Local Pennsylvania bridal shop harassed and threatened by LGBT activist after turning away same sex

[bodecea]

No one is required to put hateful particular message on the cake, not even religious bakers.

The typical leftist double standard. If they refuse, it's because the message is "hateful". If Christians refuse, it's because they're "bigots".

Nope...all are allowed to refuse messages. You don't seem to be understanding that basic fact. Is it because you refuse to understand or because you are incapable of understanding?

That's a lie because Christian business owners are being sued and their businesses destroyed for refusing to print the message.

You are welcome to show which businesses those are. Provide us with links to said stories of them refusing to print a message.

Sure, right after you show me all the muslim cake bakers that have been targeted by the queer mafia.

I've not made the claim of any bakers targeted by gays....that's on you.

 

[bodecea]

Likewise a Christian bakery that does not normally do wedding cakes can not be forced to do one regardless of who the client is.

But Christian or Muslim bakers who DO wedding cakes are not allowed at all to knowingly make them for what is not allowed: a celebration of two women or two men lying together in the Biblical sense. You're going to lose this one in court. You might as well give up. The courts long ago erred in saying "homosexuality is inborn". And using that as the premise to proceed. It is, in fact, behavioral. And that key legal distinction means they cannot force other people to play along if that behavior is abhorrent to them.

You'll see....mark my words...

Its already beginning:


Judge rules in favor of California baker who refused to design wedding cake for same-sex couple

According to court documents from the ruling in favor of Tastries Bakery:

"A wedding cake is not just cake in Free Speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage.

There couldnot be greater form of expressive conduct. Here... They plan celebration to declare the validity of their marital union and their enduring love for one another.

The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees.

Identifying the interests here as implicating First Amendment protections does not end the inquiry...

Furthermore, here the state minimizes the fact that Miller has provided for an alternative means for potential customers to receive the product they desire through the services of another talent" -- Miller recommended her competitor to the same-sex couple after refusing to design them a cake.

The ruling goes on to say that

"the fact that Rodriguez-Del Rios feel they will suffer indignity from Miller’s choice is not sufficient to deny constitutional protection."....


Maybe this helped:

The President has instructed me to issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections in federal law, as appropriate. Exec. Order No. 13798 § 4, 82 Fed. Reg. 21675 (May 4, 2017). Consistent with that instruction, I am issuing this memorandum and appendix to guide all administrative agencies and executive departments in the execution of federal law.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-r...nload?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

That ruling isn't going to stand on appeal if that baker makes wedding cakes as a business with a business license.

 

[Lysistrata]

I wish, just once, that the "Christians" involved with this anti-gay stuff would accurately identify themselves and instead of just using the generic term "Christian," which implies that all people of the Christian faith feel the same way as they do and support their activities. It is a false implication.

I wish people that call themselves Christians and don't believe the Bible would identify themselves so we know right away who the wolves in sheep's clothing are.

You do know that the notions that the bible (in whatever version) is inerrant and infallible and that the bible (whatever version) was actually written by the Supreme Being were invented much later, don't you? I find these notions to be stupid and ridiculous. Calvin? Darby? Rushdoony? So who were they that they claimed to know so much? Just some guys. The Roman Church was involved in some horrible things, and Martin Luther sought to call it to task, given. Then we got the Protestants, who only made things worse. Now we've got exactly what? The Rapture? Darby? Frankie idiot Graham? The Southern Baptist morons? Tony Perkins? This is so laughable.

 

[badger2]

The judge is quite full of it with "There could not be greater form of expressive conduct." The judge is quite biased as to religion's expressive inculcation, and continues the juridical pathology by invoking the sacrilege of the U.S. Constitution and its theft, which we have already pointed out.

 

[BS Filter]

Yes, it's all about the message, not the sale of a cake. No one has refused the perverts a cake. The Christians refused to write a message that offended them. Weird how the left is so easily offended by so many things, but when a Christian is offended by refusing to violate their conscience, the left goes bonkers and sues them. The left demands tolerance, but shows none.

What message was that?

Queer marriage. The left wants submission. If anyone will not submit to the agenda that queer marriage is normal, they will be punished.

There is no message written on the cake normally so what are you referring to?

The Christian bakers that refuse to print a message on the cake that endorses queer marriage.

Name them. And the messages they refused to put on a cake.

Name the muslim bakeries targeted by the queer mafia.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It is absolutely impossible in a society of over 300 million people to allow anyone who holds a particular belief to disobey the law at will without creating absolute chaos. Once this is allowed for one group of people, it has to be allowed for all other groups. This is chaos in commerce and unacceptable humiliation for would-be customers, who have no way of knowing what the whims of store owners are when they go shopping. When you set up a business, you agree to obey the law.

Ironic that you would talk about allowing anyone who holds a particular belief to disobey the law at will. What about your sanctuary cities?

First of all, the "right" that this specific sect of Christians wants to claim for its members will apply to each and every individual and whatever beliefs that each and every individual holds, which, as I said, would produce nothing but chaos.
Secondly, sanctuary cities don't interfere with ICE. They just ignore ICE and go about their normal routine. And ICE goes about its normal routine.

The normal routine for ICE is to find and deport illegal immigrants. Sanctuary cities definitely interferes with that.

 

[BS Filter]

The typical leftist double standard. If they refuse, it's because the message is "hateful". If Christians refuse, it's because they're "bigots".

Nope...all are allowed to refuse messages. You don't seem to be understanding that basic fact. Is it because you refuse to understand or because you are incapable of understanding?

That's a lie because Christian business owners are being sued and their businesses destroyed for refusing to print the message.

You are welcome to show which businesses those are. Provide us with links to said stories of them refusing to print a message.

Sure, right after you show me all the muslim cake bakers that have been targeted by the queer mafia.

I've not made the claim of any bakers targeted by gays....that's on you.

No, it's not on me. It's common knowledge. You're having a frustrating day, huh.

 

[BS Filter]

I wish, just once, that the "Christians" involved with this anti-gay stuff would accurately identify themselves and instead of just using the generic term "Christian," which implies that all people of the Christian faith feel the same way as they do and support their activities. It is a false implication.

I wish people that call themselves Christians and don't believe the Bible would identify themselves so we know right away who the wolves in sheep's clothing are.

You do know that the notions that the bible (in whatever version) is inerrant and infallible and that the bible (whatever version) was actually written by the Supreme Being were invented much later, don't you? I find these notions to be stupid and ridiculous. Calvin? Darby? Rushdoony? So who were they that they claimed to know so much? Just some guys. The Roman Church was involved in some horrible things, and Martin Luther sought to call it to task, given. Then we got the Protestants, who only made things worse. Now we've got exactly what? The Rapture? Darby? Frankie idiot Graham? The Southern Baptist morons? Tony Perkins? This is so laughable.

Totally disagree with your ramblings.

 

[badger2]

The judge is also an authoritarian fascist in telling everyone henceforth that the law will decide how the cake is to be used. The judge seems to poetize (himself? herself?) as a Masonic boy scout who believes in a capitalist Supreme Being. The judge is a janus-faced psycho weasel who glosses over the protections obscurely granted according to the U.S. Constitution, namely, the other parties in this case, thereby reifying the religious pathology and pre-accomplished theft embedded in the U.S. Constitution.

The judge attempts to secularize what is a religious problem, which is supremely stupid and arrogant.

 

[Lysistrata]

It is absolutely impossible in a society of over 300 million people to allow anyone who holds a particular belief to disobey the law at will without creating absolute chaos. Once this is allowed for one group of people, it has to be allowed for all other groups. This is chaos in commerce and unacceptable humiliation for would-be customers, who have no way of knowing what the whims of store owners are when they go shopping. When you set up a business, you agree to obey the law.

Ironic that you would talk about allowing anyone who holds a particular belief to disobey the law at will. What about your sanctuary cities?

First of all, the "right" that this specific sect of Christians wants to claim for its members will apply to each and every individual and whatever beliefs that each and every individual holds, which, as I said, would produce nothing but chaos.
Secondly, sanctuary cities don't interfere with ICE. They just ignore ICE and go about their normal routine. And ICE goes about its normal routine.

The normal routine for ICE is to find and deport illegal immigrants. Sanctuary cities definitely interferes with that.

ICE has its own investigators and enforcers. Nobody else is required to dirty their hands or endanger anyone on behalf of the hoodlum government now in control in DC.

 

[BS Filter]

It is absolutely impossible in a society of over 300 million people to allow anyone who holds a particular belief to disobey the law at will without creating absolute chaos. Once this is allowed for one group of people, it has to be allowed for all other groups. This is chaos in commerce and unacceptable humiliation for would-be customers, who have no way of knowing what the whims of store owners are when they go shopping. When you set up a business, you agree to obey the law.

Ironic that you would talk about allowing anyone who holds a particular belief to disobey the law at will. What about your sanctuary cities?

First of all, the "right" that this specific sect of Christians wants to claim for its members will apply to each and every individual and whatever beliefs that each and every individual holds, which, as I said, would produce nothing but chaos.
Secondly, sanctuary cities don't interfere with ICE. They just ignore ICE and go about their normal routine. And ICE goes about its normal routine.

The normal routine for ICE is to find and deport illegal immigrants. Sanctuary cities definitely interferes with that.

ICE has its own investigators and enforcers. Nobody else is required to dirty their hands or endanger anyone on behalf of the hoodlum government now in control in DC.

Enforcing the law is now "dirtying their hands" and "hoodlum government". Man, are you confused.

 

[Lysistrata]

What message was that?

Queer marriage. The left wants submission. If anyone will not submit to the agenda that queer marriage is normal, they will be punished.

There is no message written on the cake normally so what are you referring to?

The Christian bakers that refuse to print a message on the cake that endorses queer marriage.

Name them. And the messages they refused to put on a cake.

Name the muslim bakeries targeted by the queer mafia.

WHAT "queer mafia"? Shoppers? Shoppers don't know from advertising whether somebody running a business is involved in one of these queer cults? How could they?

 

[Lysistrata]

It is absolutely impossible in a society of over 300 million people to allow anyone who holds a particular belief to disobey the law at will without creating absolute chaos. Once this is allowed for one group of people, it has to be allowed for all other groups. This is chaos in commerce and unacceptable humiliation for would-be customers, who have no way of knowing what the whims of store owners are when they go shopping. When you set up a business, you agree to obey the law.

Ironic that you would talk about allowing anyone who holds a particular belief to disobey the law at will. What about your sanctuary cities?

First of all, the "right" that this specific sect of Christians wants to claim for its members will apply to each and every individual and whatever beliefs that each and every individual holds, which, as I said, would produce nothing but chaos.
Secondly, sanctuary cities don't interfere with ICE. They just ignore ICE and go about their normal routine. And ICE goes about its normal routine.

The normal routine for ICE is to find and deport illegal immigrants. Sanctuary cities definitely interferes with that.

ICE has its own investigators and enforcers. Nobody else is required to dirty their hands or endanger anyone on behalf of the hoodlum government now in control in DC.

Enforcing the law is now "dirtying their hands" and "hoodlum government". Man, are you confused.

No official except ICE is responsible for enforcing federal immigration law. And yes, under the filth who now masquerades as POTUS and his lackeys in Congress, we do have a hoodlum government, white-trash style. And they are trying to make decent Americans obey their authoritarian demands. Ain't going to happen. We do not obey hoodlums.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It is absolutely impossible in a society of over 300 million people to allow anyone who holds a particular belief to disobey the law at will without creating absolute chaos. Once this is allowed for one group of people, it has to be allowed for all other groups. This is chaos in commerce and unacceptable humiliation for would-be customers, who have no way of knowing what the whims of store owners are when they go shopping. When you set up a business, you agree to obey the law.

Ironic that you would talk about allowing anyone who holds a particular belief to disobey the law at will. What about your sanctuary cities?

First of all, the "right" that this specific sect of Christians wants to claim for its members will apply to each and every individual and whatever beliefs that each and every individual holds, which, as I said, would produce nothing but chaos.
Secondly, sanctuary cities don't interfere with ICE. They just ignore ICE and go about their normal routine. And ICE goes about its normal routine.

The normal routine for ICE is to find and deport illegal immigrants. Sanctuary cities definitely interferes with that.

ICE has its own investigators and enforcers. Nobody else is required to dirty their hands or endanger anyone on behalf of the hoodlum government now in control in DC.

Well of course they have their own investigators and enforcers. So does the FBI, ATF, DEA and every other federal law enforcement agency. What's your point?

 

[badger2]

The judge is overconfident with the authoritarian statement, "A wedding cake is not just cake in free speech analysis." In a schizoanalysis of the judge's speech, an object is being married to the indignance of the already information-compromised person who has put themselves on the front lines of the capitalist market. This person is also overconfident that their religion covers them from a "Rushdie" attack, for Rushdie does question the very concept of what language is. The judge tries to circumvent the Other's indignance, concentrating the malediction back towards the scapegoat(s), as if there were no equivalent indignance for the other parties involved. The judgment is biased for religion. The judge should be embarassed. If not, we're not surprised.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I wish, just once, that the "Christians" involved with this anti-gay stuff would accurately identify themselves and instead of just using the generic term "Christian," which implies that all people of the Christian faith feel the same way as they do and support their activities. It is a false implication.

I wish people that call themselves Christians and don't believe the Bible would identify themselves so we know right away who the wolves in sheep's clothing are.

WHich bible?

My, aren't you the coy one!

I'm asking a serious question....you DO know that there are several versions out there, right?

If you're referring to differences such as the King James Bible and the New International version, these are only differences in wording but the message is the same from Bible to Bible. Unless you're referring to versions that actually convey a different message or give different specifics such as "Jesus wept" as opposed to "Jesus said 'Fuck!'" that I don't know about.

 

[BS Filter]

Queer marriage. The left wants submission. If anyone will not submit to the agenda that queer marriage is normal, they will be punished.

There is no message written on the cake normally so what are you referring to?

The Christian bakers that refuse to print a message on the cake that endorses queer marriage.

Name them. And the messages they refused to put on a cake.

Name the muslim bakeries targeted by the queer mafia.

WHAT "queer mafia"? Shoppers? Shoppers don't know from advertising whether somebody running a business is involved in one of these queer cults? How could they?

Oh yeah. The queers that enter a Christian business have no idea the owner is a Christian that will refuse to put a message endorsing queer marriage on their cake, huh. Excuse me, my unicorn is double parked.

 

[bodecea]

I wish, just once, that the "Christians" involved with this anti-gay stuff would accurately identify themselves and instead of just using the generic term "Christian," which implies that all people of the Christian faith feel the same way as they do and support their activities. It is a false implication.

I wish people that call themselves Christians and don't believe the Bible would identify themselves so we know right away who the wolves in sheep's clothing are.

WHich bible?

My, aren't you the coy one!

I'm asking a serious question....you DO know that there are several versions out there, right?

If you're referring to differences such as the King James Bible and the New International version, these are only differences in wording but the message is the same from Bible to Bible. Unless you're referring to versions that actually convey a different message or give different specifics such as "Jesus wept" as opposed to "Jesus said 'Fuck!'" that I don't know about.

Not at all...there are many differences...some to the point that some christian sects will accept only one compared to the others.......but ultimately, they are ALL translations upon translations upon translations.

 

[badger2]

#517 is cynical and stupid. That it's a female female cake maker makes all the difference, because it's her, when aligning with the christian trinity, who has only two choices: ecstatic melancholy or living her life thinking of herself as a male homosexual. Just because the xian does not believe in science doesn't make the science incorrect. Psychoanalysis sometimes gets it correct, too. That is why this case has the potential to explode the deceptive arrogance of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Lysistrata]

There is no message written on the cake normally so what are you referring to?

The Christian bakers that refuse to print a message on the cake that endorses queer marriage.

Name them. And the messages they refused to put on a cake.

Name the muslim bakeries targeted by the queer mafia.

WHAT "queer mafia"? Shoppers? Shoppers don't know from advertising whether somebody running a business is involved in one of these queer cults? How could they?

Oh yeah. The queers that enter a Christian business have no idea the owner is a Christian that will refuse to put a message endorsing queer marriage on their cake, huh. Excuse me, my unicorn is double parked.

How does any shopper know that the proprietor is a member of one of these cults?