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

[Pop23]

I would allow the bakers to refrain from serving homosexual sinners, provided they don't serve other sinners - adulterers, liars, thieves, and especially people who are getting married for a second time, which the Bible calls adulterers. Of course choosing to serve only those people who are free of sin, may put them out of business too.

It they only sinners they are refusing to serve is gays, then they aren't standing up for their beliefs, they're discriminating against gays. Which is illegal.

I would allow a gay graphic designer to refrain from serving Christians with a giant highway billboard sign that reads "homosexuality is a sin unto God", as long as he didn't serve jews or Muslims for any other service, who also have been warned specifically by their God to not promote homosexuality within a culture in any way, shape or form under promise of eternal soul damnation. See, your "hypocrisy clause" works both ways dear..

The real standoff is going to come when a Muslim, armed with a really good legal team, walks into a gay graphic design shop and demands a highway billboard sign that says "Homosexuality is forbidden by Allah". Then the rubber's going to meet the road.. Hey, PA laws are PA laws...right?

Hypocricy Clause?

How's this, wanting all of the trappings of a TRADITIONAL WEDDING, except for the most important TRADITION?

Folks, you cannot make this shit up!

 

[Silhouette]

Just now I'm arguing on another thread with a person I suspect is a lawyer (but saying he is not) about his perceived interpretation of law that it's OK to hurt Christian children psychologically at schools by having a group meet on campus (the Satanists; who's professed intent for doing so is the embodiment of belittling or maligning others of faith). You really cannot make this shit up. He actually is arguing for a climate of bullying (of religious kids via taught-disdain) to re-blossom on the playground..

 

[Seawytch]

While I agree on the trends, the poll is biased due to the use of the words legal and illegal. People will skew towards the happy word rather than the unhappy word.

Not enough to change the trends, but enough to skew it a few percentage points in both directions.

"The poll is biased" in your opinion.

All polls are biased in a away, due to the nature of how people react to questions, and how polls are conducted.

It also doesn't ask how people think the legalization should be achieved.

Repeated polls have all indicated that a majority of Americans now support gay marriage

Do you agree?

Polls that asked the very specific question about the SCOTUS ruling show a majority in favor of the ruling so they are okay with HOW it was legalized.

Poll: Majorities back Supreme Court rulings on marriage, Obamacare

Still does not make them right about it.

Uh huh...shift those goal posts. The majority agree with the opinion which is what you originally asked about.

 

[BlindBoo]

When it comes to business, you have to follow the laws in your respective state. You cannot open a business that serves the public and then refuse to serve a specific portion of the public because of your religious beliefs. Otherwise, we would be a theocracy.

And so then you believe you have the right to force Microsoft to purchase the hardware for their business from Apple and the software to run their business from Google?

After all...Microsoft's refusal to do business with Apple is "discrimination".

Apple has no protection under any PA laws.

So now you're going to proudly discriminate against Apple? After crying about discrimination? Wow....

Wow you pseudo-cons are so emotional.......who knew?

 

[Seawytch]

Unless your business is "faith based" then you are just a regular business and you have to follow the same rules and regulations that everyone else does. Sorry but your faith doesn't make you "special."

Sorry, but the 1st Amendment says otherwise...it protects the American people from that kind of absurdity that I have to follow the crowd and Nazi goose-step in the exact same direction.

The United States was founded on, and built for, the individual. It is not about the collective.

So how come it only protects people that hate gays and leaves out people that think interracial marriage is sinful? How come the anti gay bigots get concessions we don't give racists?

 

[Silhouette]

So how come it only protects people that hate gays and leaves out people that think interracial marriage is sinful? How come the anti gay bigots get concessions we don't give racists?

Because the 7th circuit court of appeals found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) that homosexuals are just any type of person DOING homosexual acts; and therefore are not nouns, but instead verbs. Behaviors don't have protection under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And opposing a behavior is not hating a person. It's hating the behavior. Just like people have a right to hate thieving or sodomy or belligerence, or drunk driving or.... etc. etc.

You need to get familiar with the fact that many court decisions previously in your favor were based on a false premise, that the 7th just outlined was the case...

Twice homosexual marriage was voted down in California; the most liberal state in the Union. No majority EVER approved of gay marriage there... Other states the legislature shoved it through. I think only one, the population actually approved, where the population was overwhelmingly democrat.

 

[Seawytch]

If you are going to open a business that serves the public, then be aware, the public includes people you may not agree with.

Microsoft serves the public. The sell their Windows O/S in retail stores across the nation (such as Best Buy, etc.). Does that mean the government has the right and the power to force them into a lucrative business contracts with their competitors like Apple and Google? Should they be forced to purchase their hardware from Apple and some of their software from Google?

That's completely different than a public accommodation business refusing to serve a portion of the public based on discriminatory reasons.

How? How is that even remotely different?!? Explain it. You can't just yell "that's different" and then run away if you want anyone to seriously consider your views.

I already did explain it. It's pretty simple. If you open a business that serves the PUBLIC, then you have agreed to serve the public, which includes homosexuals.

Only in some places. Public Accommodation laws are state and local laws. "Patriot", a state's rights guy, should be supporting these local laws and should be going after the law that requires gays to serve Christians in all 50 states. (The Civil Rights Act)

 

[P@triot]

Unless your business is "faith based" then you are just a regular business and you have to follow the same rules and regulations that everyone else does. Sorry but your faith doesn't make you "special."

Sorry, but the 1st Amendment says otherwise...it protects the American people from that kind of absurdity that I have to follow the crowd and Nazi goose-step in the exact same direction.

The United States was founded on, and built for, the individual. It is not about the collective.

So how come it only protects people that hate gays and leaves out people that think interracial marriage is sinful? How come the anti gay bigots get concessions we don't give racists?

It shouldn't. I know damn well you've head me say on this board that a person absolutely has the constitutional right to reject entering into a business agreement with someone if they are racist.

You cannot legislate feelings and believing you can is the textbook definition of fascism. Additionally, even if you could legislate feelings - you shouldn't. You should just leave people free to live their lives. I won't tell you that you can't be gay if you won't tell someone else they can't hate gays. Deal?

 

[Silhouette]

Only in some places. Public Accommodation laws are state and local laws. "Patriot", a state's rights guy, should be supporting these local laws and should be going after the law that requires gays to serve Christians in all 50 states. (The Civil Rights Act)

UNLESS doing so requires the gay graphic designers to violate deeply held beliefs... like printing a giant highway billboard sign for a Christian that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God". The Church of LGBT's belief system assigns that "the Bible is wrong, Jesus's servant Jude is wrong, homosexuality is NOT a sin unto God". And that's their right to that edict of their faith's offshoot from actual Christianity. So they should not be required by any law to print that sign.

The entire nation would not expect to force a gay graphic designer to print such a sign. Nor would the nation expect a jew to print a sign that says "Nazis are the best!" for a highway billboard; or a jew to bake a cake for a Nazi event.

You're getting it Seawytch! You're almost there! Now can you see why the Kleins should not be forced to bake a wedding cake for a "gay marriage"?

 

[P@triot]

Only in some places. Public Accommodation laws are state and local laws. "Patriot", a state's rights guy, should be supporting these local laws and should be going after the law that requires gays to serve Christians in all 50 states. (The Civil Rights Act)

Again...the 10th Amendment does not trump the 1st Amendment. The 10th Amendment does not grant states the power to strip the American people of their constitutional rights.

 

[P@triot]

"Patriot"....should be going after the law that requires gays to serve Christians in all 50 states. (The Civil Rights Act)

I fully support a homosexuals right to deny Christians service. You show me the petition, I will sign on the dotted line wytch.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Totally. Me too. 100%

Like I said just a minute ago: vv

Only in some places. Public Accommodation laws are state and local laws. "Patriot", a state's rights guy, should be supporting these local laws and should be going after the law that requires gays to serve Christians in all 50 states. (The Civil Rights Act)

UNLESS doing so requires the gay graphic designers to violate deeply held beliefs... like printing a giant highway billboard sign for a Christian that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God". The Church of LGBT's belief system assigns that "the Bible is wrong, Jesus's servant Jude is wrong, homosexuality is NOT a sin unto God". And that's their right to that edict of their faith's offshoot from actual Christianity. So they should not be required by any law to print that sign.

The entire nation would not expect to force a gay graphic designer to print such a sign. Nor would the nation expect a jew to print a sign that says "Nazis are the best!" for a highway billboard; or a jew to bake a cake for a Nazi-pride event.

You're getting it Seawytch! You're almost there! Now can you see why the Kleins should not be forced to bake a wedding cake for a "gay marriage"? No? Still think this is a fascist country where laws only protect some but not all people?

You've heard of the 1st Amendment? Where people have the right of association? To agree OR disagree with others; especially concerning others BEHAVIORS and not some non-existent static class? The right to practice daily their faith anywhere they find themselves and not just on Sunday behind the plot boundaries of the church lot?

There are no "Nazi-Americans" just as there are no "Gay Americans". There are only Americans who are doing those things. And other people have the Constitutional right to not agree with them; and to not be forced to participate or associate with them IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. If a Nazi walked into a Jewish bakery in plain clothes and wanted an ordinary cake, a Jew would bake it for him without even knowing. If a Nazi walked in to a Jewish bakery and said "I want a cake baked for my Nazi-pride event", the Jew would be fully within his rights to refuse service.

 

[BlindBoo]

The issue isn't about Freedom of association or Religion. It's strictly business.

Sorry chief....you don't get to separate the two. You - like all progressives - desperately want to believe that business is an extension of government. That's why businesses owe people a job. Owe's them a certain wage. Etc. But that's simply not the case. Business is not an extension of government. They are private institutions on private property and are constitutionally permitted to engage in all forms and expressions - including faith.

The State has every right to regulate businesses within it's borders. That is not a belief. Businesses must follow the regulations or they get fined and stuff.......does nothing to stop them from expressing their faith or beliefs. It does stop them from discriminating.

 

[Dragonlady]

Just now I'm arguing on another thread with a person I suspect is a lawyer (but saying he is not) about his perceived interpretation of law that it's OK to hurt Christian children psychologically at schools by having a group meet on campus (the Satanists; who's professed intent for doing so is the embodiment of belittling or maligning others of faith). You really cannot make this shit up. He actually is arguing for a climate of bullying (of religious kids via taught-disdain) to re-blossom on the playground..

"Hurt Christian children psychologically" - you are making shit up now aren't you? How about hurting gay children psychologically, or gay adults for that matter? That one cuts both ways.

And your highway sign analogy is a total fail. Highway billboards don't come under the heading "public accommodations", so no, you cannot force anyone to put up a billboard.

Again, when so-called Christian bakers refuse to bake a wedding cake for a other classes of sinners, you will have an argument, but you can't pick and choose which sinners you won't serve. Serve one sinner, serve them all.

 

[Silhouette]

Just now I'm arguing on another thread with a person I suspect is a lawyer (but saying he is not) about his perceived interpretation of law that it's OK to hurt Christian children psychologically at schools by having a group meet on campus (the Satanists; who's professed intent for doing so is the embodiment of belittling or maligning others of faith). You really cannot make this shit up. He actually is arguing for a climate of bullying (of religious kids via taught-disdain) to re-blossom on the playground..

"Hurt Christian children psychologically" - you are making shit up now aren't you? How about hurting gay children psychologically, or gay adults for that matter? That one cuts both ways....And your highway sign analogy is a total fail. Highway billboards don't come under the heading "public accommodations", so no, you cannot force anyone to put up a billboard.

Again, when so-called Christian bakers refuse to bake a wedding cake for a other classes of sinners, you will have an argument, but you can't pick and choose which sinners you won't serve. Serve one sinner, serve them all.

If a Christian group came onto campus saying "our intent, and indeed the core of our faith is to ridicule homosexual children for the things they're doing in their bedrooms ", (as if homosexual children even exist pre-puberty, as if they're already having sex in elementary school) the group would not be allowed on campus. Likewise, the Satanist group professing to demonize people who practice any religion generally are there to instigate bullying of religious children. So they're not allowed either. The Satanist's mistake was to announce that they are the embodiment of being against any other religion. Upon that moment they are no longer allowed on a school campus to meet. Check your United States Constitution for details and your local ordinances on schoolyard bullying.

 

[Pop23]

Just now I'm arguing on another thread with a person I suspect is a lawyer (but saying he is not) about his perceived interpretation of law that it's OK to hurt Christian children psychologically at schools by having a group meet on campus (the Satanists; who's professed intent for doing so is the embodiment of belittling or maligning others of faith). You really cannot make this shit up. He actually is arguing for a climate of bullying (of religious kids via taught-disdain) to re-blossom on the playground..

"Hurt Christian children psychologically" - you are making shit up now aren't you? How about hurting gay children psychologically, or gay adults for that matter? That one cuts both ways.

And your highway sign analogy is a total fail. Highway billboards don't come under the heading "public accommodations", so no, you cannot force anyone to put up a billboard.

Again, when so-called Christian bakers refuse to bake a wedding cake for a other classes of sinners, you will have an argument, but you can't pick and choose which sinners you won't serve. Serve one sinner, serve them all.

So the Jewish baker MUST make the cake for the Oregon Nazi party?

 

[Silhouette]

So the Jewish baker MUST make the cake for the Oregon Nazi party?

Don't forget: SPECIFICALLY when the customer in the Jewish bakery announces that the cake is for "Our Nazi-Pride Event"...

vv Patriot, the Constitution protects people even when they do business in the public sector. Read this post for details. A man must not be forced between putting food on his table OR practicing his daily faith; but not both. Not in our country. Faith is first and always dominant; unless its practices causes proximate harm to another. Adults can't count "you hurt my feelings" as proximate harm; whereas children can. Hence the bullying laws we have in schools protecting everyone from a "gay child" (what are children doing having sex in elementary school?..) to Christian children, the handicapped, blacks, Hispanics, girls and so on.

The cult of LGBT is pushing for "safe space from free speech" areas for adults, but it ain't gonna fly. The only space for that is civil court in a harassment case; which already exists.

 

[P@triot]

The State has every right to regulate businesses within it's borders.

No - really - it doesn't. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true Boo.

That is not a belief.

Yes it is. It is your horribly misguided and misinformed belief. A belief built out of the progressive ideology of "bow to unlimited government power for the perceived good of the collective".

Businesses must follow the regulations or they get fined and stuff.......

Yeah? And? No shit. That's not what is being debated here.

does nothing to stop them from expressing their faith or beliefs. It does stop them from discriminating.

Government cannot discriminate. A private citizen on private property can. I can choose to invite every straight person in the world over and tell homosexuals they are not welcome. Or I can invite every woman in the world over and tell men they are not welcome. And there's not a ****'n thing you or the government can do about it. Know why? Because the Constitution protects my private property and my beliefs. And your perceived moral superiority does not supersede my rights.

You're falling miserably at this Boo. Would you like to try one more time or would you rather just admit that you can't justify your position because you are 100% wrong? I'm good either way.

 

[Iceweasel]

Want to bet? Show me where in the Constitution it grants to government the power over private institutions on private property. And don't even come at me with that weak ass "Commerce Clause" argument because the Commerce Clause applies to foreign commerce (as it clearly states) and matters of interstate commerce (as it clearly states). When a citizen of Oregon attempts to buy a cake from a bakery in Oregon, that is neither "foreign" nor "interstate". So? How about chief? What are going to make up now?

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Oregon was the State that passed the PA law that included protection for the LGBT community. This is a States Rights issue.

...because it isn't a constitutional one.

Right, because the SC has already set the precedent that the state can protect the LBGT community with PA laws.

You missed the point entirely. They needed the PA laws because it wasn't in the constitution. There isn't anything to prevent them but that isn't the point. Freedom of association and religious freedom is constitutional but political correctness has overridden it. Like they did with abortion.

The issue isn't about Freedom of association or Religion. It's strictly business.

That is the issue. You think you are God and can determine others' values for them. You do so because you are a control freak leftist and those like you had to create laws apart from the Constitution, which does protect association and religion. You would force a Jew to bake a Nazi cake so that makes you the Nazi.

 

[P@triot]

Highway billboards don't come under the heading "public accommodations", so no, you cannot force anyone to put up a billboard.

Wait.....what?!? Are you the biggest idiot ever Dragonlady?!? The sign company - which is open to the public - comes under your precious little "public accommodations" laws. So by your own idiotic views, the homosexual sign maker would be forced to make a sign saying "all homosexuals are filthy animals that will burn in hell".

Funny how you're suddenly not so keen on "public accommodation laws", uh stupid?