Christian bakers who refused to make cake for homosexual "wedding" break gag order

[Inevitable]

Jude 1 never mentions same sex weddings nor wedding cakes.

That's absurd argument.

Agreed. Skylar assumes that Justices of the US Supreme Court are incapable of inferring logical connections. "If marriage = the hub of society" AND "If Jude 1 forbids a Christian to aide or abet the spread of a homosexual cultural movement into the hub of society" THEN "therefore, gay marriage is forbidden by Jude 1".

Once again making a cake isn't marrying anybody. Further the customers that were the center of this were returning customers.

 

[Inevitable]

Religion is protected here, but not above American laws, which are made by men.

The First Amendment begins…

“Congress* shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

* And by incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, all government legislative bodies, courts, and other policymaking agencies.​

You are arguing that government has the right to make laws that violate the free practice of religion, and that those laws take precedence over freedom of religion. The First Amendment very clearly says otherwise. Freedom of religion takes precedence over any laws which government might make that are in conflict with it. The same holds for freedom of expression, and the right to peaceably assemble, which are also explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment, as well as freedoms of conscience and association which are strongly implied therein.

My religion requires human sacrifice. Guess that takes precedence over US law, right?

Screw that. My religion requires me not to pay taxes. The IRS is in violation of the first amendment.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My religion requires human sacrifice. Guess that takes precedence over US law, right?

Looks like you sacrificed your brain to your religion.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

My religion requires human sacrifice. Guess that takes precedence over US law, right?

Looks like you sacrificed your brain to your religion.

Wouldn't matter, religion is above US law, right?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Religion is protected here, but not above American laws, which are made by men.

The First Amendment begins…

“Congress* shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

* And by incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, all government legislative bodies, courts, and other policymaking agencies.​

You are arguing that government has the right to make laws that violate the free practice of religion, and that those laws take precedence over freedom of religion. The First Amendment very clearly says otherwise. Freedom of religion takes precedence over any laws which government might make that are in conflict with it. The same holds for freedom of expression, and the right to peaceably assemble, which are also explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment, as well as freedoms of conscience and association which are strongly implied therein.

My religion requires human sacrifice. Guess that takes precedence over US law, right?

Screw that. My religion requires me not to pay taxes. The IRS is in violation of the first amendment.

A very popular faith, just done informally here.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wouldn't matter, religion is above US law, right?

Here are some words your filthy party has vowed to crush;

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I apologize, I realize the bill of rights on a leftist like you is like pouring salt on a slug.

Standard Disclaimer: No offense to slugs intended by the comparison.

 

[Inevitable]

Wouldn't matter, religion is above US law, right?

Here are some words your filthy party has vowed to crush;

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I apologize, I realize the bill of rights on a leftist like you is like pouring salt on a slug.

Standard Disclaimer: No offense to slugs intended by the comparison.

I wasn't aware of any law being made to prohibit the free exercise of religion

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Wouldn't matter, religion is above US law, right?

Here are some words your filthy party has vowed to crush;

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I apologize, I realize the bill of rights on a leftist like you is like pouring salt on a slug.

Standard Disclaimer: No offense to slugs intended by the comparison.

So, tell us, should Honor Killing be legal here? It's very important to certain Muslisms. Shouldn't faith rule? Isn't God's law above Man's law?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Wouldn't matter, religion is above US law, right?

Here are some words your filthy party has vowed to crush;

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I apologize, I realize the bill of rights on a leftist like you is like pouring salt on a slug.

Standard Disclaimer: No offense to slugs intended by the comparison.

Radical liberals created the country and the Constitution. Conservatives use it for toilet paper at every opportunity. Reagan was the worst, but current cons now openly ignore the Constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Radical liberals created the country and the Constitution. Conservatives use it for toilet paper at every opportunity. Reagan was the worst, but current cons now openly ignore the Constitution.

Son, you are a leftist. You have nothing in common with liberalism. Tom Paine would slap your ***** ass, but Pol Pot would recognize you as his own.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Radical liberals created the country and the Constitution. Conservatives use it for toilet paper at every opportunity. Reagan was the worst, but current cons now openly ignore the Constitution.

Son, you are a leftist. You have nothing in common with liberalism. Tom Paine would slap your ***** ass, but Pol Pot would recognize you as his own.

Nah, Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro, these are your heroes. I'm sure you have posters of them over your bed.

But you do have a need to project don't you.

 

[Silhouette]

So, tell us, should Honor Killing be legal here? It's very important to certain Muslisms. Shouldn't faith rule? Isn't God's law above Man's law?

You raise excellent points. Just as in New York vs Ferber (1982 USSC), I have no doubts the US Supreme Court would draw a line in the sand where violence or abuse was concerned; restricting even the 1st Amendment protections; which is exactly what they did in that case when it came to physical or mental harm to children.

However...

Adults are supposed to be able to "take it". They are fledged and the mold is set. Hurting their feelings doesn't count. So the Court would Find that if violence was part of a person's religion, it could not be exercised to the real and immediate harm (not hurt feelings) of another. But where Christians passively resist not playing along with the gay cult's demands...no. The Court would not find on behalf of gays to force Christians to abdicate the warnings of mortal sin in Jude 1, for instance... Just as the Court would not order a catholic nun nurse to perform an abortion just because it was legal in the state where that catholic hospital is located.

"Religious Passive Resistance" might even by the keyword people use to the case pending of "The Kleins vs the State of Oregon"...

...and before you bullshit artists get on a roll let me stop you cold: GAY BEHAVIORS ARE NOT THE SAME AS A RACE OF PEOPLE. Loving v Virginia was applied improperly....and that mistaken premise is why Obergefell 2015 is a giant legal blunder that has to be undone before this trainwreck gets worse on down the line (polygamists, destruction of the 1st Amendment, other behaviors wanting "race' status so the majority can't regulate them...etc. etc. etc....)

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Christian Bakers need only place a very noticeable sign on the front window of their establishment citing:
"We are loving Christians and we will absolutely NOT sell products to the following:
Gays/Lesbians/Bisexuals/Transsexuals.
Non-Christians."
Of course, they might run up against the law, but at least they would be making their "loving Christian" stance known.

 

[Silhouette]

Christian Bakers need only place a very noticeable sign on the front window of their establishment citing:
"We are loving Christians and we will absolutely NOT sell products to the following:
Gays/Lesbians/Bisexuals/Transsexuals.
Non-Christians."
Of course, they might run up against the law, but at least they would be making their "loving Christian" stance known.

No...Jude 1 says not to discriminate against the individual homosexual, only the movement into society's values. To not sell to a random cake to homosexual just to eat at his birthday or whatever would be discrimination. To not participate in a gay wedding is a passive religious objection.

Please stop using hyperbole to win your case. It's not going to work with sophisticated Justices who can reach a compromise..

 

[Debra K]

Christian Bakers need only place a very noticeable sign on the front window of their establishment citing:
"We are loving Christians and we will absolutely NOT sell products to the following:
Gays/Lesbians/Bisexuals/Transsexuals.
Non-Christians."
Of course, they might run up against the law, but at least they would be making their "loving Christian" stance known.

No...Jude 1 says not to discriminate against the individual homosexual, only the movement into society's values. To not sell to a random cake to homosexual just to eat at his birthday or whatever would be discrimination. To not participate in a gay wedding is a passive religious objection.

Please stop using hyperbole to win your case. It's not going to work with sophisticated Justices who can reach a compromise..

MDiver was mocking the alleged values of those who claim to be loving Christians. MDiver was using sarcasm, not hyperbole. Maybe, however, if you told us an imaginary tale about the religious practices of the Clan of the Cave Bear, you could then show us how sophisticated Justices would eat that shit up and grant special privileges and immunities to present day bible thumpers.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Christian Bakers need only place a very noticeable sign on the front window of their establishment citing:
"We are loving Christians and we will absolutely NOT sell products to the following:
Gays/Lesbians/Bisexuals/Transsexuals.
Non-Christians."
Of course, they might run up against the law, but at least they would be making their "loving Christian" stance known.

I've thought for a long time there was a reasonable accommodation that would let the market decide the issue. It's a win/win for both sides.

1. Business must file with the business license, which is available for pubic review, a statement of intent regarding equal access. A business can refuse service based on any characteristic they want, but such a notice must be filed with their business license.

2. The notice of accessibility must be in plan site at the business location and included on their web site.

3. A business can change their notice of accessibility at any time, the change is effective 30-days after it is filed with the government entity that issues their business license.

4. Fines would only be incurred by a business that fails to comply with its public notice of accessibility.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

MDiver was mocking the alleged values of those who claim to be loving Christians. MDiver was using sarcasm, not hyperbole. Maybe, however, if you told us an imaginary tale about the religious practices of the Clan of the Cave Bear, you could then show us how sophisticated Justices would eat that shit up and grant special privileges and immunities to present day bible thumpers.

Is the Clan of the Cave Bear a recognized religion? Tax exempt status? The point being again that if a person objects passively on religious grounds, another person can't force them to go along with a behavior. Has the Church of LGBT organized? If so, they'd have a much bigger leg to stand on. Sexual behaviors aren't a race of people. There's your hurdle.

 

[Inevitable]

Please stop using hyperbole to win your case.

Wow that's some irony

 

[Debra K]

MDiver was mocking the alleged values of those who claim to be loving Christians. MDiver was using sarcasm, not hyperbole. Maybe, however, if you told us an imaginary tale about the religious practices of the Clan of the Cave Bear, you could then show us how sophisticated Justices would eat that shit up and grant special privileges and immunities to present day bible thumpers.

Is the Clan of the Cave Bear a recognized religion? Tax exempt status? The point being again that if a person objects passively on religious grounds, another person can't force them to go along with a behavior. Has the Church of LGBT organized? If so, they'd have a much bigger leg to stand on. Sexual behaviors aren't a race of people. There's your hurdle.

I don't think your fictional prehistoric characters, Og and Thula, who built a fire and cooked goat meat, had a modern day marriage license either. So, by your own standard, you weren't standing on any legs at all.

 

[mdk]

Sexual behaviors aren't a race of people.

Good thing that only person making that argument is you.