Cakes, Fakes & Counter-Quakes; Do The Kleins Have A Countersuit Against The Lesbians?

[Syriusly]

While not being psychic, the xian is being commanded to discern the impossible via the delirium of Jude 1 and Romans 1. What if the two boys or two girls are feigning love between themselves just to trick the xian, and are not really gay or lesbionic?

None of what you post makes any sense at all.

Then you know s/he is pitching for the LGBT team.

That was really true that would mean you are a lesbian.

Are you?

 

[Syriusly]

Well....not actually. The judicial branch of government legislating for the 300 million with just 9 unelected lawyers back in 2015 is on shaky ground. You see, no matter how many lower courts "found" that deviant sex behavioralists as a minority "are a special class protected under the US Constitution", Constitutional scholars are combing that document and finding that not one mention nor insinuation allows for a minority deviant behavioral group to dictate to the majority. Not one iota of text alludes to that in the Constitution.

sorry, guy, 64% now support gay marriage. The court doesn't do anything the people aren't ready for.

If the majority support gay marriage, then it shouldn't be a problem for the gay couple to find a cake maker to make them a wedding cake. It isn't wise to force a business to do the job. The quality of the work will most probably suffer.

And certainly that is what the gay couple did.

And they also filed a legal complaint against the bakery for violating the law.

So the gay couple was butt hurt.

If you want to call it that- sure.

And the Bakery owner was butt hurt that they asked him to bake a wedding cake.

 

[JoeB131]

Buddy, everyone gets it.
Democrat Bigots want to violate the 1st amendment rights of Christians.

Isn't a first amendment issue. if it was, the rastas could smoke all the pot they want.

 

[badger2]

We note that the prisoners can't understand the mother tongue, English that is in post #341. The lack of reading comprehension skills and vocabulary is astonishing.

 

[Mac1958]

Anyone want to bet on this horse race?

To me, this kind of story is a cultural issue, not a legal issue.

Unless there is something unconstitutional or indefensible about PA laws - and I doubt there is - it's hard to imagine the Kleins have much of a case.

If this was indeed some kind of setup, well, it was a legal one. That's where the cultural issue comes in. If the lesbian couple did this to punish the Kleins and make an example out of them to intimidate others - and that wouldn't be the least bit surprising - that's more a reflection of where we are as a society. They'd rather punish the Kleins through the legal system than just get the cake from someone who wants to sell it to them.

The fact that the lesbians' supporters choose to ignore is that the couple CHOSE to leverage the law, they were not FORCED to. They could have just walked away, and it would have just been over.

This is just a small symptom of a much deeper issue.
.

 

[WorldWatcher]

To me, this kind of story is a cultural issue, not a legal issue.

Unless there is something unconstitutional or indefensible about PA laws - and I doubt there is - it's hard to imagine the Kleins have much of a case.

If this was indeed some kind of setup, well, it was a legal one. That's where the cultural issue comes in. If the lesbian couple did this to punish the Kleins and make an example out of them to intimidate others - and that wouldn't be the least bit surprising - that's more a reflection of where we are as a society. They'd rather punish the Kleins through the legal system than just get the cake from someone who wants to sell it to them.

The fact that the lesbians' supporters choose to ignore is that the couple CHOSE to leverage the law, they were not FORCED to. They could have just walked away, and it would have just been over.

This is just a small symptom of a much deeper issue.
.

If you read the court documents and the Statement of Facts (which both the couple and the Kleins agreed to), the bakery had provided the cake for the wedding of one of the women's mother 2-years prior. Over the winter prior to the wedding they met the Ms. Klein at a bridal show and were invited to come to the Klein's shop for the purpose of ordering a wedding cake.

When the mother and here daughter (one of the couple) showed up for an appointment at the shop it was Mr. Klein that refused service after finding the wedding was for two women and when as part of the discussion, when questioned by the mother, informed the mother that the couple was an abomination.

After being referred to as an abomination the couple then later decided to file a complaint with the proper authorities in Oregon.


Just FYI...


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Anyone want to bet on this horse race?

To me, this kind of story is a cultural issue, not a legal issue.

Unless there is something unconstitutional or indefensible about PA laws - and I doubt there is - it's hard to imagine the Kleins have much of a case.

If this was indeed some kind of setup, well, it was a legal one. That's where the cultural issue comes in. If the lesbian couple did this to punish the Kleins and make an example out of them to intimidate others - and that wouldn't be the least bit surprising - that's more a reflection of where we are as a society. They'd rather punish the Kleins through the legal system than just get the cake from someone who wants to sell it to them.

The fact that the lesbians' supporters choose to ignore is that the couple CHOSE to leverage the law, they were not FORCED to. They could have just walked away, and it would have just been over.

This is just a small symptom of a much deeper issue.
.

You mean that the couple whose rights under the law were violated chose to notify the state of the violator?

Like those blind folks who filed complaints against the Muslim cabbies who refused to take them and their guide dogs as passengers- they could just take the next taxi- why should they complain about not being able to ride in a cab- because the driver had religious objections to transporting them?

 

[Mac1958]

Anyone want to bet on this horse race?

To me, this kind of story is a cultural issue, not a legal issue.

Unless there is something unconstitutional or indefensible about PA laws - and I doubt there is - it's hard to imagine the Kleins have much of a case.

If this was indeed some kind of setup, well, it was a legal one. That's where the cultural issue comes in. If the lesbian couple did this to punish the Kleins and make an example out of them to intimidate others - and that wouldn't be the least bit surprising - that's more a reflection of where we are as a society. They'd rather punish the Kleins through the legal system than just get the cake from someone who wants to sell it to them.

The fact that the lesbians' supporters choose to ignore is that the couple CHOSE to leverage the law, they were not FORCED to. They could have just walked away, and it would have just been over.

This is just a small symptom of a much deeper issue.
.

You mean that the couple whose rights under the law were violated chose to notify the state of the violator?

Like those blind folks who filed complaints against the Muslim cabbies who refused to take them and their guide dogs as passengers- they could just take the next taxi- why should they complain about not being able to ride in a cab- because the driver had religious objections to transporting them?

I said "the couple CHOSE to leverage the law, they were not FORCED to."

Was I lying, or was that statement accurate?
.

 

[Silhouette]

Anyone want to bet on this horse race?

To me, this kind of story is a cultural issue, not a legal issue.

.

When one subculture tries to force another culture into forfeiting their Constitutional protections (1st Amendment... deviant sex behaviors not protected at all), it becomes a legal issue very quick.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Shahed Amanullah on Twitter

"Tired of people invoking Muslims in the same-sex wedding cake case. Muslims regularly sell you alcohol, drive you home when you’re drunk, and open their hotels to unmarried couples without imposing their beliefs on you."

Think, almost every 7-11 in the country, millions of cab drivers, tens of thousands of hotel motel managers. The handful that refuse are the outliers, just like the Kleins are the outliers of their Christian faith.

 

[Syriusly]

Anyone want to bet on this horse race?

To me, this kind of story is a cultural issue, not a legal issue.

Unless there is something unconstitutional or indefensible about PA laws - and I doubt there is - it's hard to imagine the Kleins have much of a case.

If this was indeed some kind of setup, well, it was a legal one. That's where the cultural issue comes in. If the lesbian couple did this to punish the Kleins and make an example out of them to intimidate others - and that wouldn't be the least bit surprising - that's more a reflection of where we are as a society. They'd rather punish the Kleins through the legal system than just get the cake from someone who wants to sell it to them.

The fact that the lesbians' supporters choose to ignore is that the couple CHOSE to leverage the law, they were not FORCED to. They could have just walked away, and it would have just been over.

This is just a small symptom of a much deeper issue.
.

You mean that the couple whose rights under the law were violated chose to notify the state of the violator?

Like those blind folks who filed complaints against the Muslim cabbies who refused to take them and their guide dogs as passengers- they could just take the next taxi- why should they complain about not being able to ride in a cab- because the driver had religious objections to transporting them?

I said "the couple CHOSE to leverage the law, they were not FORCED to."

Was I lying, or was that statement accurate?
.

You were just as accurate as I was in my statement

You mean that the couple whose rights under the law were violated chose to notify the state of the violator?

Like those blind folks who filed complaints against the Muslim cabbies who refused to take them and their guide dogs as passengers- they could just take the next taxi- why should they complain about not being able to ride in a cab- because the driver had religious objections to transporting them?

The blind folks chose to leverage the law, they were not forced to. They could have just walked away and it would have just been over.

And Muslim cabbies would be still be refusing to give rides to blind folks with their guide dogs.

 

[Syriusly]

Shahed Amanullah on Twitter

"Tired of people invoking Muslims in the same-sex wedding cake case. Muslims regularly sell you alcohol, drive you home when you’re drunk, and open their hotels to unmarried couples without imposing their beliefs on you."

Think, almost every 7-11 in the country, millions of cab drivers, tens of thousands of hotel motel managers. The handful that refuse are the outliers, just like the Kleins are the outliers of their Christian faith.

LOL- so very true- i buy beer from my local Muslim liquor store every week.

 

[Mac1958]

Anyone want to bet on this horse race?

To me, this kind of story is a cultural issue, not a legal issue.

When one subculture tries to force another culture into forfeiting their Constitutional protections (1st Amendment... deviant sex behaviors not protected at all), it becomes a legal issue very quick.

That's true, but it begins as a cultural issue, as it did here.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Anyone want to bet on this horse race?

To me, this kind of story is a cultural issue, not a legal issue.

Unless there is something unconstitutional or indefensible about PA laws - and I doubt there is - it's hard to imagine the Kleins have much of a case.

If this was indeed some kind of setup, well, it was a legal one. That's where the cultural issue comes in. If the lesbian couple did this to punish the Kleins and make an example out of them to intimidate others - and that wouldn't be the least bit surprising - that's more a reflection of where we are as a society. They'd rather punish the Kleins through the legal system than just get the cake from someone who wants to sell it to them.

The fact that the lesbians' supporters choose to ignore is that the couple CHOSE to leverage the law, they were not FORCED to. They could have just walked away, and it would have just been over.

This is just a small symptom of a much deeper issue.
.

You mean that the couple whose rights under the law were violated chose to notify the state of the violator?

Like those blind folks who filed complaints against the Muslim cabbies who refused to take them and their guide dogs as passengers- they could just take the next taxi- why should they complain about not being able to ride in a cab- because the driver had religious objections to transporting them?

I said "the couple CHOSE to leverage the law, they were not FORCED to."

Was I lying, or was that statement accurate?
.

You were just as accurate as I was in my statement

You mean that the couple whose rights under the law were violated chose to notify the state of the violator?

Like those blind folks who filed complaints against the Muslim cabbies who refused to take them and their guide dogs as passengers- they could just take the next taxi- why should they complain about not being able to ride in a cab- because the driver had religious objections to transporting them?

The blind folks chose to leverage the law, they were not forced to. They could have just walked away and it would have just been over.

And Muslim cabbies would be still be refusing to give rides to blind folks with their guide dogs.

I wish the cake people had baked the damn cake.

I wish the cabbie had let the dog into the damn car.

And correct, none of those people were forced to leverage the law.

So we agree. Fabulous.
.

 

[JoeB131]

I said "the couple CHOSE to leverage the law, they were not FORCED to."

Was I lying, or was that statement accurate?

Yes, how dare they use legal recourse available to them.

By the same logic, the Kleins, once they were informed they were in clear violation of the law, could have either apologized or actually do the service they promised.

 

[rightwinger]

Can the Supreme Court pass a ruling that only applies to baking a cake for a gay wedding?

If it applies to a religious objection to baking a cake, it would also apply to selling wedding rings, renting a reception hall, access to a honeymoon suite, photography, flowers....anything remotely related to a wedding

Can the court limit their ruling to only homosexual weddings? What about religious objections to adulterers weddings, pregnant brides, mixed race weddings, mixed religions, atheists?

And once the court permits a business to use religion as a determinate of who they serve, why limit the ruling to weddings? Why wouldn't your religious beliefs cover everything your business does?

 

[Pop23]

Shahed Amanullah on Twitter

"Tired of people invoking Muslims in the same-sex wedding cake case. Muslims regularly sell you alcohol, drive you home when you’re drunk, and open their hotels to unmarried couples without imposing their beliefs on you."

Think, almost every 7-11 in the country, millions of cab drivers, tens of thousands of hotel motel managers. The handful that refuse are the outliers, just like the Kleins are the outliers of their Christian faith.

Regularly is not ALWAYS.

Most Christian bakers DO supply wedding cakes for gay weddings. This ONE did not.

Learn to read your own posts.

 

[Silhouette]

... the Kleins, once they were informed they were in clear violation of the law, could have either apologized or actually do the service they promised.

Impossible. The Kleins are forbiddenen to do so from fear of eternal damnation for aiding the spread of homosexual culture using the vehicle of marriage or adoption or education.

Jude 1 of NT is specific only to strange flesh. An unwed pregnant woman is that way from heterosexuality. Her marriage to a man gets God's blessing.. Likewise with hetero adulterers. They would receive God's blessings by swearing their vows to each other.

Romans 1 & Jude 1 make it clear that the Bible won't stand for using social vehicles or smooth speech or manipulation to normalize the abomination of homosexuality.

 

[Pop23]

... the Kleins, once they were informed they were in clear violation of the law, could have either apologized or actually do the service they promised.

Impossible. The Kleins are forbiddenen to do so from fear of eternal damnation for aiding the spread of homosexual culture using the vehicle of marriage or adoption or education.

My favorite part of this are those that say they can't deny anyone if they serve adulterers.

Most religions believe in forgiveness as long as those asking do not intend to keep sinning.

If one enters the institution intending to be loyal to the spouse, then the Baker is following religious norms. If the religion the Baker follows preaches that Gay sex is a sin, he would be supplying the product to someone who outwardly intends to sin.

Far different.

 

[Pop23]

A Baker can use religious reasoning to refuse Military service if drafted, but can't refuse to Bake a cake?

Yeah, this is all very goofy