Kristallnacht May Explain Why Lefty Supremes Went Agro On Gay Activists...I Mean "Couples"..

[Silhouette]

They researched FW Woolworth's and knew that the corporation wouldn't disobey state law to serve them.

The lunch counter protests were carefully orchestrated, and it would have really put a crimp in a protest if the Woolworth manager would have ordered them served as they weren't hungry and probably didn't bring any money, and it was the age before "cards".

But there were differences, the lunch counter protesters weren't seeking to destroy Woolworth, and deliberately picked a large corporation because they didn't want to destroy the life of a small retailer.

Plus that's about something static like race which has federal protections while lifestyles do not, outside religious conviction.

 

[Silhouette]

this may be the stupidest thing i've seen posted on the internet

Well some folks see the selected persecution of people of faith differently. But to each their own.

Do you have any theories on why the otherwise usually dripping liberal Supremes took both the gays who were 'disrespectful' and the city who was 'non-neutral' to the Christian baker to task so harshly? You think they didn't think the Christian was being cornered and punished for his beliefs? You should read through the Opinion when you get a minute.

 

[JBvM]

(Thank you to AZGAl in advance.)

AZGal said here: Lefty Supremes Kagan & Breyer Tell Why They Sided With People of Faith In Colorado Gay Cake Issue

I think that a pattern of same sex couples who act "shocked" and "surprised" that a known meek, devout Christian baker or florist or photographer would politely refuse signals something ominous as it stinks of setting up these business owners to fail. well Masterpiece Cakeshop did not fail at bringing to light a hatred towards Christian business owners by customers, media and a corrupt governmental body. people are catching on a bout who the real victims are. Losing a business and being ridiculed across social media is way more harmful than having to go into a modern marketplace that includes apps and online ordering to select a satisfying match in what you want. I DO NOT SHOP at companies I dislike and neither should anybody else. WE are free to chose. No wonder the Jewish justices except Ginsburg were upset by the rise of hostility towards small religious oriented (weddings are also religious) Christian businesses: The Supreme Court elders remember WW2 and know these tactics are ugly.

Kristallnacht is The Night of the Broken Glass. On this night, November 9, 1938, almost 200 synagogues were destroyed, over 8,000 Jewish shops ...

*********

So do we have a modern version of "Kristallnacht" going on with the cult of LGBT against people of faith?

Vote in the poll.

I was unaware of the Comedy forum Thank you. So now Gays are violent Nazis going after helpless Christians?

Oh thank you!!! Too funny.

 

[Silhouette]

I was unaware of the Comedy forum Thank you. So now Gays are violent Nazis going after helpless Christians?

Oh thank you!!! Too funny.

Apparently the United States Supreme Court didn't find it as funny as you do, given their recent Opinion. They said that the gays who wanted to force the Christian to abdicate his faith in order to accommodate their offensive lifestyle "wedding" were "disrespectful". I think that was a very kind way of putting something that they wanted to word a bit more strongly; especially given the spate of same and similar occurrences across the country where gay activists "couples" seem to be specifically targeting Christian businesses to "conform or be cast out of the marketplace".

Secondly, the Court said that the city was being "non-neutral" in doling out punishment for the Christian shops and doing nothing but defending the reverse situation when gays refused to accommodate Christian customers asking them to promote messages they considered offensive, but were otherwise within the scope of the normal services they provided.

So the Court saw a "disrespectful" gay couple who Kennedy said "could have gone elsewhere" but wanted to make an issue of this with a Christian baker. And it saw the city playing along as a biased thug or henchman. And how is that fundamentally different from Krystallnacht when at the end of the day the same result is that a person of faith has his business destroyed because of his faith, done by a cult with opposing values....with the help of strong-arm from officials in their region?

You think that's funny. But like AZGAL said in the OP; the older Jews on the USSC don't find it as funny perhaps as you do.

 

[JBvM]

I was unaware of the Comedy forum Thank you. So now Gays are violent Nazis going after helpless Christians?

Oh thank you!!! Too funny.

Apparently the United States Supreme Court didn't find it as funny as you do, given their recent Opinion. They said ...

Your spin on what the Court actually said is not repeating back at you. Two competing 'rights' is what the Court mentioned, but ruled on teh state agency not giving the Baker a fair hearing

Try and keep your facts straight, and stop misrepresenting or looking like you're lying. Because as a 'believer' I am sure you know hot hot eternity will be for one who does that

Supreme Court has a website. Try going there and learning what they really said, in their own words, not yours.

 

[Silhouette]

Try and keep your facts straight, and stop misrepresenting or looking like you're lying. Because as a 'believer' I am sure you know hot hot eternity will be for one who does that

Supreme Court has a website. .

So you're saying the Court did not use the words "respectful" when admonishing the gays how to treat the Christian baker? And you're saying the Court did not say that the city did not remain "neutral" towards the Christian baker in its PA enforcement policies? I think you need to quit lying. They said those words in that context REPEATEDLY throughout their Opinion.

 

[JBvM]

So let us get this straight.

(1) You are the OP and wrote the first post.
Kristallnacht May Explain Why Lefty Supremes Went Agro On Gay Activists...I Mean "Couples"..

(2) I first replied here:
Kristallnacht May Explain Why Lefty Supremes Went Agro On Gay Activists...I Mean "Couples"..


(3) Then we get you again:
Kristallnacht May Explain Why Lefty Supremes Went Agro On Gay Activists...I Mean "Couples"..

(4) And below is where you chose to edit out/misrepresent the main premise in my comment:
Kristallnacht May Explain Why Lefty Supremes Went Agro On Gay Activists...I Mean "Couples"..

This is missing (below) and changes the whole premise: *"Your spin on what the Court actually said is not repeating back at you. Two competing 'rights' is what the Court mentioned, but ruled on the state agency not giving the Baker a fair hearing"

Try and keep your facts straight, and stop misrepresenting or looking like you're lying. Because as a 'believer' I am sure you know hot hot eternity will be for one who does that

Supreme Court has a website. .

(a) So you're saying the Court did not use the words "respectful" when admonishing the gays how to treat the Christian baker? (b) And you're saying the Court did not say that the city did not remain "neutral" towards the Christian baker in its PA enforcement policies? (c) I think you need to quit lying. (d) They said those words in that context REPEATEDLY throughout their Opinion.

(a) The Opinion of the Court was written by Justice Kennedy. I cannot find a single instance where Justice Kennedy is "admonishing the gays how to treat the Christian baker."

(b) You purposefully edited out something (*see red comment and blue star above ), and then accuse me of not saying what I clearly did state, in my criticism of your disingenuous, and now lying spin.

(c) I believe you Silhouette, owe myself and the members of this board an apology for such a blatant violation of rules as well a violation of civility and decency

(d) Justice Kennedy did not "said" anything. What he and others did, was use the words "respectful" and "neutral" in relation to a state agency's treatment of the Baker and his claims.

 

[Silhouette]

​

(c) I believe you , owe myself and the members of this board an apology for such a blatant violation of rules as well a violation of civility and decency

(d) Justice Kennedy did not "said" anything. What he and others did, was use the words "respectful" and "neutral" in relation to a state agency's treatment of the Baker and his claims.​

No, he used the words "respectful and neutral" to describe how people in faith should be approached by anyone. And he talked about how the gay activists, er, I mean "couple" could've gone elsewhere when they realized the baker's passive refusal was heartfelt. That's not what they did, did they?
​

I didn't say that the LGBT cult ARE NAZIS. I posted another poster's comparison and her thoughts on why the USSC Jewish Supremes might be spooked by the persecution of people of faith by another dogmatic organization; especially which has strong-arm backing from the state, who are both appearing to be targeting people of faith to put them out of business because they won't cow-tow to the New Order.

Now you need to apologize to me for attempting to suppress the free speech necessary in order to make those benign and factual observations.

If you're going to squirm about civility and decency on these boards, like the city in Colorado, be sure to do it equally applied. Browse some of the threads I've started and view how many of the LGBT posters have treated me over the years; then get back to us, OK? and be sure to dab those crocodile tears with a nice big hanky.

 

[JBvM]

...​

​

The idea that you believe anyone has the power to suppress free speech on a privately owned and run message board, shows just how ignorant you are in what you claim to have opinions on. You've avoided addressing your blatant rule violation of altering my comments to make them appear to say what they in actuality did not. I have no interest in filing a formal complaint. It would only make a person like you feel more powerful in their victimhood. But rest assured, you have now earned my contempt and disgust and feel pity for any poor souls who may agree with you on issues, but have your terrible behaviour throwing shade on them.

and I have read up on some of the boards here. I recognize you by your pathetic style. also, your obsession with gays and asking me to go see how you have some demented delusional battle with them? It's all in your head. You don't really matter in the great scheme of things, and I suspect matter even less in the small scheme of things

 

[JBvM]

Unwatch Thread - Kristallnacht May Explain Why Lefty Supremes Went Agro On Gay Activists...I Mean "Couples"..​

 

[Silhouette]

^^Uh oh, a newbie isn't watching this thread now. The horror! By the way, welcome to USMB JBvM. Joined two days ago. Kewl.

The idea that you believe anyone has the power to suppress free speech on a privately owned and run message board, shows just how ignorant you are in what you claim to have opinions on.

You just tried to chill speech in your last post. People can read it you know. Are you aware of what hard-hitting not-for-sissies political forum you're posting on? This is where the big sharks swim. Anchovies might get bruised and battered a bit. Try to thicken your skin a little.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think I mentioned before - although it might have been in a different thread - that it certainly appears as though they chose him deliberately, since by all accounts he's famous in the area for his quirky restrictions on custom cake decorations he will and won't do. He's literally the only baker I've ever heard of who won't make Halloween cakes, for example. But unless they just dropped in from the Martian mother ship to order the cake, it's very unlikely that they had no idea about this.

Don't kid yourself. They researched the baker well before they went into his shop. He was hand-selected for persecution by the "innocent and shocked" gay lifestylists who made sure to bring a mom along to emphasize the "shocked!" value they wanted to milk from the story.

The Supremes didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. This and other cases like it where the gay lifestylists didn't respectfully look elsewhere the minute they knew of the bakers' passive refusal to promote anything that has to do with two people of the same gender "marrying" (in the Christian mind, officiating as both mom and dad when that has no substitute in the eyes of God), are clear examples of militant targeting. That's why I named the title of this thread how I did. These "couples" often pair up for marriage to exploit a political agenda, and for tax purposes.

And in so doing they further adulterate the blessing of marriage. Can you imagine waiting for a long time, falling in love, proposing and getting giddy with the idea of marrying the one you love; but in the planning of that happy event you weave in a little planned complete sabotage and destruction of one of the contractors you intend to hire to help you?

"Hey honey, did you call the caterer? Yes, we're having salmon and asparagus quiche! Did you get the florist to order all the roses? Yes, pinks and whites, just like you wanted. Oh, and hey, did you search on Google for a baker who certainly is a Christian with objections to our lifestyle so we can target his shop for financial destruction before we go order our cake at the place down the road as planned from the guy who doesn't care who he makes a cake for? Yep, got that done too. We'll stop off there, have someone film the Christian politely rejecting our request, go see the lawyer, drop off the footage and go to that little bakery on the corner and pick out the cake we intended to all along. Great! Let's go!"

DID they film it? If so, I was not aware of it. In that case, it was obviously deliberate, like the lesbians in upper New York.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And the negroes who held sit-ins at Whites Only lunch counters deliberately targeted them, too.
.

Actually, they did. They researched FW Woolworth's and knew that the corporation wouldn't disobey state law to serve them.

The lunch counter protests were carefully orchestrated, and it would have really put a crimp in a protest if the Woolworth manager would have ordered them served as they weren't hungry and probably didn't bring any money, and it was the age before "cards".

But there were differences, the lunch counter protesters weren't seeking to destroy Woolworth, and deliberately picked a large corporation because they didn't want to destroy the life of a small retailer.

And they weren't trying to attack Woolworth's at all; they were protesting an unjust law.

 

[JBvM]

I see some people still stuck on (s), not realizing there is no such thing as a guarantee of free speech outside of restrictions on government controlling speech.

The wimps and alarmists in their victimhood based hysteria, confuse public and privates venues for opinions with constitutional arguments about free speech. Very funny

 

[Silhouette]

I see some people still stuck on (s), not realizing there is no such thing as a guarantee of free speech outside of restrictions on government controlling speech.

The wimps and alarmists in their victimhood based hysteria, confuse public and privates venues for opinions with constitutional arguments about free speech. Very funny

OK, as you see in the link in my signature, what are your thoughts on that topic per your comment here? There's no confusion at all that a public school is a PUBLIC school.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Actually mdk, it was AZGAL whose quote was used in the OP here.

Are you Scott Lively?
Republican who claims Holocaust was orchestrated by gay Nazis wins enough support for Massachusetts governor primary

Nope I'm just me who posted two pictures in tandem that look eerily like one another. Must just be a coincidence.

Only if you are batshit nuts.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The United States is not a theocracy, no matter how much you want it to be

 

[Silhouette]

The United States is not a theocracy, no matter how much you want it to be

Which is why CA can't promote one set of ideological beliefs and values over another in a pubic venue. See my signature for details.

 

[jc456]

So do we have a modern version of "Kristallnacht" going on with the cult of LGBT against people of faith?

Vote in the poll.

Absolutely.

There is no reason for someone who wants to buy a cake for a Gay Wedding needs to go anywhere near a family type bakery.

There have always been bakeries that specialized in "adult" cakes, who will bake a cake in the shape of any genitalia or other provocative shape or occasion you want. If you want a pastry with off color jokes, that's where you go.

This latest situation only happened because the Gay Community is looking to humiliate Christians IMHO

Even most family-type bakeries will be happy to bake a cake for a gay wedding. It's not like there's a specific Biblical teaching on the subject of commerce with gay people (possibly because most societies during that era stoned them). This is pretty much a matter of personal, individual religious belief, and businesspeople don't usually feel THAT personally involved with their products.

why in your world is everyone always the same? so what? who fking cares? those aren't the baker of the OP.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So do we have a modern version of "Kristallnacht" going on with the cult of LGBT against people of faith?

Vote in the poll.

Absolutely.

There is no reason for someone who wants to buy a cake for a Gay Wedding needs to go anywhere near a family type bakery.

There have always been bakeries that specialized in "adult" cakes, who will bake a cake in the shape of any genitalia or other provocative shape or occasion you want. If you want a pastry with off color jokes, that's where you go.

This latest situation only happened because the Gay Community is looking to humiliate Christians IMHO

Even most family-type bakeries will be happy to bake a cake for a gay wedding. It's not like there's a specific Biblical teaching on the subject of commerce with gay people (possibly because most societies during that era stoned them). This is pretty much a matter of personal, individual religious belief, and businesspeople don't usually feel THAT personally involved with their products.

why in your world is everyone always the same? so what? who fking cares? those aren't the baker of the OP.

Why in your world does everything have to be about taking sides in your own narrow little fight? Sometimes, people also discuss related topics with no impact whatsoever on your "us-versus-them" labeling system. Open your mind, and try to actually COMPREHEND what people are saying, rather than kneejerking to a "friend or foe" designation.

In this case, I'm saying there are LOTS of places to go for a wedding cake that don't require you to sue some poor baker who has a religious objection. Doesn't require tracking down a specialty "adult" bakery; almost any bakery will be happy to, so leave the guy alone and prance down the street to another place.