Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake; Turned Down By All

[Uncensored2008]

Really doesn't anyone read the laws?

The problem is, they did read the laws - you didn't - because you think law says whatever you want it to at any given moment.

No one is arguing that anyone has a right to deny service to Christians because they are Christians or because they ask for instance a cake celebrating Easter.

You are demanding that they be denied a cake stating "homosexuality is a sin," a statement of religious belief. You are violating the public accommodation clause of the Civil Rights act in denying service based on religion.

You picked up a club to beat your enemy with, to deny civil rights to others. Now you wail that the club has been turned back on you.

That is protected by law.

I am not sure what you consider to be the opposite but if a Christian asks a gay baker to bake a cake saying "Jesus hates fags", if the baker refuses his order, then the Christian could file a complaint or lawsuit like anyone else.

I smell an end to the unconstitutional "public accommodation" clause in general.

I said it before, you've overplayed your hand.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Who believes this nonsense? Besides, what's a "gay" bakery?

Deanie Weenie, you have a single digit IQ.

You have no hope of grasping the subject matter.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Forced to under what law.

This is what all of you seem to keep missing.

The only reason why there was any action against the bakers for refusing to bake a cake for the same gender couple is because of existing local law.

Which law requires a bakery to bake a cake with HItler on it?

Exactly the same one.

This is what you don't grasp. You think you can strip others of civil rights, and that it will have no impact on you. IF public accommodation is a club to beat Christians with, it can be turned easily enough against the leftists who brought it out.

Actually he's right here. It would a stretch to say that "gay marriage is wrong" would be covered under the religous portion of the federal public accommodations law.

Doesn't mean that these bakers weren't discriminating though. Of course they were, just as I said , discrimination is human nature. Only certain crybaby groups want the government to prevent discrimination,, the rest of us deal with it.

 

[Super_Lantern]

LMAO good for him

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually he's right here. It would a stretch to say that "gay marriage is wrong" would be covered under the religous portion of the federal public accommodations law.

Doesn't mean that these bakers weren't discriminating though. Of course they were, just as I said , discrimination is human nature. Only certain crybaby groups want the government to prevent discrimination,, the rest of us deal with it.

Sorry, the PA laws specify religion. (and say nothing of sexual preference) If PA laws can be used to force Christians to bake cakes celebrating homosexual unions, then it would be impossible to claim that religion - which is actually named - would be excluded.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Actually he's right here. It would a stretch to say that "gay marriage is wrong" would be covered under the religous portion of the federal public accommodations law.

Doesn't mean that these bakers weren't discriminating though. Of course they were, just as I said , discrimination is human nature. Only certain crybaby groups want the government to prevent discrimination,, the rest of us deal with it.

Sorry, the PA laws specify religion. (and say nothing of sexual preference) If PA laws can be used to force Christians to bake cakes celebrating homosexual unions, then it would be impossible to claim that religion - which is actually named - would be excluded.

Dude, UNDER federal PA laws you can tell a faggot to get his gay ass out of your business. He isn't protected.
It's only under certain STATE PA laws that faggots are protected.


Which is of course why the PA laws are unconstitutional.They pick and choose who gets protection, in DIRECT violation of the 14th amercement which guarantees equal protection of law to all.

 

[Syriusly]

[
You are demanding that they be denied a cake stating "homosexuality is a sin," a statement of religious belief. You are violating the public accommodation clause of the Civil Rights act in denying service based on religion..

Where did I demand that?

All I have done is point out that several persons in this thread make reference to laws without seeming to know what those laws are.

The words on the cake were "Gay Marriage is Wrong"- which is not a religious statement at all.

But if the guy wanted to file suit, or claim that he was wronged under the law- he has the right to do either.

He will fail but he has the right to be wrong.

Now if he asked to have the words on the cake read "My lord and Saviour hates fags", and the gay bakers refused to bake that cake- they would be denying service based upon the customers religion- and that would break the law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Dude, UNDER federal PA laws you can tell a faggot to get his gay ass out of your business. He isn't protected.
It's only under certain STATE PA laws that faggots are protected.


Which is of course why the PA laws are unconstitutional.They pick and choose who gets protection, in DIRECT violation of the 14th amercement which guarantees equal protection of law to all.

This was my earlier point, the left have overplayed their hand and opened these laws up to judicial review. California law cannot survive a SCOTUS review, and I suspect few other states could either.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So a religious nut goes looking for controversy & finds it?

Shocking!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Who believes this nonsense? Besides, what's a "gay" bakery?

It's where they love watching the bread rise.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[
You are demanding that they be denied a cake stating "homosexuality is a sin," a statement of religious belief. You are violating the public accommodation clause of the Civil Rights act in denying service based on religion..

Where did I demand that?

All I have done is point out that several persons in this thread make reference to laws without seeming to know what those laws are.

The words on the cake were "Gay Marriage is Wrong"- which is not a religious statement at all.

But if the guy wanted to file suit, or claim that he was wronged under the law- he has the right to do either.

He will fail but he has the right to be wrong.

Now if he asked to have the words on the cake read "My lord and Saviour hates fags", and the gay bakers refused to bake that cake- they would be denying service based upon the customers religion- and that would break the law.

Be honest, would you take the chance that a court won't decide "Gay Marriage Is Wrong" isn't based on the customer's religion? It could go either way , if the guy took it to court. Flip of the coin, literally.


If this were me, I would have targeted gay bakeries in states that had states laws precluding discrimination based on sexual preference,, and owned 13 bakeries. Just to make a point.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Where did I demand that?

All I have done is point out that several persons in this thread make reference to laws without seeming to know what those laws are.

The words on the cake were "Gay Marriage is Wrong"- which is not a religious statement at all.

But if the guy wanted to file suit, or claim that he was wronged under the law- he has the right to do either.

He will fail but he has the right to be wrong.

Now if he asked to have the words on the cake read "My lord and Saviour hates fags", and the gay bakers refused to bake that cake- they would be denying service based upon the customers religion- and that would break the law.

Of course it is a religious statement. Again, you seek to deny civil rights to some, while granting them to others. You seek the unequal application of law based on group identity. Obviously this seems natural to a collectivist, rights accrue to groups, not to people. The standing of the group in relation to the party is the element that is important. What this video shows is Christians taking you at your word - playing the game by your rules.

I wonder if the decision by the left to declare open war on the Christians was really such a wise move? I suspect the very PA laws you wield as a club against those whom you hate, will be tossed out as unconstitutional.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Dude, UNDER federal PA laws you can tell a faggot to get his gay ass out of your business. He isn't protected.
It's only under certain STATE PA laws that faggots are protected.


Which is of course why the PA laws are unconstitutional.They pick and choose who gets protection, in DIRECT violation of the 14th amercement which guarantees equal protection of law to all.

This was my earlier point, the left have overplayed their hand and opened these laws up to judicial review. California law cannot survive a SCOTUS review, and I suspect few other states could either.

You mean CA law forbidding discrimination based on sexual preference?

My friend, fighting that is a lost cause, you'd NEVER win.

The debate is going to come down to the PA laws in general,and the federal one needs to go first.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You mean CA law forbidding discrimination based on sexual preference?

My friend, fighting that is a lost cause, you'd NEVER win.

The debate is going to come down to the PA laws in general,and the federal one needs to go first.

In the SCOTUS? I disagree. I believe the California law would be quickly found incompatible with the equal protection clause of the 14th.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You mean CA law forbidding discrimination based on sexual preference?

My friend, fighting that is a lost cause, you'd NEVER win.

The debate is going to come down to the PA laws in general,and the federal one needs to go first.

In the SCOTUS? I disagree. I believe the California law would be quickly found incompatible with the equal protection clause of the 14th.

No shit but the federal PA law has to fall first, AND you can't just attack the sexual orientation aspect of the state law. EXACTLY what I said.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Actually, I think the new Congress should beat the judicial to the punch and that their first piece of legislation should be a federal law allowing gay marriage while simultaneously stripping all PA laws of any legality.

I would dare Obama to veto that bill.

 

[Nosmo King]

It is wedged right next to the right to privacy and the right to bake a cake. Have you not read the Constitution lately?

um No! For example, the Constitution does not say it is against the law to rob a bank. The Constitution does not say it is against the law to murder your neighbor. The Constitution does not say it is against the law to sell or use drugs. It does not say anyone has to believe in God or be a Christian. It does not say anything about gay marriage, nor does the Bill of Rights.

The constitution applies equally to all citizens. Marriage equality is a matter of access to contract law. Such access should never be infringed.

Could you show me where in the constitution is says that PERVERTED BUTT FUCKING FAGGOTS have the right to BASTARDIZE TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE?

Marriage is a contract in the eyes of the state. It is a contract that establishes a 'blood relationship' between two adults who do not already have such a relationship. The marriage contract brings with it certain benefits and protections not afforded to other contracts.

Two sober, committed, law abiding citizens who are of the age of majority should have access to these benefits and protections without jumping through the hoops some might impose.

There is not threat to the marriages of others. There is no threat to the institution of marriage.

Denying homosexuals these protections should, at least, show cause to why such freedoms should not be extended at least and that denial should be illegal at best.

Now, you specifically cited Christian marriage. Where in the constitution does it say Christian anything? Do you believe that those who are not Christians should be denied a marriage license as well?

If you believed any of what you just wrote, and hated Christianity with the same zeal that your progressive brethren do, then you would all be satisfied with Civil Unions that carried the same legal rights as religious marriages.

No, this is about bastardizing, ruining, smearing, demeaning and tarnishing something, i.e., Christian marriage, the same as you leftists do with anything that you feel stands in the way of advancing your agenda.

What's the argument about Christian marriage? Christian marriage, Muslim marriage, Jewish marriage, secular marriage. What is absolutely necessary is the freedom of Americans to obtain a marriage license. Religious rites are no concern of the state, no concern for anyone seeking the protections of the marriage contract. Let the religions carry on with the sanctification of marriage. But let the state grant access to the protections and benefits provided by the marriage license.

 

[Syriusly]

[
You are demanding that they be denied a cake stating "homosexuality is a sin," a statement of religious belief. You are violating the public accommodation clause of the Civil Rights act in denying service based on religion..

Where did I demand that?

All I have done is point out that several persons in this thread make reference to laws without seeming to know what those laws are.

The words on the cake were "Gay Marriage is Wrong"- which is not a religious statement at all.

But if the guy wanted to file suit, or claim that he was wronged under the law- he has the right to do either.

He will fail but he has the right to be wrong.

Now if he asked to have the words on the cake read "My lord and Saviour hates fags", and the gay bakers refused to bake that cake- they would be denying service based upon the customers religion- and that would break the law.

Be honest, would you take the chance that a court won't decide "Gay Marriage Is Wrong" isn't based on the customer's religion? It could go either way , if the guy took it to court. Flip of the coin, literally.


If this were me, I would have targeted gay bakeries in states that had states laws precluding discrimination based on sexual preference,, and owned 13 bakeries. Just to make a point.

Either way- anyone can file a lawsuit- anyone can file a complaint.

If he doesn't make a specific reference to religion he will have a hard time establishing what part of the PA he thinks was violated.

His feelings are not covered.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm not your damn brother. My brother is an honorable Conservative not a piece of shit like you.

Is that all you got? Insults? Quite a shame you didn't learn anything from your brother.

It's not an insult to call a piece of shit like you a piece of shit. Shame you don't know the difference between an insult and character identification.

You seem to be on edge. Do gay posters upset you that much?

I'm thinking it could be a case of projection. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Faggots demanding people cater to them bothers me.

Do you want to reserve your perceived right to hate? Why do you believe you have a right to discriminate? Should we roll back the clock so you can discriminate against Blacks too?

Why should law abiding, tax paying, sober adult American citizens be denied any of the services each and every other American takes for granted?

What have homosexuals done to you personally to make you have such a bitter attitude?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[
You are demanding that they be denied a cake stating "homosexuality is a sin," a statement of religious belief. You are violating the public accommodation clause of the Civil Rights act in denying service based on religion..

Where did I demand that?

All I have done is point out that several persons in this thread make reference to laws without seeming to know what those laws are.

The words on the cake were "Gay Marriage is Wrong"- which is not a religious statement at all.

But if the guy wanted to file suit, or claim that he was wronged under the law- he has the right to do either.

He will fail but he has the right to be wrong.

Now if he asked to have the words on the cake read "My lord and Saviour hates fags", and the gay bakers refused to bake that cake- they would be denying service based upon the customers religion- and that would break the law.

Be honest, would you take the chance that a court won't decide "Gay Marriage Is Wrong" isn't based on the customer's religion? It could go either way , if the guy took it to court. Flip of the coin, literally.


If this were me, I would have targeted gay bakeries in states that had states laws precluding discrimination based on sexual preference,, and owned 13 bakeries. Just to make a point.

Either way- anyone can file a lawsuit- anyone can file a complaint.

If he doesn't make a specific reference to religion he will have a hard time establishing what part of the PA he thinks was violated.

His feelings are not covered.

I'm certain his lawyer would claim religious discrimination.

Win or lose I'd like to see the suit just to see gays get a taste of their own medicine.