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

[martybegan]

not the same.

Exactly the same. Just because you find one icky and the other not is not sufficiently different.

Finding it icky has nothing to do with it. I find gummy worms icky, you don't see me trying to ban them.

The difference is biological, pure and simple.

Tell me that story again where you're not anti gay. I love that story.

Marty: I'm not anti gay, I just don't think gays are equal to straights.

What would we call someone who said "I'm not a bigot, I just don't think blacks are equal to whites...you know, biologically"?

I just don't see SSM and OSM as equal enough to warrant a court saying they are. considering I would vote for them to be made legally equal, or at least support my legislature in voting to make them equal, how does that make me anti-gay?

And blacks and whites are biologically equal except for melanin concentration.

Just as sexuality isn't black and white, neither is bigotry. There are as many shades of bigotry as there are sexualities. That you think gays and straights aren't equal is anti gay. Sure, it's not full on Silhouette anti gay, but it's still there.

I'm actually offended by how you treat the constitution, not who you decide to bugger every night. I'm also offended by the fact you think ruining someone over a non-essential service is the proper response to them not wanting to interact with you in one specific instance due to their morality.

But you are used to just going the "bigot bigot bigot" route, so even when countered with arguments for other reasons, you "run home to momma" because its your only real talking point.

Stop caring about what people think, and deal with how people treat you. more importantly, stop trying to control others when the only impact on you is an affront to your own ego or feelings.

 

[BlindBoo]

Your right to freely exercise your religion stops when it infringes on someone else's constitutional rights.

Which is funny because gay sex behaviors have ZERO enumerated rights in the Constitution: while religion is covered at length, starting in the 1st Amendment. Wonder how the impasse will be resolved? (Not really; I know who will win and who will lose; and so do you)

It's not really about what consenting adults do in private. It's about two people loving each other and getting the same benefits as everyone else. That includes not being turned away from a public business in states with PA laws that include sexual orientation as a protected class.

 

[BlindBoo]

However it was done, some of our most important freedoms have been taken from us. Freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom to contract have all been taken away. The time to run about yelling this is wrong has passed. Yes it is wrong. What do we do about it?

Gays have the right to marry and nothing will change that until the collapse of the country. The right of the people who choose not to participate in depravity must be protected. That's the fight.

Your right to freely exercise your religion stops when it infringes on someone else's constitutional rights.

Indeed....

View attachment 91588

As if the government inflicts bodily harm on these poor bakers who refuse to serve the citizens of their community. That caption could easily have been "Serve them Ni&&ers" in the 60's

 

[Seawytch]

Exactly the same. Just because you find one icky and the other not is not sufficiently different.

Finding it icky has nothing to do with it. I find gummy worms icky, you don't see me trying to ban them.

The difference is biological, pure and simple.

Tell me that story again where you're not anti gay. I love that story.

Marty: I'm not anti gay, I just don't think gays are equal to straights.

What would we call someone who said "I'm not a bigot, I just don't think blacks are equal to whites...you know, biologically"?

I just don't see SSM and OSM as equal enough to warrant a court saying they are. considering I would vote for them to be made legally equal, or at least support my legislature in voting to make them equal, how does that make me anti-gay?

And blacks and whites are biologically equal except for melanin concentration.

Just as sexuality isn't black and white, neither is bigotry. There are as many shades of bigotry as there are sexualities. That you think gays and straights aren't equal is anti gay. Sure, it's not full on Silhouette anti gay, but it's still there.

I'm actually offended by how you treat the constitution, not who you decide to bugger every night. I'm also offended by the fact you think ruining someone over a non-essential service is the proper response to them not wanting to interact with you in one specific instance due to their morality.

But you are used to just going the "bigot bigot bigot" route, so even when countered with arguments for other reasons, you "run home to momma" because its your only real talking point.

Stop caring about what people think, and deal with how people treat you. more importantly, stop trying to control others when the only impact on you is an affront to your own ego or feelings.

How I treat the Constitution? You mean how the SCOTUS "treats the Constitution". PA laws have gone before them...and survived.

I only call people who express anti gay or racist views bigots.

 

[SmokeALib]

Your right to freely exercise your religion stops when it infringes on someone else's constitutional rights.

Which is funny because gay sex behaviors have ZERO enumerated rights in the Constitution: while religion is covered at length, starting in the 1st Amendment. Wonder how the impasse will be resolved? (Not really; I know who will win and who will lose; and so do you)

It's not really about what consenting adults do in private. It's about two people loving each other and getting the same benefits as everyone else. That includes not being turned away from a public business in states with PA laws that include sexual orientation as a protected class.

Fuck that.
All these sexual perverts can take a long walk on a short plank.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

However it was done, some of our most important freedoms have been taken from us. Freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom to contract have all been taken away. The time to run about yelling this is wrong has passed. Yes it is wrong. What do we do about it?

Gays have the right to marry and nothing will change that until the collapse of the country. The right of the people who choose not to participate in depravity must be protected. That's the fight.

Your right to freely exercise your religion stops when it infringes on someone else's constitutional rights.

There is no constitutional right to the labor or services of another person. That's slavery. What we have is a perversion of constitutional rights that forces unwilling people into contracts that they don't want.

Perhaps the way to stop this is to attack the gay couple forcing the baker into an unwilling contract. Bake the cake, protest the unwanted contract at the home of the actual wrongdoers. Publish their names and addresses. Call them what they are, slavers. Refuse to sign the contract. Expose them. Light is the best disinfectant.

 

[dblack]

It's not really about what consenting adults do in private. It's about two people loving each other and getting the same benefits as everyone else. That includes not being turned away from a public business in states with PA laws that include sexual orientation as a protected class.

The bolded part is where it goes off the rails. No one has a "right" to not be rejected. Such a claim isn't even a right, it's a demand.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There was a small pizza place that never refused service to gays. They never refused to pizza cater a gay wedding. They were never asked. They have never catered any wedding ever. A waitress said that they would not perform such services if asked.

That was enough to drag protesters to this little restaurant in a little town. Kill the owners, shut the restaurant down. None of that happened. The restaurant ended up better than ever.

What it did prove is that there need not be refusal of a service. There need not be PA laws involved. All that is necessary is for the slave to express the mere intention to object to slavery. What gays and their misguided enablers are objecting to is the lack of consent. This is true slavery. The slave must not only perform the service, but does not have the right to withhold consent to contract.

 

[martybegan]

Finding it icky has nothing to do with it. I find gummy worms icky, you don't see me trying to ban them.

The difference is biological, pure and simple.

Tell me that story again where you're not anti gay. I love that story.

Marty: I'm not anti gay, I just don't think gays are equal to straights.

What would we call someone who said "I'm not a bigot, I just don't think blacks are equal to whites...you know, biologically"?

I just don't see SSM and OSM as equal enough to warrant a court saying they are. considering I would vote for them to be made legally equal, or at least support my legislature in voting to make them equal, how does that make me anti-gay?

And blacks and whites are biologically equal except for melanin concentration.

Just as sexuality isn't black and white, neither is bigotry. There are as many shades of bigotry as there are sexualities. That you think gays and straights aren't equal is anti gay. Sure, it's not full on Silhouette anti gay, but it's still there.

I'm actually offended by how you treat the constitution, not who you decide to bugger every night. I'm also offended by the fact you think ruining someone over a non-essential service is the proper response to them not wanting to interact with you in one specific instance due to their morality.

But you are used to just going the "bigot bigot bigot" route, so even when countered with arguments for other reasons, you "run home to momma" because its your only real talking point.

Stop caring about what people think, and deal with how people treat you. more importantly, stop trying to control others when the only impact on you is an affront to your own ego or feelings.

How I treat the Constitution? You mean how the SCOTUS "treats the Constitution". PA laws have gone before them...and survived.

I only call people who express anti gay or racist views bigots.

And you cast a wide blanket because it suits you, and because it's easier to call people who disagree with you names than actually accept their position and the validity of it.

It's lazyness, nothing more or less.

And yes, how YOU treat the constitution, if you support a position, you own it.

And PA laws that have gone before were actual public accommodations, not "if money changes hands it's a PA"

 

[bodecea]

However it was done, some of our most important freedoms have been taken from us. Freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom to contract have all been taken away. The time to run about yelling this is wrong has passed. Yes it is wrong. What do we do about it?

Gays have the right to marry and nothing will change that until the collapse of the country. The right of the people who choose not to participate in depravity must be protected. That's the fight.

Your right to freely exercise your religion stops when it infringes on someone else's constitutional rights.

There is no constitutional right to the labor or services of another person. That's slavery. What we have is a perversion of constitutional rights that forces unwilling people into contracts that they don't want.

Perhaps the way to stop this is to attack the gay couple forcing the baker into an unwilling contract. Bake the cake, protest the unwanted contract at the home of the actual wrongdoers. Publish their names and addresses. Call them what they are, slavers. Refuse to sign the contract. Expose them. Light is the best disinfectant.

So....businesses that get business licenses don't have to follow business law? Or only special christer businesses get to ignore the laws they promise to follow when given their license?

 

[bodecea]

Tell me that story again where you're not anti gay. I love that story.

Marty: I'm not anti gay, I just don't think gays are equal to straights.

What would we call someone who said "I'm not a bigot, I just don't think blacks are equal to whites...you know, biologically"?

I just don't see SSM and OSM as equal enough to warrant a court saying they are. considering I would vote for them to be made legally equal, or at least support my legislature in voting to make them equal, how does that make me anti-gay?

And blacks and whites are biologically equal except for melanin concentration.

Just as sexuality isn't black and white, neither is bigotry. There are as many shades of bigotry as there are sexualities. That you think gays and straights aren't equal is anti gay. Sure, it's not full on Silhouette anti gay, but it's still there.

I'm actually offended by how you treat the constitution, not who you decide to bugger every night. I'm also offended by the fact you think ruining someone over a non-essential service is the proper response to them not wanting to interact with you in one specific instance due to their morality.

But you are used to just going the "bigot bigot bigot" route, so even when countered with arguments for other reasons, you "run home to momma" because its your only real talking point.

Stop caring about what people think, and deal with how people treat you. more importantly, stop trying to control others when the only impact on you is an affront to your own ego or feelings.

How I treat the Constitution? You mean how the SCOTUS "treats the Constitution". PA laws have gone before them...and survived.

I only call people who express anti gay or racist views bigots.

And you cast a wide blanket because it suits you, and because it's easier to call people who disagree with you names than actually accept their position and the validity of it.

It's lazyness, nothing more or less.

And yes, how YOU treat the constitution, if you support a position, you own it.

And PA laws that have gone before were actual public accommodations, not "if money changes hands it's a PA"

^ This is just your opinion, of course.

 

[martybegan]

I just don't see SSM and OSM as equal enough to warrant a court saying they are. considering I would vote for them to be made legally equal, or at least support my legislature in voting to make them equal, how does that make me anti-gay?

And blacks and whites are biologically equal except for melanin concentration.

Just as sexuality isn't black and white, neither is bigotry. There are as many shades of bigotry as there are sexualities. That you think gays and straights aren't equal is anti gay. Sure, it's not full on Silhouette anti gay, but it's still there.

I'm actually offended by how you treat the constitution, not who you decide to bugger every night. I'm also offended by the fact you think ruining someone over a non-essential service is the proper response to them not wanting to interact with you in one specific instance due to their morality.

But you are used to just going the "bigot bigot bigot" route, so even when countered with arguments for other reasons, you "run home to momma" because its your only real talking point.

Stop caring about what people think, and deal with how people treat you. more importantly, stop trying to control others when the only impact on you is an affront to your own ego or feelings.

How I treat the Constitution? You mean how the SCOTUS "treats the Constitution". PA laws have gone before them...and survived.

I only call people who express anti gay or racist views bigots.

And you cast a wide blanket because it suits you, and because it's easier to call people who disagree with you names than actually accept their position and the validity of it.

It's lazyness, nothing more or less.

And yes, how YOU treat the constitution, if you support a position, you own it.

And PA laws that have gone before were actual public accommodations, not "if money changes hands it's a PA"

^ This is just your opinion, of course.

yes, an opinion on a message board, you thundering twat.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

However it was done, some of our most important freedoms have been taken from us. Freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom to contract have all been taken away. The time to run about yelling this is wrong has passed. Yes it is wrong. What do we do about it?

Gays have the right to marry and nothing will change that until the collapse of the country. The right of the people who choose not to participate in depravity must be protected. That's the fight.

Your right to freely exercise your religion stops when it infringes on someone else's constitutional rights.

There is no constitutional right to the labor or services of another person. That's slavery. What we have is a perversion of constitutional rights that forces unwilling people into contracts that they don't want.

Perhaps the way to stop this is to attack the gay couple forcing the baker into an unwilling contract. Bake the cake, protest the unwanted contract at the home of the actual wrongdoers. Publish their names and addresses. Call them what they are, slavers. Refuse to sign the contract. Expose them. Light is the best disinfectant.

So....businesses that get business licenses don't have to follow business law? Or only special christer businesses get to ignore the laws they promise to follow when given their license?

Anyone who walks into that business is entitled to buy anything cash, carry and offered for sale. No one is entitled to force someone into a specific contract against their will and certainly no one is entitled to force the artistic talents of another. Only the Church of Perverts and the gay cult demand that.

There is no way around the forced labor aspect. Given that the law approves of this kind of slavery, there is nothing prohibiting the slave from calling attention to his or her plight. Refuse to sign the contract. Write under protest on the sales receipt. Hire protesters to go to the home of the slave holders and protest the unequal treatment.

Donate the sale proceeds to the Westboro Church in a public, big check. Ceremony right on the sidewalk in front of the workplaces of the slavemasters. All legal activities, the cake will still get baked according to expectation. There will just be a prayer for forgiveness by the baker during the wedding ceremony using a bullhorn.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's not really about what consenting adults do in private. It's about two people loving each other and getting the same benefits as everyone else. That includes not being turned away from a public business in states with PA laws that include sexual orientation as a protected class.

The bolded part is where it goes off the rails. No one has a "right" to not be rejected. Such a claim isn't even a right, it's a demand.

It is a demand, just like demanding to sit in the front of the bus. Or at the same counter as ........

No to worry too much, many states still allow businesses to overtly discriminate against LGBT folks.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The bus is there. The lunch counter is there. The wedding cake is not there. It is not in a display case ready to be purchased.

Give the parties equality. Put the slave and slave master on an equal footing. The slave has an absolute right to protest his or her bondage.

 

[BlindBoo]

The bus is there. The lunch counter is there. The wedding cake is not there. It is not in a display case ready to be purchased.

Give the parties equality. Put the slave and slave master on an equal footing. The slave has an absolute right to protest his or her bondage.

The bakery offers Wedding Cakes to the public.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The bus is there. The lunch counter is there. The wedding cake is not there. It is not in a display case ready to be purchased.

Give the parties equality. Put the slave and slave master on an equal footing. The slave has an absolute right to protest his or her bondage.

The bakery offers Wedding Cakes to the public.

The bakery offers, if anything, an invitation to enter into a mutually acceptable contract. That's why there are separate agreements. The only things offered to the public is what you can buy when you walk through the door. When a customer walks into a bakery, the baker cannot compel the customer to buy anything. Not so much as a cookie crumb. Yet the customer can compel the baker to enter into a special contract? It wouldn't be in a free country.

The government has exercised so much unconstitutional power in compelling a person to enter into a contract unwillingly that this is no longer the time to directly object. It will be necessary to go behind the law and attack its slavery underpinnings. Once the existence of legal bondage is accepted, where does it stop?

 

[Silhouette]

The bakery offers Wedding Cakes to the public.

And the public is exactly the venue where a person's 1st Amendment rights are protected. So, bit of a quagmire there. Wonder who will prevail? Come-lately PC-PA laws at a state level? Or the 1st Amendment in place since the founding of our country?
Sex behaviors? Or religion? Non-enumerated? Or enumerated rights?

The PA laws boil down to the majority telling individuals "there are limits to your 1st Amendment rights, and we will tell you what they are". When this is the job of the US Congress and NO ONE ELSE to do.

Whether it's the majority telling a Jew they have to bake a "nazi-pride" cake, or the majority telling a gay graphic designer to make a giant highway billboard sign that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God", or telling a Christian they have to enable normalizing homosexuality within their culture by baking a "gay wedding cake"...it's all the tyranny of the majority trying to take away the rights of the individual.

And we know how the church of LGBT feels about the tyranny of the majority squashing the rights of the individual.. The laws of tyranny apparently are OK if you're "LGBT". If your not, watch out, you will be fined and punished and sued, and witch-hunted, and ridiculed, and smeared, and stalked, and removed from office, removed from the bench.... (oh those poor poor weak innocent gays! ) I mean, Scientologists blush at the conformity techniques of their rival-spinoff cult.

Convinced it's a cult yet?

BTW, I've researched the history of Scientologists and the Church of LGBT. A couple of characters key in promoting the LGBT Agenda were loosely or tightly affiliated with the Church of Scientology and their...um...er..."techniques" for forwarding their agenda.. These LGBT characters went rogue. One has the same surname as Obama's gay education Czar and I've often wondered if he was a cousin or some relation? Totally involved in starting "GLAAD" and the wide influence and iron fist that organization wields.

 

[JoeB131]

Where does it say that you lose your 1st amendment rights when you get a business license?

Where did Mr. Wifebeater lose his first Amendment rights?

He wasn't told he couldn't believe in Bronze Age Supersititions.
He wasn't told he couldn't express his Bronze Age Superstitions.

He was told that he had to provide the services his wife's company offered.

 

[Silhouette]

Well religion is an enumerated Constitutional protection and gay sex behaviors-as-identity is not. One has been protected since the dawn of our country, enshrined first and foremost in its list of federal protections, the other is a cult-spawned product of judicial and government overreach, crafted to bow to the mandates of a neo-cult to force others to convert under threat of duress.

I wonder which one will prevail at the USSC level?