Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Grumblenuts]

Pop23 school:

Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."[1][2]

This article is about gay as an English-language term. For the sexual orientation, see Homosexuality. For other uses, see Gay (disambiguation).

• Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual.

"Jack Phillips explains his reasons for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding"
1:16 "I believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong and to participate in, uh, (unclear) is wrong for me."

 

[Pop23]

Case closed then, the Baker did nothing wrong you (continue to) have nothing.

Thanks

You seem to post a lot without much to say sport. Tired of losing?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Case closed then, the Baker did nothing wrong you (continue to) have nothing.

Thanks

You seem to post a lot without much to say sport. Tired of losing?

I see you never tire of projecting. Try offering something, perhaps even try to learn something, instead of just repeating these wild, unsupportable speculations and feeble personal attacks..

Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts: Freud.
Projection | psychology | Britannica.com
Projection | psychology

 

[WEATHER53]

Just another tantrum. We lost the election-investigate. One guy out of 10 others in the area won’t bake a cake for me-tantrum

 

[Pop23]

Case closed then, the Baker did nothing wrong you (continue to) have nothing.

Thanks

You seem to post a lot without much to say sport. Tired of losing?

I see you never tire of projecting. Try offering something, perhaps even try to learn something, instead of just repeating these wild, unsupportable speculations and feeble personal attacks..

Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts: Freud.
Projection | psychology | Britannica.com
Projection | psychology

I thought you would be pleased that this Baker won't bake a cake for Heterosexual same sex couples the same way he won't bake a cake for Homosexual same sex couples?

No, then you haven't the slightest clue as to what equality really is.

 

[Pop23]

Pop23 school:

Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."[1][2]

This article is about gay as an English-language term. For the sexual orientation, see Homosexuality. For other uses, see Gay (disambiguation).

• Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual.

"Jack Phillips explains his reasons for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding"
1:16 "I believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong and to participate in, uh, (unclear) is wrong for me."

You can quote that until the cows come home you dimwit, but this Baker is following the law by treating Homosexuals EXACTLY the same way he treats Heterosexuals.

The Supreme Court created a NEW marketplace that a BAKER could ENTER INTO. This BAKER CHOSE NOT TO.

He has (and having to repeat this a dozen times is getting old) NEVER OFFERED SAME SEX WEDDING CAKES.

Not to Homosexuals

Not to Heterosexuals

Not to Anyone

So, unless you can find a case, where he HAS BAKED A SAME SEX WEDDING CAKE FOR HETEROSEXUALS, you got nothing.

The Supreme Court created Same Sex Marriage, NOT GAY MARRIAGE.

Your problem, not his.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You can quote that until the cows come home you dimwit, but this Baker is following the law by treating Homosexuals EXACTLY the same way he treats Heterosexuals.

The Supreme Court created a NEW marketplace that a BAKER could ENTER INTO. This BAKER CHOSE NOT TO.

He has (and having to repeat this a dozen times is getting old) NEVER OFFERED SAME SEX WEDDING CAKES.

Not to Homosexuals

Not to Heterosexuals

Not to Anyone

So, unless you can find a case, where he HAS BAKED A SAME SEX WEDDING CAKE FOR HETEROSEXUALS, you got nothing.

The Supreme Court created Same Sex Marriage, NOT GAY MARRIAGE.

Your problem, not his.

So he violated the sex provision of the law instead of sexual orientation.

Still a violation of the same law.



.>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

So he violated the sex provision of the law instead of sexual orientation.

Still a violation of the same law.



.>>>>

Still there was that problematic wording in the USSC Decision that said "respectful" in addition to "neutral". Now what was that all about?

 

[JoeB131]

Jude was the daily personal servant of Jesus; probably closer to him than anyone else on a day to day basis.

Jude was a catcher and Jesus was a pitcher...

 

[Aba Incieni]

Jude was the daily personal servant of Jesus; probably closer to him than anyone else on a day to day basis.

Jude was a catcher and Jesus was a pitcher...

mohammed married a baby. What's your point.

 

[JoeB131]

mohammed married a baby. What's your point.

Why, you'd clearly miss it.

"Oh my Gosh, I didn't say anything Islamophobic today!!!"

 

[Aba Incieni]

mohammed married a baby. What's your point.

Why, you'd clearly miss it.

"Oh my Gosh, I didn't say anything Islamophobic today!!!"

But you did manage to fear Jews and Christians, who, along with muslims, refuse to decorate cakes for homos.

 

[JoeB131]

But you did manage to fear Jews and Christians, who, along with muslims, refuse to decorate cakes for homos.

Because Christians keep trying to impose their religious stupidity on us and the Jews keep getting us into wars...

On the other hand, if we just left the Muslims alone, we probably wouldn't have any problems with them.

 

[Pop23]

You can quote that until the cows come home you dimwit, but this Baker is following the law by treating Homosexuals EXACTLY the same way he treats Heterosexuals.

The Supreme Court created a NEW marketplace that a BAKER could ENTER INTO. This BAKER CHOSE NOT TO.

He has (and having to repeat this a dozen times is getting old) NEVER OFFERED SAME SEX WEDDING CAKES.

Not to Homosexuals

Not to Heterosexuals

Not to Anyone

So, unless you can find a case, where he HAS BAKED A SAME SEX WEDDING CAKE FOR HETEROSEXUALS, you got nothing.

The Supreme Court created Same Sex Marriage, NOT GAY MARRIAGE.

Your problem, not his.

So he violated the sex provision of the law instead of sexual orientation.

Still a violation of the same law.



.>>>>

Nope, treats all exactly the same. Won’t even bake a cake for heterosexual same sex couples. Fact is, the service is simply not offered

Male, female, all treated equally.

 

[Aba Incieni]

But you did manage to fear Jews and Christians, who, along with muslims, refuse to decorate cakes for homos.

Because Christians keep trying to impose their religious stupidity on us and the Jews keep getting us into wars...

On the other hand, if we just left the Muslims alone, we probably wouldn't have any problems with them.

Your phobias want them all to be forced to decorate gay cakes. That's a problem for them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You can quote that until the cows come home you dimwit, but this Baker is following the law by treating Homosexuals EXACTLY the same way he treats Heterosexuals.

The Supreme Court created a NEW marketplace that a BAKER could ENTER INTO. This BAKER CHOSE NOT TO.

He has (and having to repeat this a dozen times is getting old) NEVER OFFERED SAME SEX WEDDING CAKES.

Not to Homosexuals

Not to Heterosexuals

Not to Anyone

So, unless you can find a case, where he HAS BAKED A SAME SEX WEDDING CAKE FOR HETEROSEXUALS, you got nothing.

The Supreme Court created Same Sex Marriage, NOT GAY MARRIAGE.

Your problem, not his.

So he violated the sex provision of the law instead of sexual orientation.

Still a violation of the same law.



.>>>>

Nope, treats all exactly the same. Won’t even bake a cake for heterosexual same sex couples. Fact is, the service is simply not offered

You just proved that he violated the law based on sex (not sexual orientation - heterosexual or homosexual isn't a factor in what you just proved.

If the customers are Man/Woman - Wedding Cake orders accepted.

If the customers are Man/Man or Woman/Woman - Wedding Cake order refused.


The refusal is based on the sex of the customers - good job you just showed he was in violation of the law.


Ya try that "the service was not offered" with a Judge. Sorry judge I didn't discriminate against black people we just don't serve Black Hamburgers here we only serve White Hamburgers so the "service was not offered". The fact is that Mr. Phillips confirmed to the courts that the service (making Wedding Cakes) was part of the services offered and refused to make them based on the sex composition of the customers involved.


.>>>>

 

[Aba Incieni]

You can quote that until the cows come home you dimwit, but this Baker is following the law by treating Homosexuals EXACTLY the same way he treats Heterosexuals.

The Supreme Court created a NEW marketplace that a BAKER could ENTER INTO. This BAKER CHOSE NOT TO.

He has (and having to repeat this a dozen times is getting old) NEVER OFFERED SAME SEX WEDDING CAKES.

Not to Homosexuals

Not to Heterosexuals

Not to Anyone

So, unless you can find a case, where he HAS BAKED A SAME SEX WEDDING CAKE FOR HETEROSEXUALS, you got nothing.

The Supreme Court created Same Sex Marriage, NOT GAY MARRIAGE.

Your problem, not his.

So he violated the sex provision of the law instead of sexual orientation.

Still a violation of the same law.



.>>>>

Nope, treats all exactly the same. Won’t even bake a cake for heterosexual same sex couples. Fact is, the service is simply not offered

You just proved that he violated the law based on sex (not sexual orientation - heterosexual or homosexual isn't a factor in what you just proved.

If the customers are Man/Woman - Wedding Cake orders accepted.

If the customers are Man/Man or Woman/Woman - Wedding Cake order refused.


The refusal is based on the sex of the customers - good job you just showed he was in violation of the law.


Ya try that "the service was not offered" with a Judge. Sorry judge I didn't discriminate against black people we just don't serve Black Hamburgers here we only serve White Hamburgers so the "service was not offered". The fact is that Mr. Phillips confirmed to the courts that the service (making Wedding Cakes) was part of the services offered and refused to make them based on the sex composition of the customers involved.


.>>>>

Which religious texts claim race...or hamburgers...are an abomination?

 

[Pop23]

You can quote that until the cows come home you dimwit, but this Baker is following the law by treating Homosexuals EXACTLY the same way he treats Heterosexuals.

The Supreme Court created a NEW marketplace that a BAKER could ENTER INTO. This BAKER CHOSE NOT TO.

He has (and having to repeat this a dozen times is getting old) NEVER OFFERED SAME SEX WEDDING CAKES.

Not to Homosexuals

Not to Heterosexuals

Not to Anyone

So, unless you can find a case, where he HAS BAKED A SAME SEX WEDDING CAKE FOR HETEROSEXUALS, you got nothing.

The Supreme Court created Same Sex Marriage, NOT GAY MARRIAGE.

Your problem, not his.

So he violated the sex provision of the law instead of sexual orientation.

Still a violation of the same law.



.>>>>

Nope, treats all exactly the same. Won’t even bake a cake for heterosexual same sex couples. Fact is, the service is simply not offered

You just proved that he violated the law based on sex (not sexual orientation - heterosexual or homosexual isn't a factor in what you just proved.

If the customers are Man/Woman - Wedding Cake orders accepted.

If the customers are Man/Man or Woman/Woman - Wedding Cake order refused.


The refusal is based on the sex of the customers - good job you just showed he was in violation of the law.


Ya try that "the service was not offered" with a Judge. Sorry judge I didn't discriminate against black people we just don't serve Black Hamburgers here we only serve White Hamburgers so the "service was not offered". The fact is that Mr. Phillips confirmed to the courts that the service (making Wedding Cakes) was part of the services offered and refused to make them based on the sex composition of the customers involved.


.>>>>

Specifically.

Which sex?

If all, golly gosh. The service is just not offered.

Must be a bias toward a sex somewhere.

Hamburger?

Sorry judge, I don’t serve hamburger to blacks, that is correct, of course, I don’t serve em to whites either.

Are you under some impression that their really is “Gay Marriage”?

Cuz, legally, there isn’t.

 

[Grumblenuts]

this Baker won't bake a cake for Heterosexual same sex couples

So, as expected, still doubling down on the same crazy, unsupportable speculations. Zero substance at all. But there is a fine admission hidden in there. Notice you're reduced to speculating "won't bake" instead of being able to verifiably claim has- or hasn't- baked, which would likely still make zero difference in regard to this case, still being irrelevant, but at least it would be substantive.

See problem is anyone could make up such excuses after the fact if all it took to thwart the law was to claim Jesus made me do it! Because I'm religious I get to ignore any law that strikes me as contrary to my indoctrination! Freedumb baby! Suck it all you nonbelievers! God made us sinful so those of us who kiss His ass and beg His forgiveness at least once during our lifetimes can be saved! Screw the law! We get to go to Heaven regardless and you don't. You go straight to Hell, neener neener!

Many, but one guy in particular, someone I'd worked with daily for at least a year and had grown to consider a pretty solid friend,.. yes, even though he was a devout Christian,... one bright, sunny day, finally got around to asking me dead seriously, "Why don't you just kill yourself? Or go rob a bank?" Never forget that incident because it initially left me so speechless. All I thought was "WTF?" That's the insane product of such indoctrination. Religion has continued to spread because it's the easiest way to turn otherwise smart, caring people into compliant, babbling idiots.

When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told.

 

[LittleNipper]

But you did manage to fear Jews and Christians, who, along with muslims, refuse to decorate cakes for homos.

Because Christians keep trying to impose their religious stupidity on us and the Jews keep getting us into wars...

On the other hand, if we just left the Muslims alone, we probably wouldn't have any problems with them.

Christians clearly have an obligation (albeit a desire) to keep you informed of the Gospel, we do not impose our religion on you as much as you impose your demands on us. As for Muslims, they are nothing like the Amish.