Bakers fined for not working homosexual "wedding" continue fighting for their freedoms

Actually, ass sex is protected
Protected under a citizens right to privacy

Great country isn't it? A country with no right to concern itself with what goes on in the privacy of your bedroom

Keyword: "Privacy"...

You're going to find out the difference between private behavior and trying to force someone to promote private behavior as a "new norm". In the very near future. Two years hence tops. I believe it was Scalia who wrote the dissent on Lawrence v Texas when he said "just because this private behavior has been decriminalized, in no way means it will gain legal access to marriage"...

Have you been keeping up on the Brown-polygamy case making it's way towards Obergefell citations? Sotomayor is reviewing the first brief on its eventual Hearing as we speak..
 
Yep- we fascists believe a business should follow the law.

We 'fascists' also don't think that Christians get a special dispensation from following the law.

But you DO think Muslims do - since some animals are FAR more equal than others.

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

Back in the old republic, when people had civil rights, the above protected people - even the Christians you and your party hate.

But you democrats have ended civil rights and are dedicated to ensuring they never come back.
 
Actually, ass sex is protected
Protected under a citizens right to privacy

Great country isn't it? A country with no right to concern itself with what goes on in the privacy of your bedroom

Keyword: "Privacy"...

You're going to find out the difference between private behavior and trying to force someone to promote private behavior as a "new norm". In the very near future. Two years hence tops. I believe it was Scalia who wrote the dissent on Lawrence v Texas when he said "just because this private behavior has been decriminalized, in no way means it will gain legal access to marriage"...

Have you been keeping up on the Brown-polygamy case making it's way towards Obergefell citations? Sotomayor is reviewing the first brief on its eventual Hearing as we speak..

1b5bki.jpg
 
Actually, ass sex is protected
Protected under a citizens right to privacy

Great country isn't it? A country with no right to concern itself with what goes on in the privacy of your bedroom

Keyword: "Privacy"...

You're going to find out the difference between private behavior and trying to force someone to promote private behavior as a "new norm". In the very near future. Two years hence tops. I believe it was Scalia who wrote the dissent on Lawrence v Texas when he said "just because this private behavior has been decriminalized, in no way means it will gain legal access to marriage"...

Have you been keeping up on the Brown-polygamy case making it's way towards Obergefell citations? Sotomayor is reviewing the first brief on its eventual Hearing as we speak..

1b5bki.jpg

Damn...I have that exact same Halloween skeleton
 
Actually, ass sex is protected
Protected under a citizens right to privacy


Which article or amendment is that in?

4th Amendment

Again, keyword "privacy". See post #581.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Try again

Even if the 4th Amendment specified that whatever went on behind closed doors, no matter what, was protected under the 4th, it still doesn't mean that behavior can force others to play along and promote it in the public marketplace or anywhere else public.
 
Actually, ass sex is protected
Protected under a citizens right to privacy

Which article or amendment is that in?

Great country isn't it? A country with no right to concern itself with what goes on in the privacy of your bedroom

It used to be, before you anti-liberty leftist revoked the Bill of Rights

4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Try again
 
Actually, ass sex is protected
Protected under a citizens right to privacy

Great country isn't it? A country with no right to concern itself with what goes on in the privacy of your bedroom

Keyword: "Privacy"...

You're going to find out the difference between private behavior and trying to force someone to promote private behavior as a "new norm". In the very near future. Two years hence tops. I believe it was Scalia who wrote the dissent on Lawrence v Texas when he said "just because this private behavior has been decriminalized, in no way means it will gain legal access to marriage"...

Have you been keeping up on the Brown-polygamy case making it's way towards Obergefell citations? Sotomayor is reviewing the first brief on its eventual Hearing as we speak..

1b5bki.jpg

Damn...I have that exact same Halloween skeleton

I did as well, but some Visigoth nicked it from the porch when I was at the cabin last year.
 
Considering gays have a sizable presence in the wedding industry, your analogy about 2nd class services fails on its merit.

You are the one going all argumentum ad abusrdum, not me. You are the one going all or nothing.

You are the one that feels the need to force your views on others using the government gun barrel.

Gays may have a sizeable presence in our major cities

But in rural Jesusland, they are still outcasts. It is easy for any ***-hater to invoke the bible as an excuse for not serving gays while they have no reservations about participating in a wedding of a pregnant bride marrying her cousin.

History is full of people not happy with their present situation moving. Its only in modern times that moving is considered something for the well off, instead of the destitute or unhappy trying to make a new life for themselves. It's actually what made the US what it is today.

and do you think forcing a baker to bake a cake for their wedding, or forcing a photographer to film their wedding is going to magically remove that animosity.

No, all it does is satisfy your need for vengeance on people you don't like, and it lets you accomplish it without getting your hands dirty.

"Oh, not "I" didn't do anything, GOVERNMENT did it"

Thankfully, our country does not require you to "move" if you are being discriminated against

Our laws stand up for those being oppressed, not the oppressor

Yes, not wanting to bake a cake for you is "oppression".


That is called "1st world problems"

Being discriminated against is oppression

Gays have been oppressed for centuries. They should know

Being told to go to another baker is not oppression. Once again progressives define things down to suit their needs.
 
Yep- we fascists believe a business should follow the law.

We 'fascists' also don't think that Christians get a special dispensation from following the law.

But you DO think Muslims do - since some animals are FAR more equal than others..

Not sure why you are calling Muslims animals but once again- why are you lying?

I have never argued that any Muslim should get special dispensation from following the law- Muslims, Jews and Christians have to follow the same law that atheists follow.

Now- why are you calling Muslim Americans 'animals'?
 
[
But you democrats have ended civil rights and are dedicated to ensuring they never come back.

You poor thing.

You have no civil rights anymore?

You aren't allowed to vote, you aren't allowed to go to Church, you aren't allowed to pray, you aren't allowed to own a gun, you aren't allowed to stand on a street with a sign, you aren't allowed to buy a newspaper.

You aren't allowed to get together with like minded friends. You aren't allowed to find 5 or 6 brave friends and find a lone guy who looks gay to bravely beat up.

You poor thing- no civil liberties at all.
 
Actually, ass sex is protected
Protected under a citizens right to privacy

Great country isn't it? A country with no right to concern itself with what goes on in the privacy of your bedroom

Keyword: "Privacy"....

We do have a right to privacy- so the government is not allowed to tell you what kind of sex you can have in private, and can't tell you that you can't use birth control.

That of course has nothing to do with requiring a business to follow business law- and not discriminate against Jews, Christians, Veterans, the handicapped, gays, women, Mexicans, blacks, Muslims.....
 
[

Not sure why you are calling Muslims animals but once again- why are you lying?

Stupid and illiterate - yep, you're a democrat.

I have never argued that any Muslim should get special dispensation from following the law- Muslims, Jews and Christians have to follow the same law that atheists follow.

Now- why are you calling Muslim Americans 'animals'?

Horseshit.
 
I would recommend a warning label be placed on the cake, stipulating that "This cake was created by unsupervised employees. We cannot vouch that an unwashed penis was not inserted in the bottom layer. We do the best we can...yo."
 
Last edited:
You poor thing.

You have no civil rights anymore?

Freedom of religion has been revoked, as we see.

What of freedom of speech?

{
In a speech at an Iowa community college, for example, Hillary Clinton said: "We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment."

Left unsaid is that the only way to do what she suggests would be to put restrictions on the 1st Amendment. A couple years ago, 54 Senate Democrats voted for a new constitutional amendment that would do just that.

Meanwhile, a YouGov poll taken last May found that a majority of Democrats said they support government limits on what they consider to be "hate speech." Only 26% of Democrats said they opposed such limits.}

Democrats Attack 3 Of The 10 Amendments In The Bill Of Rights

democrats hate free speech.

Freedom of the press?

{Journalists who cover the White House say Obama’s press aides have demanded — and received — changes in press-pool reports before the reports have been disseminated to other journalists. They say the White House has used its unusual role as the distributor of the reports as leverage to steer coverage in a more favorable direction. … [T]hat the White House has become involved at all represents a troubling trend for journalists .... In decades of reporting on the White House, Tom DeFrank, contributing editor of the National Journal, said he’s been asked by aides to change something in a pool report only once — during the Ford administration. He refused. ‘My view is the White House has no right to touch a pool report,’ DeFrank said. ‘It’s none of their business.’ … Some journalists say the Obama White House has been more vigilant than its predecessors in scrutinizing pool reports and at times has objected to seemingly trivial details.” (The Washington Post, 9/23/14)}

Not under democrats.


You aren't allowed to vote, you aren't allowed to go to Church, you aren't allowed to pray, you aren't allowed to own a gun, you aren't allowed to stand on a street with a sign, you aren't allowed to buy a newspaper.

You aren't allowed to get together with like minded friends. You aren't allowed to find 5 or 6 brave friends and find a lone guy who looks gay to bravely beat up.

You poor thing- no civil liberties at all.

Civil rights are under constant attack by your filthy party.

But November is coming.
 
15th post
We do have a right to privacy- so the government is not allowed to tell you what kind of sex you can have in private, and can't tell you that you can't use birth control.

That of course has nothing to do with requiring a business to follow business law- and not discriminate against Jews, Christians, Veterans, the handicapped, gays, women, Mexicans, blacks, Muslims.....

Every heard of a 1040, sploogy?

How does that fit with a right to "privacy?" What details of life are NOT demanded by the state?

Further, here is the 4th Amendment - which I doubt you've ever seen before, care to point out where it mentions privacy?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In fact, those things it DOES explicitly mention are routinely violated by the government. There is no mention of abortion, which is the ONLY "privacy" to lefitsts. But it DOES speak of papers and effects, which you MUST reveal to the IRS or go to prison.

So let's talk about civil rights, Comrade?
 
Actually, ass sex is protected
Protected under a citizens right to privacy


Which article or amendment is that in?

4th Amendment

Again, keyword "privacy". See post #581.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Try again

Even if the 4th Amendment specified that whatever went on behind closed doors, no matter what, was protected under the 4th, it still doesn't mean that behavior can force others to play along and promote it in the public marketplace or anywhere else public.

A baker has no idea what goes on behind closed doors....nor is it any of his business
 
Gays may have a sizeable presence in our major cities

But in rural Jesusland, they are still outcasts. It is easy for any ***-hater to invoke the bible as an excuse for not serving gays while they have no reservations about participating in a wedding of a pregnant bride marrying her cousin.

History is full of people not happy with their present situation moving. Its only in modern times that moving is considered something for the well off, instead of the destitute or unhappy trying to make a new life for themselves. It's actually what made the US what it is today.

and do you think forcing a baker to bake a cake for their wedding, or forcing a photographer to film their wedding is going to magically remove that animosity.

No, all it does is satisfy your need for vengeance on people you don't like, and it lets you accomplish it without getting your hands dirty.

"Oh, not "I" didn't do anything, GOVERNMENT did it"

Thankfully, our country does not require you to "move" if you are being discriminated against

Our laws stand up for those being oppressed, not the oppressor

Yes, not wanting to bake a cake for you is "oppression".


That is called "1st world problems"

Being discriminated against is oppression

Gays have been oppressed for centuries. They should know

Being told to go to another baker is not oppression. Once again progressives define things down to suit their needs.

Gays have been oppressed legally for centuries

They are not about to give back their hard fought rights to appease some bigoted baker
 
A baker has no idea what goes on behind closed doors....nor is it any of his business

Then why are lesbians compelled to come in announcing it?

In fact, why do they need to SPECIFICALLY target a Christian baker when 3 others were within 5 miles?

Ah yes, the left's war on civil rights....
 
Back
Top Bottom