Lesbians whining because doc refused to be baby's doctor

[kaz]

What you want is to live as a child would, allowed to do whatever you damn well please even when it negatively impacts others. You want Rights, but not Responsibilities.

That sounds like the Homo Mantra.

Then chalk me up as a homo because it's not government's job to tell anyone not harming anyone what to do

No he said that you think you should be able to do whatever you want EVEN if in doing so, you are harming others.

You read it that he said "as long as you aren't harming others".

Yes, you're right, it does say that.

And yes, he's an idiot. You are harming someone by not baking them a cake? Yeah

 

[Skylar]

Seriously. How are you going to let the homos know not to come into your STRAIGHTS ONLY bakery?

You are going to need some kind of sign.

No back door men allowed

This is leftist loons saying that if bakers don't bring cakes to queers, they're going to be forced out of business.

That is correct. Either bake for all or bake for none, your choice.

Says the authoritarian one size fits all leftist. I'm a liberal, to each his own. I want to live in a free country, you want to live in a country where things are free. COmpletely different

What you want is to live as a child would, allowed to do whatever you damn well please even when it negatively impacts others. You want Rights, but not Responsibilities.

Do what I damn well please as long as I don't harm anyone? Damned straight I want that. And I'd do business with the gays, I do actually, all the time.

You realize you just admitted that I'm the liberal and you're not....

Regulated Capitalism is neither liberal nor illiberal, it's necessary.

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

 

[kaz]

Seriously. How are you going to let the homos know not to come into your STRAIGHTS ONLY bakery?

You are going to need some kind of sign.

I agree with that. While I'm against government interfering in business, I do think discriminators should identify themselves so potential employees and customers know and can make up their own choice. There is nothing wrong with government requiring disclosure. Informed consumers are certainly advancing their liberty

How about no back door men or two can chews will be served?

 

[kaz]

Seriously. How are you going to let the homos know not to come into your STRAIGHTS ONLY bakery?

You are going to need some kind of sign.

No back door men allowed

That is correct. Either bake for all or bake for none, your choice.

Says the authoritarian one size fits all leftist. I'm a liberal, to each his own. I want to live in a free country, you want to live in a country where things are free. COmpletely different

What you want is to live as a child would, allowed to do whatever you damn well please even when it negatively impacts others. You want Rights, but not Responsibilities.

Do what I damn well please as long as I don't harm anyone? Damned straight I want that. And I'd do business with the gays, I do actually, all the time.

You realize you just admitted that I'm the liberal and you're not....

Regulated Capitalism is neither liberal nor illiberal, it's necessary.

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

 

[koshergrl]

Same-Sex Couple Blames Discrimination After Pediatrician Allegedly Refuses to See Their Newborn - Yahoo

STOP ******* CRYING OVER SHIT!

The kid got seen by doctor at SAME DOCTOR OFFICE! Not a problem,no reason to cry and throw a fit...jesus christ!

Lawsuit.

Wait for it....

More than likely. Its what these degenerates do. Either accept our degeneracy or we sue you for everything u have.

Accept degeneracy? WTF? Degenerates is a term tossed about by the intolerant to give them some weird cover for being bigots. Fortunately, such bigots are generally older and will soon be dead, great day in the morning. The younger bigots are fewer in number and will stand out as anachronisms and knuckle draggers worthy of the Flat Earth Society.

Targeting and forcing Christians to participate in rituals that YOU KNOW they consider sacrilegious is degenerate.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You bigots use the Old Testament very selectively, just like the racists do.

Same bullshit, different decade.

It's in the New Testament too.

Bigot.

Not by Jesus, it isn't.

And Paul condemns masturbators and homosexuals in the same breath. The bible is also clear that even thinking about sex with a woman not your wife is adultery.

So don't tell me you assholes aren't selective. I don't see you screaming from your high horses about jerking off.

If I were you, I'd be very scared. For Matthew 7:2 tells us, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."


Which is why in my first post in this topic, I said, "The infallible and beatified doctor picked up the first stone and threw it. At a baby."

Since you are unregenerate I have to explain what all Christians already understand.

1. Jesus is God, the very same God that gave the law on Mt. Sinai. Jesus stated beyond dispute "Before Abraham was, I AM." There is no divergence between what God taught is wrong then and today. God is not fickle as to change his character.

2. Not everything Jesus taught is recorded in the gospels. Jesus told his disciples to teach the nations all they heard from Him and what Jesus taught is revealed in the teachings of the apostles, including expressed condemnation of homosexuality in the epistles of Romans and Jude.

3. Finally, Jesus taught "He who has not the Son has not eternal life." You need not fear for my salvation, I'm going to be with Jesus when I die. But you do need to fear for your own soul, imperiled by your rejection of the grace of God in Christ Jesus and adding to your own condemnation by your mockery and profaning of God and God's word.

 

[koshergrl]

Forcing a Christian doctor who has serious misgivings about queer parenting to serve your poor infant with a smile is degenerate.

 

[bendog]

No back door men allowed


Says the authoritarian one size fits all leftist. I'm a liberal, to each his own. I want to live in a free country, you want to live in a country where things are free. COmpletely different

What you want is to live as a child would, allowed to do whatever you damn well please even when it negatively impacts others. You want Rights, but not Responsibilities.

Do what I damn well please as long as I don't harm anyone? Damned straight I want that. And I'd do business with the gays, I do actually, all the time.

You realize you just admitted that I'm the liberal and you're not....

Regulated Capitalism is neither liberal nor illiberal, it's necessary.

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Ah, I agree the discrimination against blacks went to the right to vote, own property, go to college ... none of which apply to gays.

But what is the basis for your differentiating the discriminatory effect of refusing to sell an advertised service to a gay person compared to a black person?

 

[Skylar]

No back door men allowed


Says the authoritarian one size fits all leftist. I'm a liberal, to each his own. I want to live in a free country, you want to live in a country where things are free. COmpletely different

What you want is to live as a child would, allowed to do whatever you damn well please even when it negatively impacts others. You want Rights, but not Responsibilities.

Do what I damn well please as long as I don't harm anyone? Damned straight I want that. And I'd do business with the gays, I do actually, all the time.

You realize you just admitted that I'm the liberal and you're not....

Regulated Capitalism is neither liberal nor illiberal, it's necessary.

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Mock all you want. Between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, the Supreme Court cited 4 separate cases involving race when describing why the rights of gays can not be violated. You can ignore this if you wish.

The courts won't.

 

[bendog]

You bigots use the Old Testament very selectively, just like the racists do.

Same bullshit, different decade.

It's in the New Testament too.

Bigot.

Not by Jesus, it isn't.

And Paul condemns masturbators and homosexuals in the same breath. The bible is also clear that even thinking about sex with a woman not your wife is adultery.

So don't tell me you assholes aren't selective. I don't see you screaming from your high horses about jerking off.

If I were you, I'd be very scared. For Matthew 7:2 tells us, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."


Which is why in my first post in this topic, I said, "The infallible and beatified doctor picked up the first stone and threw it. At a baby."

Since you are unregenerate I have to explain what all Christians already understand.

1. Jesus is God, the very same God that gave the law on Mt. Sinai. Jesus stated beyond dispute "Before Abraham was, I AM." There is no divergence between what God taught is wrong then and today. God is not fickle as to change his character.

2. Not everything Jesus taught is recorded in the gospels. Jesus told his disciples to teach the nations all they heard from Him and what Jesus taught is revealed in the teachings of the apostles, including expressed condemnation of homosexuality in the epistles of Romans and Jude.

3. Finally, Jesus taught "He who has not the Son has not eternal life." You need not fear for my salvation, I'm going to be with Jesus when I die. But you do need to fear for your own soul, imperiled by your rejection of the grace of God in Christ Jesus and adding to your own condemnation by your mockery and profaning of God and God's word.

So you can pick and choose from Leviticus. Cool.... and convenient.

 

[koshergrl]

What you want is to live as a child would, allowed to do whatever you damn well please even when it negatively impacts others. You want Rights, but not Responsibilities.

Do what I damn well please as long as I don't harm anyone? Damned straight I want that. And I'd do business with the gays, I do actually, all the time.

You realize you just admitted that I'm the liberal and you're not....

Regulated Capitalism is neither liberal nor illiberal, it's necessary.

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Ah, I agree the discrimination against blacks went to the right to vote, own property, go to college ... none of which apply to gays.

But what is the basis for your differentiating the discriminatory effect of refusing to sell an advertised service to a gay person compared to a black person?

If a black person is demanding that a Christian baker bake a cake for a Voo Doo ritual, again, the baker has the right to refuse.

If a black person demands that a Christian baker bake a wedding cake for a Christian ceremony, the baker cannot refuse just because the person is black. Black people get married too, and all Christians recognize that.

There are a TINY faction of the extremist allegedly Christian community who maintain that their racism is rooted in the bible. There's nothing new in whackos claiming their religion justifies their idiocy.

But this is not one of those cases. The homo lobby thinks they can FORCE Christians to serve/pay homage/endorse them, and that if they refuse to endorse their lifestyle, that they have the right to destroy/imprison/fine them. WE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO ENDORSE OR PARITICIPATE IN YOUR LIFESTYLE. You are perfectly welcome to perform any ritual you like..but we don't have to participate just because you demand it. Even if we provide a service. Marriage is a sacrament, and you cannot force people to participate in sacrilege just because they have gone into business.

This sort of shit is exactly how Hitler sidelined the jews in Poland.

 

[kaz]

What you want is to live as a child would, allowed to do whatever you damn well please even when it negatively impacts others. You want Rights, but not Responsibilities.

Do what I damn well please as long as I don't harm anyone? Damned straight I want that. And I'd do business with the gays, I do actually, all the time.

You realize you just admitted that I'm the liberal and you're not....

Regulated Capitalism is neither liberal nor illiberal, it's necessary.

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Ah, I agree the discrimination against blacks went to the right to vote, own property, go to college ... none of which apply to gays.

But what is the basis for your differentiating the discriminatory effect of refusing to sell an advertised service to a gay person compared to a black person?

Directly, the refusal to sell an advertised service to blacks was actually government, businesses didn't like those laws. The Montgomery bus company strongly opposed forcing their most reliable customer base to the back and getting boycotted, it cost them a lot of money. They cared about one color, green. Liberals are comparing that to one baker making their own personal choice with hundreds who don't give a shit who they sleep with.

And bigger, they are clearly making the implication being gay today is like being black in the 50s and that's just wrong and out of touch for people who suffered actual discrimination.

 

[kaz]

What you want is to live as a child would, allowed to do whatever you damn well please even when it negatively impacts others. You want Rights, but not Responsibilities.

Do what I damn well please as long as I don't harm anyone? Damned straight I want that. And I'd do business with the gays, I do actually, all the time.

You realize you just admitted that I'm the liberal and you're not....

Regulated Capitalism is neither liberal nor illiberal, it's necessary.

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Mock all you want. Between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, the Supreme Court cited 4 separate cases involving race when describing why the rights of gays can not be violated. You can ignore this if you wish.

The courts won't.

At this point I'm not mocking the court, I'm mocking you. You idiot's inference gays today suffer like blacks in the 50s is flat out retarded and insulting to anyone with a brain or who remotely lived through it.

OMG, I had to walk across the street, it's like living in a pogrom....

 

[koshergrl]

r

What you want is to live as a child would, allowed to do whatever you damn well please even when it negatively impacts others. You want Rights, but not Responsibilities.

Do what I damn well please as long as I don't harm anyone? Damned straight I want that. And I'd do business with the gays, I do actually, all the time.

You realize you just admitted that I'm the liberal and you're not....

Regulated Capitalism is neither liberal nor illiberal, it's necessary.

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Mock all you want. Between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, the Supreme Court cited 4 separate cases involving race when describing why the rights of gays can not be violated. You can ignore this if you wish.

The courts won't.

They don't have a right to specifically Christian bakers and doctors.

Try again.

 

[kaz]

Do what I damn well please as long as I don't harm anyone? Damned straight I want that. And I'd do business with the gays, I do actually, all the time.

You realize you just admitted that I'm the liberal and you're not....

Regulated Capitalism is neither liberal nor illiberal, it's necessary.

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Ah, I agree the discrimination against blacks went to the right to vote, own property, go to college ... none of which apply to gays.

But what is the basis for your differentiating the discriminatory effect of refusing to sell an advertised service to a gay person compared to a black person?

If a black person is demanding that a Christian baker bake a cake for a Voo Doo ritual, again, the baker has the right to refuse.

If a black person demands that a Christian baker bake a wedding cake for a Christian ceremony, the baker cannot refuse just because the person is black. Black people get married too, and all Christians recognize that.

There are a TINY faction of the extremist allegedly Christian community who maintain that their racism is rooted in the bible. There's nothing new in whackos claiming their religion justifies their idiocy.

But this is not one of those cases. The homo lobby thinks they can FORCE Christians to serve/pay homage/endorse them, and that if they refuse to endorse their lifestyle, that they have the right to destroy/imprison/fine them. WE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO ENDORSE OR PARITICIPATE IN YOUR LIFESTYLE. You are perfectly welcome to perform any ritual you like..but we don't have to participate just because you demand it. Even if we provide a service. Marriage is a sacrament, and you cannot force people to participate in sacrilege just because they have gone into business.

This sort of shit is exactly how Hitler sidelined the jews in Poland.

To a liberal if 1 out of 100 Christians has a view, all Christians are tarred and feathered with that view. If 99 out of 100 liberals have a view, none of them are responsible, you're unfairly generalizing

 

[Skylar]

Do what I damn well please as long as I don't harm anyone? Damned straight I want that. And I'd do business with the gays, I do actually, all the time.

You realize you just admitted that I'm the liberal and you're not....

Regulated Capitalism is neither liberal nor illiberal, it's necessary.

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Mock all you want. Between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, the Supreme Court cited 4 separate cases involving race when describing why the rights of gays can not be violated. You can ignore this if you wish.

The courts won't.

At this point I'm not mocking the court, I'm mocking you. You idiot's inference gays today suffer like blacks in the 50s is flat out retarded and insulting to anyone with a brain or who remotely lived through it.

OMG, I had to walk across the street, it's like living in a pogrom....

Feel free. Your claims are refuted by the very courts that will review and rule on the case. You claim race is irrelevant. The courts have cited 4 separate race based cases between Romer V. Evans and Windsor v. Evans. Demonstrating that legally, there is immediate relevance in citing race based cases when describing why discrimination against gays is constitutionally invalid.

Ignore as you wish. Your willful ignorance won't change a single ruling or legal right.

 

[bendog]

Do what I damn well please as long as I don't harm anyone? Damned straight I want that. And I'd do business with the gays, I do actually, all the time.

You realize you just admitted that I'm the liberal and you're not....

Regulated Capitalism is neither liberal nor illiberal, it's necessary.

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Ah, I agree the discrimination against blacks went to the right to vote, own property, go to college ... none of which apply to gays.

But what is the basis for your differentiating the discriminatory effect of refusing to sell an advertised service to a gay person compared to a black person?

Directly, the refusal to sell an advertised service to blacks was actually government, businesses didn't like those laws. The Montgomery bus company strongly opposed forcing their most reliable customer base to the back and getting boycotted, it cost them a lot of money. They cared about one color, green. Liberals are comparing that to one baker making their own personal choice with hundreds who don't give a shit who they sleep with.

And bigger, they are clearly making the implication being gay today is like being black in the 50s and that's just wrong and out of touch for people who suffered actual discrimination.

I'm making no comparison. I directly asked you if you made one, and you dodged the issue. To be clearer: what distinction do you see between Lester Maddux refusing to sell fried chicken to blacks and the Florist refusing to sell flowers to gay couples? What is the distinction between the intended effect of both actions?

 

[koshergrl]

Regulated Capitalism is neither liberal nor illiberal, it's necessary.

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Ah, I agree the discrimination against blacks went to the right to vote, own property, go to college ... none of which apply to gays.

But what is the basis for your differentiating the discriminatory effect of refusing to sell an advertised service to a gay person compared to a black person?

Directly, the refusal to sell an advertised service to blacks was actually government, businesses didn't like those laws. The Montgomery bus company strongly opposed forcing their most reliable customer base to the back and getting boycotted, it cost them a lot of money. They cared about one color, green. Liberals are comparing that to one baker making their own personal choice with hundreds who don't give a shit who they sleep with.

And bigger, they are clearly making the implication being gay today is like being black in the 50s and that's just wrong and out of touch for people who suffered actual discrimination.

I'm making no comparison. I directly asked you if you made one, and you dodged the issue. To be clearer: what distinction do you see between Lester Maddux refusing to sell fried chicken to blacks and the Florist refusing to sell flowers to gay couples? What is the distinction between the intended effect of both actions?

The florist didn't refuse to sell flowers...she refused to cater a homo wedding.

There's a difference.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Ah, I agree the discrimination against blacks went to the right to vote, own property, go to college ... none of which apply to gays.

But what is the basis for your differentiating the discriminatory effect of refusing to sell an advertised service to a gay person compared to a black person?

Directly, the refusal to sell an advertised service to blacks was actually government, businesses didn't like those laws. The Montgomery bus company strongly opposed forcing their most reliable customer base to the back and getting boycotted, it cost them a lot of money. They cared about one color, green. Liberals are comparing that to one baker making their own personal choice with hundreds who don't give a shit who they sleep with.

And bigger, they are clearly making the implication being gay today is like being black in the 50s and that's just wrong and out of touch for people who suffered actual discrimination.

I'm making no comparison. I directly asked you if you made one, and you dodged the issue. To be clearer: what distinction do you see between Lester Maddux refusing to sell fried chicken to blacks and the Florist refusing to sell flowers to gay couples? What is the distinction between the intended effect of both actions?

The florist didn't refuse to sell flowers...she refused to cater a homo wedding.

There's a difference.

The difference matters not, obviously. She broke the law, like it or not.

 

[kaz]

Regulated Capitalism is neither liberal nor illiberal, it's necessary.

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Mock all you want. Between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, the Supreme Court cited 4 separate cases involving race when describing why the rights of gays can not be violated. You can ignore this if you wish.

The courts won't.

At this point I'm not mocking the court, I'm mocking you. You idiot's inference gays today suffer like blacks in the 50s is flat out retarded and insulting to anyone with a brain or who remotely lived through it.

OMG, I had to walk across the street, it's like living in a pogrom....

Feel free. Your claims are refuted by the very courts that will review and rule on the case. You claim race is irrelevant. The courts have cited 4 separate race based cases between Romer V. Evans and Windsor v. Evans. Demonstrating that legally, there is immediate relevance in citing race based cases when describing why discrimination against gays is constitutionally invalid.

Ignore as you wish. Your willful ignorance won't change a single ruling or legal right.

Not agreeing with the courts is willful ignorance, got it. The courts are of course the absolute arbiters of truth and wisdom. No bias there.

Well, that is if you agree with them...