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

[Silhouette]

^^ And, until and unless the cult of LGBT agrees that gay graphic designers must also be forced under threat of financial or licensing punishment to print a giant highway billboard sign that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" for Christian customers, despite the gay designers deep and personally held belief system, the opposition's argument is moot.

 

[martybegan]

Sure they are. A bakery bakes wedding cakes (among other things), a heterosexual couple comes in and orders a cake. Baker says "no problem". A same-sex couple walks in and says "no way". Same cake. Whats the difference? The gender composition of the couple.


>>>>

The person you're responding to doesn't make sense

A couple orders a wedding cake from a bakery that makes wedding cakes.

How can the wedding cake be an objectionable product to the baker when the baker makes and sells wedding cakes for a living?

Just because you think SSM and OSM relationships are equal and the same doesn't mean everyone else does. To some any form of them is morally wrong, and a wedding involving them more so.

You can make things legally equal all you want, unless you want to go the camps and lobotomy route, you can't force people to think and believe something is equal.

Of course you can force them to put a big smile on their face and pretend to care, but that just propagates the persecution belief of those you force to do what they don't want to do.

So it's not the cake or the wedding.

It's about who they're making a cake for and who is having the wedding.

In case you didn't know, that's discrimination and illegal.

They and you can have all the beliefs you want.

You can't violate the law.

Why do you believe you and the baker should have special rights?

The law is being wrongly applied. Not one of them said they wouldn't sell them cakes for other events, just for the wedding.

They think SSM relationships are sinful, and a wedding is an open tangible celebration and affirmation of said relationship, and they want nothing to do with it.

And you are arguing the "how", i.e. The law is the law is the law, not the why. The why is what tangible benefit does government get from ruining a baker over not wanting to bake a cake, a contracted, non-immediate, non-emergency good or service.

Why does the gay couple's butt hurt override without question the baker's butt hurt?

We didn't care about racists that thought interracial marriage was sinful. Why should homophobes get special rights that racists don't?

So pastors are forced to marry inter-racial couples, or any couple?

There is a difference. The difference is that once blacks won legal equality, they didn't go around trying to legislate acceptance the way some gays currently are.

 

[Seawytch]

The person you're responding to doesn't make sense

A couple orders a wedding cake from a bakery that makes wedding cakes.

How can the wedding cake be an objectionable product to the baker when the baker makes and sells wedding cakes for a living?

Just because you think SSM and OSM relationships are equal and the same doesn't mean everyone else does. To some any form of them is morally wrong, and a wedding involving them more so.

You can make things legally equal all you want, unless you want to go the camps and lobotomy route, you can't force people to think and believe something is equal.

Of course you can force them to put a big smile on their face and pretend to care, but that just propagates the persecution belief of those you force to do what they don't want to do.

So it's not the cake or the wedding.

It's about who they're making a cake for and who is having the wedding.

In case you didn't know, that's discrimination and illegal.

They and you can have all the beliefs you want.

You can't violate the law.

Why do you believe you and the baker should have special rights?

The law is being wrongly applied. Not one of them said they wouldn't sell them cakes for other events, just for the wedding.

They think SSM relationships are sinful, and a wedding is an open tangible celebration and affirmation of said relationship, and they want nothing to do with it.

And you are arguing the "how", i.e. The law is the law is the law, not the why. The why is what tangible benefit does government get from ruining a baker over not wanting to bake a cake, a contracted, non-immediate, non-emergency good or service.

Why does the gay couple's butt hurt override without question the baker's butt hurt?

We didn't care about racists that thought interracial marriage was sinful. Why should homophobes get special rights that racists don't?

So pastors are forced to marry inter-racial couples, or any couple?

There is a difference. The difference is that once blacks won legal equality, they didn't go around trying to legislate acceptance the way some gays currently are.

A baker isn't a tax exempt church...

Gays, in some places, get the exact same protections that race and religion do in all places.

 

[Iceweasel]

But homosexuals aren't being denied for being gay, people get confused over that. It's the forcing someone to serve or make a product they find objectionable. That's too USSR for me.

Sure they are. A bakery bakes wedding cakes (among other things), a heterosexual couple comes in and orders a cake. Baker says "no problem". A same-sex couple walks in and says "no way". Same cake. Whats the difference? The gender composition of the couple.


>>>>

The person you're responding to doesn't make sense

A couple orders a wedding cake from a bakery that makes wedding cakes.

How can the wedding cake be an objectionable product to the baker when the baker makes and sells wedding cakes for a living?

You don't make sense. You have a knee jerk emotional reaction to anything you don't already believe.

You left out the entire homosexual aspect of what we are discussing. You simply filtered it out because your mind went into the red zone.

 

[Iceweasel]

But homosexuals aren't being denied for being gay, people get confused over that. It's the forcing someone to serve or make a product they find objectionable. That's too USSR for me.

Sure they are. A bakery bakes wedding cakes (among other things), a heterosexual couple comes in and orders a cake. Baker says "no problem". A same-sex couple walks in and says "no way". Same cake. Whats the difference? The gender composition of the couple.


>>>>

The person you're responding to doesn't make sense

A couple orders a wedding cake from a bakery that makes wedding cakes.

How can the wedding cake be an objectionable product to the baker when the baker makes and sells wedding cakes for a living?

Just because you think SSM and OSM relationships are equal and the same doesn't mean everyone else does. To some any form of them is morally wrong, and a wedding involving them more so.

You can make things legally equal all you want, unless you want to go the camps and lobotomy route, you can't force people to think and believe something is equal.

Of course you can force them to put a big smile on their face and pretend to care, but that just propagates the persecution belief of those you force to do what they don't want to do.

It's too much like the old USSR or me. We are supposed to be freedom oriented. Don't want to bake a cake celebrating a man's adulteress? That should remain your right.

 

[Dana7360]

But homosexuals aren't being denied for being gay, people get confused over that. It's the forcing someone to serve or make a product they find objectionable. That's too USSR for me.

Sure they are. A bakery bakes wedding cakes (among other things), a heterosexual couple comes in and orders a cake. Baker says "no problem". A same-sex couple walks in and says "no way". Same cake. Whats the difference? The gender composition of the couple.


>>>>

The person you're responding to doesn't make sense

A couple orders a wedding cake from a bakery that makes wedding cakes.

How can the wedding cake be an objectionable product to the baker when the baker makes and sells wedding cakes for a living?

Just because you think SSM and OSM relationships are equal and the same doesn't mean everyone else does. To some any form of them is morally wrong, and a wedding involving them more so.

You can make things legally equal all you want, unless you want to go the camps and lobotomy route, you can't force people to think and believe something is equal.

Of course you can force them to put a big smile on their face and pretend to care, but that just propagates the persecution belief of those you force to do what they don't want to do.

So it's not the cake or the wedding.

It's about who they're making a cake for and who is having the wedding.

In case you didn't know, that's discrimination and illegal.

They and you can have all the beliefs you want.

You can't violate the law.

Why do you believe you and the baker should have special rights?

The law is being wrongly applied. Not one of them said they wouldn't sell them cakes for other events, just for the wedding.

They think SSM relationships are sinful, and a wedding is an open tangible celebration and affirmation of said relationship, and they want nothing to do with it.

And you are arguing the "how", i.e. The law is the law is the law, not the why. The why is what tangible benefit does government get from ruining a baker over not wanting to bake a cake, a contracted, non-immediate, non-emergency good or service.

Why does the gay couple's butt hurt override without question the baker's butt hurt?

The constitution says everyone must be treated equally.

That baker has no problem with baking a wedding cake for other people. They have a problem with baking one for a gay couple.

That's discrimination, a violation of our constitution and illegal. The law is being applied very correctly.

The reason why the baker has to bake that cake is because the law and our constitution says they have to. On top of being the decent and right thing to do.

No one forced them to go into business. The baker agreed to not violate business laws when they applied for and signed the application for a business license. So if they can't comply with the law then they should accept the consequences of violating the contract they singed with the state when they applied for and received that business license from the state.

Do you understand contracts?

Since you never answered why you believe you and that baker have special rights to violate any law you don't like I'm going to believe you don't have a justification for that and are too embarrassed to admit it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Sure they are. A bakery bakes wedding cakes (among other things), a heterosexual couple comes in and orders a cake. Baker says "no problem". A same-sex couple walks in and says "no way". Same cake. Whats the difference? The gender composition of the couple.


>>>>

The person you're responding to doesn't make sense

A couple orders a wedding cake from a bakery that makes wedding cakes.

How can the wedding cake be an objectionable product to the baker when the baker makes and sells wedding cakes for a living?

Just because you think SSM and OSM relationships are equal and the same doesn't mean everyone else does. To some any form of them is morally wrong, and a wedding involving them more so.

You can make things legally equal all you want, unless you want to go the camps and lobotomy route, you can't force people to think and believe something is equal.

Of course you can force them to put a big smile on their face and pretend to care, but that just propagates the persecution belief of those you force to do what they don't want to do.

So it's not the cake or the wedding.

It's about who they're making a cake for and who is having the wedding.

In case you didn't know, that's discrimination and illegal.

They and you can have all the beliefs you want.

You can't violate the law.

Why do you believe you and the baker should have special rights?

The law is being wrongly applied. Not one of them said they wouldn't sell them cakes for other events, just for the wedding.

They think SSM relationships are sinful, and a wedding is an open tangible celebration and affirmation of said relationship, and they want nothing to do with it.

And you are arguing the "how", i.e. The law is the law is the law, not the why. The why is what tangible benefit does government get from ruining a baker over not wanting to bake a cake, a contracted, non-immediate, non-emergency good or service.

Why does the gay couple's butt hurt override without question the baker's butt hurt?

We didn't care about racists that thought interracial marriage was sinful. Why should homophobes get special rights that racists don't?

Homosexuals are not a separate race. Repeating it over and over won't make it happen. There is no right for bisexuals to marry male and female, doesn't seem to bother you because it isn't your particular bag. Disagreeing with you isn't a phobia, it just makes you an intolerant asshole for making the claims.

 

[rightwinger]

But homosexuals aren't being denied for being gay, people get confused over that. It's the forcing someone to serve or make a product they find objectionable. That's too USSR for me.

Sure they are. A bakery bakes wedding cakes (among other things), a heterosexual couple comes in and orders a cake. Baker says "no problem". A same-sex couple walks in and says "no way". Same cake. Whats the difference? The gender composition of the couple.


>>>>

The person you're responding to doesn't make sense

A couple orders a wedding cake from a bakery that makes wedding cakes.

How can the wedding cake be an objectionable product to the baker when the baker makes and sells wedding cakes for a living?

Just because you think SSM and OSM relationships are equal and the same doesn't mean everyone else does. To some any form of them is morally wrong, and a wedding involving them more so.

You can make things legally equal all you want, unless you want to go the camps and lobotomy route, you can't force people to think and believe something is equal.

Of course you can force them to put a big smile on their face and pretend to care, but that just propagates the persecution belief of those you force to do what they don't want to do.

It's too much like the old USSR or me. We are supposed to be freedom oriented. Don't want to bake a cake celebrating a man's adulteress? That should remain your right.

You are aware of Russia's treatment of gays aren't you?

The bakers are more like USSR

 

[Iceweasel]

Sure they are. A bakery bakes wedding cakes (among other things), a heterosexual couple comes in and orders a cake. Baker says "no problem". A same-sex couple walks in and says "no way". Same cake. Whats the difference? The gender composition of the couple.


>>>>

The person you're responding to doesn't make sense

A couple orders a wedding cake from a bakery that makes wedding cakes.

How can the wedding cake be an objectionable product to the baker when the baker makes and sells wedding cakes for a living?

Just because you think SSM and OSM relationships are equal and the same doesn't mean everyone else does. To some any form of them is morally wrong, and a wedding involving them more so.

You can make things legally equal all you want, unless you want to go the camps and lobotomy route, you can't force people to think and believe something is equal.

Of course you can force them to put a big smile on their face and pretend to care, but that just propagates the persecution belief of those you force to do what they don't want to do.

So it's not the cake or the wedding.

It's about who they're making a cake for and who is having the wedding.

In case you didn't know, that's discrimination and illegal.

They and you can have all the beliefs you want.

You can't violate the law.

Why do you believe you and the baker should have special rights?

The law is being wrongly applied. Not one of them said they wouldn't sell them cakes for other events, just for the wedding.

They think SSM relationships are sinful, and a wedding is an open tangible celebration and affirmation of said relationship, and they want nothing to do with it.

And you are arguing the "how", i.e. The law is the law is the law, not the why. The why is what tangible benefit does government get from ruining a baker over not wanting to bake a cake, a contracted, non-immediate, non-emergency good or service.

Why does the gay couple's butt hurt override without question the baker's butt hurt?

The constitution says everyone must be treated equally.

That baker has no problem with baking a wedding cake for other people. They have a problem with baking one for a gay couple.

That's discrimination, a violation of our constitution and illegal. The law is being applied very correctly.

The reason why the baker has to bake that cake is because the law and our constitution says they have to. On top of being the decent and right thing to do.

No one forced them to go into business. The baker agreed to not violate business laws when they applied for and signed the application for a business license. So if they can't comply with the law then they should accept the consequences of violating the contract they singed with the state when they applied for and received that business license from the state.

Do you understand contracts?

Since you never answered why you believe you and that baker have special rights to violate any law you don't like I'm going to believe you don't have a justification for that and are too embarrassed to admit it.

We were all treated equally. Any eligible man could many any eligible women. With racist marriage laws men were treated unevenly by government so it was unconstitutional.

Do don't understand jack shit apart from your propaganda. No business signs a contract with government that says they can micromanage their concerns. In fact I don't know how many business that even have a contract with the government, apart from a particular gig. If you need a license you pay the fees.

I turned down work from Planned Parenthood because I don't want to help promote killing babies. As far as I know it was my right to do so. There was no contract to work for anyone that came in. You leftists make up laws that you want and demand we all obey but when you don't like the law then the law is the law mantra goes out the window. Hypocrites.

 

[Tom Horn]

I think she was marrying a woman

Good news....two more bra-burning lunatics who will never reproduce.

Actually, being two women they can reproduce twice as much.

"actually" women can't knock each other up...you'd know that if you'd gone to a charter school.

 

[Iceweasel]

I think she was marrying a woman

Good news....two more bra-burning lunatics who will never reproduce.

Actually, being two women they can reproduce twice as much.

"actually" women can't knock each other up...you'd know that if you'd gone to a charter school.

She thinks a turkey baster makes her a man.

 

[rightwinger]

I think she was marrying a woman

Good news....two more bra-burning lunatics who will never reproduce.

Actually, being two women they can reproduce twice as much.

"actually" women can't knock each other up...you'd know that if you'd gone to a charter school.

Both women are capable of becoming pregnant......and they do

 

[Tom Horn]

Both women are capable of becoming pregnant......and they do

So you're saying one would have to become an adulteress to become a mother....you sick ****.

 

[rightwinger]

Both women are capable of becoming pregnant......and they do

So you're saying one would have to become an adulteress to become a mother....you sick ****.

Please explain your bizarre claim

 

[Tom Horn]

Both women are capable of becoming pregnant......and they do

So you're saying one would have to become an adulteress to become a mother....you sick ****.

Please explain your bizarre claim

Again I have to wonder about the prog mind....a dirty man's DEMON SEED

would have to be involved to hatch a lesbian spawn. Therefore whichever one is inseminated has had a form of sex outside of their "marriage" and is therefore an adulteress.

 

[rightwinger]

Both women are capable of becoming pregnant......and they do

So you're saying one would have to become an adulteress to become a mother....you sick ****.

Please explain your bizarre claim

Again I have to wonder about the prog mind....a dirty man's DEMON SEED

would have to be involved to hatch a lesbian spawn. Therefore whichever one is inseminated has had a form of sex outside of their "marriage" and is therefore an adulteress.

You have no concept of artificial insemination do you?

 

[Tom Horn]

You have no concept of artificial insemination do you?

I've always gotten my women pregnant the old fashioned way.....I suppose it's the opposite of syphoning gas, eh?

 

[Silhouette]

She thinks a turkey baster makes her a man.

I thought lesbians could do without men? Even the one who is attracted to the other one who looks like, dresses like, walks like and acts like a man & who wears a strapon dildo.

 

[Dana7360]

Both women are capable of becoming pregnant......and they do

So you're saying one would have to become an adulteress to become a mother....you sick ****.

Ever heard of a sperm bank or artificial insemination?

They don't need men all they need is semen.

 

[owebo]

Sure they are. A bakery bakes wedding cakes (among other things), a heterosexual couple comes in and orders a cake. Baker says "no problem". A same-sex couple walks in and says "no way". Same cake. Whats the difference? The gender composition of the couple.


>>>>

The person you're responding to doesn't make sense

A couple orders a wedding cake from a bakery that makes wedding cakes.

How can the wedding cake be an objectionable product to the baker when the baker makes and sells wedding cakes for a living?

Just because you think SSM and OSM relationships are equal and the same doesn't mean everyone else does. To some any form of them is morally wrong, and a wedding involving them more so.

You can make things legally equal all you want, unless you want to go the camps and lobotomy route, you can't force people to think and believe something is equal.

Of course you can force them to put a big smile on their face and pretend to care, but that just propagates the persecution belief of those you force to do what they don't want to do.

So it's not the cake or the wedding.

It's about who they're making a cake for and who is having the wedding.

In case you didn't know, that's discrimination and illegal.

They and you can have all the beliefs you want.

You can't violate the law.

Why do you believe you and the baker should have special rights?

The law is being wrongly applied. Not one of them said they wouldn't sell them cakes for other events, just for the wedding.

They think SSM relationships are sinful, and a wedding is an open tangible celebration and affirmation of said relationship, and they want nothing to do with it.

And you are arguing the "how", i.e. The law is the law is the law, not the why. The why is what tangible benefit does government get from ruining a baker over not wanting to bake a cake, a contracted, non-immediate, non-emergency good or service.

Why does the gay couple's butt hurt override without question the baker's butt hurt?

The constitution says everyone must be treated equally.

That baker has no problem with baking a wedding cake for other people. They have a problem with baking one for a gay couple.

That's discrimination, a violation of our constitution and illegal. The law is being applied very correctly.

The reason why the baker has to bake that cake is because the law and our constitution says they have to. On top of being the decent and right thing to do.

No one forced them to go into business. The baker agreed to not violate business laws when they applied for and signed the application for a business license. So if they can't comply with the law then they should accept the consequences of violating the contract they singed with the state when they applied for and received that business license from the state.

Do you understand contracts?

Since you never answered why you believe you and that baker have special rights to violate any law you don't like I'm going to believe you don't have a justification for that and are too embarrassed to admit it.

So, what else do you want to force people to make?