Winning! Supreme Court Tosses Ruling Against Christian Bakers Who Refused Cake For Gay Couple

[Leo123]

Weddings are traditionally between a man and a woman. Gay weddings are aberrant. I see no need to extend any special rights for such aberrant behavior. We TOLERATE benign aberrant behavior as "odd" or "kinky" or "abnormal." But we are not obliged to accept being coerced into pretending that behavior as normal in the course of human society. Before you knee-jerk radicals descend on me, I am not advocating any kind of hate or violence toward gay folks, they are unfortunately handicapped mentally. They need help.

I don't care what you accept. You just can't enjoy the benefits of incorporation which gay taxes go to support and not treat everyone equally. Hypocrites.

Go ask Donald about the socialist benefits f incorporation

You 'don't care'......That says a lot about your own hatred of those you disagree with. Gays are obliged to pay taxes the same as any other sexual fetishist. Why is their fetish somehow deserving of 'special rights?'

What special rights? The only special rights here is the religious nuts trying to use our secular law to leave gay law-abiding, tax-paying citizens out of equal protection.....all while getting tax-exempt status.

Gays have no special right to force anyone to serve them.

 

[bodecea]

Weddings are traditionally between a man and a woman. Gay weddings are aberrant. I see no need to extend any special rights for such aberrant behavior. We TOLERATE benign aberrant behavior as "odd" or "kinky" or "abnormal." But we are not obliged to accept being coerced into pretending that behavior as normal in the course of human society. Before you knee-jerk radicals descend on me, I am not advocating any kind of hate or violence toward gay folks, they are unfortunately handicapped mentally. They need help.

So...what are your reasons to ignore the 14th Amendment when it comes to your fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizens? And if you have forgotten what part of the 14th Amendment I am referring to, this part: 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.

There was no protection denied skippy. Those gay folks were free to go somewhere else. Seems to me the gay folks wanted to DENY the baker his religious freedom. SCOTUS agrees apparently. You are the outlier here.

The state gives out civil marriage licenses with over 1000 protections and benefits for those who marry. You want to deny that to gay law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. That is against the 14th Amendment.

 

[bodecea]

Weddings are traditionally between a man and a woman. Gay weddings are aberrant. I see no need to extend any special rights for such aberrant behavior. We TOLERATE benign aberrant behavior as "odd" or "kinky" or "abnormal." But we are not obliged to accept being coerced into pretending that behavior as normal in the course of human society. Before you knee-jerk radicals descend on me, I am not advocating any kind of hate or violence toward gay folks, they are unfortunately handicapped mentally. They need help.

I don't care what you accept. You just can't enjoy the benefits of incorporation which gay taxes go to support and not treat everyone equally. Hypocrites.

Go ask Donald about the socialist benefits f incorporation

You 'don't care'......That says a lot about your own hatred of those you disagree with. Gays are obliged to pay taxes the same as any other sexual fetishist. Why is their fetish somehow deserving of 'special rights?'

What special rights? The only special rights here is the religious nuts trying to use our secular law to leave gay law-abiding, tax-paying citizens out of equal protection.....all while getting tax-exempt status.

Gays have no special right to force anyone to serve them.

So the only ones with special rights are those who come up with a story about "deeply held" religious beliefs?

 

[daveman]

Weddings are traditionally between a man and a woman. Gay weddings are aberrant. I see no need to extend any special rights for such aberrant behavior. We TOLERATE benign aberrant behavior as "odd" or "kinky" or "abnormal." But we are not obliged to accept being coerced into pretending that behavior as normal in the course of human society. Before you knee-jerk radicals descend on me, I am not advocating any kind of hate or violence toward gay folks, they are unfortunately handicapped mentally. They need help.

I don't care what you accept. You just can't enjoy the benefits of incorporation which gay taxes go to support and not treat everyone equally. Hypocrites.

Go ask Donald about the socialist benefits f incorporation

You 'don't care'......That says a lot about your own hatred of those you disagree with. Gays are obliged to pay taxes the same as any other sexual fetishist. Why is their fetish somehow deserving of 'special rights?'

What special rights? The only special rights here is the religious nuts trying to use our secular law to leave gay law-abiding, tax-paying citizens out of equal protection.....all while getting tax-exempt status.

A bakery owned by Christians is tax-exempt?

 

[bodecea]

Weddings are traditionally between a man and a woman. Gay weddings are aberrant. I see no need to extend any special rights for such aberrant behavior. We TOLERATE benign aberrant behavior as "odd" or "kinky" or "abnormal." But we are not obliged to accept being coerced into pretending that behavior as normal in the course of human society. Before you knee-jerk radicals descend on me, I am not advocating any kind of hate or violence toward gay folks, they are unfortunately handicapped mentally. They need help.

I don't care what you accept. You just can't enjoy the benefits of incorporation which gay taxes go to support and not treat everyone equally. Hypocrites.

Go ask Donald about the socialist benefits f incorporation

You 'don't care'......That says a lot about your own hatred of those you disagree with. Gays are obliged to pay taxes the same as any other sexual fetishist. Why is their fetish somehow deserving of 'special rights?'

What special rights? The only special rights here is the religious nuts trying to use our secular law to leave gay law-abiding, tax-paying citizens out of equal protection.....all while getting tax-exempt status.

A bakery owned by Christians is tax-exempt?

No...but christian churches are....special rights.

 

[Leo123]

Weddings are traditionally between a man and a woman. Gay weddings are aberrant. I see no need to extend any special rights for such aberrant behavior. We TOLERATE benign aberrant behavior as "odd" or "kinky" or "abnormal." But we are not obliged to accept being coerced into pretending that behavior as normal in the course of human society. Before you knee-jerk radicals descend on me, I am not advocating any kind of hate or violence toward gay folks, they are unfortunately handicapped mentally. They need help.

So...what are your reasons to ignore the 14th Amendment when it comes to your fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizens? And if you have forgotten what part of the 14th Amendment I am referring to, this part: 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.

There was no protection denied skippy. Those gay folks were free to go somewhere else. Seems to me the gay folks wanted to DENY the baker his religious freedom. SCOTUS agrees apparently. You are the outlier here.

The state gives out civil marriage licenses with over 1000 protections and benefits for those who marry. You want to deny that to gay law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. That is against the 14th Amendment.

The 14th mentions privileges not rights.

 

[bodecea]

Weddings are traditionally between a man and a woman. Gay weddings are aberrant. I see no need to extend any special rights for such aberrant behavior. We TOLERATE benign aberrant behavior as "odd" or "kinky" or "abnormal." But we are not obliged to accept being coerced into pretending that behavior as normal in the course of human society. Before you knee-jerk radicals descend on me, I am not advocating any kind of hate or violence toward gay folks, they are unfortunately handicapped mentally. They need help.

So...what are your reasons to ignore the 14th Amendment when it comes to your fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizens? And if you have forgotten what part of the 14th Amendment I am referring to, this part: 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.

There was no protection denied skippy. Those gay folks were free to go somewhere else. Seems to me the gay folks wanted to DENY the baker his religious freedom. SCOTUS agrees apparently. You are the outlier here.

The state gives out civil marriage licenses with over 1000 protections and benefits for those who marry. You want to deny that to gay law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. That is against the 14th Amendment.

The 14th mentions privileges not rights.

The 14th very clearly says that the state cannot 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. Hardly privileges. If the state provides marriage licenses to a certain group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, it cannot deny the same equal protection of its laws to another law-abiding, tax-paying group.

 

[daveman]

Weddings are traditionally between a man and a woman. Gay weddings are aberrant. I see no need to extend any special rights for such aberrant behavior. We TOLERATE benign aberrant behavior as "odd" or "kinky" or "abnormal." But we are not obliged to accept being coerced into pretending that behavior as normal in the course of human society. Before you knee-jerk radicals descend on me, I am not advocating any kind of hate or violence toward gay folks, they are unfortunately handicapped mentally. They need help.

I don't care what you accept. You just can't enjoy the benefits of incorporation which gay taxes go to support and not treat everyone equally. Hypocrites.

Go ask Donald about the socialist benefits f incorporation

You 'don't care'......That says a lot about your own hatred of those you disagree with. Gays are obliged to pay taxes the same as any other sexual fetishist. Why is their fetish somehow deserving of 'special rights?'

What special rights? The only special rights here is the religious nuts trying to use our secular law to leave gay law-abiding, tax-paying citizens out of equal protection.....all while getting tax-exempt status.

A bakery owned by Christians is tax-exempt?

No...but christian churches are....special rights.

So...only Christian churches are tax-exempt? Muslim, Buddhist, and Scientologist houses of worship pay taxes?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The gays are melting down on Twitter because two high school kids took a video of them burning a fag flag and uploaded it.

Priceless like that rag is somehow immune from burning

 

[Wry Catcher]

We have God to thank. Hopefully this will put an end to this harassment by Satan's disciples, aka Homosexuals.

Supreme Court Tosses Ruling Against Christian Bakers Who Refused Cake For Gay Couple

Yeah, now Trump can stage an event to give the bigot the Medal of Freedom.

 

[Leo123]

The 14th very clearly says that the state cannot 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. Hardly privileges. If the state provides marriage licenses to a certain group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, it cannot deny the same equal protection of its laws to another law-abiding, tax-paying group.

No, the decision has to do with religious freedom that was denied to Aaron and Melissa by a 'state body.' It was NOT about any 'rights' the gay couple were entitled to. In fact, according to the 14th the gay couple was NOT denied equal protection as they could always go somewhere else.

 

[Leo123]

Yeah, now Trump can stage an event to give the bigot the Medal of Freedom.

Good idea!! And NO, the Baker is not a 'bigot.'

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yeah, now Trump can stage an event to give the bigot the Medal of Freedom.

Good idea!! And NO, the Baker is not a 'bigot.'

He's not? What is he then? A tolerant gentleman he ain't.

 

[bodecea]

I don't care what you accept. You just can't enjoy the benefits of incorporation which gay taxes go to support and not treat everyone equally. Hypocrites.

Go ask Donald about the socialist benefits f incorporation

You 'don't care'......That says a lot about your own hatred of those you disagree with. Gays are obliged to pay taxes the same as any other sexual fetishist. Why is their fetish somehow deserving of 'special rights?'

What special rights? The only special rights here is the religious nuts trying to use our secular law to leave gay law-abiding, tax-paying citizens out of equal protection.....all while getting tax-exempt status.

A bakery owned by Christians is tax-exempt?

No...but christian churches are....special rights.

So...only Christian churches are tax-exempt? Muslim, Buddhist, and Scientologist houses of worship pay taxes?

Yes, them also....religion has special rights.

 

[bodecea]

The gays are melting down on Twitter because two high school kids took a video of them burning a fag flag and uploaded it.

Priceless like that rag is somehow immune from burning

Meh....as long as they bought the flag and weren't a couple of thieves like we see from CRCs a lot.

 

[Deno]

We have God to thank. Hopefully this will put an end to this harassment by Satan's disciples, aka Homosexuals.

Supreme Court Tosses Ruling Against Christian Bakers Who Refused Cake For Gay Couple

Trump is stacking the courts.....

No wonder the Tards hate him so bad....

He plays their game better than they do while

making fools of them.

 

[Leo123]

Yes, them also....religion has special rights.

If not paying taxes is a right then the poor have more rights than those who make an income. Talk about inequality!! Funny.....But actually, Churches are not taxed for several reasons...I KNOW the link is religion ne:

5 reasons we should never tax churches, even if John Oliver is right (COMMENTARY) - Religion News Service


1. Government can’t pick some churches to tax & regulate but not others.
Oliver focused on churches that preach the “Prosperity Gospel” and do so in a public way. His audience (myself included) laughed as he ridiculed some prominent TV preachers. Making pronouncements, giving blessings, and issuing calls for faithful giving is, well, something found in nearly every house of worship in America. Government can’t pick and choose which ones are silly and which ones are legitimate. It must practice “benevolent neutrality.” If you tax the TV evangelist you don’t like, then you also must tax the Unitarian/Universalist congregation, the synagogue, the Catholic parish, the Amish house church, and every other religious community.

READ Five things I teach foreign students about American religion & politics

2. If we tax churches, then we will need to tax all not-for-profit organizations.
Government may exempt churches from property taxes and other taxes so long as they do so for other charities. There are some who argue that, as in the case of religious groups on public campuses (Rosenberger v UVA), government can’t select just religious groups to tax while leaving all other organizations like schools, women shelters, soup kitchens, and fraternal organizations tax-exempt.

3. To tax churches, government would need to have the (currently unconstitutional) authority to audit and regulate churches.
Income is revenue minus expenses. So, to tax revenue, the government has rules about what counts as legitimate business expenses and regulations on how businesses perform their accounting. The government may also audit organizations. To do this for churches means that the government would define what is and is not legitimate and then act to ensure compliance. This raises a constitutional issue as Congress cannot make laws that affect the free exercise of religion.

4. Taxation would benefit large churches and ministries and harm smaller ones.
As with any organization, larger is better. Big churches would have the resources to hire lawyers and accountants that would minimize their tax burden. Smaller churches that currently operate on shoestring budgets would face a relatively greater cost in order to comply with new regulations.

5. It wouldn’t solve the problem.
Most of the discussion of taxing churches offers so-called megachurches or television-based ministries as examples of abuse. But if we tax churches, then churches will do what other businesses do—they’ll increase expenditures in order to reduce taxable income. Again: income is revenue minus expenditures. The TV preacher’s million dollar income? That’s an expense. His clothes for his show? An expense. His jet to travel for business? Another expense. The cost of all those fundraising mailings? More expenses. By the end, there won’t be any income to tax.

Yeah, now Trump can stage an event to give the bigot the Medal of Freedom.

Good idea!! And NO, the Baker is not a 'bigot.'

He's not? What is he then? A tolerant gentleman he ain't.

Yeah, now Trump can stage an event to give the bigot the Medal of Freedom.

Good idea!! And NO, the Baker is not a 'bigot.'

He's not? What is he then? A tolerant gentleman he ain't.

Seems to me it was the gays who were intolerant.

 

[bodecea]

Yes, them also....religion has special rights.

If not paying taxes is a right then the poor have more rights than those who make an income. Talk about inequality!! Funny.....But actually, Churches are not taxed for several reasons...I KNOW the link is religion ne:

5 reasons we should never tax churches, even if John Oliver is right (COMMENTARY) - Religion News Service


1. Government can’t pick some churches to tax & regulate but not others.
Oliver focused on churches that preach the “Prosperity Gospel” and do so in a public way. His audience (myself included) laughed as he ridiculed some prominent TV preachers. Making pronouncements, giving blessings, and issuing calls for faithful giving is, well, something found in nearly every house of worship in America. Government can’t pick and choose which ones are silly and which ones are legitimate. It must practice “benevolent neutrality.” If you tax the TV evangelist you don’t like, then you also must tax the Unitarian/Universalist congregation, the synagogue, the Catholic parish, the Amish house church, and every other religious community.

READ Five things I teach foreign students about American religion & politics

2. If we tax churches, then we will need to tax all not-for-profit organizations.
Government may exempt churches from property taxes and other taxes so long as they do so for other charities. There are some who argue that, as in the case of religious groups on public campuses (Rosenberger v UVA), government can’t select just religious groups to tax while leaving all other organizations like schools, women shelters, soup kitchens, and fraternal organizations tax-exempt.

3. To tax churches, government would need to have the (currently unconstitutional) authority to audit and regulate churches.
Income is revenue minus expenses. So, to tax revenue, the government has rules about what counts as legitimate business expenses and regulations on how businesses perform their accounting. The government may also audit organizations. To do this for churches means that the government would define what is and is not legitimate and then act to ensure compliance. This raises a constitutional issue as Congress cannot make laws that affect the free exercise of religion.

4. Taxation would benefit large churches and ministries and harm smaller ones.
As with any organization, larger is better. Big churches would have the resources to hire lawyers and accountants that would minimize their tax burden. Smaller churches that currently operate on shoestring budgets would face a relatively greater cost in order to comply with new regulations.

5. It wouldn’t solve the problem.
Most of the discussion of taxing churches offers so-called megachurches or television-based ministries as examples of abuse. But if we tax churches, then churches will do what other businesses do—they’ll increase expenditures in order to reduce taxable income. Again: income is revenue minus expenditures. The TV preacher’s million dollar income? That’s an expense. His clothes for his show? An expense. His jet to travel for business? Another expense. The cost of all those fundraising mailings? More expenses. By the end, there won’t be any income to tax.

Yeah, now Trump can stage an event to give the bigot the Medal of Freedom.

Good idea!! And NO, the Baker is not a 'bigot.'

He's not? What is he then? A tolerant gentleman he ain't.

Yeah, now Trump can stage an event to give the bigot the Medal of Freedom.

Good idea!! And NO, the Baker is not a 'bigot.'

He's not? What is he then? A tolerant gentleman he ain't.

Seems to me it was the gays who were intolerant.

Of course...christians are the victims here.

 

[Coyote]

You know the trolling doesn't help the conservative side right?
Satan's disciples.... really?
When liberals try to claim that conservatives are haters etc... you make their day.

He didn’t necessarily accuse all homos of being ‘satan’s disciples’. Only the evil ones attempting to impose their fascist wills. That may be most but that would be on them.

I had no idea trying to claim equal rights was fascist.

Maybe you lot ought to quit whining when twitter and fb exercise their umh "freedom of conscience" by blocking your haters.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You know the trolling doesn't help the conservative side right?
Satan's disciples.... really?
When liberals try to claim that conservatives are haters etc... you make their day.

He didn’t necessarily accuse all homos of being ‘satan’s disciples’. Only the evil ones attempting to impose their fascist wills. That may be most but that would be on them.

I had no idea trying to claim equal rights was fascist.

Maybe you lot ought to quit whining when twitter and fb exercise their umh "freedom of conscience" by blocking your haters.

No one has a right to force another into a political or religious view. That would be the fascism I referred to. In this case, homofascism.