Opponents in LGBT case agree: It's not about wedding cake

[SassyIrishLass]

Opponents in LGBT case agree: It's not about wedding cake
In a legal case with profound implications for LGBT rights and religion's place in public life, the opposing sides agree on this: It's not about the cake.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

And everyone with a brain left know this is how it should be. It isn't about the cake it is about being " FORCED" ........this is America not N. Korea.

Its about following the law.

Some Christians think that they shouldn't have to follow the law- even though no American- by law- can refuse to serve a Christian- for being a Christian.

. If your side wins, I will be able to force gay bakers to make a cake with "God Hates Fags and my baker agrees!" Are you okay with that?

 

[MindWars]

Opponents in LGBT case agree: It's not about wedding cake
In a legal case with profound implications for LGBT rights and religion's place in public life, the opposing sides agree on this: It's not about the cake.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

And everyone with a brain left know this is how it should be. It isn't about the cake it is about being " FORCED" ........this is America not N. Korea.

Its about following the law.

Some Christians think that they shouldn't have to follow the law- even though no American- by law- can refuse to serve a Christian- for being a Christian.

. If your side wins, I will be able to force gay bakers to make a cake with "God Hates Fags and my baker agrees!" Are you okay with that?

Now that was a perfect example!!!! Bravo and I hope we have a chance to spit the shit right back in examples just like this.

One of those pricks are running against that Kim Davis the woman who was a clerk of courts and wouldn't marry those gays. Imagine if that ass gets in lol.

 

[MindWars]

The bakers were not judging the couple, they were refusing to commit a sin themselves.

Which sin is that?

Participating in and endorsing an abomination. That's why the baker could sell them anything they wanted and maintain a business relationship with them but not bake the wedding cake. It was never a judgment on homosexuality, but a refusal to endorse and participate in homosexuality.

I am pretty sure baking a wedding cake is not a homosexual act.

The bakers were refusing to follow the law.

Which of course Romans 13 tells Christians to do.

 

[Syriusly]

The bakers were not judging the couple, they were refusing to commit a sin themselves.

Which sin is that?

Participating in and endorsing an abomination. That's why the baker could sell them anything they wanted and maintain a business relationship with them but not bake the wedding cake. It was never a judgment on homosexuality, but a refusal to endorse and participate in homosexuality.

I am pretty sure baking a wedding cake is not a homosexual act.

The bakers were refusing to follow the law.

Which of course Romans 13 tells Christians to do.

Ah you are finally admitting what all of your posts are.

 

[Syriusly]

Opponents in LGBT case agree: It's not about wedding cake
In a legal case with profound implications for LGBT rights and religion's place in public life, the opposing sides agree on this: It's not about the cake.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

And everyone with a brain left know this is how it should be. It isn't about the cake it is about being " FORCED" ........this is America not N. Korea.

Its about following the law.

Some Christians think that they shouldn't have to follow the law- even though no American- by law- can refuse to serve a Christian- for being a Christian.

. If your side wins, I will be able to force gay bakers to make a cake with "God Hates Fags and my baker agrees!" Are you okay with that?

No- you could demand that a baker (doesn't matter who he is) to bake a cake that "God Hates Fags"- but you couldn't force him to claim it was his opinion.

And that of cours applies in all 50 states- since Christians are protected against discrimination in all 50 states- not just the few that protect gays too.

 

[Syriusly]

The First Amendment is the law. Being part of the Constitution, it is the highest law, and takes precedence over all legislative acts.

Someone who can't follow that law doesn't belong in government.

Someone who flagrantly violates that Highest Law

Who is violating the First Amendment? Oh in your opinion it is the State- not someone but something.

It will be interesting to see what the court decides.

If the court agrees with you- of course then anyone can discriminate against Jews or blacks or Mexicans- claiming it is their religious conviction.

 

[rightwinger]

The First Amendment is the law. Being part of the Constitution, it is the highest law, and takes precedence over all legislative acts.

Someone who can't follow that law doesn't belong in government.

Someone who flagrantly violates that Highest Law

Who is violating the First Amendment? Oh in your opinion it is the State- not someone but something.

It will be interesting to see what the court decides.

If the court agrees with you- of course then anyone can discriminate against Jews or blacks or Mexicans- claiming it is their religious conviction.

Religions can be pretty intolerant

If the court allows discrimination on gay marriage, I can't see how it would not extend to all religious practices

 

[Silhouette]

It will be interesting to see what the court decides.

If the court agrees with you- of course then anyone can discriminate against Jews or blacks or Mexicans- claiming it is their religious conviction.

Yes. It will be interesting to see the courts discuss the difference between bakers discriminating based on behavior vs doing so about race. Going further, it should be fun to see them finally dissect LGBT etc. as deviant sex addicts. Which is the core of what they are.

Next in opinion I'd like to see a discussion of why polysexuals (polygamists) were omitted from marriage arbitrarily. Because they couldn't have been excluded based on the majority objecting or discriminating....now could they?

 

[rightwinger]

It will be interesting to see what the court decides.

If the court agrees with you- of course then anyone can discriminate against Jews or blacks or Mexicans- claiming it is their religious conviction.

Yes. It will be interesting to see the courts discuss the difference between bakers discriminating based on behavior vs doing so about race. Going further, it should be fun to see them finally dissect LGBT etc. as deviant sex addicts. Which is the core of what they are.

Next in opinion I'd like to see a discussion of why polysexuals (polygamists) were omitted from marriage arbitrarily. Because they couldn't have been excluded based on the majority objecting or discriminating....now could they?

There was more opposition to mixed marriages

Ready to bring back bans on interracial couples for religious reasons?

 

[MindWars]

Walsh: The Gay Couple In The Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Are Vindictive Bullies, Not Victims.

The Supreme Court began hearing arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case today. Ben Shapiro has already provided a helpful refresher on the case, which you can read here. If you’re too lazy to click the link, here are the basic bullet points:

 

[Silhouette]

It will be interesting to see what the court decides.

If the court agrees with you- of course then anyone can discriminate against Jews or blacks or Mexicans- claiming it is their religious conviction.

Yes. It will be interesting to see the courts discuss the difference between bakers discriminating based on behavior vs doing so about race. Going further, it should be fun to see them finally dissect LGBT etc. as deviant sex addicts. Which is the core of what they are.

Next in opinion I'd like to see a discussion of why polysexuals (polygamists) were omitted from marriage arbitrarily. Because they couldn't have been excluded based on the majority objecting or discriminating....now could they?

There was more opposition to mixed marriages

Ready to bring back bans on interracial couples for religious reasons?

That was resolved by the 14th Amendment which directly addresses race, religion, country of origin and gender....which makes ZERO mention nor insinuation towards protecting minority deviant behaviors. Your cult's petition properly should be to the Congress and not the courts. The courts have no power to add brand new language to either the 14th Amendment nor any other.

You gonna weigh in on why polyamorists (polygamists) were excluded from Obergefell/the14ths "creative interpretations"? Or are you going to join the lockstep-dodge of that very important question on arbitrary discrimination (conflicting rat's nest of the 14th's "interpretation" by the courts)?

 

[Syriusly]

It will be interesting to see what the court decides.

If the court agrees with you- of course then anyone can discriminate against Jews or blacks or Mexicans- claiming it is their religious conviction.

Yes. It will be interesting to see the courts discuss the difference between bakers discriminating based on behavior vs doing so about race.

Public Accommodation laws don't differentiate between discrimination based upon behavior(practicing a religion) or something that is immutable (race)- they are immaterial as far as the Constitution is concerned.

 

[Syriusly]

It will be interesting to see what the court decides.

If the court agrees with you- of course then anyone can discriminate against Jews or blacks or Mexicans- claiming it is their religious conviction.

Yes. It will be interesting to see the courts discuss the difference between bakers discriminating based on behavior vs doing so about race. Going further, it should be fun to see them finally dissect LGBT etc. as deviant sex addicts. Which is the core of what they are.

Next in opinion I'd like to see a discussion of why polysexuals (polygamists) were omitted from marriage arbitrarily. Because they couldn't have been excluded based on the majority objecting or discriminating....now could they?

There was more opposition to mixed marriages

Ready to bring back bans on interracial couples for religious reasons?

Certainly mixed race marriage was as much based upon behavior as same gender race.

Silhouette has this fantasy that the Supreme Court is suddenly - and exceptionally- be enlightened to her point of view- and label all homosexuals as horrible sexual perverts not deserving to live- let alone marry or have a family.

 

[Syriusly]

I
That was resolved by the 14th Amendment which directly addresses race, religion, country of origin and gender...

Silhouette:
That was resolved by the 14th Amendment which directly addresses race, religion, country of origin and gender...

SHOCKING- Shocking I tell you! Silhouette is lying again. Who saw that coming?

The 14th Amendment doesn't mention religion, country of origin or gender. Not anywhere.

Silhouette just lies- she lies to promote her hate propaganda against gays

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

wex resources

SHOCKING- Shocking I tell you! Silhouette is lying again. Who saw that coming?

The 14th Amendment doesn't mention religion, country of origin or gender. Not anywhere.

Silhouette just lies- she lies to promote her hate propaganda against gays

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

wex resources

 

[Pop23]

It will be interesting to see what the court decides.

If the court agrees with you- of course then anyone can discriminate against Jews or blacks or Mexicans- claiming it is their religious conviction.

Yes. It will be interesting to see the courts discuss the difference between bakers discriminating based on behavior vs doing so about race. Going further, it should be fun to see them finally dissect LGBT etc. as deviant sex addicts. Which is the core of what they are.

Next in opinion I'd like to see a discussion of why polysexuals (polygamists) were omitted from marriage arbitrarily. Because they couldn't have been excluded based on the majority objecting or discriminating....now could they?

Correct, if anyone ever actually took the time to read Marriage Licence laws they would see that there are absolutely zip for what qualifies as a marriage with only arbitrary exceptions.

Those arbitrary exceptions would clearly not withstand a court challenge based on the States Interest in denial of marriage rights.

 

[Silhouette]

It will be interesting to see what the court decides.

If the court agrees with you- of course then anyone can discriminate against Jews or blacks or Mexicans- claiming it is their religious conviction.

Yes. It will be interesting to see the courts discuss the difference between bakers discriminating based on behavior vs doing so about race. Going further, it should be fun to see them finally dissect LGBT etc. as deviant sex addicts. Which is the core of what they are.

Next in opinion I'd like to see a discussion of why polysexuals (polygamists) were omitted from marriage arbitrarily. Because they couldn't have been excluded based on the majority objecting or discriminating....now could they?

Correct, if anyone ever actually took the time to read Marriage Licence laws they would see that there are absolutely zip for what qualifies as a marriage with only arbitrary exceptions.

Those arbitrary exceptions would clearly not withstand a court challenge based on the States Interest in denial of marriage rights.

Well as it stands today, no state can, in the pure interest of Obergefell's judicial-legislation adding brand new protections for deviant sex behaviors to the Constitution, deny polyamorists (polygamists) to marry. You cannot wave a magic wand of discrimination against polygamists when you use a fabricated interpretation of our Constitution's equality-Amendment (14th) to "legalize" other deviant sex behaviors' marriage across the 50 states by power of the 5 Justices who essentially "just said so". A majority-rejected deviant sex behavior practitioner is a majority-rejected deviant sex practitioner. All are welcome under that judicial logic or none are. Who decides which are acceptable and which aren't? 5 Justices on the US Supreme Court? Or the 300 million?

 

[Pop23]

It will be interesting to see what the court decides.

If the court agrees with you- of course then anyone can discriminate against Jews or blacks or Mexicans- claiming it is their religious conviction.

Yes. It will be interesting to see the courts discuss the difference between bakers discriminating based on behavior vs doing so about race. Going further, it should be fun to see them finally dissect LGBT etc. as deviant sex addicts. Which is the core of what they are.

Next in opinion I'd like to see a discussion of why polysexuals (polygamists) were omitted from marriage arbitrarily. Because they couldn't have been excluded based on the majority objecting or discriminating....now could they?

Correct, if anyone ever actually took the time to read Marriage Licence laws they would see that there are absolutely zip for what qualifies as a marriage with only arbitrary exceptions.

Those arbitrary exceptions would clearly not withstand a court challenge based on the States Interest in denial of marriage rights.

Well as it stands today, no state can, in the pure interest of Obergefell's judicial-legislation adding brand new protections for deviant sex behaviors to the Constitution, deny polyamorists (polygamists) to marry. You cannot wave a magic wand of discrimination against polygamists when you use a fabricated interpretation of our Constitution's equality-Amendment (14th) to "legalize" other deviant sex behaviors' marriage across the 50 states by power of the 5 Justices who essentially "just said so". A majority-rejected deviant sex behavior practitioner is a majority-rejected deviant sex practitioner. All are welcome under that judicial logic or none are. Who decides which are acceptable and which aren't? 5 Justices on the US Supreme Court? Or the 300 million?

Quite correct

The reason that a couple would wed was because of an obvious historically valid reason. But now, that standard is simply absurd. And since state licence laws make sexual interaction not a requirement, nor love, nor anything that we had historically thought as of reasons to marry, there is only an arbitrary reason to deny members of the same family to marry.

Recent USSC ruling are pretty clear, marriage is simply a financial tool, not much different then forming an S-Corp or LLC.

 

[Silhouette]

The reason that a couple would wed was because of an obvious historically valid reason. But now, that standard is simply absurd. And since state licence laws make sexual interaction not a requirement, nor love, nor anything that we had historically thought as of reasons to marry, there is only an arbitrary reason to deny members of the same family to marry.

Recent USSC ruling are pretty clear, marriage is simply a financial tool, not much different then forming an S-Corp or LLC.

Even if that was true, the state has to get a benefit from the loss they extend to the marriage contract. With the new contract saying "no mother or father for life, banishment, for any child involved" the state no longer gets its traditional share of that contract. That traditional share they paid for with benefits was to insure children had a stable home with a mother and father for best statistical future-citizen production. Now they get nothing. They actually get worse than nothing in that at least single parents promise to deliver at some point in the future. "Gay marriage" is de facto anti-marriage as far as any state was concerned fiscally. It insures an inferior product for the money when before man/woman marriage insured a quality product for the money.

It was an illegal contract revision, Obergefell. It screwed the major beneficiaries of the old contract (the state and the children anticipated to arrive in marriage) and gave devil-may-care license to the subservient beneficiaries (those receiving benefits under state-controlled parameters). It would be like removing any stays on welfare distribution in the states, allowing the recipients to set terms on owning a mansion, six cars and a casino and still "be eligible" to receive state welfare benefits.

Absurd it is. Absurd and illegal. The Infancy Doctrine protects children from contracts with adults that deprive them of psychological necessities. Gay marriage contracts BANISHES children involved from either a father or mother, for life. That is an illegal contract upon its face. The ID says that any contract that contains terms like that involving children isn't merely challengable, it is void before the ink is dry. Ergo, gay marriage is void.

 

[Syriusly]

Walsh: The Gay Couple In The Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Are Vindictive Bullies, Not Victims.

The Supreme Court began hearing arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case today. Ben Shapiro has already provided a helpful refresher on the case, which you can read here. If you’re too lazy to click the link, here are the basic bullet points:

Geoffrey Stone has put together a helpful refresher on the case, which you can read here
Masterpiece Cakeshop: Part II -- Wedding Cakes the First Amendment and the Supreme Court | HuffPost
Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, refused to sell a wedding cake to Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple. Phillips maintains that it would violate his religious faith for him to participate in this manner in a same-sex wedding. He therefore insists that he has a constitutional right to discriminate against Craig and Mullins and that for the state to forbid him to do so would violate his right to the free exercise of religion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

But the story doesn’t end there. Some thirty years later, in Employment Division v. Smith, which was decided in 1990, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a state law that denied unemployment compensation to individuals who had been fired because they had violated the law, including for their use of peyote. Smith was a member of the Native American Church, which has as a part of its religious ritual the use of peyote (in much the same way that other religious use wine). He claimed that, under the principle established in Sherbert, the government could not constitutionally deny him unemployment compensation.

In an opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court, in a five-to-four decision, effectively overruled Sherbert and held that the Free Exercise Clause did not protect Smith’s right to use peyote. Justice Scalia held in no uncertain terms that “an individual’s religious beliefs” do not “excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.”

 

[Syriusly]

It will be interesting to see what the court decides.

If the court agrees with you- of course then anyone can discriminate against Jews or blacks or Mexicans- claiming it is their religious conviction.

Yes. It will be interesting to see the courts discuss the difference between bakers discriminating based on behavior vs doing so about race. Going further, it should be fun to see them finally dissect LGBT etc. as deviant sex addicts. Which is the core of what they are.

Next in opinion I'd like to see a discussion of why polysexuals (polygamists) were omitted from marriage arbitrarily. Because they couldn't have been excluded based on the majority objecting or discriminating....now could they?

Correct, if anyone ever actually took the time to read Marriage Licence laws they would see that there are absolutely zip for what qualifies as a marriage with only arbitrary exceptions.

Those arbitrary exceptions would clearly not withstand a court challenge based on the States Interest in denial of marriage rights.

Well as it stands today, no state can, in the pure interest of Obergefell's judicial-legislation adding brand new protections for deviant sex behaviors to the Constitution, deny polyamorists (polygamists) to marry. You cannot wave a magic wand of discrimination against polygamists when you use a fabricated interpretation of our Constitution's equality-Amendment (14th) to "legalize" other deviant sex behaviors' marriage across the 50 states by power of the 5 Justices who essentially "just said so". A majority-rejected deviant sex behavior practitioner is a majority-rejected deviant sex practitioner. All are welcome under that judicial logic or none are. Who decides which are acceptable and which aren't? 5 Justices on the US Supreme Court? Or the 300 million?

Quite correct

The reason that a couple would wed was because of an obvious historically valid reason. But now, that standard is simply absurd. And since state licence laws make sexual interaction not a requirement, nor love, nor anything that we had historically thought as of reasons to marry, there is only an arbitrary reason to deny members of the same family to marry.

Recent USSC ruling are pretty clear, marriage is simply a financial tool, not much different then forming an S-Corp or LLC.

LOL- and by 'recent USSC ruling' you mean the rulings that you have never actually read.

But you do have a good point- if the State cannot provide a convincing rational on why polygamous marriage should be banned- why should it be?

Clearly you feel that the state can't- so polygamy should be legal.

Myself- I think that State's may be able to make a convincing argument on why polygamous marriage should be illegal- but if the State's can't- then of course they shouldn't be illegal.