Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Silhouette]

.>


I wonder if I owned a barbecue restaurant, call it "Piggie Park Enterprises", and refused to rent my banquet room to an interracial couple because my personal religious beliefs were such that I believe interracial couples shouldn't marry.

Would we be having a different discussion.

.>>>>

Yes. We would be having a different discussion. Race is innate. Butt sex addiction isn't. One has protections. The other doesn't. You're catching on!

 

[Pop23]

If the two men were straight, not homosexual (and yes, that is completely legal), and the Baker refused service because his religious belief was that marriage was between a man and women, what law would have been broken?

 

[P@triot]

Well for starters, homosexuals cannot have families.

That is complete horseshit ! Thay can and do have families . I doubt that you believe your own clap trap, but if you do, it does not speak well for you level of intellectual development

What a dumb post. Two people of the same gender cannot reproduce. Stop pretending like you don’t understand.

 

[Silhouette]

If the two men were straight, not homosexual (and yes, that is completely legal), and the Baker refused service because his religious belief was that marriage was between a man and women, what law would have been broken?

None. People really should carefully read the decision in this matter linked on page 1 midway down.

This Decision said that lifestyles cannot use force to make other people play along. They particularly said that states or PA laws cannot punish a person of faith in the marketplace for practicing their faith in the marketplace. Or more simply put: lifestyles have no Constitutional protections. But they did say that people of faith have 1st Amendment protections that follow the man out of church, down the steps, down the street and into the marketplace where he has his shop.

Even more simply put, the Court found in favor of people of faith vs PA laws forcing them to abdicate faith, even temporarily (to qualify for running a business) to pander to the cult of LGBT. The Court also found that PA laws that coddle the cult of LGBT while punishing other lifestyles and faiths are a form of the state declaring an unofficial official religion.

 

[Silhouette]

Well for starters, homosexuals cannot have families.

That is complete horseshit ! Thay can and do have families . I doubt that you believe your own clap trap, but if you do, it does not speak well for you level of intellectual development

What a dumb post. Two people of the same gender cannot reproduce. Stop pretending like you don’t understand.

In PP's defense, a thing I rarely do, I'll say that he probably meant that the cult of LGBT do the baby-on-demand (child trafficking) with each other's eggs and sperm so that kids will be dragged into their fatherless or motherless perverse homes where a man officiates "as the mother" and a woman officiates "as the father". Like a real life charade where kids actual psyches are involved; and they know the difference when they see the normal parents of their friends.

 

[WorldWatcher]

.>


I wonder if I owned a barbecue restaurant, call it "Piggie Park Enterprises", and refused to rent my banquet room to an interracial couple because my personal religious beliefs were such that I believe interracial couples shouldn't marry.

Would we be having a different discussion.

.>>>>

Yes. We would be having a different discussion. Race is innate. Butt sex addiction isn't. One has protections. The other doesn't. You're catching on!

Choosing to marry someone of a different race is not innate. It is a choice.


.>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

If the two men were straight, not homosexual (and yes, that is completely legal), and the Baker refused service because his religious belief was that marriage was between a man and women, what law would have been broken?

The Colorad Public Accommodation law which also restricts discrimination based on sex.

So if you want to ignore the fact that it was based on the sexual orientation of the customers and play word games, then he would have still violated the law.

Will sell wedding cakes to Male / Female couples.
Will not sell wedding cakes to Male / Male or Female / Female couples.

Discrimination based on sex.


.>>>>

 

[Pop23]

If the two men were straight, not homosexual (and yes, that is completely legal), and the Baker refused service because his religious belief was that marriage was between a man and women, what law would have been broken?

The Colorad Public Accommodation law which also restricts discrimination based on sex.

So if you want to ignore the fact that it was based on the sexual orientation of the customers and play word games, then he would have still violated the law.

Will sell wedding cakes to Male / Female couples.
Will not sell wedding cakes to Male / Male or Female / Female couples.

Discrimination based on sex.


.>>>>

What word games WW. Are you trying to claim that two straights marrying is illegal?

 

[Pop23]

If the two men were straight, not homosexual (and yes, that is completely legal), and the Baker refused service because his religious belief was that marriage was between a man and women, what law would have been broken?

The Colorad Public Accommodation law which also restricts discrimination based on sex.

So if you want to ignore the fact that it was based on the sexual orientation of the customers and play word games, then he would have still violated the law.

Will sell wedding cakes to Male / Female couples.
Will not sell wedding cakes to Male / Male or Female / Female couples.

Discrimination based on sex.


.>>>>

No, it's not based on sex, it's based on his religious belief that marriage is a Man and a Woman. He could care less on the sexuality of the two. He would deny whether they were Homosexual or Straight.

 

[Silhouette]

Choosing to marry someone of a different race is not innate. It is a choice.


.>>>>

That's fine, but race has Constitutional protections. If the baker declined on issues of race (his objections to one race marrying another race), then he'd be in trouble. But if the black man has a penis and the white woman has a vagina, the baker simply would bake them a cake for their wedding. Otherwise he'd be in trouble. Two men playing at "man and wife" is a thing utterly and fundamentally different. And this is from the New Testament's Jude 1 and Romans 1. It is not just a venial or minor sin. It is major and lands the offender an eternity in the pit of fire for enabling in any way in any culture whatsoever.

 

[Pop23]

.>


I wonder if I owned a barbecue restaurant, call it "Piggie Park Enterprises", and refused to rent my banquet room to an interracial couple because my personal religious beliefs were such that I believe interracial couples shouldn't marry.

Would we be having a different discussion.

.>>>>

Yes. We would be having a different discussion. Race is innate. Butt sex addiction isn't. One has protections. The other doesn't. You're catching on!

Choosing to marry someone of a different race is not innate. It is a choice.


.>>>>

Choosing to marry someone of the same sex is not innate. It is a choice.

 

[Silhouette]

What people in the gay cult need to understand is that their requiring a person of faith to bake them a "wedding" cake is the same as walking into a kosher Jewish deli owned by an Orthodox Jew and forcing him to stand still while you shove raw ground pork down his throat with a piping bag, and then following that up with a shellfish chaser. Or requiring him to sell pork. I mean, he's advertising that it's a deli, serving other types of meat. Why the bigotry towards pork?

 

[Silhouette]

Choosing to marry someone of the same sex is not innate. It is a choice.

Well it does sort of have its roots in innateness. A man choosing another man as his "wife" means he's using that instinct for a vagina and via a habitual deviant kink, substitutes another man's asshole. But that doesn't mean it's normal or that others should be forced to play along; especially children the cult of LGBT manufacture and traffic among each other with sperm and egg donations.

Their quasi-hetero skewed normal drives are not our mandate to promote; nor children's to be forced to live with.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Choosing to marry someone of the same sex is not innate. It is a choice.

Marriage is not innate period.

 

[Pop23]

Choosing to marry someone of the same sex is not innate. It is a choice.

Marriage is not innate period.

It is a choice. Period

 

[Grumblenuts]

Right. Period.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hell no! And I will add that even bringing that up is idiotic. Who the hell would want to get married in a place or by a person who is hostile to the union. Ya think that it might case a pale over their future? Most people would.

So, why would you want a person who is "hostile" (as you call it) to make cakes for individuals that they pity?

Pity ? Really? Actually that is a pretty good point. But that does not change the fact that it is discrimination and that they are not entitled to a religious exemption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, the question of an entitlement to a religious exemption has not yet been adjudicated. We have here an issue of someone's right to equal treatment vs someone else's right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

I addressed that earlier. There is the traditional interpretation of religious freedom and the new , contrived view that religious freedom means imposing your religious views on others.

Since homosexuality is not a scientific fact (there is no 3rd sex) then it is only a belief. Belief can be construed as religion so, apparently, the gay couple were trying to impose their gay, religious dogma on the baker.

Ya know, Bubba....I hate to break it to you, but it is only you and the dwindling numbers of bigots and homophobes who are still ruminating about why people are gay. The courts have not concerned themselves with the issue and have long held that it is an immutable characteristic . You might also want to study up on the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity as well as the well documented, underlying biological factors that have been identified in relation to both sexual orientation and gender identity. I'm sure that you won't though. You are to afraid that you might learn something that challenges your ridiculous beliefs.

 

[Pop23]

Right. Period.

The color of the participants is not a choice. You kind of missed that point.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Right. Period.

The color of the participants is not a choice. You kind of missed that point.

You kind of presume nonsense then. Glad to see you still sporting that gun control advocate avatar though

 

[Silhouette]

Grumblenuts thinks race is the same as behavior.