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.
I've known more lesbians than male homosexuals over the years, and many of them are faithful church goers. One, as a matter of fact, was a minister who started a small church and did a lot of good in the recovery community.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.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.
There ya go.
Looking to destroy religion will somehow make homosexuality more acceptable.
Ain’t going to work and the electoral map will continue to get more red because of it.
You had your time in the spotlight. It’s over. You’ve become boring and annoying
This case has nothing to do with Gay Pride parades or children or anything else, Sil. That is your own personal offendedness. If you find those types of celebration offensive, don't attend them and don't avidly follow pics of them on social media. It's pretty simple
The SC ruled against Dred Scott with a 7-2 majority but we no longer have slavery. You can put your ticker tape parade on hold for now.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.
Try going into a halal restaurant and demand a bacon sandwich. With extra bacon.[/QUOTE]This case and the decision on this case has far more "precedent" and impact than most of the media is hollering on about in silly conclusions of "narrow" or ready to be overturned by following cases. WHY? well first of all: Kennedy was angered and bold in his oral statements at the Scotus hearings and he fashioned his concern about the unfairness of the Colorado commission into the prominent voice of the majority written opinion. The decision is not "narrow" in numbers of judges in the majority and not "narrow" in the consideration of the US Constitution's prioritizing protection of religion or religious conscience if there is demonstrated a vital sincerely held religious belief.
It was very 'narrow' in the scope of this ruling and is not a precedent that says any person, any time, can refuse service to gays by claiming his religious beliefs says he cannot serve a gay person.
Of course not, and no savvy businessman would do so. But certain requests that would require an exercise of an expression of acceptance on the part of the person of faith can be rejected on the basis of free expression.
Try going into a halal restaurant and demand a bacon sandwich. With extra bacon.
For the umpteen-hundredth time, the government does not require anyone to serve a certain product. But if you DO serve that product, you have to serve it to ALL, including those in the protected classes. The baker has actually taken that tack, and no longer sells wedding cakes to anyone. Problem solved.[/QUOTE]Try going into a halal restaurant and demand a bacon sandwich. With extra bacon.This case and the decision on this case has far more "precedent" and impact than most of the media is hollering on about in silly conclusions of "narrow" or ready to be overturned by following cases. WHY? well first of all: Kennedy was angered and bold in his oral statements at the Scotus hearings and he fashioned his concern about the unfairness of the Colorado commission into the prominent voice of the majority written opinion. The decision is not "narrow" in numbers of judges in the majority and not "narrow" in the consideration of the US Constitution's prioritizing protection of religion or religious conscience if there is demonstrated a vital sincerely held religious belief.
It was very 'narrow' in the scope of this ruling and is not a precedent that says any person, any time, can refuse service to gays by claiming his religious beliefs says he cannot serve a gay person.
Of course not, and no savvy businessman would do so. But certain requests that would require an exercise of an expression of acceptance on the part of the person of faith can be rejected on the basis of free expression.
Try going into a halal restaurant and demand a bacon sandwich. With extra bacon.
Something tells me they're not trying to impress you.
NO, they are trying to impose their backward-ass bronze age superstitions on my by claiming a magic sky man is going to awful things to me...
What can I say, butThis case has nothing to do with Gay Pride parades or children or anything else, Sil. That is your own personal offendedness. If you find those types of celebration offensive, don't attend them and don't avidly follow pics of them on social media. It's pretty simple
Oh but see, that's the thing. It DOES have to do with the 2/3rds of the iceberg under the water with the LGBT lifestylists. The Court is recognizing that this LGBT thing is behavioral. Odd that it took this long to see the elephant in the living room but hey, better late than never. And that's where the 100% unanimity within the "Pride" community comes into play here. These judges aren't looking at marriage in a vacuum. They understand that children for example, share the contract and its benefits. They understand it has been radically changed in recent years in an untested way. They understand that the thousands-year-old benefits were to children in providing them with BOTH vital mother and father in the contract's terms. Even divorce struggles to maintain these benefits until the children are of age.
...And perhaps, just perhaps...they are wise enough to be shocked by the realization that if the 100% unified sex cult can back "Pride" parades in public, performing lewd and graphic sex acts in front of where they hope and invite children to attend...that maybe...JUST MAYBE...worse might be going on behind closed doors where children are involved... I know it's a HUGE stretch and EXTREMELY PARANOID to imagine worse behind closed doors. But where children are concerned you can never be too careful...
Your cult keeps trying to compartmentalize your fragmented agenda in this or that court until you can compile the whole disgusting montage into one "full victory!" where society and children are subjugated to your shifting perverse whims to affect society from a minority position until your lifestyles become the majority. We know this is going on; a progressive social takeover. Unless you're blind as a bat. The Supremes have noticed it too. You fucked up when your cult brought Krystallnacht to Christian businesses. Suddenly something inside the Supremes woke up. And now they're looking at ALL of your values to determine if your LIFESTYLES can FORCE Christians TO THEIR KNEES.
It's as if this bullish move startled the Supremes and they're now thinking "hey, this feels less like gay rights and more like a unified cult trying to stamp out all opposing views on lifestyles". Krystallnacht in slow-motion.
Obamacare forced you to buy a product. Roberts was a ding-dong for citing enumerated powers.[/QUOTE]For the umpteen-hundredth time, the government does not require anyone to serve a certain product. But if you DO serve that product, you have to serve it to ALL, including those in the protected classes. The baker has actually taken that tack, and no longer sells wedding cakes to anyone. Problem solved.Try going into a halal restaurant and demand a bacon sandwich. With extra bacon.This case and the decision on this case has far more "precedent" and impact than most of the media is hollering on about in silly conclusions of "narrow" or ready to be overturned by following cases. WHY? well first of all: Kennedy was angered and bold in his oral statements at the Scotus hearings and he fashioned his concern about the unfairness of the Colorado commission into the prominent voice of the majority written opinion. The decision is not "narrow" in numbers of judges in the majority and not "narrow" in the consideration of the US Constitution's prioritizing protection of religion or religious conscience if there is demonstrated a vital sincerely held religious belief.
It was very 'narrow' in the scope of this ruling and is not a precedent that says any person, any time, can refuse service to gays by claiming his religious beliefs says he cannot serve a gay person.
Of course not, and no savvy businessman would do so. But certain requests that would require an exercise of an expression of acceptance on the part of the person of faith can be rejected on the basis of free expression.
Try going into a halal restaurant and demand a bacon sandwich. With extra bacon.
Because a man expressing (behavior) latent hetero tendencies using another man's asshole as an artificial vagina and kids having to accept that "bottom" "as the only mom I'll know for life via contract" is a grotesque defilement of the thousands-years-old IDEAL (not the failures, but the brass ring society sets for itself) of the sublime thing that is marriage.
You suggesting that a person of faith needs to leave the marketplace because of their deep convictions means you are attempting to violate that person's Constitutional rights. I caution you to be careful.
In this Matter, the Court just sent a message that this is so. Practitioners of violation of Constitutional rights beware. The Supremes ain't gonna fuck around much more in this question of "lifestyles vs faith". You're going to be schooled very soon on which one has top dominance in any legal challenge. Buckle up buttercup.
You are entitled to your twisted lifestyle. But your entitlement stops when you try to force society to promote it with you.
It's not about the cake and if the decision is in favor of the baker's conscience, gays can be legally discriminated against in any public business. They can be refused buying the home of their choice, be refused a stay in a B&B, refused a job. Because once the SC says we have the right to discriminate based on our individual consciences, all hell will break loose.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.What consequences other than what bigots do to hurt others?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...
Gerrymandering is part of the process. Districts must be of equal numerical proportion...not party ideology.What can I say, butThis case has nothing to do with Gay Pride parades or children or anything else, Sil. That is your own personal offendedness. If you find those types of celebration offensive, don't attend them and don't avidly follow pics of them on social media. It's pretty simple
Oh but see, that's the thing. It DOES have to do with the 2/3rds of the iceberg under the water with the LGBT lifestylists. The Court is recognizing that this LGBT thing is behavioral. Odd that it took this long to see the elephant in the living room but hey, better late than never. And that's where the 100% unanimity within the "Pride" community comes into play here. These judges aren't looking at marriage in a vacuum. They understand that children for example, share the contract and its benefits. They understand it has been radically changed in recent years in an untested way. They understand that the thousands-year-old benefits were to children in providing them with BOTH vital mother and father in the contract's terms. Even divorce struggles to maintain these benefits until the children are of age.
...And perhaps, just perhaps...they are wise enough to be shocked by the realization that if the 100% unified sex cult can back "Pride" parades in public, performing lewd and graphic sex acts in front of where they hope and invite children to attend...that maybe...JUST MAYBE...worse might be going on behind closed doors where children are involved... I know it's a HUGE stretch and EXTREMELY PARANOID to imagine worse behind closed doors. But where children are concerned you can never be too careful...
Your cult keeps trying to compartmentalize your fragmented agenda in this or that court until you can compile the whole disgusting montage into one "full victory!" where society and children are subjugated to your shifting perverse whims to affect society from a minority position until your lifestyles become the majority. We know this is going on; a progressive social takeover. Unless you're blind as a bat. The Supremes have noticed it too. You fucked up when your cult brought Krystallnacht to Christian businesses. Suddenly something inside the Supremes woke up. And now they're looking at ALL of your values to determine if your LIFESTYLES can FORCE Christians TO THEIR KNEES.
It's as if this bullish move startled the Supremes and they're now thinking "hey, this feels less like gay rights and more like a unified cult trying to stamp out all opposing views on lifestyles". Krystallnacht in slow-motion.
Bullshit.
Sorry, Sil, that's all I got for all of that.
Great meme, Joe!Because a man expressing (behavior) latent hetero tendencies using another man's asshole as an artificial vagina and kids having to accept that "bottom" "as the only mom I'll know for life via contract" is a grotesque defilement of the thousands-years-old IDEAL (not the failures, but the brass ring society sets for itself) of the sublime thing that is marriage.
Guy, the thing is, most of the "Thousands of Years" ideal was the woman being little more than fucking property. The idea of a marriage being between two equals is a relatively recent one.
Not to mention stoning women if their hymen wasn't intact on their wedding nights, or making a woman marry her rapist if he paid her father 50 sheckels. (How much is that in American money?)
Oh, 37% of straights do anal... it's just not that big of a deal.
You suggesting that a person of faith needs to leave the marketplace because of their deep convictions means you are attempting to violate that person's Constitutional rights. I caution you to be careful.
No, I'm saying if you can't reconcile your backwards ass religious beliefs with providing the services you promised and advertised as providing, you probably need to rethink what you do for a living. If you grant a widespread exemption for not doing your job on religious bases, you end up with chaos in the market place.
In this Matter, the Court just sent a message that this is so. Practitioners of violation of Constitutional rights beware. The Supremes ain't gonna fuck around much more in this question of "lifestyles vs faith". You're going to be schooled very soon on which one has top dominance in any legal challenge. Buckle up buttercup.
actually, the court equally sent a warning that you guys who want to hide your Homophobia behind religion aren't going to fly. If you really want to go down that path, I'm sure we can find a whole bunch of religious rules that these bakers and florists violate in doing commerce. How many of them are open on Sunday? How many of them sell things that aren't Kosher? Which customers in a state of sin do they have no problem doing business with?
It's a knife that cuts both ways.
You are entitled to your twisted lifestyle. But your entitlement stops when you try to force society to promote it with you.
Dude, my lifestyle is straight vanilla and kind of boring... that wasn't the point here.
The point is, my ability to get goods and services should not be impeded by the religious stupidity and hypocrisy of the people behind the counter.
My fault I thought you were talking about Baker v. Carr 1962. This is about private ownership. Well if the baker doesn’t want to serve them he shouldn’t have to.It's not about the cake and if the decision is in favor of the baker's conscience, gays can be legally discriminated against in any public business. They can be refused buying the home of their choice, be refused a stay in a B&B, refused a job. Because once the SC says we have the right to discriminate based on our individual consciences, all hell will break loose.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.What consequences other than what bigots do to hurt others?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...
Joe B meme is dumb.Because a man expressing (behavior) latent hetero tendencies using another man's asshole as an artificial vagina and kids having to accept that "bottom" "as the only mom I'll know for life via contract" is a grotesque defilement of the thousands-years-old IDEAL (not the failures, but the brass ring society sets for itself) of the sublime thing that is marriage.
Guy, the thing is, most of the "Thousands of Years" ideal was the woman being little more than fucking property. The idea of a marriage being between two equals is a relatively recent one.
Not to mention stoning women if their hymen wasn't intact on their wedding nights, or making a woman marry her rapist if he paid her father 50 sheckels. (How much is that in American money?)
Oh, 37% of straights do anal... it's just not that big of a deal.
You suggesting that a person of faith needs to leave the marketplace because of their deep convictions means you are attempting to violate that person's Constitutional rights. I caution you to be careful.
No, I'm saying if you can't reconcile your backwards ass religious beliefs with providing the services you promised and advertised as providing, you probably need to rethink what you do for a living. If you grant a widespread exemption for not doing your job on religious bases, you end up with chaos in the market place.
In this Matter, the Court just sent a message that this is so. Practitioners of violation of Constitutional rights beware. The Supremes ain't gonna fuck around much more in this question of "lifestyles vs faith". You're going to be schooled very soon on which one has top dominance in any legal challenge. Buckle up buttercup.
actually, the court equally sent a warning that you guys who want to hide your Homophobia behind religion aren't going to fly. If you really want to go down that path, I'm sure we can find a whole bunch of religious rules that these bakers and florists violate in doing commerce. How many of them are open on Sunday? How many of them sell things that aren't Kosher? Which customers in a state of sin do they have no problem doing business with?
It's a knife that cuts both ways.
You are entitled to your twisted lifestyle. But your entitlement stops when you try to force society to promote it with you.
Dude, my lifestyle is straight vanilla and kind of boring... that wasn't the point here.
The point is, my ability to get goods and services should not be impeded by the religious stupidity and hypocrisy of the people behind the counter.
This case has nothing to do with Gay Pride parades or children or anything else, Sil. That is your own personal offendedness. If you find those types of celebration offensive, don't attend them and don't avidly follow pics of them on social media. It's pretty simple
What can I say, but
Bullshit.
Sorry, Sil, that's all I got for all of that.
I probably won't shut up, if anyone offers anything intelligent here. But your naked bigoted opinion which is full of vile misrepresentations and bile against a group that has never done a single thing to you is not intelligent, imho.This case has nothing to do with Gay Pride parades or children or anything else, Sil. That is your own personal offendedness. If you find those types of celebration offensive, don't attend them and don't avidly follow pics of them on social media. It's pretty simple
Oh but see, that's the thing. It DOES have to do with the 2/3rds of the iceberg under the water with the LGBT lifestylists. The Court is recognizing that this LGBT thing is behavioral. Odd that it took this long to see the elephant in the living room but hey, better late than never. And that's where the 100% unanimity within the "Pride" community comes into play here.
These judges aren't looking at marriage in a vacuum. They understand that children for example, share the contract and its benefits. They understand it has been radically changed in recent years in an untested way. They understand that the thousands-year-old benefits were to children in providing them with BOTH vital mother and father in the contract's terms. Even divorce struggles to maintain these benefits until the children are of age.
...And perhaps, just perhaps...they are wise enough to be shocked by the realization that if the 100% unified sex cult can back "Pride" parades in public, performing lewd and graphic sex acts in front of where they hope and invite children to attend...that maybe...JUST MAYBE...worse might be going on behind closed doors where children are involved... I know it's a HUGE stretch and EXTREMELY PARANOID to imagine worse behind closed doors. But where children are concerned you can never be too careful...
Your cult keeps trying to compartmentalize your fragmented agenda in this or that court until you can compile the whole disgusting montage into one "full victory!" where society and children are subjugated to your shifting perverse whims to affect society from a minority position until your lifestyles become the majority. We know this is going on; a progressive social takeover. Unless you're blind as a bat. The Supremes have noticed it too. You fucked up when your cult brought Krystallnacht to Christian businesses. Suddenly something inside the Supremes woke up. And now they're looking at ALL of your values to determine if your LIFESTYLES can FORCE Christians TO THEIR KNEES.
It's as if this bullish move startled the Supremes and they're now thinking "hey, this feels less like gay rights and more like a unified cult trying to stamp out all opposing views on lifestyles". Krystallnacht in slow-motion.
What can I say, but
Bullshit.
Sorry, Sil, that's all I got for all of that.
Yeah that's what I'd say if the opposing arguments stunned my shit into silence. Nice diversion. Couldn't come up with a cop out anymore original than that?
Sounds like you're a bit defensive about post #895. You're transparent. There's nothing unintelligent about post #895. In fact it is steeped in logic. A fact that bothers you into stooping to ad hominem to escape its direct blow upon your person.I probably won't shut up, if anyone offers anything intelligent here. But your naked bigoted opinion which is full of vile misrepresentations and bile against a group that has never done a single thing to you is not intelligent, imho.
Wrong, he refused to sell two gays a wedding cake. The baking is clearly all irrelevant. Even if he had one freshly baked and all ready for a customer who just called cancelling the order, he would not have sold them that cake! His excuse being, since it's a wedding cake, the Bible tells him he can't "engage" in their ceremony, past, present, or future. Correct? And these are not simply "people", but members of a persecuted minority class attempting to celebrate their recent decision to formally and legally commit to taking care of one another long term. Marriage. So you would not be "hurt" if both you and a partner went to buy a wedding cake and the store owner told you "Sorry, I can't service your kind. The Bible tells me so."? Sure you wouldn't. "not saying bigots should be allowed to hurt people"? Yes, you are.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.What consequences other than what bigots do to hurt others?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...
So you would not be "hurt" if both you and a partner went to buy a wedding cake and the store owner told you "Sorry, I can't service your kind. The Bible tells me so."? Sure you wouldn't. "not saying bigots should be allowed to hurt people"? Yes, you are.
Because once the SC says we have the right to discriminate based on our individual consciences, all hell will break loose.
