Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[bodecea]

Did you not post that the article did not say the issue was that the wedding was to be held in a home/house? Did your account get hacked again?

That was the "issue" according to the interview with the owner, not according to the complaint or judgement.

They were denied having their ceremony there at all, not just in the "house". The owners wouldn't allow them to have the ceremony outside, either.

Which is well within her rights to do. If it is anywhere on her property, she gets to dictate what persons can be there.

Well, no. The fact that they live on the premises doesn't invalidate public accommodations laws.

Uh yeah, it does. If it's their property, it's their home, and thusly, Public Accommodation laws don't apply to a home or a place of permanent residence. See where this is going, Doc? That fine line between discrimination and faith has been crossed. You now have a homeowner refusing to conduct activities that violate her faith on her own property. The lesbians wanted this wedding to happen on the property, the lady said no; being said owner of this property, as well as a resident of said property, means she gets has discretion over who and what sets foot in or on her property. Or does her Constitutional rights no longer apply here?

Of course they do. Just like public accommodation laws apply to a restaurant if, say, the owner lived in an apartment above it.

The "property" in question is a commercial operation. It's a public business that they happen to live on, not a house that they occasionally do business from.

The property is in fact a home. It isn't as cut and dry as you would like it to be. Do her rights as a homeowner go out the window because she hosts a little shindig on in her own home? You are merely parroting what the judge in this case ruled. So, now, if a higher court makes the same determination, does that mean my home is now a place subject to Public Accomodation laws? Heaven help me if I decide to hold a barbecue in my own back yard Doc! This is ludicrous!

Why do you think the Courts of that State didn't see it your way?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

First, Jim Crow laws predated bus service.

Hmmm...it didn't predate coaches and trains did it?

I am looking for the history paper that points out that segregation in transportation wasn't universal in the south until democrats passed Jim Crow laws...

Race and sexual orientation are not analogous. Until you libs stop that false comparison, you will get nowhere with this.

Civil rights are civil rights....are you sure you are a citizen of this country?

marriage is not a civil right. Forcing a supplier of a good or service to contract with you is not a civil right.

PA laws do not apply to two party contracts.

Civil marriage is....and has been declared so by several federal court decisions.....and by the Equal Protection under the Law clause in the 14th Amendment.

And if you disagree that a business should follow a state's laws on businesses.....you should work to either change those laws by repeal or even by getting them declared "unConstitutional" if you truely believe they go against the Constitution.

Right. So Homo marriage is not merely about equality, it's about oppression, and clearly it's about the necessity of civil disobedience if the courts don't rectify the matter in accordance with the inalienable rights of the First Amendment.

 

[bodecea]

Pictures do not an argument make. Doc. A home is a home is a home. I don't need blanks filled in for me, thanks. My home is my property. Anything I do (legally) on my own property is not subject to government purview. Yes, they have employees, farm hands and the like. If I employed a single person to mow my lawn for a set fee, does it also make my residence a place subject to public domain?

What is RESIDENCE? definition of RESIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary)

Yes it is if you run a business there.

 

[bodecea]

Businesses are still private and the owner should call the shots. Would a minority-owned business be forced to cater a KKK event? Of course, you will say that the KKK would never walk into a business owned by a minority and want to do business with them. Why then would a gay couple want to force religious people into dealing with them, knowing that they are against gays due to religion?

I wouldn't want to force anyone to deal with me. And I wouldn't go crying to a lawyer if someone didn't want my business. I'd speak out and let people know what the issue is and the business would suffer if enough people disagreed with their stance on any given issue.

I'd choke on the cake someone was forced to bake for me against their will. I wouldn't set foot in a place that objected to my lifestyle.

There are many businesses and if you don't like how one operates, head over to their competition.

I don't think it's right to force business owners to go against their conscience.

Businesses used to have the right to refuse service to anyone. Having lawyers file suits to force them to cater to people is creepy. Neither the business owners or the customers should feel comfortable with that. I don't think it's so much that the people filing these suits really want the particular cakes a baker has or the accommodations for their wedding. In some cases, I think they are just messing with people whose religious beliefs don't include gays.

I could care less about the sexual orientation of a person. But I understand that some do and I wouldn't disrespect that by forcing them to do anything they find objectionable. Force doesn't change people's hearts and minds. If the intent is to be accepted by people, then the last thing you should do is offend them by suing them and saying that their religion doesn't matter.

Yes they would.

 

[bodecea]

First, Jim Crow laws predated bus service.

Hmmm...it didn't predate coaches and trains did it?

I am looking for the history paper that points out that segregation in transportation wasn't universal in the south until democrats passed Jim Crow laws...

Race and sexual orientation are not analogous. Until you libs stop that false comparison, you will get nowhere with this.

Civil rights are civil rights....are you sure you are a citizen of this country?

marriage is not a civil right. Forcing a supplier of a good or service to contract with you is not a civil right.

PA laws do not apply to two party contracts.

Civil marriage is....and has been declared so by several federal court decisions.....and by the Equal Protection under the Law clause in the 14th Amendment.

And if you disagree that a business should follow a state's laws on businesses.....you should work to either change those laws by repeal or even by getting them declared "unConstitutional" if you truely believe they go against the Constitution.

Right. So Homo marriage is not merely about equality, it's about oppression, and clearly it's about the necessity of civil disobedience if the courts don't rectify the matter in accordance with the inalienable rights of the First Amendment.

So...my marriage oppresses you? And to think you came across as being made of sterner stuff than that. You poor milquetoast, you.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This is no different that ruling that a wedding hall must accommodate white people.

Not sure why all the angst.

You don't understand that millions are repulsed by homosexually, regard it to be disgusting, depraved, contrary to their sensibilities, their morality or religious convictions? Behavior and the benign realities of everyday-walk-in-the-park morphological features/traits are the same thing?

Where you dropped on your head as a child? Is the brain damage permanent?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Businesses are still private and the owner should call the shots. Would a minority-owned business be forced to cater a KKK event? Of course, you will say that the KKK would never walk into a business owned by a minority and want to do business with them. Why then would a gay couple want to force religious people into dealing with them, knowing that they are against gays due to religion?

I wouldn't want to force anyone to deal with me. And I wouldn't go crying to a lawyer if someone didn't want my business. I'd speak out and let people know what the issue is and the business would suffer if enough people disagreed with their stance on any given issue.

I'd choke on the cake someone was forced to bake for me against their will. I wouldn't set foot in a place that objected to my lifestyle.

There are many businesses and if you don't like how one operates, head over to their competition.

I don't think it's right to force business owners to go against their conscience.

Businesses used to have the right to refuse service to anyone. Having lawyers file suits to force them to cater to people is creepy. Neither the business owners or the customers should feel comfortable with that. I don't think it's so much that the people filing these suits really want the particular cakes a baker has or the accommodations for their wedding. In some cases, I think they are just messing with people whose religious beliefs don't include gays.

I could care less about the sexual orientation of a person. But I understand that some do and I wouldn't disrespect that by forcing them to do anything they find objectionable. Force doesn't change people's hearts and minds. If the intent is to be accepted by people, then the last thing you should do is offend them by suing them and saying that their religion doesn't matter.

Yes they would.

There it is, folks, the cold, heartless soul of the leftist loon.

 

[bodecea]

Freedom of religion is a right that supersedes any state law...but why quibble over inalienable rights when the ability to force people to do what we want because they don't like us is popular right now....

You have freedom of religion. Your business doesn't. businesses don't have religion.

What part of "free exercise thereof" don't you get?

So...Mormons have the free exercise of polygamy? So...religions have the free exercise of human sacrifice?

They can and do, they just can't get a government marriage license. Human sacrifice involves a homicide, which is a crime in and of itself, even if a person does it willingly because of laws against suicide.

Try harder with your arguments next time.

Exactly...they cannot get the government marriage license....and you put your finger on why we do not get complete freedom of religion............when it hurts others. Thanks for helping my point along.

No, I didn't. What DOESN'T happen is other people being able to sue their asses or whine to some Human Rights Junta about it and **** them over because of it.

Their religion doesn't require them to get government recognition of their marriage, they seem perfectly happy just doing it without government interference.

Well, bully for them, I say.

 

[martybegan]

Freedom of religion is a right that supersedes any state law...but why quibble over inalienable rights when the ability to force people to do what we want because they don't like us is popular right now....

You have freedom of religion. Your business doesn't. businesses don't have religion.

What part of "free exercise thereof" don't you get?

So...Mormons have the free exercise of polygamy? So...religions have the free exercise of human sacrifice?

They can and do, they just can't get a government marriage license. Human sacrifice involves a homicide, which is a crime in and of itself, even if a person does it willingly because of laws against suicide.

Try harder with your arguments next time.

Exactly...they cannot get the government marriage license....and you put your finger on why we do not get complete freedom of religion............when it hurts others. Thanks for helping my point along.

No, I didn't. What DOESN'T happen is other people being able to sue their asses or whine to some Human Rights Junta about it and **** them over because of it.

Their religion doesn't require them to get government recognition of their marriage, they seem perfectly happy just doing it without government interference.

Well, bully for them, I say.

So as long as you get to use the government to force acceptance of your lifestyle on others, everything is roses, eh?

 

[bodecea]

This is no different that ruling that a wedding hall must accommodate white people.

Not sure why all the angst.

You don't understand that millions are repulsed by homosexually, regard it to be disgusting, depraved, contrary to their sensibilities, their morality or religious convictions? Behavior and the benign realities of everyday-walk-in-the-park morphological features/traits are the same thing?

Where you dropped on your head as a child? Is the brain damage permanent?

Millions are repulsed by obese people too....and yet that doesn't deprive those people of the right to be treated equally.

And...am amused by your personal attacks.....which clearly show your weak argument for what it is.....weak.

 

[koshergrl]

First, Jim Crow laws predated bus service.

Hmmm...it didn't predate coaches and trains did it?

I am looking for the history paper that points out that segregation in transportation wasn't universal in the south until democrats passed Jim Crow laws...

Race and sexual orientation are not analogous. Until you libs stop that false comparison, you will get nowhere with this.

Civil rights are civil rights....are you sure you are a citizen of this country?

marriage is not a civil right. Forcing a supplier of a good or service to contract with you is not a civil right.

PA laws do not apply to two party contracts.

Civil marriage is....and has been declared so by several federal court decisions.....and by the Equal Protection under the Law clause in the 14th Amendment.

And if you disagree that a business should follow a state's laws on businesses.....you should work to either change those laws by repeal or even by getting them declared "unConstitutional" if you truely believe they go against the Constitution.

Right. So Homo marriage is not merely about equality, it's about oppression, and clearly it's about the necessity of civil disobedience if the courts don't rectify the matter in accordance with the inalienable rights of the First Amendment.

So...my marriage oppresses you? And to think you came across as being made of sterner stuff than that. You poor milquetoast, you.

As long as you don't use your insist that homo hookups be condoned by, or sanctioned by, the church you're welcome to them.

Sadly, you are incapable of stopping at the church door. You feel you have the right to batter it down and force your way in. And that is oppression, and will be stopped.

 

[martybegan]

This is no different that ruling that a wedding hall must accommodate white people.

Not sure why all the angst.

You don't understand that millions are repulsed by homosexually, regard it to be disgusting, depraved, contrary to their sensibilities, their morality or religious convictions? Behavior and the benign realities of everyday-walk-in-the-park morphological features/traits are the same thing?

Where you dropped on your head as a child? Is the brain damage permanent?

Millions are repulsed by obese people too....and yet that doesn't deprive those people of the right to be treated equally.

And...am amused by your personal attacks.....which clearly show your weak argument for what it is.....weak.

What argument do you have? you hide behind crappy law and sneer. nothing more.

You haven't said why it is morally right to force others to give up their own morality, you just retort "its the law, neener neener"

 

[bodecea]

First, Jim Crow laws predated bus service.

Hmmm...it didn't predate coaches and trains did it?

I am looking for the history paper that points out that segregation in transportation wasn't universal in the south until democrats passed Jim Crow laws...

Race and sexual orientation are not analogous. Until you libs stop that false comparison, you will get nowhere with this.

Civil rights are civil rights....are you sure you are a citizen of this country?

marriage is not a civil right. Forcing a supplier of a good or service to contract with you is not a civil right.

PA laws do not apply to two party contracts.

Civil marriage is....and has been declared so by several federal court decisions.....and by the Equal Protection under the Law clause in the 14th Amendment.

And if you disagree that a business should follow a state's laws on businesses.....you should work to either change those laws by repeal or even by getting them declared "unConstitutional" if you truely believe they go against the Constitution.

Right. So Homo marriage is not merely about equality, it's about oppression, and clearly it's about the necessity of civil disobedience if the courts don't rectify the matter in accordance with the inalienable rights of the First Amendment.

So...my marriage oppresses you? And to think you came across as being made of sterner stuff than that. You poor milquetoast, you.

As long as you don't use your insist that homo hookups be condoned by, or sanctioned by, the church you're welcome to them.

Sadly, you are incapable of stopping at the church door. You feel you have the right to batter it down and force your way in. And that is oppression, and will be stopped.

LOL...that there horse done left the barn waaaaaay long ago. Ironically for you, we were married religiously almost 20 years before the state legalized civil gay marriage.

 

[bodecea]

This is no different that ruling that a wedding hall must accommodate white people.

Not sure why all the angst.

You don't understand that millions are repulsed by homosexually, regard it to be disgusting, depraved, contrary to their sensibilities, their morality or religious convictions? Behavior and the benign realities of everyday-walk-in-the-park morphological features/traits are the same thing?

Where you dropped on your head as a child? Is the brain damage permanent?

Millions are repulsed by obese people too....and yet that doesn't deprive those people of the right to be treated equally.

And...am amused by your personal attacks.....which clearly show your weak argument for what it is.....weak.

What argument do you have? you hide behind crappy law and sneer. nothing more.

You haven't said why it is morally right to force others to give up their own morality, you just retort "its the law, neener neener"

That's right...it IS the law. And let me let you in on a little secret. Laws can be changed...if enough citizens want them changed. Laws can be repealed if enough citizens want them repealed. Laws can even have their constitutionality challenged by citizens who are affected by said laws.

The fact is....you are just whining because you KNOW you can not get enough citizens to vote your view on such laws. You are in the minority and you are crying about it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

First, Jim Crow laws predated bus service.

Hmmm...it didn't predate coaches and trains did it?

I am looking for the history paper that points out that segregation in transportation wasn't universal in the south until democrats passed Jim Crow laws...

Race and sexual orientation are not analogous. Until you libs stop that false comparison, you will get nowhere with this.

Civil rights are civil rights....are you sure you are a citizen of this country?

marriage is not a civil right. Forcing a supplier of a good or service to contract with you is not a civil right.

PA laws do not apply to two party contracts.

Civil marriage is....and has been declared so by several federal court decisions.....and by the Equal Protection under the Law clause in the 14th Amendment.

And if you disagree that a business should follow a state's laws on businesses.....you should work to either change those laws by repeal or even by getting them declared "unConstitutional" if you truely believe they go against the Constitution.

Right. So Homo marriage is not merely about equality, it's about oppression, and clearly it's about the necessity of civil disobedience if the courts don't rectify the matter in accordance with the inalienable rights of the First Amendment.

So...my marriage oppresses you? And to think you came across as being made of sterner stuff than that. You poor milquetoast, you.

I don't give a damn about what you do, you delusional narcissist, as long as you don't violate the life, the liberty or the property of another. But then, you lying-ass *****, you knew what I was talking anyway, didn't you?

 

[martybegan]

This is no different that ruling that a wedding hall must accommodate white people.

Not sure why all the angst.

You don't understand that millions are repulsed by homosexually, regard it to be disgusting, depraved, contrary to their sensibilities, their morality or religious convictions? Behavior and the benign realities of everyday-walk-in-the-park morphological features/traits are the same thing?

Where you dropped on your head as a child? Is the brain damage permanent?

Millions are repulsed by obese people too....and yet that doesn't deprive those people of the right to be treated equally.

And...am amused by your personal attacks.....which clearly show your weak argument for what it is.....weak.

What argument do you have? you hide behind crappy law and sneer. nothing more.

You haven't said why it is morally right to force others to give up their own morality, you just retort "its the law, neener neener"

That's right...it IS the law. And let me let you in on a little secret. Laws can be changed...if enough citizens want them changed. Laws can be repealed if enough citizens want them repealed. Laws can even have their constitutionality challenged by citizens who are affected by said laws.

The fact is....you are just whining because you KNOW you can not get enough citizens to vote your view on such laws. You are in the minority and you are crying about it.

Spoken like a true statist.

These laws shouldn't have to be changed, they should be thrown out as impingement on the freedom of others. Government shouldn't be involved, but it is.

And considering the current status of our governments, getting anything repealed or changed is next to impossible. So travesties like this are allowed to continue because progressives can always count on the low information apathetic voters to not care that their rights are being crushed, as long as their goodies keep coming in.

You hide behind the law like the gutless coward you are.

 

[bodecea]

First, Jim Crow laws predated bus service.

Hmmm...it didn't predate coaches and trains did it?

I am looking for the history paper that points out that segregation in transportation wasn't universal in the south until democrats passed Jim Crow laws...

Race and sexual orientation are not analogous. Until you libs stop that false comparison, you will get nowhere with this.

Civil rights are civil rights....are you sure you are a citizen of this country?

marriage is not a civil right. Forcing a supplier of a good or service to contract with you is not a civil right.

PA laws do not apply to two party contracts.

Civil marriage is....and has been declared so by several federal court decisions.....and by the Equal Protection under the Law clause in the 14th Amendment.

And if you disagree that a business should follow a state's laws on businesses.....you should work to either change those laws by repeal or even by getting them declared "unConstitutional" if you truely believe they go against the Constitution.

Right. So Homo marriage is not merely about equality, it's about oppression, and clearly it's about the necessity of civil disobedience if the courts don't rectify the matter in accordance with the inalienable rights of the First Amendment.

So...my marriage oppresses you? And to think you came across as being made of sterner stuff than that. You poor milquetoast, you.

I don't give a damn about what you do, you delusional narcissist, as long as you don't violate the life, the liberty or the property of another. But then, you lying-ass *****, you knew what I was talking anyway, didn't you?

Again, so sorry that my marriage upsets...er....oppresses you so much.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

First, Jim Crow laws predated bus service.

Hmmm...it didn't predate coaches and trains did it?

I am looking for the history paper that points out that segregation in transportation wasn't universal in the south until democrats passed Jim Crow laws...

Race and sexual orientation are not analogous. Until you libs stop that false comparison, you will get nowhere with this.

Civil rights are civil rights....are you sure you are a citizen of this country?

marriage is not a civil right. Forcing a supplier of a good or service to contract with you is not a civil right.

PA laws do not apply to two party contracts.

Civil marriage is....and has been declared so by several federal court decisions.....and by the Equal Protection under the Law clause in the 14th Amendment.

And if you disagree that a business should follow a state's laws on businesses.....you should work to either change those laws by repeal or even by getting them declared "unConstitutional" if you truely believe they go against the Constitution.

Right. So Homo marriage is not merely about equality, it's about oppression, and clearly it's about the necessity of civil disobedience if the courts don't rectify the matter in accordance with the inalienable rights of the First Amendment.

So...my marriage oppresses you? And to think you came across as being made of sterner stuff than that. You poor milquetoast, you.

I don't give a damn about what you do, you delusional narcissist, as long as you don't violate the life, the liberty or the property of another. But then, you lying-ass *****, you knew what I was talking anyway, didn't you?

Again, so sorry that my marriage upsets...er....oppresses you so much.

The passive-aggressive milquetoast of perpetual victimhood sniveled.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Again...you seem very afraid...trying to get people to "shut the hell up" . Not very nice....particularly when you also say "along with the business end of a loaded gun pointed at your stupid head". Now....let me ask you...is that the comment of a mature adult?

Not very nice? I'm impervious to your transparently obvious attempts at marginalization, and nobody who matters gives a flying you know what for your pathetically obtuse prattle.

Let me ask you why you're a fascist thug promoting the violation of INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS. Is that the behavior of an adult human being respecting the life, the liberty and the property of others, or that of an infantilized barbarian?

I'm reminded of what Golda Meir wrote about your Islamofascist cousins:

We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.​

Think about that in terms of dragging innocent human beings into court, forcing them into acts of civil disobedience or into taking up arms against you should all else fail, as we talk about your psychology.

Let's talk about your creepy obsession to control the lives of those with whom you disagree. Let's talk about your bizarre contempt for live and let live. Let's talk about your neurotic fear of liberty. Given the fact that there are no strings attached to the enterprise of you minding your own business and leaving those alone who don't wish to be unduly entangle in yours, why does that rejection drive you to acts of tyranny, you sick trick?

Indeed, let's talk about you nearly sociopathic narcissism.

Right. My "shut the hell up" means for you to literally shut the hell up. Who believes that? You lie as easily as a dog licks it genitals. Obviously, everyone with an IQ above that of gnat understands that I'm alluding to your blatant hypocrisy.

Afraid?

We have a $13,000 fine leveled against a family for "the audacity" of asserting its INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS in Pennsylvania. We have bakers and photographers, for example, being fined for asserting their INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS in other states. We have the suppression of the INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS of ideological free-association and parental authority in the private affairs of family via the state-sponsored imposition of paganism under the banner of psychobabble, junk science, against reparative therapy for children plagued by unwanted, same-sex attractions, including those suffering from the crisis of sexual identity, a well-established psychological phenomenon in the literature, due to the trauma of sexual molestation by same-sex predators. In San Francisco we have churches being routinely invaded and vandalized, and Christians being routinely assaulted on public thoroughfares by homosexuals with impunity. We even have a judge ordering a business owner to a "reeducation" camp of sorts in Colorado.

Afraid?

Of course I’m afraid, though not in the sense that you mean. Just how morally gone are you? I’m afraid in the sense that any rational human being would be, given the stakes and the dire alternatives should the courts fail the Republic. I'm afraid for my family, for my friends. I'm even afraid for you, though you're apparently beyond understanding why. You think you'll escape the tyranny of unmooring the Republic from the foundational imperatives of natural and conational law with regard to INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS? Just how naive are you?

Christians, by and large, are not going to submit. You'll delusional. What are you prepared to do?

Please, bodecea, you fascist *****, by all means, keep talking, keep mocking, keep trying to marginalize. Lie. That’s the whole point of drawing you statist, bootlicking homofascists out. By all means, show us just how morally obtuse and monstrous you are. The more you do so, the clearer it becomes. Many still don't grasp the extent of the threat.

 

[Seawytch]

Right. So Homo marriage is not merely about equality, it's about oppression, and clearly it's about the necessity of civil disobedience if the courts don't rectify the matter in accordance with the inalienable rights of the First Amendment.

Nope, it's really about equality.

How are you more oppressed than bigots that don't want to serve blacks or Muslims?