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

[jillian]

Should a devout Catholic baker be allowed to deny service to divorced people?

Yes if the cake is celebrating their divorce. You understand the objections are about celebrating the sin, not to the sinners themselves? But if you steer the conversation to make it look like hate of the individual, you think maybe your LGBT lawyers might have more of a wedge on these cases.

is this thread 300 on this subject?

for you own good, seek help.

I will, but only after your cult begins to lose in court. Deal? Then it will be time for you to seek help as well. Finally.

I am not part of any "cult", dearie....

you need to seek help.

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn't matter to a Catholic.
If you are divorced, your first marriage is still recognized. Any second marriage would not be recognized and would be an abomination
A divorced person does not go to confession and have their marriage disappear because they are repentant

No cake for YOU!

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Should a devout Catholic baker be allowed to deny service to divorced people?

I see no reason why he shouldn’t, or, if he requires, to ask for documentation from the church that the original marriage was dissolved in such a way to satisfy the church.

I’ve been pretty consistent in this.

Ok ....now we are getting someplace

No cakes for homos
Divorced people are out

Now, what about a pregnant bride? Who does she think she is fooling? Should a true Christian sell her a white gown? I don't think so

Atheists raise atheist children.....I don't think any righteous Christian could participate in that wedding

What about a groom who had been married twice, cheated on both wives, had a daughter out of wedlock and was marrying an ex porn model?

Maybe elect him President....but bake him a cake?

This is a regular thing by the progressives when they start losing the argument. BUT, BUT, BUT

This conversation is about A BAKER, not ALL BAKERS.

If THIS BAKER thinks that any of the above would cause him eternal damnation, then YES, YES, YES!

And if I saw that happening I would GO TO THAT BAKER and tell him he's being an idiot to walk away from business!

Hell, if I were his competition I WOULD MAKE HIS REFUSAL PART OF MY ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN TO NAB THE BUSINESS.

But irregardless, he should have this right based ON HIS RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS.

The Supreme Court will not waste it time deciding what a baker should do

The case will decide whether religious convictions can be used to justify discrimination in business

 

[Pop23]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Should a devout Catholic baker be allowed to deny service to divorced people?

I see no reason why he shouldn’t, or, if he requires, to ask for documentation from the church that the original marriage was dissolved in such a way to satisfy the church.

I’ve been pretty consistent in this.

Ok ....now we are getting someplace

No cakes for homos
Divorced people are out

Now, what about a pregnant bride? Who does she think she is fooling? Should a true Christian sell her a white gown? I don't think so

Atheists raise atheist children.....I don't think any righteous Christian could participate in that wedding

What about a groom who had been married twice, cheated on both wives, had a daughter out of wedlock and was marrying an ex porn model?

Maybe elect him President....but bake him a cake?

This is a regular thing by the progressives when they start losing the argument. BUT, BUT, BUT

This conversation is about A BAKER, not ALL BAKERS.

If THIS BAKER thinks that any of the above would cause him eternal damnation, then YES, YES, YES!

And if I saw that happening I would GO TO THAT BAKER and tell him he's being an idiot to walk away from business!

Hell, if I were his competition I WOULD MAKE HIS REFUSAL PART OF MY ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN TO NAB THE BUSINESS.

But irregardless, he should have this right based ON HIS RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS.

The Supreme Court will not waste it time deciding what a baker should do

The case will decide whether religious convictions can be used to justify discrimination in business

either way, a loss is a loss

 

[rightwinger]

The catholic baker also cannot prove that the same-sex celibate couple are telling the truth. If the baker demands that the marriage be consummated, he or she becomes sex pimp, just like the theologian that is going to marry them, the one who may secretly wish to be present at the nuptials, the one who always risks disappointment.

We are talking in religious terms.

By default, a gay couple can never consummate a marriage by church standards

Should people over 60 be able to get married?
What's the point?

No cake for YOU

People over 60 can't have sex?

Sad for you I guess

Gays can have sex

 

[Silhouette]

The Supreme Court will not waste it time deciding what a baker should do

The case will decide whether religious convictions can be used to justify discrimination in business

...After first deciding 1. Whether or not LGBTs are behaviors or something static and 2. Whether those behaviors have Constitutional protections that can force Christians to choose between eternal soul death (Romans 1, Jude 1) for enabling the spread of homosexual culture into the mainstream using important vehicles such as marriage, education or adoption.....or going out of business.

 

[rightwinger]

Should a devout Catholic baker be allowed to deny service to divorced people?

Yes if the cake is celebrating their divorce. You understand the objections are about celebrating the sin, not to the sinners themselves? But if you steer the conversation to make it look like hate of the individual, you think maybe your LGBT lawyers might have more of a wedge on these cases.

is this thread 300 on this subject?

for you own good, seek help.

I will, but only after your cult begins to lose in court. Deal? Then it will be time for you to seek help as well. Finally.

Adultery is a sin....actually made the ten commandments
Homosexuality did not

 

[rightwinger]

The Supreme Court will not waste it time deciding what a baker should do

The case will decide whether religious convictions can be used to justify discrimination in business

...After first deciding 1. Whether or not LGBTs are behaviors or something static and 2. Whether those behaviors have Constitutional protections that can force Christians to choose between eternal soul death (Romans 1, Jude 1) for enabling the spread of homosexual culture into the mainstream using important vehicles such as marriage, education or adoption.....or going out of business.

First amendment......Congress shall pass no laws establishing religion

 

[Silhouette]

Adultery is a sin....actually made the ten commandments
Homosexuality did not

What you're doing here...parsing out different Biblical rules isn't going to work. Jude 1 and Romans 1 exist and they come with the threat of eternal soul death for failing to heed.

 

[rightwinger]

Adultery is a sin....actually made the ten commandments
Homosexuality did not

What you're doing here...parsing out different Biblical rules isn't going to work. Jude 1 and Romans 1 exist and they come with the threat of eternal soul death for failing to heed.

Jude 1?
Romans 1?

Who give a flying fuck?

Thou shall not commit adultery is in the TEN FREAK'N COMMANDMENTS

God obviously did not think Homosexuality was bad enough to warrant a commandment

 

[Silhouette]

Jude 1?
Romans 1?

Who give a flying fuck?

The Court when it examines non-existent judicially-legislated "protections" for deviant sex kinks/behaviors vs Christian's 1st Amendment actual protections.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Court when it examines non-existent judicially-legislated "protections" for deviant sex kinks/behaviors vs Christian's 1st Amendment actual protections.

Oregon and Colorado's Public Accommodation laws were not "judicially-legislated" they were passed by the elected legislatures of their respective states, same as with the other 19 or so States that have included sexual orientation in their Public Accommodation laws.



>>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

Jude 1?
Romans 1?

Who give a flying fuck?

The Court when it examines non-existent judicially-legislated "protections" for deviant sex kinks/behaviors vs Christian's 1st Amendment actual protections.

Read your First amendment about establishing a religion and then get back to me on Jude 1 and Romans 1

 

[Silhouette]

The Court when it examines non-existent judicially-legislated "protections" for deviant sex kinks/behaviors vs Christian's 1st Amendment actual protections.

Oregon and Colorado's Public Accommodation laws were not "judicially-legislated" they were passed by the elected legislatures of their respective states, same as with the other 19 or so States that have included sexual orientation in their Public Accommodation laws.



>>>>>

Oh, as you know I was referring to Obergefell from which those laws you refer to were passed citing Obergefell's (illegal) authority of "gay marriage legal in all 50 states". I'm unaware, but I believe the states of Oregon and Colorado did not legalize gay marriage on their own? I know in California, the most liberal state of all, it's still illegal on the books because Californians said no. The second time in 2008.

My point being that those legislatures could not draw from an illegal federal precedent to enact laws their states declared illegal. See what a mess Obergefell made by judicially-adding brand new language to the US Constitution, which is a violation of separation of powers... It will be overturned soon. Thank God. They overturned Windsor 2013 in just two years...so...get another conservative in SCOTUS and put this legal wildfire out.

 

[Syriusly]

As a Catholic, my church does not recognize divorce

Should Catholic bakers refuse to bake wedding cakes for people who are divorced?

There are a lot more divorced people than gays

For that matter, should Catholic bakers be able to refuse service to Protestant customers, since their churches are all heretics?

For that matter, should Catholic bakers be able to refuse service to Jews- since we all know that "Jews killed Christ'?

 

[Syriusly]

The Court when it examines non-existent judicially-legislated "protections" for deviant sex kinks/behaviors vs Christian's 1st Amendment actual protections.

Oregon and Colorado's Public Accommodation laws were not "judicially-legislated" they were passed by the elected legislatures of their respective states, same as with the other 19 or so States that have included sexual orientation in their Public Accommodation laws.



>>>>>

Oh, as you know I was referring to Obergefell from which those laws you refer to were passed citing Obergefell's (illegal) authority of "gay marriage legal in all 50 states". I'm unaware, but I believe the states of Oregon and Colorado did not legalize gay marriage on their own? I know in California, the most liberal state of all, it's still illegal on the books because Californians said no. The second time in 2008.

My point being that those legislatures could not draw from an illegal federal precedent to enact laws their states declared illegal. See what a mess Obergefell made by judicially-adding brand new language to the US Constitution, which is a violation of separation of powers... It will be overturned soon. Thank God. They overturned Windsor 2013 in just two years...so...get another conservative in SCOTUS and put this legal wildfire out.

God you are such a liar.

Windsor is still in effect- how do we know this? Because DOMA is still invalid because it is still unconstitutional.
Obergefell is merely the latest- the fourth- Supreme Court decisions overturning unconstitutional State marriage laws- there is no mess- gay couples are happily getting married in all 50 states and there is no legal challenge to Obergefell

 

[rightwinger]

As a Catholic, my church does not recognize divorce

Should Catholic bakers refuse to bake wedding cakes for people who are divorced?

There are a lot more divorced people than gays

For that matter, should Catholic bakers be able to refuse service to Protestant customers, since their churches are all heretics?

For that matter, should Catholic bakers be able to refuse service to Jews- since we all know that "Jews killed Christ'?

Italians killed Christ

 

[JoeB131]

Opinion noted

Don’t take much of a judge to recognize that a “gay wedding” is the opposite of “go forward and sin no more”.

I've know gay folks who've been committed for decades to each other.

I've known straight couples where we've all said, "They'll be divorced by June" and we were right.

so the only "sin" here is that you don't like the gay, like most homophobes, probably dealing with your own issues.

They've done science... most homophobes are latent homosexuals.

 

[JoeB131]

This is a regular thing by the progressives when they start losing the argument. BUT, BUT, BUT

This conversation is about A BAKER, not ALL BAKERS.

If THIS BAKER thinks that any of the above would cause him eternal damnation, then YES, YES, YES!

And if I saw that happening I would GO TO THAT BAKER and tell him he's being an idiot to walk away from business!

Hell, if I were his competition I WOULD MAKE HIS REFUSAL PART OF MY ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN TO NAB THE BUSINESS.

But irregardless, he should have this right based ON HIS RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS.

First, "Irregardless' isn't a word.

second- and I know this is a tough one for you- A business doesn't have a right to discriminate against people, no matter what religion they have.

If their religion makes them think that by providing this service they are going to Hell, then they need to find something else to do for a living.

 

[JoeB131]

...After first deciding 1. Whether or not LGBTs are behaviors or something static and 2. Whether those behaviors have Constitutional protections that can force Christians to choose between eternal soul death (Romans 1, Jude 1) for enabling the spread of homosexual culture into the mainstream using important vehicles such as marriage, education or adoption.....or going out of business.

Okay.

Here's what the Christians need to do.
1) Prove people actually have souls.
2) Prove that a place called Hell exists.
3) Prove the Invisible Sky Pixie will actually send you there for not hating the gays as much as you do.

That's a pretty tall order, really.

 

[JoeB131]

The Court when it examines non-existent judicially-legislated "protections" for deviant sex kinks/behaviors vs Christian's 1st Amendment actual protections.

Except the first amendment only applies to laws Congress shall pass.

Otherwise, cities couldn't zone CHurch property, you couldn't enforce traffic laws outside a church parking lot, and so on.