I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

[bodecea]

The problem is PA laws are being used to force individuals to go against their faith or religious beliefs. That's a violation of their Constitutional rights.

We need to, as christians...move away from these places. They'll learn their lesson quicker that way.

The problem being that these so-called religious people are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against people they don't like. They discriminate against gays on the grounds that they're "sinners", but don't discrimate against adulterers, even though the penalty for adultery in the Bible is stoning to death. I would have no problem with their prohibition against serving "sinners" if they refused to serve all sinners, but it's this picking and choosing - serving liars, thieves, blasphemers, and adulterers, all of which are mentioned in the 10 Commandments, and not serving gays, which are not.

How would you propose to identify adulterers?

Good gawd....think before you post, loon

If someone deeply believed in their faith, they would ask....someone who goes "oh well, I will close my eyes and pretend I don't know" doesn't have a deeply believed faith in their religion....they are looking for excuses to not be held to their biblical rules.

Of course we ALL know of at least one serial adulterer..............no problem identifying him.

Bill Clinton? Gawd you're easy, Pete

Yes him too....

Just as an aside...you have no idea what the Pete comes from, do you? I can tell by the way you misuse it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

We need to, as christians...move away from these places. They'll learn their lesson quicker that way.

The problem being that these so-called religious people are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against people they don't like. They discriminate against gays on the grounds that they're "sinners", but don't discrimate against adulterers, even though the penalty for adultery in the Bible is stoning to death. I would have no problem with their prohibition against serving "sinners" if they refused to serve all sinners, but it's this picking and choosing - serving liars, thieves, blasphemers, and adulterers, all of which are mentioned in the 10 Commandments, and not serving gays, which are not.

How would you propose to identify adulterers?

Good gawd....think before you post, loon

If someone deeply believed in their faith, they would ask....someone who goes "oh well, I will close my eyes and pretend I don't know" doesn't have a deeply believed faith in their religion....they are looking for excuses to not be held to their biblical rules.

Of course we ALL know of at least one serial adulterer..............no problem identifying him.

Bill Clinton? Gawd you're easy, Pete

Yes him too....

Just as an aside...you have no idea what the Pete comes from, do you? I can tell by the way you misuse it.

You being the fraud you are.

You probably should have left me alone...now you're paying the price for your lies and deceit

In short? I'm much better and more clever than you.

Sit down now

 

[bodecea]

The problem being that these so-called religious people are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against people they don't like. They discriminate against gays on the grounds that they're "sinners", but don't discrimate against adulterers, even though the penalty for adultery in the Bible is stoning to death. I would have no problem with their prohibition against serving "sinners" if they refused to serve all sinners, but it's this picking and choosing - serving liars, thieves, blasphemers, and adulterers, all of which are mentioned in the 10 Commandments, and not serving gays, which are not.

How would you propose to identify adulterers?

Good gawd....think before you post, loon

If someone deeply believed in their faith, they would ask....someone who goes "oh well, I will close my eyes and pretend I don't know" doesn't have a deeply believed faith in their religion....they are looking for excuses to not be held to their biblical rules.

Of course we ALL know of at least one serial adulterer..............no problem identifying him.

Bill Clinton? Gawd you're easy, Pete

Yes him too....

Just as an aside...you have no idea what the Pete comes from, do you? I can tell by the way you misuse it.

You being the fraud you are.

You probably should have left me alone...now you're paying the price for your lies and deceit

In short? I'm much better and more clever than you.

Sit down now

So you have no reply but empty threats......just like your total misuse of the term Pete. You haven't a clue. Just a sad follower of that you know nothing about. CRC canon law. Just what people who hate on gay Americans are about it....knowing nothing about it.....for the most part except for those with deep dark secrets in their closets.

 

[Dragonlady]

The thing is...PA laws are not written to protect only one race, one gender, one religion or one sexual orientation. A straight person is protected from being discriminated against for being straight just as much.

If that's what PA law is, fine. I see nothing wrong with it.

The problem is PA laws are being used to force individuals to go against their faith or religious beliefs. That's a violation of their Constitutional rights.

We need to, as christians...move away from these places. They'll learn their lesson quicker that way.

The problem being that these so-called religious people are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against people they don't like. They discriminate against gays on the grounds that they're "sinners", but don't discrimate against adulterers, even though the penalty for adultery in the Bible is stoning to death. I would have no problem with their prohibition against serving "sinners" if they refused to serve all sinners, but it's this picking and choosing - serving liars, thieves, blasphemers, and adulterers, all of which are mentioned in the 10 Commandments, and not serving gays, which are not.

How would you propose to identify adulterers?

Good gawd....think before you post, loon

According to the Bible, all second marriages are adultery. And you can ask if this is a first or second marriage, I mean if not serving "sinners" is really that much of an issue for you.

If these religious zealots are that hell-bent on not violating Gods' laws, they should be asking, because otherwise, their line that serving gays violates their religious beliefs is bullshit.

 

[bodecea]

If that's what PA law is, fine. I see nothing wrong with it.

The problem is PA laws are being used to force individuals to go against their faith or religious beliefs. That's a violation of their Constitutional rights.

We need to, as christians...move away from these places. They'll learn their lesson quicker that way.

The problem being that these so-called religious people are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against people they don't like. They discriminate against gays on the grounds that they're "sinners", but don't discrimate against adulterers, even though the penalty for adultery in the Bible is stoning to death. I would have no problem with their prohibition against serving "sinners" if they refused to serve all sinners, but it's this picking and choosing - serving liars, thieves, blasphemers, and adulterers, all of which are mentioned in the 10 Commandments, and not serving gays, which are not.

How would you propose to identify adulterers?

Good gawd....think before you post, loon

According to the Bible, all second marriages are adultery. And you can ask if this is a first or second marriage, I mean if not serving "sinners" is really that much of an issue for you.

If these religious zealots are that hell-bent on not violating Gods' laws, they should be asking, because otherwise, their line that serving gays violates their religious beliefs is bullshit.

Ironically, the comment about B. Clinton....yes he is an adulterer, but he and his wife have stayed together. Even more ironically, CRCs held that against his wife. That's right. con-servative republican christians condemned H. Clinton for staying with her husband..........while praising a serial adulterer who brags about grabbing women by the pussy. Something is seriously broke in the conservative...the republican...the christian movement today.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If that's what PA law is, fine. I see nothing wrong with it.

The problem is PA laws are being used to force individuals to go against their faith or religious beliefs. That's a violation of their Constitutional rights.

We need to, as christians...move away from these places. They'll learn their lesson quicker that way.

The problem being that these so-called religious people are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against people they don't like. They discriminate against gays on the grounds that they're "sinners", but don't discrimate against adulterers, even though the penalty for adultery in the Bible is stoning to death. I would have no problem with their prohibition against serving "sinners" if they refused to serve all sinners, but it's this picking and choosing - serving liars, thieves, blasphemers, and adulterers, all of which are mentioned in the 10 Commandments, and not serving gays, which are not.

How would you propose to identify adulterers?

Good gawd....think before you post, loon

According to the Bible, all second marriages are adultery. And you can ask if this is a first or second marriage, I mean if not serving "sinners" is really that much of an issue for you.

If these religious zealots are that hell-bent on not violating Gods' laws, they should be asking, because otherwise, their line that serving gays violates their religious beliefs is bullshit.

SCOTUS didn't think so in the Colorado case did they, hag?

You should sit down also

 

[bodecea]

The problem is PA laws are being used to force individuals to go against their faith or religious beliefs. That's a violation of their Constitutional rights.

We need to, as christians...move away from these places. They'll learn their lesson quicker that way.

The problem being that these so-called religious people are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against people they don't like. They discriminate against gays on the grounds that they're "sinners", but don't discrimate against adulterers, even though the penalty for adultery in the Bible is stoning to death. I would have no problem with their prohibition against serving "sinners" if they refused to serve all sinners, but it's this picking and choosing - serving liars, thieves, blasphemers, and adulterers, all of which are mentioned in the 10 Commandments, and not serving gays, which are not.

How would you propose to identify adulterers?

Good gawd....think before you post, loon

According to the Bible, all second marriages are adultery. And you can ask if this is a first or second marriage, I mean if not serving "sinners" is really that much of an issue for you.

If these religious zealots are that hell-bent on not violating Gods' laws, they should be asking, because otherwise, their line that serving gays violates their religious beliefs is bullshit.

SCOTUS didn't think so in the Colorado case did they, hag?

You should sit down also

This is what SCOTUS said: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

Majority opinion[edit]
The Court issued its ruling on June 4, 2018, ordering a reversal of the decision made by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch. The opinion stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.[25] Kennedy's opinion stated that the Commission's review of Phillips' case exhibited hostility towards his religious views. The Commission compared Phillips' religious beliefs to defense of slavery or the Holocaust. Kennedy found such comparisons "inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law".[26] Kennedy's opinion also cited the three exemptions the commission previously granted for the non-discrimination law arising from the William Jack complaints. The opinion also noted differences in handling previous exemptions as indicative of Commission hostility towards religious belief, rather than maintaining neutrality.[27] Kennedy's opinion noted that he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the Commission if they had remained religiously neutral in their evaluation.[28]

In plain English...they ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was hostile to the business owner and was not impartial as they should have been. Absolutely nothing in the ruling stating that religious freedom to discriminate overrides state PA laws.

Note the last sentence of the ruling.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

We need to, as christians...move away from these places. They'll learn their lesson quicker that way.

The problem being that these so-called religious people are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against people they don't like. They discriminate against gays on the grounds that they're "sinners", but don't discrimate against adulterers, even though the penalty for adultery in the Bible is stoning to death. I would have no problem with their prohibition against serving "sinners" if they refused to serve all sinners, but it's this picking and choosing - serving liars, thieves, blasphemers, and adulterers, all of which are mentioned in the 10 Commandments, and not serving gays, which are not.

How would you propose to identify adulterers?

Good gawd....think before you post, loon

According to the Bible, all second marriages are adultery. And you can ask if this is a first or second marriage, I mean if not serving "sinners" is really that much of an issue for you.

If these religious zealots are that hell-bent on not violating Gods' laws, they should be asking, because otherwise, their line that serving gays violates their religious beliefs is bullshit.

SCOTUS didn't think so in the Colorado case did they, hag?

You should sit down also

This is what SCOTUS said: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

Majority opinion[edit]
The Court issued its ruling on June 4, 2018, ordering a reversal of the decision made by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch. The opinion stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.[25] Kennedy's opinion stated that the Commission's review of Phillips' case exhibited hostility towards his religious views. The Commission compared Phillips' religious beliefs to defense of slavery or the Holocaust. Kennedy found such comparisons "inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law".[26] Kennedy's opinion also cited the three exemptions the commission previously granted for the non-discrimination law arising from the William Jack complaints. The opinion also noted differences in handling previous exemptions as indicative of Commission hostility towards religious belief, rather than maintaining neutrality.[27] Kennedy's opinion noted that he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the Commission if they had remained religiously neutral in their evaluation.[28]

In plain English...they ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was hostile to the business owner and was not impartial as they should have been. Absolutely nothing in the ruling stating that religious freedom to discriminate overrides state PA laws.

Note the last sentence of the ruling.

You were instructed to sit down. Do it

 

[bodecea]

The problem being that these so-called religious people are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against people they don't like. They discriminate against gays on the grounds that they're "sinners", but don't discrimate against adulterers, even though the penalty for adultery in the Bible is stoning to death. I would have no problem with their prohibition against serving "sinners" if they refused to serve all sinners, but it's this picking and choosing - serving liars, thieves, blasphemers, and adulterers, all of which are mentioned in the 10 Commandments, and not serving gays, which are not.

How would you propose to identify adulterers?

Good gawd....think before you post, loon

According to the Bible, all second marriages are adultery. And you can ask if this is a first or second marriage, I mean if not serving "sinners" is really that much of an issue for you.

If these religious zealots are that hell-bent on not violating Gods' laws, they should be asking, because otherwise, their line that serving gays violates their religious beliefs is bullshit.

SCOTUS didn't think so in the Colorado case did they, hag?

You should sit down also

This is what SCOTUS said: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

Majority opinion[edit]
The Court issued its ruling on June 4, 2018, ordering a reversal of the decision made by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch. The opinion stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.[25] Kennedy's opinion stated that the Commission's review of Phillips' case exhibited hostility towards his religious views. The Commission compared Phillips' religious beliefs to defense of slavery or the Holocaust. Kennedy found such comparisons "inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law".[26] Kennedy's opinion also cited the three exemptions the commission previously granted for the non-discrimination law arising from the William Jack complaints. The opinion also noted differences in handling previous exemptions as indicative of Commission hostility towards religious belief, rather than maintaining neutrality.[27] Kennedy's opinion noted that he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the Commission if they had remained religiously neutral in their evaluation.[28]

In plain English...they ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was hostile to the business owner and was not impartial as they should have been. Absolutely nothing in the ruling stating that religious freedom to discriminate overrides state PA laws.

Note the last sentence of the ruling.

You were instructed to sit down. Do it

Note the last sentence about the ruling again:

Kennedy's opinion noted that he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the Commission if they had remained religiously neutral in their evaluation.[28]

 

[lantern2814]

Where to destroy you again.
1) Real words and phrases make up communication. Not your fake words and made up labels that apparently only you gays understand.
2)Since Sassy, Sue, I, and most other posters here are smarter than you, we know why you hate our side so much.
3) Since I never lived in the South, nor was I here during the Jim Crow era, your excuses are just that. Excuses. Thus they are dismissed.
That's 3 strikes. You're out.

Golly gee....posting to say how much smarter you are and how you've destroyed someone. Some very convincing stuff right there, dear boy.

Poor idiot. The irony is not realizing you did the exact same ting. Keep laughing. The baker still wins. By the way, noting the total avoidance of the facts thrown at you by multiple posters. Try again.

Ah...another post declaring victory.....perhaps a few more and you are well on your way to convincing someone.


Maybe.

I have my need to declare victory. Your forfeit by running away from any facts presented declares victory. Meanwhile, keep saying you gays are normal. Maybe someday somebody will believe you. But probably not.

Just for yucks and grins I went back thru this thread....here are your posts: (keep in mind this thread started on this Tues, the 11th)

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Guess you don't read those signs that are in many businesses. The ones that state they may refuse service to anybody at any time for any reason. ANY reason. Your crying about LOSING to the bakers that YOU people intentionally target is laughable. This is the third time you've gone after that Colorado baker. Enjoy a third loss and the eventual lawsuit against those gays for harassment."

then your second post

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"No, the no rebuttal is you and your made up words and phrases you use because you think they make you look smart (news flash, they don't). You continue to cry about the baker, but he has won twice already and you just keep harassing him. Maybe you better learn something. Intentionally targeting a particular business to attempt to bankrupt them is harassment. Religious objections are valid no matter how much you cry. It is not discrimination. When the baker wins again, he should sue those two into bankruptcy."

your third post:

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Where to destroy you again.
1) Real words and phrases make up communication. Not your fake words and made up labels that apparently only you gays understand.
2)Since Sassy, Sue, I, and most other posters here are smarter than you, we know why you hate our side so much.
3) Since I never lived in the South, nor was I here during the Jim Crow era, your excuses are just that. Excuses. Thus they are dismissed.
That's 3 strikes. You're out."

your fourth post:

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Poor idiot. The irony is not realizing you did the exact same ting. Keep laughing. The baker still wins. By the way, noting the total avoidance of the facts thrown at you by multiple posters. Try again."

and your fifth and last post:
I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"I have no need to declare victory. Your forfeit by running away from any facts presented declares victory. Meanwhile, keep saying you gays are normal. Maybe someday somebody will believe you. But probably not."

So...you go from showing that you know nothing about state PA laws to making a false claim about the baker being intentionally targetted to declaring "victory" in your last three posts.

Bravo! Impressive. Hope to see more of you.

So you again have NO rebuttal to facts you flaming idiot. The baker was intentionally targeted. Learn to read instead of crying all the time. Must be just coincidence you deviants have intentionally gone after him 3 times now. Oops, better clean yourself up from that egg on your face. So you show yourself to be the lying loser you have been for years. You are dismissed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

The last 10 years shows without question that recruitment and indoctrination alter the sexuality of people. High school girls have gone from 2% lesbian to 38% in the last 10 years.

It's the "in" thing.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

The last 10 years shows without question that recruitment and indoctrination alter the sexuality of people. High school girls have gone from 2% lesbian to 38% in the last 10 years.

It's the "in" thing.

It that number is at all true, and I doubt that it is, It is not because of " recruitment and indoctrination" It is because of greater acceptance and awareness and that is a good thing if it allows people to discover their true identities . It's, too bad if some people are threatened by that.

 

[WEATHER53]

When the pressure lessens to control perversions then more perversions emerge.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

When the pressure lessens to control perversions then more perversions emerge.

And there in lies your problem. You think that you can sit in judgement of what is and is not acceptable sexuality based on your fragile sensibilities- ignore the issue of whether or not it harms any one- and think that you can and must control it. You need to control your impulse to control others .

 

[bodecea]

Golly gee....posting to say how much smarter you are and how you've destroyed someone. Some very convincing stuff right there, dear boy.

Poor idiot. The irony is not realizing you did the exact same ting. Keep laughing. The baker still wins. By the way, noting the total avoidance of the facts thrown at you by multiple posters. Try again.

Ah...another post declaring victory.....perhaps a few more and you are well on your way to convincing someone.


Maybe.

I have my need to declare victory. Your forfeit by running away from any facts presented declares victory. Meanwhile, keep saying you gays are normal. Maybe someday somebody will believe you. But probably not.

Just for yucks and grins I went back thru this thread....here are your posts: (keep in mind this thread started on this Tues, the 11th)

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Guess you don't read those signs that are in many businesses. The ones that state they may refuse service to anybody at any time for any reason. ANY reason. Your crying about LOSING to the bakers that YOU people intentionally target is laughable. This is the third time you've gone after that Colorado baker. Enjoy a third loss and the eventual lawsuit against those gays for harassment."

then your second post

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"No, the no rebuttal is you and your made up words and phrases you use because you think they make you look smart (news flash, they don't). You continue to cry about the baker, but he has won twice already and you just keep harassing him. Maybe you better learn something. Intentionally targeting a particular business to attempt to bankrupt them is harassment. Religious objections are valid no matter how much you cry. It is not discrimination. When the baker wins again, he should sue those two into bankruptcy."

your third post:

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Where to destroy you again.
1) Real words and phrases make up communication. Not your fake words and made up labels that apparently only you gays understand.
2)Since Sassy, Sue, I, and most other posters here are smarter than you, we know why you hate our side so much.
3) Since I never lived in the South, nor was I here during the Jim Crow era, your excuses are just that. Excuses. Thus they are dismissed.
That's 3 strikes. You're out."

your fourth post:

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Poor idiot. The irony is not realizing you did the exact same ting. Keep laughing. The baker still wins. By the way, noting the total avoidance of the facts thrown at you by multiple posters. Try again."

and your fifth and last post:
I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"I have no need to declare victory. Your forfeit by running away from any facts presented declares victory. Meanwhile, keep saying you gays are normal. Maybe someday somebody will believe you. But probably not."

So...you go from showing that you know nothing about state PA laws to making a false claim about the baker being intentionally targetted to declaring "victory" in your last three posts.

Bravo! Impressive. Hope to see more of you.

So you again have NO rebuttal to facts you flaming idiot. The baker was intentionally targeted. Learn to read instead of crying all the time. Must be just coincidence you deviants have intentionally gone after him 3 times now. Oops, better clean yourself up from that egg on your face. So you show yourself to be the lying loser you have been for years. You are dismissed.

The baker was not intentionally targetted.

Here: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

In 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be lawfully married in Massachusetts and return to Colorado to celebrate with their family and friends. At that time the state constitution prohibited same-sex marriage in Colorado, though by 2014 the state had allowed same-sex marriages, and the Supreme Court of the United States would affirm that gay couples have the fundamental right to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. ___ (2015).[1]

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any of the details of their wedding cake.[2]:2 The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for the weddings of gay couples[2]:2 because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time.[3][2]:1–2

 

[bodecea]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

The last 10 years shows without question that recruitment and indoctrination alter the sexuality of people. High school girls have gone from 2% lesbian to 38% in the last 10 years.

It's the "in" thing.

Well, considering the boys................................

 

[lantern2814]

Poor idiot. The irony is not realizing you did the exact same ting. Keep laughing. The baker still wins. By the way, noting the total avoidance of the facts thrown at you by multiple posters. Try again.

Ah...another post declaring victory.....perhaps a few more and you are well on your way to convincing someone.


Maybe.

I have my need to declare victory. Your forfeit by running away from any facts presented declares victory. Meanwhile, keep saying you gays are normal. Maybe someday somebody will believe you. But probably not.

Just for yucks and grins I went back thru this thread....here are your posts: (keep in mind this thread started on this Tues, the 11th)

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Guess you don't read those signs that are in many businesses. The ones that state they may refuse service to anybody at any time for any reason. ANY reason. Your crying about LOSING to the bakers that YOU people intentionally target is laughable. This is the third time you've gone after that Colorado baker. Enjoy a third loss and the eventual lawsuit against those gays for harassment."

then your second post

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"No, the no rebuttal is you and your made up words and phrases you use because you think they make you look smart (news flash, they don't). You continue to cry about the baker, but he has won twice already and you just keep harassing him. Maybe you better learn something. Intentionally targeting a particular business to attempt to bankrupt them is harassment. Religious objections are valid no matter how much you cry. It is not discrimination. When the baker wins again, he should sue those two into bankruptcy."

your third post:

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Where to destroy you again.
1) Real words and phrases make up communication. Not your fake words and made up labels that apparently only you gays understand.
2)Since Sassy, Sue, I, and most other posters here are smarter than you, we know why you hate our side so much.
3) Since I never lived in the South, nor was I here during the Jim Crow era, your excuses are just that. Excuses. Thus they are dismissed.
That's 3 strikes. You're out."

your fourth post:

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Poor idiot. The irony is not realizing you did the exact same ting. Keep laughing. The baker still wins. By the way, noting the total avoidance of the facts thrown at you by multiple posters. Try again."

and your fifth and last post:
I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"I have no need to declare victory. Your forfeit by running away from any facts presented declares victory. Meanwhile, keep saying you gays are normal. Maybe someday somebody will believe you. But probably not."

So...you go from showing that you know nothing about state PA laws to making a false claim about the baker being intentionally targetted to declaring "victory" in your last three posts.

Bravo! Impressive. Hope to see more of you.

So you again have NO rebuttal to facts you flaming idiot. The baker was intentionally targeted. Learn to read instead of crying all the time. Must be just coincidence you deviants have intentionally gone after him 3 times now. Oops, better clean yourself up from that egg on your face. So you show yourself to be the lying loser you have been for years. You are dismissed.

The baker was not intentionally targetted.

Here: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

In 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be lawfully married in Massachusetts and return to Colorado to celebrate with their family and friends. At that time the state constitution prohibited same-sex marriage in Colorado, though by 2014 the state had allowed same-sex marriages, and the Supreme Court of the United States would affirm that gay couples have the fundamental right to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. ___ (2015).[1]

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any of the details of their wedding cake.[2]:2 The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for the weddings of gay couples[2]:2 because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time.[3][2]:1–2

Yes he was. Let's see, three times he has been harassed and sued by people INTENTiONALLY targeting him due to his religious beliefs. In the real world, that is called harassment. You were dismissed and told to sit down. Do so. You've embarrassed yourself enough.

 

[bodecea]

Ah...another post declaring victory.....perhaps a few more and you are well on your way to convincing someone.


Maybe.

I have my need to declare victory. Your forfeit by running away from any facts presented declares victory. Meanwhile, keep saying you gays are normal. Maybe someday somebody will believe you. But probably not.

Just for yucks and grins I went back thru this thread....here are your posts: (keep in mind this thread started on this Tues, the 11th)

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Guess you don't read those signs that are in many businesses. The ones that state they may refuse service to anybody at any time for any reason. ANY reason. Your crying about LOSING to the bakers that YOU people intentionally target is laughable. This is the third time you've gone after that Colorado baker. Enjoy a third loss and the eventual lawsuit against those gays for harassment."

then your second post

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"No, the no rebuttal is you and your made up words and phrases you use because you think they make you look smart (news flash, they don't). You continue to cry about the baker, but he has won twice already and you just keep harassing him. Maybe you better learn something. Intentionally targeting a particular business to attempt to bankrupt them is harassment. Religious objections are valid no matter how much you cry. It is not discrimination. When the baker wins again, he should sue those two into bankruptcy."

your third post:

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Where to destroy you again.
1) Real words and phrases make up communication. Not your fake words and made up labels that apparently only you gays understand.
2)Since Sassy, Sue, I, and most other posters here are smarter than you, we know why you hate our side so much.
3) Since I never lived in the South, nor was I here during the Jim Crow era, your excuses are just that. Excuses. Thus they are dismissed.
That's 3 strikes. You're out."

your fourth post:

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Poor idiot. The irony is not realizing you did the exact same ting. Keep laughing. The baker still wins. By the way, noting the total avoidance of the facts thrown at you by multiple posters. Try again."

and your fifth and last post:
I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"I have no need to declare victory. Your forfeit by running away from any facts presented declares victory. Meanwhile, keep saying you gays are normal. Maybe someday somebody will believe you. But probably not."

So...you go from showing that you know nothing about state PA laws to making a false claim about the baker being intentionally targetted to declaring "victory" in your last three posts.

Bravo! Impressive. Hope to see more of you.

So you again have NO rebuttal to facts you flaming idiot. The baker was intentionally targeted. Learn to read instead of crying all the time. Must be just coincidence you deviants have intentionally gone after him 3 times now. Oops, better clean yourself up from that egg on your face. So you show yourself to be the lying loser you have been for years. You are dismissed.

The baker was not intentionally targetted.

Here: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

In 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be lawfully married in Massachusetts and return to Colorado to celebrate with their family and friends. At that time the state constitution prohibited same-sex marriage in Colorado, though by 2014 the state had allowed same-sex marriages, and the Supreme Court of the United States would affirm that gay couples have the fundamental right to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. ___ (2015).[1]

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any of the details of their wedding cake.[2]:2 The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for the weddings of gay couples[2]:2 because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time.[3][2]:1–2

Yes he was. Let's see, three times he has been harassed and sued by people INTENTiONALLY targeting him due to his religious beliefs. In the real world, that is called harassment. You were dismissed and told to sit down. Do so. You've embarrassed yourself enough.

No he was not. Read the link. As far as you dismissing people and telling them to sit down....you have some power here? I'm not seeing it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I have my need to declare victory. Your forfeit by running away from any facts presented declares victory. Meanwhile, keep saying you gays are normal. Maybe someday somebody will believe you. But probably not.

Just for yucks and grins I went back thru this thread....here are your posts: (keep in mind this thread started on this Tues, the 11th)

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Guess you don't read those signs that are in many businesses. The ones that state they may refuse service to anybody at any time for any reason. ANY reason. Your crying about LOSING to the bakers that YOU people intentionally target is laughable. This is the third time you've gone after that Colorado baker. Enjoy a third loss and the eventual lawsuit against those gays for harassment."

then your second post

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"No, the no rebuttal is you and your made up words and phrases you use because you think they make you look smart (news flash, they don't). You continue to cry about the baker, but he has won twice already and you just keep harassing him. Maybe you better learn something. Intentionally targeting a particular business to attempt to bankrupt them is harassment. Religious objections are valid no matter how much you cry. It is not discrimination. When the baker wins again, he should sue those two into bankruptcy."

your third post:

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Where to destroy you again.
1) Real words and phrases make up communication. Not your fake words and made up labels that apparently only you gays understand.
2)Since Sassy, Sue, I, and most other posters here are smarter than you, we know why you hate our side so much.
3) Since I never lived in the South, nor was I here during the Jim Crow era, your excuses are just that. Excuses. Thus they are dismissed.
That's 3 strikes. You're out."

your fourth post:

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Poor idiot. The irony is not realizing you did the exact same ting. Keep laughing. The baker still wins. By the way, noting the total avoidance of the facts thrown at you by multiple posters. Try again."

and your fifth and last post:
I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"I have no need to declare victory. Your forfeit by running away from any facts presented declares victory. Meanwhile, keep saying you gays are normal. Maybe someday somebody will believe you. But probably not."

So...you go from showing that you know nothing about state PA laws to making a false claim about the baker being intentionally targetted to declaring "victory" in your last three posts.

Bravo! Impressive. Hope to see more of you.

So you again have NO rebuttal to facts you flaming idiot. The baker was intentionally targeted. Learn to read instead of crying all the time. Must be just coincidence you deviants have intentionally gone after him 3 times now. Oops, better clean yourself up from that egg on your face. So you show yourself to be the lying loser you have been for years. You are dismissed.

The baker was not intentionally targetted.

Here: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

In 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be lawfully married in Massachusetts and return to Colorado to celebrate with their family and friends. At that time the state constitution prohibited same-sex marriage in Colorado, though by 2014 the state had allowed same-sex marriages, and the Supreme Court of the United States would affirm that gay couples have the fundamental right to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. ___ (2015).[1]

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any of the details of their wedding cake.[2]:2 The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for the weddings of gay couples[2]:2 because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time.[3][2]:1–2

Yes he was. Let's see, three times he has been harassed and sued by people INTENTiONALLY targeting him due to his religious beliefs. In the real world, that is called harassment. You were dismissed and told to sit down. Do so. You've embarrassed yourself enough.

No he was not. Read the link. As far as you dismissing people and telling them to sit down....you have some power here? I'm not seeing it.

You're dying a slow methodical death. Lol

 

[bodecea]

Just for yucks and grins I went back thru this thread....here are your posts: (keep in mind this thread started on this Tues, the 11th)

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Guess you don't read those signs that are in many businesses. The ones that state they may refuse service to anybody at any time for any reason. ANY reason. Your crying about LOSING to the bakers that YOU people intentionally target is laughable. This is the third time you've gone after that Colorado baker. Enjoy a third loss and the eventual lawsuit against those gays for harassment."

then your second post

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"No, the no rebuttal is you and your made up words and phrases you use because you think they make you look smart (news flash, they don't). You continue to cry about the baker, but he has won twice already and you just keep harassing him. Maybe you better learn something. Intentionally targeting a particular business to attempt to bankrupt them is harassment. Religious objections are valid no matter how much you cry. It is not discrimination. When the baker wins again, he should sue those two into bankruptcy."

your third post:

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Where to destroy you again.
1) Real words and phrases make up communication. Not your fake words and made up labels that apparently only you gays understand.
2)Since Sassy, Sue, I, and most other posters here are smarter than you, we know why you hate our side so much.
3) Since I never lived in the South, nor was I here during the Jim Crow era, your excuses are just that. Excuses. Thus they are dismissed.
That's 3 strikes. You're out."

your fourth post:

I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"Poor idiot. The irony is not realizing you did the exact same ting. Keep laughing. The baker still wins. By the way, noting the total avoidance of the facts thrown at you by multiple posters. Try again."

and your fifth and last post:
I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

"I have no need to declare victory. Your forfeit by running away from any facts presented declares victory. Meanwhile, keep saying you gays are normal. Maybe someday somebody will believe you. But probably not."

So...you go from showing that you know nothing about state PA laws to making a false claim about the baker being intentionally targetted to declaring "victory" in your last three posts.

Bravo! Impressive. Hope to see more of you.

So you again have NO rebuttal to facts you flaming idiot. The baker was intentionally targeted. Learn to read instead of crying all the time. Must be just coincidence you deviants have intentionally gone after him 3 times now. Oops, better clean yourself up from that egg on your face. So you show yourself to be the lying loser you have been for years. You are dismissed.

The baker was not intentionally targetted.

Here: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

In 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be lawfully married in Massachusetts and return to Colorado to celebrate with their family and friends. At that time the state constitution prohibited same-sex marriage in Colorado, though by 2014 the state had allowed same-sex marriages, and the Supreme Court of the United States would affirm that gay couples have the fundamental right to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. ___ (2015).[1]

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any of the details of their wedding cake.[2]:2 The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for the weddings of gay couples[2]:2 because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time.[3][2]:1–2

Yes he was. Let's see, three times he has been harassed and sued by people INTENTiONALLY targeting him due to his religious beliefs. In the real world, that is called harassment. You were dismissed and told to sit down. Do so. You've embarrassed yourself enough.

No he was not. Read the link. As far as you dismissing people and telling them to sit down....you have some power here? I'm not seeing it.

You're dying a slow methodical death. Lol

And there goes Threaty MacThreat again.