If selling a gay couple a wedding cake means a "Christian" baker participated in the marriage...

[JoeB131]

So you believe that fathers are necessary in boys' lives. I guess you're not in favor of lesbian weddings?

Nope, never said that... but that's okay.

I don't consider growing up gay to be the end of the world.

Incidently, I knew of two lesbians who raised three kids, they all turned out fine and straight.

That's stereotyping. You know, not very PC.

When did I ever say I was "PC"? I am about as un-PC as you get.

And, you seem to be suggesting that a lack of a father means that another creeper dude has easier access to the unprotected boy. Either way, you noticed signs of "gayness" (sexual qualities) in a young boy. That should've been your immediate red flag to get the boy to help.

I suggested nothing of the sort, and you really need to stop projecting your latent homosexuality into the world.

 

[Silhouette]

So you believe that fathers are necessary in boys' lives. I guess you're not in favor of lesbian weddings?

Nope, never said that... but that's okay.

I don't consider growing up gay to be the end of the world.

Incidently, I knew of two lesbians who raised three kids, they all turned out fine and straight.

You actually did say that a boy that was unusually effeminate probably didn't have a father. People can look at the last page you know...

And, two lesbians, three kids all normal? Kind of shoots the old "born that way" theory in the kneecap a little bit more, eh? I mean if one of the dykes were the kids' mom you'd think a genetic predisposition might show up in one of them? BTW, which lesbian played the feminine one and which played the butch/man/father one that the feminine one for some reason is attracted to...as a lesbian?...

 

[JoeB131]

You actually did say that a boy that was unusually effeminate probably didn't have a father. People can look at the last page you know...

And?

And, two lesbians, three kids all normal? Kind of shoots the old "born that way" theory in the kneecap a little bit more, eh?

No, it just means they all got the "Straight" gene when their mothers were pretending to be straight.

BTW, which lesbian played the feminine one and which played the butch/man/father one that the feminine one for some reason is attracted to...as a lesbian?...

Oh, they were definitely a "Butch/Fem" couple. In fact, the first time I met her girlfriend, I thought she was a dude. (I only saw her from the neck up driving a car.)

 

[Silhouette]

You actually did say that a boy that was unusually effeminate probably didn't have a father. People can look at the last page you know...

And?

And, two lesbians, three kids all normal? Kind of shoots the old "born that way" theory in the kneecap a little bit more, eh?

No, it just means they all got the "Straight" gene when their mothers were pretending to be straight.

BTW, which lesbian played the feminine one and which played the butch/man/father one that the feminine one for some reason is attracted to...as a lesbian?...

Oh, they were definitely a "Butch/Fem" couple. In fact, the first time I met her girlfriend, I thought she was a dude. (I only saw her from the neck up driving a car.)

So what if they’re pretending to be gay? If a woman is attracted to someone who on all appearances looks like a man, is she not closeted hetero?

The confusion is rampant. Born that way? Nope.

 

[JoeB131]

So what if they’re pretending to be gay? If a woman is attracted to someone who on all appearances looks like a man, is she not closeted hetero?

Um... no. But I'm sure you have convinced yourself that tranny you picked up in a bar made you totally hetero....

 

[Silhouette]

So what if they’re pretending to be gay? If a woman is attracted to someone who on all appearances looks like a man, is she not closeted hetero?

Um... no. But I'm sure you have convinced yourself that tranny you picked up in a bar made you totally hetero....

Ad hominem. So you are in a corner again.

You know that behaviors that are waffling, in denial & confused cannot possibly have the same legal footing in the 14th Amendment as static things like race or gender. So ad hominem is all you have.

 

[JoeB131]

Ad hominem. So you are in a corner again.

You know that behaviors that are waffling, in denial & confused cannot possibly have the same legal footing in the 14th Amendment as static things like race or gender. So ad hominem is all you have.

Well, we all agree, you are in denial about your latent homosexuality... how's "Praying Away the Gay" working for ya, buddy?

 

[Silhouette]

Ad hominem. So you are in a corner again.

You know that behaviors that are waffling, in denial & confused cannot possibly have the same legal footing in the 14th Amendment as static things like race or gender. So ad hominem is all you have.

Well, we all agree, you are in denial about your latent homosexuality... how's "Praying Away the Gay" working for ya, buddy?

OK, a diversion works also to foil that you're losing ground...

The topic is the gay marriage wedding cake issue and how the Court will likely rule. Do you think they will find that an incomplete listing of waffling, confused, in-denial sexual addictions are on the same legal footings as to protections with race and gender via the 14th? Or not?

Even your ad hominems betray your failure in argument. You're talking about "latent" this and that. As I can point out many latent HETEROsexual tendencies in gays. All of which paint a very muddy picture of a very uncertain genesis of a most definite BEHAVIORAL origin adopted after birth. I mean, you're going to give just your pet favorite deviant behaviors special class protection or do ALL deviant behaviors get protection then under the 14th?

You understand how the 14th works, right?

Lawrence v Texas decriminalized sodomy in the privacy of one's home. Not in the County clerk's office or at your local baker.

 

[JoeB131]

OK, a diversion works also to foil that you're losing ground...

The topic is the gay marriage wedding cake issue and how the Court will likely rule. Do you think they will find that an incomplete listing of waffling, confused, in-denial sexual addictions are on the same legal footings as to protections with race and gender via the 14th? Or not?

Yup, they will because you can't undo 50 years of PA laws by saying there's a religious exemption to obeying a law you are otherwise stuck with.

Otherwise, every racist, anti-Semite, anti- whatever can use that as an excuse. Not a can of worms the court will open.

Even your ad hominems betray your failure in argument. You're talking about "latent" this and that. As I can point out many latent HETEROsexual tendencies in gays. All of which paint a very muddy picture of a very uncertain genesis of a most definite BEHAVIORAL origin adopted after birth. I mean, you're going to give just your pet favorite deviant behaviors special class protection or do ALL deviant behaviors get protection then under the 14th?

Yes, yes, we get that... you only pick up pre-op trannies in bars who are dressed like women, so that makes you totally not gay. Just keep telling yourself that. I know you really need to believe it. I'm sure all your visits to gay porn sites and the collection of gay porn you keep posting here is pure research.... I know you really need to believe that.

 

[JoeB131]

Lawrence v Texas decriminalized sodomy in the privacy of one's home. Not in the County clerk's office or at your local baker.

Quite right. Lewd acts in public are always against the law, no matter who performs them... I'm sure that if a straight couple did anal in a bakery, they'd have issues with that , too.

 

[Silhouette]

...you can't undo 50 years of PA laws by saying there's a religious exemption to obeying a law you are otherwise stuck with.

Otherwise, every racist, anti-Semite, anti- whatever can use that as an excuse. Not a can of worms the court will open.

The Court actually can uphold the 1st Amendment when it comes to behaviors, ideals & rituals that others, belonging formally to a religion or not, do not want to promote or participate in.

The key will be “did the client inform you this was for a behavior, ritual or ideal you find morally offensive?”

And, the Courts have undone 100 years of slavery laws & discrimination based on innate things like race or gender. So the amount of time a custom has been unconstitutional for has no effect on Rulings.

There is nothing written or implied in the Constitution about just some deviant sex kinks but not others. The “but not others” is in direct violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[JoeB131]

The Court actually can uphold the 1st Amendment when it comes to behaviors, ideals & rituals that others, belonging formally to a religion or not, do not want to promote or participate in.

Um, no, they've already ruled on this with the Piggy Park decision, when some racist cracker tried to claim his religion said he didn't have to serve black people.

If you don't want to participate in an activity... you have a remedy. Do something else for a living.

And, the Courts have undone 100 years of slavery laws

Actually, the courts did nothing of the sort. Dred Scott. The constitution allowed for slavery and that was it. It took a constitutional amendment to end slavery.

 

[Silhouette]

Um, no, they've already ruled on this with the Piggy Park decision, when some racist cracker tried to claim his religion said he didn't have to serve black people.

If you don't want to participate in an activity... you have a remedy. Do something else

You do have a reading problem. Race is innate & isn’t a ritual or ideal or behavior. It has nothing to do with deviant sex addicts. And as I warned before, I would advise against making the comparison in front of Justice Thomas.

 

[JoeB131]

You do have a reading problem. Race is innate & isn’t a ritual or ideal or behavior. It has nothing to do with deviant sex addicts. And as I warned before, I would advise against making the comparison in front of Justice Thomas.

I don't worry about Uncle Thomas, he's a fucking idiot.

You have 8 other justices who know that once you allow a religious exemption to laws, you'll have people claiming that they can murder people because they are worshiping Quetzalcoatl

 

[Silhouette]

I don't worry about Uncle Thomas, he's a fucking idiot.

You have 8 other justices who know that once you allow a religious exemption to laws, you'll have people claiming that they can murder people...

The justices are sophisticated enough to delineate a person’s right to passive refusal to participate vs an illegal act of violence they try to justify doing to another. Also to sift out innate classes from a partial list of adopted deviant sex kinks.

Trying to get favor with the Court by calling Justice Thomas “Uncle Tom”?

 

[JoeB131]

The justices are sophisticated enough to delineate a person’s right to passive refusal to participate vs an illegal act of violence they try to justify doing to another. Also to sift out innate classes from a partial list of adopted deviant sex kinks.

Trying to get favor with the Court by calling Justice Thomas “Uncle Tom”?

Oh, I didn't know i was personally pleading it... I must have missed that part.

Yeah, Clarance is an "Uncle Tom".

Sorry, man, once you start saying, "This law doesn't count if I'm really sincere about my sky fairy", you've pretty much eliminated law.

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry, man, once you start saying, "This law doesn't count if I'm really sincere about my sky fairy", you've pretty much eliminated law.

When you say sky fairy you are talking about any deeply held convictions & faith.

Thing is, YOU can’t eliminate the 1st Amendment. In the last Ruling with this baker the court says a person can’t be punished for maintaining their faith in the marketplace.

 

[JoeB131]

When you say sky fairy you are talking about any deeply held convictions & faith.

Again, those Aztecs who were sacrificing people had deeply held convictions and faith, too.

Thing is, YOU can’t eliminate the 1st Amendment. In the last Ruling with this baker the court says a person can’t be punished for maintaining their faith in the marketplace.

Sure you can. You can believe any backward ass bronze age superstitions you want, as long as they don't effect anyone else.

If your backward ass bronze age superstitions prevent you from providing the services you offered for sale, then you need to find something else to do for a living.

 

[Silhouette]

Those practices are just as legitimate as two dudes forcing kids to not ever know a mother via contract. Just as barbaric.

And all you said doesn’t change that the Court has already found that a person can’t be punished in the marketplace for refusing to celebrate rituals, ideals or behaviors they find morally repugnant.

 

[JoeB131]

Those practices are just as legitimate as two dudes forcing kids to not ever know a mother via contract. Just as barbaric.

Uh, dude, 50% of marriages end in divorce... By your logic, people should be kept in marriages as long as there are kids involved.

Never gonna happen.

And all you said doesn’t change that the Court has already found that a person can’t be punished in the marketplace for refusing to celebrate rituals, ideals or behaviors they find morally repugnant.

No, the court just found they shouldn't have said mean things about his bronze age superstitions...