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

[Pop23]

For now is right...

Poll: Seven in 10 support LGBT nondiscrimination laws

But your perceived likely direction is all wrong.

Well then they should threaten and blackmail...er...I mean contact their representatives in Congress because even if 10 of 10 Americans wanted to let aberrant sex behaviors parade around as a "class" of people specially protected ( you know, above normal harassment laws that protect everyone anyway ), it still isn't the Law until Congress ratifies new language to the Civil Rights Act.

Pick up those batons, gossip columns, hire those private investigators.....er...I mean phones and pens and start getting a hold of your representatives.. "Law" by force of a minority using surreptitious means is also known as fascism. We do democracy in this country.

Here's the part of this whole discussion I find extremely interesting.

I point out that there is no objective test that can prove any single being is homosexual.

They counter with, "well, what about religion"

So, if religion is a delusion (how many times have we heard that from these folks), and it can't be objectively tested, then how do they defend homosexuality as anything more than a simply delusion.

Perplexing.

 

[bodecea]

For now is right...

Poll: Seven in 10 support LGBT nondiscrimination laws

But your perceived likely direction is all wrong.

Well then they should threaten and blackmail...er...I mean contact their representatives in Congress because even if 10 of 10 Americans wanted to let aberrant sex behaviors parade around as a "class" of people specially protected ( you know, above normal harassment laws that protect everyone anyway ), it still isn't the Law until Congress ratifies new language to the Civil Rights Act.

Pick up those batons, gossip columns, hire those private investigators.....er...I mean phones and pens and start getting a hold of your representatives.. "Law" by force of a minority using surreptitious means is also known as fascism. We do democracy in this country.

Here's the part of this whole discussion I find extremely interesting.

I point out that there is no objective test that can prove any single being is homosexual.

They counter with, "well, what about religion"

So, if religion is a delusion (how many times have we heard that from these folks), and it can't be objectively tested, then how do they defend homosexuality as anything more than a simply delusion.

Perplexing.

Who said religion is a delusion?......Besides you?

Religions are very real...but how can you prove you really believe that religion? What if you are faking it like so very many do?

 

[Frank'sRules]

For now is right...

Poll: Seven in 10 support LGBT nondiscrimination laws

But your perceived likely direction is all wrong.

Well then they should threaten and blackmail...er...I mean contact their representatives in Congress because even if 10 of 10 Americans wanted to let aberrant sex behaviors parade around as a "class" of people specially protected ( you know, above normal harassment laws that protect everyone anyway ), it still isn't the Law until Congress ratifies new language to the Civil Rights Act.

Pick up those batons, gossip columns, hire those private investigators.....er...I mean phones and pens and start getting a hold of your representatives.. "Law" by force of a minority using surreptitious means is also known as fascism. We do democracy in this country.

Here's the part of this whole discussion I find extremely interesting.

I point out that there is no objective test that can prove any single being is homosexual.

They counter with, "well, what about religion"

So, if religion is a delusion (how many times have we heard that from these folks), and it can't be objectively tested, then how do they defend homosexuality as anything more than a simply delusion.

Perplexing.

Homosexuality is not a delusion it's a sexual orientation. Some have an orientation towards religion, some against. The test is, if one is male, who do you get down on your knees for, God or Dick, or both?

Your porblem is choice? Who who **** and who you pray to can both be choices but who you pray to mostly is choice, who you **** mostly is not.

 

[JoeB131]

That pesky "free exercise thing" you like to ignore has an issue with it.

He can freely excercise it. His business cannot.

When the Bakery gets up off it's foundation and shows up at Church, then I will believe an inanimate object can have a religion.

Meanwhile, if Mr. Wifebeater feels so strongly about the gheys, he's got a solution. Go out, get an honest job and stop ******* up your wife's business when you aren't slapping her around like Jesus said.

Plessy was settled law as well. I guess that makes Citizen's United settled law as well, right?

More arguing the how instead of the why from people who don't want to argue the why, because it makes them look like fascist asshats.

The problem is, guy, you haven't made a compelling reason why Mr. Wifebeater should be able to discriminate. There was a compelling reason to overturn Plessey- it was clearly unconstitutional.

Requiring people to obey laws, even laws that violate their belief in Magic Sky Pixies, is perfectly constitutional, and should be. Otherwise, you could have a situation where a religion could practice human sacrifice and get around the murder laws.

 

[JoeB131]

As is most law, it is settled until it's challenged and overturned

Yeah, you see, but the problem is it's not going to be overturned.

When Hillary fills the next few vacancies on SCOTUS, any challenge will be shot down. But it probably won't get that far, as big corporations have told the Republican Party, this bullshit ends, now!

And when it comes to a choice between obeying the Imaginary Fairy in the Sky and big Corporations, the GOP obeys big corporations... Always.

 

[Mac1958]

And PA laws that have gone before were actual public accommodations, not "if money changes hands it's a PA"

From my perspective, this issue is less about the law than it is about culture.

The law is the law. The PA laws say they must provide their service as dictated, period. The only way that changes is if the law is changed. And that's the end of that story.

The law, however, does not come into effect unless and until it is leveraged. The offended party has a couple of choices when they are told that someone will not bake a cake for them because they are gay: They can (1) decide that they wouldn't want to do business with someone like that anyway and go somewhere else, or they can (2) decide to leverage the PA law and punish those people for their beliefs. Nothing happens until that specific decision is made.

Right now, we're in a period when some people are very punitive and are more than happy to punish others for their beliefs. That may change with time - hopefully - but not any time soon. Until then, the law is the law.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Right now, we're in a period when some people are very punitive and are more than happy to punish others for their beliefs. That may change with time - hopefully - but not any time soon. Until then, the law is the law.

Uh, yes, when you scream at someone's mother, they are going to get punitive on you, which is what Mr. Wifebeater did here. and when you they put your name out on the internet so that a bunch of other mouth-breathing Sky-Pixie worshipers can threaten your kids, you are going to get REALLY punitive.

Now, had Mrs. Klien called the Cryer-Bowmans and said, "Look, my husband was out of line, he really shouldn't have said what he said and we are very sorry." I'm sure this never would have gone as far as it has.

But it did, so **** them.

 

[Crixus]

Doctors would be free to only treat people of their own religion. You can't separate people by vocation. "Well bakers can discriminate but doctors can't". Why? If they are the same religion and a doctor doesn't want to treat someone that is Hindu, or Atheist, how exactly do you justify one getting to pick and choose and not another.

This is not hard to understand at all. Matter of fact, we learned this in public school in third grade social studies. It go's like this,


I got a business, I make widgets. A guy comes a d buys my widgets because they are good and come at a good price. So I do a decent business making and selling widjits, until I find that customer A is using my widgets for evil, or what I consider evil. I refuse to sell any more widgets to customer A. So, what does a confidant customer A do ? A right thinking adult tells me to take the widgets and shove off because he found a supplier of widgets just as good and a dollar cheaper. Word gets out and widget consumers shop at the other widget place.


But today, The weak minded turds sue, their way in. In the end they end up getting widgets some place else and except for a blerb on talk radio they get ignored into insignificance.

 

[Crixus]

Jesus said, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

These hypocrites are using the bible as an excuse for their hate. They use only those parts of the Bible which suit their bigotry.

That is sacrilege, boys and girls.

We know this because they do not live by the WHOLE Bible which tells them divorce is evil in the sight of God. We know this because we don't see bakers and county clerks denying service to people who are remarrying.

The bible has a lot to say about hypocrites, too. A lot more than what it says about homosexuals.

God didn't even want to grant divorce for adultery. He let Moses talk him into that loophole.

That's how much God hates divorce.

You are to retarded to use bible quotes. If you actually read the thing instead of Googleing for snappy quotes you may do okay, but in this post here you are flailing like Trump was in hit debate.

 

[JoeB131]

You are to retarded to use bible quotes. If you actually read the thing instead of Googleing for snappy quotes you may do okay, but in this post here you are flailing like Trump was in hit debate.

How about refuting what he said.

Jesus never talked about homosexuality, but he was pretty ******* clear on divorce. Yet the same people who will insist they can't make a wedding cake for 'the gheys', will happily make one for that lady on her third marriage.

 

[Crixus]

You are to retarded to use bible quotes. If you actually read the thing instead of Googleing for snappy quotes you may do okay, but in this post here you are flailing like Trump was in hit debate.

How about refuting what he said.

Jesus never talked about homosexuality, but he was pretty ******* clear on divorce. Yet the same people who will insist they can't make a wedding cake for 'the gheys', will happily make one for that lady on her third marriage.

You are even more ignorant then the guy that made the comment. Yall have only read blerbs you cut and past from google. Now, this topic if "off" topic for this thread, but if you and other guy would like us three can mosey to the bull ring a d discuss the bible and specifically says about divorce, who did it and what it means. Hint, there is much more then Yall think on the topic. As for homosexuality, it's covered plenty and we can go over that one to in round 2 if Yall feel like it.


Back to the OP. It's no one's business who they will and won't make a cake for. If the fags can't get a cake from Christians who don't act Christians then go some place else and get one. It's the American way.

 

[Crixus]

Oh yeah Joe, Jesus never a dressed molesting children, rape, or incest lots of things weren't a dressed in the old or new festiment. Does that make all those okay, and if a baker refused to make a cake for a guy who was marrying his sister would hall stick up for them to? How but if a 40 year old woman wanted to marry a 16 year old boy or girl, cool?

 

[Crixus]

You are to retarded to use bible quotes. If you actually read the thing instead of Googleing for snappy quotes you may do okay, but in this post here you are flailing like Trump was in hit debate.

How about refuting what he said.

Jesus never talked about homosexuality, but he was pretty ******* clear on divorce. Yet the same people who will insist they can't make a wedding cake for 'the gheys', will happily make one for that lady on her third marriage.

Because we are not talking about divorced hetro's we are talking about what the Bible says about divorced people. That's a common tactic of your to derail thread and run off on other topics. So I cjalla ged you and the poster who made the comment to come down into the bull ring and discuss that. That's the second tie in this thread you have deflected the challange. If you don't want to just say no. As far as the rest, this is America we can serve and not serve e who we want and those we serve wil, let us know how we are doing with their wallets. Who gives a **** about the fags, the bakers or whoever.

 

[Pop23]

For now is right...

Poll: Seven in 10 support LGBT nondiscrimination laws

But your perceived likely direction is all wrong.

Well then they should threaten and blackmail...er...I mean contact their representatives in Congress because even if 10 of 10 Americans wanted to let aberrant sex behaviors parade around as a "class" of people specially protected ( you know, above normal harassment laws that protect everyone anyway ), it still isn't the Law until Congress ratifies new language to the Civil Rights Act.

Pick up those batons, gossip columns, hire those private investigators.....er...I mean phones and pens and start getting a hold of your representatives.. "Law" by force of a minority using surreptitious means is also known as fascism. We do democracy in this country.

Here's the part of this whole discussion I find extremely interesting.

I point out that there is no objective test that can prove any single being is homosexual.

They counter with, "well, what about religion"

So, if religion is a delusion (how many times have we heard that from these folks), and it can't be objectively tested, then how do they defend homosexuality as anything more than a simply delusion.

Perplexing.

Who said religion is a delusion?......Besides you?

Religions are very real...but how can you prove you really believe that religion? What if you are faking it like so very many do?

Have you been on the religion thread?

 

[bodecea]

Doctors would be free to only treat people of their own religion. You can't separate people by vocation. "Well bakers can discriminate but doctors can't". Why? If they are the same religion and a doctor doesn't want to treat someone that is Hindu, or Atheist, how exactly do you justify one getting to pick and choose and not another.

This is not hard to understand at all. Matter of fact, we learned this in public school in third grade social studies. It go's like this,


I got a business, I make widgets. A guy comes a d buys my widgets because they are good and come at a good price. So I do a decent business making and selling widjits, until I find that customer A is using my widgets for evil, or what I consider evil. I refuse to sell any more widgets to customer A. So, what does a confidant customer A do ? A right thinking adult tells me to take the widgets and shove off because he found a supplier of widgets just as good and a dollar cheaper. Word gets out and widget consumers shop at the other widget place.


But today, The weak minded turds sue, their way in. In the end they end up getting widgets some place else and except for a blerb on talk radio they get ignored into insignificance.

However, your analogy fails in this way. If you sell widgets to customer A and find out he's using the widgets for evil, every PA law in the U.S. allows you to stop selling to Customer A. Know why? Because doing evil is not a protected class.....look at any PA law to see.

However, if YOUR definition of "evil" is "they are evil because of their religion"..."they are evil because of their race"..."they are evil because of their gender"..."they are evil because of their sexual orientation"(in some states)....then you cannot discriminate against them based on their religion, their race, their gender, their sexual orientation. Because......you accepted, when you got your business license, that you would abide by that state's business laws.

 

[bodecea]

For now is right...

Poll: Seven in 10 support LGBT nondiscrimination laws

But your perceived likely direction is all wrong.

Well then they should threaten and blackmail...er...I mean contact their representatives in Congress because even if 10 of 10 Americans wanted to let aberrant sex behaviors parade around as a "class" of people specially protected ( you know, above normal harassment laws that protect everyone anyway ), it still isn't the Law until Congress ratifies new language to the Civil Rights Act.

Pick up those batons, gossip columns, hire those private investigators.....er...I mean phones and pens and start getting a hold of your representatives.. "Law" by force of a minority using surreptitious means is also known as fascism. We do democracy in this country.

Here's the part of this whole discussion I find extremely interesting.

I point out that there is no objective test that can prove any single being is homosexual.

They counter with, "well, what about religion"

So, if religion is a delusion (how many times have we heard that from these folks), and it can't be objectively tested, then how do they defend homosexuality as anything more than a simply delusion.

Perplexing.

Who said religion is a delusion?......Besides you?

Religions are very real...but how can you prove you really believe that religion? What if you are faking it like so very many do?

Have you been on the religion thread?

At times.....who has said that a religion is a delusion? (keep in mind, there is a very real difference between saying a religion is a delusion and saying that a religion is based on a delusion)

 

[Pop23]

For now is right...

Poll: Seven in 10 support LGBT nondiscrimination laws

But your perceived likely direction is all wrong.

Well then they should threaten and blackmail...er...I mean contact their representatives in Congress because even if 10 of 10 Americans wanted to let aberrant sex behaviors parade around as a "class" of people specially protected ( you know, above normal harassment laws that protect everyone anyway ), it still isn't the Law until Congress ratifies new language to the Civil Rights Act.

Pick up those batons, gossip columns, hire those private investigators.....er...I mean phones and pens and start getting a hold of your representatives.. "Law" by force of a minority using surreptitious means is also known as fascism. We do democracy in this country.

Here's the part of this whole discussion I find extremely interesting.

I point out that there is no objective test that can prove any single being is homosexual.

They counter with, "well, what about religion"

So, if religion is a delusion (how many times have we heard that from these folks), and it can't be objectively tested, then how do they defend homosexuality as anything more than a simply delusion.

Perplexing.

Homosexuality is not a delusion it's a sexual orientation. Some have an orientation towards religion, some against. The test is, if one is male, who do you get down on your knees for, God or Dick, or both?

Your porblem is choice? Who who **** and who you pray to can both be choices but who you pray to mostly is choice, who you **** mostly is not.

And both can be a delusion.

I can provide an objective test to prove a black is a black. A female is a female, a senior is a senior or a disabled person is disabled.

Can you provide an objective test for sexuality?

 

[bodecea]

For now is right...

Poll: Seven in 10 support LGBT nondiscrimination laws

But your perceived likely direction is all wrong.

Well then they should threaten and blackmail...er...I mean contact their representatives in Congress because even if 10 of 10 Americans wanted to let aberrant sex behaviors parade around as a "class" of people specially protected ( you know, above normal harassment laws that protect everyone anyway ), it still isn't the Law until Congress ratifies new language to the Civil Rights Act.

Pick up those batons, gossip columns, hire those private investigators.....er...I mean phones and pens and start getting a hold of your representatives.. "Law" by force of a minority using surreptitious means is also known as fascism. We do democracy in this country.

Here's the part of this whole discussion I find extremely interesting.

I point out that there is no objective test that can prove any single being is homosexual.

They counter with, "well, what about religion"

So, if religion is a delusion (how many times have we heard that from these folks), and it can't be objectively tested, then how do they defend homosexuality as anything more than a simply delusion.

Perplexing.

Homosexuality is not a delusion it's a sexual orientation. Some have an orientation towards religion, some against. The test is, if one is male, who do you get down on your knees for, God or Dick, or both?

Your porblem is choice? Who who **** and who you pray to can both be choices but who you pray to mostly is choice, who you **** mostly is not.

And both can be a delusion.

I can provide an objective test to prove a black is a black. A female is a female, a senior is a senior or a disabled person is disabled.

Can you provide an objective test for sexuality?

Can you provide an objective test that someone is really religious?

 

[Crixus]

For now is right...

Poll: Seven in 10 support LGBT nondiscrimination laws

But your perceived likely direction is all wrong.

Well then they should threaten and blackmail...er...I mean contact their representatives in Congress because even if 10 of 10 Americans wanted to let aberrant sex behaviors parade around as a "class" of people specially protected ( you know, above normal harassment laws that protect everyone anyway ), it still isn't the Law until Congress ratifies new language to the Civil Rights Act.

Pick up those batons, gossip columns, hire those private investigators.....er...I mean phones and pens and start getting a hold of your representatives.. "Law" by force of a minority using surreptitious means is also known as fascism. We do democracy in this country.

Here's the part of this whole discussion I find extremely interesting.

I point out that there is no objective test that can prove any single being is homosexual.

They counter with, "well, what about religion"

So, if religion is a delusion (how many times have we heard that from these folks), and it can't be objectively tested, then how do they defend homosexuality as anything more than a simply delusion.

Perplexing.

Who said religion is a delusion?......Besides you?

Religions are very real...but how can you prove you really believe that religion? What if you are faking it like so very many do?

Have you been on the religion thread?

It's not really a matter of religion at all. It's just how it is. It's about what's natural and what's not. We are animals when it comes down to it and we have animal urges that if you look at them are pretty naturel. Homosexuality go's against the laws of nature. That's why there is a naturel aversion to homosexuality.

 

[Pop23]

For now is right...

Poll: Seven in 10 support LGBT nondiscrimination laws

But your perceived likely direction is all wrong.

Well then they should threaten and blackmail...er...I mean contact their representatives in Congress because even if 10 of 10 Americans wanted to let aberrant sex behaviors parade around as a "class" of people specially protected ( you know, above normal harassment laws that protect everyone anyway ), it still isn't the Law until Congress ratifies new language to the Civil Rights Act.

Pick up those batons, gossip columns, hire those private investigators.....er...I mean phones and pens and start getting a hold of your representatives.. "Law" by force of a minority using surreptitious means is also known as fascism. We do democracy in this country.

Here's the part of this whole discussion I find extremely interesting.

I point out that there is no objective test that can prove any single being is homosexual.

They counter with, "well, what about religion"

So, if religion is a delusion (how many times have we heard that from these folks), and it can't be objectively tested, then how do they defend homosexuality as anything more than a simply delusion.

Perplexing.

Who said religion is a delusion?......Besides you?

Religions are very real...but how can you prove you really believe that religion? What if you are faking it like so very many do?

Have you been on the religion thread?

At times.....who has said that a religion is a delusion? (keep in mind, there is a very real difference between saying a religion is a delusion and saying that a religion is based on a delusion)

Who? Keep up, here's one from just up the thread:

And when it comes to a choice between obeying the Imaginary Fairy in the Sky and big Corporations, the GOP obeys big corporations... Always.