Evangelical Christians Must Pay For Trading Faith For Power, Morality Lost Forever

[koshergrl]

Since my original reply apparently did not post, perhaps because I hit the wrong button, I will post again.

Yes. LGBTs can legally marry now. A wedding cake to be ceremonially cut by the newlyweds has been a staple of wedding receptions for a very long time. Wedding cakes are not "special." You are the only person I have ever come across who thinks of wedding receptions as orgies, not "most" people. I hesitate to think that people going through their marriage ceremonies are preoccupied with sex at the moment. Marriage is choosing one person as a life partner, to the exclusion of all others.

I have no idea what this "cake rape" thing is all about, even having done a quick Google search. It has a few different meanings, including inserting drugs into a cake to make a person who eats it stoned, with the objective of sexually assaulting that person.

I never said anything about "Christian rituals" and have been a participant in many.

As a heterosexual, I have never been "angry" about normal heterosexuals having "normal" heterosexual relationships, including those who are formally married. I cheer people like Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, who appear to have heterosexuality right. I love to see their pictures together. I love seeing people happy, whatever sexual orientation they may have. I am, however, against people who seek to abuse and pervert heterosexuality and the institution of marriage through power-tripping, penis-worship, the sexual grooming and chasing of children before they have a chance to become mature, educated, adults, the denigration and disrespect of one's partner, and approval of rape. Nobody is "forced" to approve of anyone else's sex life.

Your photo array is not only childish, it is really insulting of those unfortunates who have suffered from the terrible affliction of mental illness.

I could care less if crazy people are insulted.

If the cake wasn't *special* the fake victims wouldn't have insisted on one made specifically for their event. That is the definition of *special*.

*Cake rape* is the term that is used to describe the insane assertion by the fake victims that they felt *mentally raped* by being offered a case cake, instead of one made SPECIALLY for them.

The fake victims are not interested in happiness..their own or others. They are interested in racketeering.

Everyone who orders a cake for their wedding orders a "special" cake, a "special" cake ordered specifically for their event. Otherwise, heterosexual couples would simply purchase a "case cake" or buy cakes from the local supermarket to serve to their wedding guests.

These people were not "fake victims." They simply entered a bakery to order a wedding cake, as so many people do, they were refused service, and they filed complaints alleging that these bakers violated the business laws in their various states. Sounds like this was just what occurred. How is reporting discrimination "racketeering"? People who suffer discrimination and humiliation by someone else's violation of law certainly are entitled to report it. Maybe I would not use the word "rape" to describe the emotional impact on them at that time and during the events that followed, but they could have been properly served by these businesses, in accordance with both the law and their own advertising, and gone on their merry way. They should not be blamed for any of this because they are innocent. By contrast, the bakers knew through the business laws that they are required to follow what they were required to do and failed to do it. The blame falls entirely on them.

They weren't refused *service*. The cake makers failed to enter into a contract with them. They offered them a ready made cake.

I have been married. One of the things you do is go around to different bakeries. You sit down with the baker, you taste their wares, you discuss your thoughts on the design..and then you both decide whether or not to enter into an agreement. Sometimes the shopper demurs. Sometimes the baker says "no I can't do that". That's why you shop. It's an agreement entered into by two parties.

And yes, it was a special cake. Now go back through the thread and count how many times idiots (including you, I think) insisted "it wasn't special!"

And please quit forcing the false narrative that they were *refused service*. They weren't refused service at all. The bakers just refused to enter into a contract with them to create a SPECIAL cake. By your own assertion.

Can we just focus for a second on the fact that all manner of different professions refuse client contracts every day, for all sorts of reasons. They frequently do it just because they don't want to work with the client in question. Attorneys do it and advertising agencies do it, just as examples. This is not at all uncommon, but we now seem to want to go to a place where people can be forced to take jobs they don't want, for people they don't want to work for, simply because those people can claim some sort of special status that entitles them to the services of people who don't want to do business with them. I think we need to really consider how far-reaching these implications are.

So it's ok to say to someone: "I'm not serving/hiring/taking you on as a client you because you're black?" I'm not even sure that that's legal.

It's okay to say "I'm afraid I can't participate in this particular sort of ceremony in any way, my religion forbids it."

It's perfectly legal.

But the corrupt and criminal Oregon courts don't give a shit.

 

[Lysistrata]

Fags can't be married, so what they do that requires *special* cake is beyond me. Most just assume it's an orgy, since all they ever think of is depraved sex.

Take, for example, the claim of Cake Rape. Who the hell but a lesbian twat would ever even think of a cake as a violent intrusive penis? And if they do, why would they insist on having a *special* one for their orgy?

And take your own obsession over Christian rituals and normal heterosexual relationships. Why so angry about normal relations between normal people who are actually married? It's funny that heteros and males are forced to endorse the obnoxious and obvious sexual panderings of perverts...and yet you use all sorts of hateful and creepily bigoted rhetoric to reference (over and over over) the activities (which you obviously spend a lot of time thinking about) that go on between two married people in their bedroom.

You people just have no *normal* bones in your body.

Which is why I maintain you belong in mental institutions. Anybody who pitches a fit like you fanatics pitch over things like cake, and abortion, and the *right* to cut off your sons' penises... is a menace and needs to be locked up.

Put the crazies where they belong. Get them off our streets, and for God's sakes don't let them breed or be anywhere near children:

Since my original reply apparently did not post, perhaps because I hit the wrong button, I will post again.

Yes. LGBTs can legally marry now. A wedding cake to be ceremonially cut by the newlyweds has been a staple of wedding receptions for a very long time. Wedding cakes are not "special." You are the only person I have ever come across who thinks of wedding receptions as orgies, not "most" people. I hesitate to think that people going through their marriage ceremonies are preoccupied with sex at the moment. Marriage is choosing one person as a life partner, to the exclusion of all others.

I have no idea what this "cake rape" thing is all about, even having done a quick Google search. It has a few different meanings, including inserting drugs into a cake to make a person who eats it stoned, with the objective of sexually assaulting that person.

I never said anything about "Christian rituals" and have been a participant in many.

As a heterosexual, I have never been "angry" about normal heterosexuals having "normal" heterosexual relationships, including those who are formally married. I cheer people like Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, who appear to have heterosexuality right. I love to see their pictures together. I love seeing people happy, whatever sexual orientation they may have. I am, however, against people who seek to abuse and pervert heterosexuality and the institution of marriage through power-tripping, penis-worship, the sexual grooming and chasing of children before they have a chance to become mature, educated, adults, the denigration and disrespect of one's partner, and approval of rape. Nobody is "forced" to approve of anyone else's sex life.

Your photo array is not only childish, it is really insulting of those unfortunates who have suffered from the terrible affliction of mental illness.

I could care less if crazy people are insulted.

If the cake wasn't *special* the fake victims wouldn't have insisted on one made specifically for their event. That is the definition of *special*.

*Cake rape* is the term that is used to describe the insane assertion by the fake victims that they felt *mentally raped* by being offered a case cake, instead of one made SPECIALLY for them.

The fake victims are not interested in happiness..their own or others. They are interested in racketeering.

Everyone who orders a cake for their wedding orders a "special" cake, a "special" cake ordered specifically for their event. Otherwise, heterosexual couples would simply purchase a "case cake" or buy cakes from the local supermarket to serve to their wedding guests.

These people were not "fake victims." They simply entered a bakery to order a wedding cake, as so many people do, they were refused service, and they filed complaints alleging that these bakers violated the business laws in their various states. Sounds like this was just what occurred. How is reporting discrimination "racketeering"? People who suffer discrimination and humiliation by someone else's violation of law certainly are entitled to report it. Maybe I would not use the word "rape" to describe the emotional impact on them at that time and during the events that followed, but they could have been properly served by these businesses, in accordance with both the law and their own advertising, and gone on their merry way. They should not be blamed for any of this because they are innocent. By contrast, the bakers knew through the business laws that they are required to follow what they were required to do and failed to do it. The blame falls entirely on them.

They weren't refused *service*. The cake makers failed to enter into a contract with them. They offered them a ready made cake.

I have been married. One of the things you do is go around to different bakeries. You sit down with the baker, you taste their wares, you discuss your thoughts on the design..and then you both decide whether or not to enter into an agreement. Sometimes the shopper demurs. Sometimes the baker says "no I can't do that". That's why you shop. It's an agreement entered into by two parties.

And yes, it was a special cake. Now go back through the thread and count how many times idiots (including you, I think) insisted "it wasn't special!"

And please quit forcing the false narrative that they were *refused service*. They weren't refused service at all. The bakers just refused to enter into a contract with them to create a SPECIAL cake. By your own assertion.

Can we just focus for a second on the fact that all manner of different professions refuse client contracts every day, for all sorts of reasons. They frequently do it just because they don't want to work with the client in question. Attorneys do it and advertising agencies do it, just as examples. This is not at all uncommon, but we now seem to want to go to a place where people can be forced to take jobs they don't want, for people they don't want to work for, simply because those people can claim some sort of special status that entitles them to the services of people who don't want to do business with them. I think we need to really consider how far-reaching these implications are.

The Colorado law already defines the term "public accommodation:"

Universal Citation: CO Rev Stat § 24-34-601 (2016)
(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.


2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Principal Departments :: Article 34 - :: Department of Regulatory Agencies :: Part 6 - :: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation :: § 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition

The law clearly covers retail establishments.

​

 

[koshergrl]

Since my original reply apparently did not post, perhaps because I hit the wrong button, I will post again.

Yes. LGBTs can legally marry now. A wedding cake to be ceremonially cut by the newlyweds has been a staple of wedding receptions for a very long time. Wedding cakes are not "special." You are the only person I have ever come across who thinks of wedding receptions as orgies, not "most" people. I hesitate to think that people going through their marriage ceremonies are preoccupied with sex at the moment. Marriage is choosing one person as a life partner, to the exclusion of all others.

I have no idea what this "cake rape" thing is all about, even having done a quick Google search. It has a few different meanings, including inserting drugs into a cake to make a person who eats it stoned, with the objective of sexually assaulting that person.

I never said anything about "Christian rituals" and have been a participant in many.

As a heterosexual, I have never been "angry" about normal heterosexuals having "normal" heterosexual relationships, including those who are formally married. I cheer people like Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, who appear to have heterosexuality right. I love to see their pictures together. I love seeing people happy, whatever sexual orientation they may have. I am, however, against people who seek to abuse and pervert heterosexuality and the institution of marriage through power-tripping, penis-worship, the sexual grooming and chasing of children before they have a chance to become mature, educated, adults, the denigration and disrespect of one's partner, and approval of rape. Nobody is "forced" to approve of anyone else's sex life.

Your photo array is not only childish, it is really insulting of those unfortunates who have suffered from the terrible affliction of mental illness.

I could care less if crazy people are insulted.

If the cake wasn't *special* the fake victims wouldn't have insisted on one made specifically for their event. That is the definition of *special*.

*Cake rape* is the term that is used to describe the insane assertion by the fake victims that they felt *mentally raped* by being offered a case cake, instead of one made SPECIALLY for them.

The fake victims are not interested in happiness..their own or others. They are interested in racketeering.

Everyone who orders a cake for their wedding orders a "special" cake, a "special" cake ordered specifically for their event. Otherwise, heterosexual couples would simply purchase a "case cake" or buy cakes from the local supermarket to serve to their wedding guests.

These people were not "fake victims." They simply entered a bakery to order a wedding cake, as so many people do, they were refused service, and they filed complaints alleging that these bakers violated the business laws in their various states. Sounds like this was just what occurred. How is reporting discrimination "racketeering"? People who suffer discrimination and humiliation by someone else's violation of law certainly are entitled to report it. Maybe I would not use the word "rape" to describe the emotional impact on them at that time and during the events that followed, but they could have been properly served by these businesses, in accordance with both the law and their own advertising, and gone on their merry way. They should not be blamed for any of this because they are innocent. By contrast, the bakers knew through the business laws that they are required to follow what they were required to do and failed to do it. The blame falls entirely on them.

They weren't refused *service*. The cake makers failed to enter into a contract with them. They offered them a ready made cake.

I have been married. One of the things you do is go around to different bakeries. You sit down with the baker, you taste their wares, you discuss your thoughts on the design..and then you both decide whether or not to enter into an agreement. Sometimes the shopper demurs. Sometimes the baker says "no I can't do that". That's why you shop. It's an agreement entered into by two parties.

And yes, it was a special cake. Now go back through the thread and count how many times idiots (including you, I think) insisted "it wasn't special!"

And please quit forcing the false narrative that they were *refused service*. They weren't refused service at all. The bakers just refused to enter into a contract with them to create a SPECIAL cake. By your own assertion.

Can we just focus for a second on the fact that all manner of different professions refuse client contracts every day, for all sorts of reasons. They frequently do it just because they don't want to work with the client in question. Attorneys do it and advertising agencies do it, just as examples. This is not at all uncommon, but we now seem to want to go to a place where people can be forced to take jobs they don't want, for people they don't want to work for, simply because those people can claim some sort of special status that entitles them to the services of people who don't want to do business with them. I think we need to really consider how far-reaching these implications are.

The Colorado law already defines the term "public accommodation:"

Universal Citation: CO Rev Stat § 24-34-601 (2016)
(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.


2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Principal Departments :: Article 34 - :: Department of Regulatory Agencies :: Part 6 - :: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation :: § 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition

The law clearly covers retail establishments.

​

Irrelevant. That doesn't mean that people who have a place of business must accomodate every special request.

 

[Lysistrata]

I could care less if crazy people are insulted.

If the cake wasn't *special* the fake victims wouldn't have insisted on one made specifically for their event. That is the definition of *special*.

*Cake rape* is the term that is used to describe the insane assertion by the fake victims that they felt *mentally raped* by being offered a case cake, instead of one made SPECIALLY for them.

The fake victims are not interested in happiness..their own or others. They are interested in racketeering.

Everyone who orders a cake for their wedding orders a "special" cake, a "special" cake ordered specifically for their event. Otherwise, heterosexual couples would simply purchase a "case cake" or buy cakes from the local supermarket to serve to their wedding guests.

These people were not "fake victims." They simply entered a bakery to order a wedding cake, as so many people do, they were refused service, and they filed complaints alleging that these bakers violated the business laws in their various states. Sounds like this was just what occurred. How is reporting discrimination "racketeering"? People who suffer discrimination and humiliation by someone else's violation of law certainly are entitled to report it. Maybe I would not use the word "rape" to describe the emotional impact on them at that time and during the events that followed, but they could have been properly served by these businesses, in accordance with both the law and their own advertising, and gone on their merry way. They should not be blamed for any of this because they are innocent. By contrast, the bakers knew through the business laws that they are required to follow what they were required to do and failed to do it. The blame falls entirely on them.

They weren't refused *service*. The cake makers failed to enter into a contract with them. They offered them a ready made cake.

I have been married. One of the things you do is go around to different bakeries. You sit down with the baker, you taste their wares, you discuss your thoughts on the design..and then you both decide whether or not to enter into an agreement. Sometimes the shopper demurs. Sometimes the baker says "no I can't do that". That's why you shop. It's an agreement entered into by two parties.

And yes, it was a special cake. Now go back through the thread and count how many times idiots (including you, I think) insisted "it wasn't special!"

And please quit forcing the false narrative that they were *refused service*. They weren't refused service at all. The bakers just refused to enter into a contract with them to create a SPECIAL cake. By your own assertion.

Can we just focus for a second on the fact that all manner of different professions refuse client contracts every day, for all sorts of reasons. They frequently do it just because they don't want to work with the client in question. Attorneys do it and advertising agencies do it, just as examples. This is not at all uncommon, but we now seem to want to go to a place where people can be forced to take jobs they don't want, for people they don't want to work for, simply because those people can claim some sort of special status that entitles them to the services of people who don't want to do business with them. I think we need to really consider how far-reaching these implications are.

So it's ok to say to someone: "I'm not serving/hiring/taking you on as a client you because you're black?" I'm not even sure that that's legal.

It's okay to say "I'm afraid I can't participate in this particular sort of ceremony in any way, my religion forbids it."

It's perfectly legal.

But the corrupt and criminal Oregon courts don't give a shit.

Any evidence that the Oregon courts are "corrupt and criminal"?

No participation in any ceremony was required in either the Oregon or the Colorado case. I would think that a wedding cake would be finished hours, if not days, before the ceremony begins. Moreover, the marriage ceremony of the Colorado couple was to be held in Massachusetts.

 

[RWNJ]

Everyone who orders a cake for their wedding orders a "special" cake, a "special" cake ordered specifically for their event. Otherwise, heterosexual couples would simply purchase a "case cake" or buy cakes from the local supermarket to serve to their wedding guests.

These people were not "fake victims." They simply entered a bakery to order a wedding cake, as so many people do, they were refused service, and they filed complaints alleging that these bakers violated the business laws in their various states. Sounds like this was just what occurred. How is reporting discrimination "racketeering"? People who suffer discrimination and humiliation by someone else's violation of law certainly are entitled to report it. Maybe I would not use the word "rape" to describe the emotional impact on them at that time and during the events that followed, but they could have been properly served by these businesses, in accordance with both the law and their own advertising, and gone on their merry way. They should not be blamed for any of this because they are innocent. By contrast, the bakers knew through the business laws that they are required to follow what they were required to do and failed to do it. The blame falls entirely on them.

They weren't refused *service*. The cake makers failed to enter into a contract with them. They offered them a ready made cake.

I have been married. One of the things you do is go around to different bakeries. You sit down with the baker, you taste their wares, you discuss your thoughts on the design..and then you both decide whether or not to enter into an agreement. Sometimes the shopper demurs. Sometimes the baker says "no I can't do that". That's why you shop. It's an agreement entered into by two parties.

And yes, it was a special cake. Now go back through the thread and count how many times idiots (including you, I think) insisted "it wasn't special!"

And please quit forcing the false narrative that they were *refused service*. They weren't refused service at all. The bakers just refused to enter into a contract with them to create a SPECIAL cake. By your own assertion.

Can we just focus for a second on the fact that all manner of different professions refuse client contracts every day, for all sorts of reasons. They frequently do it just because they don't want to work with the client in question. Attorneys do it and advertising agencies do it, just as examples. This is not at all uncommon, but we now seem to want to go to a place where people can be forced to take jobs they don't want, for people they don't want to work for, simply because those people can claim some sort of special status that entitles them to the services of people who don't want to do business with them. I think we need to really consider how far-reaching these implications are.

So it's ok to say to someone: "I'm not serving/hiring/taking you on as a client you because you're black?" I'm not even sure that that's legal.

It's okay to say "I'm afraid I can't participate in this particular sort of ceremony in any way, my religion forbids it."

It's perfectly legal.

But the corrupt and criminal Oregon courts don't give a shit.

Any evidence that the Oregon courts are "corrupt and criminal"?

No participation in any ceremony was required in either the Oregon or the Colorado case. I would think that a wedding cake would be finished hours, if not days, before the ceremony begins. Moreover, the marriage ceremony of the Colorado couple was to be held in Massachusetts.

Irrelevant. No one can be compelled to use their artistic talents for something to which they object to. Or do you believe that a Jewish baker should be required to bake a Nazi themed cake? How about a Muslim baker being forced to bake a Jewish wedding cake? Would that be a problem?

 

[Lysistrata]

I could care less if crazy people are insulted.

If the cake wasn't *special* the fake victims wouldn't have insisted on one made specifically for their event. That is the definition of *special*.

*Cake rape* is the term that is used to describe the insane assertion by the fake victims that they felt *mentally raped* by being offered a case cake, instead of one made SPECIALLY for them.

The fake victims are not interested in happiness..their own or others. They are interested in racketeering.

Everyone who orders a cake for their wedding orders a "special" cake, a "special" cake ordered specifically for their event. Otherwise, heterosexual couples would simply purchase a "case cake" or buy cakes from the local supermarket to serve to their wedding guests.

These people were not "fake victims." They simply entered a bakery to order a wedding cake, as so many people do, they were refused service, and they filed complaints alleging that these bakers violated the business laws in their various states. Sounds like this was just what occurred. How is reporting discrimination "racketeering"? People who suffer discrimination and humiliation by someone else's violation of law certainly are entitled to report it. Maybe I would not use the word "rape" to describe the emotional impact on them at that time and during the events that followed, but they could have been properly served by these businesses, in accordance with both the law and their own advertising, and gone on their merry way. They should not be blamed for any of this because they are innocent. By contrast, the bakers knew through the business laws that they are required to follow what they were required to do and failed to do it. The blame falls entirely on them.

They weren't refused *service*. The cake makers failed to enter into a contract with them. They offered them a ready made cake.

I have been married. One of the things you do is go around to different bakeries. You sit down with the baker, you taste their wares, you discuss your thoughts on the design..and then you both decide whether or not to enter into an agreement. Sometimes the shopper demurs. Sometimes the baker says "no I can't do that". That's why you shop. It's an agreement entered into by two parties.

And yes, it was a special cake. Now go back through the thread and count how many times idiots (including you, I think) insisted "it wasn't special!"

And please quit forcing the false narrative that they were *refused service*. They weren't refused service at all. The bakers just refused to enter into a contract with them to create a SPECIAL cake. By your own assertion.

Can we just focus for a second on the fact that all manner of different professions refuse client contracts every day, for all sorts of reasons. They frequently do it just because they don't want to work with the client in question. Attorneys do it and advertising agencies do it, just as examples. This is not at all uncommon, but we now seem to want to go to a place where people can be forced to take jobs they don't want, for people they don't want to work for, simply because those people can claim some sort of special status that entitles them to the services of people who don't want to do business with them. I think we need to really consider how far-reaching these implications are.

The Colorado law already defines the term "public accommodation:"

Universal Citation: CO Rev Stat § 24-34-601 (2016)
(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.


2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Principal Departments :: Article 34 - :: Department of Regulatory Agencies :: Part 6 - :: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation :: § 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition

The law clearly covers retail establishments.

​

Irrelevant. That doesn't mean that people who have a place of business must accomodate every special request.

Actually it does. These bakeries operate storefront retail businesses. And this is the Colorado guy's website. Check it out:

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP | great cakes since 1993 | 303.763.5754

 

[koshergrl]

Everyone who orders a cake for their wedding orders a "special" cake, a "special" cake ordered specifically for their event. Otherwise, heterosexual couples would simply purchase a "case cake" or buy cakes from the local supermarket to serve to their wedding guests.

These people were not "fake victims." They simply entered a bakery to order a wedding cake, as so many people do, they were refused service, and they filed complaints alleging that these bakers violated the business laws in their various states. Sounds like this was just what occurred. How is reporting discrimination "racketeering"? People who suffer discrimination and humiliation by someone else's violation of law certainly are entitled to report it. Maybe I would not use the word "rape" to describe the emotional impact on them at that time and during the events that followed, but they could have been properly served by these businesses, in accordance with both the law and their own advertising, and gone on their merry way. They should not be blamed for any of this because they are innocent. By contrast, the bakers knew through the business laws that they are required to follow what they were required to do and failed to do it. The blame falls entirely on them.

They weren't refused *service*. The cake makers failed to enter into a contract with them. They offered them a ready made cake.

I have been married. One of the things you do is go around to different bakeries. You sit down with the baker, you taste their wares, you discuss your thoughts on the design..and then you both decide whether or not to enter into an agreement. Sometimes the shopper demurs. Sometimes the baker says "no I can't do that". That's why you shop. It's an agreement entered into by two parties.

And yes, it was a special cake. Now go back through the thread and count how many times idiots (including you, I think) insisted "it wasn't special!"

And please quit forcing the false narrative that they were *refused service*. They weren't refused service at all. The bakers just refused to enter into a contract with them to create a SPECIAL cake. By your own assertion.

Can we just focus for a second on the fact that all manner of different professions refuse client contracts every day, for all sorts of reasons. They frequently do it just because they don't want to work with the client in question. Attorneys do it and advertising agencies do it, just as examples. This is not at all uncommon, but we now seem to want to go to a place where people can be forced to take jobs they don't want, for people they don't want to work for, simply because those people can claim some sort of special status that entitles them to the services of people who don't want to do business with them. I think we need to really consider how far-reaching these implications are.

The Colorado law already defines the term "public accommodation:"

Universal Citation: CO Rev Stat § 24-34-601 (2016)
(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.


2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Principal Departments :: Article 34 - :: Department of Regulatory Agencies :: Part 6 - :: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation :: § 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition

The law clearly covers retail establishments.

​

Irrelevant. That doesn't mean that people who have a place of business must accomodate every special request.

Actually it does. These bakeries operate storefront retail businesses. And this is the Colorado guy's website. Check it out:

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP | great cakes since 1993 | 303.763.5754

No, it doesn't.
The fake victims weren't thrown out of the store. They weren't *denied cake* or *raped by cake*. They were invited to purchase a ready made cake. The owners declined entering into a contract to create an original, special cake specifically for their fake wedding.

As is their right.

And this is an Oregon case that we're talking about.

 

[Taz]

They weren't refused *service*. The cake makers failed to enter into a contract with them. They offered them a ready made cake.

I have been married. One of the things you do is go around to different bakeries. You sit down with the baker, you taste their wares, you discuss your thoughts on the design..and then you both decide whether or not to enter into an agreement. Sometimes the shopper demurs. Sometimes the baker says "no I can't do that". That's why you shop. It's an agreement entered into by two parties.

And yes, it was a special cake. Now go back through the thread and count how many times idiots (including you, I think) insisted "it wasn't special!"

And please quit forcing the false narrative that they were *refused service*. They weren't refused service at all. The bakers just refused to enter into a contract with them to create a SPECIAL cake. By your own assertion.

Can we just focus for a second on the fact that all manner of different professions refuse client contracts every day, for all sorts of reasons. They frequently do it just because they don't want to work with the client in question. Attorneys do it and advertising agencies do it, just as examples. This is not at all uncommon, but we now seem to want to go to a place where people can be forced to take jobs they don't want, for people they don't want to work for, simply because those people can claim some sort of special status that entitles them to the services of people who don't want to do business with them. I think we need to really consider how far-reaching these implications are.

So it's ok to say to someone: "I'm not serving/hiring/taking you on as a client you because you're black?" I'm not even sure that that's legal.

It's okay to say "I'm afraid I can't participate in this particular sort of ceremony in any way, my religion forbids it."

It's perfectly legal.

But the corrupt and criminal Oregon courts don't give a shit.

Any evidence that the Oregon courts are "corrupt and criminal"?

No participation in any ceremony was required in either the Oregon or the Colorado case. I would think that a wedding cake would be finished hours, if not days, before the ceremony begins. Moreover, the marriage ceremony of the Colorado couple was to be held in Massachusetts.

Irrelevant. No one can be compelled to use their artistic talents for something to which they object to. Or do you believe that a Jewish baker should be required to bake a Nazi themed cake? How about a Muslim baker being forced to bake a Jewish wedding cake? Would that be a problem?

The Muslim baker would simply bake a bomb into the Jewish cake. The Jewish baker would complain loudly but bake the nazi cake anyways (for the money). My question is: would it be ok to have a sign in your bakery window that says “we don’t serve gays or blacks”?

 

[koshergrl]

Everyone who orders a cake for their wedding orders a "special" cake, a "special" cake ordered specifically for their event. Otherwise, heterosexual couples would simply purchase a "case cake" or buy cakes from the local supermarket to serve to their wedding guests.

These people were not "fake victims." They simply entered a bakery to order a wedding cake, as so many people do, they were refused service, and they filed complaints alleging that these bakers violated the business laws in their various states. Sounds like this was just what occurred. How is reporting discrimination "racketeering"? People who suffer discrimination and humiliation by someone else's violation of law certainly are entitled to report it. Maybe I would not use the word "rape" to describe the emotional impact on them at that time and during the events that followed, but they could have been properly served by these businesses, in accordance with both the law and their own advertising, and gone on their merry way. They should not be blamed for any of this because they are innocent. By contrast, the bakers knew through the business laws that they are required to follow what they were required to do and failed to do it. The blame falls entirely on them.

They weren't refused *service*. The cake makers failed to enter into a contract with them. They offered them a ready made cake.

I have been married. One of the things you do is go around to different bakeries. You sit down with the baker, you taste their wares, you discuss your thoughts on the design..and then you both decide whether or not to enter into an agreement. Sometimes the shopper demurs. Sometimes the baker says "no I can't do that". That's why you shop. It's an agreement entered into by two parties.

And yes, it was a special cake. Now go back through the thread and count how many times idiots (including you, I think) insisted "it wasn't special!"

And please quit forcing the false narrative that they were *refused service*. They weren't refused service at all. The bakers just refused to enter into a contract with them to create a SPECIAL cake. By your own assertion.

Can we just focus for a second on the fact that all manner of different professions refuse client contracts every day, for all sorts of reasons. They frequently do it just because they don't want to work with the client in question. Attorneys do it and advertising agencies do it, just as examples. This is not at all uncommon, but we now seem to want to go to a place where people can be forced to take jobs they don't want, for people they don't want to work for, simply because those people can claim some sort of special status that entitles them to the services of people who don't want to do business with them. I think we need to really consider how far-reaching these implications are.

So it's ok to say to someone: "I'm not serving/hiring/taking you on as a client you because you're black?" I'm not even sure that that's legal.

It's okay to say "I'm afraid I can't participate in this particular sort of ceremony in any way, my religion forbids it."

It's perfectly legal.

But the corrupt and criminal Oregon courts don't give a shit.

Any evidence that the Oregon courts are "corrupt and criminal"?

No participation in any ceremony was required in either the Oregon or the Colorado case. I would think that a wedding cake would be finished hours, if not days, before the ceremony begins. Moreover, the marriage ceremony of the Colorado couple was to be held in Massachusetts.

If you create the cake that is the centerpiece of the event, then yes, you are participating.

If you specifically create a cake for that particular event, then yes you are participating.

I hate nazi scumbags who use the same sex marriage issue to destroy Christians. It's why I objected to legalizing it in the first place. I knew 10 years ago (and longer) that the only reason they care about the legalization of homo marriage is so they can use it to persecute Christians. And that's exactly what they're doing.

Put the freaks who pull this garbage behind bars.

 

[koshergrl]

Can we just focus for a second on the fact that all manner of different professions refuse client contracts every day, for all sorts of reasons. They frequently do it just because they don't want to work with the client in question. Attorneys do it and advertising agencies do it, just as examples. This is not at all uncommon, but we now seem to want to go to a place where people can be forced to take jobs they don't want, for people they don't want to work for, simply because those people can claim some sort of special status that entitles them to the services of people who don't want to do business with them. I think we need to really consider how far-reaching these implications are.

So it's ok to say to someone: "I'm not serving/hiring/taking you on as a client you because you're black?" I'm not even sure that that's legal.

It's okay to say "I'm afraid I can't participate in this particular sort of ceremony in any way, my religion forbids it."

It's perfectly legal.

But the corrupt and criminal Oregon courts don't give a shit.

Any evidence that the Oregon courts are "corrupt and criminal"?

No participation in any ceremony was required in either the Oregon or the Colorado case. I would think that a wedding cake would be finished hours, if not days, before the ceremony begins. Moreover, the marriage ceremony of the Colorado couple was to be held in Massachusetts.

Irrelevant. No one can be compelled to use their artistic talents for something to which they object to. Or do you believe that a Jewish baker should be required to bake a Nazi themed cake? How about a Muslim baker being forced to bake a Jewish wedding cake? Would that be a problem?

The Muslim baker would simply bake a bomb into the Jewish cake. The Jewish baker would complain loudly but bake the nazi cake anyways (for the money). My question is: would it be ok to have a sign in your bakery window that says “we don’t serve gays or blacks”?

Again.
They didn't refuse to serve them from the shop. They offered them what they had available.

They refused to undertake the creation of a SPECIAL cake to commemorate an event they could not in good conscience endorse.

This is all about mentally ill barfbags forcing people to violate their consciences. For yucks and giggles..because they are themselves depraved, mentally ill and foul and seek the destruction of everything that is wholesome, honest and good...starting with Christians.

 

[Lysistrata]

They weren't refused *service*. The cake makers failed to enter into a contract with them. They offered them a ready made cake.

I have been married. One of the things you do is go around to different bakeries. You sit down with the baker, you taste their wares, you discuss your thoughts on the design..and then you both decide whether or not to enter into an agreement. Sometimes the shopper demurs. Sometimes the baker says "no I can't do that". That's why you shop. It's an agreement entered into by two parties.

And yes, it was a special cake. Now go back through the thread and count how many times idiots (including you, I think) insisted "it wasn't special!"

And please quit forcing the false narrative that they were *refused service*. They weren't refused service at all. The bakers just refused to enter into a contract with them to create a SPECIAL cake. By your own assertion.

Can we just focus for a second on the fact that all manner of different professions refuse client contracts every day, for all sorts of reasons. They frequently do it just because they don't want to work with the client in question. Attorneys do it and advertising agencies do it, just as examples. This is not at all uncommon, but we now seem to want to go to a place where people can be forced to take jobs they don't want, for people they don't want to work for, simply because those people can claim some sort of special status that entitles them to the services of people who don't want to do business with them. I think we need to really consider how far-reaching these implications are.

So it's ok to say to someone: "I'm not serving/hiring/taking you on as a client you because you're black?" I'm not even sure that that's legal.

It's okay to say "I'm afraid I can't participate in this particular sort of ceremony in any way, my religion forbids it."

It's perfectly legal.

But the corrupt and criminal Oregon courts don't give a shit.

Any evidence that the Oregon courts are "corrupt and criminal"?

No participation in any ceremony was required in either the Oregon or the Colorado case. I would think that a wedding cake would be finished hours, if not days, before the ceremony begins. Moreover, the marriage ceremony of the Colorado couple was to be held in Massachusetts.

If you create the cake that is the centerpiece of the event, then yes, you are participating.

If you specifically create a cake for that particular event, then yes you are participating.

I hate nazi scumbags who use the same sex marriage issue to destroy Christians. It's why I objected to legalizing it in the first place. I knew 10 years ago (and longer) that the only reason they care about the legalization of homo marriage is so they can use it to persecute Christians. And that's exactly what they're doing.

Put the freaks who pull this garbage behind bars.

Nobody is a Nazi here, nobody is persecuting "Christians," including the fake ones, meaning the current crop of phony jackasses calling themselves "Christians" and parading around trying to harm other people, like the LGBTs. Legalization of civil marriage had, and has, nothing to do with anyone's religion. It has to do with legal standing and the relationship between the participants and civil law. Your opinion doesn't matter. Whom you like or dislike is of no consequence. Civil rights do not involve a popularity contest. I'm not sorry that you morons can't get away with running somebody else's life. If you cult types don't like it here in the U.S., I hear that the former People's Temple compound in Guyana is empty.

 

[RWNJ]

Can we just focus for a second on the fact that all manner of different professions refuse client contracts every day, for all sorts of reasons. They frequently do it just because they don't want to work with the client in question. Attorneys do it and advertising agencies do it, just as examples. This is not at all uncommon, but we now seem to want to go to a place where people can be forced to take jobs they don't want, for people they don't want to work for, simply because those people can claim some sort of special status that entitles them to the services of people who don't want to do business with them. I think we need to really consider how far-reaching these implications are.

So it's ok to say to someone: "I'm not serving/hiring/taking you on as a client you because you're black?" I'm not even sure that that's legal.

It's okay to say "I'm afraid I can't participate in this particular sort of ceremony in any way, my religion forbids it."

It's perfectly legal.

But the corrupt and criminal Oregon courts don't give a shit.

Any evidence that the Oregon courts are "corrupt and criminal"?

No participation in any ceremony was required in either the Oregon or the Colorado case. I would think that a wedding cake would be finished hours, if not days, before the ceremony begins. Moreover, the marriage ceremony of the Colorado couple was to be held in Massachusetts.

If you create the cake that is the centerpiece of the event, then yes, you are participating.

If you specifically create a cake for that particular event, then yes you are participating.

I hate nazi scumbags who use the same sex marriage issue to destroy Christians. It's why I objected to legalizing it in the first place. I knew 10 years ago (and longer) that the only reason they care about the legalization of homo marriage is so they can use it to persecute Christians. And that's exactly what they're doing.

Put the freaks who pull this garbage behind bars.

Nobody is a Nazi here, nobody is persecuting "Christians," including the fake ones, meaning the current crop of phony jackasses calling themselves "Christians" and parading around trying to harm other people, like the LGBTs. Legalization of civil marriage had, and has, nothing to do with anyone's religion. It has to do with legal standing and the relationship between the participants and civil law. Your opinion doesn't matter. Whom you like or dislike is of no consequence. Civil rights do not involve a popularity contest. I'm not sorry that you morons can't get away with running somebody else's life. If you cult types don't like it here in the U.S., I hear that the former People's Temple compound in Guyana is empty.

If gays are not attacking the religious institution of marriage, then why did they refuse our offer of a civil union with the same benefits as married couples? Make no mistake. They do not want equal treatment. They want others to accept and even endorse their perverted lifestyle under penalty of law.

 

[Lysistrata]

So it's ok to say to someone: "I'm not serving/hiring/taking you on as a client you because you're black?" I'm not even sure that that's legal.

It's okay to say "I'm afraid I can't participate in this particular sort of ceremony in any way, my religion forbids it."

It's perfectly legal.

But the corrupt and criminal Oregon courts don't give a shit.

Any evidence that the Oregon courts are "corrupt and criminal"?

No participation in any ceremony was required in either the Oregon or the Colorado case. I would think that a wedding cake would be finished hours, if not days, before the ceremony begins. Moreover, the marriage ceremony of the Colorado couple was to be held in Massachusetts.

If you create the cake that is the centerpiece of the event, then yes, you are participating.

If you specifically create a cake for that particular event, then yes you are participating.

I hate nazi scumbags who use the same sex marriage issue to destroy Christians. It's why I objected to legalizing it in the first place. I knew 10 years ago (and longer) that the only reason they care about the legalization of homo marriage is so they can use it to persecute Christians. And that's exactly what they're doing.

Put the freaks who pull this garbage behind bars.

Nobody is a Nazi here, nobody is persecuting "Christians," including the fake ones, meaning the current crop of phony jackasses calling themselves "Christians" and parading around trying to harm other people, like the LGBTs. Legalization of civil marriage had, and has, nothing to do with anyone's religion. It has to do with legal standing and the relationship between the participants and civil law. Your opinion doesn't matter. Whom you like or dislike is of no consequence. Civil rights do not involve a popularity contest. I'm not sorry that you morons can't get away with running somebody else's life. If you cult types don't like it here in the U.S., I hear that the former People's Temple compound in Guyana is empty.

If gays are not attacking the religious institution of marriage, then why did they refuse our offer of a civil union with the same benefits as married couples? Make no mistake. They do not want equal treatment. They want others to accept and even endorse their perverted lifestyle under penalty of law.

They DO want equal treatment, and they got it. If there is no difference between a civil union and a marriage, why the difference in terminology? You make it sound like people who are in something they describe as a "marriage" are actually in a "civil union." The word "marriage" is used in civil law as well as in the beliefs of various religions, but they are not the same thing. One is religious law as recognized by various religious sects, the other usage is in civil law.
Also, who was the "our" in "our offer"?

Where Christian churches, other religions stand on gay marriage

Same-sex couples who want a religious marriage can be married in a religious ceremony in various religious traditions. It's up to their religious views.

 

[koshergrl]

And they are welcome to it.

But it is not their right to force those who do not approve to serve goodies at their nuptials.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/...ntmasterpiece-cake-case-isnt-about-cakes.html

 

[RWNJ]

It's okay to say "I'm afraid I can't participate in this particular sort of ceremony in any way, my religion forbids it."

It's perfectly legal.

But the corrupt and criminal Oregon courts don't give a shit.

Any evidence that the Oregon courts are "corrupt and criminal"?

No participation in any ceremony was required in either the Oregon or the Colorado case. I would think that a wedding cake would be finished hours, if not days, before the ceremony begins. Moreover, the marriage ceremony of the Colorado couple was to be held in Massachusetts.

If you create the cake that is the centerpiece of the event, then yes, you are participating.

If you specifically create a cake for that particular event, then yes you are participating.

I hate nazi scumbags who use the same sex marriage issue to destroy Christians. It's why I objected to legalizing it in the first place. I knew 10 years ago (and longer) that the only reason they care about the legalization of homo marriage is so they can use it to persecute Christians. And that's exactly what they're doing.

Put the freaks who pull this garbage behind bars.

Nobody is a Nazi here, nobody is persecuting "Christians," including the fake ones, meaning the current crop of phony jackasses calling themselves "Christians" and parading around trying to harm other people, like the LGBTs. Legalization of civil marriage had, and has, nothing to do with anyone's religion. It has to do with legal standing and the relationship between the participants and civil law. Your opinion doesn't matter. Whom you like or dislike is of no consequence. Civil rights do not involve a popularity contest. I'm not sorry that you morons can't get away with running somebody else's life. If you cult types don't like it here in the U.S., I hear that the former People's Temple compound in Guyana is empty.

If gays are not attacking the religious institution of marriage, then why did they refuse our offer of a civil union with the same benefits as married couples? Make no mistake. They do not want equal treatment. They want others to accept and even endorse their perverted lifestyle under penalty of law.

They DO want equal treatment, and they got it. If there is no difference between a civil union and a marriage, why the difference in terminology? You make it sound like people who are in something they describe as a "marriage" are actually in a "civil union." The word "marriage" is used in civil law as well as in the beliefs of various religions, but they are not the same thing. One is religious law as recognized by various religious sects, the other usage is in civil law.
Also, who was the "our" in "our offer"?

Where Christian churches, other religions stand on gay marriage

Same-sex couples who want a religious marriage can be married in a religious ceremony in various religious traditions. It's up to their religious views.

Then why do they insisted on calling it a marriage, when it obviously isn't? A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. They can call their perverted union whatever they like, but it's not marriage.

 

[Lysistrata]

Any evidence that the Oregon courts are "corrupt and criminal"?

No participation in any ceremony was required in either the Oregon or the Colorado case. I would think that a wedding cake would be finished hours, if not days, before the ceremony begins. Moreover, the marriage ceremony of the Colorado couple was to be held in Massachusetts.

If you create the cake that is the centerpiece of the event, then yes, you are participating.

If you specifically create a cake for that particular event, then yes you are participating.

I hate nazi scumbags who use the same sex marriage issue to destroy Christians. It's why I objected to legalizing it in the first place. I knew 10 years ago (and longer) that the only reason they care about the legalization of homo marriage is so they can use it to persecute Christians. And that's exactly what they're doing.

Put the freaks who pull this garbage behind bars.

Nobody is a Nazi here, nobody is persecuting "Christians," including the fake ones, meaning the current crop of phony jackasses calling themselves "Christians" and parading around trying to harm other people, like the LGBTs. Legalization of civil marriage had, and has, nothing to do with anyone's religion. It has to do with legal standing and the relationship between the participants and civil law. Your opinion doesn't matter. Whom you like or dislike is of no consequence. Civil rights do not involve a popularity contest. I'm not sorry that you morons can't get away with running somebody else's life. If you cult types don't like it here in the U.S., I hear that the former People's Temple compound in Guyana is empty.

If gays are not attacking the religious institution of marriage, then why did they refuse our offer of a civil union with the same benefits as married couples? Make no mistake. They do not want equal treatment. They want others to accept and even endorse their perverted lifestyle under penalty of law.

They DO want equal treatment, and they got it. If there is no difference between a civil union and a marriage, why the difference in terminology? You make it sound like people who are in something they describe as a "marriage" are actually in a "civil union." The word "marriagWhe" is used in civil law as well as in the beliefs of various religions, but they are not the same thing. One is religious law as recognized by various religious sects, the other usage is in civil law.
Also, who was the "our" in "our offer"?

Where Christian churches, other religions stand on gay marriage

Same-sex couples who want a religious marriage can be married in a religious ceremony in various religious traditions. It's up to their religious views.

Then why do they insisted on calling it a marriage, when it obviously isn't? A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. They can call their perverted union whatever they like, but it's not marriage.

Why is it that that such a marriage "obviously isn't"? In civil-law terms, it is marriage. What your particular religious sect believes, that is your choice and your law within your sect's community.
It also is your sect's choice as to how to respond to those civilly-divorced persons who marry again while their first spouse is still alive, or how to respond to people whose marriage has been sanctified within your sect who then commit adultery or commit domestic abuse against their spouses, having first had their marriages sanctified by your sect. Religious law is totally separate from civil law.
I had a relative, now deceased, who married once, had a child with his spouse, and then they split. I don't know about his first wife or what kind of religious ceremony they had to sanctify their marriage, but he was a Roman Catholic, his second wife was a Roman Catholic, and his second wife, although loving him enough to agree to be his second wife, made it known to the family that she was aggrieved at having been deprived of a religious ceremony to confer a religious blessing on their union because of his status as a divorcee. The laws of the various religions are so different from the civil laws of the U.S.A. Deal with it.

 

[RWNJ]

If you create the cake that is the centerpiece of the event, then yes, you are participating.

If you specifically create a cake for that particular event, then yes you are participating.

I hate nazi scumbags who use the same sex marriage issue to destroy Christians. It's why I objected to legalizing it in the first place. I knew 10 years ago (and longer) that the only reason they care about the legalization of homo marriage is so they can use it to persecute Christians. And that's exactly what they're doing.

Put the freaks who pull this garbage behind bars.

Nobody is a Nazi here, nobody is persecuting "Christians," including the fake ones, meaning the current crop of phony jackasses calling themselves "Christians" and parading around trying to harm other people, like the LGBTs. Legalization of civil marriage had, and has, nothing to do with anyone's religion. It has to do with legal standing and the relationship between the participants and civil law. Your opinion doesn't matter. Whom you like or dislike is of no consequence. Civil rights do not involve a popularity contest. I'm not sorry that you morons can't get away with running somebody else's life. If you cult types don't like it here in the U.S., I hear that the former People's Temple compound in Guyana is empty.

If gays are not attacking the religious institution of marriage, then why did they refuse our offer of a civil union with the same benefits as married couples? Make no mistake. They do not want equal treatment. They want others to accept and even endorse their perverted lifestyle under penalty of law.

They DO want equal treatment, and they got it. If there is no difference between a civil union and a marriage, why the difference in terminology? You make it sound like people who are in something they describe as a "marriage" are actually in a "civil union." The word "marriagWhe" is used in civil law as well as in the beliefs of various religions, but they are not the same thing. One is religious law as recognized by various religious sects, the other usage is in civil law.
Also, who was the "our" in "our offer"?

Where Christian churches, other religions stand on gay marriage

Same-sex couples who want a religious marriage can be married in a religious ceremony in various religious traditions. It's up to their religious views.

Then why do they insisted on calling it a marriage, when it obviously isn't? A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. They can call their perverted union whatever they like, but it's not marriage.

Why is it that that such a marriage "obviously isn't"? In civil-law terms, it is marriage. What your particular religious sect believes, that is your choice and your law within your sect's community.
It also is your sect's choice as to how to respond to those civilly-divorced persons who marry again while their first spouse is still alive, or how to respond to people whose marriage has been sanctified within your sect who then commit adultery or commit domestic abuse against their spouses, having first had their marriages sanctified by your sect. Religious law is totally separate from civil law.
I had a relative, now deceased, who married once, had a child with his spouse, and then they split. I don't know about his first wife or what kind of religious ceremony they had to sanctify their marriage, but he was a Roman Catholic, his second wife was a Roman Catholic, and his second wife, although loving him enough to agree to be his second wife, made it known to the family that she was aggrieved at having been deprived of a religious ceremony to confer a religious blessing on their union because of his status as a divorcee. The laws of the various religions are so different from the civil laws of the U.S.A. Deal with it.

Marriage is an institution ordained by God. It is not a human invention. Queers are not married. They're just queer.

 

[Lysistrata]

Nobody is a Nazi here, nobody is persecuting "Christians," including the fake ones, meaning the current crop of phony jackasses calling themselves "Christians" and parading around trying to harm other people, like the LGBTs. Legalization of civil marriage had, and has, nothing to do with anyone's religion. It has to do with legal standing and the relationship between the participants and civil law. Your opinion doesn't matter. Whom you like or dislike is of no consequence. Civil rights do not involve a popularity contest. I'm not sorry that you morons can't get away with running somebody else's life. If you cult types don't like it here in the U.S., I hear that the former People's Temple compound in Guyana is empty.

If gays are not attacking the religious institution of marriage, then why did they refuse our offer of a civil union with the same benefits as married couples? Make no mistake. They do not want equal treatment. They want others to accept and even endorse their perverted lifestyle under penalty of law.

They DO want equal treatment, and they got it. If there is no difference between a civil union and a marriage, why the difference in terminology? You make it sound like people who are in something they describe as a "marriage" are actually in a "civil union." The word "marriagWhe" is used in civil law as well as in the beliefs of various religions, but they are not the same thing. One is religious law as recognized by various religious sects, the other usage is in civil law.
Also, who was the "our" in "our offer"?

Where Christian churches, other religions stand on gay marriage

Same-sex couples who want a religious marriage can be married in a religious ceremony in various religious traditions. It's up to their religious views.

Then why do they insisted on calling it a marriage, when it obviously isn't? A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. They can call their perverted union whatever they like, but it's not marriage.

Why is it that that such a marriage "obviously isn't"? In civil-law terms, it is marriage. What your particular religious sect believes, that is your choice and your law within your sect's community.
It also is your sect's choice as to how to respond to those civilly-divorced persons who marry again while their first spouse is still alive, or how to respond to people whose marriage has been sanctified within your sect who then commit adultery or commit domestic abuse against their spouses, having first had their marriages sanctified by your sect. Religious law is totally separate from civil law.
I had a relative, now deceased, who married once, had a child with his spouse, and then they split. I don't know about his first wife or what kind of religious ceremony they had to sanctify their marriage, but he was a Roman Catholic, his second wife was a Roman Catholic, and his second wife, although loving him enough to agree to be his second wife, made it known to the family that she was aggrieved at having been deprived of a religious ceremony to confer a religious blessing on their union because of his status as a divorcee. The laws of the various religions are so different from the civil laws of the U.S.A. Deal with it.

Marriage is an institution ordained by God. It is not a human invention. Queers are not married. They're just queer.

Only in your own head, or the heads of the leaders of your sect. Whichever, it has no place in our U.S.A. civil law.

 

[Correll]

If gays are not attacking the religious institution of marriage, then why did they refuse our offer of a civil union with the same benefits as married couples? Make no mistake. They do not want equal treatment. They want others to accept and even endorse their perverted lifestyle under penalty of law.

They DO want equal treatment, and they got it. If there is no difference between a civil union and a marriage, why the difference in terminology? You make it sound like people who are in something they describe as a "marriage" are actually in a "civil union." The word "marriagWhe" is used in civil law as well as in the beliefs of various religions, but they are not the same thing. One is religious law as recognized by various religious sects, the other usage is in civil law.
Also, who was the "our" in "our offer"?

Where Christian churches, other religions stand on gay marriage

Same-sex couples who want a religious marriage can be married in a religious ceremony in various religious traditions. It's up to their religious views.

Then why do they insisted on calling it a marriage, when it obviously isn't? A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. They can call their perverted union whatever they like, but it's not marriage.

Why is it that that such a marriage "obviously isn't"? In civil-law terms, it is marriage. What your particular religious sect believes, that is your choice and your law within your sect's community.
It also is your sect's choice as to how to respond to those civilly-divorced persons who marry again while their first spouse is still alive, or how to respond to people whose marriage has been sanctified within your sect who then commit adultery or commit domestic abuse against their spouses, having first had their marriages sanctified by your sect. Religious law is totally separate from civil law.
I had a relative, now deceased, who married once, had a child with his spouse, and then they split. I don't know about his first wife or what kind of religious ceremony they had to sanctify their marriage, but he was a Roman Catholic, his second wife was a Roman Catholic, and his second wife, although loving him enough to agree to be his second wife, made it known to the family that she was aggrieved at having been deprived of a religious ceremony to confer a religious blessing on their union because of his status as a divorcee. The laws of the various religions are so different from the civil laws of the U.S.A. Deal with it.

Marriage is an institution ordained by God. It is not a human invention. Queers are not married. They're just queer.

Only in your own head, or the heads of the leaders of your sect. Whichever, it has no place in our U.S.A. civil law.

Civil Law that for the entire existence of this nation, agreed with him.


Funny how that changed so suddenly, based on what?


Sophist word game?


Or would this be more of an Orwellian double speak?

 

[RWNJ]

If gays are not attacking the religious institution of marriage, then why did they refuse our offer of a civil union with the same benefits as married couples? Make no mistake. They do not want equal treatment. They want others to accept and even endorse their perverted lifestyle under penalty of law.

They DO want equal treatment, and they got it. If there is no difference between a civil union and a marriage, why the difference in terminology? You make it sound like people who are in something they describe as a "marriage" are actually in a "civil union." The word "marriagWhe" is used in civil law as well as in the beliefs of various religions, but they are not the same thing. One is religious law as recognized by various religious sects, the other usage is in civil law.
Also, who was the "our" in "our offer"?

Where Christian churches, other religions stand on gay marriage

Same-sex couples who want a religious marriage can be married in a religious ceremony in various religious traditions. It's up to their religious views.

Then why do they insisted on calling it a marriage, when it obviously isn't? A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. They can call their perverted union whatever they like, but it's not marriage.

Why is it that that such a marriage "obviously isn't"? In civil-law terms, it is marriage. What your particular religious sect believes, that is your choice and your law within your sect's community.
It also is your sect's choice as to how to respond to those civilly-divorced persons who marry again while their first spouse is still alive, or how to respond to people whose marriage has been sanctified within your sect who then commit adultery or commit domestic abuse against their spouses, having first had their marriages sanctified by your sect. Religious law is totally separate from civil law.
I had a relative, now deceased, who married once, had a child with his spouse, and then they split. I don't know about his first wife or what kind of religious ceremony they had to sanctify their marriage, but he was a Roman Catholic, his second wife was a Roman Catholic, and his second wife, although loving him enough to agree to be his second wife, made it known to the family that she was aggrieved at having been deprived of a religious ceremony to confer a religious blessing on their union because of his status as a divorcee. The laws of the various religions are so different from the civil laws of the U.S.A. Deal with it.

Marriage is an institution ordained by God. It is not a human invention. Queers are not married. They're just queer.

Only in your own head, or the heads of the leaders of your sect. Whichever, it has no place in our U.S.A. civil law.

Ordained by God. I don't care if you pretend not to believe in God and the sanctity of marriage. You'll learn different some day. But it will be too late to do you any good. You poor fool.