Bakers fined for not working homosexual "wedding" continue fighting for their freedoms

[martybegan]

Still does not make them right about it.

Uh huh...shift those goal posts. The majority agree with the opinion which is what you originally asked about.

Not shifting anything, just stating the obvious.

The majority of (white) people in the South thought Plessey was freaking awesome. They were wrong as well.

Those same southern white folks thought Loving was a horrible decision...just like you think Obergefell is. Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm".

I thought loving was correct, and my reasons for not liking Obergefell is again with the process, not the end result.

The same "process" followed in Loving was followed in Obergefell. Same EXACT process except gays had to wait until they were "popular".

and it was right for loving, and wrong for obergefell.

 

[OKTexas]

Sure you can, just tell the faghadist you're fully booked for that day or you taking that day off. There are more than one way to skin a cat. But I'm glad to see you fascist side coming out, thinking you can force people to associate with people they find objectionable outside their place of business.

If you're lying about why you're denying service, you've got nothing to worry about...well except for the lying being a sin.

Well it all comes out in the wash, the faghadist are lying about being born that way.

So when did you choose? How did you choose? Coin flip?

Biology made my choice, I was born with Tab A, which goes in Slot B, not in Hole C.

Biology made mine too. If you believe I chose that can only be because you feel you did. I know I didn't, but if you did you might want to consider the fact you're bisexual. I'm not, I'm plain old vanilla gay. Obviously you chose not to act upon your bisexualness. I chose to act on my being gay. That's the only choice ever made, whether to act upon your natural or god given (depending upon what you believe) sexual orientation.

Wrong again, nature chose for both of us long before we took our first breaths proving your behaviors are unnatural and most likely a psychological condition.

 

[OKTexas]

Repeated polls have all indicated that a majority of Americans now support gay marriage

Do you agree?

Polls that asked the very specific question about the SCOTUS ruling show a majority in favor of the ruling so they are okay with HOW it was legalized.

Poll: Majorities back Supreme Court rulings on marriage, Obamacare

Still does not make them right about it.

Uh huh...shift those goal posts. The majority agree with the opinion which is what you originally asked about.

Not shifting anything, just stating the obvious.

The majority of (white) people in the South thought Plessey was freaking awesome. They were wrong as well.

Those same southern white folks thought Loving was a horrible decision...just like you think Obergefell is. Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm".

Oh right, except Loving was based on genetics, not behavior. So idiots trying to draw a comparison make you go hummmmmmm.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh right, except Loving was based on genetics, not behavior. So idiots trying to draw a comparison make you go hummmmmmm.

The federal circuit court of appeals is already gently breaking it to the Church of LGBT that their original premise was and is flawed. They just said in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit) "sexual behaviors are not covered like race, gender and religion as to civil rights". I mean if they started giving one set of aberrant behaviors civil rights that aren't enumerated for them in the Constitution; they'd have no way of blocking other aberrant behaviors like bulimia, drug-addict Americans, cleptomaniac-Americans and so forth from "special protections from local regulations"..

I think the courts have FINALLY started to figure out that unworkable precedent and how it's set to unravel the bedrock of how we make laws in America. Constitutionally-unspecified behaviors cannot be the legal equivalent to race, gender, country of origin or religion unless Congress Acts to make new Amendments to the Constitution.

The right to bear arms> NAMED. The right to practice one's faith > NAMED. The "right" to butt sex with another dude, deprive children of a mother for life via contract & call it married? > NOT NAMED. Ergo, it's a state-defined exclusive privilege. My evidence? Some sexual orientations still cannot legally marry.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh right, except Loving was based on genetics, not behavior. So idiots trying to draw a comparison make you go hummmmmmm.

The federal circuit court of appeals is already gently breaking it to the Church of LGBT that their original premise was and is flawed. They just said in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit) "sexual behaviors are not covered like race, gender and religion as to civil rights". I mean if they started giving one set of aberrant behaviors civil rights that aren't enumerated for them in the Constitution; they'd have no way of blocking other aberrant behaviors like bulimia, drug-addict Americans, cleptomaniac-Americans and so forth from "special protections from local regulations"..

I think the courts have FINALLY started to figure out that unworkable precedent and how it's set to unravel the bedrock of how we make laws in America. Constitutionally-unspecified behaviors cannot be the legal equivalent to race, gender, country of origin or religion unless Congress Acts to make new Amendments to the Constitution.

The right to bear arms> NAMED. The right to practice one's faith > NAMED. The "right" to butt sex with another dude, deprive children of a mother for life via contract & call it married? > NOT NAMED. Ergo, it's a state-defined exclusive privilege. My evidence? Some sexual orientations cannot still legally marry.

I say FREE THE NUDIST, at least they can prove they were born that way. LOL

 

[Pop23]

Oh right, except Loving was based on genetics, not behavior. So idiots trying to draw a comparison make you go hummmmmmm.

The federal circuit court of appeals is already gently breaking it to the Church of LGBT that their original premise was and is flawed. They just said in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit) "sexual behaviors are not covered like race, gender and religion as to civil rights". I mean if they started giving one set of aberrant behaviors civil rights that aren't enumerated for them in the Constitution; they'd have no way of blocking other aberrant behaviors like bulimia, drug-addict Americans, cleptomaniac-Americans and so forth from "special protections from local regulations"..

I think the courts have FINALLY started to figure out that unworkable precedent and how it's set to unravel the bedrock of how we make laws in America. Constitutionally-unspecified behaviors cannot be the legal equivalent to race, gender, country of origin or religion unless Congress Acts to make new Amendments to the Constitution.

The right to bear arms> NAMED. The right to practice one's faith > NAMED. The "right" to butt sex with another dude, deprive children of a mother for life via contract & call it married? > NOT NAMED. Ergo, it's a state-defined exclusive privilege. My evidence? Some sexual orientations still cannot legally marry.

It's very valid.

A black would be able to prove he's black. There are more than a few tests to do so.

A female, the elderly, the disabled? All could provide substantial proof that they are what the claim.

And the test for sexual orientation? Because they say so????

I asked in a previous post, If a heterosexual male presented himself to the baker as being gay, and the baker refused to bake a wedding cake for him and his male partner, would the baker be guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation?

The answer was yes? Really? This man is not sexually attracted to his partner, he's straight afterall. Marriage law creates no duty to the partners to be sexually oriented toward each other.

This whole argument is simply silly when you look at it realistically

 

[Seawytch]

Uh huh...shift those goal posts. The majority agree with the opinion which is what you originally asked about.

Not shifting anything, just stating the obvious.

The majority of (white) people in the South thought Plessey was freaking awesome. They were wrong as well.

Those same southern white folks thought Loving was a horrible decision...just like you think Obergefell is. Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm".

I thought loving was correct, and my reasons for not liking Obergefell is again with the process, not the end result.

The same "process" followed in Loving was followed in Obergefell. Same EXACT process except gays had to wait until they were "popular".

and it was right for loving, and wrong for obergefell.

Uh huh, of course it was. I guess we should be happy you're only homophobic and not racist. Yay?

 

[Seawytch]

If you're lying about why you're denying service, you've got nothing to worry about...well except for the lying being a sin.

Well it all comes out in the wash, the faghadist are lying about being born that way.

So when did you choose? How did you choose? Coin flip?

Biology made my choice, I was born with Tab A, which goes in Slot B, not in Hole C.

Biology made mine too. If you believe I chose that can only be because you feel you did. I know I didn't, but if you did you might want to consider the fact you're bisexual. I'm not, I'm plain old vanilla gay. Obviously you chose not to act upon your bisexualness. I chose to act on my being gay. That's the only choice ever made, whether to act upon your natural or god given (depending upon what you believe) sexual orientation.

Wrong again, nature chose for both of us long before we took our first breaths proving your behaviors are unnatural and most likely a psychological condition.

Oh, so now you're conceding that gays are born gay, but the wiring is wrong. Just so nobody will think you're bisexual? You poor, poor dear...

 

[martybegan]

Not shifting anything, just stating the obvious.

The majority of (white) people in the South thought Plessey was freaking awesome. They were wrong as well.

Those same southern white folks thought Loving was a horrible decision...just like you think Obergefell is. Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm".

I thought loving was correct, and my reasons for not liking Obergefell is again with the process, not the end result.

The same "process" followed in Loving was followed in Obergefell. Same EXACT process except gays had to wait until they were "popular".

and it was right for loving, and wrong for obergefell.

Uh huh, of course it was. I guess we should be happy you're only homophobic and not racist. Yay?

how am I homophobic If i am ok with and even support marriage law being changed via State legislatures, and other States being forced to recognize said licenses even if they don't want to issue them?

 

[Pop23]

Not shifting anything, just stating the obvious.

The majority of (white) people in the South thought Plessey was freaking awesome. They were wrong as well.

Those same southern white folks thought Loving was a horrible decision...just like you think Obergefell is. Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm".

I thought loving was correct, and my reasons for not liking Obergefell is again with the process, not the end result.

The same "process" followed in Loving was followed in Obergefell. Same EXACT process except gays had to wait until they were "popular".

and it was right for loving, and wrong for obergefell.

Uh huh, of course it was. I guess we should be happy you're only homophobic and not racist. Yay?

And the same exact process will be used for family marriage and polygamy.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, so now you're conceding that gays are born gay, but the wiring is wrong. ...Just so nobody will think you're bisexual? You poor, poor dear...

My friend wasn't born gay, he was trained up to do gay things by the man who molested him as a boy. In fact, this is quite common:

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

 

[Seawytch]

Those same southern white folks thought Loving was a horrible decision...just like you think Obergefell is. Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm".

I thought loving was correct, and my reasons for not liking Obergefell is again with the process, not the end result.

The same "process" followed in Loving was followed in Obergefell. Same EXACT process except gays had to wait until they were "popular".

and it was right for loving, and wrong for obergefell.

Uh huh, of course it was. I guess we should be happy you're only homophobic and not racist. Yay?

how am I homophobic If i am ok with and even support marriage law being changed via State legislatures, and other States being forced to recognize said licenses even if they don't want to issue them?

Again, Obergefell came about in the exact same way that Loving came about. You agree with Loving, disagree with Obergefell. Sorry, but that leaves only one logical conclusion.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, Obergefell came about in the exact same way that Loving came about. You agree with Loving, disagree with Obergefell. Sorry, but that leaves only one logical conclusion.

Not according to the 7th circuit of the federal court of appeals. They said in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) that sexual orientation (a description of behavior) isn't covered under THE Civil Rights Act. Got any other Acts you want to point to, done by US Congress that cover aberrant behaviors like gay sex, drug addiction or eating disorders? All three "legal" but behavioral..

The only behaviors guaranteed rights in the US Constitution (the ultimate document for citation at USSC) are the right to bear arms and to practice of religion. I said long ago the Church of LGBT should've become official. Then there'd be no denying them. They evangelize to children, have rigid dogma that often flies in the face of logic and common sense and they punish heretics. Why they haven't signed up is a mystery...

 

[Silhouette]

Those same southern white folks thought Loving was a horrible decision...just like you think Obergefell is. Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm".

I'm sure the noble black race is thrilled with you constantly and unsuccessfully trying to compare their race with a dude using another guy's anus as an artificial vagina...and the disease epidemic that comes with that..

 

[OKTexas]

Well it all comes out in the wash, the faghadist are lying about being born that way.

So when did you choose? How did you choose? Coin flip?

Biology made my choice, I was born with Tab A, which goes in Slot B, not in Hole C.

Biology made mine too. If you believe I chose that can only be because you feel you did. I know I didn't, but if you did you might want to consider the fact you're bisexual. I'm not, I'm plain old vanilla gay. Obviously you chose not to act upon your bisexualness. I chose to act on my being gay. That's the only choice ever made, whether to act upon your natural or god given (depending upon what you believe) sexual orientation.

Wrong again, nature chose for both of us long before we took our first breaths proving your behaviors are unnatural and most likely a psychological condition.

Oh, so now you're conceding that gays are born gay, but the wiring is wrong. Just so nobody will think you're bisexual? You poor, poor dear...

You must have taken the short bus to school if you got that from what I said.

 

[OKTexas]

Those same southern white folks thought Loving was a horrible decision...just like you think Obergefell is. Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm".

I thought loving was correct, and my reasons for not liking Obergefell is again with the process, not the end result.

The same "process" followed in Loving was followed in Obergefell. Same EXACT process except gays had to wait until they were "popular".

and it was right for loving, and wrong for obergefell.

Uh huh, of course it was. I guess we should be happy you're only homophobic and not racist. Yay?

how am I homophobic If i am ok with and even support marriage law being changed via State legislatures, and other States being forced to recognize said licenses even if they don't want to issue them?

You don't bow down to the full faghadist agenda, so you got to be a homophob. Don't believe me, ask'em.

 

[Pop23]

Those same southern white folks thought Loving was a horrible decision...just like you think Obergefell is. Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm".

I'm sure the noble black race is thrilled with you constantly and unsuccessfully trying to compare their race with a dude using another guy's anus as an artificial vagina...and the disease epidemic that comes with that..

Is actually simpler to see why the black race would be upset, even angry about this.

The two legal processes were indeed the same, yet that doesn't say it should be.

A black man can be proven, using standard physical observation to prove he belongs in a protected class.

The homosexual man cannot claim the same. In fact, there inclusion in a protected class is purely speculative.

I asked, earlier in this thread, a very telling question to one of the greatest advocates of gay rights. That question was:

If two heterosexual men walked into the bakery and told the baker they were gay, would the baker have violated the law for not baking the cake?

The answer was yes.

Amazing.

The evidence to prove discrimination, based on sexual orientation is extremely low. It's simply the individuals testimony. There need be no other evidence.

Why couldn't anyone, fired or refused any kind of public accomodation Sue based on their belief they were discriminated because they were gay? There really is no way to prove anyone isn't. But the real interesting thing is, there really is no objective manner to prove they are.

Try that test with any other protected class. ALL CAN BE OBJECTIVELY TESTED THAT THEY ARE WHO THEY CLAIM TO BE.

Yes, the blacks have a right to be mad.

 

[martybegan]

Those same southern white folks thought Loving was a horrible decision...just like you think Obergefell is. Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm".

I thought loving was correct, and my reasons for not liking Obergefell is again with the process, not the end result.

The same "process" followed in Loving was followed in Obergefell. Same EXACT process except gays had to wait until they were "popular".

and it was right for loving, and wrong for obergefell.

Uh huh, of course it was. I guess we should be happy you're only homophobic and not racist. Yay?

And the same exact process will be used for family marriage and polygamy.

if a state legislature wants to allow polygamy, then I am OK with it. same with marriages between some relations. Some States already allow marriage between 1st cousins.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Try that test with any other protected class. ALL CAN BE OBJECTIVELY TESTED THAT THEY ARE WHO THEY CLAIM TO BE.

Please describe the "objective test" for religious beliefs.

Thank you.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

I thought loving was correct, and my reasons for not liking Obergefell is again with the process, not the end result.

The same "process" followed in Loving was followed in Obergefell. Same EXACT process except gays had to wait until they were "popular".

and it was right for loving, and wrong for obergefell.

Uh huh, of course it was. I guess we should be happy you're only homophobic and not racist. Yay?

how am I homophobic If i am ok with and even support marriage law being changed via State legislatures, and other States being forced to recognize said licenses even if they don't want to issue them?

Again, Obergefell came about in the exact same way that Loving came about. You agree with Loving, disagree with Obergefell. Sorry, but that leaves only one logical conclusion.

Just because I think SSM and OSM are drastically different compared to inter-racial relations doesn't make me a homophobe. I guess its just easier for you to dump me in a nice little folder.

You don't get to define reality. The reality is attraction to someone of the same sex is a biological detriment. That has nothing to do with morality. I honestly don't care who you like to bugger. It's when you decide to make everyone else care OR ELSE that I have an issue.