Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Silhouette]

Bi-sexuality is proof that homosexuality isn't all it is reputed to be and is still fornication. Transgender is taking a human with natural GOD given sexual abilities and turning them inside out into a mere facade that lacks any procreative purpose. Women with women can only play with toys that mimic what they themselves claim to abhor. The entire rationalization is hypocrisy and abuse of nature.

Yes, and don't forget men using each other's lower digestive tracts as artificial vaginas. No little amount of closeted heterosexuality in the LGBT cult for sure. Also always seems to be a butch and femme in any of their couples..

You wonder if any of this goes through the heads of the Justices while they're hearing these cases? The confusion-factor has to play into how they deliberate on "innate vs behavioral" in all this. And I think it's why they are starting to "break the news" to the LGBT camp that lifestyles cannot command people of faith with real, actual Constitutional protections into abdicating their faith to promote the new Rainbow-Religion...

 

[LittleNipper]

Bi-sexuality is proof that homosexuality isn't all it is reputed to be and is still fornication. Transgender is taking a human with natural GOD given sexual abilities and turning them inside out into a mere facade that lacks any procreative purpose. Women with women can only play with toys that mimic what they themselves claim to abhor. The entire rationalization is hypocrisy and abuse of nature.

Yes, and don't forget men using each other's lower digestive tracts as artificial vaginas. No little amount of closeted heterosexuality in the LGBT cult for sure. Also always seems to be a butch and femme in any of their couples..

You wonder if any of this goes through the heads of the Justices while they're hearing these cases? The confusion-factor has to play into how they deliberate on "innate vs behavioral" in all this. And I think it's why they are starting to "break the news" to the LGBT camp that lifestyles cannot command people of faith with real, actual Constitutional protections into abdicating their faith to promote the new Rainbow-Religion...

The reality is that those justices don't have to deal with the consequences. They have a cushy job that affords them the ability to send their children and grandchildren to private institutions or have paid tutors. They don't care about healthcare or retirement because they have it all. It is the working classes that are stuck with all the red tape and endless worries, while government officials can simply shut their doors and retreat to their summer estates...

 

[jillian]

AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. Links forthcoming.

This will have a massive effect.

That’s not exactly what the ruling was. The ruling was that it had to go back to the state because the law had changed subsequent to the ruling and Kennedy thought they were too derisive of religious beliefs.

You might want to try reading the decision

 

[Silhouette]

The reality is that those justices don't have to deal with the consequences. They have a cushy job that affords them the ability to send their children and grandchildren to private institutions or have paid tutors. They don't care about healthcare or retirement because they have it all. It is the working classes that are stuck with all the red tape and endless worries, while government officials can simply shut their doors and retreat to their summer estates...

Well I tend to agree with you Nipper. But even the Justices cannot carry on with grotesque miscarriages of justice based on what is clearly being revealed as a false premise. They do have to justify their paychecks & perks at some point. The behavior-factor is beginning to cross their minds and this case is their first tentative heads-up that the foolishness is coming to an end. Especially when the behaviors justify pummeling faith to promote their own Rainbow-dogma.

 

[Silhouette]

That’s not exactly what the ruling was. The ruling was that it had to go back to the state because the law had changed subsequent to the ruling and Kennedy thought they were too derisive of religious beliefs.

You might want to try reading the decision

You might want to read between the lines. Think: "1st Amendment prevailed"...

 

[Aba Incieni]

AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. Links forthcoming.

This will have a massive effect.

That’s not exactly what the ruling was. The ruling was that it had to go back to the state because the law had changed subsequent to the ruling and Kennedy thought they were too derisive of religious beliefs.

You might want to try reading the decision

The majority decision ruled they didn't take the baker's religious beliefs into account. Kennedy just wrote it. 7-2.

 

[Syriusly]

Adoption cases should and most likely will go well for gays and lesbians. No worries there. I myself do not agree with trans whatever "medicine" but I fully support gays and lesbians enjoying parenthood as long as there is a healthy family dynamic. In Arizona a lesbian woman must share custody of her biological child with her female partner after their divorce. She did not want to but the other "mother" cares for the child too.

Would you consider a "healthy family dynamic" having a contract that banishes all hope forever of the children involved having either a mother or father?

Except there is no such situation. Except in your bigoted little mind.

Remember- the leading cause for a child not to have a mother or father- is divorce.

And regardless of whether or not a child is adopted by a single parent, or two same gender parents, the child still can have a biological parent in their lives.

I know- I have known of exactly that situation- two grandparents who adopted their daughter's kids, and the biological father was in their lives.

You're the bigot who wants government enforced labor. Guess what. The SCOTUS disagrees with you.

You are the bigot that wants anyone to be able to refuse business to blacks, jews or gays by saying it is against their religion.

 

[Syriusly]

That’s not exactly what the ruling was. The ruling was that it had to go back to the state because the law had changed subsequent to the ruling and Kennedy thought they were too derisive of religious beliefs.

You might want to try reading the decision

You might want to read between the lines. Think: "1st Amendment prevailed"...

Silhoutte is big into relying on her intuition rather than the actual words of the decision.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Adoption cases should and most likely will go well for gays and lesbians. No worries there. I myself do not agree with trans whatever "medicine" but I fully support gays and lesbians enjoying parenthood as long as there is a healthy family dynamic. In Arizona a lesbian woman must share custody of her biological child with her female partner after their divorce. She did not want to but the other "mother" cares for the child too.

Would you consider a "healthy family dynamic" having a contract that banishes all hope forever of the children involved having either a mother or father?

Except there is no such situation. Except in your bigoted little mind.

Remember- the leading cause for a child not to have a mother or father- is divorce.

And regardless of whether or not a child is adopted by a single parent, or two same gender parents, the child still can have a biological parent in their lives.

I know- I have known of exactly that situation- two grandparents who adopted their daughter's kids, and the biological father was in their lives.

You're the bigot who wants government enforced labor. Guess what. The SCOTUS disagrees with you.

You are the bigot that wants anyone to be able to refuse business to blacks, jews or gays by saying it is against their religion.

Which religious texts say race is an abomination?

 

[jillian]

Bi-sexuality is proof that homosexuality isn't all it is reputed to be and is still fornication. Transgender is taking a human with natural GOD given sexual abilities and turning them inside out into a mere facade that lacks any procreative purpose. Women with women can only play with toys that mimic what they themselves claim to abhor. The entire rationalization is hypocrisy and abuse of nature.

Yes, and don't forget men using each other's lower digestive tracts as artificial vaginas. No little amount of closeted heterosexuality in the LGBT cult for sure. Also always seems to be a butch and femme in any of their couples..

You wonder if any of this goes through the heads of the Justices while they're hearing these cases? The confusion-factor has to play into how they deliberate on "innate vs behavioral" in all this. And I think it's why they are starting to "break the news" to the LGBT camp that lifestyles cannot command people of faith with real, actual Constitutional protections into abdicating their faith to promote the new Rainbow-Religion...

The reality is that those justices don't have to deal with the consequences. They have a cushy job that affords them the ability to send their children and grandchildren to private institutions or have paid tutors. They don't care about healthcare or retirement because they have it all. It is the working classes that are stuck with all the red tape and endless worries, while government officials can simply shut their doors and retreat to their summer estates...

What consequences other than what bigots do to hurt others?

 

[P@triot]

You might want to try reading the decision

You might want to try reading the U.S. Constitution.

 

[dblack]

The reality is that those justices don't have to deal with the consequences. They have a cushy job that affords them the ability to send their children and grandchildren to private institutions or have paid tutors. They don't care about healthcare or retirement because they have it all. It is the working classes that are stuck with all the red tape and endless worries, while government officials can simply shut their doors and retreat to their summer estates...

What consequences other than what bigots do to hurt others?

I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm certainly not saying bigots should be allowed to hurt people. Refusing to bake someone a cake isn't hurting them. It's just refusing to make them a cake.

 

[P@triot]

What consequences other than what bigots do to hurt others?

Oh I don’t know jillian - how about grown men watching little girls get naked because asshole progressives like you get turned on by sexual deviance? Idiot.

Seattle man tests transgender rule by undressing in women's locker room

 

[Syriusly]

Does Jude condemn gays?
Does Romans 1:26-27 condemn homosexuals?

The marriage between a man and a woman is not sin. The marriage between a man and a man is. And the promotion and encouragement of sin is also sin.

You've failed to cover a few things there, no? Between a woman and a woman?, bi vs bi?, trans...

Bi-sexuality is proof that homosexuality isn't all it is reputed to be and is still fornication..

Why did God create bisexuality?

 

[Aba Incieni]

Does Jude condemn gays?
Does Romans 1:26-27 condemn homosexuals?

The marriage between a man and a woman is not sin. The marriage between a man and a man is. And the promotion and encouragement of sin is also sin.

You've failed to cover a few things there, no? Between a woman and a woman?, bi vs bi?, trans...

Bi-sexuality is proof that homosexuality isn't all it is reputed to be and is still fornication..

Why did God create bisexuality?

Same reason He "created" murder. So people would know what not to do.

 

[Syriusly]

What consequences other than what bigots do to hurt others?

Oh I don’t know jillian - how about grown men watching little girls get naked because asshole progressives like you get turned on by sexual deviance? Idiot.

Seattle man tests transgender rule by undressing in women's locker room

Wait you mean like Donald Trump did? You contards love assholes who make a point of watching little girls get naked

"I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, ‘Oh my god, there’s a man in here,’ " said Mariah Billado, the former Miss Vermont Teen USA.

Trump, she recalled, said something like, "Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before."

Three other women, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of getting engulfed in a media firestorm, also remembered Trump entering the dressing room while girls were changing. Two of them said the girls rushed to cover their bodies, with one calling it "shocking" and "creepy." The third said she was clothed and introduced herself to Trump.

Well, I'll tell you the funniest is that I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone's getting dressed and ready and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere. And I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it. You know, I'm inspecting, I want to make sure that everything is good.

You know, the dresses. ‘Is everyone okay?’ You know, they're standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody okay?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that. But no, I've been very good.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

I find it amazing that you guys want to redefine even love if you don't get your way on things.

Okay, one more time, tell me how gays being able to get married effects your life in any way, shape or form.

Thanks.

Tell me one more time why you think I care.

He just quoted you on that. Clearly obsessed with anything imaginable going on in the privacy of another's home. Otherwise oblivious. Typical of the Christian Right perceived victim here. Like peas in a pod.

There ya go.

Looking to destroy religion will somehow make homosexuality more acceptable.

And 'looking to destroy religion' apparently means asking Christians to follow the same law everyone else is expected to follow.

 

[Pop23]

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?

I find it amazing that you guys want to redefine even love if you don't get your way on things.

Okay, one more time, tell me how gays being able to get married effects your life in any way, shape or form.

Thanks.

Tell me one more time why you think I care.

He just quoted you on that. Clearly obsessed with anything imaginable going on in the privacy of another's home. Otherwise oblivious. Typical of the Christian Right perceived victim here. Like peas in a pod.

There ya go.

Looking to destroy religion will somehow make homosexuality more acceptable.

And 'looking to destroy religion' apparently means asking Christians to follow the same law everyone else is expected to follow.

The right is protected in the constitution.

Nice try, but your attempt at its destruction has been defeated, as were your political party in 2016.

As soon as the loses continue to mount, even the Dems will discover their mistake, and you will be thrown under their bus.

 

[Pop23]

Does Jude condemn gays?
Does Romans 1:26-27 condemn homosexuals?

The marriage between a man and a woman is not sin. The marriage between a man and a man is. And the promotion and encouragement of sin is also sin.

You've failed to cover a few things there, no? Between a woman and a woman?, bi vs bi?, trans...

Bi-sexuality is proof that homosexuality isn't all it is reputed to be and is still fornication..

Why did God create bisexuality?

For confused idiots.

 

[dudmuck]

So if a person who is 600 lbs overweight wants a cake is it a sin to bake it for him?
Gluttony is one of the big seven sins so baking a cake for a glutton is endorsing gluttony is it not?

This baker is just one more hypocrite

Nope, totally different.

Gluttony is the act of overeating.

Baking a cake for a fat person is not endorsing him overeating it. He has to exercise self control. But taking your thought process, why sell food to a fat person? Why stop at a wedding cake? Why give them ANYTHING? Or what is allowed? Can they have cheese? Bread? Tacos? Spinach?

A cake by itself is not endorsing gluttony. But a wedding cake FOR A GAY COUPLE can easily be seen as directly against Christianity. But another baker might ask the Lord for forgiveness and bake the cake because he needs the money. But that choice is up to the person, not the fags.

Its not one of the commandments and so Paul overrules the words of Jesus. By the baker anything goes by the way one interprets the bible. How fortunate for him he can pick and choose who he bakes for.

This is obviously written by someone who has never cracked a Bible in their miserable existence.