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

[Silhouette]

The Kleins had no business beyond selling what they made. Had it not been a wedding cake, it could have been muffins for a gay pride rally, they were no more in a position to take a stance. They sell goods. They aren't a church. The laws said come one, come all, and they refused. That's why they ended up out of business. A real business says if you're buying then we're selling. Only churches take a moral position that's opposed to the business at hand. They can turn away the gays. Had the Kleins been a church we never would have of them but they were a business and like it or not they broke the law.

Then Jewish bakers have no business denying baking a "nazi pride day" cake. And gay graphic designers have no business denying printing a huge highway billboard sign for a Christian customer that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God".

1st Amendment protections extend everywhere, all the time, inside and outside the church, synagogue or mosque. They are applicable to individuals, not groups of them or buildings. The only time they would not apply is if the practice of one's faith involved proximate harm. Hurt feelings don't count in the big world. An example of proximate harm would be an islamic father putting his daughter to death for flirting with a man before she was married.. An example of fully-permissable religious expression would be the passive refusal to enable or participate in another cult or religion, like the cult of LGBT.

The bastardization of marriage (no father or mother for life per contract, to the immediate proximate harm of children involved) cannot tell Christians to abandon their faith "or else lose the ability to put bread on your table". Remember, homosexuality is a behavior without Constitutionally-enumerated protections. Keep that in the front of your mind in all your responses.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Then Jewish bakers have no business denying baking a "nazi pride day" cake. And gay graphic designers have no business denying printing a huge highway billboard sign for a Christian customer that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God".

That's correct. It's business, neither faith nor politics.

I am more than happy to take the money of Nazis. It means I have it and they no longer do.

 

[Silhouette]

Then Jewish bakers have no business denying baking a "nazi pride day" cake. And gay graphic designers have no business denying printing a huge highway billboard sign for a Christian customer that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God".

That's correct. It's business, neither faith nor politics.

I am more than happy to take the money of Nazis. It means I have it and they no longer do.

But would you take the money of a Christian to design a giant billboard sign for a major highway that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"? Yes, we'd expect you to be cool with nazis...twisted cult and all...but would you do it for a Christian?

And, would you predict that most gays would be more than happy to print that highway billboard sign no matter how much they opposed that in their personal philosophy? Let me ask that a different way. Would you DEMAND that ALL gay graphic designers print such a sign under threat of financial and licensing punishment, no matter how deep their opposition to doing so? Stay tuned, because Christians can do the same type of staged discrimination hunts you folks are capable of..

 

[WorldWatcher]

Because he's gay........

Got that proof yet?

Yes, in most cases it is self evident. But you claim folks can self proclaim as a basis in fact.

When it works in your favor I guess?

Most folks require proof of the charge greater then "cuz I say so"

Thanks for playing

The difference between your silly proofs and discussion of the case?

Mine are consistent with the law and are supported by the fact that the Klein's lost. The money has been paid and is currently in an escrow account pending appeal.

And not one of your claims about proving you are gay is a factor in the appeal that the Klein's have made to the Oregon Court of Appeals. (Here is the appeal -->> https://firstliberty.org/wp-content...5-Kleins-Opening-Brief-FINAL-w-Appendix-1.pdf)

So again it's not "cuz I say so", it because it been adjudicated in court before a court of law.


Thanks for playing.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Actually the adjudication in the 7th circuit federal court of appeals this year in fact in Hively v Ivy Tech found that homosexuality isn't covered or protected under the Constitution or any of its Acts as a protected class. Probably because non-enumerated behaviors cannot legally be considered "a class of people". Otherwise all of them could be.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Then Jewish bakers have no business denying baking a "nazi pride day" cake. And gay graphic designers have no business denying printing a huge highway billboard sign for a Christian customer that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God".

That's correct. It's business, neither faith nor politics.

I am more than happy to take the money of Nazis. It means I have it and they no longer do.

But would you take the money of a Christian to design a giant billboard sign for a major highway that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"? Yes, we'd expect you to be cool with nazis...twisted cult and all...but would you do it for a Christian?

And, would you predict that most gays would be more than happy to print that highway billboard sign no matter how much they opposed that in their personal philosophy? Let me ask that a different way. Would you DEMAND that ALL gay graphic designers print such a sign under threat of financial and licensing punishment, no matter how deep their opposition to doing so? Stay tuned, because Christians can do the same type of staged discrimination hunts you folks are capable of..

If the check clears, do the work. That is the limit of your interest.

The moralizing you can save for hating gays in church on Sunday, and you every day.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Actually the adjudication in the 7th circuit federal court of appeals this year in fact in Hively v Ivy Tech found that homosexuality isn't covered under the Constitution or any of its Acts as a protected class.

So, it can be added. No big deal. Race and religion are covered so it's hardly a stretch. Just another of the minorities to be protected but we wouldn't protect them if your kind would stop mistreating them?

 

[WorldWatcher]

^^ Actually the adjudication in the 7th circuit federal court of appeals this year in fact in Hively v Ivy Tech found that homosexuality isn't covered or protected under the Constitution or any of its Acts as a protected class.

1. That's not what they found. They noted that sexual orientation wasn't included in the 1964 Civil Rights act not that LBGT members didn't have constitutional protections. The 7th can't overturn SCOTUS cases like Lawrence, Romer, Windsor, and Obergefel - you have precedence backward if you think so.

2. And you whole Hively shtick is irrelevant because this is a case under Oregon Public Accommodation law that specifically includes sexual orientation along with religion, race, national origin, sex, age, and marital status.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

But would you take the money of a Christian to design a giant billboard sign for a major highway that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"? Yes, we'd expect you to be cool with nazis...twisted cult and all...but would you do it for a Christian?

And, would you predict that most gays would be more than happy to print that highway billboard sign no matter how much they opposed that in their personal philosophy? Let me ask that a different way. Would you DEMAND that ALL gay graphic designers print such a sign under threat of financial and licensing punishment, no matter how deep their opposition to doing so? Stay tuned, because Christians can do the same type of staged discrimination hunts you folks are capable of..

If the check clears, do the work. That is the limit of your interest.

The moralizing you can save for hating gays in church on Sunday, and you every day.

I notice you didn't say whether or not you'd force ALL gay graphic designers to print a giant highway billboard sign (promotional, get it?) that reads "homosexuality is a sin unto God", no matter what their deeply held beliefs are, under threat of financial or licensing punishment.

 

[martybegan]

Again, where does the federal constitution mention marriage?

If they tossed slavery before the 13th amendment, they would have been making up law.

No, they would have been reading the constitution and applying it to all citizens who are supposedly equal, which is what they did in the gay marriage ruling. The laws were unequal therefore unconstitutional.

Find any law, I don't care what and it doesn't have to be in the Constitution, but if said law treats one citizen or one couple as different from another then that law is probably unconstitutional and who rules on that, the Supreme Court.

The law could be in Texas having red hair is illegal? If the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, and hair color is also not in the Constitution, then the law is unconstitutional. All you have to do is show that the law has no rational basis and goes against the equal protections noted in the Constitution. That is what killed you on gay marriage. While marriage isn't in the Constitution equality is and that was all she wrote. The Constitution always overrules state and local laws and the US Supreme Court makes that final ruling. That is the "procedure" here.

Equal protection under the law was part of the 14th amendment, not the original constitution. Try comprehending something before talking about it.

So banning first cousins from marrying each other is unconstitutional?

Equality was noted before then and the entire Bill of Rights is an add-on so skip that argument otherwise you'd have to say that protecting free speech and freedom of religion isn't constitutional and you damn well know that it is.

And banning biological fist cousins is unconstitutional, in my opinion, but it does have something like a rational basis while banning two unrelated men from getting married has absolutely no rational basis it just goes against tradition. The closest thing to a rational basis is they can't naturally reproduce but since we don't require that of heterosexual couples that's DOA as well. Equality killed you and that is very constitutional.

Answer this, what's the rational basis for banning two first cousins getting married when one was adopted?

So the courts could have applied the 13th and 14th amendments before they were even ratified?


So any restrictions or marriage are unconstitutional?

Equality came along with the Bill of Rights, it just wasn't applied to many until later, and most marriage restrictions are unconstitutional. That's a snap to test. Find first cousins wanting to get married in a state that bans it (and not all do) and test it when one first cousin is adopted? There is no rational basis at all, no incest risk, just another tradition. Goodbye restriction, you are just another unconstitutional law.

The only discrimination that is legal is when there is a rational basis. None could be found against gay marriage so it died in the courts. The only argument against it was tradition and that's not enough here. When you argue tradition you'll lose.

So which of the amendments in the bill of rights led to the obergfell decision?

 

[Frank'sRules]

But would you take the money of a Christian to design a giant billboard sign for a major highway that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"? Yes, we'd expect you to be cool with nazis...twisted cult and all...but would you do it for a Christian?

And, would you predict that most gays would be more than happy to print that highway billboard sign no matter how much they opposed that in their personal philosophy? Let me ask that a different way. Would you DEMAND that ALL gay graphic designers print such a sign under threat of financial and licensing punishment, no matter how deep their opposition to doing so? Stay tuned, because Christians can do the same type of staged discrimination hunts you folks are capable of..

If the check clears, do the work. That is the limit of your interest.

The moralizing you can save for hating gays in church on Sunday, and you every day.

I notice you didn't say whether or not you'd force ALL gay graphic designers to print a giant highway billboard sign (promotional, get it?) that reads "homosexuality is a sin unto God", no matter what their deeply held beliefs are, under threat of financial or licensing punishment.

If the check clears, do the damn work.

 

[martybegan]

You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices.

My issue has been that a court that makes up rights can just as easily ignore them, hence my concern of Hillary getting to appoint justices and that impact on the 2nd amendment.

"You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices. "

No, you misunderstanding the ruling which is based on equality before the law. Nothing was made up. The bans were found to be unconstitutional just like the bans on interracial marriage were found to be unconstitutional. It made two people, just two, unequal before the law.

According to you. If you follow strict constructionism, it is jiggery-pokery, nothing more.

There is no "strict" constitutionalism. Try to prove that equality before the law for one adult, or two adults even, isn't unconstitutional?

One is a Christian, one is a Jew. One is a Christian couple, one is a Jewish couple. One is a gay man, one is a straight man. One is a straight couple, one is a gay couple. Show us where the Constitution says we can treat them differently, using your "strict" definition?

It depends on what your view of equal is. There is no precedent for SSM anywhere in our history. It is a new concept. It should be made equal not via the courts, but via the State Legislatures.

If any of them are related to each other closer than 1st cousin (or 2nd cousin in some states) they can be denied a marriage certificate. So they are being treated differently.

There was no more precedent for Loving than there was for Obergefell. Interracial marriage was a "new concept made equal by the courts"

not at all. Racial restrictions were something imposed on the existing contract. History is replete with marriages between people of differing races, clans, and tribes. Not so much with SSM.

 

[mdk]

^^ Actually the adjudication in the 7th circuit federal court of appeals this year in fact in Hively v Ivy Tech found that homosexuality isn't covered or protected under the Constitution or any of its Acts as a protected class. Probably because non-enumerated behaviors cannot legally be considered "a class of people". Otherwise all of them could be.

No, Hively found that sexual orientation isn't protected under Title VII of The Civil Rights Act. Hells bells, the 7th Circuit Court sympathized with the position of EEOC by stating this in their opinion:

"It seems unlikely that our society can continue to condone a legal structure in which employees can be fired, harassed, demeaned, singled out for undesirable tasks, paid lower wages, demoted, passed over for promotions, and otherwise discriminated against solely based on who they date, love or marry."




The opinion of the Justices clearly states that gay people should have workplace protections in place. Your whole nonsense about them claiming otherwise is just that...nonsense.



Here is a link to the case:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...8/C:15-1720:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1801805:S:0

Perhaps actually reading it will make you less ignorant on the subject. I admit that is likely a fool's hope, though. lol

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Actually the adjudication in the 7th circuit federal court of appeals this year in fact in Hively v Ivy Tech found that homosexuality isn't covered or protected under the Constitution or any of its Acts as a protected class.

1. That's not what they found. They noted that sexual orientation wasn't included in the 1964 Civil Rights act not that LBGT members didn't have constitutional protections. The 7th can't overturn SCOTUS cases like Lawrence, Romer, Windsor, and Obergefel - you have precedence backward if you think so.

2. And you whole Hively shtick is irrelevant because this is a case under Oregon Public Accommodation law that specifically includes sexual orientation along with religion, race, national origin, sex, age, and marital status.

Lawrence: about the private act of sodomy between consenting adults. It didn't give that act protection; it simply decriminalzed it. Like saying 'bulimia isn't illegal'. Romer stated that states didn't have the power to define or undefine a protected class. It was procedural, about jurisdiction of powers; differentiating state and federal power on who gets to determine class status. It actually lends power to Hively because Hively agrees: only the fed can amend the Constitution to include or disinclude a protected class. So far, homosexuals aren't protected under the Constitution because they are non-enumerated behaviors. Once in, all non-enumerated behaviors would also be in. You can see the quagmire there surely. Windsor, reiterated 56 times that the power was the states and the states alone to determine who married; except where constitutional protections apply. But they don't apply in non-enumerated behaviors; otherwise polygamy and incest marriage would also immediately be legal in all 50 states. Obergefell built off of nothing, a complete vacuum of federal statutes creating "Constitutional protection for homosexual marriage" where there flatly is none at all.

Hively, found that sexual orientation/behaviors are not covered even under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Hively said, woefully (I guess) that if people doing homosexual stuff wanted enumerated protections, they'd have to go through the proper channels (see: Romer) and get the Congress to Amend the US Constitution.

 

[Frank'sRules]

No, they would have been reading the constitution and applying it to all citizens who are supposedly equal, which is what they did in the gay marriage ruling. The laws were unequal therefore unconstitutional.

Find any law, I don't care what and it doesn't have to be in the Constitution, but if said law treats one citizen or one couple as different from another then that law is probably unconstitutional and who rules on that, the Supreme Court.

The law could be in Texas having red hair is illegal? If the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, and hair color is also not in the Constitution, then the law is unconstitutional. All you have to do is show that the law has no rational basis and goes against the equal protections noted in the Constitution. That is what killed you on gay marriage. While marriage isn't in the Constitution equality is and that was all she wrote. The Constitution always overrules state and local laws and the US Supreme Court makes that final ruling. That is the "procedure" here.

Equal protection under the law was part of the 14th amendment, not the original constitution. Try comprehending something before talking about it.

So banning first cousins from marrying each other is unconstitutional?

Equality was noted before then and the entire Bill of Rights is an add-on so skip that argument otherwise you'd have to say that protecting free speech and freedom of religion isn't constitutional and you damn well know that it is.

And banning biological fist cousins is unconstitutional, in my opinion, but it does have something like a rational basis while banning two unrelated men from getting married has absolutely no rational basis it just goes against tradition. The closest thing to a rational basis is they can't naturally reproduce but since we don't require that of heterosexual couples that's DOA as well. Equality killed you and that is very constitutional.

Answer this, what's the rational basis for banning two first cousins getting married when one was adopted?

So the courts could have applied the 13th and 14th amendments before they were even ratified?


So any restrictions or marriage are unconstitutional?

Equality came along with the Bill of Rights, it just wasn't applied to many until later, and most marriage restrictions are unconstitutional. That's a snap to test. Find first cousins wanting to get married in a state that bans it (and not all do) and test it when one first cousin is adopted? There is no rational basis at all, no incest risk, just another tradition. Goodbye restriction, you are just another unconstitutional law.

The only discrimination that is legal is when there is a rational basis. None could be found against gay marriage so it died in the courts. The only argument against it was tradition and that's not enough here. When you argue tradition you'll lose.

So which of the amendments in the bill of rights led to the obergfell decision?

The most important one, the right to be left the fuck alone, which started long before that in the actual Constitution as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And the equality part starts with number one, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and redress of grievances for all, not just some.

 

[martybegan]

Equal protection under the law was part of the 14th amendment, not the original constitution. Try comprehending something before talking about it.

So banning first cousins from marrying each other is unconstitutional?

Equality was noted before then and the entire Bill of Rights is an add-on so skip that argument otherwise you'd have to say that protecting free speech and freedom of religion isn't constitutional and you damn well know that it is.

And banning biological fist cousins is unconstitutional, in my opinion, but it does have something like a rational basis while banning two unrelated men from getting married has absolutely no rational basis it just goes against tradition. The closest thing to a rational basis is they can't naturally reproduce but since we don't require that of heterosexual couples that's DOA as well. Equality killed you and that is very constitutional.

Answer this, what's the rational basis for banning two first cousins getting married when one was adopted?

So the courts could have applied the 13th and 14th amendments before they were even ratified?


So any restrictions or marriage are unconstitutional?

Equality came along with the Bill of Rights, it just wasn't applied to many until later, and most marriage restrictions are unconstitutional. That's a snap to test. Find first cousins wanting to get married in a state that bans it (and not all do) and test it when one first cousin is adopted? There is no rational basis at all, no incest risk, just another tradition. Goodbye restriction, you are just another unconstitutional law.

The only discrimination that is legal is when there is a rational basis. None could be found against gay marriage so it died in the courts. The only argument against it was tradition and that's not enough here. When you argue tradition you'll lose.

So which of the amendments in the bill of rights led to the obergfell decision?

The most important one, the right to be left the fuck alone, which started long before that in the actual Constitution as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And the equality part starts with number one, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and redress of grievances for all, not just some.

Unless, of course, you are a baker, and then BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE, peasant, right?

Your "interpretation" of the 1st amendment is why people despise progressives so much.

 

[Frank'sRules]

^^ Actually the adjudication in the 7th circuit federal court of appeals this year in fact in Hively v Ivy Tech found that homosexuality isn't covered or protected under the Constitution or any of its Acts as a protected class.

1. That's not what they found. They noted that sexual orientation wasn't included in the 1964 Civil Rights act not that LBGT members didn't have constitutional protections. The 7th can't overturn SCOTUS cases like Lawrence, Romer, Windsor, and Obergefel - you have precedence backward if you think so.

2. And you whole Hively shtick is irrelevant because this is a case under Oregon Public Accommodation law that specifically includes sexual orientation along with religion, race, national origin, sex, age, and marital status.

Lawrence: about the private act of sodomy between consenting adults. It didn't give that act protection; it simply decriminalzed it. Like saying 'bulimia isn't illegal'. Romer stated that states didn't have the power to define or undefine a protected class. Ot was procedural, differentiating state and federal power on who gets to determine class status. It actually lends power to Hively because Hively agrees: only the fed can amend the Constitution to include or disinclude a protected class. So far, homosexuals aren't protected under the Constitution because they are non-enumerated behaviors. Once in, all non-enumerated behaviors would also be in. You can see the quagmire there surely. Windsor, reiterated 56 times that the power was the states and the states alone to determine who married; except where constitutional protections apply. But they don't apply in non-enumerated behaviors. Obergefell built off of nothing, a complete vacuum of federal statutes creating "Constitutional protection for homosexual marriage" where there flatly is none at all.

Gay marriage is the same as interracial marriage. In both cases states passed laws against such things and in both cases the laws were declared unconstitutional.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Equality was noted before then and the entire Bill of Rights is an add-on so skip that argument otherwise you'd have to say that protecting free speech and freedom of religion isn't constitutional and you damn well know that it is.

And banning biological fist cousins is unconstitutional, in my opinion, but it does have something like a rational basis while banning two unrelated men from getting married has absolutely no rational basis it just goes against tradition. The closest thing to a rational basis is they can't naturally reproduce but since we don't require that of heterosexual couples that's DOA as well. Equality killed you and that is very constitutional.

Answer this, what's the rational basis for banning two first cousins getting married when one was adopted?

So the courts could have applied the 13th and 14th amendments before they were even ratified?


So any restrictions or marriage are unconstitutional?

Equality came along with the Bill of Rights, it just wasn't applied to many until later, and most marriage restrictions are unconstitutional. That's a snap to test. Find first cousins wanting to get married in a state that bans it (and not all do) and test it when one first cousin is adopted? There is no rational basis at all, no incest risk, just another tradition. Goodbye restriction, you are just another unconstitutional law.

The only discrimination that is legal is when there is a rational basis. None could be found against gay marriage so it died in the courts. The only argument against it was tradition and that's not enough here. When you argue tradition you'll lose.

So which of the amendments in the bill of rights led to the obergfell decision?

The most important one, the right to be left the fuck alone, which started long before that in the actual Constitution as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And the equality part starts with number one, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and redress of grievances for all, not just some.

Unless, of course, you are a baker, and then BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE, peasant, right?

Your "interpretation" of the 1st amendment is why people despise progressives so much.

The First Amendment is alive and well, but not at the Motel 6, when checking in guests, that's a Public Accommodation. After work you can hate the fags as much as you like.

 

[martybegan]

So the courts could have applied the 13th and 14th amendments before they were even ratified?


So any restrictions or marriage are unconstitutional?

Equality came along with the Bill of Rights, it just wasn't applied to many until later, and most marriage restrictions are unconstitutional. That's a snap to test. Find first cousins wanting to get married in a state that bans it (and not all do) and test it when one first cousin is adopted? There is no rational basis at all, no incest risk, just another tradition. Goodbye restriction, you are just another unconstitutional law.

The only discrimination that is legal is when there is a rational basis. None could be found against gay marriage so it died in the courts. The only argument against it was tradition and that's not enough here. When you argue tradition you'll lose.

So which of the amendments in the bill of rights led to the obergfell decision?

The most important one, the right to be left the fuck alone, which started long before that in the actual Constitution as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And the equality part starts with number one, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and redress of grievances for all, not just some.

Unless, of course, you are a baker, and then BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE, peasant, right?

Your "interpretation" of the 1st amendment is why people despise progressives so much.

The First Amendment is alive and well, but not at the Motel 6, when checking in guests, that's a Public Accommodation. After work you can hate the fags as much as you like.

Where does the constitution say "unless you are at work?"

 

[Silhouette]

The most important one, the right to be left the fuck alone, which started long before that in the actual Constitution as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And the equality part starts with number one, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and redress of grievances for all, not just some.

Being left alone to do things in private is not the same as inviting others to join in and enable your behavior as a 'new social value' when they don't want to...in a public venue..

You are welcome to use another guy's anus as an artificial vagina in your own home, but don't got thinking that decriminalized behavior is now a protected class you can force other people to play along with or enable. Get enumeration in the Constitution or get used to the 1st Amendment trumping on PA laws everywhere. Prepare yourself accordingly.