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

[Disgruntled_American]

I hope the judge orders them to do community service and ban them from creating a rw panhandling acct (gofundme)

Persecution comes naturally with you liberals

Says the Ilk that whines and cries about making a cake. Piss off you whiners

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Same sex marriage is the law of the land

Bake the fucking cake and stop being such drama queens

It won't be when President Cruz appoints 3 new justices to the SCOTUS. No court is bound by the unconstitutional edicts of an out of control Court.

That would be the equivalent of saying you'll get three more to get rid of interracial marriage too. Keep dreaming. It's funny watching you cons circle jerk about getting rid of gay marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

I hope the judge orders them to do community service and ban them from creating a rw panhandling acct (gofundme)

Persecution comes naturally with you liberals

Says the Ilk that whines and cries about making a cake. Piss off you whiners

The problem with Obergefell is that it took a mistaken premise and substituted it for another without defining in the Constitution where exactly non-religious behaviors are covered to such an extent that everyone has to play along...or else.... Obergefell made (just some of the Court's favorite, but not other deviant sex) behaviors = religion & = race. Or at least it tried to. The Judicial can't make additions to the Constitution. Only the Legislature can do that.

So, we have a huge legal problem directly as a result:

1. The members of the unofficial Church of LGBT believe they have a right to force someone to bake them a "wedding" cake. Because they themselves see themselves as = a religion or = a race of people.

And

2. Religious folks who know the premise is false, know there are two specific and named protections for them in the Constitution (The 1st & 14th), who are saying "No, we aren't going to promote your behavior at the expense of our immortal souls."

And that's just the beginning. A child mental abuse/contractual prison element was also erroneously introduced without proper adjudication. Children had no representative at Obergefell as to their unique interests in the proposed revision to marriage: a contract they implicitly share with adults.

More on that here: Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States.

The Five Justices who brought this impasse on our nation should step down from the bench. They should resign.

At a minimum, Obergefell has to be reheard. It has to. The damage to our legal system and the rights of the least powerful class in our country (children) cannot be sacrificed on the PC Rainbow altar because a group of people don't want to look at the actual premise of what they're doing...

 

[rightwinger]

Gays have no choice in their sexuality

Religious people have a choice in which religion they have. If your religion says don't bake cakes for gays, choose another one

Easy isn't it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

By what authority do you claim to speak for what does or does not violate someone else's religious beliefs?

As for me, it absolutely would violate my beliefs and standards, to actively participate in or support a celebration of that which I know to be immoral. I utterly reject any claimed authority on your part to tell me otherwise.

The authority is the US Constitution, and the Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence noted above: that religion cannot be used to ignore or violate an otherwise just and proper law, whether the adherent believes that law is valid or not.

If one is going to start a business open to the general public, he needs to know and understand the regulatory laws and measures of his jurisdiction, including public accommodations law – and if that law has provisions concerning sexual orientation, the business owner needs to be prepared to accommodate gay patrons.

If he cannot abide by such measures, he's at liberty to petition through the political process to have those laws amended or repealed, or to refrain from starting a business open to the general public.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I hope the judge orders them to do community service and ban them from creating a rw panhandling acct (gofundme)

Persecution comes naturally with you liberals

It's you and most others on the right who wish to deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law, a right defended by liberals.

Bigotry and intolerance toward gay Americans manifests mostly on the right.

 

[Disgruntled_American]

I hope the judge orders them to do community service and ban them from creating a rw panhandling acct (gofundme)

Persecution comes naturally with you liberals

Says the Ilk that whines and cries about making a cake. Piss off you whiners

The problem with Obergefell is that it took a mistaken premise and substituted it for another without defining in the Constitution where exactly non-religious behaviors are covered to such an extent that everyone has to play along...or else.... Obergefell made (just some of the Court's favorite, but not other deviant sex) behaviors = religion & = race. Or at least it tried to. The Judicial can't make additions to the Constitution. Only the Legislature can do that.

So, we have a huge legal problem directly as a result:

1. The members of the unofficial Church of LGBT believe they have a right to force someone to bake them a "wedding" cake. Because they themselves see themselves as = a religion or = a race of people.

And

2. Religious folks who know the premise is false, know there are two specific and named protections for them in the Constitution (The 1st & 14th), who are saying "No, we aren't going to promote your behavior at the expense of our immortal souls."

And that's just the beginning. A child mental abuse/contractual prison element was also erroneously introduced without proper adjudication. Children had no representative at Obergefell as to their unique interests in the proposed revision to marriage: a contract they implicitly share with adults.

More on that here: Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States.

The Five Justices who brought this impasse on our nation should step down from the bench. They should resign.

At a minimum, Obergefell has to be reheard. It has to. The damage to our legal system and the rights of the least powerful class in our country (children) cannot be sacrificed on the PC Rainbow altar because a group of people don't want to look at the actual premise of what they're doing...

Nope all it has done was extend public accommodation to something that is not a choice.

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

 

[mdk]

I hope the judge orders them to do community service and ban them from creating a rw panhandling acct (gofundme)

Persecution comes naturally with you liberals

Says the Ilk that whines and cries about making a cake. Piss off you whiners

The problem with Obergefell is that it took a mistaken premise and substituted it for another without defining in the Constitution where exactly non-religious behaviors are covered to such an extent that everyone has to play along...or else.... Obergefell made (just some of the Court's favorite, but not other deviant sex) behaviors = religion & = race. Or at least it tried to. The Judicial can't make additions to the Constitution. Only the Legislature can do that.

So, we have a huge legal problem directly as a result:

1. The members of the unofficial Church of LGBT believe they have a right to force someone to bake them a "wedding" cake. Because they themselves see themselves as = a religion or = a race of people.

And

2. Religious folks who know the premise is false, know there are two specific and named protections for them in the Constitution (The 1st & 14th), who are saying "No, we aren't going to promote your behavior at the expense of our immortal souls."

And that's just the beginning. A child mental abuse/contractual prison element was also erroneously introduced without proper adjudication. Children had no representative at Obergefell as to their unique interests in the proposed revision to marriage: a contract they implicitly share with adults.

More on that here: Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States.

The Five Justices who brought this impasse on our nation should step down from the bench. They should resign.

At a minimum, Obergefell has to be reheard. It has to. The damage to our legal system and the rights of the least powerful class in our country (children) cannot be sacrificed on the PC Rainbow altar because a group of people don't want to look at the actual premise of what they're doing...

This 'huge legal problem' exists solely in your imagination.

 

[Silhouette]

Gays have no choice in their sexuality

Religious people have a choice in which religion they have. If your religion says don't bake cakes for gays, choose another one

Easy isn't it?

Really? Anne Heche has no choice in her sexuality eh?

Prove it. The burden is upon you. You don't get to armchair diagnose and then impose that diagnosis on the rest of society by damaging the Constitution, and by extension, the Republic itself...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I hope the judge orders them to do community service and ban them from creating a rw panhandling acct (gofundme)

Persecution comes naturally with you liberals

Says the Ilk that whines and cries about making a cake. Piss off you whiners

The problem with Obergefell is that it took a mistaken premise and substituted it for another without defining in the Constitution where exactly non-religious behaviors are covered to such an extent that everyone has to play along...or else.... Obergefell made (just some of the Court's favorite, but not other deviant sex) behaviors = religion & = race. Or at least it tried to. The Judicial can't make additions to the Constitution. Only the Legislature can do that.

So, we have a huge legal problem directly as a result:

1. The members of the unofficial Church of LGBT believe they have a right to force someone to bake them a "wedding" cake. Because they themselves see themselves as = a religion or = a race of people.

And

2. Religious folks who know the premise is false, know there are two specific and named protections for them in the Constitution (The 1st & 14th), who are saying "No, we aren't going to promote your behavior at the expense of our immortal souls."

And that's just the beginning. A child mental abuse/contractual prison element was also erroneously introduced without proper adjudication. Children had no representative at Obergefell as to their unique interests in the proposed revision to marriage: a contract they implicitly share with adults.

More on that here: Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States.

The Five Justices who brought this impasse on our nation should step down from the bench. They should resign.

At a minimum, Obergefell has to be reheard. It has to. The damage to our legal system and the rights of the least powerful class in our country (children) cannot be sacrificed on the PC Rainbow altar because a group of people don't want to look at the actual premise of what they're doing...

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Obergefell is the progeny of settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence dating back well over a century (see Civil Rights Cases (1883)), case law prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.

The states may not seek to deny a class of persons their fundamental rights for no other reason than who they are, absent a rational basis, objective, documented evidence in support, and pursuant to a proper legislative end.

Measures that denied gay Americans access to marriage law were devoid of a rational basis, there was no objective, documented evidence in support of denying gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, where such measures sought only to disadvantage gay Americans for no other reason than who they are, which was not a proper legislative end:

“We must conclude that [measures hostile to] homosexuals [do] not...further a proper legislative end but [seek instead] to make them unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. [Such measures] violate[] the Equal Protection Clause[of the 14th Amendment].” (Romer v. Evans)

 

[mdk]

Gays have no choice in their sexuality

Religious people have a choice in which religion they have. If your religion says don't bake cakes for gays, choose another one

Easy isn't it?

Really? Anne Heche has no choice in her sexuality eh?

Prove it. The burden is upon you. You don't get to armchair diagnose and then impose that diagnosis on the rest of society by damaging the Constitution, and by extension, the Republic itself...

You armchair diagnosed Dylan Roof as a homo before the blood was even dry in SC. Wearing a tank top and a wrist watch is all it takes to make a queer in your eyes. lol

 

[rightwinger]

Gays have no choice in their sexuality

Religious people have a choice in which religion they have. If your religion says don't bake cakes for gays, choose another one

Easy isn't it?

Really? Anne Heche has no choice in her sexuality eh?

Prove it. The burden is upon you. You don't get to armchair diagnose and then impose that diagnosis on the rest of society by damaging the Constitution, and by extension, the Republic itself...

Your religion is a choice you made.....looks like you made a bad choice

Do you remember ever making a choice to be straight? Could you be gay if you wanted to?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Gays have no choice in their sexuality

Religious people have a choice in which religion they have. If your religion says don't bake cakes for gays, choose another one

Easy isn't it?

Really? Anne Heche has no choice in her sexuality eh?

Prove it. The burden is upon you. You don't get to armchair diagnose and then impose that diagnosis on the rest of society by damaging the Constitution, and by extension, the Republic itself...

You armchair diagnosed Dylan Roof as a homo before the blood was even dry in SC. Wearing a tank top and a wrist watch is all it takes to make a queer in your eyes. lol

Only if they sashay when they walk

 

[mdk]

Gays have no choice in their sexuality

Religious people have a choice in which religion they have. If your religion says don't bake cakes for gays, choose another one

Easy isn't it?

Really? Anne Heche has no choice in her sexuality eh?

Prove it. The burden is upon you. You don't get to armchair diagnose and then impose that diagnosis on the rest of society by damaging the Constitution, and by extension, the Republic itself...

You armchair diagnosed Dylan Roof as a homo before the blood was even dry in SC. Wearing a tank top and a wrist watch is all it takes to make a queer in your eyes. lol

Only if they sashay when they walk

 

[Dot Com]

And negroes are allowed to marry white women even though you still think it is "yucky"
Welcome to 2016

LGBT is not a race of people. Repeat after me YOU ARE NOT A RACE OF PEOPLE. Point to the 14th where it talks about "just some deviant sex behaviors but not others"..

Your religion is not a race of people. In fact, it is totally voluntary

Yet, it is protected

Yeah Silhouette sheesh!!!

No wonder you've been here x amt of years but your posts don't ring a bell. I prolly started glossing over them after reading a couple and forgot to ignore you.

 

[Dot Com]

Gays have no choice in their sexuality

Religious people have a choice in which religion they have. If your religion says don't bake cakes for gays, choose another one

Easy isn't it?

Really? Anne Heche has no choice in her sexuality eh?

Prove it. The burden is upon you. You don't get to armchair diagnose and then impose that diagnosis on the rest of society by damaging the Constitution, and by extension, the Republic itself...

You armchair diagnosed Dylan Roof as a homo before the blood was even dry in SC. Wearing a tank top and a wrist watch is all it takes to make a queer in your eyes. lol

thats our Silhouette lol

 

[Silhouette]

Your religion is a choice you made.....looks like you made a bad choice

Do you remember ever making a choice to be straight? Could you be gay if you wanted to?

Very good. Religion is a choice that is protected specifically in two different locations in the Constitution, by name. Gay behaviors are not protected. The fact that you can't remember your Uncle Ernie molesting you in the broom closet that day your parents left you with him to babysit is irrelevant. Your blacked out memories aren't going to affect American law unless you have a volume of evidence to refute what behavioralists already know:

CONDITIONING AND SEXUAL BEHAVIOR: A REVIEW. Pfaus, Kippin, Centeno; Center for Studies of Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology; Concordia University: Montreal Quebec Canada:

http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

People involved with agriculture actively mold the sexual orientation, across all species of mammals, some avians and even reptiles, of certain choice breeding animals in order to facilitate easy handling for artificial insemination practices. You can orient a bull to a stuffed dummy, another steer, a certain color of halter etc. etc. using classical conditioning. There is no limit to what an animal or person can become excited to the idea of having sex with (association with orgasm, release of powerful opium-like endorphins). The unending list of human fetish behavior supports these tomes of evidence.

Good luck proving otherwise. Bulimia isn't remembered as to the origins of its original imprinting either. But that doesn't mean we should force restaurant owners to place vomit urns on tables so that bulimics don't have to feel ashamed "bullied" or "in the closet" by having to retreat to a bathroom stall as soon as they put their fork down..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gays have no choice in their sexuality

Religious people have a choice in which religion they have. If your religion says don't bake cakes for gays, choose another one

Easy isn't it?

Really? Anne Heche has no choice in her sexuality eh?

Prove it. The burden is upon you. You don't get to armchair diagnose and then impose that diagnosis on the rest of society by damaging the Constitution, and by extension, the Republic itself...

Here's your proof:

“It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of nature or personal choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant – it has no bearing whatsoever on the protected liberty of choice, where Americans have the right to make personal, private decisions concerning the conduct of their lives absent unwarranted interference by the state.

As a result your 'argument' fails, individual liberty and choice is the right being protected, and in the context of that right the choice to be gay is likewise immune from attack by the state – and safeguarded by the Constitution from you and other hateful bigots who seek to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law for no other reasons than who they are.

 

[mdk]

It was only a matter of time before 'vomit urns' entered the conversation. I am sure wolves raising children is not far behind. lol

 

[rightwinger]

Your religion is a choice you made.....looks like you made a bad choice

Do you remember ever making a choice to be straight? Could you be gay if you wanted to?

Very good. Religion is a choice that is protected specifically in two different locations in the Constitution, by name. Gay behaviors are not protected. The fact that you can't remember your Uncle Ernie molesting you in the broom closet that day your parents left you with him to babysit is irrelevant. Your blacked out memories aren't going to affect American law unless you have a volume of evidence to refute what behavioralists already know:

CONDITIONING AND SEXUAL BEHAVIOR: A REVIEW. Pfaus, Kippin, Centeno; Center for Studies of Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology; Concordia University: Montreal Quebec Canada:

http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

People involved with agriculture actively mold the sexual orientation, across all species of mammals, some avians and even reptiles, of certain choice breeding animals in order to facilitate easy handling for artificial insemination practices. You can orient a bull to a stuffed dummy, another steer, a certain color of halter etc. etc. using classical conditioning. There is no limit to what an animal or person can become excited to the idea of having sex with (association with orgasm, release of powerful opium-like endorphins). The unending list of human fetish behavior supports these tomes of evidence.

Good luck proving otherwise. Bulimia isn't remembered as to the origins of its original imprinting either. But that doesn't mean we should force restaurant owners to place vomit urns on tables so that bulimics don't have to feel ashamed "bullied" or "in the closet" by having to retreat to a bathroom stall as soon as they put their fork down..

And same sex marriage is protected by the 14 th amendment

Your religion does not agree with gay marriage....choose a religion that does and sell some cakes