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

[owebo]

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.

from men....

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Are you a Mormon?

 

[xband]

I have worked in a bakery before and bakers are opinionated. No A/C in my bakery and was hot all year long but I got accustomed to the heat.

 

[JoeMoma]

Why was the baker in a tub with a butcher and a candlestick maker? That's what I want to know!

 

[rightwinger]

There are dozens of goods and services provided for a wedding that do not involve participating in the ceremony

There is nothing special about baking a cake

I question the sincerity of their religious objections if they won't make a cake for a gay wedding but will do it for a pregnant bride, divorced couple remarrying, mixed religion or atheist.

 

[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?

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.

Where did I say that sexual orientation was a race? Oh, that's right, I didn't. What is the same is the discrimination faced by interracial couples wanting to marry and gays wanting to marry. The similarity between the two are actually in the bigots that oppose them, not the groups themselves.

We did not allow bakers, photographers or candlestick makers to discriminate against interracial couples even thought they found their relationships sinful, abhorrent, disgusting, etc. Why should anti gay bigots get to discriminate where racist bigots did not?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

But that's not what you said in your original post. Did you go to any school? In your post you said two women can't reproduce. That's false. Gay does not equal infertile. Gays have children the same exact way thousand of infertile straight couples do.

 

[owebo]

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.

Where did I say that sexual orientation was a race? Oh, that's right, I didn't. What is the same is the discrimination faced by interracial couples wanting to marry and gays wanting to marry. The similarity between the two are actually in the bigots that oppose them, not the groups themselves.

We did not allow bakers, photographers or candlestick makers to discriminate against interracial couples even thought they found their relationships sinful, abhorrent, disgusting, etc. Why should anti gay bigots get to discriminate where racist bigots did not?

So, you're saying people can make a choice as to what race they are? Do tell...

 

[Seawytch]

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.

So, lets see...I had five children through ART (assisted reproductive technology) and you think I believe that "makes me a man"? Do you harm yourself attempting to eat pudding with a rubber spoon? .

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Where did I say that sexual orientation was a race? Oh, that's right, I didn't. What is the same is the discrimination faced by interracial couples wanting to marry and gays wanting to marry. The similarity between the two are actually in the bigots that oppose them, not the groups themselves.

We did not allow bakers, photographers or candlestick makers to discriminate against interracial couples even thought they found their relationships sinful, abhorrent, disgusting, etc. Why should anti gay bigots get to discriminate where racist bigots did not?

You brought race into it like you always do. You did it this time too!

Sexuality is individual. There's no Constitutional definition of marriage, it was to be left up to states, and they did and still do vary. The fact that first cousin gays can't marry in those states shows how silly the whole thing is. Plus we still discriminate against all others, polygamists, incestial, bi-sexuals. It's just moving the goal posts in the hopes of normalizing homosexuality.

 

[Seawytch]

There are dozens of goods and services provided for a wedding that do not involve participating in the ceremony

There is nothing special about baking a cake

I question the sincerity of their religious objections if they won't make a cake for a gay wedding but will do it for a pregnant bride, divorced couple remarrying, mixed religion or atheist.

Question the sincerity? Pfffft, I outright challenge it. It's not about their religion, it's about hating gays.

Bakery Will Do Pagan, Cloning, and Divorce Cakes But Not Gay Weddings

When one of the reporters called and asked if the business could make two identical cakes to help a friend celebrate the grant she received for cloning human stem cells, a Sweet Cakes employee simply laughed and said, “It’ll be $25.99 each, so about $50 to start.”

A request for a cake to congratulate a friend on her divorce was also happily accepted, with a Sweet Cakes worker saying, “We can definitely do something like that.”

Sweet Cakes was even happy to take orders for cakes for a pagan summer solstice fete — complete with a green pentagram decoration — and celebrating babies born out of wedlock.​

 

[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.

So, lets see...I had five children through ART (assisted reproductive technology) and you think I believe that "makes me a man"? Do you harm yourself attempting to eat pudding with a rubber spoon? .

The fact that you need assistance demonstrates just how unnatural it is. It's a perversion of technology. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Genders exist for a reason and you are too narrow minded to figure it out.

 

[Iceweasel]

Sweet Cakes was even happy to take orders for cakes for a pagan summer solstice fete — complete with a green pentagram decoration — and celebrating babies born out of wedlock.​

That should up to them, not you. You are not God.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Where did I say that sexual orientation was a race? Oh, that's right, I didn't. What is the same is the discrimination faced by interracial couples wanting to marry and gays wanting to marry. The similarity between the two are actually in the bigots that oppose them, not the groups themselves.

We did not allow bakers, photographers or candlestick makers to discriminate against interracial couples even thought they found their relationships sinful, abhorrent, disgusting, etc. Why should anti gay bigots get to discriminate where racist bigots did not?

You brought race into it like you always do. You did it this time too!

Sexuality is individual. There's no Constitutional definition of marriage, it was to be left up to states, and they did and still do vary. The fact that first cousin gays can't marry in those states shows how silly the whole thing is. Plus we still discriminate against all others, polygamists, incestial, bi-sexuals. It's just moving the goal posts in the hopes of normalizing homosexuality.

States fell apart when they couldn't find a justification as to why gay marriage was harmful to society to the point they needed to deny equal treatment under the law

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Where did I say that sexual orientation was a race? Oh, that's right, I didn't. What is the same is the discrimination faced by interracial couples wanting to marry and gays wanting to marry. The similarity between the two are actually in the bigots that oppose them, not the groups themselves.

We did not allow bakers, photographers or candlestick makers to discriminate against interracial couples even thought they found their relationships sinful, abhorrent, disgusting, etc. Why should anti gay bigots get to discriminate where racist bigots did not?

You brought race into it like you always do. You did it this time too!

Sexuality is individual. There's no Constitutional definition of marriage, it was to be left up to states, and they did and still do vary. The fact that first cousin gays can't marry in those states shows how silly the whole thing is. Plus we still discriminate against all others, polygamists, incestial, bi-sexuals. It's just moving the goal posts in the hopes of normalizing homosexuality.

Except it wasn't left up to the states. There have been four rulings that contradict your claim. Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safely, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Obergerfell v Hodges. Only one of the three dealt with race.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Where did I say that sexual orientation was a race? Oh, that's right, I didn't. What is the same is the discrimination faced by interracial couples wanting to marry and gays wanting to marry. The similarity between the two are actually in the bigots that oppose them, not the groups themselves.

We did not allow bakers, photographers or candlestick makers to discriminate against interracial couples even thought they found their relationships sinful, abhorrent, disgusting, etc. Why should anti gay bigots get to discriminate where racist bigots did not?

So, you're saying people can make a choice as to what race they are? Do tell...

Wow, it's like you didn't even read what I typed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"So the court must determine: Has Oregon, for example, compelled Catholics to sculpt totems for Wiccan rituals? Feminists to photograph fraternity initiations? Pro-life filmmakers to video abortions?" the brief asks. "It has not, and that ends the case."

THAT is spot on.

That is so wrong one knows not where to start.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Where did I say that sexual orientation was a race? Oh, that's right, I didn't. What is the same is the discrimination faced by interracial couples wanting to marry and gays wanting to marry. The similarity between the two are actually in the bigots that oppose them, not the groups themselves.

We did not allow bakers, photographers or candlestick makers to discriminate against interracial couples even thought they found their relationships sinful, abhorrent, disgusting, etc. Why should anti gay bigots get to discriminate where racist bigots did not?

You brought race into it like you always do. You did it this time too!

Sexuality is individual. There's no Constitutional definition of marriage, it was to be left up to states, and they did and still do vary. The fact that first cousin gays can't marry in those states shows how silly the whole thing is. Plus we still discriminate against all others, polygamists, incestial, bi-sexuals. It's just moving the goal posts in the hopes of normalizing homosexuality.

Except it wasn't left up to the sates. There have been four rulings that contradict your claim. Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safely, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Obergerfell v Hodges. Only one of the three dealt with race.

Racial decisions. Then you lie and ask when you said it was racial.

LOL

 

[Bush92]

In private business as per free-market capitalism the government should not compel you to serve anybody. It is unconstitutional in my opinion. Screw the Commerce Clause in Art I Sec. 8 and modern Courts interpretation.

 

[rightwinger]

There are dozens of goods and services provided for a wedding that do not involve participating in the ceremony

There is nothing special about baking a cake

I question the sincerity of their religious objections if they won't make a cake for a gay wedding but will do it for a pregnant bride, divorced couple remarrying, mixed religion or atheist.

Question the sincerity? Pfffft, I outright challenge it. It's not about their religion, it's about hating gays.

Bakery Will Do Pagan, Cloning, and Divorce Cakes But Not Gay Weddings

When one of the reporters called and asked if the business could make two identical cakes to help a friend celebrate the grant she received for cloning human stem cells, a Sweet Cakes employee simply laughed and said, “It’ll be $25.99 each, so about $50 to start.”

A request for a cake to congratulate a friend on her divorce was also happily accepted, with a Sweet Cakes worker saying, “We can definitely do something like that.”

Sweet Cakes was even happy to take orders for cakes for a pagan summer solstice fete — complete with a green pentagram decoration — and celebrating babies born out of wedlock.​

Amazing...simply amazing

After losing the same sex marriage debate, using religion to persecute gays was their only available tactic