Gov't Forces Christians To Violate Faith

[keepitreal]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Yes, I just commented on this on another thread earlier.

When you can not exercise your religious convictions
then you do not have religious freedom!

The guy could have simply said...I'm sorry you feel that way
I will bring my business elsewhere

Discrimination of LGBTQ, and whatever other fucking letters
should only be measured against other LGBTQ

If the florist provided her services to a lesbian couple
yet, refused her services for these 2 guys....
THAT'S discrimination!

If same sex marriage was normal,
it wouldn't need to be legalized!

Abnormal does not equal normalcy
Equal rights doesn't equate to normalcy

I hope her case is overturned by the SC
and she turns around and sues those guys
for emotional distress and willful intimidation

And the florist could've simply made the fucking flowers !

Why are her convictions valid and not the gays . The gay guy has the law on his side too.

And the florist could've simply made the fucking flowers !

Why are her convictions valid and not the gays . The gay guy has the law on his side too.

And the homo could've gone to another florist
for his fucking flowers just as easily!

Obviously, perversion and same sex preferences
out weigh moral values and religious convictions,
when it comes to discrimination in the eyes of judges.

Since the judges unanimously agreed,
that the florist violated anti discrimination laws,
then churches should be forced to marry gays!

See, you give someone an inch,
then they want a mile...

Having moral and religious convictions,
isn't discrimination....
Forcing people to go against
their moral and religious convictions,
violates their constitutional rights regarding
Freedom of Religion and limiting the extent
they can exercise their religious convictions/beliefs
enfringes on their freedom of religious expression
which violates anti discrimination laws!

 

[keepitreal]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Yes, I just commented on this on another thread earlier.

When you can not exercise your religious convictions
then you do not have religious freedom!

The guy could have simply said...I'm sorry you feel that way
I will bring my business elsewhere

Discrimination of LGBTQ, and whatever other fucking letters
should only be measured against other LGBTQ

If the florist provided her services to a lesbian couple
yet, refused her services for these 2 guys....
THAT'S discrimination!

If same sex marriage was normal,
it wouldn't need to be legalized!

Abnormal does not equal normalcy
Equal rights doesn't equate to normalcy

I hope her case is overturned by the SC
and she turns around and sues those guys
for emotional distress and willful intimidation

Title II of the Civil Rights Act protecting blacks (among others) from discriminationwas challenged on "religious freedom" grounds. Those that did not wish to offer equal access to goods and services to blacks on religious grounds did not win at at the SCOTUS level. The SCOTUS had the opportunity to hear a very similar case. They refused. Why would this case be any different?

Title II of the Civil Rights Act protecting blacks (among others) from discriminationwas challenged on "religious freedom" grounds. Those that did not wish to offer equal access to goods and services to blacks on religious grounds did not win at at the SCOTUS level. The SCOTUS had the opportunity to hear a very similar case. They refused. Why would this case be any different?

What religion would that be?
Anyone who affiliated themselves to,
the most common denominations...
wouldn't be able to pass off being a racist
based on beliefs, morals and religious convictions

During the days of segregation
and throughout the civil rights movement
going to church on Sunday was a given,

you had a Nation that filled pews across America
faithfully, every Sunday, not like today,
and the majority of them did not know or serve God

According to what I've read, these 2 guys
had been long time customers in her shop
before they had asked her to make the floral arrangements
for their wedding ceremony, which she declined

She declined her involvement in their wedding ceremony
because it was in conflict of her religious beliefs.

Discrimination based on same sex marriage
constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud wrote for the court.

Well, if that's the case, how does it apply to her case
They had already been long time customers in her shop
up to the day they approached her about making
the floral arrangements for their wedding ceremony.

The court said the state’s anti-discrimination law does not
unduly burden the florist’s free exercise of religion.

Oh yes it fucking does!

Having morals, values and religious convictions
isn't discrimination....
preventing someone from exercising them is!

If she was the only florist in the state, I could understand
but, requiring people to go against their religious beliefs
instead of requiring people to find a different florist shop
isn't discrimination, it's unconstitutional and fucked up!

If you can not exercise your religious beliefs
Freedom of Religion does not exist!

The devil is alive and well
and God has the pedal to the metal!

 

[ScienceRocks]

You already violate it by wanting to hurt people daily.

You didn't learn shit from reading about Jesus.

 

[Seawytch]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Yes, I just commented on this on another thread earlier.

When you can not exercise your religious convictions
then you do not have religious freedom!

The guy could have simply said...I'm sorry you feel that way
I will bring my business elsewhere

Discrimination of LGBTQ, and whatever other fucking letters
should only be measured against other LGBTQ

If the florist provided her services to a lesbian couple
yet, refused her services for these 2 guys....
THAT'S discrimination!

If same sex marriage was normal,
it wouldn't need to be legalized!

Abnormal does not equal normalcy
Equal rights doesn't equate to normalcy

I hope her case is overturned by the SC
and she turns around and sues those guys
for emotional distress and willful intimidation

Title II of the Civil Rights Act protecting blacks (among others) from discriminationwas challenged on "religious freedom" grounds. Those that did not wish to offer equal access to goods and services to blacks on religious grounds did not win at at the SCOTUS level. The SCOTUS had the opportunity to hear a very similar case. They refused. Why would this case be any different?

Title II of the Civil Rights Act protecting blacks (among others) from discriminationwas challenged on "religious freedom" grounds. Those that did not wish to offer equal access to goods and services to blacks on religious grounds did not win at at the SCOTUS level. The SCOTUS had the opportunity to hear a very similar case. They refused. Why would this case be any different?

What religion would that be?
Anyone who affiliated themselves to,
the most common denominations...
wouldn't be able to pass off being a racist
based on beliefs, morals and religious convictions

You're kidding right? Christians wanted religious exemptions from public accommodation laws protecting blacks from discrimination just like they want special little carve outs for them to break laws designed to protect gays from discrimination.

During the days of segregation
and throughout the civil rights movement
going to church on Sunday was a given,

you had a Nation that filled pews across America
faithfully, every Sunday, not like today,
and the majority of them did not know or serve God

The racist bigots felt just as sure of their religious convictions as you are about yours. You're both equally wrong.

According to what I've read, these 2 guys
had been long time customers in her shop
before they had asked her to make the floral arrangements
for their wedding ceremony, which she declined

Yeah, she was willing to make them floral arrangements when they were dating and fucking...but marriage {gasp}, that's a bridge too far. You might even say she contributed to their relationship, providing the backdrop for their romance, enabling it if you will.

She declined her involvement in their wedding ceremony
because it was in conflict of her religious beliefs.

Discrimination based on same sex marriage
constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud wrote for the court.

Well, if that's the case, how does it apply to her case
They had already been long time customers in her shop
up to the day they approached her about making
the floral arrangements for their wedding ceremony.


The court said the state’s anti-discrimination law does not
unduly burden the florist’s free exercise of religion.

Oh yes it fucking does!

Having morals, values and religious convictions
isn't discrimination....
preventing someone from exercising them is!

If she was the only florist in the state, I could understand
but, requiring people to go against their religious beliefs
instead of requiring people to find a different florist shop
isn't discrimination, it's unconstitutional and fucked up!

If you can not exercise your religious beliefs
Freedom of Religion does not exist!

The devil is alive and well
and God has the pedal to the metal!

It doesn't matter if she was the only florist or if you couldn't swing a purse around her without hitting another florist...she broke the law. She doesn't get a special little carve out for her sky fairy any more than anyone else. Racists don't get special little carve outs for their particular brand of bigotry, why should anti gay bigots?

 

[BlindBoo]

Pure, unadulterated nonsense.

When entertainers refused to play at Trump's inauguration and the left threatened those who did, were you outraged?

When designers announced they would refuse service to the Trump women because of their creed, did you find it fair?

Why is it that the left believes they can refuse service to people based on creed but no one else can refuse based on their own beliefs?

Thin skinned Republican (so called) presidents are not on any States or Federal PA Protected list

Is that a threat?

No. You see protected people are identified by the anti-discrimination laws. Thin skinned Republican so-called presidents are not on any federal or state list of protected persons, at least none that I can find. Perhaps you know of a state that offers discrimination protection for thin skinned so-called presidents, but I don't think there are any.

Sounded like a threat against the president of the united states to me .... are you backtracking now?

Poor cupcake. Don't have a full understanding of the norms of Public Accommodation law or anti-discrimination law and what protected persons are under those laws, so you throw you hands up in the air and make wild and unsubstantiated accusations? Typical pseudo-conned..........

 

[Spare_change]

When entertainers refused to play at Trump's inauguration and the left threatened those who did, were you outraged?

When designers announced they would refuse service to the Trump women because of their creed, did you find it fair?

Why is it that the left believes they can refuse service to people based on creed but no one else can refuse based on their own beliefs?

Thin skinned Republican (so called) presidents are not on any States or Federal PA Protected list

Is that a threat?

No. You see protected people are identified by the anti-discrimination laws. Thin skinned Republican so-called presidents are not on any federal or state list of protected persons, at least none that I can find. Perhaps you know of a state that offers discrimination protection for thin skinned so-called presidents, but I don't think there are any.

Sounded like a threat against the president of the united states to me .... are you backtracking now?

Poor cupcake. Don't have a full understanding of the norms of Public Accommodation law or anti-discrimination law and what protected persons are under those laws, so you throw you hands up in the air and make wild and unsubstantiated accusations? Typical pseudo-conned..........

When entertainers refused to play at Trump's inauguration and the left threatened those who did, were you outraged?

When designers announced they would refuse service to the Trump women because of their creed, did you find it fair?

Why is it that the left believes they can refuse service to people based on creed but no one else can refuse based on their own beliefs?

Thin skinned Republican (so called) presidents are not on any States or Federal PA Protected list

Is that a threat?

No. You see protected people are identified by the anti-discrimination laws. Thin skinned Republican so-called presidents are not on any federal or state list of protected persons, at least none that I can find. Perhaps you know of a state that offers discrimination protection for thin skinned so-called presidents, but I don't think there are any.

Sounded like a threat against the president of the united states to me .... are you backtracking now?

Poor cupcake. Don't have a full understanding of the norms of Public Accommodation law or anti-discrimination law and what protected persons are under those laws, so you throw you hands up in the air and make wild and unsubstantiated accusations? Typical pseudo-conned..........

Pretty childish response - just like your veiled threat.

 

[BlindBoo]

just like your veiled threat.

The implication of a veiled threat is based on you being ignorant of what "protected persons" means.

I've found that many pseudo-Christians resort to tactics like that.

 

[Spare_change]

just like your veiled threat.

The implication of a veiled threat is based on you being ignorant of what "protected persons" means.

I've found that many pseudo-Christians resort to tactics like that.

You said - you live with it.

Are you done with your personal attacks, or is recess over?

 

[BlindBoo]

just like your veiled threat.

The implication of a veiled threat is based on you being ignorant of what "protected persons" means.

I've found that many pseudo-Christians resort to tactics like that.

You said - you live with it.

Are you done with your personal attacks, or is recess over?

I never said "you live with it"

You've repeatedly lied and accused me of some how threatening the President for pointing out that thin skinned presidents are not considered protected by any PA law, federal or state. A lying tactic I've seen many times before.......

 

[keepitreal]

What religion would that be?
Anyone who affiliated themselves to,
the most common denominations...
wouldn't be able to pass off being a racist
based on beliefs, morals and religious convictions

You're kidding right? Christians wanted religious exemptions from public accommodation laws protecting blacks from discrimination just like they want special little carve outs for them to break laws designed to protect gays from discrimination.

Kidding about what? My response was to....

Title II of the Civil Rights Act protecting blacks (among others) from discriminationwas challenged on "religious freedom" grounds. Those that did not wish to offer equal access to goods and services to blacks on religious grounds did not win at at the SCOTUS level. The SCOTUS had the opportunity to hear a very similar case. They refused. Why would this case be any differen

You said they didn't win on grounds of religious freedom
and I concurred, racism has no place in religion

During the days of segregation
and throughout the civil rights movement
going to church on Sunday was a given,

you had a Nation that filled pews across America
faithfully, every Sunday, not like today,
and the majority of them did not know or serve God

The racist bigots felt just as sure of their religious convictions as you are about yours. You're both equally wrong.

Again, my point was racism is racism
Discrimination against blacks, the cruelty and humiliation
they endured and were subjected to, was not by anyone
with religious convictions, sitting in church every week
and treating blacks as shit because of the color of their skin
did not reflect God, it was a reflection of satan

You don't know what my convictions are
if you assume they apply to race and skin color

Of course we have to be wrong,
how else could those eradicate, what little is left
of traditional morals, values and decency

other then, by redefining marriage,
redefining decency, redefining perversion,
redefining what is seen and heard on tv or the radio

then rewriting or creating laws to protect
perversion, indecency and moral decay
so values, morals and decency become discriminatory

According to what I've read, these 2 guys
had been long time customers in her shop
before they had asked her to make the floral arrangements
for their wedding ceremony, which she declined

Yeah, she was willing to make them floral arrangements when they were dating and fucking...but marriage {gasp}, that's a bridge too far. You might even say she contributed to their relationship, providing the backdrop for their romance, enabling it if you will.

Selling flowers or arrangements that are for someone to give
and creating the flower arrangements for a same sex marriage,
a ceremony which is celebrating 2 guys getting married,
are two totally different situations, if you will

She declined her involvement in their wedding ceremony
because it was in conflict of her religious beliefs.

It doesn't matter if she was the only florist or if you couldn't swing a purse around her without hitting another florist...she broke the law. She doesn't get a special little carve out for her sky fairy any more than anyone else. Racists don't get special little carve outs for their particular brand of bigotry, why should anti gay bigots?

I'm sorry, I'm anti forcing shit on society
so others can feel better about their perverted lifestyle

 

[bendog]

Thin skinned Republican (so called) presidents are not on any States or Federal PA Protected list

Is that a threat?

No. You see protected people are identified by the anti-discrimination laws. Thin skinned Republican so-called presidents are not on any federal or state list of protected persons, at least none that I can find. Perhaps you know of a state that offers discrimination protection for thin skinned so-called presidents, but I don't think there are any.

Sounded like a threat against the president of the united states to me .... are you backtracking now?

Poor cupcake. Don't have a full understanding of the norms of Public Accommodation law or anti-discrimination law and what protected persons are under those laws, so you throw you hands up in the air and make wild and unsubstantiated accusations? Typical pseudo-conned..........

Thin skinned Republican (so called) presidents are not on any States or Federal PA Protected list

Is that a threat?

No. You see protected people are identified by the anti-discrimination laws. Thin skinned Republican so-called presidents are not on any federal or state list of protected persons, at least none that I can find. Perhaps you know of a state that offers discrimination protection for thin skinned so-called presidents, but I don't think there are any.

Sounded like a threat against the president of the united states to me .... are you backtracking now?

Poor cupcake. Don't have a full understanding of the norms of Public Accommodation law or anti-discrimination law and what protected persons are under those laws, so you throw you hands up in the air and make wild and unsubstantiated accusations? Typical pseudo-conned..........

Pretty childish response - just like your veiled threat.

I see no choice but to truly put these so called Christians to the test. The Strappado and Judas Cradle must ride again!

 

[Spare_change]

just like your veiled threat.

The implication of a veiled threat is based on you being ignorant of what "protected persons" means.

I've found that many pseudo-Christians resort to tactics like that.

You said - you live with it.

Are you done with your personal attacks, or is recess over?

I never said "you live with it"

You've repeatedly lied and accused me of some how threatening the President for pointing out that thin skinned presidents are not considered protected by any PA law, federal or state. A lying tactic I've seen many times before.......

My apologies ... I misspoke.

You said IT - you live with it.

As for the rest of your whining .... meh!

 

[BlindBoo]

just like your veiled threat.

The implication of a veiled threat is based on you being ignorant of what "protected persons" means.

I've found that many pseudo-Christians resort to tactics like that.

You said - you live with it.

Are you done with your personal attacks, or is recess over?

I never said "you live with it"

You've repeatedly lied and accused me of some how threatening the President for pointing out that thin skinned presidents are not considered protected by any PA law, federal or state. A lying tactic I've seen many times before.......

My apologies ... I misspoke.

You said IT - you live with it.

As for the rest of your whining .... meh!

Prove IT.

Prove that saying : "Thin skinned Republican (so called) presidents are not on any States or Federal PA Protected list" is a threat or even a veiled threat.

 

[BlindBoo]

Strappado and Judas Cradle

I don't want to know, I don't want to know.......

 

[Moonglow]

I still can't work out why same sex people need to marry each other.

same with opposite sex couples,marriage only puts a fly in the ointment..

 

[Seawytch]

What religion would that be?
Anyone who affiliated themselves to,
the most common denominations...
wouldn't be able to pass off being a racist
based on beliefs, morals and religious convictions

You're kidding right? Christians wanted religious exemptions from public accommodation laws protecting blacks from discrimination just like they want special little carve outs for them to break laws designed to protect gays from discrimination.

Kidding about what? My response was to....

Title II of the Civil Rights Act protecting blacks (among others) from discriminationwas challenged on "religious freedom" grounds. Those that did not wish to offer equal access to goods and services to blacks on religious grounds did not win at at the SCOTUS level. The SCOTUS had the opportunity to hear a very similar case. They refused. Why would this case be any differen

You said they didn't win on grounds of religious freedom
and I concurred, racism has no place in religion

Neither does homophobia, but both exist in the same religions. Racist believe the Bible backs them up just as much as it backs up homophobes.

Again, my point was racism is racism
Discrimination against blacks, the cruelty and humiliation
they endured and were subjected to, was not by anyone
with religious convictions, sitting in church every week
and treating blacks as shit because of the color of their skin
did not reflect God, it was a reflection of satan

That's YOUR opinion. They think they are just as godly and justified as you believe you are.

other then, by redefining marriage,
redefining decency, redefining perversion,
redefining what is seen and heard on tv or the radio

then rewriting or creating laws to protect
perversion, indecency and moral decay
so values, morals and decency become discriminatory

The definition of marriage hasn't changed, it just accommodates more people now.

Nothing indecent or immoral about consenting adults marrying each other. Quite the opposite in fact.

I'm sorry, I'm anti forcing shit on society
so others can feel better about their perverted lifestyle

Yeah, that's what racists said about interracial marriage. Same bigots, different targets.

 

[bendog]

Strappado and Judas Cradle

I don't want to know, I don't want to know.......

Yes. And I'm not a fan of public accomodations laws, and I still think Goldwater was right the use of the interstate commerce clause to regulate private citizens's refusals to serve people for race religion and color was a protected exercise of const rigjts; But we have people hypothesizing that maybe some transgender high school male just wants a peak inside the girls bathroom, so if That is really an issue, why not put these divorce supporting "Christens" to the test? (-:

 

[Silhouette]

Hopefully Gorsuch will be on the Court by the time her case makes it there....this needs to be fixed right away.......you do not give up your 1st Amendment Right to freedom of religion simply because you open a business.........

Correct. An impartial Court will review whether or not "gay" constitutes an inborn trait or merely an addictive sex behavior. From that starting point, they will determine whether or not Christians must play along or face fines/jail time what have you.

^^ That is simply what the case will in fact boil down to. From the get-go the LGBT cult sold the courts on the wrong premise: "born that way". They aren't. And I can prove it in court. I can't imagine how much easier that will be for a skilled attorney. I know a set of identical twin girls. One grew up to be a lesbian and the other loves men. The difference was in their imprinting early in life. Just like any acquired fetish or addiction. Hively v Ivy Tech says that fetish-addictions were not anticipated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, nor in the entire Constitution. And that to change that, it will require an Act of Congress.

I can tell you what unarguably does exist in the Constitution: very specific protections for the right of an individual to practice one's faith. And that right doesn't come with GPS coordinates or a time clock. Passive refusal to promote behavior that is heresy to one's faith IS NOT punishable by law....any law...Washington state or otherwise..

The New Testament of Jesus's teachings in the Bible prescribes that for two people of the same gender to lie together as man and wife is a mortal sin. Romans 1, Jude 1. So if two people of the same gender request a Christian to condone in ANY WAY their "getting married", that Christian will find themselves facing an eternity in hell. Because in Jude 1 it also warns that not just the sodomites will suffer, but also any Christian who doesn't actively resist promoting that behavior.

The Bible says the same thing about tattoos .

The florists are full of shit ....
Suddenly they play the religion card?!! Bullshit!

The New or Old Testament? Because Christians follow the New Testament which came about in order to UPDATE the old testament's flaws. Romans 1 & Jude 1 are in the NEW Testament and speak directly to the Commands against homosexual lifestyles that were some of the few carryovers from the Old Testament's "Thou Shalt Not EVER.."

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes. And I'm not a fan of public accomodations laws, and I still think Goldwater was right the use of the interstate commerce clause to regulate private citizens's refusals to serve people for race religion and color was a protected exercise of const rigjts; But we have people hypothesizing that maybe some transgender high school male just wants a peak inside the girls bathroom, so if That is really an issue, why not put these divorce supporting "Christens" to the test? (-:

Elane Photography (New Mexico)
Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado)
Florist (Washington)
Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon)


None of these were under Federal law, they were under State Public Accommodation laws so interstate commerce and Federal PA laws are not a factor in these cases.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Correct. An impartial Court will review whether or not "gay" constitutes an inborn trait or merely an addictive sex behavior.

No, that's not the starting point as "inborn trait" or "addictive sex behavior" are irrelevant. Just as there being an inborn trait for a white man to like black women or a white man that had a addictive sex behavior to black women was irrelevant in the Loving case.


>>>>