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

[Bob Blaylock]

No, the irony is that you seem to think that "freedom from discrimination by individuals" is listed ANYWHERE in the Constitution, as freedom of religion is.

And if you want to talk about "honoring freedom" in one corner by demanding that people be forced to do things that suit you, you're not even ironic. You're hypocritical and fascistic.

In fact, freedom of association is very strongly implied by the First Amendment, as a logical extension of other freedoms explicitly mentioned and protected. It rather destroys the left wrong-wing version of “freedom from discrimination”. Freedom of association is, by definition, freedom to discriminate—to choose with whom one will or wil not associate or do any kind of business.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Look people, I say a lot of controversial stuff, in an attempt to drive the conversation to it's logical conclusion... But I honestly would not care about fags getting "married" if they were not promoting the filth to kids. It shows that the radical faggot movent knows they are not born that way. If you wanted to simply teach tolerance, not to violently attack or treat homosexuals bad in public places...be humble, kind, etc... I can support that.

But the faggots won't stop being militant, so I have to be militant against their movement. The Fags are the aggressors on society...not those of us who oppose normalizing their behaviors. This country was not founded by homos.

Pushing their filth on kids, and also forcing decent people in business to play along with their sick perversions.

I can remember when their cry was “Don't force your morality on me.” All that they wanted, or so they claimed, was to be allowed to practice their sick, disgusting perversions in peace and privacy. We can see now that that was a lie. What they really wanted, what they are claiming now, is the “right” to force their immorality on everyone else, including children. It's what happens when you try to compromise with evil.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Bill of Rights, which the states insisted on before they would ratify the Constitution, STATES that all men are created equal.

Where does it say that in the Bill of Rights? Which of the ten Amendments ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights says any such thing? I'll even let you include the First Article, which was never ratified, and the Second Article, which wasn't ratified until more than two hundred years later, and is now the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.

 

[OldLady]

The Bill of Rights, which the states insisted on before they would ratify the Constitution, STATES that all men are created equal.

Where does it say that in the Bill of Rights? Which of the ten Amendments ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights says any such thing? I'll even let you include the First Article, which was never ratified, and the Second Article, which wasn't ratified until more than two hundred years later, and is now the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.

I have already been corrected, smarty pants.

 

[rightwinger]

SCOTUS decided 50 years ago

The men who wrote our Constitution decided more than 225 years ago. The Supreme Court has no legitimate authority—though it has illegally usurped the power—to override the Constitution.

Who do you think formed the Supreme Court?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Judging another as immoral and indecent is not "live and let live." Never mind; the concept apparently is way over your head.
Never judge a man 'til you've walked a mile in his shoes.
In this case you can't walk in his shoes, so you don't judge.

That's just sociopathy.

There is such a thing as good and evil, right and wrong, and it is incumbent on us all to know and judge the difference.

It is, at best, hypocritical of you to judge me for judging, and it is certainly not within any rational version of “live and let live” to deny me that judgement with respect to what I will or will not participate in, in order to force me to participate in that which I judge to be immoral.

 

[OldLady]

SCOTUS decided 50 years ago

The men who wrote our Constitution decided more than 225 years ago. The Supreme Court has no legitimate authority—though it has illegally usurped the power—to override the Constitution.

Who do you think formed the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court is fine and all important as long as conservative justices are being appointed. It's only when they make decisions these bigots don't like that they don't deserve any power.

 

[OldLady]

Judging another as immoral and indecent is not "live and let live." Never mind; the concept apparently is way over your head.
Never judge a man 'til you've walked a mile in his shoes.
In this case you can't walk in his shoes, so you don't judge.

That's just sociopathy.

There is such a thing as good and evil, right and wrong, and it is incumbent on us all to know and judge the difference.

It is, at best, hypocritical of you to judge me for judging, and it is certainly not within any rational version of “live and let live” to deny me that judgement with respect to what I will or will not participate in, in order to force me to participate in that which I judge to be immoral.

If you're going to get all holy about it, I believe we were taught that it is God's place to judge, not yours.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Freedom of religion will trump faggotry. Watch.

You honestly can't see the irony in that statement, can you?

There's no irony in it. Faggotry was punishable by death in many places here when the constitution was written. It was never meant to support or promote faggotry. I think it's hilarious that you don't understand that and follow a revisionist line.

The whole concept of freedom of religion is the concept of individual freedom to live and practice your beliefs unfettered. The irony is that that same concept applies to freedom from discrimination as a homosexual. Individual freedom is individual freedom. Honor it in one corner, honor it in all.

It's about a marketplace that treats all customers equally

That's not the government's business.
If you don't like how a business operates, don't go there.

I'm afraid that is EXACTLY governments business

If you can't treat all customers equally, you do not belong in business

The only good business is between a willing buyer and a willing seller.

We don't serve negroes here was abandoned 50 years ago

That should have been declared unconstitutional. Possession of property is an inalienable right.

We got rid of that kind of people in Jasper, Missouri fifty years ago.

 

[Lysistrata]

You have to treat people in business as equals. You can believe religiously in faith, but you can treat people in the business secular world no differently than those who believe like you.

Did you feel the same with Tebow?

Whose rights did he violate?

No bodies, but the NFL didn't like him kneeling to pray to thank God after every touch down.

Why would he do this? We all have beliefs. But why the Tebow show? What's his big deal? What has he to flaunt in public? If he has something urgent to talk to the Supreme Being about, just why doesn't he just freakin' do it? Or is this Mister Broadway.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Who do you think formed the Supreme Court?

When did you find judicial review in Article III of the Constititution?

 

[Syriusly]

Freedom of religion will trump faggotry. Watch.

You honestly can't see the irony in that statement, can you?

There's no irony in it. Faggotry was punishable by death in many places here when the constitution was written. It was never meant to support or promote faggotry. I think it's hilarious that you don't understand that and follow a revisionist line.

No irony coming from the guy who supports the murder and torture of 'socialists'

 

[Syriusly]

Judging another as immoral and indecent is not "live and let live." Never mind; the concept apparently is way over your head.
Never judge a man 'til you've walked a mile in his shoes.
In this case you can't walk in his shoes, so you don't judge.

That's just sociopathy.l.

Everything you post is just sociopathy.

 

[Syriusly]

You can call me anything you like, but if you could come closer to reality, it might bolster your argument a little more.
The Bill of Rights, which the states insisted on before they would ratify the Constitution, STATES that all men are created equal.
Think about it. It doesn't say that some men deserve to have their lifestyle denigrated and discriminated against, or that only some men are equal. It doesn't mention homosexuality ANYWHERE. All men are equal before the law.
So treat them equally and uphold the laws for all; even if you believe that the other guy is sinning, before the law he is equal and will be treated as such.

Technically, equal by God's gift in sight of God and Law. I won't bother you about it in detail because I know you mean well.

Technically equal because it is 'self evident'

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,

The Constitution of course made that law.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The reason why LGBT wedding cakes cost so much more is because of all the secret ingredients.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Forcing people to do things that are against their faith is a violation of their 1st Amendment Rights and highly intolerant.
Left Wingers are azzzzzzhoooooles

 

[Wry Catcher]

Its about treating people as equals. Kind of like Treating blacks as equal before.

Fags aren't my equal.

Do you take pride in your bigotry? People who hate other people they do not know, choose to suppress the rights of those who are different. The one exception is homophobia, a condition usually a result of:

1. Persons who have experimented (gay curious) and enjoyed the experience and thus hate themselves for it;
2. Or, were molested at a young age and hate themselves for enjoying it.

Which one are you?

 

[tycho1572]

Posting a sign seems like a simple solution. “This business is run by a Christian family”.

Seems simple enough to me.

 

[Silhouette]

Posting a sign seems like a simple solution. “This business is run by a Christian family”.

Seems simple enough to me.

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

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

 

[tycho1572]

Posting a sign seems like a simple solution. “This business is run by a Christian family”.

Seems simple enough to me.

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

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

I have no doubt about that.