The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends: bakers must pay 135 K

[koshergrl]

View attachment 44038

Actually, they don't .... my rights give me the ability to hurt your feelings.

No, rights don't confer ability. You have the right to TRY to hurt her feelings. At least you used to, when this was still a free country.

Good point ... but, believe me, I definitely have the ability to hurt her feelings.

I doubt it.

 

[saveliberty]

Meanwhile, back in Colorado, a baker is appealing a lower court ruling...

 

[PoliticalChic]

I shot that picture of you in the wild when you weren't looking, Compadre!!!



BTW, good to hear from you. Hope you are well and prospering.

Lol!

Busy and distracted, sorry I haven't visited the CC lately. I'll put it on my to do list.

Do it, do it!!

You know, once the rubble is cleared away and the dust has settled on these dreadful gay cakes, I may start a truly serious debate on PA laws and religious liberty. Oh, and whether or not the OT is part of Christian dogma or not.

The Hebrew bible has nothing to do mit da goyim, it was given to Jews

You are quite an ignorant fellow, aren't you.
You should only open your mouth to change feet.


The Jews were to be 'a light unto the nations,' so the OT has everything to do with non-Jews.


"I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles,"
Isaiah 42:6

 

[PoliticalChic]

View attachment 44038

Actually, they don't .... my rights give me the ability to hurt your feelings.

No, rights don't confer ability. You have the right to TRY to hurt her feelings. At least you used to, when this was still a free country.

Good point ... but, believe me, I definitely have the ability to hurt her feelings.

Keep it up!

 

[rightwinger]

I don't understand the outrage

At $135 a cake, the baker only needs to bake 100,000 cakes to break even

 

[boedicca]

I don't understand the outrage

At $135 a cake, the baker only needs to bake 100,000 cakes to break even

Of course the concepts of gross and net profit are foreign to you, let alone decency, fair play and liberty.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And as liberals crow with pride about this they miss the fact that these people are being denied two constitutional rights.

Freedom to practice religion and freedom of speech.

Good job. Idiots.

Discrimination is not a religious practice.
You have freedom of speech. In some cases your speech has consequences.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You see that everybody? Unny here thought the foundation of legalized same sex marriage - Obergefell v. Hodges -

was based on the CRA's Public Accommodation Laws.

Is that funny or what?

I realize you are nothing but a Soros Hate Drone, ergo you have no brain.

The basis of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision cannot be Obergefell v. Hodges - you fucking retard.

 

[saveliberty]

I don't understand the outrage

At $135 a cake, the baker only needs to bake 100,000 cakes to break even

They make a $135 wedding cake?

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, the law is as I stated. Just because you feel that the government is persecuting you does not mean that is the case. YOU are not the focus of this law and neither is hurting you. It is to protect. Now, this law applies equally to everyone. Therefore, there is NO religious persecution. If want delusional laws based on your delusional views, you should move to Iran. You would love it there, I'm sure.

Ad Hominem appears the only tool in your belt.

I was not a party to the dispute.

The civil rights of a broad swath of people have been swept away in order to celebrate and promote the sexual choices of others. I support the Bill of Rights and civil rights for all. This case in Oregon denies civil rights to those who do not wish to be forced to violate their religious principles.

Liberty - it's a foreign and hostile concept to the left.

 

[Iceweasel]

And as liberals crow with pride about this they miss the fact that these people are being denied two constitutional rights.

Freedom to practice religion and freedom of speech.

Good job. Idiots.

Discrimination is not a religious practice.
You have freedom of speech. In some cases your speech has consequences.

If you don't discriminate, your religion is worthless. Participating in a celebration you find sinful is a denial of your core beliefs. Where you idiots get confused is you think a relationship is a person with rights.

 

[saveliberty]

I propose all religious based weddings switch to pies. Let them eat cake.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Point is, if you deny them access, you are discriminating against them and breaking the law. I agree that the amount awarded is pretty high, but that is probably because of the blatant disregard for the law exhibited by this couple.

I saw a sign at a steak house "no shirt, no shoes, no service."

What horrible discrimination.

Personally, I discriminate between dog shit and steak - discrimination is a function of intelligence, explaining why leftists are so opposed.

 

[bendog]

And as liberals crow with pride about this they miss the fact that these people are being denied two constitutional rights.

Freedom to practice religion and freedom of speech.

Good job. Idiots.

Discrimination is not a religious practice.
You have freedom of speech. In some cases your speech has consequences.

Ahhhh, but the Christians get skewered there. Paul counseled Christians to have little dealings with those not of the faith. In fact, he pretty much preached a doctrine of socialism within Christian communities. The Amish Mennonites et al. all have some commercial dealings, but unlike the bakers, their goods are not tied to any specific "religious rite."

That's one reason I have difficulty summoning sympathy for the bakers. I knew a Christian family years ago that employed every adult (and some kids) in a commercial printing business. Can't the Christians find an avocation that does not require them to discriminate in order to not offend their oh-so-precious beliefs of who others can marry?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Point is, if you deny them access, you are discriminating against them and breaking the law. I agree that the amount awarded is pretty high, but that is probably because of the blatant disregard for the law exhibited by this couple.

I saw a sign at a steak house "no shirt, no shoes, no service."

What horrible discrimination.

Personally, I discriminate between dog shit and steak - discrimination is a function of intelligence, explaining why leftists are so opposed.

And, rumor has it, they don't give blind people driver's licenses.

Discrimination!!!!!

 

[paperview]

You see that everybody? Unny here thought the foundation of legalized same sex marriage - Obergefell v. Hodges -

was based on the CRA's Public Accommodation Laws.

Is that funny or what?

I realize you are nothing but a Soros Hate Drone, ergo you have no brain.

The basis of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision cannot be Obergefell v. Hodges - you fucking retard.

What the fuck?? Can you read???


YOU said:

Uncensored2008 said: ↑
Actually moron, the Court cited Title II of the Civil Rights act as their foundation.

You thought the foundation of legalized same sex marriage nationwide - Obergefell v. Hodges -

was based on the CRA's Public Accommodation Laws.

Seriously. Are you drunk or something?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You thought the foundation of legalized same sex marriage nationwide - Obergefell v. Hodges -

was based on the CRA's Public Accommodation Laws.

Seriously. Are you drunk or something?

The problem here is that you are severely mentally retarded.

Ask your handlers at the hate sites what this thread is about..

Then consider WHAT court based the decision to fine a bakery on what.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Lol. This is hilarious. Sorry, you don't get special privileges to discriminate because you are a religious person. You just don't.

I do when it has been defined as sin for hundreds of years and it attacks a basic tenet of proper relationships between adults.

Can an interracial marriage also be seen as an improper relationship? Should it be?
If religious exemptions were given for gays, shouldn't it then be given for interracial marriage? Does the exemption only apply to married gays or can it apply to gays in general? If it applies to interracial couples. Can it be used on each individual in the relationship? If you give an exemption to gay marriage, it is very easy to then argue exemptions for other types of discrimination.
Are employers, landlords, other businesses the allowed the exemption as well?
It's a total can of worms.

Religious exemptions would completely defeat the intent of the law.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The PA laws address why you cannot "choose" your customers in the manner you wish to. Grow up.

Does this mean the feds are going to start raiding marijuana sellers in Colorado?

What does that have to do with state PA laws?

If you're going to argue that breaking the law is wrong then the feds ought to be shutting down CO's pot industry, which is contrary to federal law.
Or is that somehow different?

I would say that is a wholly different issue.
The feds aren't coming to shut you down for not baking a cake.

They are comin to shut you down for violating the law.
Tha'ts been the argument from P1 on this thread: The bakers violated the law and ought to pay for it. But citizens selling pot in CO are violating the law too and somehow that's fine.
The hypocrisy is disgusting.

No one is shutting anyone down. They were fined for their actions. The bakers were not the victims. They were the perps.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually eating shellfish isn't an abomination, and never was for the Gentiles. They quote Mosaic ceremonial and dietary laws that were long done away with by the New Covenant. It's hilarious to hang them out in the wind with it

What verse of the Gospels specifically revokes the Mosaic Dietary laws?

Because no one told the Seventh Day Adventists.

Hebrews 8:13

Okay, here's where I'm going to call Shenanigans on you.

First and foremost, I asked "Which VERSE OF THE GOSPELS" revoked the Mosaic Dietary Laws.

Because the epistle of the Hebrews was not written by Jesus and it is doubtful that it was even written by Paul.

By the end of the first century there was not a consensus over the author’s identity. Clement of Rome, Barnabas, the Apostle Paul, and other names were proposed. Others later suggested Luke the Evangelist, Apollos and Priscilla as possible authors.[11]

Though no author is named, the original King James Version of the Bible titled the work "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews". However, the KJV's attribution to Paul was only a guess, and not a very good one according to the majority of recent scholarship.[5] Its vastly different style, different theological focus, different spiritual experience—all are believed to make Paul's authorship of Hebrews increasingly indefensible. At present, neither modern scholarship nor church teaching ascribes Hebrews to Paul.


Where did JESUS himself say, "Yeah, that stuff my Dad said about the Shrimp, that's totally not valid anymore."

Furthermore, let's look at what that verse actually says...

8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Okay, then He really doesn't say anything specific about any specific laws.

Now, if you want to go to the Gospel.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18).

wow. That sounds pretty clear to me. Sounds to me the ban on Shrimp Eating is just as Iron-Clad as the rules on Slavery, Witch-Burning and Homosexuality.

The only difference is, "Christians" claim those rules (except for the ones on the gays) are no longer binding, even though nothing in the bible overturns any of them.

Not Jesus.
Not Paul
Not some guy pretending to be Paul.

You and your little friend are getting annoying, you two don't understand the Bible, neither of you knew the difference between Covenants and Testaments, you don't know what moral, ceremonial and Mosaic laws are and you're posting crap I have no intention of wading through. I take neither of you serious because you failed out of the gate, learn what you profess to know and then comment.

You obviously know neither the 613 mosaic laws, 7 of which are noahidic. And nowhere does a covenant supplant a law. As a matter of fact, most covenants enshrined the law even further. Poor you.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You're not embarassed that a Roman Catholic knows the Torah better than you do? Because what you write is total crap, on a par with "mitzvoteem."