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

[Silhouette]

Which is irrelevant because an individual does not have a burden of proof in such cases to prove their religious beliefs all that has to be shown is that the business discriminated because they believed a protected characteristic applied to the customer and that was then the basis for the refusal of service (i.e. unlawful discrimination).


>>>>

Wrong. The Kleins refused because the gay sex behaviors stalking their business for their inquisition for their cult, defied the Klein's core religious beliefs to never promote the sin (verb), no matter what the inquisitors (noun) did or do to them. That is their test.

And speaking of tests...when this reaches the USSC for a Constitutional Test...which do you think will prevail? Non-enumerated things supposedly covering a come-lately law designed to promote a gay sex cult...forcing Christians to their knees under duress and threats? Or the 1st Amendment where the Klein's rights to religion in their daily lives, everywhere (the right is never extinguished), association and freedom of speech are enumerated and iron-clad?

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, you're simply just providing evidence of your delusions. COUNTRIES WERE INVADED, TRADE EXISTED BETWEEN COUNTRIES, MISSIONARIES TRAVELED PAST BORDERS.

An OBJECTIVE TEST PROVED IT. But, just like I said before, we must believe in the theory that a sexual orientation exists, why?

BECAUSE YOU SAY SO WITHOUT AN OBJECTIVE TEST!

Case closed

Except it wasn't an objective test. It was a test run by a company run by the Mormons, so obviously another scam.

But because you are a stupid person, you are getting off the beaten path here. So if the bakery said, "We aren't going to sell you a wedding cake, you Pollack" to my niece, that would still be wrong, even if some Mormon scam DNA test told her she was English.

 

[JoeB131]

Being yelled at is harm? Boo fucking hoo.

Figures you would root for the bullies.

The only Bully was Mr. Wifebeater screaming at some poor woman because he daughter was gay.

Now Mr. Wifebeater is out of business. Heh, heh, heh....

I'd personally like to see him sent to a re-education camp, but hey, it's an imperfect world.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong. The Kleins refused because the gay sex behaviors stalking their business for their inquisition for their cult, defied the Klein's core religious beliefs to never promote the sin (verb), no matter what the inquisitors (noun) did or do to them. That is their test.

So, um, when did Jesus talk about the gay stuff again? I mean, Jesus talked about divorce a lot, but I'm guessing Mr, Wifebeater never screamed at a divorcee about violating God's Law.

 

[martybegan]

Being yelled at is harm? Boo fucking hoo.

Figures you would root for the bullies.

The only Bully was Mr. Wifebeater screaming at some poor woman because he daughter was gay.

Now Mr. Wifebeater is out of business. Heh, heh, heh....

I'd personally like to see him sent to a re-education camp, but hey, it's an imperfect world.

FOAD, assole.

 

[JoeB131]

Wow... Marty, losing your temper.

Maybe you should have talked to Mr. Wifebeater and given him good advice like, "Hey, you broke the law, you need to show contrition and apologize". Instead, you guys used him to do some fag-bashing (or in this case, dyke-bashing) and he ended up being ruined.

Why does anyone listen to you people?

 

[Pop23]

Joe, you're simply just providing evidence of your delusions. COUNTRIES WERE INVADED, TRADE EXISTED BETWEEN COUNTRIES, MISSIONARIES TRAVELED PAST BORDERS.

An OBJECTIVE TEST PROVED IT. But, just like I said before, we must believe in the theory that a sexual orientation exists, why?

BECAUSE YOU SAY SO WITHOUT AN OBJECTIVE TEST!

Case closed

Except it wasn't an objective test. It was a test run by a company run by the Mormons, so obviously another scam.

But because you are a stupid person, you are getting off the beaten path here. So if the bakery said, "We aren't going to sell you a wedding cake, you Pollack" to my niece, that would still be wrong, even if some Mormon scam DNA test told her she was English.

Dip wit, I assume that any DNA test that conflicts with what YOU THOUGHT was you're family makeup would be considered a scam. That's exactly how delusional minds work. Get another test done, then when it comes back the same............

Whether she is Pollack or English isn't really the issue. The baker would be discriminating against her based on a trait she had/has zero control over.

 

[Silhouette]

Wow... Marty, losing your temper.

Maybe you should have talked to Mr. Wifebeater and given him good advice like, "Hey, you broke the law, you need to show contrition and apologize". Instead, you guys used him to do some fag-bashing (or in this case, dyke-bashing) and he ended up being ruined.

Why does anyone listen to you people?

Nice strawmen. I'll ask again...do you think your come-lately PA laws designed to assist the gay sex cult (neither mentioned nor insinuated in the Constitution) in their inquisition of Christians, forcing them to bow to the gay cult on command will prevail over the enumerated protections of the 1st Amendment for the Kleins?

 

[Pop23]

Wrong. The Kleins refused because the gay sex behaviors stalking their business for their inquisition for their cult, defied the Klein's core religious beliefs to never promote the sin (verb), no matter what the inquisitors (noun) did or do to them. That is their test.

So, um, when did Jesus talk about the gay stuff again? I mean, Jesus talked about divorce a lot, but I'm guessing Mr, Wifebeater never screamed at a divorcee about violating God's Law.

He never spoke about any delusional types from what i can see. Why would homosexuals be any different?

 

[Seawytch]

Wrong. The Kleins refused because the gay sex behaviors stalking their business for their inquisition for their cult, defied the Klein's core religious beliefs to never promote the sin (verb), no matter what the inquisitors (noun) did or do to them. That is their test.

So, um, when did Jesus talk about the gay stuff again? I mean, Jesus talked about divorce a lot, but I'm guessing Mr, Wifebeater never screamed at a divorcee about violating God's Law.

Hell no. Sweet cakes had no problem with other "sins".

Bakery Will Do Pagan, Cloning, and Divorce Cakes But Not Gay Weddings

 

[martybegan]

Wow... Marty, losing your temper.

Maybe you should have talked to Mr. Wifebeater and given him good advice like, "Hey, you broke the law, you need to show contrition and apologize". Instead, you guys used him to do some fag-bashing (or in this case, dyke-bashing) and he ended up being ruined.

Why does anyone listen to you people?

It's all you deserve. You are a micro-managing control fucktard.

 

[Silhouette]

None of it matters though. We all know where this is heading. Come-lately PA laws designed to force others to bow to a cult that isn't protected in the Constitution; or the 1st Amendment protections for religion, association and speech.

It's not even a close contest. Hope you're preparing yourselves mentally for the inevitable outcome. The unraveling will be when its discovered via a citation to Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit, 2016) shows that nowhere is it anticipated that deviant sex behaviors have a cohesive class or protections anywhere in federal Legislative law. A competition between state laws and federal laws where an irreparable conflict is at hand (gay cult vs Christianity) will ALWAYS come down on the side of those already enumerated in federal protection.

Sorry guys. It was fun playing though! Good game.. *handshakes*...

 

[JoeB131]

Whether she is Pollack or English isn't really the issue. The baker would be discriminating against her based on a trait she had/has zero control over.

Exactly... Just like Gay people. And unlike Religious people, who always have the option to not believe in imaginary Bronze age sky pixies...

 

[JoeB131]

It's all you deserve. You are a micro-managing control fucktard.

The guy was an asshole... he kind of had it coming. I do feel bad for his wife, though. She looks like she got hit by a truck.

 

[JoeB131]

None of it matters though. We all know where this is heading. Come-lately PA laws designed to force others to bow to a cult that isn't protected in the Constitution; or the 1st Amendment protections for religion, association and speech.

It's not even a close contest. Hope you're preparing yourselves mentally for the inevitable outcome. The unraveling will be when its discovered via a citation to Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit, 2016) shows that nowhere is it anticipated that deviant sex behaviors have a cohesive class or protections anywhere in federal Legislative law. A competition between state laws and federal laws where an irreparable conflict is at hand (gay cult vs Christianity) will ALWAYS come down on the side of those already enumerated in federal protection.

Quite the contrary. Here's how it's goign to play out. More and more churches are going to realize homophobia makes their churches look bad. So they are going to regulate those verses of the bible back there with the ones about slavery, burning witches and divorce... yeah, they're in there, but we won't talk about them that much.

 

[JoeB131]

He never spoke about any delusional types from what i can see. Why would homosexuals be any different?

Well, yeah, he talked to an imaginary man in the sky he claimed was his father.

They throw you in the looney bin for that today.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

None of it matters though. We all know where this is heading. Come-lately PA laws designed to force others to bow to a cult that isn't protected in the Constitution; or the 1st Amendment protections for religion, association and speech.

It's not even a close contest. Hope you're preparing yourselves mentally for the inevitable outcome. The unraveling will be when its discovered via a citation to Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit, 2016) shows that nowhere is it anticipated that deviant sex behaviors have a cohesive class or protections anywhere in federal Legislative law. A competition between state laws and federal laws where an irreparable conflict is at hand (gay cult vs Christianity) will ALWAYS come down on the side of those already enumerated in federal protection.

Quite the contrary. Here's how it's goign to play out. More and more churches are going to realize homophobia makes their churches look bad. So they are going to regulate those verses of the bible back there with the ones about slavery, burning witches and divorce... yeah, they're in there, but we won't talk about them that much.

Real Christians won't change the Word of God to make perverts happy. Christians were never supposed to be many but few. The path is deliberately narrow.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Where this is leading is the same place the normalization of homosexuality has always led. Mass slaughter of gays.

 

[JoeB131]

Where this is leading is the same place the normalization of homosexuality has always led. Mass slaughter of gays.

Really? When has it led there before? Can you actually cite a historical example?

 

[JoeB131]

Real Christians won't change the Word of God to make perverts happy. Christians were never supposed to be many but few. The path is deliberately narrow.

Real Christians do that all the time.

Hey, check out what Ministers in the 19th century said to support slavery...

Christian Slavery - Bad News About Christianity

Churchmen owned slaves and were not particularly notable as good masters. Indeed some of the worst masters were clergymen. In the court of St Ann's in Jamaica in 1829, the Rev. G. W. Bridges was charged with maltreating a female slave. For a trivial mistake he had stripped her, tied her by the hands to the ceiling so that her toes hardly touched the ground, then flogged her with a bamboo rod until she was a "mass of lacerated flesh and gore" from her shoulders to her calves. Cases like this rarely came to court, but when they did they generally ended in acquital, as in this case, so the Reverend gentleman walked free.

The Reverend Richard Fuller summed up the Church's position in 1845: “What God sanctioned in the Old Testament, and permitted in the New, cannot be a sin”22.

"If the white man attempts to oppose the Deity's will, by trying to make the negro anything else than "the submissive knee-bender," (which the Almighty declared he should be,) by trying to raise him to a level with himself, or by putting himself on an equality with the negro; or if he abuses the power which God has given him over his fellow-man, by being cruel to him, or punishing him in anger, or by neglecting to protect him from the wanton abuses of his fellow-servants and all others, or by denying him the usual comforts and necessaries of life, the negro will run away; but if he keeps him in the position that we learn from the Scriptures he was intended to occupy, that is, the position of submission; and if his master or overseer be kind and gracious in his hearing towards him, without condescension, and at the same time ministers to his physical wants, and protects him from abuses, the negro is spell-bound, and cannot run away."

James Henley Thornwell was an advocate of slavery. On May 26, 1850 he said the following, inThe Rights and the Duties of Masters, A Sermon Preached at the Dedication of a Church Erected in Charleston, S.C.,for the Benefit and Instruction of the Coloured Population:

The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders—they are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, jacobins, on one side, and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battle ground—Christianity and Atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity at stake.


God didn't change his mind. So we had to.