Christian B&B refuses to back down to homosexual terrorism

[SuperDemocrat]

80K dollar fine? No way

If you actually disagree with the government's doctrine you get punished. Did you actually think we live in America or something?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

A better way is to temporarily go out of business whenever someone who is gay wants to force you to serve him or her.

 

[Granny]

This is why people rebel - SOME gays and lesbians are going to FORCE themselves on others come hell or high water. All they have to do is try another bakery. Better yet, why don't they set up their own LGBT bakeries and the problem is solved. Everybody's happy.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I'm waiting for the gay bar to get fined for not serving Rush Limbaugh if he happen to stop in for a drink. It won't happen because we all know that their is an agenda behind these laws. It isn't designed to protect someone from discrimination because that would mean eveyrone is protected but to force businesses to accomodate what use to be considered a mental disorder. Rush Limbaugh deserves the same protections as everyone else or did the left stop believing in equality under the law because it didn't serve their agenda.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

This is why people rebel - SOME gays and lesbians are going to FORCE themselves on others come hell or high water. All they have to do is try another bakery. Better yet, why don't they set up their own LGBT bakeries and the problem is solved. Everybody's happy.

I would consider that an act of terrorism. Gay dude is coming...run..he may sue because you didn't comply with his demand that you accept him.

 

[Montrovant]

But they would be happy to host Rush Limbaugh's fifth wedding should that day ever arrive.

Maybe so but you missed the point, as usual. Nobody gives a fuck what you want, people in a free country decide what they cater to. We are losing rights left and right and it needs to be turned around like some states have already done.

No, he got the point perfect. If it was about living in a free country and getting to decide, then we'd see challenges to the Title II of the Civil Rights Act and not challenges to State and local laws that protect gays. If it was "freedom", you fuckers would be going after the big one.

None of this is about freedom or you'd see challenges to the FEDERAL Public Accommodation laws and none of this is about Christianity or you'd see Christians refusing service to divorced people.

It's purely about hating gays. We're not fooled.

No, you missed the point too. You are not god. You cannot become god. Spewing your idiotic ideas on a message board won't make you god. You cannot decide how other people should think. It's ALL about freedom, you are either too dishonest or stupid to understand.

There is no evidence to support your contention that this is about "freedom". Evidence would be challenges to Title II of the CRA which requires the gay to serve the Christian, but not the Christian to serve the gay.

You're fooling no one.

The evidence is that people are being sued for not participating in homosexual events.

The evidence is cities and states have added alternative sexuality to PA laws because the Constitution doesn't provide it.

The evidence is that states are passing laws to protect citizens from participating in the above.

NO ONE can understand it for you. Your stupidity is your problem. To get something like this so wrong proves you cannot grasp simple concepts. Life for you must be hard. I guess that's why you have all day every day to post fag propaganda on message boards, who would hire you?

Your stats show 20,000 posts in 3 years, Seawytch's stats show 26,000 posts in 6 years.

 

[Seawytch]

But they would be happy to host Rush Limbaugh's fifth wedding should that day ever arrive.

Maybe so but you missed the point, as usual. Nobody gives a fuck what you want, people in a free country decide what they cater to. We are losing rights left and right and it needs to be turned around like some states have already done.

No, he got the point perfect. If it was about living in a free country and getting to decide, then we'd see challenges to the Title II of the Civil Rights Act and not challenges to State and local laws that protect gays. If it was "freedom", you fuckers would be going after the big one.

None of this is about freedom or you'd see challenges to the FEDERAL Public Accommodation laws and none of this is about Christianity or you'd see Christians refusing service to divorced people.

It's purely about hating gays. We're not fooled.

No, you missed the point too. You are not god. You cannot become god. Spewing your idiotic ideas on a message board won't make you god. You cannot decide how other people should think. It's ALL about freedom, you are either too dishonest or stupid to understand.

There is no evidence to support your contention that this is about "freedom". Evidence would be challenges to Title II of the CRA which requires the gay to serve the Christian, but not the Christian to serve the gay.

You're fooling no one.

The evidence is that people are being sued for not participating in homosexual events.

That makes no sense in response to what I said. If it was about "freedom" then people would be challenging Title II of the CRA, Federal PA law.

The evidence is cities and states have added alternative sexuality to PA laws because the Constitution doesn't provide it.

Again, that makes no sense in response to what I said. PA laws have been withstanding Constitutional challenge since 1964. Gays are not currently included in Federal PA laws.

What do you think is more likely, getting rid of PA laws or adding gays to the Federal law? Which one has more support do you think? Which one has actual legislators with actual legislation?

The evidence is that states are passing laws to protect citizens from participating in the above.

Right...proving my point that it's about hating gays not about "freedom"

NO ONE can understand it for you. Your stupidity is your problem. To get something like this so wrong proves you cannot grasp simple concepts. Life for you must be hard. I guess that's why you have all day every day to post fag propaganda on message boards, who would hire you?

I understand it fine, it's you that's confused about PA laws.


I post in the morning usually between 4:30 and 5:45-6. I post on my breaks and my lunch. That's it. As pointed out, you have almost as many posts as I do in half the time. Sounds like YOU have nothing better to do. I work.

 

[koshergrl]

So can a Rabbi refuse to officiate the wedding of two Nazis? Thanks for your help.

Yes.

The performance of religious services by members of the Clergy are not covered under Public Accommodation laws.


>>>>

So you admit that a wedding is a religious ceremony. Therefore, bakers can refuse to create cakes for them, if they feel that to do so would be an act of sacrilege. We agree.

 

[Seawytch]

So can a Rabbi refuse to officiate the wedding of two Nazis? Thanks for your help.

Yes.

The performance of religious services by members of the Clergy are not covered under Public Accommodation laws.


>>>>

So you admit that a wedding is a religious ceremony. Therefore, bakers can refuse to create cakes for them, if they feel that to do so would be an act of sacrilege. We agree.

That may be what you read but that's not what he said. Bakers are not CLERGY.

 

[bendog]

So can a Rabbi refuse to officiate the wedding of two Nazis? Thanks for your help.

Yes.

The performance of religious services by members of the Clergy are not covered under Public Accommodation laws.


>>>>

So you admit that a wedding is a religious ceremony. Therefore, bakers can refuse to create cakes for them, if they feel that to do so would be an act of sacrilege. We agree.

Clergy being largely exempt from PA laws is not helpful to the distinction, and sloppily created hypotheticals with false equivalencies are not helpful.

The distinction is gay is a protected class, and Nazi is not. A gay baker can refuse to serve a Nazi, so long as he refused gay and straight Nazis equally. Likewise, a straight baker may refuse Nazis, so long as he refused gay and straight Nazis equally.

 

[guno]

So can a Rabbi refuse to officiate the wedding of two Nazis? Thanks for your help.

Yes.

The performance of religious services by members of the Clergy are not covered under Public Accommodation laws.


>>>>

So you admit that a wedding is a religious ceremony. Therefore, bakers can refuse to create cakes for them, if they feel that to do so would be an act of sacrilege. We agree.

Marriage is a legal contract no sky fairies necessary, that is why you need a marriage license, even though you may have a shaman mumble incantations after

 

[koshergrl]

So can a Rabbi refuse to officiate the wedding of two Nazis? Thanks for your help.

Yes.

The performance of religious services by members of the Clergy are not covered under Public Accommodation laws.


>>>>

So you admit that a wedding is a religious ceremony. Therefore, bakers can refuse to create cakes for them, if they feel that to do so would be an act of sacrilege. We agree.

Clergy being largely exempt from PA laws is not helpful to the distinction, and sloppily created hypotheticals with false equivalencies are not helpful.

The distinction is gay is a protected class, and Nazi is not. A gay baker can refuse to serve a Nazi, so long as he refused gay and straight Nazis equally. Likewise, a straight baker may refuse Nazis, so long as he refused gay and straight Nazis equally.

Sorry, I don't recognize protected classes. The distinction is unconstitutional, and the laws that establish it are not valid.

 

[bendog]

So can a Rabbi refuse to officiate the wedding of two Nazis? Thanks for your help.

Yes.

The performance of religious services by members of the Clergy are not covered under Public Accommodation laws.


>>>>

So you admit that a wedding is a religious ceremony. Therefore, bakers can refuse to create cakes for them, if they feel that to do so would be an act of sacrilege. We agree.

Clergy being largely exempt from PA laws is not helpful to the distinction, and sloppily created hypotheticals with false equivalencies are not helpful.

The distinction is gay is a protected class, and Nazi is not. A gay baker can refuse to serve a Nazi, so long as he refused gay and straight Nazis equally. Likewise, a straight baker may refuse Nazis, so long as he refused gay and straight Nazis equally.

Sorry, I don't recognize protected classes. The distinction is unconstitutional, and the laws that establish it are not valid.

Well, I like neither PA laws nor the civil rights act proscriptions on private contracts .... but like taxes and the ()U()Piofdjaue89ng Bah-stahn Red Sox, they exist.

 

[hazlnut]

Christian B&B isn’t backing down despite $80,000 fine for refusing to host gay wedding

Good don't back down to the economic terrorist acts. Stand strong.

Homophobes are not Christians.

Stop calling yourself that if you're using biblical verse out of context to justify your own fears and insecurities.

 

[hazlnut]

These so-called "Christians" are no better than the Taliban and muslim extremists.

Both misuse religious mythology and verse to justify hate.

Sickening.

 

[g5000]

So can a Rabbi refuse to officiate the wedding of two Nazis? Thanks for your help.

Yes.

The performance of religious services by members of the Clergy are not covered under Public Accommodation laws.


>>>>

So you admit that a wedding is a religious ceremony. Therefore, bakers can refuse to create cakes for them, if they feel that to do so would be an act of sacrilege. We agree.

A wedding reception is not a religious ceremony. It's a party, and you can cry if you want to.

 

[Yarddog]

The gay couple should go on a great honeymoon with the money they won.

This bed and breakfast has been flooded out 3 times and half their trees have been lost to strong winds? Maybe somebody is trying to send them a message...

If they wanted to win money, they should have had their Union in Las Vegas. The B&B was not preventing them from having a wedding, and they are not on public property. Because weddings are often regarded as a religious ceremony, both sides need to be considered. Its not the same thing as discriminating against someone based on race, Its that the B&B owners may feel that they are being forced into an action against their own religion.

 

[Yarddog]

These so-called "Christians" are no better than the Taliban and muslim extremists.

Both misuse religious mythology and verse to justify hate.

Sickening.

I dont know how you could possibly say that unless your a muslim extremist. do we really need to revisit all the butchery and rape they have been doing in the ME. your comparisson is far out

 

[WorldWatcher]

So you admit that a wedding is a religious ceremony. Therefore, bakers can refuse to create cakes for them, if they feel that to do so would be an act of sacrilege. We agree.

1. Bakers are not members of the Clergy, nor are they performing religious duties for a Church or other house of worship as part of offering cakes for sale as part of their for profit business.

2. Civil Weddings are not religious services and neither baker (Sweetcakes in Oregon or Masterpiece Cakes in Colorado) asked about what type of wedding it was going to be (according to court documents). As soon as they found out the couples were of the same sex, the refused service.


So no, I reject the premise that all weddings are a religious ceremony. Nor under the Public Accommodation laws for either Oregon or Colorado did the bakers qualify as (a) clergy officiating a religoius wedding, or (b) a non-profit religious entity.


>>>>

 

[TheOldSchool]

The gay couple should go on a great honeymoon with the money they won.

This bed and breakfast has been flooded out 3 times and half their trees have been lost to strong winds? Maybe somebody is trying to send them a message...

If they wanted to win money, they should have had their Union in Las Vegas. The B&B was not preventing them from having a wedding, and they are not on public property. Because weddings are often regarded as a religious ceremony, both sides need to be considered. Its not the same thing as discriminating against someone based on race, Its that the B&B owners may feel that they are being forced into an action against their own religion.

They didn't want to win money. They wanted to get married.