Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Grumblenuts]

"Arriving in New England, the Puritans established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in a town they named Boston. Life was hard, but in this stern and unforgiving place they were free to worship as they chose. The Bible was central to their worship. Their church services were simple. The organ and all musical instruments were forbidden. Puritans sang psalms a cappella.

The Puritans were strict Calvinists, or followers of the reformer John Calvin. Calvin taught that God was all-powerful and completely sovereign. Human beings were depraved sinners. God had chosen a few people, "the elect," for salvation. The rest of humanity was condemned to eternal damnation. But no one really knew if he or she was saved or damned; Puritans lived in a constant state of spiritual anxiety, searching for signs of God's favor or anger."

 

[Silhouette]

"Arriving in New England, the Puritans established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in a town they named Boston. Life was hard, but in this stern and unforgiving place they were free to worship as they chose. The Bible was central to their worship. Their church services were simple. The organ and all musical instruments were forbidden...

You're making a "religion is subjective and therefore absurd" argument.

However there are secular arguments against condoning, participating with or promoting a lifestyle group (LGBT unanimous) that takes "pride" in graphic displays of deviant sex acts in front of kids they invite to watch in public down main street. One of those secular arguments is that it's illegal in all 50 states to condone, participate with or promote any such group of people claiming that behavior as endemic to their identity.

As I said and will repeat until it sinks in: try any of those acts on any other day outside a schoolyard at recess without a rainbow flag or armband and watch how fast the cops arrive to slam your ass in jail.

 

[danielpalos]

only sex is deviant to the right wing?

No, sex crimes against kids on public streets is not a situation that can be rendered via a political filter. The laws against child sex crimes apply to all US citizens regardless of any type of affiliation. Including rainbow flags or armbands.

Virgen women were safer in Sodom, than virgin guys.

 

[Silhouette]

But are the children safe?

 

[Grumblenuts]

You're making a "religion is subjective and therefore absurd" argument.

Wow, thanks, who knew? You're trolling, then trolling more.

 

[Silhouette]

You're making a "religion is subjective and therefore absurd" argument.

Wow, thanks, who knew? You're trolling, then trolling more.

No, I'm replying to your post's content in a respectful way with my observations.

You on the other hand replying by saying "Wow, thanks, who knew? You're trolling, then trolling more." is a contentless non-reply meant to at once deflect from the points I made and deliver an insult. Which is the actual definition of "trolling". Your camp isn't above projection. I've noticed that too.

 

[Grumblenuts]

No, I'm replying to your post's content in a respectful way with my observations.

One can't reply to content and no one makes an "argument" simply by posting a quote and a picture. You've repeated yourself enough here. Get a life.

 

[Silhouette]

No, I'm replying to your post's content in a respectful way with my observations.

One can't reply to content and no one makes an "argument" simply by posting a quote and a picture. You've repeated yourself enough here. Get a life.

But you won't address what I've repeated and hence why I repeat it. Serial-ignoring. You are serial-ignoring that as a unanimous culture LGBT embraces "with pride" (defiance) public acts of deviant sex where they invite kids to watch.

Now that's a problem when it comes to forced-promotion of another's ideology. That's the topic of the thread. You won't address the problem And as I've said, try those acts by a schoolyard at recess on any other day without the protection of a cultural parade, rainbow flag or armband and you'll go straight to jail. Your ilk wants to force people of faith to engage with a culture that espouses public acts of sex in front of kids they invite to watch. You're sick.

And that's the point you keep evading and why I have to keep repeating it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[Silhouette]

^^ A form of trolling.

 

[Silhouette]

No, I'm replying to your post's content in a respectful way with my observations.

One can't reply to content and no one makes an "argument" simply by posting a quote and a picture. You've repeated yourself enough here. Get a life.

Gonna answer whether or not the public should be forced to accommodate a lifestyle group that every year across most cities and towns in the US since the 1960s has put on deviant sex act parades where they invite children to watch?

Second question: have you ever heard of a faction of LGBT that has publicly denounced these/their iconic parades? Please point me to a link.

Or keep dodging by being a troll accusing me of trolling?

 

[Grumblenuts]

^^ A troll done formin

#rhetorical
#uonlyfoolinu
#getalife

 

[danielpalos]

But are the children safe?

they should be as safe, as with their own parents.

 

[Silhouette]

But are the children safe?

they should be as safe, as with their own parents.

Not if the parents took them to a LGBT pride parade. Then they are not safe.

 

[Grumblenuts]

See daniel? Feed the troll, just get more of the same exact wet, smelly farts. They live for the attention. That is all.

 

[Silhouette]

See daniel? Feed the troll, just get more of the same exact wet, smelly farts. They live for the attention. That is all.

You're deflecting. I can smell it, speaking of farts. You don't want to talk about gay pride parades inviting kids to watch because then it becomes a conversation about what values LGBTs hold dear. And those values as you well know are illegal. So it shoots your ilk's PA laws all to hell when it becomes obvious that one cannot be forced to break the law under threat of fines etc.

 

[danielpalos]

But are the children safe?

they should be as safe, as with their own parents.

Not if the parents took them to a LGBT pride parade. Then they are not safe.

a public parade?

 

[Silhouette]

Nobody is bound by whatever made up version of a Supreme Court ruling you’re peddling today.

But they are bound by child protective laws. Been to a child-invite gay pride parade (performed every year in cities and towns across the US since the 1960s with literally millions of photos and video reels documenting) mdk? I haven't, but I hear you can google some of the tamer photos just writing "gay pride parade". Warning: adult content (with kids watching in the background).

 

[Flopper]

I still say no law can compel you to condone or support a group in any way who has a proud endemic and advertised habit of supporting/doing deviant sex acts in public where they invite kids to watch & even March along with them.

i try to not take practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, seriously.

But you DO take seriously and support practitioners of deviant sex acts in public where kids are invited to watch and march along. And that's the problem.

Article 4, Section 2, always applied: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Since LGBT just got demoted to behavioral with this USSC Ruling (because we all know the Opinion would've been significantly different if the baker refused the cake because the customers were black), there's a problem with your Article 4, Section 2.

Since LGBT is a repugnant minority behavioral group that somehow (God knows how: Scalia called it "voodoo") "got" special protection from majority rule, what about the rest of them? I mean ANY behavioral group that is repugnant to the majority that self-describes as compulsive ahd habitual? Many are less repugnant than LGBT who takes "pride" in public sex acts where they invite children to watch. For instance, why are polygamists left out in the cold? Does Article 4, Section 2 say "just some get these protections but not others"?

Surely you can see the rats nest the USSC is staring at and why Scalia called Obergefell "voodoo"?

"How can something deviate when there is no norm? No two humans would paint the same painting or write the same poem or compose the same opera, so why would we expect two humans to express their sexuality in the same way?"
William Masters

A minister back in 1822 wrote a manual for the newly married defining deviate sexual acts which include:

• Sexual Intercourse in which the husband does not face his wife.
• Sexual Intercourse in a lighted room.
• Sexual Intercourse that lasts more than 2 minutes.
• Any form of fondling that does not culminate in intercourse.
• Husbands and wives discussing the sex act.
• A Kiss in which husband or wife parts their lips.

 

[Grumblenuts]

But are the children safe?

they should be as safe, as with their own parents.

Not if the parents took them to a LGBT pride parade. Then they are not safe.

a public parade?

Public parade of one celebrating Silhouettes's faux concerns for the chillin':