Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He did not request a "traditional wedding cake" , did he?This evangelist asked a gay bakery to make a traditional marriage cake. Now he may face charges. News LifeSite
Tolerance,Equality all lies from the cultural marxists. What they want is FORCED acceptance at point of a gun if need be.
A traditional wedding cake does not sport political messages.
Now, I ask all the anti-American Gay Haters: what do you suppose a wedding cake looks like?
If you had a real argument you would not have to use the term sexual deviant. But if that term make you feel superior, go ahead and use it. It shows your ignorance. Aside from that, the fake Christian making the prank call hasn't kept up with the news on this topic or he would have known that the baker was perfectly within her rights to refuse to write something she did not want to write. She was aware of her free speech rights and the dopey internet fraudulent minister was not. Why is that so complicated to you. The goof ball was trying to get the bakery to refuse to do something they had a legal right to refuse.The thread title is a lie. A traditional wedding cake is not what was requested. An agenda cake was requested. The patron could have ordered a traditional cake and written whatever he wanted on it. A cake that required writing on it was being demanded. Specifically, religious and political opinions and viewpoints. That would violate the bakers 1st Amendment right to free speech. You can not force a person to say or write something against their will. Free speech is not an abstract constitutional right.As I tried to explain in some of the other threads, the Christian business owners were not discriminating against PEOPLE based on sexual orientation. They were discriminating against the product or service based on the implied approval of same sex marriage. This is the same thing that is occuring with the pro-gay bakeries refusing to make cakes with anti-gay messages. A business should not be forced to provide a product or service that the owners find morally objectionable. Not only is it a freedom of religion issue, it is a freedom of speech issue. Both covered by the 1st ammendment.
The goal was not to get the sexual deviant to write what it felt was wrong... the goal was to get the sexual deviant to refuse to do so, declaring her right to refuse.
Which it did... thus proving the idiocy behind the judicial decisions which upheld as a right, the means of the sexually deviant to force Christians into servitude.
No. False.You are correct about the title. It was not a traditional wedding cake.The thread title is a lie. A traditional wedding cake is not what was requested. An agenda cake was requested. The patron could have ordered a traditional cake and written whatever her wanted on it. A cake that required writing on it was being demanded. Specifically, religious and political opinions and viewpoints. That would violate the bakers 1st Amendment right to free speech. You can not force a person to say or write something against their will. Free speech is not an abstract constitutional right.As I tried to explain in some of the other threads, the Christian business owners were not discriminating against PEOPLE based on sexual orientation. They were discriminating against the product or service based on the implied approval of same sex marriage. This is the same thing that is occuring with the pro-gay bakeries refusing to make cakes with anti-gay messages. A business should not be forced to provide a product or service that the owners find morally objectionable. Not only is it a freedom of religion issue, it is a freedom of speech issue. Both covered by the 1st ammendment.
However, a cake with figures for a same sex couple is also not decorated as traditional wedding. Free speech includes much more than the writen or spoken word.
Apparently, in some parts of the country, business owners can be forced to say things through artistic work or symbols against their will or suffer the consequences.
No. The anti-Americans support second class citizenship for those they mistakenly view as "icky".He did not request a "traditional wedding cake" , did he?This evangelist asked a gay bakery to make a traditional marriage cake. Now he may face charges. News LifeSite
Tolerance,Equality all lies from the cultural marxists. What they want is FORCED acceptance at point of a gun if need be.
A traditional wedding cake does not sport political messages.
Now, I ask all the anti-American Gay Haters: what do you suppose a wedding cake looks like?
The Anti-Americans strongly support sexual deviancy... and the sexual deviants who practice the aforementioned delusion.
Same here. I wish, since these are probably 100% traceable, that the authorities would prosecute a few....maybe nip it in the bud.Death threats, unfortunately, are now a dime a dozen with the social media the way it is. Don't like it coming from either side, but it's certainly a trend.More...
"In Feurstien’s case, he’s breaking two laws by advocating another. In the following video, he identifies Haller and her establishment by name and tells viewers to call her to see what discrimination looks like.
https:///www.facebook.com/video.php?v=595710657198287
First, he recorded a phone call without the other party’s knowledge, an act that is prohibited by law in Florida. Next, he invites his many subscribers to call Cut the Cake to experience firsthand the discrimination he’s fighting against. As a result, the bakery has lost business. It could be argued that his video, which resulted in death threats, false negative reviews and fake orders is tortious interference with economic expectation. The bakery closed for a few days due to these acts by Feurstein’s viewers. The FBI is involved too, as the illegal recording of the call is a third degree felony in Florida punishable by up to five years in prison.
Nothing says 'Christian' like making death threats.......
The reality is any idiot can make an anonymous death threat.
And then that idiot is immediately held out to be representative of every Homosexual/Christian/Democrat/Rebublican/Liberal/Conservative and other idiots then start attacking all Homosexual/Christian/Democrat/Rebublican/Liberal/Conservative for 'making death threats'.
I condemn anyone who makes death threats- not the entire tribe that the caller actually or pretends to be part of.
Yes, it is true. Otherwise there would not be a multitude of threads on his site debating this topic.No. False.You are correct about the title. It was not a traditional wedding cake.The thread title is a lie. A traditional wedding cake is not what was requested. An agenda cake was requested. The patron could have ordered a traditional cake and written whatever her wanted on it. A cake that required writing on it was being demanded. Specifically, religious and political opinions and viewpoints. That would violate the bakers 1st Amendment right to free speech. You can not force a person to say or write something against their will. Free speech is not an abstract constitutional right.As I tried to explain in some of the other threads, the Christian business owners were not discriminating against PEOPLE based on sexual orientation. They were discriminating against the product or service based on the implied approval of same sex marriage. This is the same thing that is occuring with the pro-gay bakeries refusing to make cakes with anti-gay messages. A business should not be forced to provide a product or service that the owners find morally objectionable. Not only is it a freedom of religion issue, it is a freedom of speech issue. Both covered by the 1st ammendment.
However, a cake with figures for a same sex couple is also not decorated as traditional wedding. Free speech includes much more than the writen or spoken word.
Apparently, in some parts of the country, business owners can be forced to say things through artistic work or symbols against their will or suffer the consequences.
Just like Conservatives and straights get caught lying all the time.I doubt they're getting death threats, the media and the queers lie about (and get caught lying) that all the time.
No. The anti-Americans support second class citizenship for those they mistakenly view as "icky".He did not request a "traditional wedding cake" , did he?This evangelist asked a gay bakery to make a traditional marriage cake. Now he may face charges. News LifeSite
Tolerance,Equality all lies from the cultural marxists. What they want is FORCED acceptance at point of a gun if need be.
A traditional wedding cake does not sport political messages.
Now, I ask all the anti-American Gay Haters: what do you suppose a wedding cake looks like?
The Anti-Americans strongly support sexual deviancy... and the sexual deviants who practice the aforementioned delusion.
This evangelist asked a gay bakery to make a traditional marriage cake. Now he may face charges. News LifeSite
Tolerance,Equality all lies from the cultural marxists. What they want is FORCED acceptance at point of a gun if need be.
Yes, he may face charges. But I notice you avoid saying WHY he will face charges. It has nothing to do with baking a cake or homosexuality. It has to do with illegally recording a conversation and making that conversation public.
Typical of you to lie to try and make some point.
Yeah, the twit broke laws, and the baker (who I don't believe is gay, just gay-friendly) - well she fears for her life now, after what that jackass turdbit did.
So it's ok to break the law and illegally record someone without their permission? OR only if you are a Christian?This evangelist asked a gay bakery to make a traditional marriage cake. Now he may face charges. News LifeSite
Tolerance,Equality all lies from the cultural marxists. What they want is FORCED acceptance at point of a gun if need be.
1. I didn't lie. The article states why he MIGHT be charged
2. ONLY because he is a christian and is for real marriage is it even being brought up about charges
3. You scum saw no problem when the domestic terrorists shut down Memories.
4. Kiss my ass.
No, there are a multitude of posters who don't understand the issue.Yes, it is true. Otherwise there would not be a multitude of threads on his site debating this topic.No. False.You are correct about the title. It was not a traditional wedding cake.The thread title is a lie. A traditional wedding cake is not what was requested. An agenda cake was requested. The patron could have ordered a traditional cake and written whatever her wanted on it. A cake that required writing on it was being demanded. Specifically, religious and political opinions and viewpoints. That would violate the bakers 1st Amendment right to free speech. You can not force a person to say or write something against their will. Free speech is not an abstract constitutional right.As I tried to explain in some of the other threads, the Christian business owners were not discriminating against PEOPLE based on sexual orientation. They were discriminating against the product or service based on the implied approval of same sex marriage. This is the same thing that is occuring with the pro-gay bakeries refusing to make cakes with anti-gay messages. A business should not be forced to provide a product or service that the owners find morally objectionable. Not only is it a freedom of religion issue, it is a freedom of speech issue. Both covered by the 1st ammendment.
However, a cake with figures for a same sex couple is also not decorated as traditional wedding. Free speech includes much more than the writen or spoken word.
Apparently, in some parts of the country, business owners can be forced to say things through artistic work or symbols against their will or suffer the consequences.
anYou are correct about the title. It was not a traditional wedding cake.The thread title is a lie. A traditional wedding cake is not what was requested. An agenda cake was requested. The patron could have ordered a traditional cake and written whatever her wanted on it. A cake that required writing on it was being demanded. Specifically, religious and political opinions and viewpoints. That would violate the bakers 1st Amendment right to free speech. You can not force a person to say or write something against their will. Free speech is not an abstract constitutional right.As I tried to explain in some of the other threads, the Christian business owners were not discriminating against PEOPLE based on sexual orientation. They were discriminating against the product or service based on the implied approval of same sex marriage. This is the same thing that is occuring with the pro-gay bakeries refusing to make cakes with anti-gay messages. A business should not be forced to provide a product or service that the owners find morally objectionable. Not only is it a freedom of religion issue, it is a freedom of speech issue. Both covered by the 1st ammendment.
However, a cake with figures for a same sex couple is also not decorated as traditional wedding. Free speech includes much more than the writen or spoken word.
Apparently, in some parts of the country, business owners can be forced to say things through artistic work or symbols against their will or suffer the consequences.
No, bakers are figuring out how deal with the laws and traps. Remember the gay baker in Colorado that won the case by offering a bag of icing and the tool used for writing on the cake. Same thing can be done with figurines. "Here" says the baker, "Put 'em on yerself".Yes, it is true. Otherwise there would not be a multitude of threads on his site debating this topic.No. False.You are correct about the title. It was not a traditional wedding cake.The thread title is a lie. A traditional wedding cake is not what was requested. An agenda cake was requested. The patron could have ordered a traditional cake and written whatever her wanted on it. A cake that required writing on it was being demanded. Specifically, religious and political opinions and viewpoints. That would violate the bakers 1st Amendment right to free speech. You can not force a person to say or write something against their will. Free speech is not an abstract constitutional right.As I tried to explain in some of the other threads, the Christian business owners were not discriminating against PEOPLE based on sexual orientation. They were discriminating against the product or service based on the implied approval of same sex marriage. This is the same thing that is occuring with the pro-gay bakeries refusing to make cakes with anti-gay messages. A business should not be forced to provide a product or service that the owners find morally objectionable. Not only is it a freedom of religion issue, it is a freedom of speech issue. Both covered by the 1st ammendment.
However, a cake with figures for a same sex couple is also not decorated as traditional wedding. Free speech includes much more than the writen or spoken word.
Apparently, in some parts of the country, business owners can be forced to say things through artistic work or symbols against their will or suffer the consequences.
Just like Conservatives and straights get caught lying all the time.I doubt they're getting death threats, the media and the queers lie about (and get caught lying) that all the time.
Hopefully when you find your keys your mind and a dose of Jackass Cure All will be with them.If you had a real argument you would not have to use the term sexual deviant.
ROFLMNAO!
I just ADORE the sweeter ironies.
(The Reader should recognize that the above cited 'contributor' is demanding that the words which accurately describe the circumstances, in real, thus truthful terms... as a means to mislead YOU... the reader, into believing that something which is FALSE, is true. Preferring to 'believe' that such deceit represents a 'real argument'.)
They probably worship O'Keefe too.Before y'all line up behind this jerk, Joshua Feuerstein, you just might want to visit your local Google ...
Looks like he might be the thumper version of lil Jimmy O'Keefe.
Gotta love the Internet, where everyone can be famous, everyone can have a voice, everyone's asshole opinion is just so terribly valuable.
We need a yawn emoticon.
No, there are a multitude of posters who don't understand the issue.Yes, it is true. Otherwise there would not be a multitude of threads on his site debating this topic.No. False.You are correct about the title. It was not a traditional wedding cake.The thread title is a lie. A traditional wedding cake is not what was requested. An agenda cake was requested. The patron could have ordered a traditional cake and written whatever her wanted on it. A cake that required writing on it was being demanded. Specifically, religious and political opinions and viewpoints. That would violate the bakers 1st Amendment right to free speech. You can not force a person to say or write something against their will. Free speech is not an abstract constitutional right.As I tried to explain in some of the other threads, the Christian business owners were not discriminating against PEOPLE based on sexual orientation. They were discriminating against the product or service based on the implied approval of same sex marriage. This is the same thing that is occuring with the pro-gay bakeries refusing to make cakes with anti-gay messages. A business should not be forced to provide a product or service that the owners find morally objectionable. Not only is it a freedom of religion issue, it is a freedom of speech issue. Both covered by the 1st ammendment.
However, a cake with figures for a same sex couple is also not decorated as traditional wedding. Free speech includes much more than the writen or spoken word.
Apparently, in some parts of the country, business owners can be forced to say things through artistic work or symbols against their will or suffer the consequences.
An agenda cake is not the same thing as someone making a basic cake - which is what the discussion of the actual cases adjudicated revolves around.
Not the messages on a cake / and the baker does not have to provide "toppers" if they do not have them (not many people have those stupid 'toppers' these days anyway.)
A baker does not have to write messages he or she does not agree with. That's been ruled on in Colorado.
Hopefully when you find your keys your mind and a dose of Jackass Cure All will be with them.If you had a real argument you would not have to use the term sexual deviant.
ROFLMNAO!
I just ADORE the sweeter ironies.
(The Reader should recognize that the above cited 'contributor' is demanding that the words which accurately describe the circumstances, in real, thus truthful terms... as a means to mislead YOU... the reader, into believing that something which is FALSE, is true. Preferring to 'believe' that such deceit represents a 'real argument'.)
If you had a real argument you would not have to use the term sexual deviant.
Certainly you don't get to decide...
LOL!
Now isn't that PRECIOUS?
It's not a 'decision', scamp. It's a FACT, of the INCONTROVERTIBLE VARIETY!
But how cool is it that you feel that if the APA board voted to alter the public record to present you as being 7' 2" tall, who runs the 40 in 3.8 seconds that YOU WOULD ACTUALLY BE THAT TALL AND THAT FAST!
Ya see scamp, in reality, ... you are neither. And that will remain a fact no matter what anyone says to the contrary.
(The Reader should know that the APA altered the CSM without a shred of medical science as the basis of their vote to remove homosexuality from any association with mental disorder. That vote was a fraud and remains to this day absolutely and totally medically vacuous. It's a lie, advanced by fraudulent means; wherein it lends the appearance of science, toward the goal of deceiving the ignorant.)
What day is inclusive day for you assholes? Seems like every day of the year except when you actually have to be "inclusive" then those days don't count. You fucking people went after the pizza place over the holy week heading into Easter and you think I should give a fuck about April Fools day? You're an idiot.They certainly aren't "inclusive" are they. Isn't this whole cluster fuck all about forcing business owners to be "inclusive" and fair? NO H8!!! Right?Funny. that's exactly what we told you assholes to do when this first started getting under way. I specifically warned that the other side was going to start playing the same games if the gaystapo didn't just STFU and go get a cake somewhere else. But no, they weren't going to have that. It was going to be force others or nothing. Well guess what. it may be nothing now. You a-holes shit in this bed, take a nice long nap.Please. Just stop.
Oh, and another thing. I was never for business owners being sent nasty messages and threatened but after the pizza fiasco fuck you. I want to see a few gay business people shut down. Remember how you (I believe it was you, but your side anyway) claimed anyone not willing to make a gay cake should just go out of business? Yeah, let's both play that game now eh? This is the fascism you wanted is it not?
Who said this is a 'gay business'?
There isn't any particular indication that the owner is gay. Or that the business is.
And if you're going to try and make a point about the application of discrimination, April Fools day may not be the best day to make your calls.
