Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop

[Kondor3]

114 pages... have we dabbled long enough yet in the Land of Fruits and Nuts?

Not that, Sir, was offensive. LOL

Golly-gosh gee willickers... I have no idea what you're talking about...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And isn't it really up to the individual to decide if they want to abdicate responsibility for their actions and the words that they transcribe? Just because some immoral doofus on the Internet decides that it's "just transcribing letters with no meaning" doesn't obligate anyone else to view it that way.

He doesn't even view it that way if those words say something he decides is offensive.

I bet you two are fun to be around at library book burnings.

Libraries do not burn books, which is something everyone who had ever been inside one would understand without it being explained.

 

[RKMBrown]

He doesn't even view it that way if those words say something he decides is offensive.

I bet you two are fun to be around at library book burnings.

Libraries do not burn books, which is something everyone who had ever been inside one would understand without it being explained.

Why, not are there not "stories" of gay people in books? Think of the great sin it would be to for a Christian to let sinners read these stories. The Christians would be liable and go to hell for allowing these books to be stored and read. For that matter how can Christians in good faith allow the bible to be written, printed again and again repeating the same sins over and over again of writing about sin.

 

[RKMBrown]

He doesn't even view it that way if those words say something he decides is offensive.

I bet you two are fun to be around at library book burnings.

Oh, like WE are the ones advocating the suppression of ideas and opinions we don't like. Not hardly, Jack.

You mean like your advocacy of gay marriage?

 

[RKMBrown]

...having those claiming moral supeiority descending upon them to punish and/or destroy them.

Lies made up by the bigoted bakers and repeated by you hundreds of times with no corroborating facts.

 

[Gadawg73]

I just got a call from someone that wants me to do a background investigation into 3 finalists for one of their positions at their business.
I just found out the owner that wants to hire me eats ham sandwiches and shrimp cocktails.
No way I working for that immoral scum. I am closing my business down because government may force me to work for them.

Such snideness. You should know better. Now you're just making fun of them. If anyone here had a real argument against this couple for what they did, they wouldn't resort to such asininity. Nothing personal, sir.

Well, you are right, I do not believe in the way that couple dealt with this so maybe it is snideness. What they are doing is snideness also as then do not believe in what the gay couple is doing. Nothing personal but you need to learn the meaning of the words you use.
How is speaking exactly what that couple is doing making fun of them?
What is the difference in what the Bible says about ham sandwich and shrimp eaters and being a homosexual?
The Bible specifically states that eating pork is a sin, many times, MANY MORE TIMES than speaking about homosexuality.
The Bible specifically states eating shrimp is an abomination unto you.
The only asinine argument here are from those that single out gay folks to persecute and turning a blind eye towards everything else the Bible says about what is an abomination and sin.
That would be you, nothing personal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I bet you two are fun to be around at library book burnings.

Libraries do not burn books, which is something everyone who had ever been inside one would understand without it being explained.

Why, not are there not "stories" of gay people in books? Think of the great sin it would be to for a Christian to let sinners read these stories. The Christians would be liable and go to hell for allowing these books to be stored and read. For that matter how can Christians in good faith allow the bible to be written, printed again and again repeating the same sins over and over again of writing about sin.

Why, not do you understand the grammar rules of?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I just got a call from someone that wants me to do a background investigation into 3 finalists for one of their positions at their business.
I just found out the owner that wants to hire me eats ham sandwiches and shrimp cocktails.
No way I working for that immoral scum. I am closing my business down because government may force me to work for them.

Such snideness. You should know better. Now you're just making fun of them. If anyone here had a real argument against this couple for what they did, they wouldn't resort to such asininity. Nothing personal, sir.

Well, you are right, I do not believe in the way that couple dealt with this so maybe it is snideness. What they are doing is snideness also as then do not believe in what the gay couple is doing. Nothing personal but you need to learn the meaning of the words you use.
How is speaking exactly what that couple is doing making fun of them?
What is the difference in what the Bible says about ham sandwich and shrimp eaters and being a homosexual?
The Bible specifically states that eating pork is a sin, many times, MANY MORE TIMES than speaking about homosexuality.
The Bible specifically states eating shrimp is an abomination unto you.
The only asinine argument here are from those that single out gay folks to persecute and turning a blind eye towards everything else the Bible says about what is an abomination and sin.
That would be you, nothing personal.

I quoted to you the specific verse in the Bible where Jesus explained away that part of eating pork being sinful. I don't peg you for being unintelligent, sir, but can you not read? Just because the Bible says it less DOES NOT make it any more less of a sin! Your overly informal interpretation of the Bible will be your own undoing. I will be frank, I criticized your comment because of your lack of Biblical knowledge. You know so much about the laws of men, but literally nothing about the laws of God.

When Jesus died on the cross and rose again on the third day, he was quoted as saying, "I came not to abolish the law of the prophets, but to fulfill." The term fulfill means to "meet the the requirements" to "pay a debt owed" as it were. Instead of God killing off every man woman and child who sinned under the old law, he paid for their sin with his life. It is such a simple aspect of Christianity dawg, yet you fail to see it.

Namely in the book of Hebrews:

Christ’s Sacrifice Once for All

10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’”

8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

16 “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”

17 Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”

18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

Hebrews 10:1-18

Just how exactly did this straight couple persecute this gay couple? Denying service? That's a crock. So, what happens if I make you do something that violates your faith? Will you freely do it? Or will you reject me? Since when am I not allowed to fight for my faith? I don't use words just for the sake of using them, and I most certainly don't exercise such logic as "the bible says it's a sin less than homosexuality, so therefore it must condone homosexuality."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yeah, no Christian I know allows people to participate in sin. Nor does he advocate it. He would never lead another brother in Christ astray. If you weren't blind, you would see that it isn't the selling or the baking. If you weren't deaf, or without understanding as the Christian you claim to be, you would take the time to read the Bible. It clearly rebukes homosexuality, it also teaches you to stand up for your faith and for righteousness. What is so righteous about condoning this kind of sin? May I ask, what is wrong with you?


Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

1 Corinthians 15:58


You are so absolutely dense, you will never understand the "they have to deliver it to the wedding, thus they are part of the environment" part. You think that they would allow the couple to deliver such an expensive and well made cake to the wedding themself? How does that work out exactly? You ignore testimonies from people who have experience in the area, the bakery was not without a delivery service. But people cannot nor will they ever accept 'no' for an answer. Religious beliefs be damned. Constitutional rights be damned. The rights of any religious man adhering to his faith be damned also. He is nothing but a slave to political correctness.

You are weak in spirit, RKM. You are willing to sacrifice your Christian values for the sake of tolerating sinful behavior. I don't approve of homosexuality, but I will tolerate the person, not the sin. You claim to know what went through their heads, alas, I wish I could read minds like you. Stop pretending to know what people think unless you were there in their shoes the moment it happened.

And before I go, RKM:

It also bans eating BBQ hog sandwiches.
And eating fat.
Or blood.
Touching an "unclean" animal
Letting your hair become unkept
Tearing your clothes
Eating an animal which does not chew cud and has a divided hoof.
Touching the carcass of any of the banned animals (football would be out)
eating or touching carcasses of many types of birds
Touching carcasses of flying insects unless the legs are jointed
Eating any seafood without fins or scales You eat shrimp you are sinning
Going to church within 32 days of having a boy baby
66 for a girl
And dozens and dozens more along with being gay.

Yet you pick ONLY ONE to quote scripture on.
How many hog sandwiches have you eaten?
How many caterers refuse to wait on folks that eat hog sandwiches.
Eating Pork is A SIN, YOU ARE GOING TO HAYELL!!!

What are you talking about? Do you judge a Christian solely because of what the Old Testament says? Is your view so black and white that you cannot see the entire picture?

Jesus did not abolish the moral and ethical laws that had been in effect from the time of Moses. He affirmed and expanded upon those principles, but He said obedience must be from the heart (attitudes and intentions) rather than just technical observance of the letter of the law (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-42, 43-44, etc.).

Nowhere does it say I will "go to hayell" for it.

Besides, you sense of of scripture is woefully flawed, sir.

Matthew 15:1-20 (Words of Jesus in red)

1Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat." 3He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.' 5 But you say that whoever tells father or mother, 'Whatever support you might have had from me is given to God,' then that person need not honor the father. 6 So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said: 8 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.'" 10Then he called the crowd to him and said to them, "Listen and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles." 12Then the disciples approached and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said?" 13He answered, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if one blind person guides another, both will fall into a pit." 15But Peter said to him, "Explain this parable to us." 16Then he said, "Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. 19 For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile." (NRSV)

And just for a little clarification....

 

[RKMBrown]

Libraries do not burn books, which is something everyone who had ever been inside one would understand without it being explained.

Why not, are there not "stories" of gay people in books? Think of the great sin it would be to for a Christian to let sinners read these stories. The Christians would be liable and go to hell for allowing these books to be stored and read. For that matter how can Christians in good faith allow the bible to be written, printed again and again repeating the same sins over and over again of writing about sin.

Why, not do you understand the grammar rules of?

Why don't you understand how to move a comma yourself? Do you have people wipe your ass for you?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Founders risked all their blood and treasure to give us a Constitution that recognized our unalienable rights to think, believe, worship, and be who we are. Even if who we are is a bigot.

But only the worst kind of bigot would ignore that, would deny somebody their unalienable rights, would attempt to punish or destroy somebody because of what they think, believe, worship, or who they are. To do that is not only bigoted, but it is evil.

The bakers did not attempt to punish or destroy anybody. They denied nothing to anybody. They execised their unalienable right to be who they are. And to threaten, badger, demonstrate, punish, and attempt to destroy them purely because they hold a conviction not shared by others is wrong. And it is evil.

 

[RKMBrown]

The Founders risked all their blood and treasure to give us a Constitution that recognized our unalienable rights to think, believe, worship, and be who we are. Even if who we are is a bigot.

But only the worst kind of bigot would ignore that, would deny somebody their unalienable rights, would attempt to punish or destroy somebody because of what they think, believe, worship, or who they are. To do that is not only bigoted, but it is evil.

The bakers did not attempt to punish or destroy anybody. They denied nothing to anybody. They execised their unalienable right to be who they are. And to threaten, badger, demonstrate, punish, and attempt to destroy them purely because they hold a conviction not shared by others is wrong. And it is evil.

Wrong. The States had the power to manage bigotry, and did. The feds were prohibited from establishing or restricting religion, not the states. That which you speak, Incorporation, came with the 14th amendment.

Who has denied somebody their unalienable rights? Who has attempted to punish or destroy somebody because of what they think, believe, worship, or who they are? Where is your proof? Asked and ignored dozens of times.

>>> The bakers did not attempt to punish or destroy anybody. They denied nothing to anybody.
Incorrect, the bakers admitted to passing judgment on the gay couple for having a gay wedding and in response "denying" them their services and further the bakers admit to "slandering" the gay couple for their "biblical sins."

>>> And to threaten, badger, demonstrate, punish, and attempt to destroy them purely because they hold a conviction not shared by others is wrong. And it is evil.

Who did this? Where is your proof?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I bet you two are fun to be around at library book burnings.

Libraries do not burn books, which is something everyone who had ever been inside one would understand without it being explained.

Why, not are there not "stories" of gay people in books? Think of the great sin it would be to for a Christian to let sinners read these stories. The Christians would be liable and go to hell for allowing these books to be stored and read. For that matter how can Christians in good faith allow the bible to be written, printed again and again repeating the same sins over and over again of writing about sin.

Spoken like someone who doesn't read, and probably couldn't tell us where to FIND the nearest library to his house.

I have news for you, Sparkles. THIS Christian reads voraciously, and routinely runs across homosexual characters in books. Christians don't advocate pretending that things we oppose don't exist. We leave THAT territory to liberals.

And as throughout this entire thread, NO ONE GIVES A TIN SHIT HOW YOU THINK CHRISTIANITY SHOULD BE PRACTICED. Please get that through your pointy little dunce cap and the rock skull underneath it. Your opinion is not solicited, is not welcome, and is utterly irrelevant on the subject of how anyone else's beliefs are practiced. You are not me, you are not God, and you are not my pastor, and those are the only three I can think of who have any input whatsoever into MY spiritual situation.

Please stop frantically trying to vote in an election you don't have a ballot for, you nosy bastard.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why not, are there not "stories" of gay people in books? Think of the great sin it would be to for a Christian to let sinners read these stories. The Christians would be liable and go to hell for allowing these books to be stored and read. For that matter how can Christians in good faith allow the bible to be written, printed again and again repeating the same sins over and over again of writing about sin.

Why, not do you understand the grammar rules of?

Why don't you understand how to move a comma yourself? Do you have people wipe your ass for you?

The question was why do you think libraries burn books, which is why mocking your grammar was an appropriate response to your bigotry against someone's sexual preference.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I bet you two are fun to be around at library book burnings.

Oh, like WE are the ones advocating the suppression of ideas and opinions we don't like. Not hardly, Jack.

You mean like your advocacy of gay marriage?

Sorry, Sparkles, but I don't have to advocate every hair-brained crackpot feel-good leftist theory that comes down the pike in order to avoid "suppression of ideas". You're perfectly welcome to believe any moronic thing that enters your head with my blessing. You're welcome to tell the whole world about your moronic thoughts, also with my blessing. Opposing you doesn't mean I'm oppressing you, and maybe you should lose the frilly panties and stop whining about your inability to function if everyone doesn't agree with you.

I don't give a hot damn what homosexuals and their buddies do with their lives, which is OBVIOUSLY more than I can say for them, since they put so much time and effort into ruining the lives of others who run afoul of them. I just don't happen to think they need or should have official government recognition of what they do with their lives.

Tattoo that somewhere, Nancy Boy, because I get tired of repeating it ad nauseam every time you break out the violins about how "violated" you feel by the knowledge that someone in the world thinks you're a dipshit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why not, are there not "stories" of gay people in books? Think of the great sin it would be to for a Christian to let sinners read these stories. The Christians would be liable and go to hell for allowing these books to be stored and read. For that matter how can Christians in good faith allow the bible to be written, printed again and again repeating the same sins over and over again of writing about sin.

Why, not do you understand the grammar rules of?

Why don't you understand how to move a comma yourself? Do you have people wipe your ass for you?

Now THAT'S funny. Expecting you to write YOUR POST in readable English is US requiring people to wipe our asses for us, but YOU expecting US to move YOUR FUCKING COMMA to the correct place isn't you doing the same? Your laughable hypocrisy continues to amuse.

Here's a thought, you lazy leftist shitforbrains: Why should we think you have any wisdom to impart to us, when you don't even have the basic grammar skills to impart it WITH? If you're going to write like an 8th grader, you shouldn't be surprised if your pronouncements get treated like an 8th graders.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Founders risked all their blood and treasure to give us a Constitution that recognized our unalienable rights to think, believe, worship, and be who we are. Even if who we are is a bigot.

But only the worst kind of bigot would ignore that, would deny somebody their unalienable rights, would attempt to punish or destroy somebody because of what they think, believe, worship, or who they are. To do that is not only bigoted, but it is evil.

The bakers did not attempt to punish or destroy anybody. They denied nothing to anybody. They execised their unalienable right to be who they are. And to threaten, badger, demonstrate, punish, and attempt to destroy them purely because they hold a conviction not shared by others is wrong. And it is evil.

Wrong. The States had the power to manage bigotry, and did. The feds were prohibited from establishing or restricting religion, not the states. That which you speak, Incorporation, came with the 14th amendment.

Who has denied somebody their unalienable rights? Who has attempted to punish or destroy somebody because of what they think, believe, worship, or who they are? Where is your proof? Asked and ignored dozens of times.

>>> The bakers did not attempt to punish or destroy anybody. They denied nothing to anybody.
Incorrect, the bakers admitted to passing judgment on the gay couple for having a gay wedding and in response "denying" them their services and further the bakers admit to "slandering" the gay couple for their "biblical sins."

>>> And to threaten, badger, demonstrate, punish, and attempt to destroy them purely because they hold a conviction not shared by others is wrong. And it is evil.

Who did this? Where is your proof?

And once again, you demonstrate that you're an ignoranus (that would be someone who's both stupid AND an asshole).

The states also have constitutions. I know you're probably not aware of this, since as a leftist, you worship at the altar of national government, but they do. This is what Oregon's says:

Section 2. Freedom of worship. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.

Please do tell me how this law requiring forced association in business against one's religious beliefs is in keeping with what is SUPPOSED to be the highest law in the state of Oregon.

Furthermore, you once again reveal that you are a crying little panty-wearer, by your "They dared to tell someone they disapprove of them! They PUNISHED AND DESTROYED THEM!" rant. Butch up a little, buttercup.

Also, dimwit, "slander" would require that the bakers say something that is factually untrue about the lesbos. They didn't. They stated their opinion, which by definition cannot be slander.

 

[RKMBrown]

The Founders risked all their blood and treasure to give us a Constitution that recognized our unalienable rights to think, believe, worship, and be who we are. Even if who we are is a bigot.

But only the worst kind of bigot would ignore that, would deny somebody their unalienable rights, would attempt to punish or destroy somebody because of what they think, believe, worship, or who they are. To do that is not only bigoted, but it is evil.

The bakers did not attempt to punish or destroy anybody. They denied nothing to anybody. They execised their unalienable right to be who they are. And to threaten, badger, demonstrate, punish, and attempt to destroy them purely because they hold a conviction not shared by others is wrong. And it is evil.

Wrong. The States had the power to manage bigotry, and did. The feds were prohibited from establishing or restricting religion, not the states. That which you speak, Incorporation, came with the 14th amendment.

Who has denied somebody their unalienable rights? Who has attempted to punish or destroy somebody because of what they think, believe, worship, or who they are? Where is your proof? Asked and ignored dozens of times.

>>> The bakers did not attempt to punish or destroy anybody. They denied nothing to anybody.
Incorrect, the bakers admitted to passing judgment on the gay couple for having a gay wedding and in response "denying" them their services and further the bakers admit to "slandering" the gay couple for their "biblical sins."

>>> And to threaten, badger, demonstrate, punish, and attempt to destroy them purely because they hold a conviction not shared by others is wrong. And it is evil.

Who did this? Where is your proof?

And once again, you demonstrate that you're an ignoranus (that would be someone who's both stupid AND an asshole).

The states also have constitutions. I know you're probably not aware of this, since as a leftist, you worship at the altar of national government, but they do. This is what Oregon's says:

Section 2. Freedom of worship. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.

Please do tell me how this law requiring forced association in business against one's religious beliefs is in keeping with what is SUPPOSED to be the highest law in the state of Oregon.

Furthermore, you once again reveal that you are a crying little panty-wearer, by your "They dared to tell someone they disapprove of them! They PUNISHED AND DESTROYED THEM!" rant. Butch up a little, buttercup.

Also, dimwit, "slander" would require that the bakers say something that is factually untrue about the lesbos. They didn't. They stated their opinion, which by definition cannot be slander.

You might want to explain how my statement about the "fact" that the states manage this stuff is evidence in your pea brain that I said the opposite. Booze? And they most certainly did admit to slander. NVM... Back it the bin smut mouth.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong. The States had the power to manage bigotry, and did. The feds were prohibited from establishing or restricting religion, not the states. That which you speak, Incorporation, came with the 14th amendment.

Who has denied somebody their unalienable rights? Who has attempted to punish or destroy somebody because of what they think, believe, worship, or who they are? Where is your proof? Asked and ignored dozens of times.

>>> The bakers did not attempt to punish or destroy anybody. They denied nothing to anybody.
Incorrect, the bakers admitted to passing judgment on the gay couple for having a gay wedding and in response "denying" them their services and further the bakers admit to "slandering" the gay couple for their "biblical sins."

>>> And to threaten, badger, demonstrate, punish, and attempt to destroy them purely because they hold a conviction not shared by others is wrong. And it is evil.

Who did this? Where is your proof?

And once again, you demonstrate that you're an ignoranus (that would be someone who's both stupid AND an asshole).

The states also have constitutions. I know you're probably not aware of this, since as a leftist, you worship at the altar of national government, but they do. This is what Oregon's says:

Section 2. Freedom of worship. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.

Please do tell me how this law requiring forced association in business against one's religious beliefs is in keeping with what is SUPPOSED to be the highest law in the state of Oregon.

Furthermore, you once again reveal that you are a crying little panty-wearer, by your "They dared to tell someone they disapprove of them! They PUNISHED AND DESTROYED THEM!" rant. Butch up a little, buttercup.

Also, dimwit, "slander" would require that the bakers say something that is factually untrue about the lesbos. They didn't. They stated their opinion, which by definition cannot be slander.

You might want to explain how my statement about the "fact" that the states manage this stuff is evidence in your pea brain that I said the opposite. Booze? And they most certainly did admit to slander. NVM... Back it the bin smut mouth.

Is the part of your brain that says they admitted to slander the same part that only holds people who write things you disagree with responsible for following orders?

 

[RKMBrown]

And once again, you demonstrate that you're an ignoranus (that would be someone who's both stupid AND an asshole).

The states also have constitutions. I know you're probably not aware of this, since as a leftist, you worship at the altar of national government, but they do. This is what Oregon's says:

Section 2. Freedom of worship. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.

Please do tell me how this law requiring forced association in business against one's religious beliefs is in keeping with what is SUPPOSED to be the highest law in the state of Oregon.

Furthermore, you once again reveal that you are a crying little panty-wearer, by your "They dared to tell someone they disapprove of them! They PUNISHED AND DESTROYED THEM!" rant. Butch up a little, buttercup.

Also, dimwit, "slander" would require that the bakers say something that is factually untrue about the lesbos. They didn't. They stated their opinion, which by definition cannot be slander.

You might want to explain how my statement about the "fact" that the states manage this stuff is evidence in your pea brain that I said the opposite. Booze? And they most certainly did admit to slander. NVM... Back it the bin smut mouth.

Is the part of your brain that says they admitted to slander the same part that only holds people who write things you disagree with responsible for following orders?

Huh?