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

[P@triot]

So what are YOU doing to get rid of Title II of the Civil Rights Act?

Educate the ignorant. Teach the U.S. Constitution. Embrace liberty. Elect representatives that actually respect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

Reproduction has nothing to do with equal protection under the law

And the law says I have a right to practice my religion as I see fit - including avoiding homosexuality if I feel that it is a sin that I do not wish to support or assist. Sorry winger - as usual - you lose. The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says so.

You are free to hate anyone you like

A business is not

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Well there is some "logic". Because some idiot progressives desperate for power shredded the U.S. Constitution once, we should shred it again?

The law says I have a right to practice my religion as I see fit - including avoiding homosexuality if I feel that it is a sin that I do not wish to support or assist. Sorry wytch - you lose. The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says so.

No it is not "as you see fit". Rastafarians don't get to practice their religion"as they see fit". You can practice your religion within the confines of the law. Racist bigots who feel it's a sin to serve an interracial couple either serve the couple or go out of business. In some places (states rights guy) same goes for gays.

 

[Seawytch]

So what are YOU doing to get rid of Title II of the Civil Rights Act?

Educate the ignorant. Teach the U.S. Constitution. Embrace liberty. Elect representatives that actually respect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

"Nothing" would have said the same thing and would have been much easier for you to type, "patriot".

 

[rightwinger]

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone

1. The 7th Circuit federal court of appeals just found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016), that the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not apply to homosexuals: because homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR and not a race or equal to a race or gender.

2. If a gay graphic designer was forced to print a huge highway billboard sign for a major interstate that said "Homosexuality is a sin unto God", against his deepest held beliefs, for a Christian customer, under threat of financial or licensing punishment otherwise; you'd be screaming bloody murder. And in Oregon right now, a Christian could force such a designer to do exactly that; or be fined.

That ruling has limited scope and will be overturned by SCOTUS

Again you miss the point of the bigot baker decision. They make wedding cakes. It is what they do. They denied service on the basis of sexuality. They were not asked to bake a cake showing gay sex, only bake a cake

 

[Pop23]

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...

She thinks homosexuality is a race. Anything that applies to race should apply to homosexuals. Except that they didn't want blacks marrying whites because the races would be mixed. She's too stupid to understand that like genders don't reproduce.

No, I don't. I never once said that being gay was like being a race. I said the discrimination suffered by interracial couples was exactly the same as the discrimination suffered by gay couples.

Can you tell the difference between quotes about interracial marriage and gay marriage?

Bet You Can’t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes

You did it again. You are brainwashed and live in denial.

We all are to a certain degree.

Civil marriage, once rational because there was a biological reason for it, has little basis to exist anymore.

Once the two opposite units were removed (a man and a woman), the reasoning for any limits as to who or how many may participate in these partnerships went out the window.

No marriage law that exists has sexual contact as a requirement.

Prior to Obergfell, there was a clear assumption of such, after, no such assumption exists.

It is now simply a financial arrangement (see Windsor), that groups and family members are, for some undisclosed reason, excluded from.

Perplexing.

 

[Iceweasel]

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...

She thinks homosexuality is a race. Anything that applies to race should apply to homosexuals. Except that they didn't want blacks marrying whites because the races would be mixed. She's too stupid to understand that like genders don't reproduce.

No, I don't. I never once said that being gay was like being a race. I said the discrimination suffered by interracial couples was exactly the same as the discrimination suffered by gay couples.

Can you tell the difference between quotes about interracial marriage and gay marriage?

Bet You Can’t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes

You did it again. You are brainwashed and live in denial.

We all are to a certain degree.

Civil marriage, once rational because there was a biological reason for it, has little basis to exist anymore.

Once the two opposite units were removed (a man and a woman), the reasoning for any limits as to who or how many may participate in these partnerships went out the window.

No marriage law that exists has sexual contact as a requirement.

Prior to Obergfell, there was a clear assumption of such, after, no such assumption exists.

It is now simply a financial arrangement (see Windsor), that groups and family members are, for some undisclosed reason, excluded from.

Perplexing.

I'm not brainwashed to understand why genders exist. I do believe this society has become so mesmerized with political correctness that the reality of the matter is no longer the consideration so I want government to stop recognizing marriage, period. You make whatever contract you want, the state shouldn't care or make any distinction. I do believe it will happen in my lifetime.

 

[P@triot]

Gays aren't making a choice, bigots are.

Well that's not true. A homosexual may not be able to help who they are attracted to, but it is a choice to act on it.

Homosexuals should be free to be homosexual and "bigots" should be free to avoid assisting in their homosexuality. No big deal. Don't understand why progressives have to have such an epic meltdown that people won't dress up flamboyantly and celebrate homosexuality.

 

[P@triot]

Racist bigots who feel it's a sin to serve an interracial couple either serve the couple or go out of business.

Yeah...if it's because people reject their approach to business (i.e. not serving homosexuals). It should be because the government overstepped their autority.

 

[Seawytch]

Gays aren't making a choice, bigots are.

Well that's not true. A homosexual may not be able to help who they are attracted to, but it is a choice to act on it.

Homosexuals should be free to be homosexual and "bigots" should be free to avoid assisting in their homosexuality. No big deal. Don't understand why progressives have to have such an epic meltdown that people won't dress up flamboyantly and celebrate homosexuality.

Both of those things are already true. We are free to be gay and you're free to be an anti gay bigot. What you haven't gotten to do, to your endless frustration, is to legislate your bigotry. Too bad, so sad.

 

[P@triot]

No it is not "as you see fit". Rastafarians don't get to practice their religion"as they see fit". You can practice your religion within the confines of the law.

The U.S. Constitution is the law my dear and it supercedes any and all other laws (the Supremacy Clause establishes as much). It says I have a right to practice my religion as I see fit (so long as I do not violate your rights in the process). The U.S. Constitution does not grant you rights to my labor. This isn't complicated.

 

[P@triot]

Gays aren't making a choice, bigots are.

Well that's not true. A homosexual may not be able to help who they are attracted to, but it is a choice to act on it.

Homosexuals should be free to be homosexual and "bigots" should be free to avoid assisting in their homosexuality. No big deal. Don't understand why progressives have to have such an epic meltdown that people won't dress up flamboyantly and celebrate homosexuality.

Both of those things are already true. We are free to be gay and you're free to be an anti gay bigot. What you haven't gotten to do, to your endless frustration, is to legislate your bigotry. Too bad, so sad.

Where has anyone advocated "legislating" bigotry?

The only side that wants to legislate is your unhinged side.

 

[P@triot]

Gays aren't making a choice, bigots are.

Well that's not true. A homosexual may not be able to help who they are attracted to, but it is a choice to act on it.

Homosexuals should be free to be homosexual and "bigots" should be free to avoid assisting in their homosexuality. No big deal. Don't understand why progressives have to have such an epic meltdown that people won't dress up flamboyantly and celebrate homosexuality.

Both of those things are already true. We are free to be gay and you're free to be an anti gay bigot. What you haven't gotten to do, to your endless frustration, is to legislate your bigotry. Too bad, so sad.

Genius here is screaming about how people of faith are forced to support homosexuals and how much she loves that and then she turns around and says "both of those things are already true" in response to my comment that people should be free to avoid assisting in homosexuality. Wow. Just wow. She doesn't even know which way is up.

 

[Seawytch]

Racist bigots who feel it's a sin to serve an interracial couple either serve the couple or go out of business.

Yeah...if it's because people reject their approach to business (i.e. not serving homosexuals). It should be because the government overstepped their autority.

It is because "the people reject their approach to business" (i.e. not serving gays, interracial couples, Muslims) "The government" are representatives of the people. Title II of the Civil Rights act was "the people" deciding that discrimination in Public Accommodation based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was against the law. Local public accommodation laws are "the people" deciding that discrimination in Public Accommodation for things like veteran status and sexual orientation was against the law.

Instead of going after local laws, state's right defender, go after the grandaddy, Title II of the Civil Rights Act if you want to be able to discriminate in business.

 

[Seawytch]

No it is not "as you see fit". Rastafarians don't get to practice their religion"as they see fit". You can practice your religion within the confines of the law.

The U.S. Constitution is the law my dear and it supercedes any and all other laws (the Supremacy Clause establishes as much). It says I have a right to practice my religion as I see fit (so long as I do not violate your rights in the process). The U.S. Constitution does not grant you rights to my labor. This isn't complicated.

No "patriot", you also don't get to violate US law. The Rastafarians can't doob it up, the Satanists can't perform ritual sacrifice and bigots have to serve those interracial couples whose relationships are an "affront to god". Oh yeah, and in some states and localities, they have to serve gays too.

 

[Seawytch]

Gays aren't making a choice, bigots are.

Well that's not true. A homosexual may not be able to help who they are attracted to, but it is a choice to act on it.

Homosexuals should be free to be homosexual and "bigots" should be free to avoid assisting in their homosexuality. No big deal. Don't understand why progressives have to have such an epic meltdown that people won't dress up flamboyantly and celebrate homosexuality.

Both of those things are already true. We are free to be gay and you're free to be an anti gay bigot. What you haven't gotten to do, to your endless frustration, is to legislate your bigotry. Too bad, so sad.

Where has anyone advocated "legislating" bigotry?

The only side that wants to legislate is your unhinged side.

Where? Here in the United States. Our history is rife with legislating bigotry. Pick up a history book, "patriot".

 

[P@triot]

No it is not "as you see fit". Rastafarians don't get to practice their religion"as they see fit". You can practice your religion within the confines of the law.

The U.S. Constitution is the law my dear and it supercedes any and all other laws (the Supremacy Clause establishes as much). It says I have a right to practice my religion as I see fit (so long as I do not violate your rights in the process). The U.S. Constitution does not grant you rights to my labor. This isn't complicated.

No "patriot", you also don't get to violate US law. The Rastafarians can't doob it up, the Satanists can't perform ritual sacrifice and bigots have to serve those interracial couples whose relationships are an "affront to god". Oh yeah, and in some states and localities, they have to serve gays too.

You're right - I don't get to violate US law. Thankfully for me - the U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land and the 1st Amendment protects my rights. It protects me from little hateful Saddam Hussein's such as yourself.

 

[P@triot]

Where? Here in the United States. Our history is rife with legislating bigotry. Pick up a history book, "patriot".

Yeah....from your side of the aisle genius.

 

[P@triot]

Racist bigots who feel it's a sin to serve an interracial couple either serve the couple or go out of business.

Yeah...if it's because people reject their approach to business (i.e. not serving homosexuals). It should be because the government overstepped their autority.

It is because "the people reject their approach to business" (i.e. not serving gays, interracial couples, Muslims) "The government" are representatives of the people. Title II of the Civil Rights act was "the people" deciding that discrimination in Public Accommodation based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was against the law. Local public accommodation laws are "the people" deciding that discrimination in Public Accommodation for things like veteran status and sexual orientation was against the law.

Instead of going after local laws, state's right defender, go after the grandaddy, Title II of the Civil Rights Act if you want to be able to discriminate in business.

The "people" don't decide anything. They sure as hell didn't decide to legalize gay marriage. Even radically left-wing California rejected gay marriage (remember Prop 8?). The most liberal state in the world reject gay marriage. The people had spoken. And then 9 unelected activists decided they wanted to play dictator and decide for 330 million Americans how to live their lives.

The problem is - like all progressives - you can't accept the will of the people. You want to force your unhinged views and beliefs on all of society. Instead of just living your life as you see fit and leaving me alone to live my life as I see fit.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Public Accommodation laws in the case of the bakers exist at the State level which is management of intra-state commerce. Don't you like the 10th Amendment?



>>>>