LGBT Staff Won't Serve Christians

[M14 Shooter]

Why would any guy marry another guy?

Transfer of assets after death.

 

[HeyNorm]

Transfer of assets after death.

Maybe, but I’m not to question motives, right?

 

[insolent imp]

When did you realize you were stupid?

when I responded to you. every one of your posts costs the reader IQ Points.

 

[HeyNorm]

when I responded to you. every one of your posts costs the reader IQ Points.

And with an IQ as small as yours I’ve caused irreparable damage!

 

[insolent imp]

And with an IQ as small as yours I’ve caused irreparable damage!

coming from the guy who heard it was chilly outside so he grabbed a bowl I'll take that as a compliment.

 

[HeyNorm]

coming from the guy who heard it was chilly outside so he grabbed a bowl I'll take that as a compliment.

My favorite part was:

CONSUMATE

Lol, absolutely brilliant.

 

[HeyNorm]

I guess you didn't know that in a couple of states it's required for marriage. But I'm sure you've consummated plenty of relationships behind the dumpster at Dennys.

Um, no, there are no consumation police. Not even in your wildest dream.

In those states, failure to consumate makes the marriage eligible for annulment, but, unless the parties want the marriage annulled, it remains valid.

Good lord?

 

[Esdraelon]

Bad business decision but it is their choice.

Had they simply refused the sale it would have been acceptable. Waiting until 90 minutes prior to guests arriving, they should be sued for damages.

 

[SweetSue92]

Seems to me that this is similar to the gay wedding cake issue. So it seems fair and therefore fine with me.

The baker opened up this whole can of worms and, whether we like it or not, we’re probably going to see a whole lot of issues like this start to pop up.

No, he really didn't. It should have been within his right from day one to refuse an event or a particular cake. But the gaystapo couldn't let it go, so here we are. Crybullies.

 

[toobfreak]

Yes. They are in a bad place now vs. the law.

Still, you have to wonder about the judgement of a christian organization which chooses a restaurant staffed by mostly gay LGBTQ people to hold their celebration event!

 

[SweetSue92]

Still, you have to wonder about the judgement of a christian organization which chooses a restaurant staffed by mostly gay LGBTQ people to hold their celebration event!

I don't know about "mostly" gay--but I do think a proportionally, servers have a higher percentage of gay than the general population.

 

[toobfreak]

I don't know about "mostly" gay--but I do think a proportionally, servers have a higher percentage of gay than the general population.

Oh good Sue, another reason not to eat out.

 

[Polishprince]

Hey what happened to "Bake the Cake"?

I wonder if they would serve a group of Muslims that came in? I'm guessing yes, because that's different.

If this joint doesn't want to serve Normative people, I don't think that many Normative folks would want to eat there.

But the ironic part of this is that if the Normative people had been proactive and said that they wouldn't eat at a LGBTQ+ joint, they would be the ones condemned.

Will libs condemn their pederast allies here for their heterophobia?

 

[insolent imp]

Um, no, there are no consumation police. Not even in your wildest dream.

In those states, failure to consumate makes the marriage eligible for annulment, but, unless the parties want the marriage annulled, it remains valid.

Good lord?

Many states explicitly require by law consummation of marriage for the vows to be considered valid. They include Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont and Wisconsin.

 

[HeyNorm]

Many states explicitly require by law consummation of marriage for the vows to be considered valid. They include Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont and Wisconsin.

And those marriages may be annulled.

Fun fact: consumation is considered to be the first act of intercourse AFTER the ceremony has been conducted.

So, you and the rest of same sex supporters would deny legal marriage to the Sailor who marries his spouse on the dock, then boards the ship to go to war?

Guess what Bro, even though they did not consumate, the state and federal govt will not insist on proof they consummated before both partners get marriage benefits.

Oh, and there is no time limit as to when this first consumation exists, nor proof of consumation.



So let’s take this further to illustrate your absurdity. And yes, it needs illustrated.

This sailor boards the ship or any military transport, without first consummating his/her marriage and dies in combat prior to consumation. And we have all the evidence in the world they could not possibly have consumated. I have no doubt in the world the partner left behind would be considered to have had a valid marriage and receive full survivor benefits.

Now argue against that and show what a pathetic, desperate argument looks like.

 

[XponentialChaos]

No, he really didn't. It should have been within his right from day one to refuse an event or a particular cake. But the gaystapo couldn't let it go, so here we are. Crybullies.

He didn’t want to make the gay cake. These people don’t want to serve the Christian event.

What’s the problem? Looks fair to me. Stupid but fair.

 

[playtime]

I never said that,

uh-huh

you implied it

uh-huh. keep squirming....

Now go bother someone else

& perhaps you should brush up on the 3rd commandment.

 

[dblack]

Seems to me that this is similar to the gay wedding cake issue.

It's exactly the same. And it's funny watching the hypocrites twist themselves inside out insisting "it's different when we do it!".

Or, well, it's funny at first. Then it just gets depressing.

 

[martybegan]

“It’s different” because it’s what you want.

You have no principles outside of tribalism. Christian bakers are in your tribe. Social media companies aren’t.

The anger at oppressive government only extends to situations when that government is opposed to your tribe. When you oppose someone, you have no problem using oppressive government to achieve your goals.

LOL. First of all I'm a lapsed Catholic at best. I don't agree with the baker, I agree with the baker's right to free exercise.

Even the baker is willing to compromise, saying he doesn't deny anyone point of sale items to anyone.

The left is the group with the tribalism issue, not the right. You guys lost the "live and let live" high ground decades ago and keep digging yourself deeper holes.

 

[martybegan]

Your example was absurd, but it didn't provde any information on my remark.

My example was on point, and you are too stupid to get it, or too dogmatic to even attempt to admit it.