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

[Humorme]

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.

That is really silly. You don't know what motivates a person. When you are sexually attracted to someone, will you take anything 18 to 80, big, little, man, woman, or beast?

 

[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?

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.

If you cannot run your business in accordance with your beliefs, then your First Amendment guarantees have been violated.

Damn. How many times are we going to cover this? What seems to be your major malfunction?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

If you cannot run your business in accordance with your beliefs, then your First Amendment guarantees have been violated.

Damn. How many times are we going to cover this? What seems to be your major malfunction?

No malfunction at all. They have a bakery and sell cakes. Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.

The laws on the books ban discrimination. Sad to think you believe that is wrong.

 

[Humorme]

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.

What the Hell do you think the baker is doing? He's taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

WTF? Haven't you ever heard of civil disobedience, passive resistance, and ultimately outright rebellion? Sometimes it takes that to get laws changed. It's being done. Trolling me won't stop it. And it is legitimate political warfare.

 

[Humorme]

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.

If you cannot run your business in accordance with your beliefs, then your First Amendment guarantees have been violated.

Damn. How many times are we going to cover this? What seems to be your major malfunction?

No malfunction at all. They have a bakery and sell cakes. Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.

The laws on the books ban discrimination. Sad to think you believe that is wrong.

It doesn't matter that there is a law on the books. BFD. Do you understand that? BFD. We also have a Constitution and unalienable Rights. It may take the courts or extraordinary action, but does society want a civil war over the liberties of those who are not in power? It's as simple as that.

 

[Faun]

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.

A black baker has to bake a cake for KKK grand wizard for the same reasons a Christian has to bake a cake for a gay couple. And I don't support laws for making exceptions.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

What the Hell do you think the baker is doing? He's taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

WTF? Haven't you ever heard of civil disobedience, passive resistance, and ultimately outright rebellion? Sometimes it takes that to get laws changed. It's being done. Trolling me won't stop it. And it is legitimate political warfare.

Good luck. Yes, I have heard of civil disobedience. i have participated in it. This particular case is bullshit. They can still worship and believe as they choose.

 

[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.

A black baker has to bake a cake for KKK grand wizard for the same reasons a Christian has to bake a cake for a gay couple. And I don't support laws for making exceptions.

You're wrong and you know it. Good try though.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

If you cannot run your business in accordance with your beliefs, then your First Amendment guarantees have been violated.

Damn. How many times are we going to cover this? What seems to be your major malfunction?

No malfunction at all. They have a bakery and sell cakes. Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.

The laws on the books ban discrimination. Sad to think you believe that is wrong.

It doesn't matter that there is a law on the books. BFD. Do you understand that? BFD. We also have a Constitution and unalienable Rights. It may take the courts or extraordinary action, but does society want a civil war over the liberties of those who are not in power? It's as simple as that.

A civil war over having to sell a cake to a gay couple? LMAO! Yeah, that is brilliant. Good luck with that too. I just hope you are not operating under the misguided perception that the population will back you or that you and your ilk are the only ones with guns.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

If you cannot run your business in accordance with your beliefs, then your First Amendment guarantees have been violated.

Damn. How many times are we going to cover this? What seems to be your major malfunction?

No malfunction at all. They have a bakery and sell cakes. Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.

The laws on the books ban discrimination. Sad to think you believe that is wrong.

It doesn't matter that there is a law on the books. BFD. Do you understand that? BFD. We also have a Constitution and unalienable Rights. It may take the courts or extraordinary action, but does society want a civil war over the liberties of those who are not in power? It's as simple as that.

I think anti-discrimination laws are a BFD. I know you WISH all the gays would go back in the closet. But that ain't happening.

 

[Humorme]

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.

What the Hell do you think the baker is doing? He's taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

WTF? Haven't you ever heard of civil disobedience, passive resistance, and ultimately outright rebellion? Sometimes it takes that to get laws changed. It's being done. Trolling me won't stop it. And it is legitimate political warfare.

Good luck. Yes, I have heard of civil disobedience. i have participated in it. This particular case is bullshit. They can still worship and believe as they choose.

I have participated in civil disobedience as well. It may not come to that. The baker disagrees with you; I disagree with you. And now that is where we are. He believes it violates his First Amendment Rights and I agree. I wouldn't do it either and I'd burn my bakery to the ground before I'd let the government dictate to me.

And, with the business not generating taxes, your welfare check might suffer - if enough people agree with the sentiment.

 

[Faun]

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.

What the Hell do you think the baker is doing? He's taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

WTF? Haven't you ever heard of civil disobedience, passive resistance, and ultimately outright rebellion? Sometimes it takes that to get laws changed. It's being done. Trolling me won't stop it. And it is legitimate political warfare.

And the baker may or may not prevail, that remains to be seen. So far, he's failed at every attempt and now faces one last try.

 

[Humorme]

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.

If you cannot run your business in accordance with your beliefs, then your First Amendment guarantees have been violated.

Damn. How many times are we going to cover this? What seems to be your major malfunction?

No malfunction at all. They have a bakery and sell cakes. Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.

The laws on the books ban discrimination. Sad to think you believe that is wrong.

It doesn't matter that there is a law on the books. BFD. Do you understand that? BFD. We also have a Constitution and unalienable Rights. It may take the courts or extraordinary action, but does society want a civil war over the liberties of those who are not in power? It's as simple as that.

I think anti-discrimination laws are a BFD. I know you WISH all the gays would go back in the closet. But that ain't happening.

And I'm not going to change the way I do business either. Are we done yet? Or do you think I still owe you something?

 

[Humorme]

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.

What the Hell do you think the baker is doing? He's taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

WTF? Haven't you ever heard of civil disobedience, passive resistance, and ultimately outright rebellion? Sometimes it takes that to get laws changed. It's being done. Trolling me won't stop it. And it is legitimate political warfare.

And the baker may or may not prevail, that remains to be seen. So far, he's failed at every attempt and now faces one last try.

That is not the end of the road. There are a dozen more steps he can take from civil disobedience to passive resistance to changing his store to a club... to a host of options I won't list.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

What the Hell do you think the baker is doing? He's taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

WTF? Haven't you ever heard of civil disobedience, passive resistance, and ultimately outright rebellion? Sometimes it takes that to get laws changed. It's being done. Trolling me won't stop it. And it is legitimate political warfare.

Good luck. Yes, I have heard of civil disobedience. i have participated in it. This particular case is bullshit. They can still worship and believe as they choose.

I have participated in civil disobedience as well. It may not come to that. The baker disagrees with you; I disagree with you. And now that is where we are. He believes it violates his First Amendment Rights and I agree. I wouldn't do it either and I'd burn my bakery to the ground before I'd let the government dictate to me.

And, with the business not generating taxes, your welfare check might suffer - if enough people agree with the sentiment.

My welfare check? LMAO!! Nice try at a pitiful insult.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

If you cannot run your business in accordance with your beliefs, then your First Amendment guarantees have been violated.

Damn. How many times are we going to cover this? What seems to be your major malfunction?

No malfunction at all. They have a bakery and sell cakes. Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.

The laws on the books ban discrimination. Sad to think you believe that is wrong.

It doesn't matter that there is a law on the books. BFD. Do you understand that? BFD. We also have a Constitution and unalienable Rights. It may take the courts or extraordinary action, but does society want a civil war over the liberties of those who are not in power? It's as simple as that.

I think anti-discrimination laws are a BFD. I know you WISH all the gays would go back in the closet. But that ain't happening.

And I'm not going to change the way I do business either. Are we done yet? Or do you think I still owe you something?

WTF? I have not even hinted that you owe me anything.

 

[Faun]

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.

A black baker has to bake a cake for KKK grand wizard for the same reasons a Christian has to bake a cake for a gay couple. And I don't support laws for making exceptions.

You're wrong and you know it. Good try though.

You're projecting nonsense now. What I said is what the law protects and what I support.

 

[impuretrash]

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.

As I've pointed out a million times, google is immensely powerful. You can't do business in today's internet based economy without it. Them being given free reign to not only control the flow of information but impose economic and social sanctions on Americans for expressing opinions is extremely dangerous. It's like the phone companies cutting off your line because they overheard a politically incorrect conversation you had.

 

[impuretrash]

Lefties let this crap go on unchecked because for now, the opinions being censored are the ones they personally don't want to hear. Or at least, that's what the mainstream media tells you. Good luck finding out for yourself what these individuals and groups actually stand for since they've been deprived of the ability to speak for themselves.

 

[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.

As I've pointed out a million times, google is immensely powerful. You can't do business in today's internet based economy without it. Them being given free reign to not only control the flow of information but impose economic and social sanctions on Americans for expressing opinions is extremely dangerous. It's like the phone companies cutting off your line because they overheard a politically incorrect conversation you had.

Network Solutions, LLC dumped Stormfront and they did so because Stormfront violated their terms of service. Nazi's and skinheads and other assorted alt-right wing nuts have every right to start their own webhosting businesses and then even those hate groups can be back online.