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

[mdk]

Neither the RFRA or the First Amendment allows people to ignore the law b/c of their faith. Kim Davis' office still has to allow homos to marry. Too bad, so sad.

Actually...Kim Davis' office doesn't have to issue any regular marriage license to gay people. They are issued a different one that does not have 'husband' or 'wife' on it now in Kentucky. Too bad, so sad. And that's a public entity specifically even. Private businesses aren't forced to tolerate different behaviors they don't agree with. Oh...that's right...we're talking about behaviors and not a race of people.....did you forget that? I never have...

Not true. That isn't the law in KY presently. If it does become law, gay or straight couples seeking a marriage license can request either form. All this law literally does is waste paper.

The only person to ever claim gay is a race is you and you're an idiot.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Inevitable, when it comes to your feelings as an adult about your own behaviors being accepted by society, you can't force others to "stop harming you" with their right to passively resist playing along..

People are not churches. Don't believe me? Claim yourself a church and refuse to pay your taxes this year. Sitting in prison should leave you plenty of time to think of ways to hurt fags.

Please quote from the US Constitution where it says "freedom of church". Thanks!

Please quote where the Constituion allows you to use the First Amendment to ignore any law that doesn't jive with your religious beliefs. It doesn't. You can claim people are churches until the cows come home but that has never been the case in this nation.

In the thick of it again huh?

 

[Silhouette]

In the thick of it again huh?

Yes, he and his sock puppet Skylar follows me around so much on threads that I'm thinking about getting a restraining order against him.

 

[mdk]

"Under Senate Bill 5, sponsored by Sen. Stephen West, R-Paris, one marriage license would designate the “bride” and “groom” and the other would designate “first party” and “second party.” West said couples could use either form, both of which would require applicants to note their genders so historians who review marriage licenses could know their sex."

Read more here: Kentucky Senate approves bill to require two different marriage license forms

Like I said, nothing more than a waste of paper.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

In the thick of it again huh?

Yes, he and his sock puppet Skylar follows me around so much on threads that I'm thinking about getting a restraining order against him.

Well I like MDK, we disagree on politics, but I still like him. Skylar I can't have an argument with, not with that cute avatar, Skylar gets a scary avatar and well

 

[mdk]

In the thick of it again huh?

Yes, he and his sock puppet Skylar follows me around so much on threads that I'm thinking about getting a restraining order against him.

More idiotic conspiracies from you. Too funny. I will always be there to call you out on your nonsense. Don't like it? Tough shit.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually...Kim Davis' office doesn't have to issue any regular marriage license to gay people. They are issued a different one that does not have 'husband' or 'wife' on it now in Kentucky.

Same-sex couples are still receiving the same Civil Marriage licenses as everyone else. The bill passed in the State Senate and is not in the State House.

It has not been passed into law quite yet.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

In the thick of it again huh?

Yes, he and his sock puppet Skylar follows me around so much on threads that I'm thinking about getting a restraining order against him.

Laughing......only when you're spouting hapless pseudo-legal gibberish.

And 'sock puppet'? In addition to your 'Gays controlled the pope', 'Justice Kennedy is a homosexual", and your famous 'Gays have infiltrated Gallup' conspiracies, you've made up a brand new pile of batshit?

Silly....has that ever worked out for you?

 

[Skylar]

In what way were the homosexuals harmed when the Kleins declined to bake a wedding cake for them?

They were denied equality in the marketplace. It's both illegal, in the case, and anti-capitalist. The wedding cake could have been for the wedding of a dog and a mouse, it's none of their business. They were a bakery, a cake shop, not a church. Requiring them to do what they already do for a living, nothing like oppression...

Where in the 1st Amendment does it delineate that the exercise of religion has to be done in a building? Maybe just a brick church and not a wooden one? Or does it have to have gilding around the doorknob? Just wondering what types of buildings the 1st Amendment intended when it said "exercise of religion". Does religion end Sunday after the sermon the moment one crosses the threshold to leave? Or is it like Sundays and Wednesdays?

Sooner or later bro, you're going to have to wake up and smell the 1st Amendment..

Where in the constitution does it say that 'free excercise of religion' exempts you from any general law you don't like?

Oh, and people aren't churches, Silly.

 

[Skylar]

We aren't talking about passive religious objection. It's really quite active.

If it was passive we wouldn't have heard about it.

In what way were the homosexuals harmed when the Kleins declined to bake a wedding cake for them? Hurt feelings don't count. They don't have a civil right to force someone to participate in their wedding whose religion forbids such a thing. The resistance was passive. There was no harm.

And who has cited a 'civil right to force someone to participate in their wedding' as their justification for filing a PA complaint? No one has. Making your claim a strawman.

Oregon law requires that there can be no discrimination based on sexual orientation by those engaged in public business in the State.

That discrimination in violation of Oregon PA laws is the basis of the PA law violation complaint. Not whatever pseudo-legal nonsense you made up.

 

[bodecea]

In the thick of it again huh?

Yes, he and his sock puppet Skylar follows me around so much on threads that I'm thinking about getting a restraining order against him.

You should go right ahead and pay a lawyer to do that for you.

 

[Silhouette]

Ah a strawman! I'll just wait for lawyers to silence him when the Kleins prevail legally. That should shut him up..nothing like an omelet's worth of egg on his face to humble him a little. You too for that matter..

 

[jillian]

In the thick of it again huh?

Yes, he and his sock puppet Skylar follows me around so much on threads that I'm thinking about getting a restraining order against him.

if you don't want people to respond to your lunacy, i'd suggest you should probably keep y9our obsessions to yourself.

until then.... no one is following you around. this is a message board, loony toon, people respond.

the fact that your insane bigotry makes you an amusing target is your problem.

 

[Skylar]

Ah a strawman! I'll just wait for lawyers to silence him when the Kleins prevail legally. That should shut him up..nothing like an omelet's worth of egg on his face to humble him a little. You too for that matter..

Laughing.....now you're hallucinating that the Klein's lawyers are going to 'silence' me?

Um, Sil......none of them know you even exist. None of them know I exist. And they could care less if they did, as nothing posted here has the slightest relevance to their case.

There are no 'lawyers' coming to 'silence' anyone. All the pseudo-legal gibberish you've been spouting has nothing to do with the real world. Surely you realize that.

 

[mdk]

Ah a strawman! I'll just wait for lawyers to silence him when the Kleins prevail legally. That should shut him up..nothing like an omelet's worth of egg on his face to humble him a little. You too for that matter..

This coming from the crybaby that believes calling you out on the horse shit you peddle here is a form of speech suppression. lol

 

[Silhouette]

if you don't want people to respond to your lunacy, i'd suggest you should probably keep y9our obsessions to yourself.

until then.... no one is following you around. this is a message board, loony toon, people respond.

the fact that your insane bigotry makes you an amusing target is your problem.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not worried about or suffering from mdk & sock puppets harassing me. My point is to show how your ilk has nothing but stalking and verbal abuse while doing so as "your solid legal arguments" in the presence of what is factually instead a complete vacuum of them. You're trying to dress up your pig with lipstick.

People reading don't like bullies or what they stand for...or did you already forget that talking point?

 

[mdk]

if you don't want people to respond to your lunacy, i'd suggest you should probably keep y9our obsessions to yourself.

until then.... no one is following you around. this is a message board, loony toon, people respond.

the fact that your insane bigotry makes you an amusing target is your problem.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not worried about or suffering from mdk & sock puppets harassing me. My point is to show how your ilk has nothing but stalking and verbal abuse while doing so as "your solid legal arguments" in the presence of what is factually instead a complete vacuum of them. You're trying to dress up your pig with lipstick.

People reading don't like bullies or what they stand for...or did you already forget that talking point?

Quit your belly aching. If we didn't participate in your thread it would be you talking to yourself about queers like you do on that morgue you call a forum. lol

 

[Skylar]

if you don't want people to respond to your lunacy, i'd suggest you should probably keep y9our obsessions to yourself.

until then.... no one is following you around. this is a message board, loony toon, people respond.

the fact that your insane bigotry makes you an amusing target is your problem.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not worried about or suffering from mdk & sock puppets harassing me.

Which might have some relevance if you were being 'harrassed'. You're merely being contradicted.

My point is to show how your ilk has nothing but stalking and verbal abuse while doing so as "your solid legal arguments" in the presence of what is factually instead a complete vacuum of them. You're trying to dress up your pig with lipstick.

We've systematically demonstrated your pseudo-legal gibberish for the nonsense it is. As no law nor court recognizes anything you've said about contract laws in marriage. Nor can you cite any legal source that does.

You made it all up. And you citing you is gloriously irrelevant to any law, court case, or marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

Which might have some relevance if you were being 'harrassed'. You're merely being contradicted.
We've systematically demonstrated your pseudo-legal gibberish for the nonsense it is. As no law nor court recognizes anything you've said about contract laws in marriage. Nor can you cite any legal source that does....You made it all up. And you citing you is gloriously irrelevant to any law, court case, or marriage.

Who is "we've"? And what is "systematically"? It almost sounds like a group of you are here working in concert to beat back my points opposed to gay marriage?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Please quote where the Constituion allows you to use the First Amendment to ignore any law that doesn't jive with your religious beliefs.

No one is claiming that.

What the First Amendment does do is to prohibit Congress* from making laws which violate religious freedom, as well as the other freedoms stated and implied in the First Amendment.

[* And by incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, all levels of government.]​

It's not that one's religion gives one an exemption from the law; it is that such laws that violate these rights are invalid and unconstitutional.

The Constitution is the highest law in this nation, and government is not exempt from it, nor otherwise allowed to violate it.