White-hating racists get Stormfront booted off the internet ! FIRST AMENMENT IS DEAD

[Faun]

A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront. The members of that group still have freedom of speech. But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.

There is something I love about that argument. It cannot stand scrutiny.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?

When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights. But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves. Funny how that works.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Tell me WITF cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.

The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion. Forcing someone in the private sector to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "separation of church and state" the left babbles on about.

There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.

I doubt that you are very well aware of God's laws. So you won't try to argue out of ignorance, this link is just for you:

https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf

Great, thanks for agreeing with me that there's nothing in the Bible prohibiting anyone from baking a cake for a homosexual.

 

[Slyhunter]

There is something I love about that argument. It cannot stand scrutiny.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?

When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights. But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves. Funny how that works.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Tell me WITF cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.

The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion. Forcing someone in the private sector to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "separation of church and state" the left babbles on about.

There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.

I doubt that you are very well aware of God's laws. So you won't try to argue out of ignorance, this link is just for you:

https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf

Great, thanks for agreeing with me that there's nothing in the Bible prohibiting anyone from baking a cake for a homosexual.

There was nothing to stop the homos from buying a cake already baked. The problem is none of them had pro homo images or messages on them and it is definitely wrong to force the baker to put something on his cake he doesn't want to.

 

[Humorme]

There is something I love about that argument. It cannot stand scrutiny.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?

When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights. But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves. Funny how that works.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Tell me WITF cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.

The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion. Forcing someone in the private sector to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "separation of church and state" the left babbles on about.

There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.

I doubt that you are very well aware of God's laws. So you won't try to argue out of ignorance, this link is just for you:

https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf

Great, thanks for agreeing with me that there's nothing in the Bible prohibiting anyone from baking a cake for a homosexual.

You need some remedial reading classes. I never said such a thing. I gave you a link that you need to study. You are absolutely delusional - a legend in your own mind.

NO rational person could agree with you when you are 100 percent wrong.

I wouldn't bake you a cake regardless of what even the United States Supreme Court said.

 

[Humorme]

[
You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.

Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against serving faggots so please leave".

Answer that, hater.

Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.

But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage. And, according to the Bible, that is adultery. And adultery made the Big 10 list. But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.

You obviously don't read the Bible. If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."

(See I Corinthians 7: 14 thru 16)

If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:

https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf

Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"

Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Mark 10:12 "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Seems pretty cut & dried to me. But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.

You omitted the part I quoted. We wonder why... NOT.

If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)

Just for edification:

"(But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace.)" New Living Translation


"Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace." NASB

"But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace:" International Standard Version

"But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace" NET Bible

I Corinthians 7 :15

If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried. The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.

Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve. Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.

 

[Faun]

Tell me WITF cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.

The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion. Forcing someone in the private sector to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "separation of church and state" the left babbles on about.

There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.

I doubt that you are very well aware of God's laws. So you won't try to argue out of ignorance, this link is just for you:

https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf

Great, thanks for agreeing with me that there's nothing in the Bible prohibiting anyone from baking a cake for a homosexual.

You need some remedial reading classes. I never said such a thing. I gave you a link that you need to study. You are absolutely delusional - a legend in your own mind.

NO rational person could agree with you when you are 100 percent wrong.

I wouldn't bake you a cake regardless of what even the United States Supreme Court said.

I don't need to study shit. I already know there's nothing in the Bible instructing anyone to not bake a cake for homosexuals. And you just proved you can't find anything in your link either to support the baker's illegal prejudiced protest.

 

[Faun]

Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against serving faggots so please leave".

Answer that, hater.

Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.

But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage. And, according to the Bible, that is adultery. And adultery made the Big 10 list. But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.

You obviously don't read the Bible. If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."

(See I Corinthians 7: 14 thru 16)

If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:

https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf

Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"

Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Mark 10:12 "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Seems pretty cut & dried to me. But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.

You omitted the part I quoted. We wonder why... NOT.

If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)

Just for edification:

"(But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace.)" New Living Translation


"Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace." NASB

"But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace:" International Standard Version

"But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace" NET Bible

I Corinthians 7 :15

If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried. The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.

Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve. Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.

Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I know blacks don't play chess. Just like they avoid physics and engineering and anything that requires them to think. Blacks sing and dance and play sports. They put on shows for white ppl.

Neil deGrasse Tyson says "hi". He also says "fuck you".

Tyson is a giant fraud. Another affirmative action baby. He is a very mediocre physicist that the lying press has built up just because he's part black.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage. And, according to the Bible, that is adultery. And adultery made the Big 10 list. But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.

. That should be up to the company. Let them decide who they will serve. That is freedom.

 

[Political Junky]

Author draws parallels between Donald Trump and rise of 1930s fascism, in rare public appearance at Royal Festival Hall

John le Carré on Trump: ‘Something seriously bad is happening’

 

[Unkotare]

I know blacks don't play chess. Just like they avoid physics and engineering and anything that requires them to think. Blacks sing and dance and play sports. They put on shows for white ppl.

Neil deGrasse Tyson says "hi". He also says "fuck you".

Tyson is a giant fraud. Another affirmative action baby. He is a very mediocre physicist that the lying press has built up just because he's part black.

You claim to be a more qualified physicist?

 

[pillars]

This thread...

 

[Humorme]

Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.

But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage. And, according to the Bible, that is adultery. And adultery made the Big 10 list. But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.

You obviously don't read the Bible. If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."

(See I Corinthians 7: 14 thru 16)

If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:

https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf

Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"

Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Mark 10:12 "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Seems pretty cut & dried to me. But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.

You omitted the part I quoted. We wonder why... NOT.

If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)

Just for edification:

"(But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace.)" New Living Translation


"Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace." NASB

"But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace:" International Standard Version

"But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace" NET Bible

I Corinthians 7 :15

If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried. The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.

Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve. Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.

Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....

You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?

I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.

 

[Humorme]

The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion. Forcing someone in the private sector to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "separation of church and state" the left babbles on about.

There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.

I doubt that you are very well aware of God's laws. So you won't try to argue out of ignorance, this link is just for you:

https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf

Great, thanks for agreeing with me that there's nothing in the Bible prohibiting anyone from baking a cake for a homosexual.

You need some remedial reading classes. I never said such a thing. I gave you a link that you need to study. You are absolutely delusional - a legend in your own mind.

NO rational person could agree with you when you are 100 percent wrong.

I wouldn't bake you a cake regardless of what even the United States Supreme Court said.

I don't need to study shit. I already know there's nothing in the Bible instructing anyone to not bake a cake for homosexuals. And you just proved you can't find anything in your link either to support the baker's illegal prejudiced protest.

There is so much the Bible says regarding homosexuality that we would have to hijack this thread for the Bible lessons.

The Bible is replete with commands to avoid ANY improprieties.

"Abstain from all appearance of evil." I Thessalonians 5 :22

Christians are compelled NOT to engage in the symbolism of evil. It's that simple. Maybe that baker didn't even believe in the Bible. If doing something violates the dictates of one's conscience, you cannot be compelled to do it under our Constitution.

Furthermore, the private sector should NOT be compelled to do anything they don't want to do with respect to running their business. I realize that the government has the power to enforce unconstitutional laws. And you FAIL to realize that the government lacks the authority, under our Constitution, to force people to do that which violates the dictates of their conscience.

In the most recent example of a baker refusing to go against his moral principles, the United States Supreme Court opined (regarding such laws):

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

I get it that you don't want to acknowledge that America was founded upon the concept of Liberty as an unalienable Right. That does not make you right. It simply means that you think might makes right and everything the government does ought to be obeyed as if it is the Word of almighty God. We simply disagree and a careful reading of the Declaration of Independence will show you that the founders tired of the tyranny of King George and left us a blueprint for dealing with tyrannical rulers in the future.

The government may have the power to declare secular humanism a religion by infringing on the religious beliefs via public policy. We are all aware of that, sir. You're not schooling anyone on this board. Rather, you need an education in proper constitutional interpretation. When anyone steps on my liberty, I will fight back as I have no moral, legal, OR constitutional obligation to let anyone screw me out of what I worked to earn and that which I hold near and dear to my heart.

 

[WinterBorn]

But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage. And, according to the Bible, that is adultery. And adultery made the Big 10 list. But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.

You obviously don't read the Bible. If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."

(See I Corinthians 7: 14 thru 16)

If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:

https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf

Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"

Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Mark 10:12 "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Seems pretty cut & dried to me. But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.

You omitted the part I quoted. We wonder why... NOT.

If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)

Just for edification:

"(But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace.)" New Living Translation


"Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace." NASB

"But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace:" International Standard Version

"But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace" NET Bible

I Corinthians 7 :15

If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried. The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.

Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve. Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.

Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....

You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?

I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.

OMG! They forced a baker to bake a cake! How dare they?

 

[Humorme]

You obviously don't read the Bible. If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."

(See I Corinthians 7: 14 thru 16)

If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:

https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf

Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"

Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Mark 10:12 "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Seems pretty cut & dried to me. But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.

You omitted the part I quoted. We wonder why... NOT.

If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)

Just for edification:

"(But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace.)" New Living Translation


"Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace." NASB

"But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace:" International Standard Version

"But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace" NET Bible

I Corinthians 7 :15

If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried. The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.

Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve. Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.

Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....

You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?

I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.

OMG! They forced a baker to bake a cake! How dare they?

And your point? A private business posts a sign and it says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

What constitutional right are you being deprived of if they refuse to serve you?

 

[Faun]

But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage. And, according to the Bible, that is adultery. And adultery made the Big 10 list. But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.

You obviously don't read the Bible. If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."

(See I Corinthians 7: 14 thru 16)

If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:

https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf

Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"

Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Mark 10:12 "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Seems pretty cut & dried to me. But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.

You omitted the part I quoted. We wonder why... NOT.

If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)

Just for edification:

"(But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace.)" New Living Translation


"Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace." NASB

"But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace:" International Standard Version

"But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace" NET Bible

I Corinthians 7 :15

If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried. The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.

Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve. Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.

Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....

You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?

I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.

This isn't about freedom of religion since the Bible doesn't teach us it's against G-d's laws to bake a cake for homosexuals.

What this is about is some bigot who's using their religion as a tool to justify their discrimination. Courts have ruled in other non-related cases that religion cannot be used as an excuse to violate the law. See Coptics v. DEA, as an example.

 

[WinterBorn]

Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"

Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Mark 10:12 "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Seems pretty cut & dried to me. But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.

You omitted the part I quoted. We wonder why... NOT.

If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)

Just for edification:

"(But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace.)" New Living Translation


"Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace." NASB

"But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace:" International Standard Version

"But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace" NET Bible

I Corinthians 7 :15

If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried. The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.

Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve. Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.

Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....

You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?

I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.

OMG! They forced a baker to bake a cake! How dare they?

And your point? A private business posts a sign and it says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

What constitutional right are you being deprived of if they refuse to serve you?

Our nation has laws beyond the US Constitution. Those laws cannot be unconstitutional, but they do exist.

And some of those laws involve outlawing discrimination in businesses open to the public.

 

[koshergrl]

I find Stormfront and Neo-Nazi's abhorrent. But I will defend their right to free speech.

This is a huge mistake.

It's not a mistake. It's globalism/communism. it's absolutely 100 percent intentional. They mean to end free speech.

People are so stupid I think they deserve what's coming.

 

[Faun]

There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.

I doubt that you are very well aware of God's laws. So you won't try to argue out of ignorance, this link is just for you:

https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf

Great, thanks for agreeing with me that there's nothing in the Bible prohibiting anyone from baking a cake for a homosexual.

You need some remedial reading classes. I never said such a thing. I gave you a link that you need to study. You are absolutely delusional - a legend in your own mind.

NO rational person could agree with you when you are 100 percent wrong.

I wouldn't bake you a cake regardless of what even the United States Supreme Court said.

I don't need to study shit. I already know there's nothing in the Bible instructing anyone to not bake a cake for homosexuals. And you just proved you can't find anything in your link either to support the baker's illegal prejudiced protest.

There is so much the Bible says regarding homosexuality that we would have to hijack this thread for the Bible lessons.

The Bible is replete with commands to avoid ANY improprieties.

"Abstain from all appearance of evil." I Thessalonians 5 :22

Christians are compelled NOT to engage in the symbolism of evil. It's that simple. Maybe that baker didn't even believe in the Bible. If doing something violates the dictates of one's conscience, you cannot be compelled to do it under our Constitution.

Furthermore, the private sector should NOT be compelled to do anything they don't want to do with respect to running their business. I realize that the government has the power to enforce unconstitutional laws. And you FAIL to realize that the government lacks the authority, under our Constitution, to force people to do that which violates the dictates of their conscience.

In the most recent example of a baker refusing to go against his moral principles, the United States Supreme Court opined (regarding such laws):

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

I get it that you don't want to acknowledge that America was founded upon the concept of Liberty as an unalienable Right. That does not make you right. It simply means that you think might makes right and everything the government does ought to be obeyed as if it is the Word of almighty God. We simply disagree and a careful reading of the Declaration of Independence will show you that the founders tired of the tyranny of King George and left us a blueprint for dealing with tyrannical rulers in the future.

The government may have the power to declare secular humanism a religion by infringing on the religious beliefs via public policy. We are all aware of that, sir. You're not schooling anyone on this board. Rather, you need an education in proper constitutional interpretation. When anyone steps on my liberty, I will fight back as I have no moral, legal, OR constitutional obligation to let anyone screw me out of what I worked to earn and that which I hold near and dear to my heart.

A private business which provides services to the public cannot discriminate against certain groups of people they don't like. If they could, businesses could deny public services to blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc.

As far as homosexuality being evil, nothing in the New Testament states that.

 

[Faun]

I find Stormfront and Neo-Nazi's abhorrent. But I will defend their right to free speech.

This is a huge mistake.

It's not a mistake. It's globalism/communism. it's absolutely 100 percent intentional. They mean to end free speech.

People are so stupid I think they deserve what's coming.

^^^ yet another rightard who doesn't comprehend that free speech is only a protection from government censorship.