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

[EvilCat Breath]

The secularists want to make the government the final arbiter of religion. Rather than true freedom of religion where people judge their own sin, the government will do it for you. Christianity is okay, just as long as the government makes necessary adjustments. This is moving toward the state religion. A person can believe whatever they want, as long as what they want is what the government religion let's them have. Fortunately for secularists, there is Islam that will kill off Christians and Jews without expressions of individual sin. To the left, Islam will all become good little homo loving leftists as soon as the Christians are dead.

 

[Silhouette]

The secularists want to make the government the final arbiter of religion. Rather than true freedom of religion where people judge their own sin, the government will do it for you. Christianity is okay, just as long as the government makes necessary adjustments. This is moving toward the state religion. A person can believe whatever they want, as long as what they want is what the government religion let's them have. Fortunately for secularists, there is Islam that will kill off Christians and Jews without expressions of individual sin. To the left, Islam will all become good little homo loving leftists as soon as the Christians are dead.

The only place a state has in "making adjustments" to a religion is if it causes real and proximate harm to others. The Kleins simply smiling and saying "sorry, we reserve the right to refuse to make you a wedding cake" was not them putting someone to death, hurling rocks, or slapping them in the face. It was simply their passive right to not play along. Even if government whittled away at religions until it was satisfied, a person's mere passive right to refuse to practice another person's religion that flies in the faith of theirs ("Church of LGBT gay marriage") would be the last whittle to go before there was nothing left.

 

[social philosopher]

Thank you for all that. However, I am not a believer. The Christian god does not exist. While Christian philosophy is full of wonderful sayings and values, none are holy. They are all rather simple and common sense. We should all live by many of them. Those being the way others are treated. Human respect and dignity. If you want a more rational picture of what really happened you should begin with the writings of Zecharia Sitchin and the Sumerian mythology/creation tale.

"The Christian God does not exist". Prove it. And while you're at it, prove water isn't wet.

What about the dignity children deserve having both a mother and father in marriage? Forgot about children in the marriage contract? That's OK, a lot of people do. But their dignity is still at stake. Either you care about it or you don't. Does your common sense recipe include marriages having both a mother and fatherQUOTthe children (boys and girls) who are part of it?

You want to keep it light and simple "don't go there" type of discussion. Strawman by net weight. However, the Church of LGBT has made it heavy and complex. So we have to talk about it, thanks to the Devil. It's always that way, isn't it?[/QUOTE

I don't recall saying anything about " don't go there" you make a lot of suppositions and presumptions. I assume speaking without sufficient information or cogent thought is habitual for you. I just make statements of fact. Whether you understand the mechanics involved in another story.

 

[Silhouette]

Getting the quote thing right is such a pain in the ass here. It's the multi-quote function stacking them all up and making most of them invisible. I harvested your reply here vv

I don't recall saying anything about " don't go there" you make a lot of suppositions and presumptions. I assume speaking without sufficient information or cogent thought is habitual for you. I just make statements of fact. Whether you understand the mechanics involved in another story.

Relying on ad hominems must be habitual for you. Because your post is full of them. Your insistence that God doesn't exist invites your posts to be scrutinized. Your reliance on your brand of common sense invites dissection. Your statements are no more fact than your ability to prove them. Get used to it. It's called "debate". So far I've seen you only offer broad "conclusions" without any premise or facts to back them. Like I said, you say "basic common sense rules". And I countered that in the 1930s in Germany, 'basic common sense' was that Jews die for being Jewish. So, common sense being relative to a human society's time and place, there needs to be a Larger, more Permanent "Common Sense" to keep mankind from spiraling into the outhouse of sin and depravity.

I still have heard nothing from you about the degrading conditions children are now subject to in "marriages" that via contract no longer provide a mother for girls or a father for boys. Pretty degrading to be a boy and grow up with the daily lesson "even your most reptilian function as a male (sex) is not necessary in a functioning adult world". Any words on that type of degradation? Or will you fire back with more ad hominems?

 

[Seawytch]

The same "process" followed in Loving was followed in Obergefell. Same EXACT process except gays had to wait until they were "popular".

and it was right for loving, and wrong for obergefell.

Uh huh, of course it was. I guess we should be happy you're only homophobic and not racist. Yay?

how am I homophobic If i am ok with and even support marriage law being changed via State legislatures, and other States being forced to recognize said licenses even if they don't want to issue them?

Again, Obergefell came about in the exact same way that Loving came about. You agree with Loving, disagree with Obergefell. Sorry, but that leaves only one logical conclusion.

Just because I think SSM and OSM are drastically different compared to inter-racial relations doesn't make me a homophobe. I guess its just easier for you to dump me in a nice little folder.

You don't get to define reality. The reality is attraction to someone of the same sex is a biological detriment. That has nothing to do with morality. I honestly don't care who you like to bugger. It's when you decide to make everyone else care OR ELSE that I have an issue.

I'm not defining anything, just following the logical conclusion of your statements. The Loving decision and the Obergerfel decision came about in the EXACT same way but you think one was a bad ruling.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not defining anything, just following the logical conclusion of your statements. The Loving decision and the Obergerfel decision came about in the EXACT same way but you think one was a bad ruling.

Nope, Loving followed the Constitution's protection of race. Obergefell had no citation in the Constitution on behaviors to follow at all except the right to bear arms and practice of faith. Homosexuality, eating disorders, drug addiction...all legal to the person but none mentioned in the Constitution as protected.

But you knew that. And so did Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg... Now that the 7th Circuit in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) just announced sexual orientation (description of behavior) is not covered under THE Civil Rights Act, my points are backed by legal authority. Please point us all to any Act in the Constitution, ratified by Congress, that describes protection for sexual behaviors?

 

[Pop23]

And, please state, of those groups in which the protective status is given by the courts

Religion, Sexual Orientation, Race, National Origin, Marital Status were not defined by the courts they specifically enumerated in the Oregon Public Accommodation law. Therefore they were defined by the Oregon Legislature, not the courts.


>>>>

And what exactly does the Oregon case have to do with the discussion you joined in on, which was why blacks should be pissed off about Obergfell being compared to Loving?

No wonder you clipped out the context!

I already destroyed the argument that the baker discriminated based on sexual orientation. We've moved on past that. If you care to come along, please do.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Well to be fair, the USSC was careful to alternate the terms "same sex" and "sexual orientation" & "'gays and lesbians", reserving the "right" to say "we didn't say sexual orientation specifically" or "we didn't say same-sex specifically" or "we didn't say gays and lesbians specifically".. as a retort to any challenge mounted on the points you made. It was an insidiously crafted, premeditated fascist assault; a tyrannical document that even sought to protect future challenges to its overreach...the author of which as he crafted it...knew he was overreaching at the time and sought to thwart consequences of that overreach as he committed the crime.. He had four conspirators though.

One of the Justices couldn't take the reality of that document and expired a few months after its crafting from the stress of what had to be unlivable impotence & frustration at being unable to stop it from happening.. 5 people telling 300 million "Oh, by the way, you no longer can define marriage to include both a mother and father...despite your voting to the contrary. We unelected fascists overrule your right to regulate in your states on behaviors that directly impact children and, ergo, your future citizens. And we do this with two biased Justices presiding; all while not having one whit or word or even implication from the Constitution to justify doing so..."

The Hearing was a joke. These 5 didn't even deliberate; not even a hint of it in their Ruling. Their #1 premeditated concern was crafting the language of the Ruling to appear as if there was serious deliberation; while also attempting, transparently, to add language to attempt to fend off future challenges based on logic, reasoning and existing American laws (US Constitution protecting state powers). The SAME DAY of the Ruling, a rainbow light display shone on the Whitehouse in the evening. Also suggesting premeditation and conspiracy with the Executive Branch. Everyone knows how long it takes to get approval for changes, even minute, on Whitehouse grounds...

A giant **** YOU from President Obama over the majority's votes of the 300 million people he swore to protect and defend the DEMOCRACY thereof... No bulimia, drug addiction or homosexuality mentioned at all in the Constitution as to enumerated protection.. Just "**** YOU', the Judicial and Executive (six people total, five unelected) are taking away the powers of Your elected representatives...

 

[Pop23]

^^ Well to be fair, the USSC was careful to alternate the terms "same sex" and "sexual orientation" & "'gays and lesbians", reserving the "right" to say "we didn't say sexual orientation specifically" or "we didn't say same-sex specifically" or "we didn't say gays and lesbians specifically".. as a retort to any challenge mounted on the points you made. It was an insidiously crafted, premeditated fascist assault; a tyrannical document that even sought to protect future challenges to its overreach...the author of which as he crafted it...knew he was overreaching at the time and sought to thwart consequences of that overreach as he committed the crime.. He had four conspirators though.

One of the Justices couldn't take the reality of that document and expired a few months after its crafting from the stress of what had to be unlivable impotence & frustration at being unable to stop it from happening.. 5 people telling 300 million "Oh, by the way, you no longer can define marriage to include both a mother and father...despite your voting to the contrary. We unelected fascists overrule your right to regulate in your states on behaviors that directly impact children and, ergo, your future citizens. And we do this with two biased Justices presiding; all while not having one whit or word or even implication from the Constitution to justify doing so..."

In other words

The ends justify the means.

That rarely ends up well

 

[WorldWatcher]

And what exactly does the Oregon case have to do with the discussion you joined in on, which was why blacks should be pissed off about Obergfell being compared to Loving?

What does Oregon law have to do with a baker fined under Oregon law when people try to deflect to Federal law (which is not the law the case was brought under)?

You're kidding right?

I already destroyed the argument that the baker discriminated based on sexual orientation. We've moved on past that. If you care to come along, please do.

Sorry Pops you didn't "destroy" anything. Silly hypotheticals do not "destroy" an actual case.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

And what exactly does the Oregon case have to do with the discussion you joined in on, which was why blacks should be pissed off about Obergfell being compared to Loving?

What does Oregon law have to do with a baker fined under Oregon law when people try to deflect to Federal law (which is not the law the case was brought under)?

You're kidding right?

I already destroyed the argument that the baker discriminated based on sexual orientation. We've moved on past that. If you care to come along, please do.

Sorry Pops you didn't "destroy" anything. Silly hypotheticals do not "destroy" an actual case.


>>>>

Dude, you deflected from an entirely different discussion.

your intent was to confuse. I ain't buying it, and yes, my hypothetical, with your help, did demonstrate that the baker did not discriminate based on sexual orientation. He simply does not supply wedding cakes to that newly created niche market.

It's really that simple. Even if two heterosexual males wanted one, he would not bake it.

And here is the context you snipped out:

Is actually simpler to see why the black race would be upset, even angry about this.

The two legal processes were indeed the same, yet that doesn't say it should be.

A black man can be proven, using standard physical observation to prove he belongs in a protected class.

The homosexual man cannot claim the same. In fact, there inclusion in a protected class is purely speculative.

I asked, earlier in this thread, a very telling question to one of the greatest advocates of gay rights. That question was:

If two heterosexual men walked into the bakery and told the baker they were gay, would the baker have violated the law for not baking the cake?

The answer was yes.

Amazing.

The evidence to prove discrimination, based on sexual orientation is extremely low. It's simply the individuals testimony. There need be no other evidence.

Why couldn't anyone, fired or refused any kind of public accomodation Sue based on their belief they were discriminated because they were gay? There really is no way to prove anyone isn't. But the real interesting thing is, there really is no objective manner to prove they are.

Try that test with any other protected class. ALL CAN BE OBJECTIVELY TESTED THAT THEY ARE WHO THEY CLAIM TO BE.

Yes, the blacks have a right to be mad.

[\quote]

 

[martybegan]

and it was right for loving, and wrong for obergefell.

Uh huh, of course it was. I guess we should be happy you're only homophobic and not racist. Yay?

how am I homophobic If i am ok with and even support marriage law being changed via State legislatures, and other States being forced to recognize said licenses even if they don't want to issue them?

Again, Obergefell came about in the exact same way that Loving came about. You agree with Loving, disagree with Obergefell. Sorry, but that leaves only one logical conclusion.

Just because I think SSM and OSM are drastically different compared to inter-racial relations doesn't make me a homophobe. I guess its just easier for you to dump me in a nice little folder.

You don't get to define reality. The reality is attraction to someone of the same sex is a biological detriment. That has nothing to do with morality. I honestly don't care who you like to bugger. It's when you decide to make everyone else care OR ELSE that I have an issue.

I'm not defining anything, just following the logical conclusion of your statements. The Loving decision and the Obergerfel decision came about in the EXACT same way but you think one was a bad ruling.

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and there was no precedence for SSM compared to interracial marriages (or inter tribe marriages, or inter clan marriages).

A change that big, that is something new, not correcting something that was wrongly implemented, should not come from the courts, but from the legislatures.

 

[bodecea]

The secularists want to make the government the final arbiter of religion. Rather than true freedom of religion where people judge their own sin, the government will do it for you. Christianity is okay, just as long as the government makes necessary adjustments. This is moving toward the state religion. A person can believe whatever they want, as long as what they want is what the government religion let's them have. Fortunately for secularists, there is Islam that will kill off Christians and Jews without expressions of individual sin. To the left, Islam will all become good little homo loving leftists as soon as the Christians are dead.

The only place a state has in "making adjustments" to a religion is if it causes real and proximate harm to others. The Kleins simply smiling and saying "sorry, we reserve the right to refuse to make you a wedding cake" was not them putting someone to death, hurling rocks, or slapping them in the face. It was simply their passive right to not play along. Even if government whittled away at religions until it was satisfied, a person's mere passive right to refuse to practice another person's religion that flies in the faith of theirs ("Church of LGBT gay marriage") would be the last whittle to go before there was nothing left.

So the Kleins didn't have a business license?

 

[social philosopher]

Getting the quote thing right is such a pain in the ass here. It's the multi-quote function stacking them all up and making most of them invisible. I harvested your reply here vv

I don't recall saying anything about " don't go there" you make a lot of suppositions and presumptions. I assume speaking without sufficient information or cogent thought is habitual for you. I just make statements of fact. Whether you understand the mechanics involved in another story.

Relying on ad hominems must be habitual for you. Because your post is full of them. Your insistence that God doesn't exist invites your posts to be scrutinized. Your reliance on your brand of common sense invites dissection. Your statements are no more fact than your ability to prove them. Get used to it. It's called "debate". So far I've seen you only offer broad "conclusions" without any premise or facts to back them. Like I said, you say "basic common sense rules". And I countered that in the 1930s in Germany, 'basic common sense' was that Jews die for being Jewish. So, common sense being relative to a human society's time and place, there needs to be a Larger, more Permanent "Common Sense" to keep mankind from spiraling into the outhouse of sin and depravity.

I still have heard nothing from you about the degrading conditions children are now subject to in "marriages" that via contract no longer provide a mother for girls or a father for boys. Pretty degrading to be a boy and grow up with the daily lesson "even your most reptilian function as a male (sex) is not necessary in a functioning adult world". Any words on that type of degradation? Or will you fire back with more ad hominems?

Your education is about 50 years out of date my friend.

 

[bodecea]

Uh huh, of course it was. I guess we should be happy you're only homophobic and not racist. Yay?

how am I homophobic If i am ok with and even support marriage law being changed via State legislatures, and other States being forced to recognize said licenses even if they don't want to issue them?

Again, Obergefell came about in the exact same way that Loving came about. You agree with Loving, disagree with Obergefell. Sorry, but that leaves only one logical conclusion.

Just because I think SSM and OSM are drastically different compared to inter-racial relations doesn't make me a homophobe. I guess its just easier for you to dump me in a nice little folder.

You don't get to define reality. The reality is attraction to someone of the same sex is a biological detriment. That has nothing to do with morality. I honestly don't care who you like to bugger. It's when you decide to make everyone else care OR ELSE that I have an issue.

I'm not defining anything, just following the logical conclusion of your statements. The Loving decision and the Obergerfel decision came about in the EXACT same way but you think one was a bad ruling.

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and there was no precedence for SSM compared to interracial marriages (or inter tribe marriages, or inter clan marriages).

A change that big, that is something new, not correcting something that was wrongly implemented, should not come from the courts, but from the legislatures.

Race and gender aren't the same either....are you going to assert that people can be discriminated against based on their gender?

 

[bodecea]

And what exactly does the Oregon case have to do with the discussion you joined in on, which was why blacks should be pissed off about Obergfell being compared to Loving?

What does Oregon law have to do with a baker fined under Oregon law when people try to deflect to Federal law (which is not the law the case was brought under)?

You're kidding right?

I already destroyed the argument that the baker discriminated based on sexual orientation. We've moved on past that. If you care to come along, please do.

Sorry Pops you didn't "destroy" anything. Silly hypotheticals do not "destroy" an actual case.


>>>>

Dude, you deflected from an entirely different discussion.

your intent was to confuse. I ain't buying it, and yes, my hypothetical, with your help, did demonstrate that the baker did not discriminate based on sexual orientation. He simply does not supply wedding cakes to that newly created niche market.

It's really that simple. Even if two heterosexual males wanted one, he would not bake it.

The Kleins didn't have a business license?

 

[WorldWatcher]

[

Dude, you deflected from an entirely different discussion.

your intent was to confuse. I ain't buying it, and yes, my hypothetical, with your help, did demonstrate that the baker did not discriminate based on sexual orientation. He simply does not supply wedding cakes to that newly created niche market.

It's really that simple. Even if two heterosexual males wanted one, he would not bake it.

Try that argument in court. Bring your checkbook just like the Kliens.

BTW - they have submitted their appeal and your hypothetical isn't even one of the questions they ask the court to address.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

The secularists want to make the government the final arbiter of religion. Rather than true freedom of religion where people judge their own sin, the government will do it for you. Christianity is okay, just as long as the government makes necessary adjustments. This is moving toward the state religion. A person can believe whatever they want, as long as what they want is what the government religion let's them have. Fortunately for secularists, there is Islam that will kill off Christians and Jews without expressions of individual sin. To the left, Islam will all become good little homo loving leftists as soon as the Christians are dead.

The only place a state has in "making adjustments" to a religion is if it causes real and proximate harm to others. The Kleins simply smiling and saying "sorry, we reserve the right to refuse to make you a wedding cake" was not them putting someone to death, hurling rocks, or slapping them in the face. It was simply their passive right to not play along. Even if government whittled away at religions until it was satisfied, a person's mere passive right to refuse to practice another person's religion that flies in the faith of theirs ("Church of LGBT gay marriage") would be the last whittle to go before there was nothing left.

So the Kleins didn't have a business license?

Doesn't matter, the kleins business licence doesn't obligate them to sell a niche product anymore then forces them to sell pineapples

 

[Pop23]

[

Dude, you deflected from an entirely different discussion.

your intent was to confuse. I ain't buying it, and yes, my hypothetical, with your help, did demonstrate that the baker did not discriminate based on sexual orientation. He simply does not supply wedding cakes to that newly created niche market.

It's really that simple. Even if two heterosexual males wanted one, he would not bake it.

Try that argument in court. Bring your checkbook just like the Kliens.

BTW - they have submitted their appeal and your hypothetical isn't even one of the questions they ask the court to address.


>>>>

Wow! You can't argue the merits of the argument, so now this?

Peachy

 

[martybegan]

how am I homophobic If i am ok with and even support marriage law being changed via State legislatures, and other States being forced to recognize said licenses even if they don't want to issue them?

Again, Obergefell came about in the exact same way that Loving came about. You agree with Loving, disagree with Obergefell. Sorry, but that leaves only one logical conclusion.

Just because I think SSM and OSM are drastically different compared to inter-racial relations doesn't make me a homophobe. I guess its just easier for you to dump me in a nice little folder.

You don't get to define reality. The reality is attraction to someone of the same sex is a biological detriment. That has nothing to do with morality. I honestly don't care who you like to bugger. It's when you decide to make everyone else care OR ELSE that I have an issue.

I'm not defining anything, just following the logical conclusion of your statements. The Loving decision and the Obergerfel decision came about in the EXACT same way but you think one was a bad ruling.

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and there was no precedence for SSM compared to interracial marriages (or inter tribe marriages, or inter clan marriages).

A change that big, that is something new, not correcting something that was wrongly implemented, should not come from the courts, but from the legislatures.

Race and gender aren't the same either....are you going to assert that people can be discriminated against based on their gender?

What i am saying is if you want in on an institution like marriage, and you have no precedent for it, you appeal to the legislatures of the States to change the contract, you don't make up some right to it that never existed.