Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Grumblenuts]

The dictionary is not the law dimwit

same sex heterosexual couple

Then by all means show us some law containing the phrase "same sex heterosexual couple" genius...

... Meanwhile

 

[AZGAL]

The bullshit is calling everything "discrimination" so much and then USING hateful discrimination against others meanwhile really targeting these innocent people who will not be crushed under unreasonable demands. Over a fukin CAKE. CAKE CAKE CAKE how immature is that! The hateful LGBTQ agenda to persecute Christians has and always will backfire on them- bakery stunts from idiots.

 

[JoeB131]

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

So by that logic, we should deny marriage to infertile couples and not let old folks marry...

 

[Silhouette]

Like women and racial minorities, LGBT are " beset by much more than where to by a cake. But that does not diminish or trivialize the fact that being turned away from a business open to the public because of sexual orientation is discrimination.

What year was the LGBT Lifestyle Protection Act passed by Congress?

You're aware that in Hively v Ivy Tech the 1964 Civil Rights Act was found to not cover gay lifestyles?

You are aware of the part of the Constitution that outlines how new Acts and Amendments must be ratified? Not by the Judicial. It takes the Legislature.

2016 in A: FindLaw's United States Seventh Circuit case and opinions.

"Hively fails to thwart the motion to dismiss for the simple reason that this circuit has undeniably declared that claims for sexual orientation are not cognizable under Title VII."

In B:

"Whatever deference we might owe to the EEOC's adjudications, we conclude for the reasons that follow, that Title VII, as it stands, does not reach discrimination based on sexual orientation."

The 7th circuit Court accused Hively of "bootstrapping" "shoehorning" language to fit an agenda:

In C:

The court expressed concern that the plaintiff had “significantly conflated her claims,” and because the court could not discern whether the allegedly discriminatory acts were motivated by animus toward her gender or her sexual orientation, it deemed the acts beyond the scope of Title VII and upheld the motion for summary judgment in the salon's favor. Id. Several other courts likewise have thrown up their hands at the muddled lines between sexual orientation and gender non-conformity claims and simply have disallowed what they deem to be “bootstrapping” of sexual orientation claims onto gender stereotyping claims....

… noting that the Price Waterhouse theory could not allow plaintiffs to “bootstrap protection for sexual orientation into Title VII because not all homosexual men are stereotypically feminine, and not all heterosexual men are stereotypically masculine.”...

… “Sexual orientation discrimination is not actionable under Title VII, and plaintiffs may not shoehorn what are truly claims of sexual orientation discrimination into Title VII by framing them as claims of discrimination based on gender stereotypes, as Plaintiff at times attempts to do here.”

So I'll ask you again, when was the "Gay Lifestyle Protection Act" passed by Congress? No city can cite a properly-enacted federal Gay Lifestyle Protection Act that could compete with the potency of the 1st Amendment on faith. So this is why PA laws are not valid, that are forcing Christians to abdicate their faith for a non federally protected lifestyle.

 

[Pop23]

The dictionary is not the law dimwit

same sex heterosexual couple

Then by all means show us some law containing the phrase "same sex heterosexual couple" genius...

... Meanwhile

Cool, so you think same sex only means homosexual?

I guess there goes the whole marriage is marriage argument that was the whole basis against civil unions.

Thanks

 

[Pop23]

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

So by that logic, we should deny marriage to infertile couples and not let old folks marry...

Sure, run with that and don’t wonder why the Dems never win another election in the next 200 years

 

[LittleNipper]

According to the Supreme Court the baker is not guilty of breaking the law. And this was decided by a large majority of the judges.

No, that wasn't what the court decided.

The court decision was the bias on the Commission tainted the process and reversed the decision. They specifically didn't answer the question of whether Mr. Phillips should be exempt from generally applicable laws because of his claim of religious belief, they left that for a future case.

And the simple fact is that a gay man who only has sex with men is discriminating in his sexual preference (try to deny that).

Who you decide (or have an innate attraction to isn't against the law.

Under PA laws refusing to sell normally offered goods and services based on certain characteristics of the customer (race, religion, national origin, sex, and (in some states - sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status, etc.) is against the law.


.>>>>

Grown men who have an innate attraction for boys are sick. Whether or not it is against the law seems to be under the control of people like you at present...

 

[Pop23]

Stick around folks, this is about to get fun.

 

[AZGAL]

Then airhead far left pretend news chimes in with the expected silly "stories" like this:

Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Has Little in Common With Most Americans
Stephanie Mencimer EXCEPT that he is an American stupid...

 

[P@triot]

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

So by that logic, we should deny marriage to infertile couples and not let old folks marry...

1. If everything is done properly, nobody (including the couple) would know that they are “infertile” until after they were married.

2. There is a monumental difference between a legitimate health problem and going against nature.

You tried this idiotic argument before Joe and I placed you over my knee when you did and turned you into my bitch. Why would you go back to it?

 

[LittleNipper]

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

So by that logic, we should deny marriage to infertile couples and not let old folks marry...

If you did that Isaac, Samson, and John the Baptist would not have been born. However, there are no miraculous births of children to any gay couple ever recorded.

 

[AZGAL]

horrible religious fanatics

 

[AZGAL]

 

[Grumblenuts]

Jefferson and the Bill of Rights[edit]
Main articles: Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, whose letter to the Danbury Baptists Association is often quoted in debates regarding the separation of church and state.
In English, the exact term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.[20]

Jefferson was describing to the Baptists that the United States Bill of Rights prevents the establishment of a national church, and in so doing they did not have to fear government interference in their right to expressions of religious conscience.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The dictionary is not the law dimwit

same sex heterosexual couple

Then by all means show us some law containing the phrase "same sex heterosexual couple" genius...

... Meanwhile

Cool, so you think same sex only means homosexual?

I guess there goes the whole marriage is marriage argument that was the whole basis against civil unions.

Thanks

Cool, so there goes your "same sex heterosexual couple" fantasy?
You never have an honest, let alone intelligible, response that follows logically from much of anything here?
You're just a smartypants in gun control advocate garb and the actual "dimwit"?
Well, no surprise, but fine admission at long last.
Thanks!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The bullshit is calling everything "discrimination" so much and then USING hateful discrimination against others meanwhile really targeting these innocent people who will not be crushed under unreasonable demands. Over a fukin CAKE. CAKE CAKE CAKE how immature is that! The hateful LGBTQ agenda to persecute Christians has and always will backfire on them- bakery stunts from idiots.

The Communists have discovered the quickest way to destroy our society is thru the gay agenda. They have already succeeded destroying the Boy Scouts after trying since the early part of last century with no success, but once they forced gay scout leaders on the organization it has gone downhill. Last week the Boy Scouts of America finally committed suicide.

The Communists have found their weapon. It is no coincidence that we have all of a sudden had to deal with:

• transgenders,
• dozens of sexes,
• 89+ gender pronouns we must use or get sued,
• gay marriage
• shutting down bakeries (they are not thru with Christians)
• Oh yeah, paternity leave

 

[JoeB131]

Sure, run with that and don’t wonder why the Dems never win another election in the next 200 years

You miss the point, dummy... Maybe you need to call Evil Space Lord Xenu and have him explain it to you.

 

[JoeB131]

If you did that Isaac, Samson, and John the Baptist would not have been born. However, there are no miraculous births of children to any gay couple ever recorded.

None of those people actually existed... Well, maybe John the Baptist did, but there's no evidence his mom was old.

again, this same book claimed that snakes can talk, so you have to take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Pop23]

The dictionary is not the law dimwit

same sex heterosexual couple

Then by all means show us some law containing the phrase "same sex heterosexual couple" genius...

... Meanwhile

Cool, so you think same sex only means homosexual?

I guess there goes the whole marriage is marriage argument that was the whole basis against civil unions.

Thanks

Cool, so there goes your "same sex heterosexual couple" fantasy?
You never have an honest, let alone intelligible, response that follows logically from much of anything here?
You're just a smartypants in gun control advocate garb and the actual "dimwit"?
Well, no surprise, but fine admission at long last.
Thanks!

Have you come up with the State law yet that shows where a state requires the assertion of sexuality prior to issuing a marriage license?

No?

Get to work dimwit.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

2016 in A: FindLaw's United States Seventh Circuit case and opinions.

"Hively fails to thwart the motion to dismiss for the simple reason that this circuit has undeniably declared that claims for sexual orientation are not cognizable under Title VII."

You lie as usual!! The decision in 2016 was handed down by a three judge panel of the 7th circuit. In 2017, it was heard by the full court and reversed!!

Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College

April 4, 2017 In groundbreaking 8-3 decision, the full Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation violates federal civil rights law.