If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[dblack]

OP is a false premise.
The SCOTUS determined that failing to bake a gake for a faggot orgy is NOT discrimination.

The OP does not rely on the recent SCOTUS decision. It's a general question.

 

[koshergrl]

OP is a false premise.
The SCOTUS determined that failing to bake a gake for a faggot orgy is NOT discrimination.

The OP does not rely on the recent SCOTUS decision. It's a general question.

No, it's a false analogy.

Christians are not discriminating against gays. It's a false analogy.

In debate class, you'd be sent to the back of the room to start over.

"1. Podunk Community College should not require a freshman writing course. Harvard does not require a freshman writing course and the students there get along just fine without it.
False Analogy. It is false because the two items do not have strong enough similarities to predict that what happens in one will happen in the other."
Faulty Logic

PS..you don't get to just assert any stupid thing you like, and then say "my statement is based on nothing!" and expect any sort of serious consideration. You come off as a fruitcake who thinks he's being clever, when all you're really doing is pointing out to everybody your inability to reason.

 

[Silhouette]

No, it's a false premise.

Christians are not discriminating against gays. When you start with a lie, or make the assumption that "everybody agrees" when they don't, it's a false premise.

Here's another false premise exposed:

The USSC Justices did not rule on the entire issue but only on this ONE CASE....and the USSC found that the city engaged in harsh / discriminatory behavior against the baker, in a way others were not subjected to. Had the city not 'gone out of its way to punish / slam' the baker the USSC might not have come to this decision.


.

I disagree. I think this case was the lubricant for the final bitter pill. You see, the city should have dealt harshly with anyone who was actually illegally discriminating. The court would've come down quite differently if the couple to be married were black and the baker said "we don't make cakes for your kind". Then the Court would've backed the city with an iron fist. You'd better believe it.

No, this was the Court preparing the public for the final, painful exposure of the false premise the LGBT cult has been surfing illegally through the courts: that regular men and women doing habitual sex stuff can derive a protected identity from those behaviors. No protections at all for that exist in the US Constitution. This was and is a question of lifestyles and not innate qualities. This was a very, very smooth way of the Court saying that without actually saying that.

This was the USSC saying "put your seatbelts on and brace yourselves for impact". Nice touch the way they worded it to seem innocuous and benign though. That's why they've made it that far. It's an art form. Justice Thomas did warn them though "this far and no farther". So, yeah, incremental steps to the final sting.

They fucked up beating up people of faith with a fiscal club. On that same thought, this is going to impact Dumont v Lyon the lesbian adoption case in Michigan where the cult is seeking to punish orphans directly by harming their Christian custodians fiscally for not surrendering innocent children on-demand to gay lifestylists ( who if married have a contract that promises to deny a father or mother for life under that child's roof).​

 

[Lysistrata]

Will people PLEASE stop referring to these people just as "Christians"? There are millions of Christians worldwide who definitely DO NOT support what these people are doing in the name of the Christian faith. Make them identify which sect that they are in that incites and condones the kind of disgusting anti-LGBT behavior that is going on. Their conduct is disgraceful, or should all Christians in the world be branded with this offensive conduct? Most Christians are decent people.

lol says some weirdo who keeps trying to tell us Wicca is a 'religion', but can never explain why it is.

You don't know jack about religion, you're just another fashion victim spouting rubbish fed to you, like the rest of the mentally ill 'progressives' here. I bet you don't even know 'witch burning' and ' burning fags to death was a pagan invention, not a Christian one, do you? lol lol lol

"Fashion victim"? Just what the hell is that? Is this the latest from the moronic right-wing propaganda mills, like "virtue signalling"? The people who call themselves "Christians" are prostituting an entire faith. If these jackasses don't have to explain why what they practice is a religion, why does anyone else have to explain why their's is a religion? Nobody feeds me anything, moron. Quite the opposite. I don't buy the horseshit slung by the likes of such trash as Jeffress and the family research council, et al. quite on my own. Stop trying to drag the entire Christian faith into your sewer.

Fashion victim . . .

The Vogue fashion editor who regularly slams Melania's choice in clothes. Lol. Could you IMAGINE? Reality is stranger than fiction.

The one on the left is the moron who lets donald screw her. Who is the other one?

I said who it is right above the picture you quoted, Einstein. The leftist one is the one who looks like a weird bag lady of course.

Frankly, the image looked photo-shopped I'm shocked that this is a real person. I have never seen anyone out on the street or at a party (except Halloween) dressed like that. I don't read fashion magazines. I have no idea what her politics are. I was raised by a woman who always wore suits with gold circle pins. When she got her hair done, I'd tell her that when she slept her hair didn't tangle, it just dented. I got a new suit every Easter. I wore suits or skirt with blazer every workday until I got a job where everyone wore jeans and sweatshirts. So don't ask me.

 

[TheDude]

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

Agree or Disagree?

Certainly, but why would straight people need to be concerned? What do gay people offer a straight person doesn't, no smart-ass remarks HA!

Religion shouldn't matter. I'm not Christian and if I were a baker I wouldn't put a couple sweethearts on a cake either. Gay marriage makes a mockery of nature, tradition, common sense and so on.

 

[koshergrl]

No, it's a false premise.

Christians are not discriminating against gays. When you start with a lie, or make the assumption that "everybody agrees" when they don't, it's a false premise.

Here's another false premise exposed:

The USSC Justices did not rule on the entire issue but only on this ONE CASE....and the USSC found that the city engaged in harsh / discriminatory behavior against the baker, in a way others were not subjected to. Had the city not 'gone out of its way to punish / slam' the baker the USSC might not have come to this decision.


.

I disagree. I think this case was the lubricant for the final bitter pill. You see, the city should have dealt harshly with anyone who was actually illegally discriminating. The court would've come down quite differently if the couple to be married were black and the baker said "we don't make cakes for your kind". Then the Court would've backed the city with an iron fist. You'd better believe it.

No, this was the Court preparing the public for the final, painful exposure of the false premise the LGBT cult has been surfing illegally through the courts: that regular men and women doing habitual sex stuff can derive a protected identity from those behaviors. No protections at all for that exist in the US Constitution. This was and is a question of lifestyles and not innate qualities. This was a very, very smooth way of the Court saying that without actually saying that.

This was the USSC saying "put your seatbelts on and brace yourselves for impact". Nice touch the way they worded it to seem innocuous and benign though. That's why they've made it that far. It's an art form. Justice Thomas did warn them though "this far and no farther". So, yeah, incremental steps to the final sting.

They fucked up beating up people of faith with a fiscal club. On that same thought, this is going to impact Dumont v Lyon the lesbian adoption case in Michigan where the cult is seeking to punish orphans directly by harming their Christian custodians fiscally for not surrendering innocent children on-demand to gay lifestylists ( who if married have a contract that promises to deny a father or mother for life under that child's roof).​

Yeah but the baker never said "we don't make cakes for your kind."

What the baker said was "I cannot make a cake for this sort of celebration."

 

[Lysistrata]

Will people PLEASE stop referring to these people just as "Christians"? There are millions of Christians worldwide who definitely DO NOT support what these people are doing in the name of the Christian faith. Make them identify which sect that they are in that incites and condones the kind of disgusting anti-LGBT behavior that is going on. Their conduct is disgraceful, or should all Christians in the world be branded with this offensive conduct? Most Christians are decent people.

lol says some weirdo who keeps trying to tell us Wicca is a 'religion', but can never explain why it is.

You don't know jack about religion, you're just another fashion victim spouting rubbish fed to you, like the rest of the mentally ill 'progressives' here. I bet you don't even know 'witch burning' and ' burning fags to death was a pagan invention, not a Christian one, do you? lol lol lol

"Fashion victim"? Just what the hell is that? Is this the latest from the moronic right-wing propaganda mills, like "virtue signalling"? The people who call themselves "Christians" are prostituting an entire faith. If these jackasses don't have to explain why what they practice is a religion, why does anyone else have to explain why their's is a religion? Nobody feeds me anything, moron. Quite the opposite. I don't buy the horseshit slung by the likes of such trash as Jeffress and the family research council, et al. quite on my own. Stop trying to drag the entire Christian faith into your sewer.

Fashion victim . . .

The Vogue fashion editor who regularly slams Melania's choice in clothes. Lol. Could you IMAGINE? Reality is stranger than fiction.

The one on the left is the moron who lets donald screw her. Who is the other one?

A person who is supposedly about standing up for women, calling ano
ther woman a "moron" because of who she is married too? Maybe people would think your husband is a moron for loving you too? Ever think about that? Lol.

She let's that dirty man touch her. I'm sure that she's happy with the financial arrangement, though. The pregnant undressed shot was priceless.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I disagree. I think this case was the lubricant for the final bitter pill. You see, the city should have dealt harshly with anyone who was actually illegally discriminating. The court would've come down quite differently if the couple to be married were black and the baker said "we don't make cakes for your kind". Then the Court would've backed the city with an iron fist. You'd better believe it.

The difference is what the cake maker (an artist) was asked to do. It was abhorrent to his religious views to make a gay wedding cake. It was akin to forcing a religious sculptor to create an art piece depicting sex (much less gay sex).

There were MULTITUDES of alternative cake bakers. It was not like the gay dudes were needing a place to sleep and no hotel would take "their kind."

The free market is designed to deal with any form of discrimination. SEVERAL cake makers would have gladly stepped up and done the cake. More money for those who do not discriminate. And now, this guy who did discriminate has the stigma of being an anti-gay bigot, which will certainly reduce his bottom line.

This was a targeted, premeditated attempt to use government force to shit on individual liberty, and I am so glad that it failed.

Free markets usually solve problems.

Governments usually do not.

 

[ChrisL]

lol says some weirdo who keeps trying to tell us Wicca is a 'religion', but can never explain why it is.

You don't know jack about religion, you're just another fashion victim spouting rubbish fed to you, like the rest of the mentally ill 'progressives' here. I bet you don't even know 'witch burning' and ' burning fags to death was a pagan invention, not a Christian one, do you? lol lol lol

"Fashion victim"? Just what the hell is that? Is this the latest from the moronic right-wing propaganda mills, like "virtue signalling"? The people who call themselves "Christians" are prostituting an entire faith. If these jackasses don't have to explain why what they practice is a religion, why does anyone else have to explain why their's is a religion? Nobody feeds me anything, moron. Quite the opposite. I don't buy the horseshit slung by the likes of such trash as Jeffress and the family research council, et al. quite on my own. Stop trying to drag the entire Christian faith into your sewer.

Fashion victim . . .

The Vogue fashion editor who regularly slams Melania's choice in clothes. Lol. Could you IMAGINE? Reality is stranger than fiction.

The one on the left is the moron who lets donald screw her. Who is the other one?

A person who is supposedly about standing up for women, calling ano
ther woman a "moron" because of who she is married too? Maybe people would think your husband is a moron for loving you too? Ever think about that? Lol.

She let's that dirty man touch her. I'm sure that she's happy with the financial arrangement, though. The pregnant undressed shot was priceless.

You are a fucking obsessed weirdo. Maybe she loves him? You preach about others minding their own business, and here you are sticking your old beak into other people's marriages. Lol. Preachy hypocritical basket of deplorables is all you really are.

 

[Sunni Man]

Sorry. LGBTs can be Christians, as anyone can.

Sure anyone can claim to be a Christian.

But if you claim to be a Christian, and yet refuse the believe what the foundational book of the religion says about being a homo, and are practicing that despicable lifestyle.

You are either mentally deranged or a hypocrite. .....

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah but the baker never said "we don't make cakes for your kind."

What the baker said was "I cannot make a cake for this sort of celebration."

Let's say the baker said "I cannot support black marriage, or the marriage of a Palestinian with a Jew", the Court would've sided with the city in those cases because they have delineated protections in the US Constitution. Butt-sex-lifestyle-as-(false) identity does not have those same protections. Race, actual gender, country of origin and religion. If you want your category added on top of those, you petition the US Congress (the Legislature). You DO NOT try to get around that requirement by trying a false premise to get your buddies in the federal court system to judicially-legislate additions to the US Constitution...."Gender", importantly as intended in its category in the US Constitution DOES NOT mean "what one does with one's gender". lt means only and simply the equipment you were born with between your legs and up inside the lower part of your abdomen.

...And then the false premise used that illegal process of Judicial-legislation then as a fiscal club to beat up people of faith objecting to LGBTQ etc. etc. deviant LIFESTYLES; people of faith who actually DO have protections under the Constitution. This is the gist of the decision here and you will come to see this born out in future citations and Opinions of the Court.

 

[Lysistrata]

I disagree. I think this case was the lubricant for the final bitter pill. You see, the city should have dealt harshly with anyone who was actually illegally discriminating. The court would've come down quite differently if the couple to be married were black and the baker said "we don't make cakes for your kind". Then the Court would've backed the city with an iron fist. You'd better believe it.

The difference is what the cake maker (an artist) was asked to do. It was abhorrent to his religious views to make a gay wedding cake. It was akin to forcing a religious sculptor to create an art piece depicting sex (much less gay sex).

There were MULTITUDES of alternative cake bakers. It was not like the gay dudes were needing a place to sleep and no hotel would take "their kind."

The free market is designed to deal with any form of discrimination. SEVERAL cake makers would have gladly stepped up and done the cake. More money for those who do not discriminate. And now, this guy who did discriminate has the stigma of being an anti-gay bigot, which will certainly reduce his bottom line.

This was a targeted, premeditated attempt to use government force to shit on individual liberty, and I am so glad that it failed.

Free markets usually solve problems.

Governments usually do not.

The free market only works to this effect in areas with a lot of accommodations. "Targeted"? "Premeditated"? This couple probably just looked on the internet for a good bakery or had someone recommend this bakery. I checked this bakery's website a while back and there was nothing in it that would discourage a shopper from patronizing it; quite the contrary. At least this buffoon lost 40% of his business, so I guess at least the "free market" worked this time, although your claim that it was designed to deal with discrimination is ridiculous. It certainly didn't work that way before anti-discrimination laws were passed.

 

[featherlite]

I don't see what the problem is- if someone is really committed to homosexuality that they don't care to deal with people that have moral problems with it- they shouldn't have to.

Socializing and discrimination are different. I wouldnt care if someone refused service to me for some lame bigoted reason, but where it could lead to thats where it could get messed up.
It wasnt a good decision.

 

[bendog]

Lol
It’s obvious gays want nothing to do with Christians, so be it...

My gay neighbors are legally married and go to the same church I do

 

[Lysistrata]

Sorry. LGBTs can be Christians, as anyone can.

Sure anyone can claim to be a Christian.

But if you claim to be a Christian, and yet refuse the believe what the foundational book of the religion says about being a homo, and are practicing that despicable lifestyle.

You are either mentally deranged or a hypocrite. .....

Neither. Only a few authors were selected for inclusion, and no one knows what criteria were applied. There is a lot more stuff out there. Moreover, the bible says a lot of things.

 

[featherlite]

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

Agree or Disagree?

Christians wouldn't care if queers "discriminated" against them.....nor should they.

No, but if multiple businesses started doing it...I'm guessing people would'nt be too happy. Stupidity catches on quick.
Amazon would then start cake baking/decorating and "solve" the problem. lol

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

Agree or Disagree?

Refusing to WORK FOR SOMEONE is not discrimination ffs.
I have declined work for many customers over the years for a multitude of reasons. All of which were my choice and quite honestly none of their business.

Freedom is a wonderful thing. You should retain the right to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY REASON.

 

[Sunni Man]

Moreover, the bible says a lot of things.

Obviously, you have never read it. .....

 

[BlackSand]

.​

Pineapple​

.​

 

[bendog]

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

Agree or Disagree?

In theory, the Baker discriminates only against 'the sin." (I don't see the sin btw) And the gay only discriminates against the discrimination of not baking