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

[Syriusly]

Sil, buddy, it's been proven that sexual orientation isn't a choice.

When did you "decide" to be "Straight"?

Being straight and wanting to hump the opposite sex comes with pheremones. Gays have these urges tampered with at an early age and are imprinted in a deviant direction.

You keep claiming that- despite absolutely no evidence to support your claim.

 

[Syriusly]

Sil, buddy, it's been proven that sexual orientation isn't a choice.

When did you "decide" to be "Straight"?

Being straight and wanting to hump the opposite sex comes with pheremones. Gays have these urges tampered with at an early age and are imprinted in a deviant direction. Much like the desire to use pain pills turning into a full blown "no choice" opioid or heroin addiction. It's behavioral. But from the addict's viewpoint it seems uncontrollable and innate. The distinction may not seem important to you. But it will become important when it's exposed that addictive deviant sex behaviors don't have Constitutional rights to suppress Christian's 1st Amendment rights.

I offer the following quote to illustrate how you are wrong. It comes from the Mayo Clinic. .

It comes from the Mayo Clinic. .
God you are such a liar.

I have pointed out to you dozens of times that the Mayo Clinic had nothing to do with this article- it is merely published in the Mayo Clinical Proceedings- a medical journal that publishes research article

What pisses me off is that you just so blatantly lie about stupid crap like this to make it seem like your other lies have more credibility.

You are- once again- lying

 

[Syriusly]

Sil, buddy, it's been proven that sexual orientation isn't a choice.

When did you "decide" to be "Straight"?

Being straight and wanting to hump the opposite sex comes with pheremones. Gays have these urges tampered with at an early age and are imprinted in a deviant direction. Much like the desire to use pain pills turning into a full blown "no choice" opioid or heroin addiction. It's behavioral. But from the addict's viewpoint it seems uncontrollable and innate. The distinction may not seem important to you. But it will become important when it's exposed that addictive deviant sex behaviors don't have Constitutional rights to suppress Christian's 1st Amendment rights.

I offer the following quote to illustrate how you are wrong. It comes from the Mayo Clinic. You know, that shabby little non-credible outfit..

http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

*******
One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place

The article by Dr. Hall and Hall- doesn't mention anything about how homosexuals become homosexuals.

Again- you are just lying.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

LOL- so very true- i buy beer from my local Muslim liquor store every week.

Beer, wine, cigs, lottery tickets, condoms, even the occasional can of dog or cat food when my monthly delivery runs short. Shit, those Egyptians down there at the convenience store are almost like family to me.
I know their kids, their wives, I know which daddies are proud they attended their kids school play last week, I worry alongside them about their extended families back in their home country.
Hell, if I was young and single I might have tried to date one or two of the young ladies that work there, but I can't because I am happily married, and OLD, so it would be creepy LOL....for them anyway.

And I bet if one of my gay friends was getting married and they were bakers, they'd probably make the cake for them, even if they were maybe wide-eyed and slightly incredulous and snickering about it.
They're so nice they'd probably make a dandy wedding cake for them, just because that's the kind of people they are.
And....they LOVE this country, they are PROUD to live here, they've made that clear on many occasions.

 

[Pop23]

He wouldn't need to with gay couples, and that's not the point. He should have the right, and unless you can prove he supplied cake to someone he KNEW would sin, then your deflection fails.

NOt a deflection at all. Either he has to discriminate against ALL sinners, or he has to serve all sinners. Can't have it both ways.

Shit, he needs to do a virgin check on all those ladies.

LGBT etc. etc. are no more 'are' or 'were' than polygamists, drug addicts or bulimics. All behaviors which have a label, but not a static identity. Sorry. You're going to find out your false premise is going to get a closer look this time. Say hi to Anne Heche for me.

Sil, buddy, it's been proven that sexual orientation isn't a choice.

When did you "decide" to be "Straight"? (That assumes you really are straight and not a self-hating gay person like most homophobes.)

He must know the sin. I’ve explained this before.

Find an heterosexual couple that he provided a cake for in which they told him they were marrying and planning on cheating on the other.

You can’t, so you deflect.

It appears to me that he is treating all equally.

Equality after all is exactly that.

 

[Pop23]

How can a so called "Christian Baker" participate in the wedding of two atheists knowing they will have children and raise them without God?

Makes you question their sincerity

How could he possibly know that the children would not find god on their own.

 

[Pop23]

Word walls won't help you. Most christian churches believe in redemption. And if the Baker asked the question to someone he knew was previously married, do you intend to be faithful and they answered no, he should have the same right to refuse service to them as he should with gay couples who are obviously intending to sin.

Why would a baker ask that question at all? You see the problem here, buddy. The fact he committed adultery- according to the Bible - is that they should be stoned to death. It's right there in the fucking bible.

The thing is, either you are going to be a bible literalist, or you are going to have to realize that you can't selectively apply the bible because you don't like people.

Pretty simple, no?

Now prove he provide this service to someone he knew would be unfaithful and I will agree with you. Unless you can, then you are simply wrong

I kind of don't have to. The very fact that he provides services to other people who are in violation of bible law is the problem.

No, they should be allowed to do business while conforming to church teachings

So if they determine that their INTERPRETATION of Church Teaching (because it wasn't like he called the pastor to get a ruling here) means they don't have to follow the health codes, that's cool, too?

Sorry, man, religion should not be a "Get out of jail free card".

No, not simple at all. Different religions look at redemption differently.

Why would he ask is his business, not yours.

Can you prove that the Baker KNOWINGLY supplied a cake to heterosexual couple who intended to SIN? If you can, then you have a case. If you can't, you can't claim he's being hypocritical and excluding the gay couple for any other reason except he is unwilling to supply product to those who intend to sin.

If a women came in to get a cake for her boyfriend who is being released from prison for bank robbery and the lady said she wanted him to add "hope you don't get caught with the next Bank Robbery that you've already planned", should the Baker be allowed to refuse service?

Nobody can know intent

But they do know what has already occurred. A known adulterer getting married is an abomination

No cake for you!

Exactly, except when you’re union is one, that by default is sinful

Do we have to rehash this entire thread, especially the Christian value of redemption and forgiveness?

Now, the baker is treating both parties as equals. Now you don’t like that?

Pretty sad really.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- so very true- i buy beer from my local Muslim liquor store every week.

Beer, wine, cigs, lottery tickets, condoms, even the occasional can of dog or cat food when my monthly delivery runs short. Shit, those Egyptians down there at the convenience store are almost like family to me.
I know their kids, their wives, I know which daddies are proud they attended their kids school play last week, I worry alongside them about their extended families back in their home country.
Hell, if I was young and single I might have tried to date one or two of the young ladies that work there, but I can't because I am happily married, and OLD, so it would be creepy LOL....for them anyway.

And I bet if one of my gay friends was getting married and they were bakers, they'd probably make the cake for them, even if they were maybe wide-eyed and slightly incredulous and snickering about it.
They're so nice they'd probably make a dandy wedding cake for them, just because that's the kind of people they are.
And....they LOVE this country, they are PROUD to live here, they've made that clear on many occasions.

Yep. My daughter went to school with girls from a Muslim family- the girls wore the hijab and all- and they love America so much. Bright kids- all off to college on and planning on getting advanced degrees.

 

[Syriusly]

Word walls won't help you. Most christian churches believe in redemption. And if the Baker asked the question to someone he knew was previously married, do you intend to be faithful and they answered no, he should have the same right to refuse service to them as he should with gay couples who are obviously intending to sin.

Why would a baker ask that question at all? You see the problem here, buddy. The fact he committed adultery- according to the Bible - is that they should be stoned to death. It's right there in the fucking bible.

The thing is, either you are going to be a bible literalist, or you are going to have to realize that you can't selectively apply the bible because you don't like people.

Pretty simple, no?

Now prove he provide this service to someone he knew would be unfaithful and I will agree with you. Unless you can, then you are simply wrong

I kind of don't have to. The very fact that he provides services to other people who are in violation of bible law is the problem.

No, they should be allowed to do business while conforming to church teachings

So if they determine that their INTERPRETATION of Church Teaching (because it wasn't like he called the pastor to get a ruling here) means they don't have to follow the health codes, that's cool, too?

Sorry, man, religion should not be a "Get out of jail free card".

No, not simple at all. Different religions look at redemption differently.

Why would he ask is his business, not yours.

Can you prove that the Baker KNOWINGLY supplied a cake to heterosexual couple who intended to SIN? If you can, then you have a case. If you can't, you can't claim he's being hypocritical and excluding the gay couple for any other reason except he is unwilling to supply product to those who intend to sin.

If a women came in to get a cake for her boyfriend who is being released from prison for bank robbery and the lady said she wanted him to add "hope you don't get caught with the next Bank Robbery that you've already planned", should the Baker be allowed to refuse service?

Nobody can know intent

But they do know what has already occurred. A known adulterer getting married is an abomination

No cake for you!

Exactly, except when you’re union is one, that by default is sinful

You mean like the wedding of Donald Trump and Melania?

That wedding- according to the New Testament- is explicitly defined as adultery- and therefore sinful.

Gay wedding? Not explicitly sinful- especially between two women- but even conceding that it could be considered sinful- it is no more sinful than Trump's third wedding.

 

[Syriusly]

He wouldn't need to with gay couples, and that's not the point. He should have the right, and unless you can prove he supplied cake to someone he KNEW would sin, then your deflection fails.

NOt a deflection at all. Either he has to discriminate against ALL sinners, or he has to serve all sinners. Can't have it both ways.

Shit, he needs to do a virgin check on all those ladies.

LGBT etc. etc. are no more 'are' or 'were' than polygamists, drug addicts or bulimics. All behaviors which have a label, but not a static identity. Sorry. You're going to find out your false premise is going to get a closer look this time. Say hi to Anne Heche for me.

Sil, buddy, it's been proven that sexual orientation isn't a choice.

When did you "decide" to be "Straight"? (That assumes you really are straight and not a self-hating gay person like most homophobes.)

He must know the sin. I’ve explained this before.

Find an heterosexual couple that he provided a cake for in which they told him they were marrying and planning on cheating on the other.
.

Find any heterosexual couple where the wife is marrying her second or third husband- and their marriage is adultery. And any marriage where the man is marrying for the second or third time- unless each previous time he divorced because his wife was guilty of adultery- then their marriage is adultery too.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Can the Supreme Court pass a ruling that only applies to baking a cake for a gay wedding?

If it applies to a religious objection to baking a cake, it would also apply to selling wedding rings, renting a reception hall, access to a honeymoon suite, photography, flowers....anything remotely related to a wedding

Can the court limit their ruling to only homosexual weddings? What about religious objections to adulterers weddings, pregnant brides, mixed race weddings, mixed religions, atheists?

And once the court permits a business to use religion as a determinate of who they serve, why limit the ruling to weddings? Why wouldn't your religious beliefs cover everything your business does?

Helen Keller actually fell in love with reporter Peter Fagan, who became her companion-helper after Anne Sullivan was unable to continue on as her guide due to her own health issues. She wanted to marry him.
Her father explored all avenues in his attempts to break the marriage plans, including a plan to leverage Alabama law, which at the time included a prohibition against "marriage to imbeciles".
Turns out all he needed to do was something along the lines of showing Mr. Fagan his shotgun, according to historical accounts, but nevertheless, Captain Keller was prepared to use a corner of some little known discrimination statutes to insert his moral views on a female adult who was perfectly capable of deciding if she was in love and wanted to marry. As it stood in those day, just being FEMALE, and his daughter, no matter what age, was all he needed anyway.

Extrapolate that to a ruling where disabled people are not allowed to marry due to falling under a wide interpretation of a "deeply held religious belief" that disabled people meet the criteria for classification as "imbeciles", which is how most disabled people were treated for centuries, in this and many other countries.

Congratulations, you've just outlawed my own marriage to my 100% service connected disabled Navy veteran wife.

<Karen>

Yeah, I think this whole "deeply held religious belief" platform for discrimination has already been played a bridge too far, just as its not so distant cousin, the "miscegenation clause" was also played a bridge too far for well over a century.

The problem with so called "deeply held religious beliefs" is that they can be Humpty Dumpty'ed into including pretty any goddam thing some preacher wants it to include.
It's a one-size-fits-all cure-all for wiping out democracy and public accommodation, and anyone who pretends that the potential for abuse isn't on an epidemic level is not only a liar, they're also a theocratic liar, the polite term for which is "apologist".
Theocracy is 100% incompatible with democracy.
So just own up to it and admit you hate democracy altogether.
You're still despicable and unfit to hold citizenship in a democracy, but at least people will respect the fact that you have the balls to clearly state your agenda...which to learned people is already ridiculously obvious.

 

[Pop23]

Word walls won't help you. Most christian churches believe in redemption. And if the Baker asked the question to someone he knew was previously married, do you intend to be faithful and they answered no, he should have the same right to refuse service to them as he should with gay couples who are obviously intending to sin.

Why would a baker ask that question at all? You see the problem here, buddy. The fact he committed adultery- according to the Bible - is that they should be stoned to death. It's right there in the fucking bible.

The thing is, either you are going to be a bible literalist, or you are going to have to realize that you can't selectively apply the bible because you don't like people.

Pretty simple, no?

Now prove he provide this service to someone he knew would be unfaithful and I will agree with you. Unless you can, then you are simply wrong

I kind of don't have to. The very fact that he provides services to other people who are in violation of bible law is the problem.

No, they should be allowed to do business while conforming to church teachings

So if they determine that their INTERPRETATION of Church Teaching (because it wasn't like he called the pastor to get a ruling here) means they don't have to follow the health codes, that's cool, too?

Sorry, man, religion should not be a "Get out of jail free card".

No, not simple at all. Different religions look at redemption differently.

Why would he ask is his business, not yours.

Can you prove that the Baker KNOWINGLY supplied a cake to heterosexual couple who intended to SIN? If you can, then you have a case. If you can't, you can't claim he's being hypocritical and excluding the gay couple for any other reason except he is unwilling to supply product to those who intend to sin.

If a women came in to get a cake for her boyfriend who is being released from prison for bank robbery and the lady said she wanted him to add "hope you don't get caught with the next Bank Robbery that you've already planned", should the Baker be allowed to refuse service?

Nobody can know intent

But they do know what has already occurred. A known adulterer getting married is an abomination

No cake for you!

Exactly, except when you’re union is one, that by default is sinful

You mean like the wedding of Donald Trump and Melania?

That wedding- according to the New Testament- is explicitly defined as adultery- and therefore sinful.

Gay wedding? Not explicitly sinful- especially between two women- but even conceding that it could be considered sinful- it is no more sinful than Trump's third wedding.

Deflection

The church gives forgiveness to those who ask for it.

So, if Donald walked into this Bakers business and said “ I want a wedding cake so that I can cheat on my new wife”, I would think the baker should be well within his right to deny the product.

 

[Pop23]

He wouldn't need to with gay couples, and that's not the point. He should have the right, and unless you can prove he supplied cake to someone he KNEW would sin, then your deflection fails.

NOt a deflection at all. Either he has to discriminate against ALL sinners, or he has to serve all sinners. Can't have it both ways.

Shit, he needs to do a virgin check on all those ladies.

LGBT etc. etc. are no more 'are' or 'were' than polygamists, drug addicts or bulimics. All behaviors which have a label, but not a static identity. Sorry. You're going to find out your false premise is going to get a closer look this time. Say hi to Anne Heche for me.

Sil, buddy, it's been proven that sexual orientation isn't a choice.

When did you "decide" to be "Straight"? (That assumes you really are straight and not a self-hating gay person like most homophobes.)

He must know the sin. I’ve explained this before.

Find an heterosexual couple that he provided a cake for in which they told him they were marrying and planning on cheating on the other.
.

Find any heterosexual couple where the wife is marrying her second or third husband- and their marriage is adultery. And any marriage where the man is marrying for the second or third time- unless each previous time he divorced because his wife was guilty of adultery- then their marriage is adultery too.

Are you GOD?

No

You sure think you are

 

[Silhouette]

Marrying imbeciles is not a tangent that the court will allow in this case. Probably best to defend or attack points that will be allowed.

 

[JoeB131]

Being straight and wanting to hump the opposite sex comes with pheremones. Gays have these urges tampered with at an early age and are imprinted in a deviant direction.

Really? frankly, I've know gay folks who didn't come out as gay until they hit their 30's... and they tried really hard to play at being straight until then.

But it will become important when it's exposed that addictive deviant sex behaviors don't have Constitutional rights to suppress Christian's 1st Amendment rights.

Christians can have all the right in the world to believe whatever Bronze Age Superstitious horseshit they want... but they still have to obey the law.

I offer the following quote to illustrate how you are wrong. It comes from the Mayo Clinic. You know, that shabby little non-credible outfit..

Are you still trying to pass this fraud off as the "Mayo Clinic" when you got debunked on that numerous times, or did you think we'd all forget the last time you tried to pull this bullshit?

 

[Silhouette]

I've know gay folks who didn't come out as gay until they hit their 30's... and they tried really hard to play at being straight until then.

And Anne Heche? I'll bet you'll defend that "she was always bisexual". And necrophiliacs? I suppose they're "born that way!" too? (Not that they imprinted arousal fucking the corpses in their daddy's funeral parlor or anything...)

Look, it's behavioral and this "no it's not!" position is slipping through your fingers. You'd best try another angle because those chickens will be coming home to roost very soon.

 

[Syriusly]

Why would a baker ask that question at all? You see the problem here, buddy. The fact he committed adultery- according to the Bible - is that they should be stoned to death. It's right there in the fucking bible.

The thing is, either you are going to be a bible literalist, or you are going to have to realize that you can't selectively apply the bible because you don't like people.

Pretty simple, no?

I kind of don't have to. The very fact that he provides services to other people who are in violation of bible law is the problem.

So if they determine that their INTERPRETATION of Church Teaching (because it wasn't like he called the pastor to get a ruling here) means they don't have to follow the health codes, that's cool, too?

Sorry, man, religion should not be a "Get out of jail free card".

No, not simple at all. Different religions look at redemption differently.

Why would he ask is his business, not yours.

Can you prove that the Baker KNOWINGLY supplied a cake to heterosexual couple who intended to SIN? If you can, then you have a case. If you can't, you can't claim he's being hypocritical and excluding the gay couple for any other reason except he is unwilling to supply product to those who intend to sin.

If a women came in to get a cake for her boyfriend who is being released from prison for bank robbery and the lady said she wanted him to add "hope you don't get caught with the next Bank Robbery that you've already planned", should the Baker be allowed to refuse service?

Nobody can know intent

But they do know what has already occurred. A known adulterer getting married is an abomination

No cake for you!

Exactly, except when you’re union is one, that by default is sinful

You mean like the wedding of Donald Trump and Melania?

That wedding- according to the New Testament- is explicitly defined as adultery- and therefore sinful.

Gay wedding? Not explicitly sinful- especially between two women- but even conceding that it could be considered sinful- it is no more sinful than Trump's third wedding.

Deflection

The church gives forgiveness to those who ask for it.

So, if Donald walked into this Bakers business and said “ I want a wedding cake so that I can cheat on my new wife”, I would think the baker should be well within his right to deny the product.

He wouldn't need to with gay couples, and that's not the point. He should have the right, and unless you can prove he supplied cake to someone he KNEW would sin, then your deflection fails.

NOt a deflection at all. Either he has to discriminate against ALL sinners, or he has to serve all sinners. Can't have it both ways.

Shit, he needs to do a virgin check on all those ladies.

LGBT etc. etc. are no more 'are' or 'were' than polygamists, drug addicts or bulimics. All behaviors which have a label, but not a static identity. Sorry. You're going to find out your false premise is going to get a closer look this time. Say hi to Anne Heche for me.

Sil, buddy, it's been proven that sexual orientation isn't a choice.

When did you "decide" to be "Straight"? (That assumes you really are straight and not a self-hating gay person like most homophobes.)

He must know the sin. I’ve explained this before.

Find an heterosexual couple that he provided a cake for in which they told him they were marrying and planning on cheating on the other.
.

Find any heterosexual couple where the wife is marrying her second or third husband- and their marriage is adultery. And any marriage where the man is marrying for the second or third time- unless each previous time he divorced because his wife was guilty of adultery- then their marriage is adultery too.

Are you GOD?

No

You sure think you are

LOL- do you think that Klein is GOD?

Since Klein sure thinks he is- when it comes to gay couples.

 

[Syriusly]

I've know gay folks who didn't come out as gay until they hit their 30's... and they tried really hard to play at being straight until then.

Look, it's behavioral .

It is behavioral like being attracted to blondes is a behavior.

 

[Syriusly]

Marrying imbeciles is not a tangent that the court will allow in this case. .

Well its a good thing that no one is trying to marry imbeciles then......

 

[Pop23]

No, not simple at all. Different religions look at redemption differently.

Why would he ask is his business, not yours.

Can you prove that the Baker KNOWINGLY supplied a cake to heterosexual couple who intended to SIN? If you can, then you have a case. If you can't, you can't claim he's being hypocritical and excluding the gay couple for any other reason except he is unwilling to supply product to those who intend to sin.

If a women came in to get a cake for her boyfriend who is being released from prison for bank robbery and the lady said she wanted him to add "hope you don't get caught with the next Bank Robbery that you've already planned", should the Baker be allowed to refuse service?

Nobody can know intent

But they do know what has already occurred. A known adulterer getting married is an abomination

No cake for you!

Exactly, except when you’re union is one, that by default is sinful

You mean like the wedding of Donald Trump and Melania?

That wedding- according to the New Testament- is explicitly defined as adultery- and therefore sinful.

Gay wedding? Not explicitly sinful- especially between two women- but even conceding that it could be considered sinful- it is no more sinful than Trump's third wedding.

Deflection

The church gives forgiveness to those who ask for it.

So, if Donald walked into this Bakers business and said “ I want a wedding cake so that I can cheat on my new wife”, I would think the baker should be well within his right to deny the product.

Deflection.

Donald Trump's third marriage IS adultery- regardless of whether or not he ever cheats on Melania.

He wouldn't need to with gay couples, and that's not the point. He should have the right, and unless you can prove he supplied cake to someone he KNEW would sin, then your deflection fails.

NOt a deflection at all. Either he has to discriminate against ALL sinners, or he has to serve all sinners. Can't have it both ways.

Shit, he needs to do a virgin check on all those ladies.

LGBT etc. etc. are no more 'are' or 'were' than polygamists, drug addicts or bulimics. All behaviors which have a label, but not a static identity. Sorry. You're going to find out your false premise is going to get a closer look this time. Say hi to Anne Heche for me.

Sil, buddy, it's been proven that sexual orientation isn't a choice.

When did you "decide" to be "Straight"? (That assumes you really are straight and not a self-hating gay person like most homophobes.)

He must know the sin. I’ve explained this before.

Find an heterosexual couple that he provided a cake for in which they told him they were marrying and planning on cheating on the other.
.

Find any heterosexual couple where the wife is marrying her second or third husband- and their marriage is adultery. And any marriage where the man is marrying for the second or third time- unless each previous time he divorced because his wife was guilty of adultery- then their marriage is adultery too.

Are you GOD?

No

You sure think you are

LOL- do you think that Klein is GOD?

Since Klein sure thinks he is- when it comes to gay couples.

No, Klein is simply going by what his church teaches.

You have yet to show that he ever supplied a cake to someone who was throwing a celebration of committing a Sin.

And you do not get to forgive sins, but the Church sure can.

Are you that stupid? ( of course you are)