Cakes, Fakes & Counter-Quakes; Do The Kleins Have A Countersuit Against The Lesbians?

[Bob Blaylock]

No bias in not letting Christians impose their stupidity on the rest of us. That's actually in the First Amendment.

It should be pointed out, at this point, that yours is the side that calls for the use of force to impose one person's will on another. There is no need to use government force to enforce the freedom of association that is implied and affirmed in the First Amendment. It is only when one party is to be compelled into an association against his will, that the use of government force comes into play.

The First Amendment doesn't support your position; in fact, it rather solidly refutes it.

 

[JoeB131]

It should be pointed out, at this point, that yours is the side that calls for the use of force to impose one person's will on another. There is no need to use government force to enforce the freedom of association that is implied and affirmed in the First Amendment. It is only when one party is to be compelled into an association against his will, that the use of government force comes into play.

Quite the contrary, you forget the establishment clause, which states that religion can't be imposed on those who don't want it.

So let's agree that Public Accommodation Laws are okay when they are used to protect people on the basis of religion, race or gender. No one will argue we should go back to THIS sort of thing.

And, yes, enforcing that would require, "the use of force", if you are being generous, but no more than any other contract law requires the "use of force".

What are you are implying is that it's wrong for a store to refuse service because "I hate blacks", but perfectly okay for them to do it because "I hate gays and my imaginary friend in the sky does, too."

That's kind of whack.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Quite the contrary, you forget the establishment clause, which states that religion can't be imposed on those who don't want it.

You're arguing in favor of the use of government force to impose overt perversion, immorality, and evil on those who do not want it. Nothing about any rational reading of the First Amendment supports your position. Your position is very much irreconcilable with the letter and the clear intent of the First Amendment.

So let's agree that Public Accommodation Laws are okay when they are used to protect people on the basis of religion, race or gender. No one will argue we should go back to THIS sort of thing.

And, yes, enforcing that would require, "the use of force", if you are being generous, but no more than any other contract law requires the "use of force".

What are you are implying is that it's wrong for a store to refuse service because "I hate blacks", but perfectly okay for them to do it because "I hate gays and my imaginary friend in the sky does, too."

That's kind of whack.

Right. Because being black is exactly comparable to being an immoral sexual pervert. That's not the least bit racist, is it?

 

[Pop23]

It should be pointed out, at this point, that yours is the side that calls for the use of force to impose one person's will on another. There is no need to use government force to enforce the freedom of association that is implied and affirmed in the First Amendment. It is only when one party is to be compelled into an association against his will, that the use of government force comes into play.

Quite the contrary, you forget the establishment clause, which states that religion can't be imposed on those who don't want it.

So let's agree that Public Accommodation Laws are okay when they are used to protect people on the basis of religion, race or gender. No one will argue we should go back to THIS sort of thing.

And, yes, enforcing that would require, "the use of force", if you are being generous, but no more than any other contract law requires the "use of force".

What are you are implying is that it's wrong for a store to refuse service because "I hate blacks", but perfectly okay for them to do it because "I hate gays and my imaginary friend in the sky does, too."

That's kind of whack.

Premise fail

He never imposed his religion on the couple.

That would have been “sure I’ll bake the cake but only if I add Jesus saves to it”

 

[JoeB131]

You're arguing in favor of the use of government force to impose overt perversion, immorality, and evil on those who do not want it.

No, I'm arguing in favor of the government enforcing business law that we all agreed was kind of sensible.

Nothing about any rational reading of the First Amendment supports your position. Your position is very much irreconcilable with the letter and the clear intent of the First Amendment.

I think the first Amendment was as much a protection FROM religion as it was a protection of Religion. It's why you can't pray in school or teach creationism.

Right. Because being black is exactly comparable to being an immoral sexual pervert. That's not the least bit racist, is it?

Meh, skin color, sexual orientation... nobody has control over either.

On the other hand, you do have a choice with religion. You can choose to believe backward-ass Bronze Age superstitions, or you can choose to embrace reason and logic.

 

[JoeB131]

Premise fail

He never imposed his religion on the couple.

That would have been “sure I’ll bake the cake but only if I add Jesus saves to it”

Um, no. His wife offered to bake their cake for them. She INVITED them to use their shop for this express purpose. Then they went in to place the order and got this ASSHOLE ranting bible verses at their mom!

 

[Silhouette]

Court is pretty much constituted the same way. 4 Conservatives, 5 liberals or moderates.

Kennedy is not going to take your side on this. He's too invested in gay rights.

Thanks for pointing out that Kennedy is biased against Christians. "Invested"? Are you saying he is a paid champion of your cult? That explains Obergefell.

Hey, they are all invested in their ideology.

No bias in not letting Christians impose their stupidity on the rest of us. That's actually in the First Amendment.

You said he was biased. Now you're saying he's not. Which is it?

 

[Pop23]

Premise fail

He never imposed his religion on the couple.

That would have been “sure I’ll bake the cake but only if I add Jesus saves to it”

Um, no. His wife offered to bake their cake for them. She INVITED them to use their shop for this express purpose. Then they went in to place the order and got this ASSHOLE ranting bible verses at their mom!

And still no idea as to what imposing his religion on him is.

 

[JoeB131]

You said he was biased. Now you're saying he's not. Which is it?

do you need someone to explain the big words to you?

And still no idea as to what imposing his religion on him is.

My opinion, you go into a store to get a cake and you get a sermon, that's imposing your religion on me.

Now if he put up a big sign on the door that said, 'Customers will be subjected to my backward ass religious rantings", they might have had a point.

 

[Pop23]

You said he was biased. Now you're saying he's not. Which is it?

do you need someone to explain the big words to you?

And still no idea as to what imposing his religion on him is.

My opinion, you go into a store to get a cake and you get a sermon, that's imposing your religion on me.

Now if he put up a big sign on the door that said, 'Customers will be subjected to my backward ass religious rantings", they might have had a point.

You do understand the establishment clause, right?

How is anything your whining about is the GOVERNMENT, imposing religion on the gay couple?

Give it a rest.

 

[JoeB131]

You do understand the establishment clause, right?

How is anything your whining about is the GOVERNMENT, imposing religion on the gay couple?

Give it a rest.

Sorry, guy, Public Accommodation laws... you don't get to discriminate against people based on your superstitions.

 

[Silhouette]

You do understand the establishment clause, right?

How is anything your whining about is the GOVERNMENT, imposing religion on the gay couple?

Give it a rest.

Sorry, guy, Public Accommodation laws... you don't get to discriminate against people based on your superstitions.

Well the 1st Amendment doesn't talk about protection for "superstitions". It talks about freedom of the individual with regard to established religion.

If you're saying the LGBT cult's argument in court will be "Your Honors, Christianity isn't a valid religion" then...well... Good luck with that!

 

[JoeB131]

Well the 1st Amendment doesn't talk about protection for "superstitions". It talks about freedom of the individual with regard to established religion.

If you're saying the LGBT cult's argument in court will be "Your Honors, Christianity isn't a valid religion" then...well... Good luck with that!

Actually, it's pretty easy.

"The Court Calls Jesus Christ. Jesus. Jesus Christ. Please appear before the court."

Oh, wait. he didn't appear? Guess he doesn't exist.

 

[Pop23]

You do understand the establishment clause, right?

How is anything your whining about is the GOVERNMENT, imposing religion on the gay couple?

Give it a rest.

Sorry, guy, Public Accommodation laws... you don't get to discriminate against people based on your superstitions.

I see your claim to establishment clause protection went BOOM.

Back to emotional responses?

 

[Silhouette]

Well the 1st Amendment doesn't talk about protection for "superstitions". It talks about freedom of the individual with regard to established religion.

If you're saying the LGBT cult's argument in court will be "Your Honors, Christianity isn't a valid religion" then...well... Good luck with that!

Actually, it's pretty easy.

"The Court Calls Jesus Christ. Jesus. Jesus Christ. Please appear before the court."

Oh, wait. he didn't appear? Guess he doesn't exist.

So it's true then. Your LGBT case for the predatory lesbians on a Christian-bakery witch-hunt is to have the USSC judicially-abolish parts of the US Constitution that protect freedom of religion.

Anyone want to bet the USSC won't be so bold as to try to rewrite the US Constitution twice in three years?

 

[JoeB131]

I see your claim to establishment clause protection went BOOM.

Back to emotional responses?

No, the fact you didn't understand the concept of freedom from religion doesn't mean it isn't a thing.

for which you SHOULD be happy. Otherwise you'd be forced to join the religion of the majority....

So it's true then. Your LGBT case for the predatory lesbians on a Christian-bakery witch-hunt is to have the USSC judicially-abolish parts of the US Constitution that protect freedom of religion.

Anyone want to bet the USSC won't be so bold as to try to rewrite the US Constitution twice in three years?

No, they probably will, because all the precedents are on the side of the Lesbians here.

We've already established that public accommodation laws are constitutional and religion isn't a good enough reason to overrule them.

 

[The Derp]

The lesbians KNEW that Sweet Cakes was a Christian-run business. They were informed of that and CHOSE ON PURPOSE to continue to try to force the Christian couple to do what their faith forbade them to do under peril of eternal damnation: abet the spread of homosexuality in a culture "as normal" (See Jude 1 of the New Testament).

These lesbians were out to sabotage the Kleins' 1st Amendment rights, using inferior local PA laws. It was a direct act of suppressing someone else's constitutional rights. If the Kleins can demonstrate that the lesbians knew the Kleins had constitutionally-protected objections (since "gay" is behavioral and NOT protected as such in the Constitution) ie: their 1st Amendment rights,, AND if the Kleins could demonstrate the lesbians had alternatives (they did and knew they did) a countersuit could show the lesbians were out to suppress constitutional rights of another person or persons. Turn this bitch on its heel and chase the other way?

They went to the appeals court this March 2017.
Argument for the Kleins: Bakers Accused of Hate Get Emotional Day in Court

“The government should never force someone to violate their conscience or their beliefs,” Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute, a religious freedom group that represents the Kleins, said in a press statement, adding:

“In a diverse and pluralistic society, people of good will should be able to peacefully coexist with different beliefs. We hope the court will uphold the Kleins’ rights to free speech and religious liberty.”

Argument against the Kleins:

But Charlie Burr, a spokesman for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, whose lawyers represent the Bowman-Cryers, said:

“The facts of this case clearly demonstrate that the Kleins unlawfully discriminated against a same-sex couple when they refused service based on sexual orientation.”

But Mr. Burr, don't you know that there is NO LANGUAGE AT ALL in the US Constitution either directly or via insinuation or allusion to sexual behaviors and habits? But there is PLENTY of language in the US Constitution about religious freedoms and protections. And, nobody is allowed to suppress or deny the Constitutional rights of another. And Mr. Burr, do you know that the Judicial branch of government cannot use its power to legislate brand spanking new pivotal language into the US Constitution? Might want brush up on that old political science course you had to take in high school in order to pass. Though I realize that in Oregon, "education" is a loose term...

Anyone want to bet on this horse race?

I'd like to know what baking a cake has to do with exercising religious freedoms? If you're a Christian, you believe that God forgives and Jesus died for your sins. So I don't understand why a baker can't just bake a cake and ask God for forgiveness afterward? Isn't that what Christians do with all their other sins? If baking a cake violates your "religious liberties", then your God doesn't forgive and Jesus died for nothing.

Furthermore, with no posted hours on their webpage, it would appear the owners of sweet cakes violate the Ten Commandments when they work on the Sabbath. That's a pretty big sin, isn't it?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Furthermore, with no posted hours on their webpage, it would appear the owners of sweet cakes violate the Ten Commandments when they work on the Sabbath. That's a pretty big sin, isn't it?

Just for technical accuracy.

Their webpage clearly shows closed on Sundays. Right Side under "Hours of Operation".


MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP | great cakes since 1993 | 303.763.5754


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

So it's true then. Your LGBT case for the predatory lesbians on a Christian-bakery witch-hunt is to have the USSC judicially-abolish parts of the US Constitution that protect freedom of religion.

Anyone want to bet the USSC won't be so bold as to try to rewrite the US Constitution twice in three years?

No, they probably will, because all the precedents are on the side of the Lesbians here.

We've already established that public accommodation laws are constitutional and religion isn't a good enough reason to overrule them.

You mean court precedents. Wrong ones since "same-sex intimacy" (see Obergefell page 7 Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution) or "homosexuals" or "gays or lesbians" (used interchangeably) don't have ANY enumerated protections in the Constitution. Even if they did, you don't get to include just some types of kinky "intimacy" but not others the majority also objects to. That would violate the spirit of the 14th Amendment.

vs the 1st Amendment protections which DO exist. You realize that the courts CANNOT add brand new language to any part of the Constitution? Might want to brush up on your poly sci because attorneys for the Christians are already familiar with the fact of the limits of power of the Judicial branch. You will see quite a lot of that in fact in their briefs coming up on this matter.

 

[Skylar]

So it's true then. Your LGBT case for the predatory lesbians on a Christian-bakery witch-hunt is to have the USSC judicially-abolish parts of the US Constitution that protect freedom of religion.

Anyone want to bet the USSC won't be so bold as to try to rewrite the US Constitution twice in three years?

No, they probably will, because all the precedents are on the side of the Lesbians here.

We've already established that public accommodation laws are constitutional and religion isn't a good enough reason to overrule them.

You mean court precedents. Wrong ones since "same-sex intimacy" (see Obergefell page 7 Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution) or "homosexuals" or "gays or lesbians" (used interchangeably) don't have ANY enumerated protections in the Constitution.

Two problems with that pseudo-legal gibberish. First, the courts didn't use 'same sex intimacy' and 'homosexuals' interchangeably. You merely equate them, then bizarrely assume that they must mean the same thing. They don't. You're merely confused.

Second, read the 9th amendment. Rights need not be enumerated to exist.

Try again, this time while not ignoring the Bill of Rights.