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

[Slyhunter]

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?

If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.

 

[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?

If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.

Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?

And no, it is not different. The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake. It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.

Its funny. So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns. Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths. Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.

But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage. You may as well be performing the ceremony.

 

[Slyhunter]

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?

If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.

Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?

And no, it is not different. The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake. It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.

Its funny. So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns. Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths. Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.

But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage. You may as well be performing the ceremony.

if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.

 

[Faun]

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?

If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.

Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?

And no, it is not different. The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake. It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.

Its funny. So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns. Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths. Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.

But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage. You may as well be performing the ceremony.

if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.

So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.

Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?

And no, it is not different. The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake. It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.

Its funny. So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns. Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths. Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.

But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage. You may as well be performing the ceremony.

if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.

Promoting it to who? People attending a reception for a gay wedding?

 

[Humorme]

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?

If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.

Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?

And no, it is not different. The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake. It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.

Its funny. So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns. Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths. Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.

But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage. You may as well be performing the ceremony.

if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.

So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?

You know that's exactly what I mean AND if a guy walked into a business wearing a KKK t shirt, you would not serve him... of course you'd have some law built around public policy to defend you, but if you don't want to do business with someone don't do business with them.

 

[Humorme]

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?

If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.

Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?

And no, it is not different. The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake. It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.

Its funny. So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns. Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths. Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.

But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage. You may as well be performing the ceremony.

Your logic is convoluted, but Bill Ruger would not sell high capacity magazines to the general public when he was alive. Gun owners didn't cry about it. They simply bought AR 15s. Now, Ruger (the company) had to adapt and offer high capacity magazines - without being forced by government.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.

Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?

And no, it is not different. The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake. It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.

Its funny. So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns. Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths. Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.

But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage. You may as well be performing the ceremony.

if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.

So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?

You know that's exactly what I mean AND if a guy walked into a business wearing a KKK t shirt, you would not serve him... of course you'd have some law built around public policy to defend you, but if you don't want to do business with someone don't do business with them.

Maybe you could get segregated lunch counters back too. If the business owner wanted it?

Or maybe you could get laws about discrimination taken off the books? Let us know how that works out for you.

 

[Humorme]

If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.

Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?

And no, it is not different. The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake. It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.

Its funny. So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns. Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths. Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.

But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage. You may as well be performing the ceremony.

if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.

So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?

You know that's exactly what I mean AND if a guy walked into a business wearing a KKK t shirt, you would not serve him... of course you'd have some law built around public policy to defend you, but if you don't want to do business with someone don't do business with them.

Maybe you could get segregated lunch counters back too. If the business owner wanted it?

Or maybe you could get laws about discrimination taken off the books? Let us know how that works out for you.

It works in the other direction for you. There is always some law on the books favoring non-whites over whites. History is cyclical. Remember that.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.

Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?

And no, it is not different. The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake. It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.

Its funny. So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns. Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths. Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.

But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage. You may as well be performing the ceremony.

Your logic is convoluted, but Bill Ruger would not sell high capacity magazines to the general public when he was alive. Gun owners didn't cry about it. They simply bought AR 15s. Now, Ruger (the company) had to adapt and offer high capacity magazines - without being forced by government.

The ONLY convoluted logic is yours. Neither Bill Ruger nor the AR15 manufacturers believe they are responsible for the actions of the people who bought their firearms. Neither do I.

But somehow that reasoning flies out the window when it is a cake for a gay wedding.

If you believe baking and selling a cake makes your responsible for gay marriages, then why not make Ruger & Colt responsible for what people do with their weapons?

 

[Humorme]

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.

No shit Sherlock. How many times are you going to repeat that before you actually read the freaking post I made that responds to it? You have an answer. Too bad you can't read it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?

And no, it is not different. The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake. It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.

Its funny. So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns. Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths. Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.

But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage. You may as well be performing the ceremony.

if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.

So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?

You know that's exactly what I mean AND if a guy walked into a business wearing a KKK t shirt, you would not serve him... of course you'd have some law built around public policy to defend you, but if you don't want to do business with someone don't do business with them.

Maybe you could get segregated lunch counters back too. If the business owner wanted it?

Or maybe you could get laws about discrimination taken off the books? Let us know how that works out for you.

It works in the other direction for you. There is always some law on the books favoring non-whites over whites. History is cyclical. Remember that.

I have no problem with antidiscrimination laws. And I am an older white male.

 

[Humorme]

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?

If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.

Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?

And no, it is not different. The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake. It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.

Its funny. So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns. Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths. Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.

But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage. You may as well be performing the ceremony.

Your logic is convoluted, but Bill Ruger would not sell high capacity magazines to the general public when he was alive. Gun owners didn't cry about it. They simply bought AR 15s. Now, Ruger (the company) had to adapt and offer high capacity magazines - without being forced by government.

The ONLY convoluted logic is yours. Neither Bill Ruger nor the AR15 manufacturers believe they are responsible for the actions of the people who bought their firearms. Neither do I.

But somehow that reasoning flies out the window when it is a cake for a gay wedding.

If you believe baking and selling a cake makes your responsible for gay marriages, then why not make Ruger & Colt responsible for what people do with their weapons?

Your posts get more and more desperate. Can you stay on point?

You don't have ANY logic to convolute.

 

[Humorme]

if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.

So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?

You know that's exactly what I mean AND if a guy walked into a business wearing a KKK t shirt, you would not serve him... of course you'd have some law built around public policy to defend you, but if you don't want to do business with someone don't do business with them.

Maybe you could get segregated lunch counters back too. If the business owner wanted it?

Or maybe you could get laws about discrimination taken off the books? Let us know how that works out for you.

It works in the other direction for you. There is always some law on the books favoring non-whites over whites. History is cyclical. Remember that.

I have no problem with antidiscrimination laws. And I am an older white male.

Well good for you. I don't care for tyranny.

 

[Humorme]

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.

Well the Old Testament does list homosexuality as a sin. But, you don't get the point:

NOBODY has to justify their religion to you.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.

Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?

And no, it is not different. The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake. It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.

Its funny. So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns. Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths. Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.

But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage. You may as well be performing the ceremony.

Your logic is convoluted, but Bill Ruger would not sell high capacity magazines to the general public when he was alive. Gun owners didn't cry about it. They simply bought AR 15s. Now, Ruger (the company) had to adapt and offer high capacity magazines - without being forced by government.

The ONLY convoluted logic is yours. Neither Bill Ruger nor the AR15 manufacturers believe they are responsible for the actions of the people who bought their firearms. Neither do I.

But somehow that reasoning flies out the window when it is a cake for a gay wedding.

If you believe baking and selling a cake makes your responsible for gay marriages, then why not make Ruger & Colt responsible for what people do with their weapons?

Your posts get more and more desperate. Can you stay on point?

You don't have ANY logic to convolute.

Nice denial. But yes, I do have logic on my side.

If the business is responsible for gay marriage, just by selling a cake, why are gun manufacturers not responsible for what is done with their product? Because it doesn't involve "icky gay sex"?

 

[WinterBorn]

So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?

You know that's exactly what I mean AND if a guy walked into a business wearing a KKK t shirt, you would not serve him... of course you'd have some law built around public policy to defend you, but if you don't want to do business with someone don't do business with them.

Maybe you could get segregated lunch counters back too. If the business owner wanted it?

Or maybe you could get laws about discrimination taken off the books? Let us know how that works out for you.

It works in the other direction for you. There is always some law on the books favoring non-whites over whites. History is cyclical. Remember that.

I have no problem with antidiscrimination laws. And I am an older white male.

Well good for you. I don't care for tyranny.

I don't either. But outlawing discrimination simply marginalizes the hate mongers. It does not oppress the population.

 

[Humorme]

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.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, legally speaking. Then we have unalienable Rights - that are ABOVE the law.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Well the Old Testament does list homosexuality as a sin. But, you don't get the point:

NOBODY has to justify their religion to you.

No they don't. But they do have to follow the laws where their business is concerned. Don't like it? Get the laws changed.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, legally speaking. Then we have unalienable Rights - that are ABOVE the law.

Yes you do. But what specific right has been violated? The bakers are still free to practice their religion.