Baker must make gay cakes

[martybegan]

and there are a bunch of passages in the bible that would get you arrested for being a psychopath if you did them today. Killing your son for mouthing off or killing your daughter for not being a virgin before her wedding. Bible says to totally do that.

SO we are agreed, then, that "The Bible Says So" is not a good enough excuse to violate the law.

Thanks.

So you can't, so you deflect, and thus you lose. Have good one.

Also, the paintmyhouse sock fools no one.

I'm not deflecting at all.

We have a law. the law says, that if you offer a service, you have to offer it to everyone regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

What you guys are saying is, "My Bible says it's wrong', when there's a whole lot of shit in your bible you don't do. Some because it would get you arrested and some because you just plain don't want to do it.

And the rest of us are just calling bullshit on this excuse to rationalize your bigotry.

yes, you are. Government should be color/sex/orientation blind. Major services should PROBABLY also be. A contract service such as providing something for a wedding should not be covered by any anti-discrimination suit, nor should a person holding the wedding WANT someone who opposes their lifestyle at said event.

There is no economic or practical reason to force these people to choose between their beliefs or their way of life. The only reason is to allow small minded progressives to punish people who dare go outside the group-think.

 

[Seawytch]

As a practicing Catholic, no I would not bake a remarrying cake for a divorcee. In regards to gluttony, true it's a sin, however it is not restricted only to food. One is guilty of gluttony if one only avails to himself all the comforts of life by not sharing with others.

Ah, so some sins have wiggle room for you, but not others. Naturally. Yummy bible buffet...pick and choose only the parts you like.

Where is the wiggle room...?



Gluttony is hoarding, and not sharing with others, of which I do not condone.

glut·ton·y
ˈglətn-ē/
noun
habitual greed or excess in eating.

 

[Seawytch]

I would not bake any type of divorce cake, or attend any type of divorce ceremony, if such a ceremony even exists. In fact, my church will not allow re-marriage if divorced.

I'm not asking that question. Divorce is a sin...Jesus himself said so. A divorced person remarrying is a sin. Would you bake their cake? How about a fat person. Gluttony is one of the actual listed "deadly sins". Would you bake a cake for a fatty wedding?

If I were a baker I wouldn't bake a cake in honor of divorce or in honor of murder or in honor of homosexuality or in honor of child molestation. Everybody is a sinner so every time I bake a cake it will be for a sinner but I don't have to honor any particular sin.



So your argument is flimsy and weightless.

Pick and choose from that bible buffet!

 

[martybegan]

I'm not asking that question. Divorce is a sin...Jesus himself said so. A divorced person remarrying is a sin. Would you bake their cake? How about a fat person. Gluttony is one of the actual listed "deadly sins". Would you bake a cake for a fatty wedding?

If I were a baker I wouldn't bake a cake in honor of divorce or in honor of murder or in honor of homosexuality or in honor of child molestation. Everybody is a sinner so every time I bake a cake it will be for a sinner but I don't have to honor any particular sin.



So your argument is flimsy and weightless.

Pick and choose from that bible buffet!

Where is it required that someone be consistent in order to benefit from constitutional protections?

Coming from people who are often for abortion on demand and against the death penalty, I wouldn't hang my hat on consistency as a counter argument.

 

[Wildman]

.
stop the fucking arguing, the people quit making cakes rather than serve a couple of qweers..,


end of discussion

who are you again?

last i checked, you don't determine when conversation ends

feel free to let us know when you nut cases stop ranting about gays.

dismissed.

and no one cares how big and what color you rant in.

U

and



when a tiny light of truth shines on you cockroaches you hastily scamper to the darkest corners of the thread, i.e., the people quit making cakes so why continue your defending QWEER boy friends ?

again............,

 

[Wildman]

Actually, back in the day, when mixed race marriages were illegal, they did use the religious excuse to justify it.

In Loving v. Virginia, the lower court judge ruled the following.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Interracial marriage was the march of the anti Christ...look.

Anti Christ!!



The only thing more entertaining Queer Attention Whores are Queer Drama Llamas.

from cakes to QWEERS.., what a transition.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm not asking that question. Divorce is a sin...Jesus himself said so. A divorced person remarrying is a sin. Would you bake their cake? How about a fat person. Gluttony is one of the actual listed "deadly sins". Would you bake a cake for a fatty wedding?

If I were a baker I wouldn't bake a cake in honor of divorce or in honor of murder or in honor of homosexuality or in honor of child molestation. Everybody is a sinner so every time I bake a cake it will be for a sinner but I don't have to honor any particular sin.

So your argument is flimsy and weightless.

Pick and choose from that bible buffet!

There is no Bible buffet. There is a pattern of distortion among those who have an agenda and project that agenda onto the Bible, but that is not due to flaws in the Bible.

Your preference to twist and distort the Bible to make it appear ridiculous does not impress anyone except those idiots already convinced.

 

[Seawytch]

Which religion teaches you that you will go to hell for an eternity for promoting blacks or asian cultures? Race isn't the same as behaviors of a fad-deviant sexual cult.

Actually, back in the day, when mixed race marriages were illegal, they did use the religious excuse to justify it.



In Loving v. Virginia, the lower court judge ruled the following.



Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Show me the exact Bible passage he referenced for this. There are plenty of them condemning homosexuality.

"The Highest allotted the races when He divided the sons of man, fixing the bounds of the nations."(Deut. 32:8)

http://thetencommandmentsministry.us/ministry/bible_and_segregation

The segregationists and supporters of anti miscegenation thought they were JUST AS "righteous" as you think you are. You're going to look just as unhinged in 20 years.

 

[Seawytch]

If I were a baker I wouldn't bake a cake in honor of divorce or in honor of murder or in honor of homosexuality or in honor of child molestation. Everybody is a sinner so every time I bake a cake it will be for a sinner but I don't have to honor any particular sin.







So your argument is flimsy and weightless.

Pick and choose from that bible buffet!

Where is it required that someone be consistent in order to benefit from constitutional protections?



Coming from people who are often for abortion on demand and against the death penalty, I wouldn't hang my hat on consistency as a counter argument.

When their need to discriminate is based purely on animus towards a group of people.

 

[hipeter924]

Nonsense.

The issue has nothing to do with the ‘First Amendment,’ where no Free Exercise Clause ‘violations’ have taken place.

1st Amendment:
"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."

If someone's religion prohibits doing business with homosexuals then forcing them to do business with homosexuals is a prohibition on that person's free exercise of his religion.

Progressive response:

SHUT UP AND BAKE CAKES!!!

True that, all this complaining about how Obama is running a fascist/communist state because right-wingers got butt-hurt by a state law. Shut up and bake the cakes already, or lobby for repealing the state law.

 

[martybegan]

1st Amendment:
"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."

If someone's religion prohibits doing business with homosexuals then forcing them to do business with homosexuals is a prohibition on that person's free exercise of his religion.

Progressive response:

SHUT UP AND BAKE CAKES!!!

True that, all this complaining about how Obama is running a fascist/communist state because right-wingers got butt-hurt by a state law. Shut up and bake the cakes already, or lobby for repealing the state law.

I think you missed the sarcasm.

 

[LockeJaw]

[


Show me the exact Bible passage he referenced for this. There are plenty of them condemning homosexuality.

and there are a bunch of passages in the bible that would get you arrested for being a psychopath if you did them today. Killing your son for mouthing off or killing your daughter for not being a virgin before her wedding. Bible says to totally do that.

SO we are agreed, then, that "The Bible Says So" is not a good enough excuse to violate the law.

Thanks.

Where is this passage in the bible that says "kill your son for mouthing off", and the passage that says"kill your daughter if she has sec before she is married"?

 

[LockeJaw]

Progressive response:

SHUT UP AND BAKE CAKES!!!

True that, all this complaining about how Obama is running a fascist/communist state because right-wingers got butt-hurt by a state law. Shut up and bake the cakes already, or lobby for repealing the state law.

I think you missed the sarcasm.

You cannot expect Hipster to catch obvious sarcasm, he sees no contradiction in claiming to be a "Social Democrat & Anarchocommunist with Anarcho capitalist leanings & also a member of the Green Party"...Yes he claimed to be all of these. He's a moron so there is no reason to take him seriously.


Just slap him around a bit like I do. Lol

 

[Silhouette]

[


Show me the exact Bible passage he referenced for this. There are plenty of them condemning homosexuality.

and there are a bunch of passages in the bible that would get you arrested for being a psychopath if you did them today. Killing your son for mouthing off or killing your daughter for not being a virgin before her wedding. Bible says to totally do that.

SO we are agreed, then, that "The Bible Says So" is not a good enough excuse to violate the law.

Thanks.

I'm not talking about the Old Testament which allowed for stonings etc. . I'm talking about the New Testament. You know, Jesus' Tome: Jude 1 Jude was something like a cousin to Jesus or a brother. Pretty sure he was a family relative.

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

Remember, in Sodom, ALL people were destroyed for promoting the homosexual culture as normal; caving in to it. The Bible, ie The Roman Catholic Church and all other religions that follow the New Testament demand that the faithful "earnestly contend" for "the common salvation" against the spread of homosexual culture. [Not homosexuals themselves, of whom they must extend compassion, endeavoring to minister "making a difference" to]

Given that the Word of Jude in the New Testament of the Bible, the faith that billions follow, expresses that the punishment for those that disobey Jude 1 is eternal damnation in the pit of fire, you cannot require a person of the faithful to violate his faith with the MORTAL sin of enabling the spread of homosexual culture.

 

[Jughead]

Ah, so some sins have wiggle room for you, but not others. Naturally. Yummy bible buffet...pick and choose only the parts you like.

Where is the wiggle room...?



Gluttony is hoarding, and not sharing with others, of which I do not condone.

glut·ton·y
ˈglətn-ē/
noun
habitual greed or excess in eating.

True. Gluttony is habitual greed, of which I do not condone, or not sharing with others as I indicated above. That is the context to which it is referred to in the bible. It would be silly to think overeating would be sinful.

 

[Peach]

Gluttony:

excessive eating: the act or practice of eating and drinking to excess.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's a serious breach of any cake maker's 1st amendment rights who is christian or muslim.

Nonsense.

The issue has nothing to do with the ‘First Amendment,’ where no Free Exercise Clause ‘violations’ have taken place.

1st Amendment:
"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."

If someone's religion prohibits doing business with homosexuals then forcing them to do business with homosexuals is a prohibition on that person's free exercise of his religion.

Incorrect.

Again, this isn’t a First Amendment issue, as no Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has been violated:

Although a State would be "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" in violation of the Clause if it sought to ban the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts solely because of their religious motivation, the Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons. See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166-167.

Employment Division v. Smith | LII / Legal Information Institute

Public accommodations measures would be an example of a “law [that] is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons.”

Those who wrote and enacted a given public accommodations law did not do so with the intent of disadvantaging religious practice, but only to safeguard the local markets. Absent this intent, the subjective perception that that public accommodations laws ‘violate’ religious practice is factually wrong.

Remember also that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, including the First Amendment; citing merely the text of the First Amendment absent the context of its case law is irrelevant and meaningless.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nonsense.

The issue has nothing to do with the ‘First Amendment,’ where no Free Exercise Clause ‘violations’ have taken place.

1st Amendment:
"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."

If someone's religion prohibits doing business with homosexuals then forcing them to do business with homosexuals is a prohibition on that person's free exercise of his religion.

Progressive response:

SHUT UP AND BAKE CAKES!!!

Also incorrect.

‘Progressives’ understand the Constitution and its case law, and follow the law accordingly; something most conservatives clearly are incapable of doing.

 

[hazlnut]

Panel: Baker must make cakes for gay weddings


You have to, or else!
\

Another bigoted homophobe misreading, misusing the bible shamed in submission.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm not talking about the Old Testament...

Which is a good thing, given the fact it’s legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, along with the ‘new testament’ and any other document of religious dogma.

And there’s also no such thing as ‘homosexual culture,’ that’s a hateful and ignorant contrivance; gay individuals belong to the same culture as heterosexual persons.