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

[Frank'sRules]

That is what Jesus taught.

No that was what Jude was teaching. What did Jesus say about it?

Nothing directly. As you know, the New Testament where Jude's accounts are lodged, are only eyewitness accounts of what Jesus taught. But that's Christianity. And it's protected by the Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Homosexuality isn't.

Homosexuality is protected by the Right to Privacy, like birth control and porno. BDSM, same thing. Other fetishes, same thing.

What isn't protected, your homophobia. That is an irrational fear and the law, when tested in the courts, is required to have a rational basis.

 

[Frank'sRules]

^^ No problem. Here's a compromise, your cult stops staging discrimination-hunts against Christian bakers and maybe this thing won't go all the way to the USSC where you'll lose.

PA laws have been tested time and again. They are constitutional. Why do you not know this? How many times must the courts reject you before you learn that homophobia is not a rational basis for our laws?

 

[BlindBoo]

^^ No problem. Here's a compromise, your cult stops staging discrimination-hunts against Christian bakers and maybe this thing won't go all the way to the USSC where you'll lose.

Hey that's neat you think I have a cult. I'm humbled.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ No problem. Here's a compromise, your cult stops staging discrimination-hunts against Christian bakers and maybe this thing won't go all the way to the USSC where you'll lose.

PA laws have been tested time and again. They are constitutional. Why do you not know this? How many times must the courts reject you before you learn that homophobia is not a rational basis for our laws?

Oh, it's a little thing I like to call the 1st Amendment's guaranteed rights to freedom of speech, religion and association, or the right not to associate. Since your premise has been laid bare recently by the 7th circuit court of appeals in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016), non-enumerated behaviors will not Trump enumerated protections in the Constitution. Christians will not ever be forced to participate in or promote gay marriages.

You were premature here when you represent PA laws are rock solid. They aren't. And the 7th circuit just blew a torpedo hole right through the hull of your ship. That you were erroneously granted a "class" based on things you like to do with your hoo-hoos is a head on collision course heading to the USSC in various incarnations as we speak. Homosexuality, bulimia, drug addiction...they're all legal for individuals to do; there's just no protection for them in the Constitution as "special classes of people". We all agree certain people belong to those definitions; just not by anything intrinsic about their person...instead by what they're doing...

 

[EvilCat Breath]

That is what Jesus taught.

No that was what Jude was teaching. What did Jesus say about it?

Nothing directly. As you know, the New Testament where Jude's accounts are lodged, are only eyewitness accounts of what Jesus taught. But that's Christianity. And it's protected by the Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Homosexuality isn't.

Homosexuality is protected by the Right to Privacy, like birth control and porno. BDSM, same thing. Other fetishes, same thing.

What isn't protected, your homophobia. That is an irrational fear and the law, when tested in the courts, is required to have a rational basis.

There is no fear.

 

[Frank'sRules]

^^ No problem. Here's a compromise, your cult stops staging discrimination-hunts against Christian bakers and maybe this thing won't go all the way to the USSC where you'll lose.

PA laws have been tested time and again. They are constitutional. Why do you not know this? How many times must the courts reject you before you learn that homophobia is not a rational basis for our laws?

Oh, it's a little thing I like to call the 1st Amendment's guaranteed rights to freedom of speech, religion and association, or the right not to associate. Since your premise has been laid bare recently by the 7th circuit court of appeals in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016), non-enumerated behaviors will not Trump enumerated protections in the Constitution. Christians will not ever be forced to participate in or promote gay marriages.

What you believe wasn't tested was tested decades ago. It doesn't matter that you don't approve of cohabitation or interracial marriages but you run a hotel. The courts have found, long ago, you are a PA and what you personally believe doesn't matter a damn. A bakery turning away a gay couple on religious grounds is no different than a hotel. Neither has the right in most cases.

Gay money spends the same as straight money and businesses are in business to make money. PA laws apply and they only get stronger, not weaker.

 

[Frank'sRules]

That is what Jesus taught.

No that was what Jude was teaching. What did Jesus say about it?

Nothing directly. As you know, the New Testament where Jude's accounts are lodged, are only eyewitness accounts of what Jesus taught. But that's Christianity. And it's protected by the Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Homosexuality isn't.

Homosexuality is protected by the Right to Privacy, like birth control and porno. BDSM, same thing. Other fetishes, same thing.

What isn't protected, your homophobia. That is an irrational fear and the law, when tested in the courts, is required to have a rational basis.

There is no fear.

That is entirely untrue. Fear is the only thing that makes people this irrational.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This should be easy. Someone comes into the bakery, there is no difference in the service they get. They can buy anything offered for sale.

They just have no right to demand the baker leave the premises nor a right to the artistic talent of the decorator.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

That is what Jesus taught.

No that was what Jude was teaching. What did Jesus say about it?

Nothing directly. As you know, the New Testament where Jude's accounts are lodged, are only eyewitness accounts of what Jesus taught. But that's Christianity. And it's protected by the Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Homosexuality isn't.

Homosexuality is protected by the Right to Privacy, like birth control and porno. BDSM, same thing. Other fetishes, same thing.

What isn't protected, your homophobia. That is an irrational fear and the law, when tested in the courts, is required to have a rational basis.

There is no fear.

That is entirely untrue. Fear is the only thing that makes people this irrational.

The only thing irrational is your omnipotence in deciding what is irrational. Your slavish devotion to depravity is irrational.

 

[Frank'sRules]

This should be easy. Someone comes into the bakery, there is no difference in the service they get. They can buy anything offered for sale.

They just have no right to demand the baker leave the premises nor a right to the artistic talent of the decorator.

The baker has a book of special cakes, all special order they don't just make them daily. The two people, forget anything else about them, pick option G. How is that different whether they are gay or straight or anything else? The answer, it isn't.

 

[Frank'sRules]

No that was what Jude was teaching. What did Jesus say about it?

Nothing directly. As you know, the New Testament where Jude's accounts are lodged, are only eyewitness accounts of what Jesus taught. But that's Christianity. And it's protected by the Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Homosexuality isn't.

Homosexuality is protected by the Right to Privacy, like birth control and porno. BDSM, same thing. Other fetishes, same thing.

What isn't protected, your homophobia. That is an irrational fear and the law, when tested in the courts, is required to have a rational basis.

There is no fear.

That is entirely untrue. Fear is the only thing that makes people this irrational.

The only thing irrational is your omnipotence in deciding what is irrational. Your slavish devotion to depravity is irrational.

What is rational is what is can be proved rational. Depravity is a moral and emotional judgment, not a legal one.

Rational is two adults, in the privacy of their bedroom, can have any kind of sex they like. Irrational is saying well yeah but anal and oral sex is nasty so therefore I want that banned, it bugs me. Porn for adults is legal, we have a rational basis. I think porn is nasty and depraved so no one should be allowed to have it is irrational. What is rational is probably not moral in your eyes and I don't give a damn, that's not the basis of our laws.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ What is rational legal deduction is what is enumerated in the Constitution vs what is not. Check the 1st Amendment for details.. Gays having sex in the privacy of their bedrooms is not what the two discrimination-hunting lesbians wanted when they walked into the Christian bakery and, on purpose, demanded a "gay wedding cake" in a public venue. In the public venue, you see, Christians enjoy their 1st Amendment rights. PA = PUBLIC accommodation. Unfortunately for the cult of LGBT, this means Christians also enjoy public accommodation. Did equal application of that concept not occur to you? Well it does now, doesn't it?

What you believe wasn't tested was tested decades ago. It doesn't matter that you don't approve of cohabitation or interracial marriages but you run a hotel. The courts have found, long ago, you are a PA and what you personally believe doesn't matter a damn. A bakery turning away a gay couple on religious grounds is no different than a hotel. Neither has the right in most cases.

Gay money spends the same as straight money and businesses are in business to make money. PA laws apply and they only get stronger, not weaker.

That conclusion is being challenged as we speak. What part of that don't you understand? Money does not undo Constitutional protections. You're going to find that out very soon so prepare yourself. Read Hively v Ivy Tech when you get a minute.

 

[Seawytch]

"It would be valid in all States under my concept, it's just each State would get to decide if they wanted to ISSUE SSM licenses or not"

And why would that matter? The two gay guys next door would be just as legally married either way. It seems that you want to vote on the rights of others and we are not a democracy so that's not an option.

You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices.

My issue has been that a court that makes up rights can just as easily ignore them, hence my concern of Hillary getting to appoint justices and that impact on the 2nd amendment.

"You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices. "

No, you misunderstanding the ruling which is based on equality before the law. Nothing was made up. The bans were found to be unconstitutional just like the bans on interracial marriage were found to be unconstitutional. It made two people, just two, unequal before the law.

According to you. If you follow strict constructionism, it is jiggery-pokery, nothing more.

There is no "strict" constitutionalism. Try to prove that equality before the law for one adult, or two adults even, isn't unconstitutional?

One is a Christian, one is a Jew. One is a Christian couple, one is a Jewish couple. One is a gay man, one is a straight man. One is a straight couple, one is a gay couple. Show us where the Constitution says we can treat them differently, using your "strict" definition?

It depends on what your view of equal is. There is no precedent for SSM anywhere in our history. It is a new concept. It should be made equal not via the courts, but via the State Legislatures.

If any of them are related to each other closer than 1st cousin (or 2nd cousin in some states) they can be denied a marriage certificate. So they are being treated differently.

There was no more precedent for Loving than there was for Obergefell. Interracial marriage was a "new concept made equal by the courts"

 

[Silhouette]

Too bad race = behaviors-not-enumerated is a premise just destroyed by Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit 2016).

You realize it will take a Constitutional Amendment to fix that, right? Start petitioning federal legislators right away. It's my understanding that process will take quite an effort if there's any hope for you to be successful with it. I believe you also have to sell it to the general public. I hope your poll results are accurate, given gay marriage was voted down twice in the most liberal state in the Union..

 

[Frank'sRules]

^^ What is rational legal deduction is what is enumerated in the Constitution vs what is not. Check the 1st Amendment for details.. Gays having sex in the privacy of their bedrooms is not what the two discrimination-hunting lesbians wanted when they walked into the Christian bakery and, on purpose, demanded a "gay wedding cake" in a public venue. In the public venue, you see, Christians enjoy their 1st Amendment rights. PA = PUBLIC accommodation. Unfortunately for the cult of LGBT, this means Christians also enjoy public accommodation. Did equal application of that concept not occur to you? Well it does now, doesn't it?

What you believe wasn't tested was tested decades ago. It doesn't matter that you don't approve of cohabitation or interracial marriages but you run a hotel. The courts have found, long ago, you are a PA and what you personally believe doesn't matter a damn. A bakery turning away a gay couple on religious grounds is no different than a hotel. Neither has the right in most cases.

Gay money spends the same as straight money and businesses are in business to make money. PA laws apply and they only get stronger, not weaker.

That conclusion is being challenged as we speak. What part of that don't you understand? Money does not undo Constitutional protections. You're going to find that out very soon so prepare yourself. Read Hively v Ivy Tech when you get a minute.

We are never going back to treating gays as second-class citizens in normal society. You can do that while praying to Jesus, who was gay.

And PA laws aren't going anywhere. They have already been tested and found to be constitutional. If you bake wedding cakes then you bake wedding cakes. A man and a woman, two men, two women, three men and twelve women, two dogs and a kitchen sponge, it's none of your business as long as the check clears.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Too bad race = behaviors-not-enumerated is a premise just destroyed by Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit 2016).

You realize it will take a Constitutional Amendment to fix that, right? Start petitioning federal legislators right away. It's my understanding that process will take quite an effort if there's any hope for you to be successful with it. I believe you also have to sell it to the general public. I hope your poll results are accurate, given gay marriage was voted down twice in the most liberal state in the Union..

Gay marriage was never really up for a vote. And the bans were found unconstitutional because, we are not a democracy.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Tell it to the 7th circuit court of appeals. They're the ones who said your behaviors don't get you special Constitutional protections that aren't enumerated. Bulimia and personal drug use are also legal, but they don't have enumerated protections either even though we call them "bulimics" and "drug addicts" based on what they do in the privacy of their homes..

...nobody is suggesting going around beating up bulimics or drug addicts. But if others don't want to enable, participate in or promote those behaviors, they are not required to do so.

We are never going back to treating gays as second-class citizens in normal society. You can do that while praying to Jesus, who was gay.

And PA laws aren't going anywhere. They have already been tested and found to be constitutional. If you bake wedding cakes then you bake wedding cakes. A man and a woman, two men, two women, three men and twelve women, two dogs and a kitchen sponge, it's none of your business as long as the check clears.

This debate with the Kleins isn't about people doing homosexual stuff not being treated equally. It's about gays not treating Christians as if they have any rights when it comes to behaviors they don't want to promote. Pay attention to that point because it's a crucial one going forward in this legal battle.

 

[Pop23]

You need to quit bringing religion of the customer into this. The Government proclaimed it's duty to protect religion in the Bill of rights. That is, unless you can find sexual orientation in the Bill of Rights, it's a moot point. Regardless if it's in the Oregon law or not.

Sorry Pops, I'll bring up anything I like. Please don't try to tell me what I can bring up or not.

Thank you.

Then you make the claim that, because a pizza place delivers, they must CATER a wedding?

How's that work?

I don't make the claim at all.

I remember period news reports where the Pizza Shop owners said they cater events and would be happy to cater a different-sex couple wedding but would refuse to perform the same service for a same-sex wedding. THEY are the one that claimed they would cater weddings, not I.

Delivery and catering are two vastly different forms of commerce.

I agree, So? If they refused service because the customers were gay it would still violate Public Accommodation laws (assuming that state listed sexual orientation in the law) whether it was "catering" or "delivery".

Do you suppose that the State or the court can demand proof of the mans race?

Nope, in most cases it will be self-evident. The basis of the discrimination is on the ACTIONS of the business owner. But on the other hand, a Catholic named Sternberg would have a case if the baker refused service telling him he didn't serve Jews even though he wasn't Jewish.


>>>>

Because he's gay........

Got that proof yet?

Yes, in most cases it is self evident. But you claim folks can self proclaim as a basis in fact.

When it works in your favor I guess?

Most folks require proof of the charge greater then "cuz I say so"

Thanks for playing

 

[Frank'sRules]

We are never going back to treating gays as second-class citizens in normal society. You can do that while praying to Jesus, who was gay.

And PA laws aren't going anywhere. They have already been tested and found to be constitutional. If you bake wedding cakes then you bake wedding cakes. A man and a woman, two men, two women, three men and twelve women, two dogs and a kitchen sponge, it's none of your business as long as the check clears.

This debate with the Kleins isn't about people doing homosexual stuff not being treated equally. It's about gays not treating Christians as if they have any rights when it comes to behaviors they don't want to promote. Pay attention to that point because it's a crucial one going forward in this legal battle.

The Kleins had no business beyond selling what they made. Had it not been a wedding cake, it could have been muffins for a gay pride rally, they were no more in a position to take a stance. They sell goods. They aren't a church. The laws said come one, come all, and they refused. That's why they ended up out of business. A real business says if you're buying then we're selling. Mostly churches take a moral position that's opposed to the business at hand. They can turn away the gays. Had the Kleins been a church we never would have of them but they were a business and like it or not they broke the law.

 

[Pop23]

Are you telling us now that children AUTOMATICALLY have their thoughts default to their parents "doing the nasty" everytime they think of them?

Nope but it occurs to them once or twice. And that's enough to seal the damage. As they grow, they learn about biology and how two men using each other's anuses as artificial vaginas is aberrant sexual behavior therefore. So in the aging child's mind there grows a disturbance. They become aware that their "two dads" or "two moms" aren't quite playing with a full deck. And that will cause a rift as those "parents" keep insisting against reason and science "no no...this is normal..really...we swear it is."

As the child becomes an adolescent, the child will find the dildo under the lesbos' bed and start thinking "hey, wait a minute...". And the child of two gay men will realize as sophistication grows in his mind that a man using another man's business end as "just another hole" is..."hey, wait a minute..." when he thinks about biology.

The whole thing is set to unravel in the child's mind at a given moment when he or she realizes that their "parents' are really two crazy people of the same gender trying to approximate an actual heterosexual relationship. Especially if one of them acts male and the other female, no matter what the gender is in question. We've all see that too. Are you going to insist that doesn't exist? The butch/femme thing in both gay males and lesbians? How they always seem to gravitate towards those roles or each other in the first place?

You might fool some people. But you won't fool a child. And when we remember we're talking about a normal childhood under a marriage contract; the "gay marriage" is not only not normal, it is mind-*******...damaging to any children involved. The ruse can only last so long. "Through the mouths of babes" comes the stark and uncomfortable truth.

Mom is blowing dad, dad is blowing mom, or dad is doing mom in the ass and you think a child working out two gay parents is the problem? I'd say that's the easy part while why is mommy on her knees or daddy is doing her like a dog is not so much?

You have a deeply troubled view of human sexuality and parent-child relationships. I never think of my parents having sex and I've been doing that since I learned what it was many decades ago. That is how it works not which one put what in which hole. To even go there makes you a very troubled person so most of us run like hell the other way. That works.

Lol, foreplay to some. The entire life of others.

You can't make this stuff up folks!