Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nobody is requiring anyone else to believe in and/or to abide by what one believes in, but that is the way you want to play it here. It really is a clever way in which you and others attack the Christians by the ways in which you use here, so let's chalk this one up as just another attack, but this time it was being conducted by you. I mean hey you just conducted yourself in a disingenuous manor, and we see right into the core of the machine in which you all are running now. Got anymore tactics to be exposed so easily ?The assault on Christianity in this nation right ?
No. There is no assault on Christianity in this country. Nor is requiring someone to follow the same law that everyone else follows an attack, assault, rape, romp, ass kicking, or any other colorfully violent description you may wish to apply.
You're not David Bowie. This isn't the alamo. You're just being a little melodramatic.
Applying the law the same to Christians the same way you do everyone else isn't 'attacking Christians'. As Christians aren't exempt from the law.
If you want to do business publicly, you're required to meet minimum standards of conduct with your customers. They must be treated fairly and equally.
That's not unreasonable. And that's not an 'attack on Christianity', Mr. Bowie.
13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong
When should these homos be expected to bake a cake or are they exempt?
If these homos want to do business publicly, they're required to do the same.
But they will make the cake. And that's the hanging point...not the speech on the cake. But the cake itself. I'll give any baker a pass on speech. But on selling your signature product? Nope.
Well then, you would be incorrect.By chance, do you no what abnormal means? Left-handed people are abnormal for instance.Normal heterosexuals? I've yet to meet ones of those. I know a lot of crazy fucker heterosexuals though.Whatever. You believe whatever makes you comfortable. And gays get the legal recognition and protection that they want.
Everyone wins!
I believe what's true. The legal recognition doesn't equate to being on the same level as normal heterosexuals.
Normal heterosexuals. A man that likes women and vice versa. Anything else is abnormal.
I don't equate those in the numerical minority as abnormal because they have a fewer number. It's based on action.
He didn't ask for one of these on the cake now did he? That they do all the time.Nobody is requiring anyone else to believe in and/or to abide by what one believes in, but that is the way you want to play it here. It really is a clever way in which you and others attack the Christians by the ways in which you use here, so let's chalk this one up as just another attack, but this time it was being conducted by you. I mean hey you just conducted yourself in a disingenuous manor, and we see right into the core of the machine in which you all are running now. Got anymore tactics to be exposed so easily ?No. There is no assault on Christianity in this country. Nor is requiring someone to follow the same law that everyone else follows an attack, assault, rape, romp, ass kicking, or any other colorfully violent description you may wish to apply.
You're not David Bowie. This isn't the alamo. You're just being a little melodramatic.
Applying the law the same to Christians the same way you do everyone else isn't 'attacking Christians'. As Christians aren't exempt from the law.
If you want to do business publicly, you're required to meet minimum standards of conduct with your customers. They must be treated fairly and equally.
That's not unreasonable. And that's not an 'attack on Christianity', Mr. Bowie.
13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong
When should these homos be expected to bake a cake or are they exempt?
If these homos want to do business publicly, they're required to do the same.
But they will make the cake. And that's the hanging point...not the speech on the cake. But the cake itself. I'll give any baker a pass on speech. But on selling your signature product? Nope.
What's on it is as important as the cake itself.
So you'll give a fag baker a pass on what is on the cake yet the Christian baker opposed has to put two male names and two males figures ON the cake? Hypocrite.
I was following he law of my State which some activist, faggot friendly judge decided to step beyond his bounds and overturn. Unlike him, the law was made by a legislature that was elected by the people of the State. Seems you think an appointed member of the government should have more power than those elected by the people.
I think that a role of the courts is to test legislation against the constitution, which is the system set up by the founding fathers. Just because the majority enacts a law does not mean that the law is constitutional. That's what the term equal protection means...it helps to prevent tyranny of the majority against the minority.
Say you were a member of a minority belief system...not Christianity. Wouldn't you want that legal protection for you to practice your beliefs, according to the dictates of your conscience?
Well then, you would be incorrect.By chance, do you no what abnormal means? Left-handed people are abnormal for instance.Normal heterosexuals? I've yet to meet ones of those. I know a lot of crazy fucker heterosexuals though.I believe what's true. The legal recognition doesn't equate to being on the same level as normal heterosexuals.
Normal heterosexuals. A man that likes women and vice versa. Anything else is abnormal.
I don't equate those in the numerical minority as abnormal because they have a fewer number. It's based on action.
Who told you that utter nonsense? That's what it is BTW.Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage a judge can't rule on something for which the Constitution doesn't give authority.
No, it isn't, it's a fact. Abnormal is abnormal, meaning not the norm of 50% + 1. Giving blowjobs is normal, as in more than 50% of the population does such a thing. Skydiving is abnormal, meaning less than 50% of the population does such a thing.Well then, you would be incorrect.By chance, do you no what abnormal means? Left-handed people are abnormal for instance.Normal heterosexuals? I've yet to meet ones of those. I know a lot of crazy fucker heterosexuals though.
Normal heterosexuals. A man that likes women and vice versa. Anything else is abnormal.
I don't equate those in the numerical minority as abnormal because they have a fewer number. It's based on action.
That is your OPINION dickhead.
That is your OPINION dickhead.
The laws forbid it now and you want to make it out as if it won't change. Laws prohibited same sex marriage in my State until some judge overruled them. If that can change, why do you not believe PA laws related to this can change.
I'm almost 50. Like I've said, it may be another 30 years or more before it does. I may not be around when it does.
Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage a judge can't rule on something for which the Constitution doesn't give authority. That's how you fags work. You can't convince enough people to support you so you go around the lawmaking process and get faggot loving judges to rule for you.
When it comes to religion, that legal protection is already there in the 1st Amendment.
Actually, while marriage is not expressly discussed in the constitution, gay marriage is viewed by many, even conservatives, as an extension of Loving v. Virginia (1967), and prohibitions against gay marriage as a violation of the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protection. Thus, your argument that the constitution doesn't address this isn't specifically accurate, and your point that judges can't rule on issues not addressed in the constitution is incorrect. In fact, most supreme court rulings in the modern era are based upon the bill of rights, rather than just the constitution. And yes, courts can indeed interpret legislation in light of the bill of rights.
What team do you consider me to be on? You don't seem to understand my position on the subject, at all, if you think that Conservative number guy and I are in agreement here.He already knows that. S/he is on your team don't forget. Let me guess, he'll flame you until he meekly concedes that you are right, then disappear shortly after this thread is closed for your manufactured flame-fight? Isn't that about how it goes?
My contention is that periodically, "conservative" posters are brought to this thread to start "beating up on the gays" so that they have an excuse/reason to petition the modators to shut down the thread ..because the LGBT cult REALLY REALLY REALLY doesn't want the general public to see:What team do you consider me to be on? You don't seem to understand my position on the subject, at all, if you think that Conservative number guy and I are in agreement here.He already knows that. S/he is on your team don't forget. Let me guess, he'll flame you until he meekly concedes that you are right, then disappear shortly after this thread is closed for your manufactured flame-fight? Isn't that about how it goes?
He didn't ask for one of these on the cake now did he? That they do all the time.Nobody is requiring anyone else to believe in and/or to abide by what one believes in, but that is the way you want to play it here. It really is a clever way in which you and others attack the Christians by the ways in which you use here, so let's chalk this one up as just another attack, but this time it was being conducted by you. I mean hey you just conducted yourself in a disingenuous manor, and we see right into the core of the machine in which you all are running now. Got anymore tactics to be exposed so easily ?
Applying the law the same to Christians the same way you do everyone else isn't 'attacking Christians'. As Christians aren't exempt from the law.
If you want to do business publicly, you're required to meet minimum standards of conduct with your customers. They must be treated fairly and equally.
That's not unreasonable. And that's not an 'attack on Christianity', Mr. Bowie.
13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong
When should these homos be expected to bake a cake or are they exempt?
If these homos want to do business publicly, they're required to do the same.
But they will make the cake. And that's the hanging point...not the speech on the cake. But the cake itself. I'll give any baker a pass on speech. But on selling your signature product? Nope.
What's on it is as important as the cake itself.
So you'll give a fag baker a pass on what is on the cake yet the Christian baker opposed has to put two male names and two males figures ON the cake? Hypocrite.
My contention is that periodically, "conservative" posters are brought to this thread to start "beating up on the gays" so that they have an excuse/reason to petition the modators to shut down the thread ..because the LGBT cult REALLY REALLY REALLY doesn't want the general public to see:What team do you consider me to be on? You don't seem to understand my position on the subject, at all, if you think that Conservative number guy and I are in agreement here.He already knows that. S/he is on your team don't forget. Let me guess, he'll flame you until he meekly concedes that you are right, then disappear shortly after this thread is closed for your manufactured flame-fight? Isn't that about how it goes?
1. How popular this topic is.
2. How many people voted on the poll and
3. How they voted on the poll.
This thing pops up reliably any time one of the lower circuits or now the SUPREMES themselves take up new arguments. The numbers in the poll completely refute all the smoke and mirrors that the cult has been feeding the press about "suddenly everyone loves gay marriage". While they're still afraid to put it to a vote on state ballots...
Yeah, anything, even a staged fight to make this thread disappear.
If it was this, or a rainbow cake and they make rainbow cakes, no problem and perfectly fair.He didn't ask for one of these on the cake now did he? That they do all the time.Applying the law the same to Christians the same way you do everyone else isn't 'attacking Christians'. As Christians aren't exempt from the law.
If you want to do business publicly, you're required to meet minimum standards of conduct with your customers. They must be treated fairly and equally.
That's not unreasonable. And that's not an 'attack on Christianity', Mr. Bowie.
13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong
When should these homos be expected to bake a cake or are they exempt?
If these homos want to do business publicly, they're required to do the same.
But they will make the cake. And that's the hanging point...not the speech on the cake. But the cake itself. I'll give any baker a pass on speech. But on selling your signature product? Nope.
What's on it is as important as the cake itself.
So you'll give a fag baker a pass on what is on the cake yet the Christian baker opposed has to put two male names and two males figures ON the cake? Hypocrite.
The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual. According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
The fags asked for two of the same kind.
Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage a judge can't rule on something for which the Constitution doesn't give authority. That's how you fags work. You can't convince enough people to support you so you go around the lawmaking process and get faggot loving judges to rule for you.
When it comes to religion, that legal protection is already there in the 1st Amendment.
Actually, while marriage is not expressly discussed in the constitution, gay marriage is viewed by many, even conservatives, as an extension of Loving v. Virginia (1967), and prohibitions against gay marriage as a violation of the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protection. Thus, your argument that the constitution doesn't address this isn't specifically accurate, and your point that judges can't rule on issues not addressed in the constitution is incorrect. In fact, most supreme court rulings in the modern era are based upon the bill of rights, rather than just the constitution. And yes, courts can indeed interpret legislation in light of the bill of rights.
The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual. According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
The fags asked for two of the same kind.
If it was this, or a rainbow cake and they make rainbow cakes, no problem and perfectly fair.He didn't ask for one of these on the cake now did he? That they do all the time.13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong
When should these homos be expected to bake a cake or are they exempt?
If these homos want to do business publicly, they're required to do the same.
But they will make the cake. And that's the hanging point...not the speech on the cake. But the cake itself. I'll give any baker a pass on speech. But on selling your signature product? Nope.
What's on it is as important as the cake itself.
So you'll give a fag baker a pass on what is on the cake yet the Christian baker opposed has to put two male names and two males figures ON the cake? Hypocrite.
The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual. According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
The fags asked for two of the same kind.
A true Conservative would not view it that way.
You agree that marriage is not specifically addressed in the Constitution. That is correct. That you use equal protection to support your argument is interpretive in it's application to marriage.
Since the Bill of Rights, although 10 Amendments, are as much a part of the Constitution as the original document pass just a few years prior to them being added. At least you got that the belief the 14th amendment equal protection clause is interpretive when it comes to marriage. What you don't seem to get is that the word "marriage" doesn't exist in it and that should take precedence over what someone thinks something means.
