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

[Silhouette]

That fact is, the baker does not need to know who is getting married to bake a wedding cake. So making the cake, if it looks like any other wedding cake, should not be considered an endorsement of same sex weddings.

The moment a Christian hears the words "gay marriage", they can no longer participate. Read Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament for details. It's a mortal sin. And if they go along, their soul faces eternal damnation. No amount of hail Marys will save them, nor will confession. When two women walk into a bakery and say "we are getting married, we want a wedding cake", at that precise moment in time the Christian has to decline or face eternal peril.

Jude 1 doesn't urge Christians to be unkind to homosexuals, or to not feed them. It demands that Christians be kind to them but NEVER normalize what they do in any society. The Bible in this passage warns and reminds Christians what God did to Sodom because of the sodomites taking over the whole place. So the issue at hand is not the individual homosexual, who Christians are urged to reach out to "making a difference" (urging them to change their behaviors), but homosexuality as a culture that tries to use vehicles like marriage (or adoption, or education) to normalize itself throughout a society.

You have to read the passage to understand. It is strictly forbidden. No gray areas.

 

[JoeMoma]

That fact is, the baker does not need to know who is getting married to bake a wedding cake. So making the cake, if it looks like any other wedding cake, should not be considered an endorsement of same sex weddings.

The moment a Christian hears the words "gay marriage", they can no longer participate. Read Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament for details. It's a mortal sin. And if they go along, their soul faces eternal damnation. No amount of hail Marys will save them, nor will confession. When two women walk into a bakery and say "we are getting married, we want a wedding cake", at that precise moment in time the Christian has to decline or face eternal peril.

Jude 1 doesn't urge Christians to be unkind to homosexuals, or to not feed them. It demands that Christians be kind to them but NEVER normalize what they do in any society. The Bible in this passage warns and reminds Christians what God did to Sodom because of the sodomites taking over the whole place. So the issue at hand is not the individual homosexual, who Christians are urged to reach out to "making a difference" (urging them to change their behaviors), but homosexuality as a culture that tries to use vehicles like marriage to normalize itself throughout a society.

You have to read the passage to understand. It is strictly forbidden. No gray areas.

So does that mean Christians also can’t sell the gay couple mints and cookies if they are to be used at the wedding?

 

[badger2]

The pathology of Jude 1 & Romans 1 attempts to project the concept of "the unscathed" not only so as to mask the flaming fascism that is the strive for pure form, but also as a coercion machine to instill the guilt of (eternal) retribution for not obeying the command.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ You're gonna make so many friends with that kind of talk badger2

So does that mean Christians also can’t sell the gay couple mints and cookies if they are to be used at the wedding?

Yes. If the Christian baker hears "gay wedding", all items are off the list. If the couple were to not talk about it at all, and just order a dozen mints and cookies, then the Christian would not knowingly be active in a part of a "gay wedding". Christians aren't psychics. But when they see or are aware of this evil in any way, they are required to stay clear the hell away from it.

 

[jillian]

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?

no no no no no no no no no

now stop posting the same insane boring sociopathic threads.

 

[badger2]

So the contradiction is that Jude 1 and Romans 1 are precisely a protection-racket's homogenizing/normalizing machine.

 

[JoeMoma]

^^ This must be the Demon of Faggotry that one poster was talking about.

So does that mean Christians also can’t sell the gay couple mints and cookies if they are to be used at the wedding?

Yes. If the Christian baker hears "gay wedding", all items are off the list. If the couple were to not talk about it at all, and just order a dozen mints and cookies, then the Christian would not knowingly be active in a part of a "gay wedding". Christians aren't psychics. But when they see this evil, the are required to stay clear the hell away from it.

Can a Christian sell people they know to be gay the mints and cookies if they are not for a same sex wedding...perhaps simply to be eaten with lunch?

 

[badger2]

The Crusades were anything but a normal expansion within a culture, yet a fight to the death for pure prestige of the signifier-signified.

 

[Silhouette]

Can a Christian sell people they know to be gay the mints and cookies if they are not for a same sex wedding...perhaps simply to be eaten with lunch?

YES. Read posts 281 & 284. Sheesh. Read!!

 

[JoeMoma]

Can a Christian sell people they know to be gay the mints and cookies if they are not for a same sex wedding...perhaps simply to be eaten with lunch?

YES. Read posts 281 & 284. Sheesh. Read!!

Yes, but they may want to eat a cookie after having gay sex....in a similar way that some people like having a cigarette after sex. How can a Christian risk such a thing knowing the couple is gay?

 

[badger2]

While not being psychic, the xian is being commanded to discern the impossible via the delirium of Jude 1 and Romans 1. What if the two boys or two girls are feigning love between themselves just to trick the xian, and are not really gay or lesbionic?

 

[JoeMoma]

I don’t believe it’s is the business/producer’s responsibility to control how his customer uses his product. If I run a produce store, it is none of my business how the customers use the cucumbers I sell them.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If our Founding Fathers wanted to protect the baking of cakes, they would have included it in the Constitution

They left it out for a reason!

They protected freedoms of expression, religion, conscience, assembly, and association—all in one Amendment.

I think it stands to reason that they didn't expect that they'd need to spell out every imaginable way that these rights might be violated. The Constitution was written to be understandable by anyone with normal levels of literacy and reading comprehension, and not necessarily by those who don't understand unless you spell out every irrelevant detail; nor by those who are so opposed the the freedoms that were thus laid out that they will go to any lengths to try to twist and pervert the Constitution away from its clear meaning in order to discredit those freedoms.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

sorry, guy, 64% now support gay marriage. The court doesn't do anything the people aren't ready for.

 

[JoeB131]

It's really a bad idea to eat a cake that you forced someone to bake

Right. Because clearly these Christians would want to go to jail for messing with it.

The question begs, why would anyone force someone to conduct business?

Unless of course there is an agenda. But nah the gays would never have an agenda...

good point.

Why would these folks INSIST that Woolworth's serve them?

Why, why, why, they must have an agenda!!!!

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

sorry, guy, 64% now support gay marriage. The court doesn't do anything the people aren't ready for.

If the majority support gay marriage, then it shouldn't be a problem for the gay couple to find a cake maker to make them a wedding cake. It isn't wise to force a business to do the job. The quality of the work will most probably suffer.

 

[rightwinger]

If our Founding Fathers wanted to protect the baking of cakes, they would have included it in the Constitution

They left it out for a reason!

They protected freedoms of expression, religion, conscience, assembly, and association—all in one Amendment.

I think it stands to reason that they didn't expect that they'd need to spell out every imaginable way that these rights might be violated. The Constitution was written to be understandable by anyone with normal levels of literacy and reading comprehension, and not necessarily by those who don't understand unless you spell out every irrelevant detail; nor by those who are so opposed the the freedoms that were thus laid out that they will go to any lengths to try to twist and pervert the Constitution away from its clear meaning in order to discredit those freedoms.

They considered an 11th amendment : Freedom to bake cakes for who you feel like

But it was rejected

 

[rightwinger]

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.

sorry, guy, 64% now support gay marriage. The court doesn't do anything the people aren't ready for.

If the majority support gay marriage, then it shouldn't be a problem for the gay couple to find a cake maker to make them a wedding cake. It isn't wise to force a business to do the job. The quality of the work will most probably suffer.

No...it "shouldn't" be a problem

Nor should it be a problem to find a photographer, rent a reception hall, buy a ring, book a hotel for your wedding night......

But all could be impacted if businesses are allowed to implement a "we don't serve homos" policy

 

[JoeB131]

If the majority support gay marriage, then it shouldn't be a problem for the gay couple to find a cake maker to make them a wedding cake. It isn't wise to force a business to do the job. The quality of the work will most probably suffer.

Again, so those blacks in Montegomery should just go around from lunch counter to lunch counter until they'll find someone to serve them, then?

Bullshit.

You have a business, you should provide that service to anyone who can pay for it.

I guess I can't get why anyone would turn down good money like that. I really, really don't. The only reason I turn down a customer is if I think I won't get paid.

 

[Silhouette]

Christians are only forbidden to aid or abet the sin itself (gay marriage spreading the culture into the normal one) not the individual sinners.