Christian bakers who refused to make cake for homosexual "wedding" break gag order

[Silhouette]

Its funny you claim gay marriage deprives a child of either a mother or father when you say and do NOTHING about divorce, single parents, etc. Typical anti-gay hypocrite.

Well that's just the thing. See, marriage was a contract invented over a thousand years ago to CURE the ills of single parenthood and not lead to breakups.
You don't torpedo a contract because the ills it was created to cure are running rampant. Very odd logic.

Even still, when courts handle divorces, which the do so reluctantly, it is because the atmosphere of the home is harmful to children, among other reasons. And they strive to keep the kids in contact with the mother and father until they are of age regardless. As I said before, anyone divorced with kids will tell you that they are not really divorced until the children are of age. Many of the marital obligations live on precisely because of the kids and for no other reason.

So tell me again how children don't enjoy unique rights to the marriage contract?!

You are the one that made the claim that gay marriage deprives a child of a mother and father. I simply pointed out that in MANY cases so does heterosexual divorce. You being a single parent deprived your child of that. Using your logic, you should have had your child taken away.

As for marriage and tradition, guess what, your traditions are not mine. You don't hold a monopoly on marriage and with the SCOTUS rulings it is a done deal. I have seen gay couples raise HETEROSEXUAL children that have led productive and successful lives. The proof is there to see, but your anti-gay bigotry blinds you to any possibility that you are wrong. I don't have to change your mind, but now you cant force your morals on everyone else like a Christian Taliban.

Inescapably, structurally and factually 100% of the time gay marriage does deprive kids involved of either a mother or father. Always. And worse, for life without hope of any change. Where the difference is that in all other cases depriving a child of either a mother or father, it is not done by binding contact like gay marriage is..

Brush up on contract laws and the Infant Doctrine/necessities when you get a minute...

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Inescapably, structurally and factually 100% of the time gay marriage does deprive kids involved of either a mother or father. Always. And worse, for life without hope of any change. Where the difference is that in all other cases depriving a child of either a mother or father, it is not done by binding contact like gay marriage is..

Brush up on contract laws and the Infant Doctrine/necessities when you get a minute...

Again you show your ignorance. In many cases the child is in contact with the mother and father regardless if either one of them are in a relationship. So your ALWAYS is incorrect and false. You still haven't shown FACTUALLY that the child is without BOTH mother and father when the child is in a gay couple home.

You are a sad example of a single parent.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Its funny you claim gay marriage deprives a child of either a mother or father when you say and do NOTHING about divorce, single parents, etc. Typical anti-gay hypocrite.

Do you assume that we who oppose homosexual mockeries of marriage approve of divorce or illegitimacy or of any other avoidable circumstances that deprive children of a proper family?

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Its funny you claim gay marriage deprives a child of either a mother or father when you say and do NOTHING about divorce, single parents, etc. Typical anti-gay hypocrite.

Do you assume that we who oppose homosexual mockeries of marriage approve of divorce or illegitimacy or of any other avoidable circumstances that deprive children of a proper family?

Well I don't see any of you hypocrites calling for the divorce or single parent homes to be illegal via legislation like you do gay marriage. You only demonstrate your hypocrisy even more. Do us all a favor, keep your fucking morals to yourself asshole.

 

[Seawytch]

Its funny you claim gay marriage deprives a child of either a mother or father when you say and do NOTHING about divorce, single parents, etc. Typical anti-gay hypocrite.

Do you assume that we who oppose homosexual mockeries of marriage approve of divorce or illegitimacy or of any other avoidable circumstances that deprive children of a proper family?

If that were true, you'd hear about Christian bakers refusing to bake a cake for someone who is divorced and remarrying.

Just reiterates that it's about hating gays not about being a "good Christian".

 

[Skylar]

Its funny you claim gay marriage deprives a child of either a mother or father when you say and do NOTHING about divorce, single parents, etc. Typical anti-gay hypocrite.

Well that's just the thing. See, marriage was a contract invented over a thousand years ago to CURE the ills of single parenthood and not lead to breakups.
You don't torpedo a contract because the ills it was created to cure are running rampant. Very odd logic.

Pure delusional fiction. Marriage a thousand years ago was about property. A man owned his wife. A man owned his children. Children were property. And typically used as manual labor to run farms.

Your made up, fantasy version of marriage is just you citing yourself. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

Even still, when courts handle divorces, which the do so reluctantly, it is because the atmosphere of the home is harmful to children, among other reasons. And they strive to keep the kids in contact with the mother and father until they are of age regardless. As I said before, anyone divorced with kids will tell you that they are not really divorced until the children are of age. Many of the marital obligations live on precisely because of the kids and for no other reason.

No they don't. Divorces are almost always granted at any request. There doesn't even have to be abuse. 'Irreconcilable differences' is more than enough in most states for a divorce to be granted. Its remarkably rare for a divorce not to be granted for any reason. And children never get a say in whether or not a divorce occurs, aren't parties to the marriage, and have no right to sue to keep the union whole.

Again, you're just making up a fantasy, pulled sideways out of your ass. You have no idea what you're talking about.

So tell me again how children don't enjoy unique rights to the marriage contract?!

Children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents. You just made all of that shit up.

Inescapably, structurally and factually 100% of the time gay marriage does deprive kids involved of either a mother or father. Always. And worse, for life without hope of any change. Where the difference is that in all other cases depriving a child of either a mother or father, it is not done by binding contact like gay marriage is..

Brush up on contract laws and the Infant Doctrine/necessities when you get a minute...

Nope. Not even close. As its not marriage that determines the the gender of one's parents. If you recognize same sex marriage or you deny gays the right to marry....same sex parents are still same sex parents. Nor does denying marriage to same sex parents remedy *anything* you've complained about. As same sex parents don't magically transform into opposite sex parents if you deny them marriage. All you do in denying them marriage is guarantee that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts children by the hundreds of thousands. And help none.

Oh, and no court nor law recognize children as parties to the marriage of their parents. With the Supreme Court finding that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them:

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

Remember.....you have no idea what you're talking about. And your pseudo-legal gibberish doesn't have the slightest relevance to any marriage, law or court.

 

[Skylar]

Its funny you claim gay marriage deprives a child of either a mother or father when you say and do NOTHING about divorce, single parents, etc. Typical anti-gay hypocrite.

Do you assume that we who oppose homosexual mockeries of marriage approve of divorce or illegitimacy or of any other avoidable circumstances that deprive children of a proper family?

If that were true, you'd hear about Christian bakers refusing to bake a cake for someone who is divorced and remarrying.

Just reiterates that it's about hating gays not about being a "good Christian".

Oh, the penalty for adultery or marrying while not a virgin is the same for sodomy in the Bible: death.

But cafeteria Christians don't want to apply their faith consistently. So they give a pass to second marriages, third marriages, non-virgin marriages....all of which are explicitly condemned by the Bible. In fact, Jesus never so much as mentions gays or homosexuality.

But Jesus condemns adultery and the idea of divorce.

Christians can't even abide their own faith. Why would we ever raise their hypocrisy to be supreme over the actual law? There is no reason.

 

[mdk]

Brush up on contract laws and the Infant Doctrine/necessities when you get a minute...

Here is an exhaustive list of US states/commonwealths where children are an implicit party to a marriage contract:

1.

Only 50 more to go. Brush up on reality when you get a minute...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Its funny you claim gay marriage deprives a child of either a mother or father when you say and do NOTHING about divorce, single parents, etc. Typical anti-gay hypocrite.

Do you assume that we who oppose homosexual mockeries of marriage approve of divorce or illegitimacy or of any other avoidable circumstances that deprive children of a proper family?

The member of your church, the active members, are acting out as you well know against the LGBT proclamation. It is only a matter of time before your church ends its war against children.

 

[Inevitable]

Its funny you claim gay marriage deprives a child of either a mother or father when you say and do NOTHING about divorce, single parents, etc. Typical anti-gay hypocrite.

Well that's just the thing. See, marriage was a contract invented over a thousand years ago to CURE the ills of single parenthood and not lead to breakups.
You don't torpedo a contract because the ills it was created to cure are running rampant. Very odd logic.

Even still, when courts handle divorces, which the do so reluctantly, it is because the atmosphere of the home is harmful to children, among other reasons. And they strive to keep the kids in contact with the mother and father until they are of age regardless. As I said before, anyone divorced with kids will tell you that they are not really divorced until the children are of age. Many of the marital obligations live on precisely because of the kids and for no other reason.

So tell me again how children don't enjoy unique rights to the marriage contract?!

Statistically 100% of children without a mother and a father in their life are in that predicament because of heterosexuals.

So you trying to link this to homosexuality is hilariously absurd.

 

[Silhouette]

Inescapably, structurally and factually 100% of the time gay marriage does deprive kids involved of either a mother or father. Always. And worse, for life without hope of any change. Where the difference is that in all other cases depriving a child of either a mother or father, it is not done by binding contact like gay marriage is..

Brush up on contract laws and the Infant Doctrine/necessities when you get a minute...

Again you show your ignorance. In many cases the child is in contact with the mother and father regardless if either one of them are in a relationship. So your ALWAYS is incorrect and false. You still haven't shown FACTUALLY that the child is without BOTH mother and father when the child is in a gay couple home.

You are a sad example of a single parent.

OK dear...let me have "the talk" with you. You see...boys have a woo woo and girls have a hoo hoo. Boys don't have babies. Girls do and they menstruate and grow breasts.

When two men live together, there is no mother in the home because mother is a FEMALE term. Female is what is BORN WITH a womb and who menstruates. Male is not and does not. And when two lesbians live together there is no father because nobody there has a woo woo. Are you with me so far? A woman can never be a father because "father" is a term for MALES only.

Sorry that reality conflicts with your twisted gender-bending cult mania. But as many people who think a child having both a mother and father in the home "as married" (running around 90%), there would be EVEN MORE who would consider your bastardization of the words "male" and "female" as wholly unacceptable. There are no examples of lesbians who have a husband also in the home day to day or every couple of days with the children. If there is, it is by no means a contractual term. You're not going to hold out some weird example we all know would be statistically so rare as to be laughable, and then say "this exception means that gay marriage doesn't statistically rob children via contract of either a mother or father for life".

Law addresses the rule, the propensity, not the rare exceptions.

Try again..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, your mind is broken.

The country disagrees with you, the law is against you, and the courts like 53 to 2 disagree with you, and the top court's rulings hate you.

 

[Skylar]

Inescapably, structurally and factually 100% of the time gay marriage does deprive kids involved of either a mother or father. Always. And worse, for life without hope of any change. Where the difference is that in all other cases depriving a child of either a mother or father, it is not done by binding contact like gay marriage is..

Brush up on contract laws and the Infant Doctrine/necessities when you get a minute...

Again you show your ignorance. In many cases the child is in contact with the mother and father regardless if either one of them are in a relationship. So your ALWAYS is incorrect and false. You still haven't shown FACTUALLY that the child is without BOTH mother and father when the child is in a gay couple home.

You are a sad example of a single parent.

OK dear...let me have "the talk" with you. You see...boys have a woo woo and girls have a hoo hoo. Boys don't have babies. Girls do and they menstruate and grow breasts.

When two men live together, there is no mother in the home because mother is a FEMALE term. Female is what is BORN WITH a womb and who menstruates. Male is not and does not. And when two lesbians live together there is no father because nobody there has a woo woo. Are you with me so far? A woman can never be a father because "father" is a term for MALES only.

Sorry that reality conflicts with your twisted gender-bending cult mania.

And if a child has a relationship with their biological father when raised by a lesbian couple?

Laughing...so much for 'always'. Time to cite the Prince's Trust again, sunshine!

But as many people who think a child having both a mother and father in the home "as married" (running around 90%), there would be EVEN MORE who would consider your bastardization of the words "male" and "female" as wholly unacceptable. There are no examples of lesbians who have a husband also in the home day to day or every couple of days with the children. If there is, it is by no means a contractual term. You're not going to hold out some weird example we all know would be statistically so rare as to be laughable, and then say "this exception means that gay marriage doesn't statistically rob children via contract of either a mother or father for life".

None of your babble is a 'contractual term'. You're making this shit up as you go along.

No court nor law recognizes children as parties to their parents marriage. Nor does marriage define the gender of one's parents. Nor does denying marriage to same sex parents remedy *anything* you're complaining about. Deny same sex parents marriage....and they're still same sex parents. They haven't magically transformed into opposite sex parents because you deny them marriage. All you've done is guarantee that their children will never have married parents.

Which hurts children by the hundreds of thousands. And help none.

Hundreds of thousands of children you're willing, even eager to hurt....if it lets you also hurt gay people.

Nope. No thank you.

 

[Skylar]

Sil, your mind is broken.

The country disagrees with you, the law is against you, and the courts like 53 to 2 disagree with you, and the top court's rulings hate you.

The courts don't actually hate Sil. They're oblivious that she or her pseudo-legal gibberish even exists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The rulings hate her not the Court.

I know the rulings aren't live, but I guarantee you Si hates them.

 

[Skylar]

The rulings hate her not the Court.

I know the rulings aren't live, but I guarantee you Si hates them.

Well, she has called them a coup. Treason. The overthrow of our government. The destruction of our nation. A 'mistrial'. Illegal. Impeachable. And insisted that Kennedy was a closet homosexual for writing Obergefell.

But I don't know if those delusional panty shitting hysterics constitute 'hate'.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The rulings hate her not the Court.

I know the rulings aren't live, but I guarantee you Si hates them.

Well, she has called them a coup. Treason. The overthrow of our government. The destruction of our nation. A 'mistrial'. Illegal. Impeachable. And insisted that Kennedy was a closet homosexual for writing Obergefell.

But I don't know if those delusional panty shitting hysterics constitute 'hate'.

In the old Anglo-Saxon hard root of the verb, sure, it does.

 

[Skylar]

The rulings hate her not the Court.

I know the rulings aren't live, but I guarantee you Si hates them.

Well, she has called them a coup. Treason. The overthrow of our government. The destruction of our nation. A 'mistrial'. Illegal. Impeachable. And insisted that Kennedy was a closet homosexual for writing Obergefell.

But I don't know if those delusional panty shitting hysterics constitute 'hate'.

In the old Anglo-Saxon hard root of the verb, sure, it does.

Old Anglo Saxon? Well of course! Why didn't you say so?

 

[Seawytch]

Inescapably, structurally and factually 100% of the time gay marriage does deprive kids involved of either a mother or father. Always. And worse, for life without hope of any change. Where the difference is that in all other cases depriving a child of either a mother or father, it is not done by binding contact like gay marriage is..

Brush up on contract laws and the Infant Doctrine/necessities when you get a minute...

Again you show your ignorance. In many cases the child is in contact with the mother and father regardless if either one of them are in a relationship. So your ALWAYS is incorrect and false. You still haven't shown FACTUALLY that the child is without BOTH mother and father when the child is in a gay couple home.

You are a sad example of a single parent.

OK dear...let me have "the talk" with you. You see...boys have a woo woo and girls have a hoo hoo. Boys don't have babies. Girls do and they menstruate and grow breasts.

When two men live together, there is no mother in the home because mother is a FEMALE term. Female is what is BORN WITH a womb and who menstruates. Male is not and does not. And when two lesbians live together there is no father because nobody there has a woo woo. Are you with me so far? A woman can never be a father because "father" is a term for MALES only.

Sorry that reality conflicts with your twisted gender-bending cult mania.

And if a child has a relationship with their biological father when raised by a lesbian couple?

Laughing...so much for 'always'. Time to cite the Prince's Trust again, sunshine!

Huh...you mean like in our case, the case of my wife and I? Our children not only have two mothers, they also know who their biological father is and are free to pursue a relationship with him? Or in the case of the two men I was a surrogate for? Despite not being their biological mother, the children know me and are free to pursue a relationship with me? You ;mean like that?

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Inescapably, structurally and factually 100% of the time gay marriage does deprive kids involved of either a mother or father. Always. And worse, for life without hope of any change. Where the difference is that in all other cases depriving a child of either a mother or father, it is not done by binding contact like gay marriage is..

Brush up on contract laws and the Infant Doctrine/necessities when you get a minute...

Again you show your ignorance. In many cases the child is in contact with the mother and father regardless if either one of them are in a relationship. So your ALWAYS is incorrect and false. You still haven't shown FACTUALLY that the child is without BOTH mother and father when the child is in a gay couple home.

You are a sad example of a single parent.

OK dear...let me have "the talk" with you. You see...boys have a woo woo and girls have a hoo hoo. Boys don't have babies. Girls do and they menstruate and grow breasts.

When two men live together, there is no mother in the home because mother is a FEMALE term. Female is what is BORN WITH a womb and who menstruates. Male is not and does not. And when two lesbians live together there is no father because nobody there has a woo woo. Are you with me so far? A woman can never be a father because "father" is a term for MALES only.

Sorry that reality conflicts with your twisted gender-bending cult mania. But as many people who think a child having both a mother and father in the home "as married" (running around 90%), there would be EVEN MORE who would consider your bastardization of the words "male" and "female" as wholly unacceptable. There are no examples of lesbians who have a husband also in the home day to day or every couple of days with the children. If there is, it is by no means a contractual term. You're not going to hold out some weird example we all know would be statistically so rare as to be laughable, and then say "this exception means that gay marriage doesn't statistically rob children via contract of either a mother or father for life".

Law addresses the rule, the propensity, not the rare exceptions.

Try again..

And yet again, blondey, living in a home of lesbians doesn't exclude ANY male role modeling. The father usually is still involved with the child and a father can have that "talk" with the child as well as the mother.

I know your failing as a single parent isn't what happens to all others. Maybe you should have done better instead of just insulting other parents.