State Takes Legal Action to Seize $135K From Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple

[martybegan]

I will leave it up to the people with the free time on their hands.

Right...you're too busy whining about it on the internet to actually DO something about it.

No, i'm voicing my opinion on it, something you seem to have an issue with. But it's easier for those like you to attack the ability of someone to have an opinion (in your view) than the opinion itself.

Voicing your opinion as an anonymous poster on a message board is not taking action.

You don't get to judge that.

Sure I do....just voicing an opinion is not taking action. It's.....just voicing off.

No, you don't. You can opine on it, but not judge it in any meaningful way.

 

[bodecea]

No...you asked me if I had read it and I said yes I did.

What's your opinion of it?

Well, poor Chief Justice Roberts is wrong right out of the gate when he goes on about the Supreme Court decision being "legislation". If it is legislation...so is Brown v. Board of Ed and Loving v. Virginia even tho all they did was strike down unConstitutional laws/restrictions.

Oh, you disagree. So you have decisions you agree with and decisions you disagree with, just like me. You can get off your self-righteous high horse now.

Yes...I disagree with some decisions. I DON'T go calling justices and judges corrupt over it though. See the difference?

I agree with Chief Justice Roberts that the five activist lawyers didn't use the Constitution in their decision. That's corruption.

Chief Justice Roberts called them corrupt? Where did he say that? I read his dissenting opinion and missed that part. And they called on the 14th Amendment in their decision...that if a state provides some legal protection to some law-abiding tax-paying citizens, they must provide that same legal protection to all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens............unless there is an overriding reason not to. Got one? The lawyers arguing against legal gay marriage didn't seem to have any.

 

[bodecea]

Right...you're too busy whining about it on the internet to actually DO something about it.

No, i'm voicing my opinion on it, something you seem to have an issue with. But it's easier for those like you to attack the ability of someone to have an opinion (in your view) than the opinion itself.

Voicing your opinion as an anonymous poster on a message board is not taking action.

You don't get to judge that.

Sure I do....just voicing an opinion is not taking action. It's.....just voicing off.

No, you don't. You can opine on it, but not judge it in any meaningful way.

Still just voicing off, I see.

 

[bodecea]

It's an observation on your metal state, and it is accurate. You are a drive by thug, using government to hurt people you don't like.

And your statement of vendor vs. consumer is comical, and of course self serving in your quest to force people to do things they don't want to do, because being an asshole gives you a chubby.

Once again. I've known gay people who've been fired for being gay, I've known gay people who have been beaten up by bigots for being gay.

Making someone provide a service they will be paid for and offered publically is nowhere near that level of being an asshole.

I just can't get worked up because the Klein Family had to do their job.

It's the inner fascist in you. Your problem isn't with the beatings, its (to you) the wrong people being beaten.

Where did JoeB say he ever approved of beatings?

 

[Sally Vater]

When I see the

What's your opinion of it?

Well, poor Chief Justice Roberts is wrong right out of the gate when he goes on about the Supreme Court decision being "legislation". If it is legislation...so is Brown v. Board of Ed and Loving v. Virginia even tho all they did was strike down unConstitutional laws/restrictions.

Oh, you disagree. So you have decisions you agree with and decisions you disagree with, just like me. You can get off your self-righteous high horse now.

Yes...I disagree with some decisions. I DON'T go calling justices and judges corrupt over it though. See the difference?

I agree with Chief Justice Roberts that the five activist lawyers didn't use the Constitution in their decision. That's corruption.

Chief Justice Roberts called them corrupt? Where did he say that? I read his dissenting opinion and missed that part. And they called on the 14th Amendment in their decision...that if a state provides some legal protection to some law-abiding tax-paying citizens, they must provide that same legal protection to all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens............unless there is an overriding reason not to. Got one? The lawyers arguing against legal gay marriage didn't seem to have any.

Chief Justice Roberts said that the constitution had nothing to do with the decision. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage laws. It deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children. That's the corruption. Twisting and torturing the amendment to fit the leftist agenda...

 

[paddymurphy]

"EVERY business I have been into has a sign that says we reserve the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason." And you think that that sign gives the business the right to ignore all laws?

What we are dealing with in gay marriage are laws protecting behaviors. Behaviors aren't protected Constitutionally. So this false premise has brought about the legal quagmire between a Christian's legitimate refusal to condone homosexual behaviors vs a homosexual believing everyone must play along with their lifestyle.

The deciding factor will be children. Because everybody knows this isn't a battle at the bakery, the photo studio, the florist, the caterer or even the County Clerk's office....this is a battle at Christian adoption agencies. They best sit down this time and think who all shares the marriage contract first and how that contract uniquely serves each and every implicit party who shares it. Children were ignored and never asked by SCOTUS what they thought about institutionalizing their homes to be fatherless or motherless. In fact, when they tried to weigh in as children raised in gay homes not in favor of gay marriage with amicus briefs, the Court flatly ignored their pleas.

Therefore, 2015's Hearing on the matter was a mistrial.

You have been laughably wrong on every one of your legal opinions/predictions so you'll have to excuse me if I don't take your legal opinions very seriously.

Do you think that you can refuse service to blacks, Jews, Muslims and any other group you want? You that stupid?

 

[bodecea]

When I see the

Well, poor Chief Justice Roberts is wrong right out of the gate when he goes on about the Supreme Court decision being "legislation". If it is legislation...so is Brown v. Board of Ed and Loving v. Virginia even tho all they did was strike down unConstitutional laws/restrictions.

Oh, you disagree. So you have decisions you agree with and decisions you disagree with, just like me. You can get off your self-righteous high horse now.

Yes...I disagree with some decisions. I DON'T go calling justices and judges corrupt over it though. See the difference?

I agree with Chief Justice Roberts that the five activist lawyers didn't use the Constitution in their decision. That's corruption.

Chief Justice Roberts called them corrupt? Where did he say that? I read his dissenting opinion and missed that part. And they called on the 14th Amendment in their decision...that if a state provides some legal protection to some law-abiding tax-paying citizens, they must provide that same legal protection to all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens............unless there is an overriding reason not to. Got one? The lawyers arguing against legal gay marriage didn't seem to have any.

Chief Justice Roberts said that the constitution had nothing to do with the decision. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage laws. It deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children. That's the corruption. Twisting and torturing the amendment to fit the leftist agenda...

The 14th Amendment requires states to treat their citizens equally under the law. Marriage laws would be an example. You apparently don't want citizens to be treated equally under the law. Not fond of the 14th Amendment?

 

[Iceweasel]

There was no Constitutional justification for abortion on demand either, especially making all of us pay for it. Gays in marriage will all cost us too with things like insurance while they contribute no offspring to offset the expense. The whole thing is so stupid, male/female marriages are only based on tradition so it must be overturned. But we can only have two in marriage because it's traditional. LOL.

 

[Sally Vater]

"EVERY business I have been into has a sign that says we reserve the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason." And you think that that sign gives the business the right to ignore all laws?

What we are dealing with in gay marriage are laws protecting behaviors. Behaviors aren't protected Constitutionally. So this false premise has brought about the legal quagmire between a Christian's legitimate refusal to condone homosexual behaviors vs a homosexual believing everyone must play along with their lifestyle.

The deciding factor will be children. Because everybody knows this isn't a battle at the bakery, the photo studio, the florist, the caterer or even the County Clerk's office....this is a battle at Christian adoption agencies. They best sit down this time and think who all shares the marriage contract first and how that contract uniquely serves each and every implicit party who shares it. Children were ignored and never asked by SCOTUS what they thought about institutionalizing their homes to be fatherless or motherless. In fact, when they tried to weigh in as children raised in gay homes not in favor of gay marriage with amicus briefs, the Court flatly ignored their pleas.

Therefore, 2015's Hearing on the matter was a mistrial.

You have been laughably wrong on every one of your legal opinions/predictions so you'll have to excuse me if I don't take your legal opinions very seriously.

Do you think that you can refuse service to blacks, Jews, Muslims and any other group you want? You that stupid?

Yes. I know a woman who owns a gun range and denies entrance to Muslims. She's still in business. Why don't you go after her.

Why I Want My Range to be a Muslim Free Zone - Jan Morgan Media

 

[Iceweasel]

Do you think that you can refuse service to blacks, Jews, Muslims and any other group you want? You that stupid?

Service hell, what about hiring? That matters more. I see lots of examples of only Asians or blacks, or Jews, etc. working at places. But yes, we should be free to associate with whom we please, open to the public doesn't mean publicly owned.

 

[martybegan]

No, i'm voicing my opinion on it, something you seem to have an issue with. But it's easier for those like you to attack the ability of someone to have an opinion (in your view) than the opinion itself.

Voicing your opinion as an anonymous poster on a message board is not taking action.

You don't get to judge that.

Sure I do....just voicing an opinion is not taking action. It's.....just voicing off.

No, you don't. You can opine on it, but not judge it in any meaningful way.

Still just voicing off, I see.

Typing off, to be exact.

 

[martybegan]

It's an observation on your metal state, and it is accurate. You are a drive by thug, using government to hurt people you don't like.

And your statement of vendor vs. consumer is comical, and of course self serving in your quest to force people to do things they don't want to do, because being an asshole gives you a chubby.

Once again. I've known gay people who've been fired for being gay, I've known gay people who have been beaten up by bigots for being gay.

Making someone provide a service they will be paid for and offered publically is nowhere near that level of being an asshole.

I just can't get worked up because the Klein Family had to do their job.

It's the inner fascist in you. Your problem isn't with the beatings, its (to you) the wrong people being beaten.

Where did JoeB say he ever approved of beatings?

Just wait for his response.

 

[Seawytch]

You have a problem with American citizens using the legal system if our rights have been violated? Or just "certain" American citizens? If it had been frivolous, the courts would have ruled against the couple, wouldn't they?

I have a problem with a few activist corrupt lawyers using "rights" to shakedown Christians who exercise their first amendment rights.

You have a problem with Public Accommodation laws? Have you had this problem since 1964 or just recently...like when they started protecting icky gays AS WELL as Christians?

Hell, I don't care if someone wants to marry a fence post, just don't expect me to respect to union.

Hashtag thought police

If you own a business in a locality with PA laws that also protect gays, you will "respect the union" and provide the service you advertise, however.

Your corrupt PA laws do not force me to serve you in violation of my conscience. Kinda like exemption from the draft as a conscientious objector. There are laws being passed by states to exempt Christian businesses from your government tyranny. Ha ha.

Yeah, actually they do. Segregationists and anti miscegenationists tried your same arguments to fight desegregation and interracial marriage laws. We all know how George Wallace fared...

 

[bodecea]

There was no Constitutional justification for abortion on demand either, especially making all of us pay for it. Gays in marriage will all cost us too with things like insurance while they contribute no offspring to offset the expense. The whole thing is so stupid, male/female marriages are only based on tradition so it must be overturned. But we can only have two in marriage because it's traditional. LOL.

Let's look at that sentence for a second.

Notice how you do NOT make the same complaint about hetero couples who do not have children. Discrimination.
Notice how you IGNORE gay couples that HAVE children, such as my own. Ignorance.

 

[paddymurphy]

Do you think that you can refuse service to blacks, Jews, Muslims and any other group you want? You that stupid?

Service hell, what about hiring? That matters more. I see lots of examples of only Asians or blacks, or Jews, etc. working at places. But yes, we should be free to associate with whom we please, open to the public doesn't mean publicly owned.

It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, etc. don't like it? Move the **** away

 

[Sally Vater]

I have a problem with a few activist corrupt lawyers using "rights" to shakedown Christians who exercise their first amendment rights.

You have a problem with Public Accommodation laws? Have you had this problem since 1964 or just recently...like when they started protecting icky gays AS WELL as Christians?

Hell, I don't care if someone wants to marry a fence post, just don't expect me to respect to union.

Hashtag thought police

If you own a business in a locality with PA laws that also protect gays, you will "respect the union" and provide the service you advertise, however.

Your corrupt PA laws do not force me to serve you in violation of my conscience. Kinda like exemption from the draft as a conscientious objector. There are laws being passed by states to exempt Christian businesses from your government tyranny. Ha ha.

Yeah, actually they do. Segregationists and anti miscegenationists tried your same arguments to fight desegregation and interracial marriage laws. We all know how George Wallace fared...

Are you going to shoot me?

 

[paddymurphy]

"EVERY business I have been into has a sign that says we reserve the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason." And you think that that sign gives the business the right to ignore all laws?

What we are dealing with in gay marriage are laws protecting behaviors. Behaviors aren't protected Constitutionally. So this false premise has brought about the legal quagmire between a Christian's legitimate refusal to condone homosexual behaviors vs a homosexual believing everyone must play along with their lifestyle.

The deciding factor will be children. Because everybody knows this isn't a battle at the bakery, the photo studio, the florist, the caterer or even the County Clerk's office....this is a battle at Christian adoption agencies. They best sit down this time and think who all shares the marriage contract first and how that contract uniquely serves each and every implicit party who shares it. Children were ignored and never asked by SCOTUS what they thought about institutionalizing their homes to be fatherless or motherless. In fact, when they tried to weigh in as children raised in gay homes not in favor of gay marriage with amicus briefs, the Court flatly ignored their pleas.

Therefore, 2015's Hearing on the matter was a mistrial.

You have been laughably wrong on every one of your legal opinions/predictions so you'll have to excuse me if I don't take your legal opinions very seriously.

Do you think that you can refuse service to blacks, Jews, Muslims and any other group you want? You that stupid?

Yes. I know a woman who owns a gun range and denies entrance to Muslims. She's still in business. Why don't you go after her.

Why I Want My Range to be a Muslim Free Zone - Jan Morgan Media

Someone should.

 

[Sally Vater]

"EVERY business I have been into has a sign that says we reserve the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason." And you think that that sign gives the business the right to ignore all laws?

What we are dealing with in gay marriage are laws protecting behaviors. Behaviors aren't protected Constitutionally. So this false premise has brought about the legal quagmire between a Christian's legitimate refusal to condone homosexual behaviors vs a homosexual believing everyone must play along with their lifestyle.

The deciding factor will be children. Because everybody knows this isn't a battle at the bakery, the photo studio, the florist, the caterer or even the County Clerk's office....this is a battle at Christian adoption agencies. They best sit down this time and think who all shares the marriage contract first and how that contract uniquely serves each and every implicit party who shares it. Children were ignored and never asked by SCOTUS what they thought about institutionalizing their homes to be fatherless or motherless. In fact, when they tried to weigh in as children raised in gay homes not in favor of gay marriage with amicus briefs, the Court flatly ignored their pleas.

Therefore, 2015's Hearing on the matter was a mistrial.

You have been laughably wrong on every one of your legal opinions/predictions so you'll have to excuse me if I don't take your legal opinions very seriously.

Do you think that you can refuse service to blacks, Jews, Muslims and any other group you want? You that stupid?

Yes. I know a woman who owns a gun range and denies entrance to Muslims. She's still in business. Why don't you go after her.

Why I Want My Range to be a Muslim Free Zone - Jan Morgan Media

Someone should.

Please do.

 

[paddymurphy]

What we are dealing with in gay marriage are laws protecting behaviors. Behaviors aren't protected Constitutionally. So this false premise has brought about the legal quagmire between a Christian's legitimate refusal to condone homosexual behaviors vs a homosexual believing everyone must play along with their lifestyle.

The deciding factor will be children. Because everybody knows this isn't a battle at the bakery, the photo studio, the florist, the caterer or even the County Clerk's office....this is a battle at Christian adoption agencies. They best sit down this time and think who all shares the marriage contract first and how that contract uniquely serves each and every implicit party who shares it. Children were ignored and never asked by SCOTUS what they thought about institutionalizing their homes to be fatherless or motherless. In fact, when they tried to weigh in as children raised in gay homes not in favor of gay marriage with amicus briefs, the Court flatly ignored their pleas.

Therefore, 2015's Hearing on the matter was a mistrial.

You have been laughably wrong on every one of your legal opinions/predictions so you'll have to excuse me if I don't take your legal opinions very seriously.

Do you think that you can refuse service to blacks, Jews, Muslims and any other group you want? You that stupid?

Yes. I know a woman who owns a gun range and denies entrance to Muslims. She's still in business. Why don't you go after her.

Why I Want My Range to be a Muslim Free Zone - Jan Morgan Media

Someone should.

Please do.

I would have to be Muslim this bigot denies service to sue. Hopefully someone will. Maybe one of the thousands of Muslim American patriots who served in the military, defending the rights of assholes like that gun range owner.

 

[Sally Vater]

You have been laughably wrong on every one of your legal opinions/predictions so you'll have to excuse me if I don't take your legal opinions very seriously.

Do you think that you can refuse service to blacks, Jews, Muslims and any other group you want? You that stupid?

Yes. I know a woman who owns a gun range and denies entrance to Muslims. She's still in business. Why don't you go after her.

Why I Want My Range to be a Muslim Free Zone - Jan Morgan Media

Someone should.

Please do.

I would have to be Muslim this bigot denies service to sue. Hopefully someone will. Maybe one of the thousands of Muslim American patriots who served in the military, defending the rights of assholes like that gun range owner.

Not nearly the number of Christian patriots who put their lives on the line defending her rights. Your horde of imaginary patriotic muslims can go to hell.