LGBT attacks Christian pastor helping teens with same sex attraction if you do not stop we will kill

[bodecea]

In what way do they override the 1st Amendment?

Oh, and btw: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia

A hotel is an actual PA, a contracted service is not.

Free exercise has to be taken into account in any PA law, and then the situation can only be remedied via the least intrusive method.

Bake or die is not the least intrusive method.

It's already been through the courts. You lost. Quit whining.

Actually the case is at the SC right now.

And appealing to authority and thinking the argument is over is bush league.

Yes...it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court thinks baking a cake for a wedding reception the bakers aren't even going to is the same as participating in the wedding itself.

That would certainly open the door for claiming that manufacturing and selling a gun is participating in a mass shooting.

That is one of the dumbest logical leaps I have seen on this board, "SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED' level dumb.

The issue in front of the court is if a custom made cake is a form of expression covered under the 1st amendment, attending the event or not was not part of the case being presented.

While the gun participated in said theoretical crime, it's similar to not suing the car manufacturer when a drunk plows into someone in their Ford.

It's about as dumb as saying that baking a cake for a reception makes one a part of a wedding ceremony.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's already been through the courts. You lost. Quit whining.

Actually the case is at the SC right now.

And appealing to authority and thinking the argument is over is bush league.

Tell it to the judge.

If you won't even try to make your own point, I win.

What a ******* loser you are.

OK. I don't consider you worth arguing with. If you want to call that a win, then good for you.

Then stop responding and admit defeat.

I didn't say it wasn't worthwhile to laugh at your goofy crap.

 

[bodecea]

It's already been through the courts. You lost. Quit whining.

Actually the case is at the SC right now.

And appealing to authority and thinking the argument is over is bush league.

Tell it to the judge.

If you won't even try to make your own point, I win.

What a ******* loser you are.

OK. I don't consider you worth arguing with. If you want to call that a win, then good for you.

Then stop responding and admit defeat.

Too funny!

 

[martybegan]

A hotel is an actual PA, a contracted service is not.

Free exercise has to be taken into account in any PA law, and then the situation can only be remedied via the least intrusive method.

Bake or die is not the least intrusive method.

It's already been through the courts. You lost. Quit whining.

Actually the case is at the SC right now.

And appealing to authority and thinking the argument is over is bush league.

Yes...it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court thinks baking a cake for a wedding reception the bakers aren't even going to is the same as participating in the wedding itself.

That would certainly open the door for claiming that manufacturing and selling a gun is participating in a mass shooting.

That is one of the dumbest logical leaps I have seen on this board, "SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED' level dumb.

The issue in front of the court is if a custom made cake is a form of expression covered under the 1st amendment, attending the event or not was not part of the case being presented.

While the gun participated in said theoretical crime, it's similar to not suing the car manufacturer when a drunk plows into someone in their Ford.

It's about as dumb as saying that baking a cake for a reception makes one a part of a wedding ceremony.

You are making it about being part of it, the issue is providing a good or service for a ceremony one finds morally wrong.

Actually its about government force to do so despite 1st amendment protections.

 

[martybegan]

Actually the case is at the SC right now.

And appealing to authority and thinking the argument is over is bush league.

Tell it to the judge.

If you won't even try to make your own point, I win.

What a ******* loser you are.

OK. I don't consider you worth arguing with. If you want to call that a win, then good for you.

Then stop responding and admit defeat.

I didn't say it wasn't worthwhile to laugh at your goofy crap.

You can either provide an argument, or keep looking stupid, up to you.

 

[martybegan]

Actually the case is at the SC right now.

And appealing to authority and thinking the argument is over is bush league.

Tell it to the judge.

If you won't even try to make your own point, I win.

What a ******* loser you are.

OK. I don't consider you worth arguing with. If you want to call that a win, then good for you.

Then stop responding and admit defeat.

Too funny!

Same to you.

Both of you have no argument except appealing to authority.

That's a loser in any book.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's already been through the courts. You lost. Quit whining.

Actually the case is at the SC right now.

And appealing to authority and thinking the argument is over is bush league.

Yes...it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court thinks baking a cake for a wedding reception the bakers aren't even going to is the same as participating in the wedding itself.

That would certainly open the door for claiming that manufacturing and selling a gun is participating in a mass shooting.

That is one of the dumbest logical leaps I have seen on this board, "SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED' level dumb.

The issue in front of the court is if a custom made cake is a form of expression covered under the 1st amendment, attending the event or not was not part of the case being presented.

While the gun participated in said theoretical crime, it's similar to not suing the car manufacturer when a drunk plows into someone in their Ford.

It's about as dumb as saying that baking a cake for a reception makes one a part of a wedding ceremony.

You are making it about being part of it, the issue is providing a good or service for a ceremony one finds morally wrong.

Actually its about government force to do so despite 1st amendment protections.

I think stop signs are morally wrong. Does that mean I don't have to stop?

 

[Silhouette]

A hotel is an actual PA, a contracted service is not.

Free exercise has to be taken into account in any PA law, and then the situation can only be remedied via the least intrusive method.

Bake or die is not the least intrusive method.

It's already been through the courts. You lost. Quit whining.

Actually the case is at the SC right now.

And appealing to authority and thinking the argument is over is bush league.

Yes...it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court thinks baking a cake for a wedding reception the bakers aren't even going to is the same as participating in the wedding itself.

That would certainly open the door for claiming that manufacturing and selling a gun is participating in a mass shooting.

That is one of the dumbest logical leaps I have seen on this board, "SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED' level dumb.

The issue in front of the court is if a custom made cake is a form of expression covered under the 1st amendment, attending the event or not was not part of the case being presented.

While the gun participated in said theoretical crime, it's similar to not suing the car manufacturer when a drunk plows into someone in their Ford.

It's about as dumb as saying that baking a cake for a reception makes one a part of a wedding ceremony.

So when will a gay graphic designer be forced by law under threat of fine to print a billboard for a busy highway that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" for a Christian customer?

 

[BULLDOG]

Tell it to the judge.

If you won't even try to make your own point, I win.

What a ******* loser you are.

OK. I don't consider you worth arguing with. If you want to call that a win, then good for you.

Then stop responding and admit defeat.

I didn't say it wasn't worthwhile to laugh at your goofy crap.

You can either provide an argument, or keep looking stupid, up to you.

You're the one looking stupid. Come back when the courts agree with you. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Aba Incieni]

A hotel is an actual PA, a contracted service is not.

Free exercise has to be taken into account in any PA law, and then the situation can only be remedied via the least intrusive method.

Bake or die is not the least intrusive method.

It's already been through the courts. You lost. Quit whining.

Actually the case is at the SC right now.

And appealing to authority and thinking the argument is over is bush league.

Yes...it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court thinks baking a cake for a wedding reception the bakers aren't even going to is the same as participating in the wedding itself.

That would certainly open the door for claiming that manufacturing and selling a gun is participating in a mass shooting.

That is one of the dumbest logical leaps I have seen on this board, "SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED' level dumb.

The issue in front of the court is if a custom made cake is a form of expression covered under the 1st amendment, attending the event or not was not part of the case being presented.

While the gun participated in said theoretical crime, it's similar to not suing the car manufacturer when a drunk plows into someone in their Ford.

It's about as dumb as saying that baking a cake for a reception makes one a part of a wedding ceremony.

Or as fascist as forcing anyone to bake any cake.

 

[martybegan]

Actually the case is at the SC right now.

And appealing to authority and thinking the argument is over is bush league.

Yes...it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court thinks baking a cake for a wedding reception the bakers aren't even going to is the same as participating in the wedding itself.

That would certainly open the door for claiming that manufacturing and selling a gun is participating in a mass shooting.

That is one of the dumbest logical leaps I have seen on this board, "SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED' level dumb.

The issue in front of the court is if a custom made cake is a form of expression covered under the 1st amendment, attending the event or not was not part of the case being presented.

While the gun participated in said theoretical crime, it's similar to not suing the car manufacturer when a drunk plows into someone in their Ford.

It's about as dumb as saying that baking a cake for a reception makes one a part of a wedding ceremony.

You are making it about being part of it, the issue is providing a good or service for a ceremony one finds morally wrong.

Actually its about government force to do so despite 1st amendment protections.

I think stop signs are morally wrong. Does that mean I don't have to stop?

better.

The difference is that if you blow through a stop sign and hit something, there is an actual tangible harm done to the other party. There is a level of risk associated with blowing stop signs that a judge would have to weigh against a person's right to free exercise.

The key here is actual HARM, not hurt feelings.

 

[Silhouette]

So when will a gay graphic designer be forced under threat of fine to print a billboard for a busy highway that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God" for a Christian customer?

 

[martybegan]

If you won't even try to make your own point, I win.

What a ******* loser you are.

OK. I don't consider you worth arguing with. If you want to call that a win, then good for you.

Then stop responding and admit defeat.

I didn't say it wasn't worthwhile to laugh at your goofy crap.

You can either provide an argument, or keep looking stupid, up to you.

You're the one looking stupid. Come back when the courts agree with you. I won't hold my breath.

More appeal to authority. Is that the only thing you can do?

 

[BULLDOG]

Tell it to the judge.

If you won't even try to make your own point, I win.

What a ******* loser you are.

OK. I don't consider you worth arguing with. If you want to call that a win, then good for you.

Then stop responding and admit defeat.

Too funny!

Same to you.

Both of you have no argument except appealing to authority.

That's a loser in any book.

Yes. The courts on one side of the argument, and you, an anonymous nut job on a discussion board is on the other side. You think that makes you a winner?

 

[BULLDOG]

It's already been through the courts. You lost. Quit whining.

Actually the case is at the SC right now.

And appealing to authority and thinking the argument is over is bush league.

Yes...it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court thinks baking a cake for a wedding reception the bakers aren't even going to is the same as participating in the wedding itself.

That would certainly open the door for claiming that manufacturing and selling a gun is participating in a mass shooting.

That is one of the dumbest logical leaps I have seen on this board, "SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED' level dumb.

The issue in front of the court is if a custom made cake is a form of expression covered under the 1st amendment, attending the event or not was not part of the case being presented.

While the gun participated in said theoretical crime, it's similar to not suing the car manufacturer when a drunk plows into someone in their Ford.

It's about as dumb as saying that baking a cake for a reception makes one a part of a wedding ceremony.

Or as fascist as forcing anyone to bake any cake.

That is the crazy homophobe's claim. It's stupid, but it is the claim.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes...it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court thinks baking a cake for a wedding reception the bakers aren't even going to is the same as participating in the wedding itself.

That would certainly open the door for claiming that manufacturing and selling a gun is participating in a mass shooting.

That is one of the dumbest logical leaps I have seen on this board, "SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED' level dumb.

The issue in front of the court is if a custom made cake is a form of expression covered under the 1st amendment, attending the event or not was not part of the case being presented.

While the gun participated in said theoretical crime, it's similar to not suing the car manufacturer when a drunk plows into someone in their Ford.

It's about as dumb as saying that baking a cake for a reception makes one a part of a wedding ceremony.

You are making it about being part of it, the issue is providing a good or service for a ceremony one finds morally wrong.

Actually its about government force to do so despite 1st amendment protections.

I think stop signs are morally wrong. Does that mean I don't have to stop?

better.

The difference is that if you blow through a stop sign and hit something, there is an actual tangible harm done to the other party. There is a level of risk associated with blowing stop signs that a judge would have to weigh against a person's right to free exercise.

The key here is actual HARM, not hurt feelings.

I see your point. Baking the cake could cause real harm.

 

[BS Filter]

Nothing nastier and more hateful than a leftist queer. They hate their Creator and they hate His creation because they are mentally ill.

You must not have read post #44 yet.

Totally agree with post 44. If you're gonna dish it out, then be able to take it. If you hateful miscreants want to be treated with respect, then show some. Otherwise, you'll get just what you give.

Congratulations. You strive to be a nasty person claiming to be Christian, and you succeeded.

You have no idea about Christianity. Go sell your game to some naive college kids.

I know your imitation of it sucks.

Oh, boo hoo. Go pout and whine about your pathetic existence.

 

[BULLDOG]

OK. I don't consider you worth arguing with. If you want to call that a win, then good for you.

Then stop responding and admit defeat.

I didn't say it wasn't worthwhile to laugh at your goofy crap.

You can either provide an argument, or keep looking stupid, up to you.

You're the one looking stupid. Come back when the courts agree with you. I won't hold my breath.

More appeal to authority. Is that the only thing you can do?

I can keep laughing at you

 

[martybegan]

If you won't even try to make your own point, I win.

What a ******* loser you are.

OK. I don't consider you worth arguing with. If you want to call that a win, then good for you.

Then stop responding and admit defeat.

Too funny!

Same to you.

Both of you have no argument except appealing to authority.

That's a loser in any book.

Yes. The courts on one side of the argument, and you, an anonymous nut job on a discussion board is on the other side. You think that makes you a winner?

So you are now resorting to ad hominem and appeal to authority as your only arguments....

I do ad hominem as well, but at least I add a position and defend it.

 

[martybegan]

That is one of the dumbest logical leaps I have seen on this board, "SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED' level dumb.

The issue in front of the court is if a custom made cake is a form of expression covered under the 1st amendment, attending the event or not was not part of the case being presented.

While the gun participated in said theoretical crime, it's similar to not suing the car manufacturer when a drunk plows into someone in their Ford.

It's about as dumb as saying that baking a cake for a reception makes one a part of a wedding ceremony.

You are making it about being part of it, the issue is providing a good or service for a ceremony one finds morally wrong.

Actually its about government force to do so despite 1st amendment protections.

I think stop signs are morally wrong. Does that mean I don't have to stop?

better.

The difference is that if you blow through a stop sign and hit something, there is an actual tangible harm done to the other party. There is a level of risk associated with blowing stop signs that a judge would have to weigh against a person's right to free exercise.

The key here is actual HARM, not hurt feelings.

I see your point. Baking the cake could cause real harm.

And the typical progressive non-response response.

try harder.