I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

[OldLady]

The baker wasn't "punished," the gay couple were. The baker punished them for their beliefs by refusing to do business with them because he personally does not agree with their lifestyle.
Well la dee dah. No one cares what your personal opinion is when you are doing business with the public. In this country, we're EQUAL.
I feel bad for him, because he has been consistent in his beliefs for years and it isn't just gay cakes he won't make. But I don't see another solution but stepping in and forcing him to follow the rules of equality.

How is being fined and/or forced to go out of business and/or violate ones moral code not being punished? Why the need to downplay the actual impact of enforcing these laws on people?

Just because you sell something doesn't mean you lose your 1st amendment right to free exercise.

What you are showing is the classic progressive inability to care about anyone's well being if they disagree with you politically, or don't agree with your morals. You are nothing but a bunch of narcissistic busybodies.

Sorry, but spending 15 minutes finding another baker isn't punishment, unless you have the backbone of a wet lily.

Being fined is the price one pays for not following the law. You don't like the law, change it. You can't unilaterally decide not to follow it.

No one is forced out of business. If people don't like it that a business won't work with gays, that is the free market deciding, isn't it? Some bakers may have pulled items from their offerings in order to avoid the difficulty in the future, but that was their decision, not the government's. Bakers always have the choice to FOLLOW THE LAW.

"Morals" and "deeply held spiritual convictions" boil down to any other opinion in the end--it is all about what someone DOES with those beliefs that matters. It is not special to be religious.

If the law is unconstitutional, there is no obligation to obey it- especially when it is over something as basic as Freedom of Religion.

The governments of Pennsylvania and Ohio have never required our Pennsylvania Dutch citizens to put their kids into the government schools, as it is a violation of their freedoms, they drive around in buggies and do their own thing as part of their religion.

The key here is "doing their own thing." Their religious decisions are not affecting anyone else in the greater community, are they? It almost seems our bakers and florist should do the same if they are so sensitive.

Actually, the PA Dutch way of life does affect the whole community. They fail to send their offspring to the Government schools to get indoctrinated, and they don't celebrated Homosexual Marriage either.

How does that affect the non-PA Dutch?

 

[OldLady]

You would not be engaging in this discussion or feeling it is anyone's right to tell them who to love if it did not make you uncomfortable. Would you?

I am uncomfortable with people using government to punish others over something as trivial as baking a cake.

Do I think two dudes hooking up is gross? Yes. Does that make me afraid of them? No.

The baker wasn't "punished," the gay couple were. The baker punished them for their beliefs by refusing to do business with them because he personally does not agree with their lifestyle.
Well la dee dah. No one cares what your personal opinion is when you are doing business with the public. In this country, we're EQUAL.
I feel bad for him, because he has been consistent in his beliefs for years and it isn't just gay cakes he won't make. But I don't see another solution but stepping in and forcing him to follow the rules of equality.

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

So would you be in favor of forcing Islamonazi butchers to sell bacon and pork?

Sure, its against their religion, but tough shit, eh?

The government isn't forcing the baker to sell anything. It says IF YOU ALREADY MAKE WEDDING CAKES, you must sell them to EVERYONE. Period. What is so hard about that?

 

[Lysistrata]

You would not be engaging in this discussion or feeling it is anyone's right to tell them who to love if it did not make you uncomfortable. Would you?

I am uncomfortable with people using government to punish others over something as trivial as baking a cake.

Do I think two dudes hooking up is gross? Yes. Does that make me afraid of them? No.

The baker wasn't "punished," the gay couple were. The baker punished them for their beliefs by refusing to do business with them because he personally does not agree with their lifestyle.
Well la dee dah. No one cares what your personal opinion is when you are doing business with the public. In this country, we're EQUAL.
I feel bad for him, because he has been consistent in his beliefs for years and it isn't just gay cakes he won't make. But I don't see another solution but stepping in and forcing him to follow the rules of equality.

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

lol
Ok, How about people have the decency not to try and force their views on other people through business? Why force someone to To do something they obviously object to? But then again you are a control freak... It’s a control freak thing I do not understand

"Decency" has nothing to do with it. Nobody tried to force any view on anyone. He has/had a business license. He had quite an elaborate website. Even on it, he did not indicate that the service that he was offering was restricted to certain members of the public. It was a general invitation to patronize his business. He did not do anything at all to warn the public of his religious proclivities. All that happened was that his violation of anti-discrimination laws was reported through the established procedure.

The couple did nothing wrong, and they are blameless in this matter. I notice that the anti-LGBT types always try to flip the blame onto LGBTs, which is BS. This guy failed in his responsibilities.

 

[whitehall]

You can't prove a negative. Finding no evidence is not a scientific conclusion.

 

[Polishprince]

I am uncomfortable with people using government to punish others over something as trivial as baking a cake.

Do I think two dudes hooking up is gross? Yes. Does that make me afraid of them? No.

The baker wasn't "punished," the gay couple were. The baker punished them for their beliefs by refusing to do business with them because he personally does not agree with their lifestyle.
Well la dee dah. No one cares what your personal opinion is when you are doing business with the public. In this country, we're EQUAL.
I feel bad for him, because he has been consistent in his beliefs for years and it isn't just gay cakes he won't make. But I don't see another solution but stepping in and forcing him to follow the rules of equality.

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

So would you be in favor of forcing Islamonazi butchers to sell bacon and pork?

Sure, its against their religion, but tough shit, eh?

The government isn't forcing the baker to sell anything. It says IF YOU ALREADY MAKE WEDDING CAKES, you must sell them to EVERYONE. Period. What is so hard about that?

A "Gay Wedding" is not a wedding. A wedding is between a man and a broad.

Gay weddings are a bird of a different kind

 

[Lysistrata]

The baker wasn't "punished," the gay couple were. The baker punished them for their beliefs by refusing to do business with them because he personally does not agree with their lifestyle.
Well la dee dah. No one cares what your personal opinion is when you are doing business with the public. In this country, we're EQUAL.
I feel bad for him, because he has been consistent in his beliefs for years and it isn't just gay cakes he won't make. But I don't see another solution but stepping in and forcing him to follow the rules of equality.

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

So would you be in favor of forcing Islamonazi butchers to sell bacon and pork?

Sure, its against their religion, but tough shit, eh?

The government isn't forcing the baker to sell anything. It says IF YOU ALREADY MAKE WEDDING CAKES, you must sell them to EVERYONE. Period. What is so hard about that?

A "Gay Wedding" is not a wedding. A wedding is between a man and a broad.

Gay weddings are a bird of a different kind

A wedding is a wedding if the paperwork is in order. What is a "broad"? Heterosexual marriages are between a man and a WOMAN.

 

[martybegan]

I am uncomfortable with people using government to punish others over something as trivial as baking a cake.

Do I think two dudes hooking up is gross? Yes. Does that make me afraid of them? No.

The baker wasn't "punished," the gay couple were. The baker punished them for their beliefs by refusing to do business with them because he personally does not agree with their lifestyle.
Well la dee dah. No one cares what your personal opinion is when you are doing business with the public. In this country, we're EQUAL.
I feel bad for him, because he has been consistent in his beliefs for years and it isn't just gay cakes he won't make. But I don't see another solution but stepping in and forcing him to follow the rules of equality.

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

So would you be in favor of forcing Islamonazi butchers to sell bacon and pork?

Sure, its against their religion, but tough shit, eh?

The government isn't forcing the baker to sell anything. It says IF YOU ALREADY MAKE WEDDING CAKES, you must sell them to EVERYONE. Period. What is so hard about that?

They don't want to participate in SSM wedding ceremonies. Where is the government benefit in forcing them to do so or ruining them?

 

[martybegan]

I am uncomfortable with people using government to punish others over something as trivial as baking a cake.

Do I think two dudes hooking up is gross? Yes. Does that make me afraid of them? No.

The baker wasn't "punished," the gay couple were. The baker punished them for their beliefs by refusing to do business with them because he personally does not agree with their lifestyle.
Well la dee dah. No one cares what your personal opinion is when you are doing business with the public. In this country, we're EQUAL.
I feel bad for him, because he has been consistent in his beliefs for years and it isn't just gay cakes he won't make. But I don't see another solution but stepping in and forcing him to follow the rules of equality.

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

lol
Ok, How about people have the decency not to try and force their views on other people through business? Why force someone to To do something they obviously object to? But then again you are a control freak... It’s a control freak thing I do not understand

"Decency" has nothing to do with it. Nobody tried to force any view on anyone. He has/had a business license. He had quite an elaborate website. Even on it, he did not indicate that the service that he was offering was restricted to certain members of the public. It was a general invitation to patronize his business. He did not do anything at all to warn the public of his religious proclivities. All that happened was that his violation of anti-discrimination laws was reported through the established procedure.

The couple did nothing wrong, and they are blameless in this matter. I notice that the anti-LGBT types always try to flip the blame onto LGBTs, which is BS. This guy failed in his responsibilities.

Again, just because you sell something doesn't mean you lose your Right to Free Exercise.

Sorry, but just going to another baker is the right move here, unless you have an axe to grind.

We know YOU have an axe to grind, a tiny, little useless axe to grind.

 

[Dick Foster]

They are mistaken.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure you know more than they do. Get some help you dumb faggot! Homosexuality is NOT normal nor is all of this transgender bullshit. If you can't procreate it isn't natural or normal period. That much should be common sense to anyone with a functional brain.
Maybe it's time to take up rolling queers for fun and sport again and push all of the sick retards back into the closet were they belong.

 

[Polishprince]

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

So would you be in favor of forcing Islamonazi butchers to sell bacon and pork?

Sure, its against their religion, but tough shit, eh?

The government isn't forcing the baker to sell anything. It says IF YOU ALREADY MAKE WEDDING CAKES, you must sell them to EVERYONE. Period. What is so hard about that?

A "Gay Wedding" is not a wedding. A wedding is between a man and a broad.

Gay weddings are a bird of a different kind

A wedding is a wedding if the paperwork is in order. What is a "broad"? Heterosexual marriages are between a man and a WOMAN.

But that's where you are wrong. Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the Garden, not Adam and Steve- that's a fact pointed out by the late Christian theologian, Jerry Falwell.

A wedding is a sacred event, the Catholic Church labels it a sacrament.

On the other hand, two guys saying they are getting married is a sin.

Basically, Gay Marriage is the opposite of Marriage- just like sacramental is the opposite of sin- capiche?

 

[OldLady]

The baker wasn't "punished," the gay couple were. The baker punished them for their beliefs by refusing to do business with them because he personally does not agree with their lifestyle.
Well la dee dah. No one cares what your personal opinion is when you are doing business with the public. In this country, we're EQUAL.
I feel bad for him, because he has been consistent in his beliefs for years and it isn't just gay cakes he won't make. But I don't see another solution but stepping in and forcing him to follow the rules of equality.

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

So would you be in favor of forcing Islamonazi butchers to sell bacon and pork?

Sure, its against their religion, but tough shit, eh?

The government isn't forcing the baker to sell anything. It says IF YOU ALREADY MAKE WEDDING CAKES, you must sell them to EVERYONE. Period. What is so hard about that?

A "Gay Wedding" is not a wedding. A wedding is between a man and a broad.

Gay weddings are a bird of a different kind

A legal, (hopefully) lifetime commitment to one another is a wedding. Why two consenting adults entering into that relationship should bother ANYONE is beyond me.

 

[mdk]

Maybe it's time to take up rolling queers for fun and sport again and push all of the sick retards back into the closet were they belong.

What are you waiting for? Your Hoveround to charge? Hop to it, bad ass!

 

[OldLady]

The baker wasn't "punished," the gay couple were. The baker punished them for their beliefs by refusing to do business with them because he personally does not agree with their lifestyle.
Well la dee dah. No one cares what your personal opinion is when you are doing business with the public. In this country, we're EQUAL.
I feel bad for him, because he has been consistent in his beliefs for years and it isn't just gay cakes he won't make. But I don't see another solution but stepping in and forcing him to follow the rules of equality.

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

So would you be in favor of forcing Islamonazi butchers to sell bacon and pork?

Sure, its against their religion, but tough shit, eh?

The government isn't forcing the baker to sell anything. It says IF YOU ALREADY MAKE WEDDING CAKES, you must sell them to EVERYONE. Period. What is so hard about that?

They don't want to participate in SSM wedding ceremonies. Where is the government benefit in forcing them to do so or ruining them?

I've already told you the answer to both questions at least twice and no matter how many times you ask, the answers are not going to change.

 

[martybegan]

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

So would you be in favor of forcing Islamonazi butchers to sell bacon and pork?

Sure, its against their religion, but tough shit, eh?

The government isn't forcing the baker to sell anything. It says IF YOU ALREADY MAKE WEDDING CAKES, you must sell them to EVERYONE. Period. What is so hard about that?

They don't want to participate in SSM wedding ceremonies. Where is the government benefit in forcing them to do so or ruining them?

I've already told you the answer to both questions at least twice and no matter how many times you ask, the answers are not going to change.

No, you have told me YOUR benefit, fucking with people you don't like.There is ZERO government benefit beyond regulating butthurt in the matter of a non-essential, non-timely, contracted service.

And sorry, but butthurt isn't a compelling government interest, for either side.

 

[OldLady]

The baker wasn't "punished," the gay couple were. The baker punished them for their beliefs by refusing to do business with them because he personally does not agree with their lifestyle.
Well la dee dah. No one cares what your personal opinion is when you are doing business with the public. In this country, we're EQUAL.
I feel bad for him, because he has been consistent in his beliefs for years and it isn't just gay cakes he won't make. But I don't see another solution but stepping in and forcing him to follow the rules of equality.

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

So would you be in favor of forcing Islamonazi butchers to sell bacon and pork?

Sure, its against their religion, but tough shit, eh?

The government isn't forcing the baker to sell anything. It says IF YOU ALREADY MAKE WEDDING CAKES, you must sell them to EVERYONE. Period. What is so hard about that?

They don't want to participate in SSM wedding ceremonies. Where is the government benefit in forcing them to do so or ruining them?

The government simply enforces the law; if they didn't, we would have anarchy. Being religious doesn't make you special. You cannot break the law because of it.

 

[OldLady]

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

So would you be in favor of forcing Islamonazi butchers to sell bacon and pork?

Sure, its against their religion, but tough shit, eh?

The government isn't forcing the baker to sell anything. It says IF YOU ALREADY MAKE WEDDING CAKES, you must sell them to EVERYONE. Period. What is so hard about that?

They don't want to participate in SSM wedding ceremonies. Where is the government benefit in forcing them to do so or ruining them?

I've already told you the answer to both questions at least twice and no matter how many times you ask, the answers are not going to change.

No, you have told me YOUR benefit, fucking with people you don't like.There is ZERO government benefit beyond regulating butthurt in the matter of a non-essential, non-timely, contracted service.

And sorry, but butthurt isn't a compelling government interest, for either side.

Who is butthurt? Who do you think I don't like? You are projecting, I think.

 

[Capri]

A legal, (hopefully) lifetime commitment to one another is a wedding. Why two consenting adults entering into that relationship should bother ANYONE is beyond me.

Because, in the case of same-sex weddings, it condones and gives societal sanction to aberrant behavior that's detrimental to the continued soundness of the society.
Because same-sex marriage changes the nature of what has until recently been universally regarded as a religious sacrament or function.
Because with marriage comes certain things that have a material cost to the people of the country, such as tax advantages and survivor benefits.
Because societal sanction of same-sex intimacy opens the door to sanctioning other intimate relationships regarded previously as aberrant.

 

[OldLady]

The baker wasn't "punished," the gay couple were. The baker punished them for their beliefs by refusing to do business with them because he personally does not agree with their lifestyle.
Well la dee dah. No one cares what your personal opinion is when you are doing business with the public. In this country, we're EQUAL.
I feel bad for him, because he has been consistent in his beliefs for years and it isn't just gay cakes he won't make. But I don't see another solution but stepping in and forcing him to follow the rules of equality.

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

lol
Ok, How about people have the decency not to try and force their views on other people through business? Why force someone to To do something they obviously object to? But then again you are a control freak... It’s a control freak thing I do not understand

"Decency" has nothing to do with it. Nobody tried to force any view on anyone. He has/had a business license. He had quite an elaborate website. Even on it, he did not indicate that the service that he was offering was restricted to certain members of the public. It was a general invitation to patronize his business. He did not do anything at all to warn the public of his religious proclivities. All that happened was that his violation of anti-discrimination laws was reported through the established procedure.

The couple did nothing wrong, and they are blameless in this matter. I notice that the anti-LGBT types always try to flip the blame onto LGBTs, which is BS. This guy failed in his responsibilities.

Again, just because you sell something doesn't mean you lose your Right to Free Exercise.

Sorry, but just going to another baker is the right move here, unless you have an axe to grind.

We know YOU have an axe to grind, a tiny, little useless axe to grind.

I don't have an axe to grind. I wish they had just gone to another baker, too, but I see the point in making it an issue, as well. It's a really tough case; I can see both sides. The S.C. doesn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, and they probably won't.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken!

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

If an identical twin is gay, why is their twin also gay in 40% of the cases....not to be seen with fraternal twins or other siblings?

Why not 100% if they are identical?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The baker wasn't "punished," the gay couple were. The baker punished them for their beliefs by refusing to do business with them because he personally does not agree with their lifestyle.
Well la dee dah. No one cares what your personal opinion is when you are doing business with the public. In this country, we're EQUAL.
I feel bad for him, because he has been consistent in his beliefs for years and it isn't just gay cakes he won't make. But I don't see another solution but stepping in and forcing him to follow the rules of equality.

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

So would you be in favor of forcing Islamonazi butchers to sell bacon and pork?

Sure, its against their religion, but tough shit, eh?

The government isn't forcing the baker to sell anything. It says IF YOU ALREADY MAKE WEDDING CAKES, you must sell them to EVERYONE. Period. What is so hard about that?

A "Gay Wedding" is not a wedding. A wedding is between a man and a broad.

Gay weddings are a bird of a different kind

Pretend