughly qualifies as arguing, like John Stossel, you feel "the market" will soon put all those who discriminate out of business or a satisfactory amount of them anyway. A best we can hope for given the circumstances kind of thing. I'm not so hopeful. Perhaps more practical or "conservative" than you here.

"So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business."

Yeah, never heard of those particular "rights" myself. Can't see "the desires of others to have access" being an actual thing either. A mischaracterization at best of the issues at stake.

"With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I find my position aligned with what were called Goldwater Conservatives quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government."

Again, these vague "rights" you ascribe to property owners appear to be figments of your or some other's imagination. Wishful thinking. While the Constitution mentions many rights associated with property ownership it ascribes nothing like what you're talking about. And Goldwater, while certainly miles ahead of jerks like George Wallace, was none the less a bigot and horse's ass, much like the vast majority of whites back then, only more so.

Goldwater and Civil Rights

"But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that's the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area."

Listen to yourself: "A burger joint" saying "I won't serve a black" is somehow "dealing with" its "own issues"? Whose "price of liberty"? No skin off the "burger joint's" back. Oh, the blacks can just use their iphones, search "Angie's List" for "non-racist burger joint" and count on a quick hit being just a "walk across the street". Good thing blacks always have those iphones instead of cars, else they might be late returning to work from their half hour lunch break due to all those pesky traffic lights, huh!

"Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government and who the government can do business with, but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other private individuals"

"Citizens" vs "other private individuals"? I believe the term you're searching for is "people."

Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 23, 2018)

Sure "citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government" but the obligation to treat all equally doesn't end there. Government should be of, for, and by the people.


> The first question you may ask is “who ARE the people”? The founding fathers had a very different idea of who should run the government than we do today. They felt that only a very few were really qualified to govern. Blacks, women, Native Americans were definitely not ‘of the people”. *Neither were those who didn’t own property* or were not considered ‘intelligent enough’. In the days of the Gettysburg address, those seen “of the people” loosened a bit, and over time the 13th amendment (race), 19th amendment (women) and 26th amendment (over 18) allowed more and more people the right to vote and the right to be ‘of the people”. Today, we may say that everyone of voting age is ‘of the people’, but still the debates come in.


The context of that bolded bit reveals property ownership to be as much a civil right's issue as any of those mentioned. Indeed, pun intended, it's obviously been our core stumbling block all along. "Survival of the fittest" has always been an argument emanating from the fittest. Ownership and/or control over real estate has been mankind's biggest impediment to actual freedom, liberty, and equality since we opted to cease hunter gathering and become "civilized" farmers. Obviously those with the most, biggest, and highest quality instantly became the most equal, the most powerful, and began doing everything they could to retain that position for themselves and their posterity. Little has changed to this day.

Long lost and growing ever more distant is any notion of stewardship. Any obligation to preserve and protect the land in general so that all life may continue to thrive or at least subsist. It's high time we all woke up and took a good whiff of the oppression guaranteed only to worsen in inverse proportion to our common shrinking ownership and control over our land, air, water, space. We increasingly cede our collective future to a relative few scoundrels and dickheads  like the Waltons, Kochs, Buffets, Gates... allowing them to OWN us, RULE us, use OUR government against us,.. just for their personal kicks and giggles. It ain't funny in the least. Never has been.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 23, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> I still say no law can compel you to condone or support a group in any way who has a proud endemic and advertised habit of supporting/doing deviant sex acts in public where they invite kids to watch & even March along with them.


i try to not take practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, seriously.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 23, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't mean he still wasn't in violation of the law.  The law clearly says "full and equal" access to goods and services, not that some goods and services can be denied.
> ...


based on what?  the ruling was not that broad.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 23, 2018)

WorldWatcher said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Still chewin' on this, WW...
> ...


True Persons of Morals, operate on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre, basis.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 23, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > I think mine is a more reasoned opinion and strives for equal treatment under the law for all business owners not special rights to discriminate for *those that would use religion as a shield from generally applicable laws. *
> ...


Article 4, Section 2, always applied: _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._



> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 23, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > I still say no law can compel you to condone or support a group in any way who has a proud endemic and advertised habit of supporting/doing deviant sex acts in public where they invite kids to watch & even March along with them.
> ...


But you DO take seriously and support practitioners of deviant sex acts in public where kids are invited to watch and march along.  And that's the problem.



danielpalos said:


> Article 4, Section 2, always applied: _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._



Since LGBT just got demoted to behavioral with this USSC Ruling (because we all know the Opinion would've been significantly different if the baker refused the cake because the customers were black), there's a problem with your Article 4, Section 2.

Since LGBT is a repugnant minority behavioral group that somehow (God knows how: Scalia called it "voodoo") "got" special protection from majority rule, what about the rest of them?  I mean ANY behavioral group that is repugnant to the majority that self-describes as compulsive ahd habitual?  Many are less repugnant than LGBT who takes "pride" in public sex acts where they invite children to watch.  For instance, why are polygamists left out in the cold?  Does Article 4, Section 2 say _"just some get these protections but not others"_?

Surely you can see the rats nest the USSC is staring at and why Scalia called Obergefell "voodoo"?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 23, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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


only sex is deviant to the right wing?

we need to go over a Bible, better.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 23, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> only sex is deviant to the right wing?



No, sex crimes against kids on public streets is not a situation that can be rendered via a political filter.  The laws against child sex crimes apply to all US citizens regardless of any type of affiliation.  Including rainbow flags or armbands.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 23, 2018)

"Arriving in New England, the Puritans established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in a town they named Boston. Life was hard, but in this stern and unforgiving place they were free to worship as they chose. The Bible was central to their worship. Their church services were simple. The organ and all musical instruments were forbidden. Puritans sang psalms a cappella_._

The Puritans were strict Calvinists, or followers of the reformer John Calvin. Calvin taught that God was all-powerful and completely sovereign. Human beings were depraved sinners. God had chosen a few people, "the elect," for salvation. The rest of humanity was condemned to eternal damnation. But no one really knew if he or she was saved or damned; Puritans lived in a constant state of spiritual anxiety, searching for signs of God's favor or anger."


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 23, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> "Arriving in New England, the Puritans established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in a town they named Boston. Life was hard, but in this stern and unforgiving place they were free to worship as they chose. The Bible was central to their worship. Their church services were simple. The organ and all musical instruments were forbidden...



You're making a "religion is subjective and therefore absurd" argument.

However there are secular arguments against condoning, participating with or promoting a lifestyle group (LGBT unanimous) that takes "pride" in graphic displays of deviant sex acts in front of kids they invite to watch in public down main street.  One of those secular arguments is that it's illegal in all 50 states to condone, participate with or promote any such group of people claiming that behavior as endemic to their identity.

As I said and will repeat until it sinks in: try any of those acts on any other day outside a schoolyard at recess without a rainbow flag or armband and watch how fast the cops arrive to slam your ass in jail.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 23, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > only sex is deviant to the right wing?
> ...


Virgen women were safer in Sodom, than virgin guys.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 23, 2018)

But are the children safe?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 23, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> You're making a "religion is subjective and therefore absurd" argument.


Wow, thanks, who knew? You're trolling, then trolling more.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 24, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > You're making a "religion is subjective and therefore absurd" argument.
> ...


No, I'm replying to your post's content in a respectful way with my observations.

You on the other hand replying by saying _"Wow, thanks, who knew?  You're trolling, then trolling more."_ is a contentless non-reply meant to at once deflect from the points I made and deliver an insult.  Which is the actual definition of "trolling".  Your camp isn't above projection.  I've noticed that too.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> No, I'm replying to your post's content in a respectful way with my observations.


One can't reply _to_ content and no one _makes_ an "argument" simply by posting a quote and a picture. You've repeated yourself enough here. Get a life.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 24, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm replying to your post's content in a respectful way with my observations.
> ...


But you won't address what I've repeated and hence why I repeat it.  Serial-ignoring.  You are serial-ignoring that as a unanimous culture LGBT embraces "with pride" (defiance) public acts of deviant sex where they invite kids to watch.

Now that's a problem when it comes to forced-promotion of another's ideology.  That's the topic of the thread.  You won't address the problem  And as I've said, try those acts by a schoolyard at recess on any other day without the protection of a cultural parade, rainbow flag or armband and you'll go straight to jail.  Your ilk wants to force people of faith to engage with a culture that espouses public acts of sex in front of kids they invite to watch.  You're sick.  

And that's the point you keep evading and why I have to keep repeating it.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 24, 2018)




----------



## Silhouette (Jun 24, 2018)

^^ A form of trolling.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 24, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm replying to your post's content in a respectful way with my observations.
> ...



Gonna answer whether or not the public should be forced to accommodate a lifestyle group that every year across most cities and towns in the US since the 1960s has put on deviant sex act parades where they invite children to watch?

Second question: have you ever heard of a faction of LGBT that has publicly denounced these/their iconic parades?  Please point me to a link.

Or keep dodging by being a troll accusing me of trolling?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 24, 2018)

^^ A troll done formin






#rhetorical
#uonlyfoolinu
#getalife


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 24, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> But are the children safe?


they should be as safe, as with their own parents.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 24, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > But are the children safe?
> ...


Not if the parents took them to a LGBT pride parade.  Then they are not safe.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 24, 2018)

See daniel? Feed the troll, just get more of the same exact wet, smelly farts. They live for the attention. That is all.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 24, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> See daniel? Feed the troll, just get more of the same exact wet, smelly farts. They live for the attention. That is all.


You're deflecting.  I can smell it, speaking of farts.  You don't want to talk about gay pride parades inviting kids to watch because then it becomes a conversation about what values LGBTs hold dear.  And those values as you well know are illegal.  So it shoots your ilk's PA laws all to hell when it becomes obvious that one cannot be forced to break the law under threat of fines etc.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 25, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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


a public parade?


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 25, 2018)

mdk said:


> Nobody is bound by whatever made up version of a Supreme Court ruling you’re peddling today.



But they are bound by child protective laws.  Been to a child-invite gay pride parade (performed every year in cities and towns across the US since the 1960s with literally millions of photos and video reels documenting) mdk?  I haven't, but I hear you can google some of the tamer photos just writing "gay pride parade".  Warning: adult content (with kids watching in the background).


----------



## Flopper (Jun 25, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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


*"How can something deviate when there is no norm? No two humans would paint the same painting or write the same poem or compose the same opera, so why would we expect two humans to express their sexuality in the same way?"
William Masters

A minister back in 1822 wrote a manual for the newly married defining deviate sexual acts which include:*

*Sexual Intercourse in which the husband does not face his wife.*
*Sexual Intercourse in a lighted room.*
*Sexual Intercourse that lasts more than 2 minutes.*
*Any form of fondling that does not culminate in intercourse.*
*Husbands and wives discussing the sex act.*
*A Kiss in which husband or wife parts their lips.*


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 26, 2018)

danielpalos said:


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


Public parade of one celebrating Silhouettes's faux concerns for the chillin':


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 26, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > But are the children safe?
> ...





Silhouette said:


> Not if the parents took them to a LGBT pride parade.  Then they are not safe.





danielpalos said:


> a public parade?





Grumblenuts said:


> Public parade of one celebrating Silhouettes's faux concerns for the chillin':



So Grumblenuts offers a spotlight on his credibility.  For the record he says that anyone who is concerned about children and what they are exposed to by invitation at gay pride parades only have "faux" concerns for the children.  Playing down deviant sex acts in front of kids by invitation.  Playing down the crimes done every time a gay pride parade marches in front of kids.  Accessory after-the-fact?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 26, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


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


virgin girls were safer than virgin guys, in Sodom.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 26, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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


the abomination of hypocrisy is worse.

consider the fact that, True Gamorrans and True Sodomites, make Better Citizens than False Christians.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 26, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> the abomination of hypocrisy is worse.
> 
> consider the fact that, True Gamorrans and True Sodomites, make Better Citizens than False Christians.



False Christians are Christians who take their kids to Sodomite parades featuring acts of Sodomy for the kids under a rainbow banner.  So we both agree that false Christians who ignore Romans 1 and Jude 1 will be destroyed like those in the town of Sodom.  Good comparison danialpalos.  You're usually only good for non-sequiturs.  Did you eat Wheaties today or something?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 26, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > the abomination of hypocrisy is worse.
> ...


why should I take any "fire and brimstone" from the laity?  go forth and get laid, laity; that is what you are Best at.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 26, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> why should I take any "fire and brimstone" from the laity?  go forth and get laid, laity; that is what you are Best at.


I'm going to conclude that this string of ad hominem from you in your last several posts means I've struck a raw nerve discussing the graphic sex acts at gay pride parades where children are invited to watch.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 26, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > why should I take any "fire and brimstone" from the laity?  go forth and get laid, laity; that is what you are Best at.
> ...


dear, the Religious are simply more moral than the laity.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 26, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> So Grumblenuts offers a spotlight on his credibility. For the record he says that anyone who is concerned about children _{and blaa, blaa, blaa}_


My credibility? For the record I said just what quoted and I repeat (full credit to Moonglow for the image),
 "Public parade of one celebrating Silhouettes's faux concerns for the chillin':"




No, give yourself due credit. While, of course your incessant trolling remains boringly archetypal, the hatred evinced by repeating your filthy depictions of people who, by your own admission, you've never known, met, or even seen first hand is particularly sad and disgusting for any human, not only those posing as "Christian."


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 26, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> your incessant trolling remains boringly archetypal, *the hatred evinced by repeating your filthy depictions of people who, by your own admission, you've never known, met, or even seen first hand is particularly sad and disgusting for any human*, not only those posing as "Christian."


I'll throw two verbs out here and let you pick one.  "Accept" or "reject".

Which one should any sane person following the law in all 50 states pick when considering what to do about adults putting on a deviant sex show for kids they invite to watch?  It's OK, just pick one.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 26, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > your incessant trolling remains boringly archetypal, *the hatred evinced by repeating your filthy depictions of people who, by your own admission, you've never known, met, or even seen first hand is particularly sad and disgusting for any human*, not only those posing as "Christian."
> ...


Why waste your life away hating people you don't even know? In reality this is the only life there is. Best start living it before it's gone.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 27, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> I'll throw two verbs out here and let you pick one.  "Accept" or "reject".
> 
> Which one should any sane person following the law in all 50 states pick when considering what to do about adults putting on a deviant sex show for kids they invite to watch?  It's OK, just pick one.





> Why waste your life away hating people you don't even know? In reality this is the only life there is. Best start living it before it's gone.


Grumblenuts, technically we are all wasting our lives posting on the internet. So since you are here too, stop being a hypocrite & dodging.   Pick a verb.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 27, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > I'll throw two verbs out here and let you pick one.  "Accept" or "reject".
> ...


A mentally healthy person wouldn't waste their life away hating people they don't know either on the internet or off. And you have yet to present a thing here to dodge. So instead of continuing to aimlessly spout pointless smear, answer this question: Why waste your life away hating people you don't even know?


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 27, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> A mentally healthy person wouldn't waste their life away hating people they don't know either on the internet or off. And you have yet to present a thing here to dodge. So instead of continuing to aimlessly spout pointless smear, answer this question: Why waste your life away hating people you don't even know?



A mentally healthy person would not be berating another person for advocating for protecting children from sex crimes.  So, there you go.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 27, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > A mentally healthy person wouldn't waste their life away hating people they don't know either on the internet or off. And you have yet to present a thing here to dodge. So instead of continuing to aimlessly spout pointless smear, answer this question: Why waste your life away hating people you don't even know?
> ...


So you think hating people you don't know is healthy because it somehow protects children you don't know from crime. Psychiatrist, there you need to go.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 27, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > A mentally healthy person wouldn't waste their life away hating people they don't know either on the internet or off. And you have yet to present a thing here to dodge. So instead of continuing to aimlessly spout pointless smear, answer this question: Why waste your life away hating people you don't even know?
> ...





Grumblenuts said:


> So you think hating people you don't know is healthy because it somehow protects children you don't know from crime. Psychiatrist, there you need to go.


Sorry Yoda.  People can use Google to find out about what the LGBT club unanimously embraces in "pride parades".  You're not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes here.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 27, 2018)

No pride in your hate parade, that's for sure.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 27, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> No pride in your hate parade, that's for sure.


Is there "pride" in exposing children to graphic sex acts?  I'm not the one arranging these parades.  Apparently you seem intent on labeling anyone against such acts as "a hater".  Would that be a defense in court?  _"You're honor, arresting these men for dry humping in front of grade school kids is a hate crime!".  _Really?  

Good luck.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 27, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> arresting these men for dry humping in front of grade school kids


And how do you imagine gay women expressing their Pride or celebrating their sexual orientation together that makes you fear and hate them all so much?


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 27, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > arresting these men for dry humping in front of grade school kids
> ...


By doing it graphically in front of kids they invite to watch?  We can play this game all day if you want...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 28, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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


Nah, been done, but I'm sure it feels good to finally get that out. #gotproof? Eh, who needs facts, amiright. Haters gonna hate.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 28, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


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



Proof?  So millions of photos & video reel don't count as proof?  Courtrooms are going to be in big trouble.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 28, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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


So you've apparently been imagining "millions of photos & video reel" of gay men and women inviting kids to watch them celebrate their sexual orientation in parades for many a year now. Likely since videos were on reels. No wonder you're so miserable.
#getalife


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 28, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> So you've apparently been imagining "millions of photos & video reel" of gay men and women inviting kids to watch them celebrate their sexual orientation in parades for many a year now. Likely since videos were on reels. No wonder you're so miserable.
> #getalife



Well I've seen pictures of the crowds, many of which have cameras shooting multiple images.  And I know these sex-parades have gone down public streets with kiddie-invites to watch since at least the 1960s annually.  They're done in cities and towns all across the US.  So I just did the math in my head.  I came up with "millions" and that's probably dead on accurate.  You coming up with a number more in the thousands?

Remember, just one or two photos are good enough for a jury to convict.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 28, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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


Heterosexuals do the same thing.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 28, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > So you've apparently been imagining "millions of photos & video reel" of gay men and women inviting kids to watch them celebrate their sexual orientation in parades for many a year now. Likely since videos were on reels. No wonder you're so miserable.
> ...


Well alrighty then, I rest my case!


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 28, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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





danielpalos said:


> Heterosexuals do the same thing.



Yes, clandestinely and by odd happenstance they do sex acts in front of kids in public.  All should be arrested.  No favorites.   I assume you're referring to the very adult celebrations known as Mardis Gras, Spring Break and the like?

The difference is they don't pitch those things as a "bring the little kids" affairs.  The Hallmark of Mardis Gras and Spring Break is a hangover of regret.  They are well known drunken debauchery and anyone who brings their kids to those should be at least questioned by CWS.  They certainly aren't lingering with pride in their wake.

I'm talking about the "proud" parades of deviant sex acts where kids are not only invited to watch, but also to march along.  Just behind the S&M crowd and in front of "naked dkyes on bikes".

But you knew the difference.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 28, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


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


You can watch a live birth on YouTube.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> You can watch a live birth on YouTube.



But not by invitation on a city street on a float filled with kid-friendly rainbow colors.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 28, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > You can watch a live birth on YouTube.
> ...


can't avoid, heterosexual practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, either.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 28, 2018)

All are subject to child-protective laws.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 28, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > You can watch a live birth on YouTube.
> ...





danielpalos said:


> can't avoid, heterosexual practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, either.


All 50 states require anyone exhibiting sexual acts in front of children to be arrested.  It's just that 100% lockstep as a culture, LGBT defiantly embraces doing that without any repercussions whatsoever......yet....


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 28, 2018)

Silhouette said:


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


should we look into child protective services statistics?


----------



## Slyhunter (Jun 28, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


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


I've seen the same images. Guys slapping each others asses, licking the palm of their hands and grinding on each other during Gay pride parades.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 28, 2018)

Slyhunter said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > So you've apparently been imagining "millions of photos & video reel" of gay men and women inviting kids to watch them celebrate their sexual orientation in parades for many a year now. Likely since videos were on reels. No wonder you're so miserable.
> ...



Uh oh Grumblenuts, looks like there's one other person on earth that knows about lewd acts put on by LGBTs for kids invited to watch at the infamous pride parades!.  I wonder if we can find any other eyewitnesses if the millions of photos and video reel doesn't pass the standard for convincing a jury?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 28, 2018)

Slyhunter said:


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



Why did you go? Ick


----------



## Slyhunter (Jun 28, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


I didn't. Watched it on the internet.


----------



## Slyhunter (Jun 28, 2018)

Is this video of a young boy twerking a double standard?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 29, 2018)

Definitely. If a 12 yr old Brazilian boy can get away with dancing in the street with shorts on but no top, then so should a 12 yr old Brazilian girl. What Brazil without brassieres?

Let them eat cake!


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 29, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Definitely. If a 12 yr old Brazilian boy can get away with dancing in the street with shorts on but no top, then so should a 12 yr old Brazilian girl. What Brazil without brassieres?
> 
> Let them eat cake!



The question begs...who would want to see that?


Disturbing


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 29, 2018)

Slyhunter said:


> Is this video of a young boy twerking a double standard?


guys wanting pornographic equality?  who complains when women do it.

is it a good thing, women aren't really brave enough to gang up on guys and inform them, it is their turn to "get broken in."


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 29, 2018)

We were discussing the USSC decision and how people can and should be opposed to a culture that embraces lewd sex acts on parade "in pride" every year across the US since the 1960s where they invite kids to watch.

That refusal to play along with or promote that lifestyle isn't just a choice.  It's a legal mandate from child-protective laws in all 50 states.  So the USSC could have just cited child-protection laws to get the baker off the hook.  But they decided to take the LONNNNNNG way around the block.  Saves them from calling out the naked Emperor that all seem to be in denial about.  

But like I said, try any of those "pride" acts in front of a schoolyard at recess the next day and set your stopwatch on how fast the cops will have you in jail.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 29, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> We were discussing the USSC decision and how people can and should be opposed to a culture


"We" being you. yourself, and ye, of course. You've heard there's some scary "culture" out there you want no part of? Simples. Don't join! Don't go to their parades! Don't take kids to see them! Don't be such a dunce!


Silhouette said:


> That refusal to play along with or promote that lifestyle isn't just a choice. It's a legal mandate from child-protective laws in all 50 states. So the USSC could have just cited child-protection laws to get the baker off the hook. But they decided to take the LONNNNNNG way around the block. Saves them from calling out the naked Emperor that all seem to be in denial about.


Yeah, I got this YUGE, BEAUTY of a bridge! Been holding on to it. Waiting for just the right sort of shameless, lying, bastard. You'll do, but I can only let it go this DIRT CHEAP for a limited time so best grab the poker while the iron's hot!


Silhouette said:


> set your stopwatch on how fast the cops


That is one helluva dumb expression. Did you make that up too? Wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 29, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> "We" being you. yourself, and ye, of course. You've heard there's some scary "culture" out there you want no part of? Simples. Don't join! Don't go to their parades! Don't take kids to see them! Don't be such a dunce!



So pride parades will now uninvite kids or post warnings to keep children away?  Does this mean they're going to nix the children marching in the parades too?  Like the boy scouts?  The NAMBLA branch of LGBTQ will go into seizures if kiddies won't be watching or nearby.  

And of course this would be a BRAND NEW policy embraced by LGBT pride.  First time since the 1960s.  Do you think it's that easy to erase the obvious in the LGBT culture?  No, it isn't.  That's right.  And it's why people not only can object to promoting that culture in any way shape or form, they are required by law to do so.  The phrase _"it's a little too little, a little too late"_ comes to mind here.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 29, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > "We" being you. yourself, and ye, of course. You've heard there's some scary "culture" out there you want no part of? Simples. Don't join! Don't go to their parades! Don't take kids to see them! Don't be such a dunce!
> ...


The phrase making it up as you go along continues coming to mind here. Your vocabulary word for the day:


> cer·ti·fi·a·ble
> ˈsərdəˌfīəb(ə)l/
> _adjective_
> 
> ...


Note definition 2. in particular.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 30, 2018)

Well the USSC decision certainly opened up the door for anyone who isn't into promoting this type of deviant sex culture to kids.  Even you have to admit that the words they used "neutral" and "respectful" will be troublesome for LGBTs asking regular law-abiding people to play along.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 30, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> "neutral" and "respectful"





Silhouette said:


> anyone who isn't into promoting this type of deviant sex culture to kids





Silhouette said:


> LGBTs asking regular law-abiding people


USSC, KENNEDY, J., majority opinion:


> While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.
> _{snip}_
> Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.


Translation for the certifiable: "While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons"", the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion" which it obviously was despite the intent of this word salad here being to cast doubt or suggest something happened to the contrary. Clearly, the gay couple "too" were "entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of" their "claims in all the circumstances of the case" but we in the majority remain determined to give them short shrift and spank the State of Colorado because we're generally more powerful so simply feel we must now and then. Put them in their place, that is. Can't have these States gettin' uppity now, can we!
Notes:
While"deviant sex culture" can be a religious view, expressing such a view is clearly neither "neutral" nor "respectful".
LGBTs are simply "other members of the public" = "regular law-abiding people"  Duh!


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 30, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> We were discussing the USSC decision and how people can and should be opposed to a culture that embraces lewd sex acts on parade "in pride" every year across the US since the 1960s where they invite kids to watch.
> 
> That refusal to play along with or promote that lifestyle isn't just a choice.  It's a legal mandate from child-protective laws in all 50 states.  So the USSC could have just cited child-protection laws to get the baker off the hook.  But they decided to take the LONNNNNNG way around the block.  Saves them from calling out the naked Emperor that all seem to be in denial about.
> 
> But like I said, try any of those "pride" acts in front of a schoolyard at recess the next day and set your stopwatch on how fast the cops will have you in jail.


the right wing can't even, faithfully execute their Republican Doctrine.  Why should anyone take the Right Wing, seriously about Morals?


----------



## Flopper (Jun 30, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> Well the USSC decision certainly opened up the door for anyone who isn't into promoting this type of deviant sex culture to kids.  Even you have to admit that the words they used "neutral" and "respectful" will be troublesome for LGBTs asking regular law-abiding people to play along.


*Exactly what decision are addressing.*


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 1, 2018)

Strange as it may seem, it's the decision that this thread is about.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 1, 2018)

Why take Laity Bakers seriously regarding morals.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 1, 2018)

Everybody knows, Only Religious Bakers are sacredly serious about Morals.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 1, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Well the USSC decision certainly opened up the door for anyone who isn't into promoting this type of deviant sex culture to kids.  Even you have to admit that the words they used "neutral" and "respectful" will be troublesome for LGBTs asking regular law-abiding people to play along.
> ...


The decision in this thread's OP.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 1, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Everybody knows, Only Religious Bakers are sacredly serious about Morals.


And restaurant owners.   Funny how the trumpanzees had a fit when The Red Hen owner exercised her religious/moral rights to refuse service based on the content of the customer's character.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 1, 2018)

bodecea said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Everybody knows, Only Religious Bakers are sacredly serious about Morals.
> ...


I thought the Red Hen was simply the owner refusing service to anyone for any reason?

The Laity Bakers are alleging, Religious morals.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 1, 2018)

bodecea said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Everybody knows, Only Religious Bakers are sacredly serious about Morals.
> ...


I think the The Red Hen can turn away anyone because of their character.  But it must be proven.  Gays have proven they unanimously line up behind deviant sex parades where they invite kids to watch and have since the 1960s.  So rejecting that behavior has a basis in uber-documented fact.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 2, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


*From a legal standpoint an owner can not deny service because of membership in a protected class such as, race, national origin, religion, etc.. depending on state laws.   I don't think working for an asshole qualifies.*


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 2, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> culture that embraces lewd sex acts


*'Deviant' Sex Acts That Science Says Are Good For You*


----------



## Slyhunter (Jul 3, 2018)

Flopper said:


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


No law shall be established or created that infringes on the freedom of Religion.
The 14th amendment violates this.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Everybody knows, Only Religious Bakers are sacredly serious about Morals.
> ...





Silhouette said:


> I think the The Red Hen can turn away anyone because of their character.  But it must be proven.  Gays have proven they unanimously line up behind deviant sex parades where they invite kids to watch and have since the 1960s.  So rejecting that behavior has a basis in uber-documented fact.


*


Flopper said:



			From a legal standpoint an owner can not deny service because of membership in a protected class such as, race, national origin, religion, etc.. depending on state laws.   I don't think working for an asshole qualifies.
		
Click to expand...

*How about bending over and showing kids watching as another guy mock-rams your asshole while you're on a float in a "pride" parade?  Do people who promote and embrace that identity and concept in pride qualify as a protected class?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 3, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> How about bending over and showing kids watching as another guy mock-rams your asshole while you're on a float in a "pride" parade? Do people who promote and embrace that identity and concept in pride qualify as a protected class?


If, in their Bible, Jesus tells them that's how they must sometimes fight back against their oppressors, then it seems they're just exercising their 1st Amendment rights. On the other hand, all Bibles are fairy tales, filled with stupid rules and self-contradictions, so why get your panties all bunched over any of it?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 3, 2018)

Syriusly said:


> Why did God create bisexuality?


He didn’t, snowflake.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 3, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> On the other hand, all Bibles are fairy tales, filled with stupid rules and self-contradictions...


The repulsive smug arrogance of the left. They so desperately want to believe that they are their own god so they don’t have to be accountable to anyone for their behaviors of greed, selfishness, homosexuality, hate, etc.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 3, 2018)

dudmuck said:


>


Ignorant progressive “logic”:

If you’re more informed than they are - you are “racist”

If you uphold morals and decency - you are a “bigot”

If you protect liberty and defend the U.S. Constitution - you are a “fascist”
Junior...there is *nothing* “bigoted” about accepting that homosexuality is an abnormality that should not be celebrated and promoted. Furthermore, we have the *liberty*/*right* to dislike/hate anything we want to dislike/hate and/or dislike/hate anyone we want to dislike/hate. And we don’t care that you fascists can’t deal with it.


----------



## dudmuck (Jul 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


What makes somebody a bigot is using words like animals to describe people, or using words like "infest".
The US constitution is specifically designed to prevent fascism.   However, nobody seems to want to enforce the constitution these days.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 3, 2018)

dudmuck said:


> However, nobody seems to want to enforce the constitution these days.


Yeah...you keep proving that with your fascist “you will bake the cake” bullshit!


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Junior...there is *nothing* “bigoted” about accepting that homosexuality is an abnormality that should not be celebrated and promoted. Furthermore, we have the *liberty*/*right* to dislike/hate anything we want to dislike/hate and/or dislike/hate anyone we want to dislike/hate. And we don’t care that you fascists can’t deal with it.



BINGO  

More to the point, we have a right to dislike or hate any BEHAVIOR (specifically) that we find repugnant or wholly objectionable.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 3, 2018)

Silhouette said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


is it wrong to enjoy watching women get used, on the Internet?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 3, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> is it wrong to enjoy watching women get used, on the Internet?


First of all, it’s exponentially even more wrong to “use” women. Then it’s an additional slap to the face to put their abuse on the internet. The fact that you don’t even understand that much is evidence alone that you are a low IQ left-winger.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Sonny, what's amazing is how you utterly fail to address anything you quote time and again. But thanks for quoting that perfect illustration of what I said immediately prior.


Grumblenuts said:


> On the other hand, all Bibles are fairy tales, filled with stupid rules and self-contradictions...


----------



## P@triot (Jul 3, 2018)

Grumblenuts said:


> Sonny, what's amazing is how you utterly fail to address anything you quote time and again.


I properly and thoroughly address everything I quote every time. The problem is, I’m so thorough and accurate that you can’t dispute it. That forces you to resort to lying (such as claiming I’m “not” addressing what I’m responding to).


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 4, 2018)

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > is it wrong to enjoy watching women get used, on the Internet?
> ...


i prefer the honest wife channel on most porn sites.  for the honesty.


----------

