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

[Lysistrata]

You may want to read up on the Bible. Especially that homosexual thing is an abomination unto the Lord.

Eating seafood and wearing cotton blend cloths are also abominations to him. Why don't you let the lord deal with that? I don't think he needs your help.

Oh cripes, here we go again. You're quoting Mosaic Law directed at Jews, never intended for Gentiles and done away with by the New Covenant.

Sit down, know nothing

Since I know nothing, perhaps you will point out the New Testament verse where Jesus condemns homosexuality. Not Paul, but Jesus.

Right next to where He condemed pedophilia. Jesus followed God's laws.

Your argument has been debunked more times than i can count. Throughout the Bible, at least seven times, Old and New Testament homosexuality is condemned

Make up your mind. Is Old Testament relevant or not? Where did Jesus condemn Homosexuality? You know Paul and Jesus disagreed on lots of things, do't you?

Paul never actually met Jesus. They had no relationship. Paul made up the religion now known as "Christianity."

 

[JoeB131]

Could be a bad omen for the LGBT crowd.

In major Supreme Court case, Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple

Doesn't matter. There's still a 5-4 majority on the court that supports gay rights.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Eating seafood and wearing cotton blend cloths are also abominations to him. Why don't you let the lord deal with that? I don't think he needs your help.

Oh cripes, here we go again. You're quoting Mosaic Law directed at Jews, never intended for Gentiles and done away with by the New Covenant.

Sit down, know nothing

Since I know nothing, perhaps you will point out the New Testament verse where Jesus condemns homosexuality. Not Paul, but Jesus.

Right next to where He condemed pedophilia. Jesus followed God's laws.

Your argument has been debunked more times than i can count. Throughout the Bible, at least seven times, Old and New Testament homosexuality is condemned

Make up your mind. Is Old Testament relevant or not? Where did Jesus condemn Homosexuality? You know Paul and Jesus disagreed on lots of things, do't you?

Paul never actually met Jesus. They had no relationship. Paul made up the religion now known as "Christianity."

You're as stupid as the sock puppet.

Acts 23:11

 

[BULLDOG]

Oh cripes, here we go again. You're quoting Mosaic Law directed at Jews, never intended for Gentiles and done away with by the New Covenant.

Sit down, know nothing

Since I know nothing, perhaps you will point out the New Testament verse where Jesus condemns homosexuality. Not Paul, but Jesus.

Right next to where He condemed pedophilia. Jesus followed God's laws.

Your argument has been debunked more times than i can count. Throughout the Bible, at least seven times, Old and New Testament homosexuality is condemned

Make up your mind. Is Old Testament relevant or not? Where did Jesus condemn Homosexuality? You know Paul and Jesus disagreed on lots of things, do't you?

Paul never actually met Jesus. They had no relationship. Paul made up the religion now known as "Christianity."

You're as stupid as the sock puppet.

Acts 23:11

What does that have to do with condemning gays?
Acts 23:11New International Version (NIV)
11 The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, “Take courage!A)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-27746A" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.”

 

[Lysistrata]

Oh cripes, here we go again. You're quoting Mosaic Law directed at Jews, never intended for Gentiles and done away with by the New Covenant.

Sit down, know nothing

Since I know nothing, perhaps you will point out the New Testament verse where Jesus condemns homosexuality. Not Paul, but Jesus.

Right next to where He condemed pedophilia. Jesus followed God's laws.

Your argument has been debunked more times than i can count. Throughout the Bible, at least seven times, Old and New Testament homosexuality is condemned

Make up your mind. Is Old Testament relevant or not? Where did Jesus condemn Homosexuality? You know Paul and Jesus disagreed on lots of things, do't you?

Paul never actually met Jesus. They had no relationship. Paul made up the religion now known as "Christianity."

You're as stupid as the sock puppet.

Acts 23:11

That was Paul's story. Paul was not an apostle.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Since I know nothing, perhaps you will point out the New Testament verse where Jesus condemns homosexuality. Not Paul, but Jesus.

Right next to where He condemed pedophilia. Jesus followed God's laws.

Your argument has been debunked more times than i can count. Throughout the Bible, at least seven times, Old and New Testament homosexuality is condemned

Make up your mind. Is Old Testament relevant or not? Where did Jesus condemn Homosexuality? You know Paul and Jesus disagreed on lots of things, do't you?

Paul never actually met Jesus. They had no relationship. Paul made up the religion now known as "Christianity."

You're as stupid as the sock puppet.

Acts 23:11

That was Paul's story. Paul was not an apostle.

Dude give it up. It's obvious you're a queer lover and religion basher. No cred

 

[BULLDOG]

Right next to where He condemed pedophilia. Jesus followed God's laws.

Your argument has been debunked more times than i can count. Throughout the Bible, at least seven times, Old and New Testament homosexuality is condemned

Make up your mind. Is Old Testament relevant or not? Where did Jesus condemn Homosexuality? You know Paul and Jesus disagreed on lots of things, do't you?

Paul never actually met Jesus. They had no relationship. Paul made up the religion now known as "Christianity."

You're as stupid as the sock puppet.

Acts 23:11

That was Paul's story. Paul was not an apostle.

Dude give it up. It's obvious you're a queer lover and religion basher. No cred

And you are a pretend Christian who can't even answer basic questions about your religion.

 

[Silhouette]

And you are a pretend Christian who can't even answer basic questions about your religion.

Look up Romans 1 and Jude 1. New Testament of Jesus Christ, not the Old Jewish Testament. Also look up mortal vs venial sin. Get back to us when you're done dear.

Could be a bad omen for the LGBT crowd.

In major Supreme Court case, Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple

Doesn't matter. There's still a 5-4 majority on the court that supports gay rights.

Unfortunately there are no protections for deviant sex behaviors in the Constitution; and that majority is soon gone anyway. Obergefell has to be revisited if we want to stop short the judicial-legislating that has been going on in violation of the balance of powers. Enjoy your subversive victory while it lasts.

You see, MASSIVE SOCIAL CHANGE (having a contract that bans boys and girls from either a father or mother for life) is up to the 300 million's to approve or deny when it is about BEHAVIORS trying to get special class status from the US Constitution which currently DOES NOT EXIST there. The Constitution is where the 2015 USSC was bound to cite (but didn't and instead added/made up non-existent language) It'll soon be the 2018 USSC so, yeah.

 

[BULLDOG]

And you are a pretend Christian who can't even answer basic questions about your religion.

Look up Romans 1 and Jude 1. New Testament of Jesus Christ, not the Old Jewish Testament. Also look up mortal vs venial sin. Get back to us when you're done dear.

Could be a bad omen for the LGBT crowd.

In major Supreme Court case, Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple

Doesn't matter. There's still a 5-4 majority on the court that supports gay rights.

Unfortunately there are no protections for deviant sex behaviors in the Constitution; and that majority is soon gone anyway. Obergefell has to be revisited if we want to stop short the judicial-legislating that has been going on in violation of the balance of powers. Enjoy your subversive victory while it lasts.

You see, MASSIVE SOCIAL CHANGE (having a contract that bans boys and girls from either a father or mother for life) is up to the 300 million's to approve or deny when it is about BEHAVIORS trying to get special class status from the US Constitution which currently DOES NOT EXIST there. The Constitution is where the 2015 USSC was bound to cite (but didn't and instead added/made up non-existent language) It'll soon be the 2018 USSC so, yeah.

So where in Romans,or Jude does Jesus condemn being gay?

 

[JoeB131]

Unfortunately there are no protections for deviant sex behaviors in the Constitution; and that majority is soon gone anyway. Obergefell has to be revisited if we want to stop short the judicial-legislating that has been going on in violation of the balance of powers. Enjoy your subversive victory while it lasts.

Actually, Trump has indicted no desire to revisit Obergefell... and nobody is going to retire and let Trump pick his replacement.

You see, MASSIVE SOCIAL CHANGE (having a contract that bans boys and girls from either a father or mother for life) is up to the 300 million's to approve or deny when it is about BEHAVIORS trying to get special class status from the US Constitution which currently DOES NOT EXIST there. The Constitution is where the 2015 USSC was bound to cite (but didn't and instead added/made up non-existent language) It'll soon be the 2018 USSC so, yeah.

Sorry, bud, you'd lost that argument on the national scale.

U.S. Support for Gay Marriage Edges to New High

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sixty-four percent of U.S. adults say same-sex marriages should be recognized by the law as valid. Although not meaningfully different from the 61% last year, this is the highest percentage to date and continues the generally steady rise since Gallup's trend began in 1996.

 

[Silhouette]

If people want, I can try to have the mods change the thread title to "The Paul v Jesus Debate"?

Otherwise folks can accept that from a legal position, debating the New Testaments contributors isn't going to work. The Klein's rights exist. The lesbians sought to take them away. And if you need further info on why the Kleins said no, consult Jude 1 & Romans 1.

Incidentally..Jude was Jesus' personal daily servant. In court we would say he was a grade A eyewitness.

 

[Silhouette]

If the state law says you do, then you do. We the People govern by Rule of Law, not Rule of Individual.

Not if a state law goes against the Constitution.

Absolutely true. And the state of Oregon can in no way shape or form play ignorant on the protections of religious freedoms. Even the cry of "we were so swept up in this LGBT cult propaganda, we forgot to look at the US Constitution!!" will not save them. They knew better. And now it's time for Oregon to pay the Kleins.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They and the State of Oregon do not need saving from you, Sil.

You know better. And now it is time for you to send some money to Kelvins' defense fund.

 

[Silhouette]

They and the State of Oregon do not need saving from you, Sil.

You know better. And now it is time for you to send some money to Kelvins' defense fund.

Don't need to. They just need to realize 1. That they have a case (they do, they have Constitutional rights delineated and clear, the lesbians most absolutely do not. And, judicial-legislation isn't allowed to amend the Constitution). and 2. They can find a constitutional attorney specialist firm that would so take their case on contingency it isn't even funny. Because they're going to win this one and everybody familiar with Constitutional law knows it. Would be quite a feather in the cap of that firm also apart from their share of the award.

 

[BULLDOG]

If people want, I can try to have the mods change the thread title to "The Paul v Jesus Debate"?

Otherwise folks can accept that from a legal position, debating the New Testaments contributors isn't going to work. The Klein's rights exist. The lesbians sought to take them away. And if you need further info on why the Kleins said no, consult Jude 1 & Romans 1.

Incidentally..Jude was Jesus' personal daily servant. In court we would say he was a grade A eyewitness.

Still don't know what rights you think were taken away by the gay couple. They only demanded that the law be followed. You might have a point if you claim the law took away the baker's rights. Laws limit people's rights on a regular basis, but public accommodation laws were in effect long before this incident. What rights do you think the gay couple withheld from the bakers?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If people want, I can try to have the mods change the thread title to "The Paul v Jesus Debate"?

Otherwise folks can accept that from a legal position, debating the New Testaments contributors isn't going to work. The Klein's rights exist. The lesbians sought to take them away. And if you need further info on why the Kleins said no, consult Jude 1 & Romans 1.

Incidentally..Jude was Jesus' personal daily servant. In court we would say he was a grade A eyewitness.

You are not a Christian from your posting history, so you are no expert witness on the faith.

And your legal suggestions are not supported by law.

 

[BULLDOG]

They and the State of Oregon do not need saving from you, Sil.

You know better. And now it is time for you to send some money to Kelvins' defense fund.

Don't need to. They just need to realize 1. That they have a case (they do, they have Constitutional rights delineated and clear, the lesbians most absolutely do not. And, judicial-legislation isn't allowed to amend the Constitution). and 2. They can find a constitutional attorney specialist firm that would so take their case on contingency it isn't even funny. Because they're going to win this one and everybody familiar with Constitutional law knows it. Would be quite a feather in the cap of that firm also apart from their share of the award.

So demanding adherence to the law is denying someone's rights? Really?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So demanding adherence to the law is denying someone's rights? Really?

---I've always wondered about how one group of people manage to demand the right to deny other groups their rights.
It's not just that ONE bakery denies them a cake, it's the notion that every bakery, or almost every bakery, could then decide to do the same, with the result being, if your lifestyle offends anyone's religious beliefs, it becomes impossible for you to plan your wedding properly.
Since there aren't enough LGBTQ people in any given locality (they ARE still a minority and always will be due to the arithmetic of nature*) to support a "gay and lesbian bakery", the rights of this minority ultimately are trampled upon by the bullying behavior of the majority, a majority which CLAIMS that they are the ones being oppressed.

I also find it "hilarious" that a majority group enjoying the support of nearly three quarters of the population (about 70-75% of Americans identify as Christian) can run around screaming about oppression in the first place.
Oh yeah, you're SOOOOOO oppressed!

*Yeah, about that arithmetic thing...take the clover, for example.
Ninety to ninety five percent of clovers are 3-leaf, yes?
In the MILLIONS of years that clovers have existed, have the 4-leaf variety EVER wiped out the 3-leaf type?
There is every opportunity for that to have happened.
Eons have passed and yet today, the 4-leaf variety is still very rare.
The 4-leaf clover is a deviation from the norm, but it is a STANDARD DEVIATION, like people who have attached earlobes instead of free hanging ones, or people who cannot curl their tongues.
This standard deviation does not and has not ever posed a threat to the norm nor does it possess the genetic ability to establish its traits as dominant ones.
Four leaf clovers only exist because of a mathematical roll of the genetic dice, just like homosexuals.
Homosexuals have made up a single digit percentage of the human race since the human race existed, they have always been there and they always will be.
The arithmetic of genetics does not allow for homosexuality to become a dominant trait in the human race.
Homosexuality is a deviation from the norm but it is a STANDARD DEVIATION, it is expected, it is not harmful to the survival of the species and its numbers remain as a small minority.

 

[Syriusly]

If the state law says you do, then you do. We the People govern by Rule of Law, not Rule of Individual.

Not if a state law goes against the Constitution.

Absolutely true. And the state of Oregon can in no way shape or form play ignorant on the protections of religious freedoms. Even the cry of "we were so swept up in this LGBT cult propaganda, we forgot to look at the US Constitution!!" will not save them. They knew better. And now it's time for Oregon to pay the Kleins.

LOL- by that line of reasoning its time for Ohio to pay Obergefell- and the estate of his partner.

Since the Supreme Court has already found that Ohio violated the Constitutional rights of Obergefell.

Oh and of course every other couple denied marriage license before Obergefell can demand payment from their states too- again according to your 'logic'

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Still don't know what rights you think were taken away by the gay couple. They only demanded that the law be followed. You might have a point if you claim the law took away the baker's rights. Laws limit people's rights on a regular basis, but public accommodation laws were in effect long before this incident. What rights do you think the gay couple withheld from the bakers?

Freedom of religion, and freedom of expression, both explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment. Freedom of conscience and freedom of association, both very strongly implied by the First Amendment.

These rights, on the part of the Kleins, were willfully, deliberately, and knowingly violated. There is no basis on which those responsible for this violation can claim that they did not know, or should not have been expected to know, what they were doing. There is no valid excuse for violating these rights. Those responsible for doing so ought to be held fully accountable for their illegal acts.