Farmer Prevented from Selling His Crop Because He Supports Traditional Marriage

[bodecea]

You're making comically circular arguments.

Did you think the mandate in Obamacare was unconstitutional?

Absolutely.

During an interview with George Stephanopoulos where George asked him several times about the mandate being a tax, Obama said, "No. That's not true, George. The - for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs."

Strange thing is the Supreme Court upheld the mandate using the reasoning, wait for it, that the mandate could be considered a tax. When they did that, why didn't Obama step up and say that's not what it is, you're wrong?

As far as other parts of that statement, Obama's full of shit and not very knowledgeable about the difference between auto and health insurance. He said that "we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens . . ". The subsidies one person receives that others have to pay for is just that. If the burden on someone was (fill in the blank $) before Obama care and the burden on someone is the same amount to fund subsidies, how is that not carrying a burden for someone else? Can you tell me the difference between the purpose of auto insurance and the purpose off health insurance? If you can, you'll know Obama's full of shit. If you can't, you'll realize you are.

So you were wrong about the mandate. See? You aren't the one who decides.

Apparently the black boy President was, too since he said it wasn't a tax. Why didn't he do the honorable thing by standing up and saying it absolutely is not when the Supreme Court decided? He's just like the looters after the hurricane that think taking things that don't belong to them are theirs because they have them in their possession.

You need to put your racism on the back burner in this debate. it's not helping you.

Obama's not black?

Funny how you ignore what he said.

I missed the part where Former President Obama's skin tone was relevant.

 

[bodecea]

Would love to see the evidence.

Dianne Feinstein Attacks Judicial Nominee's Catholic Faith

Feinstein argued that, based on the nature of his religion and how it was engrained in him, his catholic religion should disqualify him from being a judge and / or he would have to recuse himself during cases involving abortions.

Evidently Feinstein believes that a judge who has taken an oath to uphold, defend, and protect / enforce the Constitution will elevate his own religious beliefs above that oath and the Constitution. It is obvious in her comments that she has a laser-like focus on the issue of abortions...

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.” Feinstein is clearly hinting here at the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, a ruling that Feinstein supports so vociferously that she has even called it a “super-precedent.”

Claiming that a Christian should be disqualified for being a judge / that a Christian can not be trusted to NOT allow his own personal religious beliefs supersede the Constitution is just as arguably equivalent to claiming that a devoted liberal can not be trusted to NOT allow his / her own liberal ideology to supersede the Constitution and instead attempt to legislate from the bench.

The same concern, the same question, could be asked / brought up regarding anyone who is passionate about their beliefs, no matter what they are, religious or not....but Feinstein went THERE, questioning a Christian's ability to be a competent, fair judge based on his personal Christian faith.

Imagine if Cruz attacked the faith of a Muslim nominee. It would be 7/24 news for years.

Or accused a judge of being biased because of his Mexican ancestry.

Oh wait! That got more votes.

 

[Seawytch]

What's to ignore? It was pretty much the only kind there was over 2,000 years ago. So what? It has nothing to do with the questions posed. Your continued deflection is noted.

Things you don't like that the Bible addresses. It has to do with you claiming things the Bible says then ignoring it when you don't like. Jesus didn't mention your kind of marriage. Tell me He didn't think it was a valid kind either.

Jesus didn't mention interracial marriage either.....Tell me he didn't think it was a valid kind either.

As long as it was a man and woman, he didn't have to.

That's not what the bible says...

Acts 17

And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

God hating Leftards always think they are theologians.

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

Yes, and? What does that have to do with Divorce (which is what that passage was about) or segregation? The bible was crystal clear about divorce and was pretty clear about segregation, so much that a christians used the bible to justify segregation and slavery.

 

[Weatherman2020]

YOU MIGHT NOT BE INTERESTED IN THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG, BUT THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG IS INTERESTED IN YOU!

Jacques: Farmer gets boot for expressing his beliefs

He should convert to islam, then he will be able to.

Yep, coward left don't peep when Muslims refuse to go along with the homosexual agenda.

You show me actual examples of Muslims actually refusing to service actual homosexuals in America- I will be glad to denounce them in exactly the same manner.

(and please don't such a liar to post the lying video that claims to be exactly that in Michigan- I have watched and listened to that video- not a single bakery that makes wedding cakes actually refused to bake a wedding cake for the faux gay man.)

Million dollar question: why are the left so busy pretending to remain ignorant about their Muslim masters?

HIDDEN CAMERA: Will Muslim Bakeries Make a Gay Wedding Cake?

In Michigan where there is NO PA law protecting gays.

Retailer Lets Muslim Employees Refuse Service

In the UK....not in the US.

Muslim barber refuses to cut hair of lesbian: Whose rights trump whose? - Liberty Unyielding

In Canada.....not in the US.

Video on Muslim bakers points to double standard on gay weddings

Again...in Michigan where there is NO PA law protecting gays.

Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs

From 2007...and if you continued to follow that story, those cab drivers LOST their jobs.

Surely you can do better than that.

Dufus thinks a Christian can refuse service to homos in Michigan.

 

[RodISHI]

So you can't show me the specific location? Got it. Much like when I've asked for the location of where the Constitution says healthcare, food stamps, etc. you couldn't provide it. The 10th Amendment says things like that belong at the State level yet you big government idiots still want them at the federal level.

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

PA laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

Religious freedom brings in an entire new ball game. Hence why SCOTUS agreed to hear the Colorado baker's case.

If the baker wins, your PA laws are worthless

I hope so. It's not right that the hypocritical, hateful Christian can deny me service but I can't deny him. I hope the SCOTUS destroys decades of precedent because a small minority of "Christians" hate gays.

Hate and not wanting to take any part with them are two different issues that you are attempting to conflate.

Actually, yes, it is all about hate. These people are not doing this because the tenants of their religion dictates they do it. If it were about religion, more bakers and florists would be refusing to bake wedding cakes for the formerly divorced or other "sinners". We know this has nothing to do with "deeply held religious beliefs".

You are attempting to claim that you know the hearts and minds of everyone which is total bullshit as you again try to conflate the issues.

 

[Conservative65]

That bunch of commies who passed that ordinance are going to learn they screwed the pooch with that dumb ass law. That farmer will take it to the Supreme Court. He knows the law and Constitution are on his side. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment. (It protects the 1st)

More like the ACLU protects the first .

The only people the ACLU protects are the Free Shit Generation, deadbeats and trash.

They protect our rights more than anyone . They even take on cases for nasty people .in order to secure our rights .

Are you saying someone else has a right to what you earn?

Huh? How did you get that from supporting the ACLU ?

You said the ACLU protects our rights. Are you saying the free shit generation, deadbeats, and trash have the right to someone else's money? It's a simple question.

 

[Conservative65]

Where does the Constitution say one person has to sell to another? I need the specific location.

Federal law says it and the Constitution protects the supremacy of federal law in the Supremacy Clause.

So you can't show me the specific location? Got it. Much like when I've asked for the location of where the Constitution says healthcare, food stamps, etc. you couldn't provide it. The 10th Amendment says things like that belong at the State level yet you big government idiots still want them at the federal level.

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

PA laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

Religious freedom brings in an entire new ball game. Hence why SCOTUS agreed to hear the Colorado baker's case.

If the baker wins, your PA laws are worthless

I hope so. It's not right that the hypocritical, hateful Christian can deny me service but I can't deny him. I hope the SCOTUS destroys decades of precedent because a small minority of "Christians" hate gays.

If you own a business, I don't have a problem with you denying anyone for any reason.

 

[bodecea]

Why would he not have to mention their race? How about their religion? How about their ages?

You seem to be presuming a lot on what Jesus believed.

I DO know he condemned those who divorce......and yet we have all these modern day christians who ignore that one clear and concise bit of teaching.

I DO know he supported only heterosexual marriages . . . and yet we have all these folks claiming to know religion ignoring it.

How do you know that? Did he say "only hetero marriages, folks"?

He said man and a woman. That is the very definition of a heterosexual marriage.

Just for the record, who do you believe should determine the constitutionality of laws?

The Constitution itself.

Why do you believe the Supreme Court should do something the Constitution doesn't give them the authority to do?

It's easy. When you bleeding hearts want to institute some social welfare program, look in the Constitution to see if the federal government has the delegated authority to do it. If it's not there, refer to the 10th Amendment, also in the Constitution, that says the power to deal with it is reserved to the States. Also, don't assume that if a State chooses not to deal with it that it defaults back to the federal government.

Let's look at the example of Romneycare vs. Obamacare. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government authority to deal with healthcare, therefore, if a government entity is going to deal with it, it belongs on the State level and local if the State government so chooses to pass it down. That's Constitutional. With Romneycare, it was done at the State level according to the Constitution. While I'm not one that supports the concept, I support the Constitution and doing things according to it. I don't have to support what's being done in order to accept it being done at the proper level.

With Obamacare, no such authority was given to the federal government. In that case, not only do I not support the concept, I don't supports its existence.

Federal law says it and the Constitution protects the supremacy of federal law in the Supremacy Clause.

So you can't show me the specific location? Got it. Much like when I've asked for the location of where the Constitution says healthcare, food stamps, etc. you couldn't provide it. The 10th Amendment says things like that belong at the State level yet you big government idiots still want them at the federal level.

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

PA laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

Religious freedom brings in an entire new ball game. Hence why SCOTUS agreed to hear the Colorado baker's case.

If the baker wins, your PA laws are worthless

I hope so. It's not right that the hypocritical, hateful Christian can deny me service but I can't deny him. I hope the SCOTUS destroys decades of precedent because a small minority of "Christians" hate gays.

If you own a business, I don't have a problem with you denying anyone for any reason.

So you are against state and federal PA laws. What have you actively done to get them repealed?

 

[Conservative65]

Oh look, you're ignoring that Jesus didn't mention your type of marriage and but mentioned my type.

No, I'm acknowledging he said nothing about gays...but he did mention divorce. Why aren't divorced people being denied service by these "good Christians"?

He also mentioned marriage being between a man and a woman. Why do you ignore that?

What's to ignore? It was pretty much the only kind there was over 2,000 years ago. So what? It has nothing to do with the questions posed. Your continued deflection is noted.

Things you don't like that the Bible addresses. It has to do with you claiming things the Bible says then ignoring it when you don't like. Jesus didn't mention your kind of marriage. Tell me He didn't think it was a valid kind either.

No, that's you ignoring what is inconvenient for you to answer...like why all these so called christian merchants aren't refusing to serve other "sinners".

There was no "my kind of marriage" at the time and place that Jesus walked the earth. There were gay people but he didn't see fit to mention them. Guess it wasn't that big a deal to him. Divorce was though. It was a huge deal to him. He talked about it in no uncertain terms. Why aren't christians upset about divorced people like they are about gay people?

Why can't you accept that Jesus condoned the type marriage I have and didn't think enough of you to acknowledge the abomination your have?

 

[Seawytch]

Just what I thought.....misrepresenting: Analysis | Did Dianne Feinstein accuse a judicial nominee of being too Christian?

And yet some here have no problem with christian sharia, do they?

I have no problem with mandating this type of indecent shit goes back into the strip clubs and variety adult shows where it belongs.

Because of course- you don't want local communities to decide what is appropriate.....

1% to 3% of weirdos don't get to rule over the other 99% to 97% with their nasty shit.

Yep- that is why you don't get to tell the rest of us Americans what to do.

I sure do get to tell you what will happen to you if you try to shove your nasty shit into my space when you are uninvited.

For example?

 

[Conservative65]

I DO know he supported only heterosexual marriages . . . and yet we have all these folks claiming to know religion ignoring it.

How do you know that? Did he say "only hetero marriages, folks"?

He said man and a woman. That is the very definition of a heterosexual marriage.

Just for the record, who do you believe should determine the constitutionality of laws?

The Constitution itself.

Why do you believe the Supreme Court should do something the Constitution doesn't give them the authority to do?

It's easy. When you bleeding hearts want to institute some social welfare program, look in the Constitution to see if the federal government has the delegated authority to do it. If it's not there, refer to the 10th Amendment, also in the Constitution, that says the power to deal with it is reserved to the States. Also, don't assume that if a State chooses not to deal with it that it defaults back to the federal government.

Let's look at the example of Romneycare vs. Obamacare. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government authority to deal with healthcare, therefore, if a government entity is going to deal with it, it belongs on the State level and local if the State government so chooses to pass it down. That's Constitutional. With Romneycare, it was done at the State level according to the Constitution. While I'm not one that supports the concept, I support the Constitution and doing things according to it. I don't have to support what's being done in order to accept it being done at the proper level.

With Obamacare, no such authority was given to the federal government. In that case, not only do I not support the concept, I don't supports its existence.

So you can't show me the specific location? Got it. Much like when I've asked for the location of where the Constitution says healthcare, food stamps, etc. you couldn't provide it. The 10th Amendment says things like that belong at the State level yet you big government idiots still want them at the federal level.

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

PA laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

Religious freedom brings in an entire new ball game. Hence why SCOTUS agreed to hear the Colorado baker's case.

If the baker wins, your PA laws are worthless

I hope so. It's not right that the hypocritical, hateful Christian can deny me service but I can't deny him. I hope the SCOTUS destroys decades of precedent because a small minority of "Christians" hate gays.

If you own a business, I don't have a problem with you denying anyone for any reason.

So you are against state and federal PA laws. What have you actively done to get them repealed?

Denied serving fags.

 

[bodecea]

He should convert to islam, then he will be able to.

Yep, coward left don't peep when Muslims refuse to go along with the homosexual agenda.

You show me actual examples of Muslims actually refusing to service actual homosexuals in America- I will be glad to denounce them in exactly the same manner.

(and please don't such a liar to post the lying video that claims to be exactly that in Michigan- I have watched and listened to that video- not a single bakery that makes wedding cakes actually refused to bake a wedding cake for the faux gay man.)

Million dollar question: why are the left so busy pretending to remain ignorant about their Muslim masters?

HIDDEN CAMERA: Will Muslim Bakeries Make a Gay Wedding Cake?

In Michigan where there is NO PA law protecting gays.

Retailer Lets Muslim Employees Refuse Service

In the UK....not in the US.

Muslim barber refuses to cut hair of lesbian: Whose rights trump whose? - Liberty Unyielding

In Canada.....not in the US.

Video on Muslim bakers points to double standard on gay weddings

Again...in Michigan where there is NO PA law protecting gays.

Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs

From 2007...and if you continued to follow that story, those cab drivers LOST their jobs.

Surely you can do better than that.

Dufus thinks a Christian can refuse service to homos in Michigan.

They can.....legally. Because sexual orientation is NOT included in Michigan's PA laws. Maybe if you actually educated yourself....but wait....I saw and destroyed your links. Asking you to educate yourself is asking too much at this point.

Maybe you should go back to posting pictures of 3rd world country city slums and try to pass them off as Detroit again.

 

[Conservative65]

That's in the Constitution?

Things ONLY in the Constitution are legal?

Please, not that diversionary argument.

So you agree that something doesn't HAVE to be specifically in the Constitution to be legal. Good, RL. Progress.

Is that what I said NL? Since that's what you are, you'll never progress.

Do you really believe that in the 21st Century, using the term "N Word Lover" is an insult of some sort?

That's not the term I used.

Apparently it must be because those to which it applies get upset at the use of it. If someone gets insulted, that's their problem.

 

[RodISHI]

I have no problem with mandating this type of indecent shit goes back into the strip clubs and variety adult shows where it belongs.

Because of course- you don't want local communities to decide what is appropriate.....

1% to 3% of weirdos don't get to rule over the other 99% to 97% with their nasty shit.

Yep- that is why you don't get to tell the rest of us Americans what to do.

I sure do get to tell you what will happen to you if you try to shove your nasty shit into my space when you are uninvited.

For example?

If you went near my children with your shit would be one.

 

[bodecea]

How do you know that? Did he say "only hetero marriages, folks"?

He said man and a woman. That is the very definition of a heterosexual marriage.

Just for the record, who do you believe should determine the constitutionality of laws?

The Constitution itself.

Why do you believe the Supreme Court should do something the Constitution doesn't give them the authority to do?

It's easy. When you bleeding hearts want to institute some social welfare program, look in the Constitution to see if the federal government has the delegated authority to do it. If it's not there, refer to the 10th Amendment, also in the Constitution, that says the power to deal with it is reserved to the States. Also, don't assume that if a State chooses not to deal with it that it defaults back to the federal government.

Let's look at the example of Romneycare vs. Obamacare. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government authority to deal with healthcare, therefore, if a government entity is going to deal with it, it belongs on the State level and local if the State government so chooses to pass it down. That's Constitutional. With Romneycare, it was done at the State level according to the Constitution. While I'm not one that supports the concept, I support the Constitution and doing things according to it. I don't have to support what's being done in order to accept it being done at the proper level.

With Obamacare, no such authority was given to the federal government. In that case, not only do I not support the concept, I don't supports its existence.

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

PA laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

Religious freedom brings in an entire new ball game. Hence why SCOTUS agreed to hear the Colorado baker's case.

If the baker wins, your PA laws are worthless

I hope so. It's not right that the hypocritical, hateful Christian can deny me service but I can't deny him. I hope the SCOTUS destroys decades of precedent because a small minority of "Christians" hate gays.

If you own a business, I don't have a problem with you denying anyone for any reason.

So you are against state and federal PA laws. What have you actively done to get them repealed?

Denied serving fags.

What state are you in? In several states, that's totally legal....while we are not allowed to discriminate based on religion in ANY state.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Things you don't like that the Bible addresses. It has to do with you claiming things the Bible says then ignoring it when you don't like. Jesus didn't mention your kind of marriage. Tell me He didn't think it was a valid kind either.

Jesus didn't mention interracial marriage either.....Tell me he didn't think it was a valid kind either.

As long as it was a man and woman, he didn't have to.

That's not what the bible says...

Acts 17

And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

God hating Leftards always think they are theologians.

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

Yes, and? What does that have to do with Divorce (which is what that passage was about) or segregation? The bible was crystal clear about divorce and was pretty clear about segregation, so much that a christians used the bible to justify segregation and slavery.

Dufus, the Bible allows divorce when it should and interracial marriage was a norm then. Several famous Bible figures had interracial marriages.

 

[bodecea]

Because of course- you don't want local communities to decide what is appropriate.....

1% to 3% of weirdos don't get to rule over the other 99% to 97% with their nasty shit.

Yep- that is why you don't get to tell the rest of us Americans what to do.

I sure do get to tell you what will happen to you if you try to shove your nasty shit into my space when you are uninvited.

For example?

If you went near my children with your shit would be one.

You mean like Seawytch's and my long term marriages (20 years+) with stable children raised? Or is it our service to this country that upsets you so?

 

[RodISHI]

1% to 3% of weirdos don't get to rule over the other 99% to 97% with their nasty shit.

Yep- that is why you don't get to tell the rest of us Americans what to do.

I sure do get to tell you what will happen to you if you try to shove your nasty shit into my space when you are uninvited.

For example?

If you went near my children with your shit would be one.

You mean like Seawytch's and my long term marriages (20 years+) with stable children raised? Or is it our service to this country that upsets you so?

That is your personal problem not mine.

 

[bodecea]

Jesus didn't mention interracial marriage either.....Tell me he didn't think it was a valid kind either.

As long as it was a man and woman, he didn't have to.

That's not what the bible says...

Acts 17

And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

God hating Leftards always think they are theologians.

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

Yes, and? What does that have to do with Divorce (which is what that passage was about) or segregation? The bible was crystal clear about divorce and was pretty clear about segregation, so much that a christians used the bible to justify segregation and slavery.

Dufus, the Bible allows divorce when it should and interracial marriage was a norm then. Several famous Bible figures had interracial marriages.

Jesus said quite clearly that if one divorces except for infidelity, it's adultery. But isn't it odd how you cafeteria christians ignore that part.

 

[Weatherman2020]

He said man and a woman. That is the very definition of a heterosexual marriage.

Just for the record, who do you believe should determine the constitutionality of laws?

The Constitution itself.

Why do you believe the Supreme Court should do something the Constitution doesn't give them the authority to do?

It's easy. When you bleeding hearts want to institute some social welfare program, look in the Constitution to see if the federal government has the delegated authority to do it. If it's not there, refer to the 10th Amendment, also in the Constitution, that says the power to deal with it is reserved to the States. Also, don't assume that if a State chooses not to deal with it that it defaults back to the federal government.

Let's look at the example of Romneycare vs. Obamacare. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government authority to deal with healthcare, therefore, if a government entity is going to deal with it, it belongs on the State level and local if the State government so chooses to pass it down. That's Constitutional. With Romneycare, it was done at the State level according to the Constitution. While I'm not one that supports the concept, I support the Constitution and doing things according to it. I don't have to support what's being done in order to accept it being done at the proper level.

With Obamacare, no such authority was given to the federal government. In that case, not only do I not support the concept, I don't supports its existence.

Religious freedom brings in an entire new ball game. Hence why SCOTUS agreed to hear the Colorado baker's case.

If the baker wins, your PA laws are worthless

I hope so. It's not right that the hypocritical, hateful Christian can deny me service but I can't deny him. I hope the SCOTUS destroys decades of precedent because a small minority of "Christians" hate gays.

If you own a business, I don't have a problem with you denying anyone for any reason.

So you are against state and federal PA laws. What have you actively done to get them repealed?

Denied serving fags.

What state are you in? In several states, that's totally legal....while we are not allowed to discriminate based on religion in ANY state.

Tell us again how we can toss homos out of a business in Michigan.