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

[WorldWatcher]

You need to quit bringing religion of the customer into this. The Government proclaimed it's duty to protect religion in the Bill of rights. That is, unless you can find sexual orientation in the Bill of Rights, it's a moot point. Regardless if it's in the Oregon law or not.

Sorry Pops, I'll bring up anything I like. Please don't try to tell me what I can bring up or not.

Thank you.

Then you make the claim that, because a pizza place delivers, they must CATER a wedding?

How's that work?

I don't make the claim at all.

I remember period news reports where the Pizza Shop owners said they cater events and would be happy to cater a different-sex couple wedding but would refuse to perform the same service for a same-sex wedding. THEY are the one that claimed they would cater weddings, not I.

Delivery and catering are two vastly different forms of commerce.

I agree, So? If they refused service because the customers were gay it would still violate Public Accommodation laws (assuming that state listed sexual orientation in the law) whether it was "catering" or "delivery".

Do you suppose that the State or the court can demand proof of the mans race?

Nope, in most cases it will be self-evident. The basis of the discrimination is on the ACTIONS of the business owner. But on the other hand, a Catholic named Sternberg would have a case if the baker refused service telling him he didn't serve Jews even though he wasn't Jewish.


>>>>

 

[BlindBoo]

Requiring a Christian to supply a wedding cake knowingly to a gay wedding is the same as requiring a Jew to bake a "Nazi Pride Day" cake for a nazi. Legally,

Really? What Gay regime rounded up Christians across Europe and tried to genocide them?

I think that Nazi shit is a little bit different.

 

[Silhouette]

Requiring a Christian to supply a wedding cake knowingly to a gay wedding is the same as requiring a Jew to bake a "Nazi Pride Day" cake for a nazi. Legally,

Really? What Gay regime rounded up Christians across Europe and tried to genocide them?

I think that Nazi shit is a little bit different.

They may be as different as apples and oranges. But that isn't the point. The point is the right to disagree strongly with another's ideology. The idea of two men using each other's anuses as artificial vaginas and having that construct be "a legal marriage" while it deprives children involved of a mother for life, is utterly repugnant to Christian teachings. For that matter, a nazi should not have to bake a cake for a barmitzvah; nor a Jew for a nazi pride party.

It's the right to passively refuse to be involved in promoting another behavior/ideology. If it were only about a concrete class (with Jews & Christians it is enumerated protection). Instead it's about strange behaviors and hateful philosophies. But the 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech and association, including the right to not associate. 2016 7th circuit, Hively v Ivy Tech says that behaviors aren't protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act; except where enumerated in the Constitution. The 7th circuit lamented that it was unfortunate for gays, but that the only remedy was for "a higher authority" to Amend the Constitution. That means the Legislature. It was though almost as if the 7th was daring the USSC to try to do another Obergefell; to insure heads roll this time around the block.

If Obergefell was a wall to future challenges, Hively v Ivy Tech was a bundle of TNT just detonated under that wall. It compromised the very foundation of all LGBT cult arguments "race is the same thing as drilling a guy in the ass!" No, no it's not.

 

[bodecea]

Requiring a Christian to supply a wedding cake knowingly to a gay wedding is the same as requiring a Jew to bake a "Nazi Pride Day" cake for a nazi. Legally,

Really? What Gay regime rounded up Christians across Europe and tried to genocide them?

I think that Nazi shit is a little bit different.

They may be as different as apples and oranges. But that isn't the point. The point is the right to disagree strongly with another's ideology. The idea of two men using each other's anuses as artificial vaginas and having that construct be "a legal marriage" while it deprives children involved of a mother for life, is utterly repugnant to Christian teachings. For that matter, a nazi should not have to bake a cake for a barmitzvah; nor a Jew for a nazi pride party.

It's the right to passively refuse to be involved in promoting another behavior/ideology. If it were only about a concrete class (with Jews & Christians it is enumerated protection). Instead it's about behaviors and strange philosophies. But the 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech and association, including the right to not associate. 2016 7th circuit, Hively v Ivy Tech says that behaviors aren't protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act; except where enumerated in the Constitution. The 7th circuit lamented that it was unfortunate for gays, but that the only remedy was for "a higher authority" to Amend the Constitution. That means the Legislature. It was though almost as if the 7th was daring the USSC to try to do another Obergefell; to insure heads roll this time around the block.

Do you realize how ODD it is for someone to look at a gay couple (or any couple) and have their mind automatically default to thinking about them having sex?


You do know that's really ODD, right?

 

[Silhouette]

Do you realize how ODD it is for someone to look at a gay couple (or any couple) and have their mind automatically default to thinking about them having sex?


You do know that's really ODD, right?

Children usually assume their parents are having sex. So no, not that odd. Poor things. No mother or father for life as a matter of binding legal contract. And walking into school with those two "as parents" while all the other students and mother/father marriages look on in horror.

 

[bodecea]

Do you realize how ODD it is for someone to look at a gay couple (or any couple) and have their mind automatically default to thinking about them having sex?


You do know that's really ODD, right?

Children usually assume their parents are having sex. So no, not that odd.

Are you telling us now that children AUTOMATICALLY have their thoughts default to their parents "doing the nasty" everytime they think of them?

 

[Silhouette]

Are you telling us now that children AUTOMATICALLY have their thoughts default to their parents "doing the nasty" everytime they think of them?

Nope but it occurs to them once or twice. And that's enough to seal the damage. As they grow, they learn about biology and how two men using each other's anuses as artificial vaginas is aberrant sexual behavior therefore. So in the aging child's mind there grows a disturbance. They become aware that their "two dads" or "two moms" aren't quite playing with a full deck. And that will cause a rift as those "parents" keep insisting against reason and science "no no...this is normal..really...we swear it is."

As the child becomes an adolescent, the child will find the dildo under the lesbos' bed and start thinking "hey, wait a minute...". And the child of two gay men will realize as sophistication grows in his mind that a man using another man's business end as "just another hole" is..."hey, wait a minute..." when he thinks about biology.

The whole thing is set to unravel in the child's mind at a given moment when he or she realizes that their "parents' are really two crazy people of the same gender trying to approximate an actual heterosexual relationship. Especially if one of them acts male and the other female, no matter what the gender is in question. We've all see that too. Are you going to insist that doesn't exist? The butch/femme thing in both gay males and lesbians? How they always seem to gravitate towards those roles or each other in the first place?

You might fool some people. But you won't fool a child. And when we remember we're talking about a normal childhood under a marriage contract; the "gay marriage" is not only not normal, it is mind-fucking...damaging to any children involved. The ruse can only last so long. "Through the mouths of babes" comes the stark and uncomfortable truth.

True story. A friend just told me about two lesbians who were somewhat famous in the town she lived in. Turns out they just broke up. The reason? The butch one wanted to take testosterone to be even more butch looking. So the femme one woke up and realized that what she really was attracted to in the butch one was male characteristics. So, she went and got together with a man and left the butch one. Old butchy isn't very happy about it either I guess. She'll find another confused lipstick lesbian though...and the untreated insanity will roll on... I just don't think children should be required by contract to play along though.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Do you realize how ODD it is for someone to look at a gay couple (or any couple) and have their mind automatically default to thinking about them having sex?


You do know that's really ODD, right?

Children usually assume their parents are having sex. So no, not that odd.

Are you telling us now that children AUTOMATICALLY have their thoughts default to their parents "doing the nasty" everytime they think of them?

The one thing I try not to think about is pretty much anyone I know having sex. That is even stronger for people I'm related to, especially my parents and grandparents. Good God, let's just not go there.

 

[BlindBoo]

utterly repugnant to Christian teachings.

What did Jesus teach about it?

it's about strange behaviors and hateful philosophies.

Indeed. The hateful philosophies that forced States into strange behavior like passing unconstitutional laws restricting the rights of American Citizens.

Then the courts had to act.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Are you telling us now that children AUTOMATICALLY have their thoughts default to their parents "doing the nasty" everytime they think of them?

Nope but it occurs to them once or twice. And that's enough to seal the damage. As they grow, they learn about biology and how two men using each other's anuses as artificial vaginas is aberrant sexual behavior therefore. So in the aging child's mind there grows a disturbance. They become aware that their "two dads" or "two moms" aren't quite playing with a full deck. And that will cause a rift as those "parents" keep insisting against reason and science "no no...this is normal..really...we swear it is."

As the child becomes an adolescent, the child will find the dildo under the lesbos' bed and start thinking "hey, wait a minute...". And the child of two gay men will realize as sophistication grows in his mind that a man using another man's business end as "just another hole" is..."hey, wait a minute..." when he thinks about biology.

The whole thing is set to unravel in the child's mind at a given moment when he or she realizes that their "parents' are really two crazy people of the same gender trying to approximate an actual heterosexual relationship. Especially if one of them acts male and the other female, no matter what the gender is in question. We've all see that too. Are you going to insist that doesn't exist? The butch/femme thing in both gay males and lesbians? How they always seem to gravitate towards those roles or each other in the first place?

You might fool some people. But you won't fool a child. And when we remember we're talking about a normal childhood under a marriage contract; the "gay marriage" is not only not normal, it is mind-fucking...damaging to any children involved. The ruse can only last so long. "Through the mouths of babes" comes the stark and uncomfortable truth.

Mom is blowing dad, dad is blowing mom, or dad is doing mom in the ass and you think a child working out two gay parents is the problem? I'd say that's the easy part while why is mommy on her knees or daddy is doing her like a dog is not so much?

You have a deeply troubled view of human sexuality and parent-child relationships. I never think of my parents having sex and I've been doing that since I learned what it was many decades ago. That is how it works not which one put what in which hole. To even go there makes you a very troubled person so most of us run like hell the other way. That works.

 

[Silhouette]

utterly repugnant to Christian teachings.

What did Jesus teach about it?

Repugnant is not the same as hate. Repugnant is "loathe to join in on". Jude was Jesus' daily personal servant. As such, he sat poised to hear many of Jesus' teachings. Jude 1 (the very first passage of Jude) goes directly to warning Christians to stay away from promoting homosexual social values. But it also says "don't hate the homosexual, extend a hand and bring him out of his depravity". But at the same time it warns if they assist him in spreading homosexuality through any culture, they will burn in Hell for eternity. The language is quite plain. "Hate the sin but not the sinner". That is what Jesus taught.

What greater vehicle to spread a cultural value than through marriage? Now you see the objection the Kleins have. And the USSC will ultimately support their right to passively refuse to join along with the repugnant behaviors.

The confusion you're experiencing is believing your behavior defines you completely. It is only part of you. In fact it isn't even part of you...it's just something you're doing...And Jesus taught it's something that can be whittled away if it is destroying you. And if your behavior is aberrant, dysfunctional or otherwise wrong (think the HIV epidemic and gay men in the US), then it is a sin to be hated. But you yourself are not.

 

[BlindBoo]

Are you telling us now that children AUTOMATICALLY have their thoughts default to their parents "doing the nasty" everytime they think of them?

Nope but it occurs to them once or twice. And that's enough to seal the damage. As they grow, they learn about biology and how two men using each other's anuses as artificial vaginas is aberrant sexual behavior therefore. So in the aging child's mind there grows a disturbance. They become aware that their "two dads" or "two moms" aren't quite playing with a full deck. And that will cause a rift as those "parents" keep insisting against reason and science "no no...this is normal..really...we swear it is."

As the child becomes an adolescent, the child will find the dildo under the lesbos' bed and start thinking "hey, wait a minute...". And the child of two gay men will realize as sophistication grows in his mind that a man using another man's business end as "just another hole" is..."hey, wait a minute..." when he thinks about biology.

The whole thing is set to unravel in the child's mind at a given moment when he or she realizes that their "parents' are really two crazy people of the same gender trying to approximate an actual heterosexual relationship. Especially if one of them acts male and the other female, no matter what the gender is in question. We've all see that too. Are you going to insist that doesn't exist? The butch/femme thing in both gay males and lesbians? How they always seem to gravitate towards those roles or each other in the first place?

You might fool some people. But you won't fool a child. And when we remember we're talking about a normal childhood under a marriage contract; the "gay marriage" is not only not normal, it is mind-fucking...damaging to any children involved. The ruse can only last so long. "Through the mouths of babes" comes the stark and uncomfortable truth.

True story. A friend just told me about two lesbians who were somewhat famous in the town she lived in. Turns out they just broke up. The reason? The butch one wanted to take testosterone to be even more butch looking. So the femme one woke up and realized that what she really was attracted to in the butch one was male characteristics. So, she went and got together with a man and left the butch one. Old butchy isn't very happy about it either I guess. She'll find another confused lipstick lesbian though...and the untreated insanity will roll on... I just don't think children should be required by contract to play along though.

Wait a minute, didn't the good Lord make us all in his own image?

God is Bi, and a great practical joker.

 

[Frank'sRules]

utterly repugnant to Christian teachings.

What did Jesus teach about it?

Repugnant is not the same as hate. Repugnant is "loathe to join in on". Jude was Jesus' daily personal servant. As such, he sat poised to hear many of Jesus' teachings. Jude 1 (the very first passage of Jude) goes directly to warning Christians to stay away from promoting homosexual social values. But it also says "don't hate the homosexual, extend a hand and bring him out of his depravity". But at the same time it warns if they assist him in spreading homosexuality through any culture, they will burn in Hell for eternity. The language is quite plain. "Hate the sin but not the sinner". That is what Jesus taught.

What greater vehicle to spread a cultural value than through marriage? Now you see the objection the Kleins have. And the USSC will ultimately support their right to passively refuse to join along with the repugnant behaviors.

The confusion you're experiencing is believing your behavior defines you completely. It is only part of you. In fact it isn't even part of you...it's just something you're doing...And Jesus taught it's something that can be whittled away if it is destroying you. And if your behavior is aberrant, dysfunctional or otherwise wrong (think the HIV epidemic and gay men in the US), then it is a sin to be hated. But you yourself are not.

What is destroying you is your hatred of homosexuals. You are obsessed with them. Where your head is that is where your heart will be, a teaching of Jesus.

Homosexuals terrify you so, you live in terror.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ well yes, my friend who became homosexual by being molested by a man as a boy, went out and killed a bunch of other victims just like himself by purposefully having unprotected sex with as many young men as he could; after discovering he was HIV positive. He may have killed thousands before he himself succumbed to AIDS.

So yeah, you're right. Pretty scary stuff, that unexamined compulsive sexual behavior called "homosexual".. Ignoring its malignancy is the real danger, the real source of human angst. What would Jesus do? He'd say "hate the sin but love the sinner". And we are talking about behavior "homosexuality" here, not "homosexuals".

Wait a minute, didn't the good Lord make us all in his own image?

God is Bi, and a great practical joker.

Check your pants if you're confused what gender you are and what plumbing goes where and in which other person. If you're a dude, the penis goes in an vagina. Real or artificial (anus) is your choice I guess. But your urge to put it in a hole is biological. Isn't it? If you're a gal, your vagina is there to receive a penis. Real or artificial (dildo) is your choice I guess. But your urge to put something in it is biological. Isn't it?

 

[Frank'sRules]

Are you telling us now that children AUTOMATICALLY have their thoughts default to their parents "doing the nasty" everytime they think of them?

Nope but it occurs to them once or twice. And that's enough to seal the damage. As they grow, they learn about biology and how two men using each other's anuses as artificial vaginas is aberrant sexual behavior therefore. So in the aging child's mind there grows a disturbance. They become aware that their "two dads" or "two moms" aren't quite playing with a full deck. And that will cause a rift as those "parents" keep insisting against reason and science "no no...this is normal..really...we swear it is."

As the child becomes an adolescent, the child will find the dildo under the lesbos' bed and start thinking "hey, wait a minute...". And the child of two gay men will realize as sophistication grows in his mind that a man using another man's business end as "just another hole" is..."hey, wait a minute..." when he thinks about biology.

The whole thing is set to unravel in the child's mind at a given moment when he or she realizes that their "parents' are really two crazy people of the same gender trying to approximate an actual heterosexual relationship. Especially if one of them acts male and the other female, no matter what the gender is in question. We've all see that too. Are you going to insist that doesn't exist? The butch/femme thing in both gay males and lesbians? How they always seem to gravitate towards those roles or each other in the first place?

You might fool some people. But you won't fool a child. And when we remember we're talking about a normal childhood under a marriage contract; the "gay marriage" is not only not normal, it is mind-fucking...damaging to any children involved. The ruse can only last so long. "Through the mouths of babes" comes the stark and uncomfortable truth.

True story. A friend just told me about two lesbians who were somewhat famous in the town she lived in. Turns out they just broke up. The reason? The butch one wanted to take testosterone to be even more butch looking. So the femme one woke up and realized that what she really was attracted to in the butch one was male characteristics. So, she went and got together with a man and left the butch one. Old butchy isn't very happy about it either I guess. She'll find another confused lipstick lesbian though...and the untreated insanity will roll on... I just don't think children should be required by contract to play along though.

Wait a minute, didn't the good Lord make us all in his own image?

God is Bi, and a great practical joker.

Bi, and intersexed.

No one can explain why Adam had a penis when Eve was an afterthought.

 

[BlindBoo]

That is what Jesus taught.

No that was what Jude was teaching. What did Jesus say about it?

The confusion you're experiencing is believing your behavior defines you completely.

I'm naturally attracted to women.. Like my daughter whom my wife and I knew from a very early age was gay. I still love that child as the light of my life. She is who she is naturally.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Wait a minute, didn't the good Lord make us all in his own image?

God is Bi, and a great practical joker.

Check your pants if you're confused what gender you are and what plumbing goes where and in which other person. If you're a dude, the penis goes in an vagina. Real or artificial (anus) is your choice I guess. But your urge to put it in a hole is biological. Isn't it? If you're a gal, your vagina is there to receive a penis. Real or artificial (dildo) is your choice I guess. But your urge to put something in it is biological. Isn't it?

What is a woman's mouth, a semi-artificial vagina? Did you know that most gay sex is oral? Anal sex for gays isn't that different than anal sex for straights. In many cultures a male is only gay if they are the catcher not the pitcher. After all, men will fuck nearly anything.

Let's say that you and I are having anal sex. Does that mean that you are artificial?

 

[Silhouette]

^^ don't spin your head on it too much. You might think about it and then...

That is what Jesus taught.

No that was what Jude was teaching. What did Jesus say about it?

Nothing directly. As you know, the New Testament where Jude's accounts are lodged, are only eyewitness accounts of what Jesus taught. But that's Christianity. And it's protected by the Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Homosexuality isn't.

 

[BlindBoo]

^^ well yes, my friend who became homosexual by being molested by a man as a boy, went out and killed a bunch of other victims just like himself by purposefully having unprotected sex with as many young men as he could; after discovering he was HIV positive. He may have killed thousands before he himself succumbed to AIDS.

So yeah, you're right. Pretty scary stuff, that unexamined compulsive sexual behavior called "homosexual".. Ignoring its malignancy is the real danger, the real source of human angst. What would Jesus do? He'd say "hate the sin but love the sinner". And we are talking about behavior "homosexuality" here, not "homosexuals".

Wait a minute, didn't the good Lord make us all in his own image?

God is Bi, and a great practical joker.

Check your pants if you're confused what gender you are and what plumbing goes where and in which other person. If you're a dude, the penis goes in an vagina. Real or artificial (anus) is your choice I guess. But your urge to put it in a hole is biological. Isn't it? If you're a gal, your vagina is there to receive a penis. Real or artificial (dildo) is your choice I guess. But your urge to put something in it is biological. Isn't it?

Lighten up homo........

 

[Silhouette]

^^ No problem. Here's a compromise, your cult stops staging discrimination-hunts against Christian bakers and maybe this thing won't go all the way to the USSC where you'll lose.