If Gays Are Allowed to Target and Discriminate Against Christian Businesses. . . .

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Correct. And in Windsor 2013, it found 56 times that this type of discrimination was/is right and proper in the individual states: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

In Correct. Nowhere does Windsor say anything to the effect of "this type of discrimination( on the part of the states) was/is right and proper in the individual states . The decision simply recognizes the fact that at the time of it's writing, the constitutional right to same sex marriage had not been established. Yes, the basis of the decision was that since the states had the right to approve same sex marriage or not, the federal government would be undercutting the authority of states that allowed it.

Nothing in Windsor means that the states have an absolute right to regulate marriage.

And they still haven't. Do you know why that is (besides Ginsburg's advertised bias before Obergefell and children not having separate counsel briefing their interests in the proposed contract- revision)? It's because since LGBT are lifestyles repugnant to the majority (deviant sex acts inviting kids to watch on parade "in pride" every year since the 1960s across most towns and cities in the US), and still managed to shoehorn immunity from majority rule by their 5 pals in the USSC in 2015, the bar has been set. Very low. So other groups the majority find repugnant (see the 14th for details) can now join LGBT in immunity from majority rule. All they have to do is (subjectively) say their behaviors feel not chosen and voila! The conditions are met.

This is why Scalia died. He knew where the false premise was leading. And here we are today.

More insane ranting !!

 

[Silhouette]

Correct. And in Windsor 2013, it found 56 times that this type of discrimination was/is right and proper in the individual states: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

In Correct. Nowhere does Windsor say anything to the effect of "this type of discrimination( on the part of the states) was/is right and proper in the individual states . The decision simply recognizes the fact that at the time of it's writing, the constitutional right to same sex marriage had not been established. Yes, the basis of the decision was that since the states had the right to approve same sex marriage or not, the federal government would be undercutting the authority of states that allowed it.

Nothing in Windsor means that the states have an absolute right to regulate marriage.

And they still haven't. Do you know why that is (besides Ginsburg's advertised bias before Obergefell and children not having separate counsel briefing their interests in the proposed contract- revision)? It's because since LGBT are lifestyles repugnant to the majority (deviant sex acts inviting kids to watch on parade "in pride" every year since the 1960s across most towns and cities in the US), and still managed to shoehorn immunity from majority rule by their 5 pals in the USSC in 2015, the bar has been set. Very low. So other groups the majority find repugnant (see the 14th for details) can now join LGBT in immunity from majority rule. All they have to do is (subjectively) say their behaviors feel not chosen and voila! The conditions are met.

This is why Scalia died. He knew where the false premise was leading. And here we are today.

More insane ranting !!

So your answer to why other repugnant groups could not gain the same majority-rule immunity is what? Or would you like your ad hominem diversion to act as a substitute for any argument you might have?

 

[mdk]

Justice Scalia’s coronary artery disease, obesity, diabetes, and, a whole host of other ailments had nothing to do with his death. Gay marriage is what really killed him.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Actually, the constitution says that certain rights are absolute. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree to that, but then who's life liberty and pursuit of happiness was infringed here? The gay couple? The bakery? Possibly both?

Of course you know that I'm going to say the gay couple. Perhaps it ruined their day in terms of the emotional effect as well as having been inconvenienced. It is not hard to imaging how it may have robbed them of just a little "happiness" Hell, maybe is cast a pale over the whole wedding. As for the Baker, I find it hard to believe that baking the cake would have caused him emotional harm unless he was so delusional that he believed that God would hate him or punish him for it, and if so that is his problem.

Well, no, God probably wouldn't punish someone for that, but, in the world of religion, they practice by not being affiliated with things that go against their beliefs. It has nothing to do with hate, or even how they feel personally, it's just that they felt the action would have compromised their faith values.

It's like this, when someone asks you to perform a specific function for them, they are commissioning you to work for them. This is what it boils down to. In the instance of the bakery, they felt that performing work specifically in the service of a gay wedding would have gone against what they felt were their religious moral values. Nothing about hate, just their own personal faith and sense of morality.

I'm sure, because of this, the bakery also experienced emotional distress as a result of the lawsuit. Thus, I say both experienced loss of happiness.

Which opens the door to allow anyone to discriminate against anyone else in the name of religious freedom. But you don't see that problem, for some reason.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Here's a bit of information that most news outlets have not mentioned about the recent Supreme Court case involving the baker in Colorado who (politely) declined to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple: The baker served all of his other products to his gay customers. The one and only product that he would not provide to his gay customers was a same-sex wedding cake. But, nope, that wasn't good enough for the Gay Rights Gestapo. The gay couple took legal action against the baker. Luckily, the Supreme Court ruled against the gay couple, albeit on very narrow grounds, by a vote of 7-2 (Masterpiece Cakeshop: How Can a 7-2 Supreme Court Decision Be “Narrow?”).

This example of intolerance by the Gay Rights Gestapo is a repeat of what they have done to other Christian vendors. Take, for example, the Mennonite couple in Iowa--yes, they were Mennonites--who lost their business because they would not host a gay wedding. A gay couple, who did not even live in the same town but lived 25 minutes away, asked the Mennonite couple if they would host their gay wedding in the couple's small wedding chapel that was part of their bistro and flower shop business. The Mennonite couple offered to provide any other service the gay couple wanted. They even offered to provide flowers. But, they explained to the gay couple that because of their religious beliefs, they did not want to host a gay wedding in their wedding chapel (see Another Christian Family-Run Business Closing After Refusing to Host Gay Wedding.) And get this: The Mennonite couple routinely served gay customers and even hired gays as employees (see Mennonite husband and wife say they have no hatred toward gays; media say they're 'anti-gay')!

But you guessed it: That was not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis. The gay couple filed a complaint against the Mennonite couple, and the Mennonite family began receiving hateful and threatening phone calls, and customers were afraid to dine at the bistro anymore because of the controversy. So the Mennonite couple ended up having to close their business.

Clearly, the gay couple targeted the Mennonite family's business in the hope of finding grounds to take legal action against it, and against them. Again, the gay couple didn't even live in the same town where the bistro was located but lived 25 minutes away. Also, there were numerous venues in the Des Moines area that advertised their willingness to host and serve gay weddings, but the gay couple decided to drive 25 minutes to the small town of Grimes to demand that the Mennonite couple host their gay wedding.

If the Mennonite family had been militant atheists who did not believe in any kind of marriage and who therefore would not host any weddings in their building, the gay couple would have simply found another venue. But since the couple were Mennonites and declined to host a gay wedding on religious grounds, the gay couple took legal action against them. That's what you call "discrimination," not to mention targeting and persecution.

Getting back to the recent Colorado case for a minute: Keep in mind that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the local courts that ruled against the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker also ruled in favor of a secular baker who refused to bake a cake that celebrated traditional marriage and that implied criticism of gay marriage. Oh, okay: So it's okay for a secular baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive, but it's not okay for religious baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive? Got it.

/——-/ democRATs double down on hate.
Maxine Waters orders MORE public harassment of Trump aides: ‘God is on OUR side!’

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Correct. And in Windsor 2013, it found 56 times that this type of discrimination was/is right and proper in the individual states: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

In Correct. Nowhere does Windsor say anything to the effect of "this type of discrimination( on the part of the states) was/is right and proper in the individual states . The decision simply recognizes the fact that at the time of it's writing, the constitutional right to same sex marriage had not been established. Yes, the basis of the decision was that since the states had the right to approve same sex marriage or not, the federal government would be undercutting the authority of states that allowed it.

Nothing in Windsor means that the states have an absolute right to regulate marriage.

And they still haven't. Do you know why that is (besides Ginsburg's advertised bias before Obergefell and children not having separate counsel briefing their interests in the proposed contract- revision)? It's because since LGBT are lifestyles repugnant to the majority (deviant sex acts inviting kids to watch on parade "in pride" every year since the 1960s across most towns and cities in the US), and still managed to shoehorn immunity from majority rule by their 5 pals in the USSC in 2015, the bar has been set. Very low. So other groups the majority find repugnant (see the 14th for details) can now join LGBT in immunity from majority rule. All they have to do is (subjectively) say their behaviors feel not chosen and voila! The conditions are met.

This is why Scalia died. He knew where the false premise was leading. And here we are today.

More insane ranting !!

So your answer to why other repugnant groups could not gain the same majority-rule immunity is what? Or would you like your ad hominem diversion to act as a substitute for any argument you might have?

I have explained it many times in many ways but it does not get through to you, so why bother. Read Obergefell Read it slowly. Then read it again. Then tell us what is in it that supports your insane interpretation of it.

You might also want to list all of the cases working their way through the courts that are pushing things like group marriage and bestiality, based on Obergefell

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's true. Very good. You're the only person around here I've seen say that right.

As a consumer, however, you are free to discriminate without loss of these rights. That is to say that you have the right to freedom of association and you may shop elsewhere without risk of loss of liberty. That's the beauty of the free market.

You're still going to get married, you're still going to have a cake And you're still going to have everything else.

But if you choose not to exercise your right to freedom od f association and try to force a property owner to relinquish his property at the barrel of a government gun, you're taking away his right to freedom of association. And his property right. And a few other liberties.

Thank you. You're right, the consumer can't be forced to use any particular vender. However, with respect to the vender's obligation when offering good and services, it appears that we are going around in a circle and I see no path to a way to break that deadlock.

But the PA laws dont say a business has to service every customer that walks in, they say that a business can't discriminate based on certain status. I contend that the Baker wasnt discriminating, he was exercising religious liberty, which is also equally protected under the law.

That is indeed a stretch. His so called religious freedom was directly tied he the fact that they were gay. Do you think that argument would work if it was a black person he refused to serve?

Probably not, but that's because there are no religions that I am aware of that look at being black as a sin. There are several religions, however, that look at homosexuality as a sin.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Actually, the constitution says that certain rights are absolute. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree to that, but then who's life liberty and pursuit of happiness was infringed here? The gay couple? The bakery? Possibly both?

Of course you know that I'm going to say the gay couple. Perhaps it ruined their day in terms of the emotional effect as well as having been inconvenienced. It is not hard to imaging how it may have robbed them of just a little "happiness" Hell, maybe is cast a pale over the whole wedding. As for the Baker, I find it hard to believe that baking the cake would have caused him emotional harm unless he was so delusional that he believed that God would hate him or punish him for it, and if so that is his problem.

Well, no, God probably wouldn't punish someone for that, but, in the world of religion, they practice by not being affiliated with things that go against their beliefs. It has nothing to do with hate, or even how they feel personally, it's just that they felt the action would have compromised their faith values.

It's like this, when someone asks you to perform a specific function for them, they are commissioning you to work for them. This is what it boils down to. In the instance of the bakery, they felt that performing work specifically in the service of a gay wedding would have gone against what they felt were their religious moral values. Nothing about hate, just their own personal faith and sense of morality.

I'm sure, because of this, the bakery also experienced emotional distress as a result of the lawsuit. Thus, I say both experienced loss of happiness.

Which opens the door to allow anyone to discriminate against anyone else in the name of religious freedom. But you don't see that problem, for some reason.

Only if there is a valid concern. Discriminating for the simple fact that you just dont like the person, or their lifestyle is wrong, and protected according to our laws.However, if a person's religious beliefs contradict that lifestyle, and it is written in their scriptures that you should avoid associating with them, then yes, they have the right according to their faith to avoid them.

Unfortunately, we seem to be against a wall here. Like I said, in this case, you can't support one person's liberty without violating anothers. Maybe there needs to be more clarification in the laws, and I say that hesitantly because anytime government puts its hands into, or further encroaches on people's lives, more freedom gets jeopardized.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's true. Very good. You're the only person around here I've seen say that right.

As a consumer, however, you are free to discriminate without loss of these rights. That is to say that you have the right to freedom of association and you may shop elsewhere without risk of loss of liberty. That's the beauty of the free market.

You're still going to get married, you're still going to have a cake And you're still going to have everything else.

But if you choose not to exercise your right to freedom od f association and try to force a property owner to relinquish his property at the barrel of a government gun, you're taking away his right to freedom of association. And his property right. And a few other liberties.

Thank you. You're right, the consumer can't be forced to use any particular vender. However, with respect to the vender's obligation when offering good and services, it appears that we are going around in a circle and I see no path to a way to break that deadlock.

But the PA laws dont say a business has to service every customer that walks in, they say that a business can't discriminate based on certain status. I contend that the Baker wasnt discriminating, he was exercising religious liberty, which is also equally protected under the law.

That is indeed a stretch. His so called religious freedom was directly tied he the fact that they were gay. Do you think that argument would work if it was a black person he refused to serve?

Probably not, but that's because there are no religions that I am aware of that look at being black as a sin. There are several religions, however, that look at homosexuality as a sin.

To be honest, I don't know that much about Christianity, but I do believe that Christians have use the bible to justify racial discrimination. Doesn't the KKK consider themselves Christians.? How about the Christian Identity Movement? They might well think that serving a black person, or interacting with him in any way is against gods law. You're really not making any progress on this pal.

 

[bravoactual]

Here's a bit of information that most news outlets have not mentioned about the recent Supreme Court case involving the baker in Colorado who (politely) declined to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple: The baker served all of his other products to his gay customers. The one and only product that he would not provide to his gay customers was a same-sex wedding cake. But, nope, that wasn't good enough for the Gay Rights Gestapo. The gay couple took legal action against the baker. Luckily, the Supreme Court ruled against the gay couple, albeit on very narrow grounds, by a vote of 7-2 (Masterpiece Cakeshop: How Can a 7-2 Supreme Court Decision Be “Narrow?”).

This example of intolerance by the Gay Rights Gestapo is a repeat of what they have done to other Christian vendors. Take, for example, the Mennonite couple in Iowa--yes, they were Mennonites--who lost their business because they would not host a gay wedding. A gay couple, who did not even live in the same town but lived 25 minutes away, asked the Mennonite couple if they would host their gay wedding in the couple's small wedding chapel that was part of their bistro and flower shop business. The Mennonite couple offered to provide any other service the gay couple wanted. They even offered to provide flowers. But, they explained to the gay couple that because of their religious beliefs, they did not want to host a gay wedding in their wedding chapel (see Another Christian Family-Run Business Closing After Refusing to Host Gay Wedding.) And get this: The Mennonite couple routinely served gay customers and even hired gays as employees (see Mennonite husband and wife say they have no hatred toward gays; media say they're 'anti-gay')!

But you guessed it: That was not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis. The gay couple filed a complaint against the Mennonite couple, and the Mennonite family began receiving hateful and threatening phone calls, and customers were afraid to dine at the bistro anymore because of the controversy. So the Mennonite couple ended up having to close their business.

Clearly, the gay couple targeted the Mennonite family's business in the hope of finding grounds to take legal action against it, and against them. Again, the gay couple didn't even live in the same town where the bistro was located but lived 25 minutes away. Also, there were numerous venues in the Des Moines area that advertised their willingness to host and serve gay weddings, but the gay couple decided to drive 25 minutes to the small town of Grimes to demand that the Mennonite couple host their gay wedding.

If the Mennonite family had been militant atheists who did not believe in any kind of marriage and who therefore would not host any weddings in their building, the gay couple would have simply found another venue. But since the couple were Mennonites and declined to host a gay wedding on religious grounds, the gay couple took legal action against them. That's what you call "discrimination," not to mention targeting and persecution.

Getting back to the recent Colorado case for a minute: Keep in mind that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the local courts that ruled against the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker also ruled in favor of a secular baker who refused to bake a cake that celebrated traditional marriage and that implied criticism of gay marriage. Oh, okay: So it's okay for a secular baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive, but it's not okay for religious baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive? Got it.

As opposed to a business that discriminate Gays?

You are bloody hypocrite.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Now we have a Virginia restaurant that asked the President's press secretary to leave. Don't hold your breath waiting for liberals to protest this, yet they think it's an outrage that a religious baker, florist, or photograph doesn't want to service a gay wedding.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Only if there is a valid concern. Discriminating for the simple fact that you just dont like the person, or their lifestyle is wrong, and protected according to our laws.However, if a person's religious beliefs contradict that lifestyle, and it is written in their scriptures that you should avoid associating with them, then yes, they have the right according to their faith to avoid them.

So we've gone around in a circle again .Anybody should be able to discriminate as long as the motive is pure. And of course when asked why they discriminated-knowing that the wrong answer will get them in trouble -will be honest, and only invoke religion if that is really why they discriminated . Should work real well.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Unfortunately, we seem to be against a wall here. Like I said, in this case, you can't support one person's liberty without violating anothers. Maybe there needs to be more clarification in the laws, and I say that hesitantly because anytime government puts its hands into, or further encroaches on people's lives, more freedom gets jeopardized.

I think that we have been over this. You're right to swing your arm ends where my face begins

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Now we have a Virginia restaurant that asked the President's press secretary to leave. Don't hold your breath waiting for liberals to protest this, yet they think it's an outrage that a religious baker, florist, or photograph doesn't want to service a gay wedding.

What would you say if that restaurant owner was a Christian and kicked them out based on his religious belief that Trump is an abomination against God? (Which it is)

 

[Silhouette]

I think that we have been over this. You're right to swing your arm ends where my face begins

Your right to have child-invite deviant sex parades in public ends where children's eyes begin.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I think that we have been over this. You're right to swing your arm ends where my face begins

Your right to have child-invite deviant sex parades in public ends where children's eyes begin.

That you for that well thought out and brilliant analysis of the important issue of discrimination that effects real human beings every day . You a true asset to the USMB and constantly raise the level of intellectual discourse . Bless your homophobic heart !

 

[Silhouette]

I think that we have been over this. You're right to swing your arm ends where my face begins

Your right to have child-invite deviant sex parades in public ends where children's eyes begin.

That you for that well thought out and brilliant analysis of the important issue of discrimination that effects real human beings every day . You a true asset to the USMB and constantly raise the level of intellectual discourse . Bless your homophobic heart !

But you didn't address the point that your right to have child-invite deviant sex parades in public ends where children's eyes begin. You're the one who brought up where people's rights begin and end. I just followed that thought to its natural conclusion in my example.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I think that we have been over this. You're right to swing your arm ends where my face begins

Your right to have child-invite deviant sex parades in public ends where children's eyes begin.

That you for that well thought out and brilliant analysis of the important issue of discrimination that effects real human beings every day . You a true asset to the USMB and constantly raise the level of intellectual discourse . Bless your homophobic heart !

But you didn't address the point that your right to have child-invite deviant sex parades in public ends where children's eyes begin. You're the one who brought up where people's rights begin and end. I just followed that thought to its natural conclusion in my example.

And you did not address the point that I made in post 190 three days ago because you cannot defend your bizarre and lurid obsession with sex and children: Here it is again:

Get your mind out of the gutter. Why are you so obsessed with children? For the record, I don't think that children should be exposed to explicit sexual behavior either. I just don't know to what extent that actually happens any more at those gay pride events. I have a feeling that it largely a thing of the past when gays had to use militant shock theater to get attention.

Thanks to the advancement of gay rights- despite the best efforts of bigots like you to fight it- gay people are able to live openly without the need for the fanfare and flamboyance. They don't need to have anonymous sex in bath houses, they have stable relationships because they can bring their partner home to their family, and can actually marry and have a family. But all of you rabid bigots who are obsessed with sex and think -or pretend to think- that gay people are just about sex, and focus on the salacious , sensationalized and the negative stereo types won't let go of that. You bitch about this behavior-real or imagined- but don't understand that if you cut them some slack and focus on the ways that they are like us in more ways than they are different and accept them as part of the fabric of society- maybe-just fucking maybe- the behaviors that you find so offensive will cease entirely. You cant have it both ways. Have a nice fucking day

 

[Silhouette]

And you did not address the point that I made in post 190 three days ago because you cannot defend your bizarre and lurid obsession with sex and children: Here it is again:

Get your mind out of the gutter. Why are you so obsessed with children? For the record, I don't think that children should be exposed to explicit sexual behavior either. I just don't know to what extent that actually happens any more at those gay pride events. I have a feeling that it largely a thing of the past when gays had to use militant shock theater to get attention.

Nice flip. We went from the uber-documented phenomenon of LGBT "pride" parades doing lewd sex acts in front of kids for decades to you accusing me of having a "bizarre and lurid obsession with sex and children". Nice touch. Do you mean to say that people concerned about children not being exposed to graphic sex acts are "bizarre and lurid"? Or are they protective? It almost seems like you're trying to mind fuck people into thinking that if they act on their instincts to protect children from predators, they themselves might be labelled as predators (and therefore less likely to act on behalf of children to protect them). Nice touch. Do they have a training facility or did you just pick up that grooming tip on your own?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And you did not address the point that I made in post 190 three days ago because you cannot defend your bizarre and lurid obsession with sex and children: Here it is again:

Get your mind out of the gutter. Why are you so obsessed with children? For the record, I don't think that children should be exposed to explicit sexual behavior either. I just don't know to what extent that actually happens any more at those gay pride events. I have a feeling that it largely a thing of the past when gays had to use militant shock theater to get attention.

Nice flip. We went from the uber-documented phenomenon of LGBT "pride" parades doing lewd sex acts in front of kids for decades to you accusing me of having a "bizarre and lurid obsession with sex and children". Nice touch. Do you mean to say that people concerned about children not being exposed to graphic sex acts are "bizarre and lurid"? Or are they protective? It almost seems like you're trying to mind fuck people into thinking that if they act on their instincts to protect children from predators, they themselves might be labelled as predators (and therefore less likely to act on behalf of children to protect them). Nice touch. Do they have a training facility or did you just pick up that grooming tip on your own?

First of all you had better watch that shit about suggesting that I employing " grooming tips" Second of all, I doubt that the behavior that claim is pervasive at gay pride events really occurs much anymore.

But, most importantly, this crap that you posted just serves to distract from the point that I made- which you have not address- which is that you have no business expecting gay people to conform to your standards of behavior, while you continually denigrate them, marginalize accuse them of being perverts, and basically treat them as less then human .

Now deal with that.