Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[LittleNipper]

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.

And you know this for a fact ----HOW exactly? Your say so is not enough. What proof do you offer? Next you may say Jesus and Pontius Pilate never existed. How do I know you exist! There are historical books. The simple reality is that you have to throw GOD under the bus in order to try to substantiate your behavior. What else are you willing to do to "live" your life's choices and what eternal hope do they avail you? The serpent was possessed by Satan. And so Satan was doing the talking, and the serpent was used to gain & hold Eve's attention. The Bible must be applied to understanding the Bible. One cannot depend on "FEELINGS".

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

This is just another one of you dishonest bullshit games. You know that there is no such thing as the LGBT Lifestyle Protection Act and you know that I know there is no such thing as the LGBT Lifestyle Protection Act. The Equal Rights Amendment for women was never passed either, but that does not mean that they do not have rights.

You little moronic quip does not negate LGBT people have indeed gained rights at the state and federal level as I have documented.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Your aware that case law- AKA binding precedents - carry the force of law. You continue to show your pathetic ignorance of Constitutional law, and how our legal system actually works-

 

[Grumblenuts]

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?

Hey, here's an idea! Since you're the only one interested.. run, run, RUN along now and pursue that crazy research project! Genius!

 

[Grumblenuts]

dishonest bullshit games

pathetic ignorance

Methinks the latter informs the former

 

[Silhouette]

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.

To be revisited again.... Thanks in no small part to this case and others like it all doing a war dance around "we can no longer just take the LGBT word-salad and bootstrap it onto other existing laws, there must be delineated federal protections or else faith and deep moral objections to that lifestyle must prevail." Keyword: LIFESTYLE. Stay tuned.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Hey, here's an idea! Since you're the only one interested.. run, run, RUN along now and pursue that crazy research project! Genius!

I love it when a Progressive is proven wrong and then tries to save face in this way!

So Grumblenuts, why would the government have a compelling interest in the denial of a right to straights which would make them unequal to gays?

Got an answer, or are you just the coward you appear to be?

hummmmmm?

 

[Pop23]

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.

If you feel so strongly about hetros that can't have children being not allowed to marry, why don't you make that a focus of the upcoming election?

 

[Pop23]

I just have to laugh my ass off when gay right supporters question if it's legal now for two straight men, or two straight women for that matter, to legally marry?

Stupid as it may sound, there is nothing that makes it illegal.

So if the Baker only denies baking a cake for same sex couples, straight or gay, he is not discriminating based on sexuality.

RLMOA

 

[Silhouette]

I just have to laugh my ass off when gay right supporters question if it's legal now for two straight men, or two straight women for that matter, to legally marry?

Stupid as it may sound, there is nothing that makes it illegal.

So if the Baker only denies baking a cake for same sex couples, straight or gay, he is not discriminating based on sexuality.

RLMOA

You know that's a good point. But even so, "sexual orientation" is nothing but a habitual lifestyle, like drug addiction. If they're claiming protections for "sexual orientation", they'll first have to outline which ones (all, some, none? & why?) and then tell us how other habitual lifestyles are left out in the cold; like polygamy as just one example of thousands or even millions.

The Court warned about this in this case where LGBT cult litigants are (annoyingly, as in "knock it the fuck off") trying force people of faith to their knees to abdicate their values. AZGal made a good point on my thread in politics. She reminded me of "Kristalnacht" where the Nazis went around busting up the shop windows of jews to put them out of business for refusing to abdicate their faith and instead embrace Nazism.

If we could time-travel and in 20 years find bands of lisping thugs with rainbow armbands guarding concentration camps of "unworkable Christians" getting gassed in the showers and made into drawstring lamps; let's just say I wouldn't be totally shocked. I mean just browse the web today and read the seething, foaming, boiling hatred this cult has for people of faith and the values that say "buttsex ain't cricket with God". They're beyond rageful. And, so were the Nazis in the late 1930s.

 

[Pop23]

I just have to laugh my ass off when gay right supporters question if it's legal now for two straight men, or two straight women for that matter, to legally marry?

Stupid as it may sound, there is nothing that makes it illegal.

So if the Baker only denies baking a cake for same sex couples, straight or gay, he is not discriminating based on sexuality.

RLMOA

You know that's a good point. But even so, "sexual orientation" is nothing but a habitual lifestyle, like drug addiction. If they're claiming protections for "sexual orientation", they'll first have to outline which ones (all, some, none? & why?) and then tell us how other habitual lifestyles are left out in the cold; like polygamy as just one example of thousands or even millions.

Don't you find it strange that the assumption that marriage (at least governmental marriage) is still assumed to be about Love, Sex, Companionship? Even after Windsor said it can be based simply on Financial reasoning?

Does the left now actually want in based on Love? I guess than we would need the State Legislators to define what Love is? To develop a "Love Test" of some kind?

Or do they wan't the State Legislatures to define what qualifies as sanctioned sex? How much Sex would be required to keep a valid license? Would a women in a male/female marriage be forced to engage in anal sex?Can you imagine the Utah legislature debating what qualifies? And if sex is a requirement, then wouldn't a man forcing himself on his wife be sanctioned as well?

Interesting stuff really.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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?

Hey, here's an idea! Since you're the only one interested.. run, run, RUN along now and pursue that crazy research project! Genius!

I love it when a Progressive is proven wrong and then tries to save face in this way!

So Grumblenuts, why would the government have a compelling interest in the denial of a right to straights which would make them unequal to gays?

Got an answer, or are you just the coward you appear to be?

hummmmmm?

That's it, sonny, keep settin' up them straw men and blastin' 'em away with that Red Ryder pop gun!
Be sure to wipe it down every night. But be careful.. 'cause some day.. sure as can be..
Gonna shoot your eye out with that thing!

 

[Pop23]

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?

Hey, here's an idea! Since you're the only one interested.. run, run, RUN along now and pursue that crazy research project! Genius!

I love it when a Progressive is proven wrong and then tries to save face in this way!

So Grumblenuts, why would the government have a compelling interest in the denial of a right to straights which would make them unequal to gays?

Got an answer, or are you just the coward you appear to be?

hummmmmm?

That's it, sonny, keep settin' up them straw men and blastin' 'em away with that Red Ryder pop gun!
Be sure to wipe it down every night. But be careful.. 'cause some day.. sure as can be..
Gonna shoot your eye out with that thing!

And you still keep running.

Ain't it strange that I am the true Progressive in this, and you are the Conservative.

 

[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.

To be revisited again.... Thanks in no small part to this case and others like it all doing a war dance around "we can no longer just take the LGBT word-salad and bootstrap it onto other existing laws, there must be delineated federal protections or else faith and deep moral objections to that lifestyle must prevail." Keyword: LIFESTYLE. Stay tuned.

Wow! Sounds like you're really loosing it with that boat load of blather!! Can't stand to be proven wrong, can you?

Yes it will be revisited . The Trump DOJ has filed appeals in 4 cases in 4 circuit courts that have ruled in favor of including gay folks in the civil rights act. The have a long road ahead, and unless there is a circuit split, SCOTUS will probably not take the case. Have a nice day

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I just have to laugh my ass off when gay right supporters question if it's legal now for two straight men, or two straight women for that matter, to legally marry?

Stupid as it may sound, there is nothing that makes it illegal.

Who, exactly questioned it? Of course it's legal. There is no "gay test " to marry someone of the same sex. YOU make ME laugh

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So if the Baker only denies baking a cake for same sex couples, straight or gay, he is not discriminating based on sexuality.

No, he would be discriminating based on gender

 

[Silhouette]

Yes it will be revisited . The Trump DOJ has filed appeals in 4 cases in 4 circuit courts that have ruled in favor of including gay folks in the civil rights act. The have a long road ahead, and unless there is a circuit split, SCOTUS will probably not take the case. Have a nice day

SCOTUS cannot add language or meaning to the intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In the 2016 Decision on Hively, the Opinion said that in no way at the time had its crafters anticipated a sexual orientation other than hetero and sexual orientation wasn't even part of the wording. "Sex" is NOT equal legally to "sexual orientation". The 1964 Civil Rights Act meant "the gender one is actually born as".

No Court can add language to that Act. Congress has to. And this is what the 2016 Opinion said on it. It will take an act of Congress to elevate gay lifestylists to equal status with race, faith, country of origin and actual gender.

So if the Baker only denies baking a cake for same sex couples, straight or gay, he is not discriminating based on sexuality.

No, he would be discriminating based on gender

Thank you for making that distinction. It's the same distinction Hively 2016 pointed out: that sexual orientation isn't covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Sex (gender) is. But not what one DOES with one's equipment. Behavior. Action. Habitual Lifestyle. NOT innate.​

 

[Pop23]

So if the Baker only denies baking a cake for same sex couples, straight or gay, he is not discriminating based on sexuality.

No, he would be discriminating based on gender

Nope, he would still bake cakes for gay women marrying straight men, or straight women marrying straight men.

Sorry, he just doesn't bake cake for same sex marriage, regardless of sexuality. All are treated equally

 

[Pop23]

I just have to laugh my ass off when gay right supporters question if it's legal now for two straight men, or two straight women for that matter, to legally marry?

Stupid as it may sound, there is nothing that makes it illegal.

Who, exactly questioned it? Of course it's legal. There is no "gay test " to marry someone of the same sex. YOU make ME laugh

Just the most conservative member of this board Grumblenuts

 

[Grumblenuts]

Don't you find it strange that the assumption that marriage (at least governmental marriage) is still assumed to be about Love, Sex, Companionship? Even after Windsor said it can be based simply on Financial reasoning?

Does the left now actually want in based on Love?

The Left wants what now? LOL!
"Windsor said"..? Who the hell cares?
Robbing banks "can be based simply on Financial reasoning"
Whatever you're smoking?.. Gotta try that some day!