Cakes, Fakes & Counter-Quakes; Do The Kleins Have A Countersuit Against The Lesbians?

[JoeB131]

If two men came to the Founding Fathers and told them they wanted to marry the Fathers would have looked at them like they had worms coming out of their ears.

That's a fact. Jack

THey'd have said the same thing if you went up to them and said, "Black people shouldn't be slaves, should be allowed to vote and one might even be President one day!"

 

[Syriusly]

Why are you so obsessed about the mechanics of homosexual sex?

Simple: To demonstrate that it's a mental illness and not an inborn trait. .

Really all you are demonstrating are your fantasies about gay sex.

 

[JoeB131]

Simple: To demonstrate that it's a mental illness and not an inborn trait. The signs of repressed heterosexuality are all there. So, it's mental illness. Remember, the debate is "is the premise of homosexuality = to race correct or incorrect"? The mechanics of homosexual sex suggest it is a mental illness, like a displacement disorder... and therefore an acquired behavior.

Um, no, guy.

Here's the thing. There's nothing gays do that straights don't already do. It's not 'repression', it's what you are attracted to.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lord knows nothing screams "suppressed heterosexuality" like gay sex.

Correct. Men seeking a hole at the lower end of another. Women craving dildos inserted by their "female' partners. It's mental illness. It's time we just call it what it is. The signs of repressed heterosexuality are all there...

It's time we call you very ill on t his subject.

 

[Silhouette]

Simple: To demonstrate that it's a mental illness and not an inborn trait. The signs of repressed heterosexuality are all there. So, it's mental illness. Remember, the debate is "is the premise of homosexuality = to race correct or incorrect"? The mechanics of homosexual sex suggest it is a mental illness, like a displacement disorder... and therefore an acquired behavior.

Um, no, guy.

Here's the thing. There's nothing gays do that straights don't already do. It's not 'repression', it's what you are attracted to.

Yes, and lesbians are attracted to *ahem* using dildos with each other. Gay men are attracted to *ahem* a hole in each other's lower end.

That being said, it demonstrates the shaky ground on which the lesbians stand "as a (not) static (not) Constitutionally protected class". There are so many *ahem* holes in the LGBT position that it is like Swiss Cheese. Or a sieve more like. It just ain't gonna hold water. It is so evidently about behavior,....displacement...mental issues and learned deviance that it's hard not to laugh when someone suggests otherwise.

It certainly can't stand the test if it is used to actively hound or besiege Christians for refusing to play along. The Kleins will prevail. The Kleins will prevail or you can kiss our foundation of Law goodbye because it will be so convoluted and twisted by the false premise that ten years hence we'll have drug addicts clamoring for "rights" to shoot up in public places without reproach.

BTW, can polygamists legally marry or adopt unwanted kids? Why not? (Cite Obergefell and the 14th Amendment in your reply)

 

[rightwinger]

Why are you so obsessed about the mechanics of homosexual sex?

Simple: To demonstrate that it's a mental illness and not an inborn trait. The signs of repressed heterosexuality are all there. So, it's mental illness. Remember, the debate is "is the premise of homosexuality = to race correct or incorrect"? The mechanics of homosexual sex suggest it is a mental illness, like a displacement disorder... and therefore an acquired behavior.

They use the tools that are in their toolbox

Get over it

 

[JoeB131]

These signs were from a time when America was free...

You mean like this...

 

[JoeB131]

It certainly can't stand the test if it is used to actively hound or besiege Christians for refusing to play along. The Kleins will prevail. The Kleins will prevail or you can kiss our foundation of Law goodbye because it will be so convoluted and twisted by the false premise that ten years hence we'll have drug addicts clamoring for "rights" to shoot up in public places without reproach.

Meh, fuck the Kleins, they are stupid bigots, anyway.

Tell you how this is going to play out. In 50 years, even the Churches will pretend they had nothing to do with homophobia, and act like you are rude for even bringing it up.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

SCOTUS deals a blow to LGBT, Texas employers do not have to offer same sex benefits.

Married same-sex couples are denied the same benefits as heterosexual pairs in Texas

 

[rightwinger]

SCOTUS deals a blow to LGBT, Texas employers do not have to offer same sex benefits.

Married same-sex couples are denied the same benefits as heterosexual pairs in Texas

Makes absolutely no sense

You are married or you are not
States should not set up different levels of marriage

 

[mdk]

SCOTUS deals a blow to LGBT, Texas employers do not have to offer same sex benefits.

Married same-sex couples are denied the same benefits as heterosexual pairs in Texas

My guess is the reason the SCOTUS denied cert was that the Texas Supreme Court ordered the lower court to revisit to case. They are waiting for the lower courts to make their decision before they hear it. This case will likely reach the SCOTUS as well.

 

[Syriusly]

Simple: To demonstrate that it's a mental illness and not an inborn trait. The signs of repressed heterosexuality are all there. So, it's mental illness. Remember, the debate is "is the premise of homosexuality = to race correct or incorrect"? The mechanics of homosexual sex suggest it is a mental illness, like a displacement disorder... and therefore an acquired behavior.

Um, no, guy.

Here's the thing. There's nothing gays do that straights don't already do. It's not 'repression', it's what you are attracted to.

Yes, and lesbians are attracted to *ahem* using dildos with each other. Gay men are attracted to *ahem* a hole in each other's lower end.y)

Straight women use dildos with themselves and their lovers. Straight men are attracted to a hole in their partners lower end.

Why are you so obsessed with gay sex?

 

[Syriusly]

SCOTUS deals a blow to LGBT, Texas employers do not have to offer same sex benefits.

Married same-sex couples are denied the same benefits as heterosexual pairs in Texas

SCOTUS deals a blow to LGBT, Texas employers do not have to offer same sex benefits.

Married same-sex couples are denied the same benefits as heterosexual pairs in Texas

In related news- gay couples still can legally marry in all 50 states.

And Texas is allowing companies to discriminate against gays.

 

[Silhouette]

In related news- gay couples still can legally marry in all 50 states.

And Texas is allowing companies to discriminate against gays.

Well....not actually. The judicial branch of government legislating for the 300 million with just 9 unelected lawyers back in 2015 is on shaky ground. You see, no matter how many lower courts "found" that deviant sex behavioralists as a minority "are a special class protected under the US Constitution", Constitutional scholars are combing that document and finding that not one mention nor insinuation allows for a minority deviant behavioral group to dictate to the majority. Not one iota of text alludes to that in the Constitution.

Furthermore, legislating such a class from the bench has created a problem. And that problem is manyfold. But one of the folds is "how is it that polygamists (a deviant behavioral group minority regulated still by the majority) still cannot marry or adopt unwanted children, even while they would not possess a marriage contract that banishes children involved from either a mother or father for life? That's discrimination according to the root intent of the 14th Amendment.

Creating new impactful language to the US Constitution by the Judicial Branch is illegal and in violation of the separation of powers (a situation clearly addressed in our founding documents), and so....gay marriage is NOT legal in all 50 states. Obergefell was an illegal Decision in violation of the separation of powers and the Infancy Doctrine that says no contract where kids enjoy benefits may contain terms that banish them from necessities for life.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

No it actually depends on whether the person studying the data has enough training, education and background to understand the data in the first place.

If I were to present you with a four cylinder Honda engine that puts out a thousand horsepower, versus a Chevy V8 that only puts out 600, and show you more and more 1000 HP Hondas, you would eventually assume that Honda four bangers are just more powerful than American V8 engines.

And I can explain to you why that is bullshit, but you would have to have some background in physics to understand why it's bullshit.

How are those engines used to bake cakes?

They aren't.
I was attempting to illustrate why a lack of scientific training and education makes it impossible to parse mountains of data to determine the quality of said data for yourself.
It is very easy for climate deniers to create studies which supposedly upend peer reviewed climate change studies when most of their audience can't understand even the most elemental basics of science to begin with.
Thus, I used a car analogy, wherein a Japanese econo-car enthusiast would try to claim that their overly tuned four cylinder rice popper had more power than a chunk Detroit V8 iron.
I used the example of "paper horsepower" because the average science dolt would just see "1000 horsepower" and not realize that most of it is not useable power at all.

I could have just as easily pointed to 1980's boom boxes that advertised outrageous numbers like "1000 watts" on a portable stereo powered by six D-cell flashlight batteries.
Instead of "paper horsepower" I would have pointed to "IPP ratings" (Instantaneous Peak Power) instead of the typical industry accepted "RMS" ratings which show "CONTINUOUS" power output figures.

To the average low information person, all that matters is the fact that they see "1000 watts" in bright gold lettering, so as far as they are concerned, that boom box is more powerful than anyone's home stereo.

To the average low information climate denier, a nonsense study put out by a bunch of creationists seems to make more sense than real science, because they just can't grasp the basics.
The creationists and their other climate denying buddies "sound" like they make more sense, and their accusations of "fudged data" sound honest.

 

[Syriusly]

In related news- gay couples still can legally marry in all 50 states.

And Texas is allowing companies to discriminate against gays.

Well....not actually. .

Well yes actually - gay couples still can legally marry in all 50 states.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

LOL- faux Conservatives- typical- "Science bad because I saw something Hannity said about Scientists faking data"- but when I point out that Conservatives have faked data then its "shut up!"

LOL

Don't feel bad, I got one of those "shut ups" from her, too.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I hate these kinds of "debates".
As a student of science, we got in front of class and presented on chalkboard our "proof" of some claim.
Imagine a class of cynics who would inspect every nuance of a chalk line, their cynicism not being based in any kind of reliable background.

Skepticism is healthy when you have an ace card, something which can introduce new data into an equation, or uncover a previously unknown set of criteria.
Lacking that, skepticism devolves into cynicism.
Skeptics set about constructing experiments which disprove the findings of a previous experiment, or they present flaws in the conditions of the previous experiment, flaws which can be measured.
Cynics just sit on the sidelines and mock everything, even if they don't actually know what they are mocking, and then, worst of all, they accuse others of "liking to hear themselves talk" as a defense against their not knowing.

 

[Peach]

The lesbians KNEW that Sweet Cakes was a Christian-run business. They were informed of that and CHOSE ON PURPOSE to continue to try to force the Christian couple to do what their faith forbade them to do under peril of eternal damnation: abet the spread of homosexuality in a culture "as normal" (See Jude 1 of the New Testament).

These lesbians were out to sabotage the Kleins' 1st Amendment rights, using inferior local PA laws. It was a direct act of suppressing someone else's constitutional rights. If the Kleins can demonstrate that the lesbians knew the Kleins had constitutionally-protected objections (since "gay" is behavioral and NOT protected as such in the Constitution) ie: their 1st Amendment rights,, AND if the Kleins could demonstrate the lesbians had alternatives (they did and knew they did) a countersuit could show the lesbians were out to suppress constitutional rights of another person or persons. Turn this bitch on its heel and chase the other way?

They went to the appeals court this March 2017.
Argument for the Kleins: Bakers Accused of Hate Get Emotional Day in Court

“The government should never force someone to violate their conscience or their beliefs,” Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute, a religious freedom group that represents the Kleins, said in a press statement, adding:

“In a diverse and pluralistic society, people of good will should be able to peacefully coexist with different beliefs. We hope the court will uphold the Kleins’ rights to free speech and religious liberty.”

Argument against the Kleins:

But Charlie Burr, a spokesman for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, whose lawyers represent the Bowman-Cryers, said:

“The facts of this case clearly demonstrate that the Kleins unlawfully discriminated against a same-sex couple when they refused service based on sexual orientation.”

But Mr. Burr, don't you know that there is NO LANGUAGE AT ALL in the US Constitution either directly or via insinuation or allusion to sexual behaviors and habits? But there is PLENTY of language in the US Constitution about religious freedoms and protections. And, nobody is allowed to suppress or deny the Constitutional rights of another. And Mr. Burr, do you know that the Judicial branch of government cannot use its power to legislate brand spanking new pivotal language into the US Constitution? Might want brush up on that old political science course you had to take in high school in order to pass. Though I realize that in Oregon, "education" is a loose term...

Anyone want to bet on this horse race?

Please cite the verse in Jude, Chapter one that nullifies/qualifies this:

Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Forget gay wedding cakes, how about an ordinary person shopping at Target, who
comes to the checkout counter, and the Somalian checkout clerk, a Muslim, refuses to ring up the shopper's groceries because they have purchased beer, or vodka, or they see bacon in there somewhere, or dog food.
This has actually happened, in Minneapolis.

Forget gay wedding cakes, how about a Somalian cabbie who refuses to pick up blind passengers because they have seeing-eye dogs. Or they refuse to pick up fares who have pork or alcohol. That also happened in Minneapolis.
In the case of Target, the city didn't have to attempt any government action, Target management stepped in and made it clear that the checkers either accommodate all shoppers or find new jobs.
In the case of the cabbies however, the government DID step in and THEY made it clear to cabbies that they either accommodate ALL passengers or else.
But interestingly, it was the MUSLIMS themselves who demonstrated even more smarts:

QUOTE:
"This type of job helps immigrants move to the next level," says Hassan Mouhamud, Imam of the AlTaqwa Mosque in St. Paul, and a scholar of Islamic Law.

"Blocking that," he says, "can cost jobs, it can also cost immigrants and their families the American dream."

Mouhamud says there are schools of Islamic thought that allow for compromise.

He says under the Hanafi School of Islamic law, if Muslims live in a country that does not enforce their religious law, they can defer to the written laws of that country.

"American society has a rule of respecting religions," says Mouhamed. " We hope there is room to accommodate all faiths."

LINK:
Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs

So, if the Muslim community has demonstrated that there is room for compromise and that it is proper to accommodate people who do not share your religious beliefs, why can't Christians with "deeply held religious beliefs" find it in themselves to accommodate others, too?

My point is that wherever you go, you will find religious fundamentalists who try to rule out accommodation for anyone outside their circle, and feel it is God's work in doing so, but the larger religious community sees it as an unjust expression of intolerance.
And by defending the narrow-minded and intolerant, you are demanding that we, as Americans, tolerate intolerance.
And tolerating intolerance INVARIABLY leads to destruction of the very fabric of democracy itself.
So why not just admit to everyone that you hate democracy, that cuts out all of the nonsense anecdotes and tomfoolery.
I might disagree with your love of theocracy but at least I could respect the fact that you're an unashamed theocrat.

That said, theocracy is wholly incompatible with democracy, yes even representative democracy which is enshrined within a constitutional republic.
That IS what most people generally accept when they SAY the WORD "democracy" because intelligent people understand that there is no practical application of PURE democracy, and that the Founders themselves recognized that democracy can only really exist in its representative form within a constitutional republic.
The fact is, it can also exist within a constitutional monarchy as well but the Founders seemed to eschew the monarchy....for "some strange reason"