Court allows Christian baker Jack Phillips to sue Colorado for anti-religious hostility

[Slyhunter]

We are all born straight. The reproductive drive stems from ancient genes to seek the opposite gender. Some crosswire those urges onto dead bodies the same gender, children, inanimate objects etc. We call those adopted orientations “kinks” for a reason. Something originally straight was kinked via conditioning.

Why is it you can't argue against homosexuality without bringing other things in?

Point is, in nature, animals have both homosexual and heterosexual sex. They aren't kinks, it just kind of happens.

^^ the determination & sifting of race vs behavior will be pivotal to the baker’s case.

When your only arguments are "I think it's icky" and "God says it's bad", you really don't have much of a case.

When does someone decide to be sexually drawn to children or dead bodies, or with whips & bondage? Let me guess, those were all “born that way”.

Hey, lots of normal straight people are into the whole "whips and chains" thing. There are all sorts of things people are 'in to"... I don't judge.

Corpses and kids, um, yeah, that involves issues of consent.

So let's agree that all things that happen between CONSENTING ADULTS are acceptable and have no effect on your life.

Thanks.

They're all genetic defects or defected personality disorders.

 

[Silhouette]

We are all born straight. The reproductive drive stems from ancient genes to seek the opposite gender. Some crosswire those urges onto dead bodies the same gender, children, inanimate objects etc. We call those adopted orientations “kinks” for a reason. Something originally straight was kinked via conditioning.

Why is it you can't argue against homosexuality without bringing other things in?

Point is, in nature, animals have both homosexual and heterosexual sex. They aren't kinks, it just kind of happens.

^^ the determination & sifting of race vs behavior will be pivotal to the baker’s case.

When your only arguments are "I think it's icky" and "God says it's bad", you really don't have much of a case.

When does someone decide to be sexually drawn to children or dead bodies, or with whips & bondage? Let me guess, those were all “born that way”.

Hey, lots of normal straight people are into the whole "whips and chains" thing. There are all sorts of things people are 'in to"... I don't judge.

Corpses and kids, um, yeah, that involves issues of consent.

So let's agree that all things that happen between CONSENTING ADULTS are acceptable and have no effect on your life.

Thanks.

They're all genetic defects or defected personality disorders.

No. They’re behaviors crosswired after birth from everyone’s innate drive to reproduce.

 

[JoeB131]

I’m not the one trying to gain coverage for just some deviant sexual orientations but not others under the 14th Amendment. You are.

Have at it. Good luck.

Why, we've already won that battle, a long time ago.

Gays are protected and Homophobes have to hide like little cowards behind screen names.

 

[JoeB131]

They're all genetic defects or defected personality disorders.

Not really. Most gay folks I know are better adjusted than you are.. Definitely more than Sil.

No. They’re behaviors crosswired after birth from everyone’s innate drive to reproduce.

Gays are perfectly capable of having or adopting kids... so no, not really.

 

[Silhouette]

Why, we've already won that battle, a long time ago.

Gays are protected and Homophobes have to hide like little cowards behind screen names.

If other deviant orientations like incest or polyamory aren’t protected then homosexuals aren’t either. The 14th doesn’t work that way.

 

[JoeB131]

If other deviant orientations like incest or polyamory aren’t protected then homosexuals aren’t either. The 14th doesn’t work that way.

Actually, it kind of does, since sexual orientation isn't really a choice.

also, the underlying behavior is not illegal, unlike Incest and Polygamy, which are.

 

[martybegan]

Show me where in the constitution it says a person loses their rights just because they are selling something.

He's not losing a right. He can go home that night and still believe whatever hateful, bronze age superstitions he wants to.

He just can't do this.

View attachment 240940

See, by your logic, if the baker can do that shit because of the constitution, so can the teller at WalMart. Holy Shit, that'll make going to the store an experience.

Again, point of sale isn't the same as contracted services, and being an employee is different than owning your own business.

It's amazing how narrow you get when it suits your asshole bigoted viewpoints.

 

[Silhouette]

If other deviant orientations like incest or polyamory aren’t protected then homosexuals aren’t either. The 14th doesn’t work that way.

Actually, it kind of does, since sexual orientation isn't really a choice.

also, the underlying behavior is not illegal, unlike Incest and Polygamy, which are.

But if some have a polyamorous orientation, how can their marriage be denied? It’s legal to have sex with multiple partners behind closed doors. Just like sodomy. How is it polyamorists can’t marry & homosexuals can? You realize the children of polyamorists are seeking the same benefits of their parents being married as kids involved with homosexuals.

I don’t think you understand how the 14th Amendment works. It doesn’t play favorites.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, point of sale isn't the same as contracted services, and being an employee is different than owning your own business.

This stuff will likely be touched upon in the Ruling on this case.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, point of sale isn't the same as contracted services, and being an employee is different than owning your own business.

It's amazing how narrow you get when it suits your asshole bigoted viewpoints.

But that's not what you are arguing...

If you are going to argue that some wife-beater can deny someone a wedding cake because he's a homophobic bigot, then you are arguing that I can refuse to ring up a Mormon because of first Amendment reasons. I should also be able to scream at him over the counter that Joseph Smith was a child molester. And my boss should be able to do nothing about it because First Amendment.

Either you believe this shit or you don't.

 

[Silhouette]

If you are going to argue that some wife-beater can deny someone a wedding cake because he's a homophobic bigot, then you are arguing that I can refuse to ring up a Mormon because of first Amendment reasons. I should also be able to scream at him over the counter that Joseph Smith was a child molester. And my boss should be able to do nothing about it because First Amendment.....Either you believe this shit or you don't.

Same with the 14th. If sodomy orientation is legal behind closed doors & from there, legal to marry, then polyarmory orientation also legal behind closed doors also has the same rights. The 14th can’t be applied arbitrarily.

 

[JoeB131]

Same with the 14th. If sodomy orientation is legal behind closed doors & from there, legal to marry, then polyarmory orientation also legal behind closed doors also has the same rights. The 14th can’t be applied arbitrarily.

You might have a point there. Since many rich men have a wife and a mistress, we should totally legalize that.

 

[Silhouette]

Same with the 14th. If sodomy orientation is legal behind closed doors & from there, legal to marry, then polyarmory orientation also legal behind closed doors also has the same rights. The 14th can’t be applied arbitrarily.

You might have a point there. Since many rich men have a wife and a mistress, we should totally legalize that.

According to Obergefell it already is.

 

[hadit]

Good. The left has attempted to create an atmosphere where individual liberty is only respected if it follows the progressive narrative. Can't wait to see this suit shoved up their virtue signaling asses.

How is being gay a political philosophy?

It’s a behavior choice.

So, being straight is a behavioral choice too? When did you choose your sexual orientation?

Right about the time I realized that girls weren't yucky and they didn't have cooties.

 

[Moonglow]

If you are going to argue that some wife-beater can deny someone a wedding cake because he's a homophobic bigot, then you are arguing that I can refuse to ring up a Mormon because of first Amendment reasons. I should also be able to scream at him over the counter that Joseph Smith was a child molester. And my boss should be able to do nothing about it because First Amendment.....Either you believe this shit or you don't.

Same with the 14th. If sodomy orientation is legal behind closed doors & from there, legal to marry, then polyarmory orientation also legal behind closed doors also has the same rights. The 14th can’t be applied arbitrarily.

Damn equality!

 

[martybegan]

Again, point of sale isn't the same as contracted services, and being an employee is different than owning your own business.

It's amazing how narrow you get when it suits your asshole bigoted viewpoints.

But that's not what you are arguing...

If you are going to argue that some wife-beater can deny someone a wedding cake because he's a homophobic bigot, then you are arguing that I can refuse to ring up a Mormon because of first Amendment reasons. I should also be able to scream at him over the counter that Joseph Smith was a child molester. And my boss should be able to do nothing about it because First Amendment.

Either you believe this shit or you don't.

Again, ringing up and contracted services are different, involving differing levels of commitment and contact, and thus the scale of 1st amendment rights vs. commerce rights differ for each.

What you are doing is being an absolutists because it suits you, and your inability to stop being a bigoted anti-religious moron shows that your opinion is based on nothing but hatred, and your desire to be a mean shithead a few more times before you make this earth a better place by leaving it.

 

[Silhouette]

, ringing up and contracted services are different, involving differing levels of commitment and contact, and thus the scale of 1st amendment rights vs. commerce rights differ for each.

What you are doing is being an absolutists because it suits you, and your inability to stop being a bigoted anti-religious moron shows that your opinion is based on nothing but hatred, and your desire to be a mean shithead a few more times before you make this earth a better place by leaving it.

I agree Marty. The Court will get in with a scanning electron microscope like they alluded as how they would on the last Ruling with this baker.

Ive said that first the distinction between race & gender vs behaviors, ideals & rituals will be sifted out re: the 14th. Do just some deviant sex behaviors legal behind closed doors but not others have a 14th-right to marry? Hence the reason that’s part of the conversation.

Next, if any deviant sex behavior can marry eventually upon Ruling (or not if power is returned to each state upon Obergefell being reversed), are people going to be required to treat them like immutable race or gender when asked to participate in, create for or promote a behavior, ideal or ritual they are fundamentally opposed to? Will Muslims be forced under penalty of law to bake a gay wedding cake?

The key will be informing. If a merchant is informed his wares are to be used to celebrate a behavior ideal or ritual he finds totally repugnant or spiritually consequential, he’ll have the right to refuse service. To a black or a woman? No. To behaviors or ideals? Yes.

 

[martybegan]

, ringing up and contracted services are different, involving differing levels of commitment and contact, and thus the scale of 1st amendment rights vs. commerce rights differ for each.

What you are doing is being an absolutists because it suits you, and your inability to stop being a bigoted anti-religious moron shows that your opinion is based on nothing but hatred, and your desire to be a mean shithead a few more times before you make this earth a better place by leaving it.

I agree Marty. The Court will get in with a scanning electron microscope like they alluded as how they would on the last Ruling with this baker.

Ive said that first the distinction between race & gender vs behaviors, ideals & rituals will be sifted out re: the 14th. Do just some deviant sex behaviors legal behind closed doors but not others have a 14th-right to marry? Hence the reason that’s part of the conversation.

Next, if any deviant sex behavior can marry eventually upon Ruling (or not if power is returned to each state upon Obergefell being reversed), are people going to be required to treat them like immutable race or gender when asked to participate in, create for or promote a behavior, ideal or ritual they are fundamentally opposed to? Will Muslims be forced under penalty of law to bake a gay wedding cake?

The key will be informing. If a merchant is informed his wares are to be used to celebrate a behavior ideal or ritual he finds totally repugnant or spiritually consequential, he’ll have the right to refuse service. To a black or a woman? No. To behaviors or ideals? Yes.

My distinction is more along the lines of point of sale vs. contracted, of endorment vs. banal use.

 

[Silhouette]

My distinction is more along the lines of point of sale vs. contracted, of endorment vs. banal use.

I think we are both right. You because that’s how it will boil down. Two gay guys walk in & want a dozen cupcakes with no identifying purpose of ritual celebration. Just to eat. Sale made. Same two gay guys walk in the next day & want baker to make a gay wedding cake. No sale.

My points are more about how the court’s rationale will likely flow before your focus is eventually settled on.

 

[JoeB131]

According to Obergefell it already is.

Except Mistresses can't go into probate court and argue for half his stuff.

I think we are both right. You because that’s how it will boil down. Two gay guys walk in & want a dozen cupcakes with no identifying purpose of ritual celebration. Just to eat. Sale made. Same two gay guys walk in the next day & want baker to make a gay wedding cake. No sale.

My points are more about how the court’s rationale will likely flow before your focus is eventually settled on.

So again, by that logic, I can deny services to Mormons because i think Mormons are a cult started by a con man. I can deny services to Jews because they reject Jesus. I can deny services to blacks because according to my religion, they were cursed by God with Dark skin when Ham saw Noah naked.

You see how fucked up things can get when you try to use religion to set aside protections?