Christian bakers who refused to make cake for homosexual "wedding" break gag order

[Skylar]

Just checked my calendar. Yep, it's 2016 not 1787...

Sorry FAA, the Founders forgot to mention you...

The Constitution does not have an expiration date.

If any part of it is deemed to be outdated, then the only legitimate remedy is to ratify an amendment to it, in accordance with the process that the Constitution establishes for this purpose.

That you do not agree with any part of the Constitution, but cannot muster nearly the support that it would take to ratify an amendment, is not a valid excuse to disobey the Constitution as it currently stands.

And who says the 1st amendment is being violated by applying general laws to Christians?

You do. Citing you. And much like your insistence that you alone define what marriage is, there's no need for an amendment because you disagree. Contrary to your personal beliefs, Christianity doesn't trump all civil law.

See how that works?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Baking a cake for a gay wedding does not violate anybody's religious beliefs.

My religion says that it is immoral to participate in an evil ceremony, and they declare homosexual 'weddings' to be evil.

So how on Earth can you back up your claim that participating in a fag wedding does not violate anybody's religious beliefs?

I think what you really mean is that you dont give a shit if it violates anyone religious beliefs.

 

[Katzndogz]

Why stop with mere trampling of rights. Demand a loyalty oath to guys signed in blood and evidenced by being gay fucked on camera shown in open court.

 

[Skylar]

Behaviors aren't protected in the Constitution outside religion. Has the cult of LGBT gotten tax exempt status, declaring themselves as a religion? No? Then there is no protection. Even if there was, no religion can force others to practice it. A Christian couldn't force a member of the Church of LGBT to print giant highway billboards that read "Homosexuality is an abomination before God", for instance... A Muslim can't force a jew to advertise for "Pork, the other white meat". A Mormon can't force a Muslim to print a picture of a cartoon of Muhammed.

Bullroar. Speech is a behavior.

One that is explicitly affirmed and protected under the First Amendment, along with religion.

And inherent in the right to express what one believes and supports, is equally a right not to be compelled to express that which one does not believe or support.

Yep. They're gonna lose this one. This time, the law is clear and concise. The Constitution would have be fundamentally rewritten in two of the Amendments for the church of LGBT to get a victory on this one...

Except of course, they didn't. The Supreme Court already allowed the lower court rulings to stand and denied Cert. Exactly as they did for Kim Davis.

See, Sil....it doesn't matter what you and Bob tell each other about what the constitution means. It matters what the law and courts recognize the constitution to mean. And your pseudo-legal gibberish ignores the law and the courts and replaces both with your imagination.

Alas, your imagination is functionally irrelevant to actual legal outcomes. Which might explain why your every legal prediction, without exception, is wrong.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is why its so easy for the rw establ to lead around their supporters by the nose while they're simultaneously robbing them blind

This is a perfect example a libtard stupidity. Libs are retarded commie turds.

The issue is choice and the attack on choice. If someone doesn't want to bake a cake, I think it's very dangerous road to travel where LAWS issued to FORCE someone to do something against their choice.

This isn't just regarding cakes, this is regarding anything, to FORCE people against their wishes is an attack on personal choice.

Fascism

Exactly, the New Fascists are the Leftists....we're not talking of the 20th Century Fascism now - which is difference Winston Churchill was making in below quote - The Left have now claimed Fascism for themselves to use on US.

So when they call US Fascists WTF are they even talking about? They really are stupid and dangerously stupid. They've adopted Fascism under guise of Political Correctness.

View attachment 65007

You do realize that Churchill never said that, right?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

This is why its so easy for the rw establ to lead around their supporters by the nose while they're simultaneously robbing them blind

This is a perfect example a libtard stupidity. Libs are retarded commie turds.

The issue is choice and the attack on choice. If someone doesn't want to bake a cake, I think it's very dangerous road to travel where LAWS issued to FORCE someone to do something against their choice.

This isn't just regarding cakes, this is regarding anything, to FORCE people against their wishes is an attack on personal choice.

Fascism

Exactly, the New Fascists are the Leftists....we're not talking of the 20th Century Fascism now - which is difference Winston Churchill was making in below quote - The Left have now claimed Fascism for themselves to use on US.

So when they call US Fascists WTF are they even talking about? They really are stupid and dangerously stupid. They've adopted Fascism under guise of Political Correctness.

View attachment 65007

You do realize that Churchill never said that, right?

Didn't he?

 

[Skylar]

Why stop with mere trampling of rights. Demand a loyalty oath to guys signed in blood and evidenced by being gay fucked on camera shown in open court.

Its the same laws that apply to everyone else. Being Christian doesn't exempt you from State PA laws. Nor have they ever. Your conception of religion trumping all civil law is pseudo-legal nonsense.

Worse, you're clearly not thinking it through. As if Christians can ignore any civil law, then so can Muslims. WIth Sharia supreme over US civil law as surely as you insist Christian dogma is.

And since the bible doesn't even mention same sex marriage, nor cites wedding cakes for same sex marriages as any kind of sin......Muslims can just make up any justification they want to ignore any law.

Um, no. None of that is our system of law or constitution. Nor should be.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Selective post grabbing...I was asked this same question a few days ago and I said the same thing I am saying now. All religions no matter how stupid or antiquated etc deserve to be kept safe under the first amendment. Right up until the point we destroy ALL of them.

Who is this 'we' kimosabee?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Didn't he?

Nope.

Some Italian dude once said that 'In Italy there are two kinds of fascists; the fascists and the anti-fascists.' and I suspect this meme was a play off of that.

We could reword it as 'In the West there are two kinds of fascists; government liberals and anti-fascists.'

 

[JimBowie1958]

Since them, a shitton of PA laws have been upheld. Don't want to have to serve people who fall in protected classes, don't operate a public accommodation.

Or be patient and overthrow the government.

 

[Skylar]

Baking a cake for a gay wedding does not violate anybody's religious beliefs.

My religion says that it is immoral to participate in an evil ceremony, and they declare homosexual 'weddings' to be evil.

So how on Earth can you back up your claim that participating in a fag wedding does not violate anybody's religious beliefs?

I think what you really mean is that you dont give a shit if it violates anyone religious beliefs.

The constitution protects the free exercise of religion. And you're more than welcome to go to any Christian service you wish and practice your religion. What the constitution doesn't do....is exempt Christians (or any religion) from general laws that they don't like or disagree.

"If the "compelling interest" test is to be applied at all, then, it must be applied across the board, to all actions thought to be religiously commanded. Moreover, if "compelling interest" really means what it says (and watering it down here would subvert its rigor in the other fields where it is applied), many laws will not meet the test. Any society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy, but that danger increases in direct proportion to the society's diversity of religious beliefs, and its determination to coerce or suppress none of them."

There's a reason that Cert has been denied for all these faux 'religious liberty' cases: there's no compelling constitutional question that hasn't already been answered.

As religious belief alone isn't sufficient to exempt a Christian from general laws.

 

[Katzndogz]

A bakery is open to the public. It is covered by PA laws. A wedding is not open to the public and is not subject to PA laws. In fact no one can be compelled to attend any wedding except those chosen vendors selected for compulsion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I know it is a shock- Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.

No, the shock is still coming for the liberal establishment.

They have awakened the Dragon with all this one sided bullshit.

A person should not be compelled by law to violate his own conscience. That is the very definitionof tyranny.

And for the past fifty years Christians have been warned that the liberals would eventually get around to suppressing their religious speech and making them adapt to the amoral establishment. But they would argue about it.

Now itis in plain sight and you homos are going to have Trump all over your shit with much more to come, bubba.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Religion, idiot, is covered in not one, but TWO places specifically named as protected in the Constitution (1st & 14th Amendments). Your deviant sex behaviors, in contrast, are mentioned NOWHERE in the Constitution. And until you seek tax-exempt status as what you really are, a cult that slavishly practices a weird constantly-devolving set of "anything goes" ephemeral dogma, you have no specific protections under the Constitution. Obergefell cannot and did not rewrite the Constitution to include non-religion behaviors. It cannot, because the Judicial cannot function as the Legislature.

Sorry.

I'm not sorry. Why are you sorry?

 

[JoeMoma]

Behaviors aren't protected in the Constitution outside religion. Has the cult of LGBT gotten tax exempt status, declaring themselves as a religion? No? Then there is no protection. Even if there was, no religion can force others to practice it. A Christian couldn't force a member of the Church of LGBT to print giant highway billboards that read "Homosexuality is an abomination before God", for instance... A Muslim can't force a jew to advertise for "Pork, the other white meat". A Mormon can't force a Muslim to print a picture of a cartoon of Muhammed.

Bullroar. Speech is a behavior.

One that is explicitly affirmed and protected under the First Amendment, along with religion.

And inherent in the right to express what one believes and supports, is equally a right not to be compelled to express that which one does not believe or support.

Yep. They're gonna lose this one. This time, the law is clear and concise. The Constitution would have be fundamentally rewritten in two of the Amendments for the church of LGBT to get a victory on this one...

Except of course, they didn't. The Supreme Court already allowed the lower court rulings to stand and denied Cert. Exactly as they did for Kim Davis.

See, Sil....it doesn't matter what you and Bob tell each other about what the constitution means. It matters what the law and courts recognize the constitution to mean. And your pseudo-legal gibberish ignores the law and the courts and replaces both with your imagination.

Alas, your imagination is functionally irrelevant to actual legal outcomes. Which might explain why your every legal prediction, without exception, is wrong.

As much as I and many others may hate it, you are right for practical purposes, the constitution says what the courts and ultimately the supreme court interpret it to say. I will not be surprised if the next ruling says that the constitution means "pineapple".

 

[Katzndogz]

We might be moving towards compulsion though if the pervert deems attendance important enough. A boss, Coworker, neighbor any might find themselves under a legal compulsion to approve.

 

[JimBowie1958]

When you open a business in the public square, you must serve the public ... which includes blacks at the lunch counter and gays in the bakery, etc.

Bullshit.

Business owners have the right to refuse service to just about anyone and always have. They can refuse service for a persons attire, the state of inebriation, etc.

But now some groups have special privileges and yo have to kowtow to them or be at risk of the heavy government hand of suppression.

Take for instance all these posts where Christians are getting fired for having a Bible at their desks and the libtards say 'So what?'

They are OK with that because they hate Bible reading Christians. But let a fag get fired and it is a Constitutional crisis.

There was an incident where some lesbians in Alabama found a dog shot in their ditch in front of their home, like that never happens in a rural area. So they call the Just-us department,and BAM! they had FBI and government informants crawling all over the place! roflmao, it was hilarious.

I have worked in the Just-us department and I can promise you that they hate and despise regular every day Americans whom they refer to as rubes and Yayhoos.

There is not equality for whites or Christians today as our government is run by fags. Even many of our military bases are now run by gay men and women who make their fagotry well known and they push out straight heterosexual Christians by the droves.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hey look above folks, the typical racist Trump supporter.

Hey look above folks, the typical racist leftist ass hole.

 

[Disgruntled_American]

No Christian is forced into selling to the public. They are free to not have a business open to the public

Revelation speaks of a “mark of the beast”, that people will be compelled to accept, in order to be allowed to buy and sell—to engage in commerce.

I am coming to suspect that this mark will not be a physical or visual mark, but an ideological mark. I am increasingly seeing suggestions like this, that if one wants to engage in commerce, that one must put aside one's conscience and engage in or support activities that are overtly immoral; that those who do not want to participate in such evil are “… free to not have a business open to the public”. I am coming to suspect that in this, I am seeing the emergence of the true mark of the beast.

You bible thumpers have been calling the end of days for decades now and are always proven wrong.

So go run and his pussy like the bible thumper you are

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why do you idiots keep saying that? Of course they aren't a race.

Then you need to ejumakate your fellow butt humping fag buddies so we dont have to correct them all the god damned time.