Winning! Supreme Court Tosses Ruling Against Christian Bakers Who Refused Cake For Gay Couple

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yes, they did break the law and nothing in either SCOTUS ruling changes that.

Inventing your own facts now. Always a good move that gives you lots of credence.

They denied equal service which happens to STILL be against the law in both Oregon and Colorado.

Due to religious circumstances, just like in the case of the Muslim truck drivers, these bakers cannot be forced or compelled by authorities to provide services that violates their deeply held beliefs. Forced labor is slave labor.

You know all this and I'm really starting to tire of your game. This is all you've got, repeating the same nonsense over and over again. I am going to have to ignore you if you can't come up with some rational discussion which we both know you can't possibly do. You're on notice.

I don't hate anyone. I hate when racists and anti gay bigots like you use the bible to justify their bigotry. Jesus does too.

Well Jesus also does not appreciate hypocrites throwing stones while they provide cover for sodomites and other detestable abominations before the Lord. Of course you don't hate....you just love to smear and condemn the people who have philosophical differences with you. That's how stupid people settle their differences....with hateful name calling.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You can't show where the bible states that bakers shouldn't bake wedding cakes for gay couples, can you? Another made up "deeply felt belief".

I can show where the bible condemns homosexuality. Anything that enables or promotes that, like gay wedding accessories for example, is likewise frowned upon.

But keep making stupid absurd arguments (though I doubt this was sincere). It does so much for your credibility.

 

[dblack]

Should hypocrisy be against the law?

The law should be consistent.

Sure, but should it force its subjects to be consistent? Aren't people allowed to be fickle and biased?

People yes, the law no.

Well, that's in direct conflict with your position on these PA laws.

How so? I think my position is pretty consistent. Racists were not allowed to disobey our laws because of their "deeply held religious beliefs" so I don't think anti gay bigots should get special rights we don't give racist bigots.

How is that conflicted?

Because the law itself is forcing conformity. Sure, if we're going to have asinine laws, they should be applied consistently, but in this case the law itself is a violation of fundamental human liberty. You can't pretend to stand for freedom and support such laws.

 

[Seawytch]

You can't show where the bible states that bakers shouldn't bake wedding cakes for gay couples, can you? Another made up "deeply felt belief".

I can show where the bible condemns homosexuality. Anything that enables or promotes that, like gay wedding accessories for example, is likewise frowned upon.

But keep making stupid absurd arguments (though I doubt this was sincere). It does so much for your credibility.

And I can show where Jesus roundly and soundly condemned divorce. Not just six random passages (many of which are in the OT and don't apply), but Jesus, the Lord and Savior himself talking about how divorce is a SIN.

And yet, oddly, not once have we ever heard of the so called "Christian" bakers ever refusing to "participate in that sin".

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, they did break the law and nothing in either SCOTUS ruling changes that.

Inventing your own facts now. Always a good move that gives you lots of credence.

They denied equal service which happens to STILL be against the law in both Oregon and Colorado.

Due to religious circumstances, just like in the case of the Muslim truck drivers, these bakers cannot be forced or compelled by authorities to provide services that violates their deeply held beliefs. Forced labor is slave labor.

You know all this and I'm really starting to tire of your game. This is all you've got, repeating the same nonsense over and over again. I am going to have to ignore you if you can't come up with some rational discussion which we both know you can't possibly do. You're on notice.

I don't hate anyone. I hate when racists and anti gay bigots like you use the bible to justify their bigotry. Jesus does too.

Well Jesus also does not appreciate hypocrites throwing stones while they provide cover for sodomites and other detestable abominations before the Lord. Of course you don't hate....you just love to smear and condemn the people who have philosophical differences with you. That's how stupid people settle their differences....with hateful name calling.

Wrong. You still can't hide behind religion either. Sorry bigots.

“Colorado law,” Justice Kennedy wrote in one, “can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.”​

 

[bodecea]

Every male member of the town Sodom demanded that Lot send out his two male house guests so that
they could "know" them.
Lot offered to send out his two virgin daughters instead but the crowd was not placated.

There is a reason why anal sex is called "sodomy".

Isn't it nice...to admire a father who sends his virgin daughters out? And if the male city members were gay, what would they want with daughters? You CRCs who use the bible need to think things thru a little bit more, eh?

 

[Seawytch]

The law should be consistent.

Sure, but should it force its subjects to be consistent? Aren't people allowed to be fickle and biased?

People yes, the law no.

Well, that's in direct conflict with your position on these PA laws.

How so? I think my position is pretty consistent. Racists were not allowed to disobey our laws because of their "deeply held religious beliefs" so I don't think anti gay bigots should get special rights we don't give racist bigots.

How is that conflicted?

Because the law itself is forcing conformity. Sure, if we're going to have asinine laws, they should be applied consistently, but in this case the law itself is a violation of fundamental human liberty. You can't pretend to stand for freedom and support such laws.

You're 50+ years too late in whining about it.

Title II Of The Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)

 

[bodecea]

Of course not...you're hypocrisy immune.

Only in a pretend way that a fool might recognize. Do you think a cake maker is supposed to
be omniscient and withhold all services in perpetuity for customers who have not led exemplary lives? That really does make you a fool.

He has nothing to do with the divorces of couples one way or the other. Eff off!

And why not if divorce is condemned in the bible very very clearly. Oh...."deeply felt religious beliefs" indeed.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Of course not...you're hypocrisy immune.

Only in a pretend way that a fool might recognize. Do you think a cake maker is supposed to
be omniscient and withhold all services in perpetuity for customers who have not led exemplary lives? That really does make you a fool.

He has nothing to do with the divorces of couples one way or the other. Eff off!

And why not if divorce is condemned in the bible very very clearly. Oh...."deeply felt religious beliefs" indeed.

How's a baker to know if someone is divorced?

Cripes you bulls are stupid

 

[Seawytch]

Of course not...you're hypocrisy immune.

Only in a pretend way that a fool might recognize. Do you think a cake maker is supposed to
be omniscient and withhold all services in perpetuity for customers who have not led exemplary lives? That really does make you a fool.

He has nothing to do with the divorces of couples one way or the other. Eff off!

And why not if divorce is condemned in the bible very very clearly. Oh...."deeply felt religious beliefs" indeed.

How's a baker to know if someone is divorced?

Cripes you bulls are stupid

By talking to them...or don't Christians do that?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Of course not...you're hypocrisy immune.

Only in a pretend way that a fool might recognize. Do you think a cake maker is supposed to
be omniscient and withhold all services in perpetuity for customers who have not led exemplary lives? That really does make you a fool.

He has nothing to do with the divorces of couples one way or the other. Eff off!

And why not if divorce is condemned in the bible very very clearly. Oh...."deeply felt religious beliefs" indeed.

How's a baker to know if someone is divorced?

Cripes you bulls are stupid

By talking to them...or don't Christians do that?

Lame...you're one stupid bitch.

Like a baker is going to ask have you ever been divorced? Good grief

 

[dblack]

Sure, but should it force its subjects to be consistent? Aren't people allowed to be fickle and biased?

People yes, the law no.

Well, that's in direct conflict with your position on these PA laws.

How so? I think my position is pretty consistent. Racists were not allowed to disobey our laws because of their "deeply held religious beliefs" so I don't think anti gay bigots should get special rights we don't give racist bigots.

How is that conflicted?

Because the law itself is forcing conformity. Sure, if we're going to have asinine laws, they should be applied consistently, but in this case the law itself is a violation of fundamental human liberty. You can't pretend to stand for freedom and support such laws.

You're 50+ years too late in whining about it.

Title II Of The Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)

Nonsense. It's never too late to prune bad laws.

 

[Seawytch]

Of course not...you're hypocrisy immune.

Only in a pretend way that a fool might recognize. Do you think a cake maker is supposed to
be omniscient and withhold all services in perpetuity for customers who have not led exemplary lives? That really does make you a fool.

He has nothing to do with the divorces of couples one way or the other. Eff off!

And why not if divorce is condemned in the bible very very clearly. Oh...."deeply felt religious beliefs" indeed.

How's a baker to know if someone is divorced?

Cripes you bulls are stupid

By talking to them...or don't Christians do that?

Lame...you're one stupid bitch.

Like a baker is going to ask have you ever been divorced? Good grief

So let's ask them under oath if they've ever baked a wedding cake for someone they know to be divorced..let's see how "sincerely held" those religious beliefs are.

 

[Seawytch]

People yes, the law no.

Well, that's in direct conflict with your position on these PA laws.

How so? I think my position is pretty consistent. Racists were not allowed to disobey our laws because of their "deeply held religious beliefs" so I don't think anti gay bigots should get special rights we don't give racist bigots.

How is that conflicted?

Because the law itself is forcing conformity. Sure, if we're going to have asinine laws, they should be applied consistently, but in this case the law itself is a violation of fundamental human liberty. You can't pretend to stand for freedom and support such laws.

You're 50+ years too late in whining about it.

Title II Of The Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)

Nonsense. It's never too late to prune bad laws.

But NOBODY is going after that law, the FEDERAL law. They're not fighting for "liberty" or any other bullshit libertarian catch phrases that tickle your "no government" fancy. They're fighting ONLY to discriminate against gays. That's bigotry not liberty.

 

[dblack]

Well, that's in direct conflict with your position on these PA laws.

How so? I think my position is pretty consistent. Racists were not allowed to disobey our laws because of their "deeply held religious beliefs" so I don't think anti gay bigots should get special rights we don't give racist bigots.

How is that conflicted?

Because the law itself is forcing conformity. Sure, if we're going to have asinine laws, they should be applied consistently, but in this case the law itself is a violation of fundamental human liberty. You can't pretend to stand for freedom and support such laws.

You're 50+ years too late in whining about it.

Title II Of The Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)

Nonsense. It's never too late to prune bad laws.

But NOBODY is going after that law, the FEDERAL law. They're not fighting for "liberty" or any other bullshit libertarian catch phrases that tickle your "no government" fancy. They're fighting ONLY to discriminate against gays. That's bigotry not liberty.

I'm not interested in the ulterior motives of advocates, or opponents, of a given policy. I'm not cheering for a side. I think these laws are bad because they establish a dangerous precedent. And we're seeing just how dangerous as Trump's fascists use it as an excuse to bully social media companies. The idea that government should have an active role in dictating this kind of social behavior invites tyranny. It sets up a enticing tool for anyone who has an agenda and can whip up enough populist support, or otherwise seize control of government.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Isn't it nice...to admire a father who sends his virgin daughters out? And if the male city members were gay, what would they want with daughters? You CRCs who use the bible need to think things thru a little bit more, eh?

I didn't call it admirable though in the context of the bible Lot was protecting angels sent to guide him. Of course a bunch of angry sodomites weren't interested in icky young women but he had to try.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

And I can show where Jesus roundly and soundly condemned divorce. Not just six random passages (many of which are in the OT and don't apply), but Jesus, the Lord and Savior himself talking about how divorce is a SIN.

And yet, oddly, not once have we ever heard of the so called "Christian" bakers ever refusing to "participate in that sin".

How stupid are you? Who asks a baker to design a "divorce cake"?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

And why not if divorce is condemned in the bible very very clearly. Oh...."deeply felt religious beliefs" indeed.

"Why not" what? What is it that a baker is guilty of when it comes to someone's divorce? Stop being such a moron, if you possibly can. A classic case of grasping at straws.

I see you are working in tandem now with that other clown to further your preposterous
ideas. Very smart. That makes you twice as wrong.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Wrong. You still can't hide behind religion either. Sorry bigots.

“Colorado law,” Justice Kennedy wrote in one, “can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.”

The Supreme Court exonerated the Colorado baker persecuted for declining to make a gay marriage cake.
Exonerate. Are you familiar with that word?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

By talking to them...or don't Christians do that?

You're a fucking idiot! The baker is not in business to serve only morally exceptional people. How many times have I noted that the Kleins had a gay clientele before the whole gay wedding thing erupted?
These "bigots" served them like everyone else, no questions asked. You should really extract your head from your ass.