If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[dblack]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Nope, since most Christian's are not bigots; those who are do not serve Jesus Christ, who they claim to deeply revere.

What does this have to do with the question?

As to the most recent Supreme Court Decision...

That's not the point of the thread. I'm basically asking the Christians who think they should be allowed to discriminate against gays if they're will into forgo their own special protections.

Why do you want to force people to interact with each other?

I don't.

How did you answer the question?

 

[Wry Catcher]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Nope, since most Christian's are not bigots; those who are do not serve Jesus Christ, who they claim to deeply revere.

What does this have to do with the question?

As to the most recent Supreme Court Decision...

That's not the point of the thread. I'm basically asking the Christians who think they should be allowed to discriminate against gays if they're will into forgo their own special protections.

My post was an opinion, tangentially in accord with the topic. Real Christian's vis a vis the false prophets and their followers who do not apply the ethos of Christianity in their every day behavior.

 

[whitehall]

Funny how the bigots on the left turn on Christians. What if a gay couple demanded that a Muslem caterer serve pork? Would it be ok if he refused to make it? It ain't about discrimination, it's about freedom. The sodomites have the freedom to go elsewhere and the baker has the freedom to adhere to his religious beliefs. Everyone is happy except lefties who thrive on bigotry and anger and hatred.

 

[buckeye45_73]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Nope, since most Christian's are not bigots; those who are do not serve Jesus Christ, who they claim to deeply revere.

What does this have to do with the question?

As to the most recent Supreme Court Decision...

That's not the point of the thread. I'm basically asking the Christians who think they should be allowed to discriminate against gays if they're will into forgo their own special protections.

Why do you want to force people to interact with each other?

I don't.

How did you answer the question?

The question is I'm fine with it......if gays don't want to interact with Christians...it's their right.....I know lots of gays, but if people don't like them.....it's their choice.....

 

[Silhouette]

Chris L:

If I want bacon, should Muslims be forced to cook it up for me? Of course! It's bacon! Your rights end where my rights to bacon begin.

Funny how the bigots on the left turn on Christians. What if a gay couple demanded that a Muslem caterer serve pork? Would it be ok if he refused to make it? It ain't about discrimination, it's about freedom. The sodomites have the freedom to go elsewhere and the baker has the freedom to adhere to his religious beliefs. Everyone is happy except lefties who thrive on bigotry and anger and hatred.

No; what it's really about is the cult of LGBT wanting society to promote their values by force so that ultimately little kids will see their dogma as normal. I can assure you that their anger is that some ranking adults have just stood up and said "it's OK to reject the cult dogma of the LGBT because some people find it disgusting and immoral."

 

[buckeye45_73]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Nope, since most Christian's are not bigots; those who are do not serve Jesus Christ, who they claim to deeply revere.

What does this have to do with the question?

As to the most recent Supreme Court Decision...

That's not the point of the thread. I'm basically asking the Christians who think they should be allowed to discriminate against gays if they're will into forgo their own special protections.

My post was an opinion, tangentially in accord with the topic. Real Christian's vis a vis the false prophets and their followers who do not apply the ethos of Christianity in their every day behavior.

Yes, do tell us about "real" Christians......how fun

 

[bodecea]

Funny how the bigots on the left turn on Christians. What if a gay couple demanded that a Muslem caterer serve pork? Would it be ok if he refused to make it? It ain't about discrimination, it's about freedom. The sodomites have the freedom to go elsewhere and the baker has the freedom to adhere to his religious beliefs. Everyone is happy except lefties who thrive on bigotry and anger and hatred.

You don't get PA laws, do you?

 

[Silhouette]

Funny how the bigots on the left turn on Christians. What if a gay couple demanded that a Muslem caterer serve pork? Would it be ok if he refused to make it? It ain't about discrimination, it's about freedom. The sodomites have the freedom to go elsewhere and the baker has the freedom to adhere to his religious beliefs. Everyone is happy except lefties who thrive on bigotry and anger and hatred.

You don't get PA laws, do you?

You don't get legal-supremacy and precedent do you? The USSC just said that local/inferior PA laws may not be used, in just the LGBT lifestyle case, as a bludgeon to force people of faith to abdicate their values in order to stay in business. THEY consulted the Constitution to put your PA laws to the test on religion. And the PA laws & punitive measures FAILED in this case; and others that will/must cite it.

Also, who would like to see this thread un-dungeoned from "Breaking News" with a pathetic viewership and placed back in either politics or current events where it properly belongs? When Obergefell came down, I notice all manner and number of threads were allowed in the large-viewing forums on it. VERY discriminatory.

Breaking News - Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

 

[bodecea]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Nope, since most Christian's are not bigots; those who are do not serve Jesus Christ, who they claim to deeply revere.

What does this have to do with the question?

As to the most recent Supreme Court Decision...

That's not the point of the thread. I'm basically asking the Christians who think they should be allowed to discriminate against gays if they're will into forgo their own special protections.

My post was an opinion, tangentially in accord with the topic. Real Christian's vis a vis the false prophets and their followers who do not apply the ethos of Christianity in their every day behavior.

Yes, do tell us about "real" Christians......how fun

"real" christians, with the advent of trump, are showing us just how "real" they are.

 

[OldLady]

Funny how the bigots on the left turn on Christians. What if a gay couple demanded that a Muslem caterer serve pork? Would it be ok if he refused to make it? It ain't about discrimination, it's about freedom. The sodomites have the freedom to go elsewhere and the baker has the freedom to adhere to his religious beliefs. Everyone is happy except lefties who thrive on bigotry and anger and hatred.

Muslims don't sell pork. Bakeries that sell wedding cakes need to sell them to everyone who wants one.

 

[Silhouette]

.

What the court did instead in a 7-2 vote was issue what's being called "a narrow ruling," i.e. the justices tailored the decision to the case specifically instead of issuing a decision on the topic of religious liberty as many expected.

That is unfortunately true, however, this is the way the courts often act.

Those of us who were hoping that the SCOTUS would use this case to overturn the Lawrence decision of 2003 were understandably disappointed.

But it takes time to move the court.

This Court, in particular, has proven itself utterly cowardly in the face of these kinds of decisions.

No, the Court said that local PA laws, on just the question of gay-lifestylists (not a protected class in the Constitution ANYWHERE), may not be used as a bludgeon to force people of faith (1st Amendment) to abdicate their faith in order to start up or stay in business in the private sector. This is a YUGE deal and not a shirking or passing the buck. This case will be cited in any future squabble same or similar between local PA laws and the 1st Amendment protections.

Furthermore, the Court indicated that this was a sifted-decision based on value systems, not "innateness". So because the cult of LGBT has not declared itself officially a religion, they have inferior protections to those that have.

And if that weren't enough, this BOLD AND IMPORTANT decision also indicated that the baker had grounds for a civil suit against Colorado for them violating his delineated rights via the 1st Amendment and punishing him financially for exercising those rights. Bazaam!

"Cowardly" Court? I think not. They just bitch-slapped the shit out of Colorado and the gay cult both. Justice Thomas warned them. "This victim thing has gone far enough".

 

[Silhouette]

Muslims don't sell pork. Bakeries that sell wedding cakes need to sell them to everyone who wants one.

Not anymore. Perhaps YOU didn't read the decision just handed down?

 

[Seawytch]

Bullshit. It's not about religion, it's about being anti-gay, period.

Bakery Will Do Pagan, Cloning, and Divorce Cakes But Not Gay Weddings

Just because someone's religious faith is against Gay Marriage doesn't mean they have problems with Paganism, cloning or divorce.

And what religion is okay with paganism and divorce but not gay marriage?

 

[westwall]

Indeed, it makes members of those groups “more equal than others”, and makes a mockery of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So if I put a big sign in front of my business that said, "I don't serve Mormons!" you'd be totally cool with that, right?

Yeah. i would. i could care less what sort of asshole you are, and more to the point who you won't serve. They can go elsewhere, and you, because you're an asshole, will go out of business because people don't like doing business with assholes. It's really quite simple.

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah. i would. i could care less what sort of asshole you are, and more to the point who you won't serve. They can go elsewhere, and you, because you're an asshole, will go out of business because people don't like doing business with assholes. It's really quite simple.

Speaking of strangulating something by attrition. I'd like to see the condensed compilation of this story put back in politics where it belongs and not in the starvation-forum of tiny views where it is now.

 

[westwall]

Yeah. i would. i could care less what sort of asshole you are, and more to the point who you won't serve. They can go elsewhere, and you, because you're an asshole, will go out of business because people don't like doing business with assholes. It's really quite simple.

Speaking of strangulating something by attrition. I'd like to see the condensed compilation of this story put back in politics where it belongs and not in the starvation-forum of tiny views where it is now.

It's in Politics now Sil. Hard to get more activity than that.

 

[Silhouette]

It's in Politics now Sil. Hard to get more activity than that.

No, the thread linked in my signature. I don't see it in politics. The only place I see it is in a forum where the most recent post on any thread besides it is listed as most active as of "yesterday". Hardly a high-view forum. Would you be so kind as to combine the two, this one and that one and put them in politics? The title of the other thread is much better than this one as to directing readers as to the impact of the USSC decision, don't you think?

 

[OldLady]

Muslims don't sell pork. Bakeries that sell wedding cakes need to sell them to everyone who wants one.

Not anymore. Perhaps YOU didn't read the decision just handed down?

As I just explained to Chris, yes, I did read it. Apparently we are interpreting the words differently.

 

[westwall]

It's in Politics now Sil. Hard to get more activity than that.

No, the thread linked in my signature. I don't see it in politics. The only place I see it is in a forum where the most recent post on any thread besides it is listed as most active as of "yesterday". Hardly a high-view forum.

Your thread is in Breaking News. Another high volume forum.

 

[Silhouette]

No, the "Breaking News" forum is snail-slow on views and posts.