KY Judge upholds freedom of religion

[The Rabbi]

dang, even as recently as today one the RWnuts was telling us that gays aren't being refused service anywhere.

They wasn't in this case, the printer offered to sub the work to another printer at the same price, that wasn't good enough for the faghadist. Yet they got their shirts from another vendor at a better price, they still filed the complaint, tell me that's not politically motivated.

dang, even as recently as today one the RWnuts was telling us that gays aren't being refused service anywhere.

And that is still the case. Please show where gays were refused service.

You keep asking that question, I'll keep posting this example.

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple - ACLU - Colorado

"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”

Still batting zero. He didnt refuse service to gays. He refused service for that particular event. Doubtless the distinction is unclear to you.

You're still an asshole.

What part of

"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy."

does not translate into him refusing service to gays?

lol anyone else reading this? Classic Rabbism.

What part of "he wasnt refusing them, just their events" do you not understand? Never mind the ACLU is hardly an unbiased source.

 

[NYcarbineer]

dang, even as recently as today one the RWnuts was telling us that gays aren't being refused service anywhere.

They wasn't in this case, the printer offered to sub the work to another printer at the same price, that wasn't good enough for the faghadist. Yet they got their shirts from another vendor at a better price, they still filed the complaint, tell me that's not politically motivated.

dang, even as recently as today one the RWnuts was telling us that gays aren't being refused service anywhere.

And that is still the case. Please show where gays were refused service.

You keep asking that question, I'll keep posting this example.

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple - ACLU - Colorado

"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”

Still batting zero. He didnt refuse service to gays. He refused service for that particular event. Doubtless the distinction is unclear to you.

You're still an asshole.

What part of

"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy."

does not translate into him refusing service to gays?

lol anyone else reading this? Classic Rabbism.

What part of "he wasnt refusing them, just their events" do you not understand? Never mind the ACLU is hardly an unbiased source.

Even if that were true which it isn't, that by definition is a refusal of service.

The guy made a cake for a dog wedding for chrissakes.

Now shut up.

 

[The Rabbi]

They wasn't in this case, the printer offered to sub the work to another printer at the same price, that wasn't good enough for the faghadist. Yet they got their shirts from another vendor at a better price, they still filed the complaint, tell me that's not politically motivated.

And that is still the case. Please show where gays were refused service.

You keep asking that question, I'll keep posting this example.

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple - ACLU - Colorado

"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”

Still batting zero. He didnt refuse service to gays. He refused service for that particular event. Doubtless the distinction is unclear to you.

You're still an asshole.

What part of

"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy."

does not translate into him refusing service to gays?

lol anyone else reading this? Classic Rabbism.

What part of "he wasnt refusing them, just their events" do you not understand? Never mind the ACLU is hardly an unbiased source.

Even if that were true which it isn't, that by definition is a refusal of service.

The guy made a cake for a dog wedding for chrissakes.

Now shut up.

Go **** yourself. Of course I'm right and you're wrong. Happens every single day on this site.
There are no examples of gays being refused service. And this despite desperate attempts by the faghadis to show one example of a homophobe bigot working somewhere. I'd say that;s a very impressive record for American business.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You keep asking that question, I'll keep posting this example.

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple - ACLU - Colorado

"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”

Still batting zero. He didnt refuse service to gays. He refused service for that particular event. Doubtless the distinction is unclear to you.

You're still an asshole.

What part of

"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy."

does not translate into him refusing service to gays?

lol anyone else reading this? Classic Rabbism.

What part of "he wasnt refusing them, just their events" do you not understand? Never mind the ACLU is hardly an unbiased source.

Even if that were true which it isn't, that by definition is a refusal of service.

The guy made a cake for a dog wedding for chrissakes.

Now shut up.

Go **** yourself. Of course I'm right and you're wrong. Happens every single day on this site.
There are no examples of gays being refused service. And this despite desperate attempts by the faghadis to show one example of a homophobe bigot working somewhere. I'd say that;s a very impressive record for American business.

Did gays try to buy cakes? Yes

Did the baker refuse them that service? Yes

I think even some mildly retarded people could comprehend that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is not freedom of religion. Ordering T shirts isn't preventing one from practicing religion.

This is freedom to discriminate.

If you don't want to serve all the public make your store membership only.

It will be overturned.

I doubt it will even be appealed, Fakey.

Sure it will, demonmichaelkillthemall.

 

[The Rabbi]

Still batting zero. He didnt refuse service to gays. He refused service for that particular event. Doubtless the distinction is unclear to you.

You're still an asshole.

What part of

"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy."

does not translate into him refusing service to gays?

lol anyone else reading this? Classic Rabbism.

What part of "he wasnt refusing them, just their events" do you not understand? Never mind the ACLU is hardly an unbiased source.

Even if that were true which it isn't, that by definition is a refusal of service.

The guy made a cake for a dog wedding for chrissakes.

Now shut up.

Go **** yourself. Of course I'm right and you're wrong. Happens every single day on this site.
There are no examples of gays being refused service. And this despite desperate attempts by the faghadis to show one example of a homophobe bigot working somewhere. I'd say that;s a very impressive record for American business.

Did gays try to buy cakes? Yes

Did the baker refuse them that service? Yes

I think even some mildly retarded people could comprehend that.

Did gays want a specific type of cake? Yes.
WOuld the baker sell the same cake to straight people? No.
Even retarded people could see the difference, dum-dum.

 

[StevenC]

This is not freedom of religion. Ordering T shirts isn't preventing one from practicing religion.

This is freedom to discriminate.

If you don't want to serve all the public make your store membership only.

It will be overturned.

I doubt it will even be appealed, Fakey.

Sure it will, demonmichaelkillthemall.

Appealed yes.
Overturned no.
This is the same as the baker that refused to put an supposed "anti-gay" message on a cake.
She has to sell the cake but doesn't have to put the message on it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Kentucky judge upholds Christian printer s refusal to print gay pride T-shirts - Yahoo News

Maybe it's just that sanity exists only below the Mason-Dixon line. I dunno.

Wrong.

Obviously you don't bother to read or comprehend the linked article.

Neither this case nor any other case concerning discrimination in public accommodations has anything to do with "religious freedom."

I guess you didn't read or comprehend the linked article.

From the link:

"In addition, he ruled that the company and its owners enjoy a right to freely exercise their religion, which includes not facing government actions that substantially burden those rights. Ishmael said there was no showing of a compelling government interest that would justify forcing company officials to violate their religious beliefs."

Care to try again?

Compelling government interest = 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Civil Rights Act, and various SCOTUS decisions... including the one about to come down.

Compelling government interest = 1st Amendment of the U.S. - The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion.

And let's face it, these are not real Christians.

These homophobes are just embracing a twisted hateful version of scripture.

They really know nothing of the teachings of Christ. You know, unconditional love and tolerance.

You should throw a gay parade right down the streets of Mogadishu. Not to worry, the city is filled with Muslims, your tolerant religion, so nothing evil should befall you. Get video and start a blog about how it's ok to be gay in Islam.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

dang, even as recently as today one the RWnuts was telling us that gays aren't being refused service anywhere.

They wasn't in this case, the printer offered to sub the work to another printer at the same price, that wasn't good enough for the faghadist. Yet they got their shirts from another vendor at a better price, they still filed the complaint, tell me that's not politically motivated.

dang, even as recently as today one the RWnuts was telling us that gays aren't being refused service anywhere.

And that is still the case. Please show where gays were refused service.

You keep asking that question, I'll keep posting this example.

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple - ACLU - Colorado

"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”

Still batting zero. He didnt refuse service to gays. He refused service for that particular event. Doubtless the distinction is unclear to you.

You're still an asshole.

What part of

"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy."

does not translate into him refusing service to gays?

lol anyone else reading this? Classic Rabbism.

The Hobby Lobby ruling doesn't bode well for you. The day swiftly approaches when businesses can freely say they won't cater to same sex weddings and the *** militia won't be able to do a damn thing about it. The court isn't siding with you assholes, it's siding with religious liberty.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

This is not freedom of religion. Ordering T shirts isn't preventing one from practicing religion.

This is freedom to discriminate.

If you don't want to serve all the public make your store membership only.

It will be overturned.

I doubt it will even be appealed, Fakey.

Sure it will, demonmichaelkillthemall.

I hope it does, then you faghadis will be shot down permanently. It appears the *** militia didn't take a hint from Hobby Lobby.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at all. HL, Citizens United, etc., are headed for the jumk heap if the GOP does not surrender on these positions.

The millennials don't like the GOP and they despise the far right social cons. They will increasingly count beginning in next year's elections, and you guys are slipping away already.

It is what it is, mike.

 

[OKTexas]

Kentucky judge upholds Christian printer s refusal to print gay pride T-shirts - Yahoo News

Maybe it's just that sanity exists only below the Mason-Dixon line. I dunno.

Wrong.

Obviously you don't bother to read or comprehend the linked article.

Neither this case nor any other case concerning discrimination in public accommodations has anything to do with "religious freedom."

I guess you didn't read or comprehend the linked article.

From the link:

"In addition, he ruled that the company and its owners enjoy a right to freely exercise their religion, which includes not facing government actions that substantially burden those rights. Ishmael said there was no showing of a compelling government interest that would justify forcing company officials to violate their religious beliefs."

Care to try again?

Compelling government interest = 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Civil Rights Act, and various SCOTUS decisions... including the one about to come down.

Compelling government interest = 1st Amendment of the U.S. - The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion.

And let's face it, these are not real Christians.

These homophobes are just embracing a twisted hateful version of scripture.

They really know nothing of the teachings of Christ. You know, unconditional love and tolerance.

Didn't read the link, did ya?

 

[OKTexas]

dang, even as recently as today one the RWnuts was telling us that gays aren't being refused service anywhere.

They wasn't in this case, the printer offered to sub the work to another printer at the same price, that wasn't good enough for the faghadist. Yet they got their shirts from another vendor at a better price, they still filed the complaint, tell me that's not politically motivated.

dang, even as recently as today one the RWnuts was telling us that gays aren't being refused service anywhere.

And that is still the case. Please show where gays were refused service.

You keep asking that question, I'll keep posting this example.

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple - ACLU - Colorado

"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”

Has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[OKTexas]

They wasn't in this case, the printer offered to sub the work to another printer at the same price, that wasn't good enough for the faghadist. Yet they got their shirts from another vendor at a better price, they still filed the complaint, tell me that's not politically motivated.

Of course it's politically motivated. Businesses should not discriminate. That should be a matter of policy.

Didn't happen, are you just plain stupid?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Go **** yourself. Of course I'm right and you're wrong. Happens every single day on this site. There are no examples of gays being refused service. And this despite desperate attempts by the faghadis to show one example of a homophobe bigot working somewhere. I'd say that;s a very impressive record for American business.

The far right wacks like you will not limit Constitutional rights of folks you don't like. Those days are over, shit bird.

 

[NYcarbineer]

dang, even as recently as today one the RWnuts was telling us that gays aren't being refused service anywhere.

They wasn't in this case, the printer offered to sub the work to another printer at the same price, that wasn't good enough for the faghadist. Yet they got their shirts from another vendor at a better price, they still filed the complaint, tell me that's not politically motivated.

dang, even as recently as today one the RWnuts was telling us that gays aren't being refused service anywhere.

And that is still the case. Please show where gays were refused service.

You keep asking that question, I'll keep posting this example.

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple - ACLU - Colorado

"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”

Has nothing to do with this thread.

I answered his question. He claimed no such thing has ever happened. I schooled him.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're still an asshole.

What part of

"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy."

does not translate into him refusing service to gays?

lol anyone else reading this? Classic Rabbism.

What part of "he wasnt refusing them, just their events" do you not understand? Never mind the ACLU is hardly an unbiased source.

Even if that were true which it isn't, that by definition is a refusal of service.

The guy made a cake for a dog wedding for chrissakes.

Now shut up.

Go **** yourself. Of course I'm right and you're wrong. Happens every single day on this site.
There are no examples of gays being refused service. And this despite desperate attempts by the faghadis to show one example of a homophobe bigot working somewhere. I'd say that;s a very impressive record for American business.

Did gays try to buy cakes? Yes

Did the baker refuse them that service? Yes

I think even some mildly retarded people could comprehend that.

Did gays want a specific type of cake? Yes.
WOuld the baker sell the same cake to straight people? No.
Even retarded people could see the difference, dum-dum.

The baker sold a DOG WEDDING CAKE. Is that specific enough for you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You keep asking that question, I'll keep posting this example.

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple - ACLU - Colorado

"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”

Still batting zero. He didnt refuse service to gays. He refused service for that particular event. Doubtless the distinction is unclear to you.

You're still an asshole.

What part of

"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy."

does not translate into him refusing service to gays?

lol anyone else reading this? Classic Rabbism.

What part of "he wasnt refusing them, just their events" do you not understand? Never mind the ACLU is hardly an unbiased source.

Even if that were true which it isn't, that by definition is a refusal of service.

The guy made a cake for a dog wedding for chrissakes.

Now shut up.

Go **** yourself. Of course I'm right and you're wrong. Happens every single day on this site.
There are no examples of gays being refused service. And this despite desperate attempts by the faghadis to show one example of a homophobe bigot working somewhere. I'd say that;s a very impressive record for American business.

Here's another:

Hawaii Judge Rules Against Discriminating Bed Breakfast ThinkProgress

 

[Ernie S.]

Kentucky judge upholds Christian printer s refusal to print gay pride T-shirts - Yahoo News

Maybe it's just that sanity exists only below the Mason-Dixon line. I dunno.

Wrong.

Obviously you don't bother to read or comprehend the linked article.

Neither this case nor any other case concerning discrimination in public accommodations has anything to do with "religious freedom."

I guess you didn't read or comprehend the linked article.

From the link:

"In addition, he ruled that the company and its owners enjoy a right to freely exercise their religion, which includes not facing government actions that substantially burden those rights. Ishmael said there was no showing of a compelling government interest that would justify forcing company officials to violate their religious beliefs."

Care to try again?

Compelling government interest = 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Civil Rights Act, and various SCOTUS decisions... including the one about to come down.

Compelling government interest = 1st Amendment of the U.S. - The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion.

And let's face it, these are not real Christians.

These homophobes are just embracing a twisted hateful version of scripture.

They really know nothing of the teachings of Christ. You know, unconditional love and tolerance.

Compelling government interest = Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Allowing free exercise of one's religious beliefs in no way establishes a State religion. Your argument, as always, is bullshit.

 

[BlindBoo]

Something's been bother me about this KY Judge story. Then it hit me. The Headline should read:

"KY Judge in slippery slope freedom of religion case, makes a ruling"

in other news.....