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

[PaintMyHouse]

There is no right to make anyone else accept your marriage as valid.

Different century...

Same mentality...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Civilised societies do not term people as perverts because they do not agree with their choice of partner. freedom of speech is not a tool to promote ignorant bile.

Freedom of speech means that I have a right to observe, and to express this observation, that people who engage in sick, immoral sexual behavior are perverts. You are free to call it “hate speech” or “ignorant bile”, but doing so does not change the underlying truth, nor does it give you any valid excuse to silence me or anyone else who would tell that truth.

Apparently, your idea of a “civilized society” is one in which one has freedom of speech to express those beliefs and opinions that have popular support; but not to express that which too many people might find disagreeable. This rather misses the entire point of freedom of speech.

 

[Skylar]

Civilised societies do not term people as perverts because they do not agree with their choice of partner. freedom of speech is not a tool to promote ignorant bile.

Freedom of speech means that I have a right to observe, and to express this observation, that people who engage in sick, immoral sexual behavior are perverts. You are free to call it “hate speech” or “ignorant bile”, but doing so does not change the underlying truth, nor does it give you any valid excuse to silence me or anyone else who would tell that truth.

Apparently, your idea of a “civilized society” is one in which one has freedom of speech to express those beliefs and opinions that have popular support; but not to express that which too many people might find disagreeable. This rather misses the entire point of freedom of speech.

Your subjective opinion doesn't define 'truth'. Just your opinion. And you're more than welcome to fallaciously insist that whatever you choose to believe defines objective reality for everyone.

Just as we're more than welcome to point and laugh at such nonsense.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Free Speech, as free as we can stand it.

And that doesn't mean some big bad Beaner won't kick your butt if you're an asshole BTW.

Assault is not a protected right under the First Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Civilised societies do not term people as perverts because they do not agree with their choice of partner. freedom of speech is not a tool to promote ignorant bile.

Freedom of speech means that I have a right to observe, and to express this observation, that people who engage in sick, immoral sexual behavior are perverts. You are free to call it “hate speech” or “ignorant bile”, but doing so does not change the underlying truth, nor does it give you any valid excuse to silence me or anyone else who would tell that truth.

Apparently, your idea of a “civilized society” is one in which one has freedom of speech to express those beliefs and opinions that have popular support; but not to express that which too many people might find disagreeable. This rather misses the entire point of freedom of speech.

The truth is our society has moved beyond this issue to a more rational and quite liberal position. Are planning to continue to beat your head against a wall, which is your option of course, or deal with the fact your dog, that wouldn't hunt, has now been buried?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Free Speech, as free as we can stand it.

And that doesn't mean some big bad Beaner won't kick your butt if you're an asshole BTW.

Assault is not a protected right under the First Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution.

Nope, but don't say you weren't warned. Free Speech can be very expensive, and it can also get your ass kicked...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Religion is a behavior. Speech is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Redressing of Grievances is a Behavior.

All of which are explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment as essential rights.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there mention of any “right” to be a sick, immoral pervert, and even less, to force decent people to participate in or support a celebration of your perversion. In fact, that latter winds up being a rather blatant violation of the rights that are affirmed and protected under the First Amendment.

So we've firmly established the behaviors are not beyond constitutional protection. Excellent.

Now, are you aware of what the Constitution actually is? If no, I'll help: its an exhaustive list of powers of government. You're fallaciously citing the constitution as a exhaustive list of *rights* of people. Which the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear it isn't.

We have far more rights than are listed in the constitution. And among them is the right to marry. A right not limited to particular genders. Nor conditioned on children or the ability to have them.

Your subjective opinion of 'perversion' is gloriously irrelevant to the rights that other people possess.

The Bill of Rights is, very specifically, about rights that belong to the people,and limits that government is obligated to observe in order to avoid violating those rights. And of course it's not exhaustive; that's the point of the Ninth Amendment.

But the Ninth Amendment is not a license to make up “rights” out of thin air, and then use them as an excuse to blatantly violate rights that are explicitly enumerated and protected.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Neither Romans 1 nor Jude 1 make the slightest mention of same sex marriage or wedding cakes.

Exodus 20:15 doesn't say anything about television sets, but that doesn't mean that it's OK for someone to break into your home and steal your TV. It certainly doesn't mean that it's OK for government to compel someone by law to break into your home and steal your TV, if that person has a moral objection to stealing.

 

[Skylar]

Religion is a behavior. Speech is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Redressing of Grievances is a Behavior.

All of which are explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment as essential rights.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there mention of any “right” to be a sick, immoral pervert, and even less, to force decent people to participate in or support a celebration of your perversion. In fact, that latter winds up being a rather blatant violation of the rights that are affirmed and protected under the First Amendment.

So we've firmly established the behaviors are not beyond constitutional protection. Excellent.

Now, are you aware of what the Constitution actually is? If no, I'll help: its an exhaustive list of powers of government. You're fallaciously citing the constitution as a exhaustive list of *rights* of people. Which the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear it isn't.

We have far more rights than are listed in the constitution. And among them is the right to marry. A right not limited to particular genders. Nor conditioned on children or the ability to have them.

Your subjective opinion of 'perversion' is gloriously irrelevant to the rights that other people possess.

The Bill of Rights is, very specifically, about rights that belong to the people,and limits that government is obligated to observe in order to avoid violating those rights. And of course it's not exhaustive; that's the point of the Ninth Amendment.

"Of course its not exhaustive"? Then why, pray tell, did you cite the lack of mention of a right in the constitution as having any relevance to whether or not a given right existed?

Sigh....its like watching a dog chase its own tail.

But the Ninth Amendment is not a license to make up “rights” out of thin air, and then use them as an excuse to blatantly violate rights that are explicitly enumerated and protected.

The right to marry has enormous precedent, going back generations.

And I ask again.....who says rights have been 'blatantly violated'? Bob.....you're just doubling down on the same 'Begging the Question' fallacy that demolished all your previous arguments. As your subjective opinion no more factually establishes a 'blatant violation of rights' than it factually establishes an 'absolute' definition of marriage.

Is there anything to you but this same, silly fallacy?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Neither Romans 1 nor Jude 1 make the slightest mention of same sex marriage or wedding cakes.

Exodus 15:20 doesn't say anything about television sets, but that doesn't mean that it's OK for someone to break into your home and steal your TV. It certainly doesn't mean that it's OK for government to compel someone by law to break into your home and steal your TV, if that person has a moral objection to stealing.

Exodus 15:20
English Standard Version (ESV)
20 Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women went out after her with tambourines and dancing.

Sounds like a party to me...

 

[Skylar]

Neither Romans 1 nor Jude 1 make the slightest mention of same sex marriage or wedding cakes.

Exodus 15:20 doesn't say anything about television sets, but that doesn't mean that it's OK for someone to break into your home and steal your TV. It certainly doesn't mean that it's OK for government to compel someone by law to break into your home and steal your TV, if that person has a moral objection to stealing.

Then we've factually established that Jude 1 and Romans 1 make no mention of same sex marriage nor wedding cakes. That was easy!

Oh, and speaking of the Bible.......what does it say about divorce, adultery and marrying if you're not a virgin? Non-virgin marriages and 2nd marriages are explicitly forbidden by the Bible. Yet Cafeteria Christians still make wedding cakes for these all the time.

A Christian cherry picking his own faith for personal convenience doesn't magically become immune to general law. No thank you to your deeply hypocritical 'Christian Sharia'.

 

[Silhouette]

Then we've factually established that Jude 1 and Romans 1 make no mention of same sex marriage nor wedding cakes. That was easy!

.

Just as we've established that Loving v Virgina makes no mention of gay sex behaviors. That was easy!

Romans 1 BTW speaks of the evil of men burning in their lust towards one another...and women likewise...and Jude 1 speaks of "going after strange flesh" and how that movement as in Sodom and all the cities like it (San Francisco for example) are doomed to eternal destruction...and all that refuse to resist such an overtaking of those societies...but yeah no actual mention of "gay marriage' because such a thing having gone that far even then, in Sodom, in its completely depraved and doomed state would not have been even thought of by the homosexuals themselves there...

But I think even basic minds like yours can draw logical conclusions on God's feelings about helping out "gay marriage"...

 

[Skylar]

Then we've factually established that Jude 1 and Romans 1 make no mention of same sex marriage nor wedding cakes. That was easy!

.

Just as we've established that Loving v Virgina makes no mention of gay sex behaviors. That was easy!

Loving v. Virginia does however cite the right to marry. Which is what it was cited doing in Obergefell. And exactly what we told you it would be cited for.

See how that works?

Romans 1 BTW speaks of the evil of men burning in their lust towards one another...and women likewise...and Jude 1 speaks of "going after strange flesh" and how that movement as in Sodom and all the cities like it (San Francisco for example) are doomed to eternal destruction...and all that refuse to resist such an overtaking of those societies...but yeah no actual mention of "gay marriage' because such a thing having gone that far even then, in Sodom, in its completely depraved and doomed state would not have been even thought of by the homosexuals themselves there...

But I think even basic minds like yours can draw logical conclusions on God's feelings about helping out "gay marriage"...

If you genuinely believe that baking a cake will condemn you to eternal torment and damnation, cake baking probably isn't the right profession for you.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The bigots selectivity knows no bounds.

All that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus 9:10

 

[Inevitable]

You just have to wonder what the perverts think when they see the cake baker on the sidewalk carrying a sign calling them fags.

That would just devastate me. I mean a person in the street by my house calling me names. Oh my... The humanity.

When the person is the vendor you have contracted to perform a service for you there might be some interest to say the least.

Some interest perhaps, if they were effecting my life I'd call the police. It's illegal to harass people.

 

[Katzndogz]

You just have to wonder what the perverts think when they see the cake baker on the sidewalk carrying a sign calling them fags.

That would just devastate me. I mean a person in the street by my house calling me names. Oh my... The humanity.

When the person is the vendor you have contracted to perform a service for you there might be some interest to say the least.

Some interest perhaps, if they were effecting my life I'd call the police. It's illegal to harass people.

Over and over every court has held that a protest on a public sidewalk is perfectly legal even if in front of a private residence. There are innumerable ways to legally humiliate and embarrass someone.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not to mention totally destroying their wedding.

 

[Silhouette]

The bigots selectivity knows no bounds.

All that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus 9:10

That's the Old Testament. It is used by Christians as a historical citation; a thing Jesus came to revise. The New Testament of Jesus Christ is what Christians follow "as the gospel".

It is in the New revised edition of the Bible we find still the lingering Commandment of God not to do down the Sodom road again. Romans 1, Jude 1. To individual homosexuals reach out and make a difference. The movement trying to take over society (at its core, marriage), a big fat NO. Love the sinner, hate the sin. And for those failing to resist a cultural takeover by homosexuals (as a group, movement), they too will spend eternity in the pit of fire. God seems particularly pissed off about his matrix being tampered with. Gender blending defeats God's plan.

 

[Inevitable]

You just have to wonder what the perverts think when they see the cake baker on the sidewalk carrying a sign calling them fags.

That would just devastate me. I mean a person in the street by my house calling me names. Oh my... The humanity.

When the person is the vendor you have contracted to perform a service for you there might be some interest to say the least.

Some interest perhaps, if they were effecting my life I'd call the police. It's illegal to harass people.

Over and over every court has held that a protest on a public sidewalk is perfectly legal even if in front of a private residence. There are innumerable ways to legally humiliate and embarrass someone.

If it becomes harassment or disturbing the peace it is not. If I'm not free to move in and out of my residence than they have committed a crime. If they are making so much noise that people can't sleep they have committed a crime.

If they are just standing around with signs that say that the person that lives in this residence is homosexual I am not so sure that would bother me.

 

[Inevitable]

The bigots selectivity knows no bounds.

All that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus 9:10

That's the Old Testament. It is used by Christians as a historical citation; a thing Jesus came to revise. The New Testament of Jesus Christ is what Christians follow "as the gospel".

It is in the New revised edition of the Bible we find still the lingering Commandment of God not to do down the Sodom road again. Romans 1, Jude 1. To individual homosexuals reach out and make a difference. The movement trying to take over society (at its core, marriage), a big fat NO. Love the sinner, hate the sin. And for those failing to resist a cultural takeover by homosexuals (as a group, movement), they too will spend eternity in the pit of fire. God seems particularly pissed off about his matrix being tampered with. Gender blending defeats God's plan.

If God's plan is so easily disrupted than he isn't really God.