Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Neil N. Blowme]

Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.

Yes, you have. My constitution protects my religious beliefs. You can't force me to accept queer marriage.

You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.

My constitution trumps your law.

If we consulted you personally on who as allowed to be married, perhaps. But you alone are pretty much irrelevant. The law recognizes marriage even if you don't.

No matter how you twist it, my constitution makes my religious beliefs relevant.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Homosexuality isn't a religion. Or an ethnicity. It's a behavior.

Speech is a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Religion is a behavior.

So what?

All protected by our constitution. The document you don't respect.

 

[Syriusly]

I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.

Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.

Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.

Yes, you have. My constitution protects my religious beliefs. You can't force me to accept queer marriage.

You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.

My constitution trumps your law.

Well if you believe that Public Accomadation laws violate your Constitutional rights- I will say once again for maybe the 20th time- you have the same options as gay couples who believed that laws against same gender marriage violated their rights.

You can either
a) legislatively move to change the law- i.e. repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequaint PA laws or
b) file a lawsuit against the specific law arguing that it is unconstitutional.

That is how you argue that 'your constitution' trumps the law- its working for homosexual couples right now.

 

[Seawytch]

Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.

Learn about religious freedom in America.

Religious freedom is not infringed upon by public accommodations laws. You can't use your religion to discriminate against blacks or Muslims and in some places gays.

oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?

Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.

There's the race card. How convenient. There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.

Not true. Racist bigots are just as sure of their bible verses as anti gay bigots are.

 

[Skylar]

Have you stopped beating your wife?

And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.

Yes, you have. My constitution protects my religious beliefs. You can't force me to accept queer marriage.

You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.

My constitution trumps your law.

If we consulted you personally on who as allowed to be married, perhaps. But you alone are pretty much irrelevant. The law recognizes marriage even if you don't.

No matter how you twist it, my constitution makes my religious beliefs relevant.

Not in the legal definition of marriage it doesn't. You are free to believe whatever you want. And the law still recognizes the marriages of gays and lesbians as being just as valid as any straights in 36 of 50 States.

You having the freedom to practice your religion doesn't mean that your religious belief defines our laws.

 

[Seawytch]

Homosexuality isn't a religion. Or an ethnicity. It's a behavior.

Religion is a behavior.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.

Yes, you have. My constitution protects my religious beliefs. You can't force me to accept queer marriage.

You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.

My constitution trumps your law.

Well if you believe that Public Accomadation laws violate your Constitutional rights- I will say once again for maybe the 20th time- you have the same options as gay couples who believed that laws against same gender marriage violated their rights.

You can either
a) legislatively move to change the law- i.e. repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequaint PA laws or
b) file a lawsuit against the specific law arguing that it is unconstitutional.

That is how you argue that 'your constitution' trumps the law- its working for homosexual couples right now.

These cases are going to the USSC.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Homosexuality isn't a religion. Or an ethnicity. It's a behavior.

Religion is a behavior.

What is conscience?

 

[Seawytch]

Great! Call your congressman and get them to repeal title II of the Civil Rights Act. I'm all for it. I don't want to serve Christians, but the law (federal law at that) requires that I do.

LOL, thanks for admitting that you are Christophobe.

Meanwhile,I don't need a law to tell me to serve every person who has cash.

Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?

Um you're wrong SeaBytch, I dont want anyone to discriminate against anyone, I simply want the government to mind their own ******* business.

The same EXACT situation with how I feel about gay "marriage" I don't want gays "marrying" , but it certainly is no concern of the governments.

And OF COURSE you would have the same right to discriminate as anyone else.

Narcissistic much? I didn't say YOU...I said intolerant Christians. Guilty conscience?

Jesus was an intolerant Christian, huh.

He wasn't...he would bake the cake. It's not Jesus that has the problem, just some of his fans.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Yes, you have. My constitution protects my religious beliefs. You can't force me to accept queer marriage.

You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.

My constitution trumps your law.

If we consulted you personally on who as allowed to be married, perhaps. But you alone are pretty much irrelevant. The law recognizes marriage even if you don't.

No matter how you twist it, my constitution makes my religious beliefs relevant.

Not in the legal definition of marriage it doesn't. You are free to believe whatever you want. And the law still recognizes the marriages of gays and lesbians as being just as valid as any straights in 36 of 50 States.

You having the freedom to practice your religion doesn't mean that your religious belief defines our laws.

My constitution trumps your laws. Round and round we go.

 

[beagle9]

The states where those bakers reside have PA laws that include gays. If you open a public business in one of those states you can't refuse service on that basis. The people that "didn't see this coming" we're ignorant of the law in their states. These laws need to be scrapped almost entirely in my opinion. The free market will decide if they should remain open or not if they refuse to serve X members of society.

It's easy for people to say "let the free market decide" when they live in an area with an actual market. There is one Septic Service that operates in my area. What if he chooses not to do business with me? There is one store within 20 miles of my house, a small local market. If I need formula for my baby, am I supposed to drive 60 miles in the middle of the night because they won't sell me food? Maybe gays can just grow their own food like this guy suggests...

Washington State Staffer: Gay People Should 'Just Grow Their Own Food' To Deal With Discrimination

The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?

Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like Marriage in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?

If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know.

The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.

Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority?

Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?

You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.

Nice try on the small town analogy, but I think that if the gay would have just went in and purchased a wedding cake without customization being involved, then in no way would the cake baker had refused the person to purchase a cake without the request of customization being involved. Like I said there are test being conducted all over the place, and we have seen a preview of these test being conducted, and you know what ? This nation with the media of today is also the same as a small town, and the people know what is going on in all of this stuff.

There are test being conducted, and we see these test being conducted, and it's not only concerning this issue, but a more broader test is being conducted in this nation on many issues, traditions and standards, and these test are to see how the Christians can be placed in a box in this country now, because Christians are offensive to all who are conducting these test. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

Nonsense.

This is a civil rights issue.

How does ones sexuality, and the flaunting of that sexuality become a civil rights issue for someone ? I mean that is what it is all about isn't it ? How come people can't just keep themselves acting and living decent or respectful while out in the public square, and then keep their sexual habits or lifestyles at home ? Government has no business residing over these issues like it has, but the government has become a vote seeking whore anymore, and it will stop at nothing to trash this nation if the votes say do IT.... No one wants to know about these things, and it needs to stop. But in order to make a law that bands public affection being on display while out in the public square, then millions of hetero sexual's would lose their freedoms in which they have enjoyed for centuries in this nation (i.e. hugging, kissing, holding hands while walking in the park etc.),, but they may be ready for that to happen if it can stop people from trampling their Christian religious beliefs in this nation like they have been lately. May even want to poll them on the issue in that way, just to see where they are at on it now.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

LOL, thanks for admitting that you are Christophobe.

Meanwhile,I don't need a law to tell me to serve every person who has cash.

Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?

Um you're wrong SeaBytch, I dont want anyone to discriminate against anyone, I simply want the government to mind their own ******* business.

The same EXACT situation with how I feel about gay "marriage" I don't want gays "marrying" , but it certainly is no concern of the governments.

And OF COURSE you would have the same right to discriminate as anyone else.

Narcissistic much? I didn't say YOU...I said intolerant Christians. Guilty conscience?

Jesus was an intolerant Christian, huh.

He wasn't...he would bake the cake. It's not Jesus that has the problem, just some of his fans.

No, he wouldn't. Jesus said marriage is a man and a woman.

 

[Syriusly]

Y

Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.

There's the race card. How convenient. There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.

Yet Christians have argued that the Bible does instruct Christians to discriminate.

It was a common argument during Jim Crow days all the way back to the days of slavery.

The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

It was an argument for segregation- even as ministers said that segregation was not discrimination

Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh

Yes- the founder of Bob Jones University explaining why it was scripturally correct to exclude blacks from the University.

I would agree that there is nothing in the Bible which says that people should be discriminated against because of their skin color.

But lots of Christians have said the Bible says just that.

People say a lot of things, not just Christians. My point is it is not a Christian doctrine. Condemnation of homosexuality is.

LOL....thats what Christians always say when they oppose something.

Lets talk about that 'condemnation of homosexuality' as a Christian doctrine.

I will assume we are not speaking of Leviticus- because that is the Old Testament and if we go with Leviticus you should be condemning lots of other things that you aren't.

So lets stick with the New Testament.

Where is homosexuality condemned in the New Testament?

Clearly Jesus never mentions it.

Jesus specifically condemns all adultery, and specifically condemns remarriage after divorce as adultery, EXCEPT in the case of adultery by the wife(not the husband).

Do you spend as much time condemning divorce as you do homosexuality? It doesn't get much more explicit than the words of Jesus himself:

8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.9And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.d”

Where is homosexuality 'condemned' in the New Testament?

Really only in Romans

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

So God puts men who have sex with men in the same category as the 'inventors of evil things' and those ;disobedient to parents'

And boasters and the proud.

It has been my observation that those who most condemn Homosexuality based upon Biblical claims, rather cherry pick what Biblical condemnations to promote.

And just like the issue of race- Christians have been willing to use the issue of homosexuality to promote discrimination against a group that they just think should be discriminated against.

You forgot First Corinthians 6:9-10.

My bad- forgot that one that told Christians not to file lawsuits with other Christians.

1When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believersa! 2Don’t you realize that someday we believers will judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can’t you decide even these little things among yourselves? 3Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life. 4If you have legal disputes about such matters, why go to outside judges who are not respected by the church? 5I am saying this to shame you. Isn’t there anyone in all the church who is wise enough to decide these issues? 6But instead, one believerb sues another—right in front of unbelievers!

7Even to have such lawsuits with one another is a defeat for you. Why not just accept the injustice and leave it at that? Why not let yourselves be cheated? 8Instead, you yourselves are the ones who do wrong and cheat even your fellow believers.c

9Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Are you opposed to drunkards being able to legally marry?

 

[Syriusly]

It's easy for people to say "let the free market decide" when they live in an area with an actual market. There is one Septic Service that operates in my area. What if he chooses not to do business with me? There is one store within 20 miles of my house, a small local market. If I need formula for my baby, am I supposed to drive 60 miles in the middle of the night because they won't sell me food? Maybe gays can just grow their own food like this guy suggests...

Washington State Staffer: Gay People Should 'Just Grow Their Own Food' To Deal With Discrimination

The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?

Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like Marriage in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?

If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know.

The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.

Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority?

Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?

You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.

Nice try on the small town analogy, but I think that if the gay would have just went in and purchased a wedding cake without customization being involved, then in no way would the cake baker had refused the person to purchase a cake without the request of customization being involved. Like I said there are test being conducted all over the place, and we have seen a preview of these test being conducted, and you know what ? This nation with the media of today is also the same as a small town, and the people know what is going on in all of this stuff.

There are test being conducted, and we see these test being conducted, and it's not only concerning this issue, but a more broader test is being conducted in this nation on many issues, traditions and standards, and these test are to see how the Christians can be placed in a box in this country now, because Christians are offensive to all who are conducting these test. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

Nonsense.

This is a civil rights issue.

How does ones sexuality, and the flaunting of that sexuality become a civil rights issue for someone ? I mean that is what it is all about isn't it ? .

No it isn't.

That has been explained to you before.

The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.

 

[Syriusly]

Have you stopped beating your wife?

And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.

Yes, you have. My constitution protects my religious beliefs. You can't force me to accept queer marriage.

You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.

My constitution trumps your law.

Well if you believe that Public Accomadation laws violate your Constitutional rights- I will say once again for maybe the 20th time- you have the same options as gay couples who believed that laws against same gender marriage violated their rights.

You can either
a) legislatively move to change the law- i.e. repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequaint PA laws or
b) file a lawsuit against the specific law arguing that it is unconstitutional.

That is how you argue that 'your constitution' trumps the law- its working for homosexual couples right now.

These cases are going to the USSC.

Which cases are those? Gay marriage cases? Almost inevitably. I am not aware of any PA cases on their way to the Supreme Court.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Y

There's the race card. How convenient. There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.

Yet Christians have argued that the Bible does instruct Christians to discriminate.

It was a common argument during Jim Crow days all the way back to the days of slavery.

The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

It was an argument for segregation- even as ministers said that segregation was not discrimination

Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh

Yes- the founder of Bob Jones University explaining why it was scripturally correct to exclude blacks from the University.

I would agree that there is nothing in the Bible which says that people should be discriminated against because of their skin color.

But lots of Christians have said the Bible says just that.

People say a lot of things, not just Christians. My point is it is not a Christian doctrine. Condemnation of homosexuality is.

LOL....thats what Christians always say when they oppose something.

Lets talk about that 'condemnation of homosexuality' as a Christian doctrine.

I will assume we are not speaking of Leviticus- because that is the Old Testament and if we go with Leviticus you should be condemning lots of other things that you aren't.

So lets stick with the New Testament.

Where is homosexuality condemned in the New Testament?

Clearly Jesus never mentions it.

Jesus specifically condemns all adultery, and specifically condemns remarriage after divorce as adultery, EXCEPT in the case of adultery by the wife(not the husband).

Do you spend as much time condemning divorce as you do homosexuality? It doesn't get much more explicit than the words of Jesus himself:

8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.9And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.d”

Where is homosexuality 'condemned' in the New Testament?

Really only in Romans

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

So God puts men who have sex with men in the same category as the 'inventors of evil things' and those ;disobedient to parents'

And boasters and the proud.

It has been my observation that those who most condemn Homosexuality based upon Biblical claims, rather cherry pick what Biblical condemnations to promote.

And just like the issue of race- Christians have been willing to use the issue of homosexuality to promote discrimination against a group that they just think should be discriminated against.

You forgot First Corinthians 6:9-10.

My bad- forgot that one that told Christians not to file lawsuits with other Christians.

1When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believersa! 2Don’t you realize that someday we believers will judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can’t you decide even these little things among yourselves? 3Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life. 4If you have legal disputes about such matters, why go to outside judges who are not respected by the church? 5I am saying this to shame you. Isn’t there anyone in all the church who is wise enough to decide these issues? 6But instead, one believerb sues another—right in front of unbelievers!

7Even to have such lawsuits with one another is a defeat for you. Why not just accept the injustice and leave it at that? Why not let yourselves be cheated? 8Instead, you yourselves are the ones who do wrong and cheat even your fellow believers.c

9Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Are you opposed to drunkards being able to legally marry?

You don't believe scripture.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Yes, you have. My constitution protects my religious beliefs. You can't force me to accept queer marriage.

You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.

My constitution trumps your law.

Well if you believe that Public Accomadation laws violate your Constitutional rights- I will say once again for maybe the 20th time- you have the same options as gay couples who believed that laws against same gender marriage violated their rights.

You can either
a) legislatively move to change the law- i.e. repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequaint PA laws or
b) file a lawsuit against the specific law arguing that it is unconstitutional.

That is how you argue that 'your constitution' trumps the law- its working for homosexual couples right now.

These cases are going to the USSC.

Which cases are those? Gay marriage cases? Almost inevitably. I am not aware of any PA cases on their way to the Supreme Court.

The bakery cases.

 

[beagle9]

LOL, thanks for admitting that you are Christophobe.

Meanwhile,I don't need a law to tell me to serve every person who has cash.

Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?

Um you're wrong SeaBytch, I dont want anyone to discriminate against anyone, I simply want the government to mind their own ******* business.

The same EXACT situation with how I feel about gay "marriage" I don't want gays "marrying" , but it certainly is no concern of the governments.

And OF COURSE you would have the same right to discriminate as anyone else.

Narcissistic much? I didn't say YOU...I said intolerant Christians. Guilty conscience?

Jesus was an intolerant Christian, huh.

He wasn't...he would bake the cake. It's not Jesus that has the problem, just some of his fans.

Yeah he would baked the cake of course, just as he had went into the publican house as he was invited to go into back in the day, but don't be fooled of this, and do read on in the story because it was with a wise and powerful message that he had went into the house to deliver, and that message got through to those whom he had visited with in these ways and in those days. The message is still the same today. Now if the cake baker would have agreed to bake the cake, and in the agreeing with this he would have said can I give you a message before you go if I bake this cake for you, and they would have said yes, well when he began to give the message what do you think would have been their reaction ?

 

[Syriusly]

You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.

My constitution trumps your law.

Well if you believe that Public Accomadation laws violate your Constitutional rights- I will say once again for maybe the 20th time- you have the same options as gay couples who believed that laws against same gender marriage violated their rights.

You can either
a) legislatively move to change the law- i.e. repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequaint PA laws or
b) file a lawsuit against the specific law arguing that it is unconstitutional.

That is how you argue that 'your constitution' trumps the law- its working for homosexual couples right now.

These cases are going to the USSC.

Which cases are those? Gay marriage cases? Almost inevitably. I am not aware of any PA cases on their way to the Supreme Court.

The bakery cases.

I don't believe that they have even been appealed yet. But let me know how that goes- I absolutely support the rights of these business men to go to court for what they believe- just as gay couples did.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?

Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like Marriage in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?

If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know.

The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.

Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority?

Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?

You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.

Nice try on the small town analogy, but I think that if the gay would have just went in and purchased a wedding cake without customization being involved, then in no way would the cake baker had refused the person to purchase a cake without the request of customization being involved. Like I said there are test being conducted all over the place, and we have seen a preview of these test being conducted, and you know what ? This nation with the media of today is also the same as a small town, and the people know what is going on in all of this stuff.

There are test being conducted, and we see these test being conducted, and it's not only concerning this issue, but a more broader test is being conducted in this nation on many issues, traditions and standards, and these test are to see how the Christians can be placed in a box in this country now, because Christians are offensive to all who are conducting these test. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

Nonsense.

This is a civil rights issue.

How does ones sexuality, and the flaunting of that sexuality become a civil rights issue for someone ? I mean that is what it is all about isn't it ? .

No it isn't.

That has been explained to you before.

The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.

You can't force me to violate my religious bel

If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery. Duh.