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.
Let’s get something straight. Lifestyle is not the issue. Courts do not rule on lifestyles. The only issue is whether the baker has the right to violate the state public accommodation law because doing so would keep him from practicing his religion.The Supreme Court has never defined religion but the courts do not in general uphold religious beliefs as a justification for crime unless the person is brainwashed or is criminally insane. Where things get murky is when one constitution right, the freedom to worship is claimed to result in the violation of another person's constitutional right.
Lifestyles don't have Constitutional rights. But a person does have the right to their deep spiritual convictions. Passively refusing to condone or promote another lifestyle is not "a crime". The baker didn't whip the gay lifestyle men with a cat 'o nine tails or throw a brick in their face. He merely said "no, my deeply held convictions will not allow me to do that."
The courts just began to clear away the murkiness by saying others must be "respectful" of the baker's passive pass on baking a "gay wedding" cake. Making the repugnant (see gay pride parades put on in anticipation of children attending for details) gay lifestyle more special than others was a miscarriage of justice and unconstitutional. It was subjective and done by just 5 unelected lawyers in DC; one of which who was telling the press weeks before the Hearing about her clear and undeniable bias on the case...
Gay is a lifestyle. We will come back to this point again and again until it sinks in. If one repugnant lifestyle gets special rights and privileges then all repugnant lifestyles must. Are you wholly unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment and how it works? What is more repugnant than a group that loosely identifies their lifestyles by deviant sex acts and who celebrate that lifestlye by performing those deviant sex acts in a public "pride" parade, hoping children will be watching? No, I mean really. What is more repugnant than that? If that clears the bar, then they all do. Will a Christian have to condone and promote ALL of the potential lifestyles or face banishment from the marketplace?
It's full of the aids, degradation, and death. To call it gay is like saying that abortion is for the children.Let’s get something straight. Lifestyle is not the issue. Courts do not rule on lifestyles. The only issue is whether the baker has the right to violate the state public accommodation law because doing so would keep him from practicing his religion.The Supreme Court has never defined religion but the courts do not in general uphold religious beliefs as a justification for crime unless the person is brainwashed or is criminally insane. Where things get murky is when one constitution right, the freedom to worship is claimed to result in the violation of another person's constitutional right.
Lifestyles don't have Constitutional rights. But a person does have the right to their deep spiritual convictions. Passively refusing to condone or promote another lifestyle is not "a crime". The baker didn't whip the gay lifestyle men with a cat 'o nine tails or throw a brick in their face. He merely said "no, my deeply held convictions will not allow me to do that."
The courts just began to clear away the murkiness by saying others must be "respectful" of the baker's passive pass on baking a "gay wedding" cake. Making the repugnant (see gay pride parades put on in anticipation of children attending for details) gay lifestyle more special than others was a miscarriage of justice and unconstitutional. It was subjective and done by just 5 unelected lawyers in DC; one of which who was telling the press weeks before the Hearing about her clear and undeniable bias on the case...
Gay is a lifestyle. We will come back to this point again and again until it sinks in. If one repugnant lifestyle gets special rights and privileges then all repugnant lifestyles must. Are you wholly unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment and how it works? What is more repugnant than a group that loosely identifies their lifestyles by deviant sex acts and who celebrate that lifestlye by performing those deviant sex acts in a public "pride" parade, hoping children will be watching? No, I mean really. What is more repugnant than that? If that clears the bar, then they all do. Will a Christian have to condone and promote ALL of the potential lifestyles or face banishment from the marketplace?
Since you are so intent on discussing the gay lifestyle and apparently have knowledge of such, how about telling the rest of us about that lifestyle.
His business is a public accommodation. If he can't accommodate the public, then his business should not be open to the public. There is always the option of a private business, i.e. a private club. As long as membership is not open to the public and it's intent is not to avoid the law, the baker can discriminate all he likes within the club. He could also sell his cakes to church members operating with the church organization and not be subject to the law.If asked to bake a cake celebrating cohabitation outside of Marriage, I think he should have every right to deny.
You?
I think he should insist on having them stoned like the Bible says the should be.
You?
The interest is not forced on the person, it is agreed to. The customer is participating in the sin WILLINGLY.
The Baker IS BEING FORCED TO PARTICIPATE.
if you don’t see the difference, you are a whacko!
Then the baker shouldn't be in that line of work. This isn't complicated.
You mean he should be FORCED out of business
I'm sure there are many cakes he would refuse to decorate. Say, a grown man sexually abusing children, or Dems celebrating another KKK lynching of a black man.His business is a public accommodation. If he can't accommodate the public, then his business should not be open to the public. There is always the option of a private business, i.e. a private club. As long as membership is not open to the public and it's intent is not to avoid the law, the baker can discriminate all he likes within the club. He could also sell his cakes to church members operating with the church organization and not be subject to the law.If asked to bake a cake celebrating cohabitation outside of Marriage, I think he should have every right to deny.
You?
I think he should insist on having them stoned like the Bible says the should be.
You?
The interest is not forced on the person, it is agreed to. The customer is participating in the sin WILLINGLY.
The Baker IS BEING FORCED TO PARTICIPATE.
if you don’t see the difference, you are a whacko!
Then the baker shouldn't be in that line of work. This isn't complicated.
You mean he should be FORCED out of business
Let’s get something straight. Lifestyle is not the issue. Courts do not rule on lifestyles. The only issue is whether the baker has the right to violate the state public accommodation law because doing so would keep him from practicing his religion.
Since you are so intent on discussing the gay lifestyle and apparently have knowledge of such, how about telling the rest of us about that lifestyle.
His business is a public accommodation. If he can't accommodate the public, then his business should not be open to the public. There is always the option of a private business, i.e. a private club. As long as membership is not open to the public and it's intent is not to avoid the law, the baker can discriminate all he likes within the club. He could also sell his cakes to church members operating with the church organization and not be subject to the law.
And where in Jude 1 is there a mention of marriage much less being sent to hell for hijacking it. And where is the definition of "strange flesh". It would seem that term could well be referring to cross race relationships, bestiality, anal sex, a french kiss, or any of number of acts performed by hetro and homosexual couples. In fact, just about any sexual act that deviates from what was considered normal at the time would probably qualify.Jude 1 of the New Testament makes it crystal clear. If a Christian allows gays to hijack the paramount social icon of marriage (thus uber-normalizing that lifestyle in his society), most absolutely he knows his soul will burn in hell for an eternity. The Big Guy doesn't like "blending" of the basic social fabric (with its random flaws) He created. In other words, He doesn't want the entire fabric to be flawed by attrition that always comes when perverse social trends run amok (Obergefell) and escalates over a generation or three. No soul alive then will have the faintest clue what God's basic fabric used to be.They can usually determine if the action required by law prevents free exercise of religion. However in some case, such as the baker, determining whether the action would prevent free exercise of religion is not clear.
Scalia was right for secular reasons:. Obergefell is a grave, grave fuck up. But it's a fuck up for even more important reasons as well. Hence why the Christian must be left to passively refuse.
And where in Jude 1 is there a mention of marriage much less being sent to hell for hijacking it. And where is the definition of "strange flesh". It would seem that term could well be referring to cross race relationships, bestiality, anal sex, a french kiss, or any of number of acts performed by hetro and homosexual couples. In fact, just about any sexual act that deviates from what was considered normal at time would probably qualify.
Keep in mind there is nothing to indicated that the baker was asked to create a cake with any sexual explicit decorations. In fact, the evidence of the trial suggest that the gay couple simply said they wanted to buy a wedding cake and there was no discussion of design because the baker refused the couple.I'm sure there are many cakes he would refuse to decorate. Say, a grown man sexually abusing children, or Dems celebrating another KKK lynching of a black man.His business is a public accommodation. If he can't accommodate the public, then his business should not be open to the public. There is always the option of a private business, i.e. a private club. As long as membership is not open to the public and it's intent is not to avoid the law, the baker can discriminate all he likes within the club. He could also sell his cakes to church members operating with the church organization and not be subject to the law.If asked to bake a cake celebrating cohabitation outside of Marriage, I think he should have every right to deny.
You?
I think he should insist on having them stoned like the Bible says the should be.
You?
The interest is not forced on the person, it is agreed to. The customer is participating in the sin WILLINGLY.
The Baker IS BEING FORCED TO PARTICIPATE.
if you don’t see the difference, you are a whacko!
Then the baker shouldn't be in that line of work. This isn't complicated.
You mean he should be FORCED out of business
Let's force him to, since they're part of the public, too.
Nope...if we are going to let people discriminate against others....lets get rid of PA laws across the board.Your position is that you want to control people you disagree with… You are not fooling anybodyGet rid of all PA laws...and any business can reject anyone based on religion, race, handicap or gender. Wooot!
I'm not going to get into a discussion of the bible because, I'm not a biblical scholar. However, one thing you said is incorrect. Sodomy both now and in the past refers to sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation. In religious text in also includes bestiality.And where in Jude 1 is there a mention of marriage much less being sent to hell for hijacking it. And where is the definition of "strange flesh". It would seem that term could well be referring to cross race relationships, bestiality, anal sex, a french kiss, or any of number of acts performed by hetro and homosexual couples. In fact, just about any sexual act that deviates from what was considered normal at time would probably qualify.
My bad. I forgot to tell you the prelude to Jude 1. It's Romans 1 where it talks about men lying with men and women lying with women. Jude 1 references the destruction of Sodom for the "strange flesh" obsessions its residents espoused. You're aware that to the present day the term "Sodomy" refers to having sex with the same gender.
You can play dumb and do word salad until the cows come home but it ain't going to change that Kennedy just said that a Christian cannot be punished for carrying his faith 24/7 into the public marketplace. And that includes the dire warnings in Jude 1 for promoting the spread of homosexuality in any culture using any vehicle. Most especially the paramount one: marriage.
See, you thought. Clearly no help to be found there! Stop doing that.Duress and fines are considered force.
I thought all adults knew that.
No excuse for a bad law. You do get that, right? There are bad laws that need to be corrected. Happens all the time. That doesn't mean those who want them corrected are miscreants or want some terrible outcome. You're just clinging to a strawman.
except this is a perfectly fine law. If you are a homophobic baker, then you have options.
1) Do the service you promised to do.
2) Find something else to do for a living where you won't have to deal with icky, icky, gay folks.
Thanks. Apology accepted. Way beyond merely adult.I’m sorry, this whole time I thought you were an adult.
My bad
A song writer is not a public accommodation so the law does not apply to him. In fact, public accommodations laws only applies to businesses open to public.No excuse for a bad law. You do get that, right? There are bad laws that need to be corrected. Happens all the time. That doesn't mean those who want them corrected are miscreants or want some terrible outcome. You're just clinging to a strawman.
except this is a perfectly fine law. If you are a homophobic baker, then you have options.
1) Do the service you promised to do.
2) Find something else to do for a living where you won't have to deal with icky, icky, gay folks.
Should a song writer, ask to write a song about something he can’t relate to be forced to quit writing songs about things he can?
Interesting
We dont have to bake no Gawd Damned cakes, libtards!
Should a song writer, ask to write a song about something he can’t relate to be forced to quit writing songs about things he can?
Interesting
Yes happy Father's Day for all the kids bound in a lesbian marriage contract. Sorry this day will never involve you!
