Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Conservative65]

The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual. According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.

The fags asked for two of the same kind.

^^ this is the poster role-playing the "beating up on gays" role.

I don't role play anything. I believe it's an abnormal abomination but apparently the fags think words mean beating up on them.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But they will make the cake. And that's the hanging point...not the speech on the cake. But the cake itself. I'll give any baker a pass on speech. But on selling your signature product? Nope.

What's on it is as important as the cake itself.

So you'll give a *** baker a pass on what is on the cake yet the Christian baker opposed has to put two male names and two males figures ON the cake? Hypocrite.

He didn't ask for one of these on the cake now did he? That they do all the time.

The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual. According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.

The fags asked for two of the same kind.

If it was this, or a rainbow cake and they make rainbow cakes, no problem and perfectly fair.

Not according to Skylar. Skylar stated that it was OK to not do something on the cake as long as they did the cake. Should the *** bakers be required to do a cake with wording that say "gay marriage is wrong" if it's on a cake they make even if they don't agree? That's what you expect from the Christian baker.

I expect the Christian baker to follow the same rules and bake the stupid cake.

 

[Conservative65]

A true Conservative would not view it that way.

You agree that marriage is not specifically addressed in the Constitution. That is correct. That you use equal protection to support your argument is interpretive in it's application to marriage.

Since the Bill of Rights, although 10 Amendments, are as much a part of the Constitution as the original document pass just a few years prior to them being added. At least you got that the belief the 14th amendment equal protection clause is interpretive when it comes to marriage. What you don't seem to get is that the word "marriage" doesn't exist in it and that should take precedence over what someone thinks something means.

The 14th amendment has already been interpreted to cover marriage in earlier court decisions (Loving v. Virginia), thus there is a precedent for using it to examine gay marriage. Something doesn't specifically have to be addressed in the constitution for there to be a role in interpreting whether a statute is relevant. For instance, drones aren't addressed in the constitution, but the court will be eventually examining the legality of these items in light of prohibitions against warrantless searches, etc.

And, I'm not a conservative.

Do you know the specifics behind that case?

You're far from a conservative. You sound like one of the ****** loving Liberals to me.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual. According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.

The fags asked for two of the same kind.

^^ this is the poster role-playing the "beating up on gays" role.

I don't role play anything. I believe it's an abnormal abomination but apparently the fags think words mean beating up on them.

"The Christians are worthless assholes who might as well be Nazis" is just words, but am I beating up on them?

 

[Conservative65]

Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage a judge can't rule on something for which the Constitution doesn't give authority.

Who told you that utter nonsense? That's what it is BTW.

Whjo told you two men together is normal? They were wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual. According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.

The fags asked for two of the same kind.

^^ this is the poster role-playing the "beating up on gays" role.

I don't role play anything. I believe it's an abnormal abomination but apparently the fags think words mean beating up on them.

Nope. You're timing means that you are hear role-playing a gay-basher so the thread will be shut down. It isn't the first time y'all have tried this here. Some of your buddies have even just said outright "let's just shut this thread down...it's boring" or "this thread is not popular" (with 50,000 views). This is your last-ditch hope. A manufactured flame war.

Your timing is what gave you away.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A true Conservative would not view it that way.

You agree that marriage is not specifically addressed in the Constitution. That is correct. That you use equal protection to support your argument is interpretive in it's application to marriage.

Since the Bill of Rights, although 10 Amendments, are as much a part of the Constitution as the original document pass just a few years prior to them being added. At least you got that the belief the 14th amendment equal protection clause is interpretive when it comes to marriage. What you don't seem to get is that the word "marriage" doesn't exist in it and that should take precedence over what someone thinks something means.

The 14th amendment has already been interpreted to cover marriage in earlier court decisions (Loving v. Virginia), thus there is a precedent for using it to examine gay marriage. Something doesn't specifically have to be addressed in the constitution for there to be a role in interpreting whether a statute is relevant. For instance, drones aren't addressed in the constitution, but the court will be eventually examining the legality of these items in light of prohibitions against warrantless searches, etc.

And, I'm not a conservative.

Do you know the specifics behind that case?

You're far from a conservative. You sound like one of the ****** loving Liberals to me.

When exactly did Jesus tell you not to love the faggots? He probably was one you know.

 

[pillars]

Do you know the specifics behind that case?

You're far from a conservative. You sound like one of the ****** loving Liberals to me.

Of course I know the specifics behind that case. And, I do believe in the right of g/l/b/t individuals to have equal protection and access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Conservative65]

The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual. According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.

The fags asked for two of the same kind.

^^ this is the poster role-playing the "beating up on gays" role.

I don't role play anything. I believe it's an abnormal abomination but apparently the fags think words mean beating up on them.

"The Christians are worthless assholes who might as well be Nazis" is just words, but am I beating up on them?

Unlike you, I believe in freedom of speech regardless of what you say.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, the manufactured flame war should get you guys banned from this website. I will be reporting you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage a judge can't rule on something for which the Constitution doesn't give authority.

Who told you that utter nonsense? That's what it is BTW.

Whjo told you two men together is normal? They were wrong.

It is for homosexuals, who are a small minority normal to many animal species.

 

[pillars]

Nope. You're timing means that you are hear role-playing a gay-basher so the thread will be shut down. It isn't the first time y'all have tried this here. Some of your buddies have even just said outright "let's just shut this thread down...it's boring" or "this thread is not popular" (with 50,000 views). This is your last-ditch hope. A manufactured flame war.

Your timing is what gave you away.

I strongly suspect that if people keep their cool and respond in a civil fashion that this strategy will be ineffective.

 

[Conservative65]

A true Conservative would not view it that way.

You agree that marriage is not specifically addressed in the Constitution. That is correct. That you use equal protection to support your argument is interpretive in it's application to marriage.

Since the Bill of Rights, although 10 Amendments, are as much a part of the Constitution as the original document pass just a few years prior to them being added. At least you got that the belief the 14th amendment equal protection clause is interpretive when it comes to marriage. What you don't seem to get is that the word "marriage" doesn't exist in it and that should take precedence over what someone thinks something means.

The 14th amendment has already been interpreted to cover marriage in earlier court decisions (Loving v. Virginia), thus there is a precedent for using it to examine gay marriage. Something doesn't specifically have to be addressed in the constitution for there to be a role in interpreting whether a statute is relevant. For instance, drones aren't addressed in the constitution, but the court will be eventually examining the legality of these items in light of prohibitions against warrantless searches, etc.

And, I'm not a conservative.

Do you know the specifics behind that case?

You're far from a conservative. You sound like one of the ****** loving Liberals to me.

When exactly did Jesus tell you not to love the faggots? He probably was one you know.

Jesus didn't tolerate sin nor would be expect me to do so. Since he was sinless and being a ****** is a sin, your last statment is nothing more than another ****** lover running his dick sucker.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual. According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.

The fags asked for two of the same kind.

^^ this is the poster role-playing the "beating up on gays" role.

I don't role play anything. I believe it's an abnormal abomination but apparently the fags think words mean beating up on them.

"The Christians are worthless assholes who might as well be Nazis" is just words, but am I beating up on them?

Unlike you, I believe in freedom of speech regardless of what you say.

So do I, but it is limited as to time and place. Still, answer the question. Was I beating up on the Christians?

 

[Conservative65]

Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage a judge can't rule on something for which the Constitution doesn't give authority.

Who told you that utter nonsense? That's what it is BTW.

Whjo told you two men together is normal? They were wrong.

It is for homosexuals, who are a small minority normal to many animal species.

If you want to put faggots on the same level as a dog, I agree.

 

[Silhouette]

Jesus didn't tolerate sin nor would be expect me to do so. Since he was sinless and being a ****** is a sin, your last statment is nothing more than another ****** lover running his dick sucker.

You have been reported to the moderators for posing as a gay-basher in order to disappear this thread. And Paint, you're on deck for doing the dance with him, egging on the flame war. If this was my website y'all would've been 86'd ages ago. "Pillars" sudden appearance concurrent with "Conservative65" on the thread is also noted for the record..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A true Conservative would not view it that way.

You agree that marriage is not specifically addressed in the Constitution. That is correct. That you use equal protection to support your argument is interpretive in it's application to marriage.

Since the Bill of Rights, although 10 Amendments, are as much a part of the Constitution as the original document pass just a few years prior to them being added. At least you got that the belief the 14th amendment equal protection clause is interpretive when it comes to marriage. What you don't seem to get is that the word "marriage" doesn't exist in it and that should take precedence over what someone thinks something means.

The 14th amendment has already been interpreted to cover marriage in earlier court decisions (Loving v. Virginia), thus there is a precedent for using it to examine gay marriage. Something doesn't specifically have to be addressed in the constitution for there to be a role in interpreting whether a statute is relevant. For instance, drones aren't addressed in the constitution, but the court will be eventually examining the legality of these items in light of prohibitions against warrantless searches, etc.

And, I'm not a conservative.

Do you know the specifics behind that case?

You're far from a conservative. You sound like one of the ****** loving Liberals to me.

When exactly did Jesus tell you not to love the faggots? He probably was one you know.

Jesus didn't tolerate sin nor would be expect me to do so. Since he was sinless and being a ****** is a sin, your last statment is nothing more than another ****** lover running his dick sucker.

Jesus tolerated a great deal of sin, even had some of his own, although he preached against sin as he should have. And an unmarried Jewish man of his age in that time? Either he was gay or married, pick one?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage a judge can't rule on something for which the Constitution doesn't give authority.

Who told you that utter nonsense? That's what it is BTW.

Whjo told you two men together is normal? They were wrong.

It is for homosexuals, who are a small minority normal to many animal species.

If you want to put faggots on the same level as a dog, I agree.

All humans are on the same level as dogs. We are all animals.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Jesus didn't tolerate sin nor would be expect me to do so. Since he was sinless and being a ****** is a sin, your last statment is nothing more than another ****** lover running his dick sucker.

You have been reported to the moderators for posing as a gay-basher in order to disappear this thread. And Paint, you're on deck for doing the dance with him, egging on the flame war. If this was my website y'all would've been 86'd ages ago. "Pillars" sudden appearance concurrent with "Conservative65" on the thread is also noted for the record..

How lucky for us then that you have no power here, and that they respect free speech more than you do...

 

[Silhouette]

The people who voted at the top of this thread did so because they know that christian bakers/photographers/caterers etc. have already been sued and forced to abdicate their religion's core values to promote a homosexual cult's lifestyles. A church is nothing more than a congregation of individual christians. There is no legal protection for the church if gay trumps the 1st in any venue, even the heart of the individual christian baker..

How lucky for us then that you have no power here, and that they respect free speech more than you do...

Just as I thought..You are protecting "Conservative's" "right" to beat up gays because it may serve to shut the thread down. You are guilty as charged.