Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Pop23]

LGBT is a habitual lifestyle

If "lifestyle," that would be 4 distinct ones. Obviously.

how is it that just one lifestyle may order Christians around

So do the math. That would actually yield 4 "lifestyles" against 1 "lifestyle." You'd still lose. Now stop whining. Suck it up.

Heterosexual and Non-Heterosexual. That equals two

 

[Silhouette]

So flopper admits LGBT is a lifestyle. He admits that gay pride parades are parades of sexuality in public where kids are anticipated to be watching. (Which by the way is illegal in both content & intent). Still he seems aghast at why anyone would object to condoning, participating in or promoting that lifestyle.

In related news we have Syriusly lamenting as to how it's "unfair" that lgbts are being discriminated against in hiring at schools. It's the school administrator's job to discriminate hiring through the filter of child protection. Children come first in schools. People supporting or participating in parades of deviant sex acts in anticipation of children watching come second in the process of deliberating what staff to hire at a school.

It's like stepping into an episode of bizzaro world. It shows, beyond the deviant sex habits, a fundamental defect in processing reality. The thing it reminds me of is watching addicts rationalize the insanity in order to keep a steady supply of drugs coming in. They'll twist any words, remake any truth, do. or say anything in order to keep the fix going.

Lgbts give us manifest proof of why they can't be trusted around kids. In millions of full color photos & video reel over how many decades? Then they wonder why Christians & sane secularists object to their lifestyle & wont hire them at schools. When is someone going to grow a pair in the court system & notice the manifest issue upon its face x million + video footage x 4 decades?

 

[Silhouette]

how is it that just one lifestyle may order Christians around

So do the math. That would actually yield 4 "lifestyles" against 1 "lifestyle." You'd still lose. Now stop whining. Suck it up.

That's not how the USSC will deliberate on the question Grumblenuts. Remember, you were all about not having a majority rule a minority.

 

[LittleNipper]

how is it that just one lifestyle may order Christians around

So do the math. That would actually yield 4 "lifestyles" against 1 "lifestyle." You'd still lose. Now stop whining. Suck it up.

That's not how the USSC will deliberate on the question Grumblenuts. Remember, you were all about not having a majority rule a minority.

California is a corrupt and bias state. It is paying for this through drought, fire, mudslides, and earthquakes; however, the liberal/atheistic element cannot put 2 & 2 together. They are as thick as one can get. Those at Pompeii and Herculaneum didn't get it either...

 

[Silhouette]

California is a corrupt and bias state. It is paying for this through drought, fire, mudslides, and earthquakes; however, the liberal/atheistic element cannot put 2 & 2 together. They are as thick as one can get. Those at Pompeii and Herculaneum didn't get it either...

Well I hope they can put together what's in my signature because otherwise they'll be in defiance of a USSC Court Ruling. And you know how willing they are to suspend their citizen's laws to accommodate those USSC Rulings! They wouldn't want the public to see that they might be biased toward a certain ideology over another. That might result in some parents suing and some really expensive lawsuits that now California WILL lose because the highest court in the land just said they can't make students learn "important gays in history" without simultaneously teaching "important Christians in history"...

We now know how the USSC feels about states playing favorites with ideologies....

 

[Flopper]

The simple fact is all people are different. They are individuals, not cardboard characters in a racist fantasy.

Gender is fixed. Yes, it is. Race is fixed. LGBT is a habitual lifestyle. Just one repugnant lifestyle of a zillion out there. According to the 14th Amendment, how is it that just one lifestyle may order Christians around to agree with it while others cannot? Please be specific. And remember that LGBT pride parades perform deviant sex acts with the anticipation that children will be watching. Just in case you're going to try to firm up an argument around "some lifestyles are just not (subjectively) acceptable for special privileges etc."

How utterly ridiculous. You seem to know so little about what you're saying, you can't even articulate what you meant by their lifestyle. Have you ever been to a gay rights parade? Do you know anything about LGBT people other than what you read on the net?

For years, people have express their dissatisfaction with the LGBT community’s propensity for over-the-top parades and flamboyant displays of pride. Admittedly, I too used to be uncomfortable with Pride parades, and even just Pride in general. My own impressions of these events came from stereotypical images shown throughout mainstream media; pictures of half-naked individuals and extravagant drag queens. I knew these parades scared certain people, even some of those trying to be more open-minded, so I thought, why alienate them further with displays of gayness?

I guess what I really never gave much thought to was most LGBT people have spent the majority of their lives hiding their true identities, ashamed and worried about what the public, the family, and friends might think if they knew who they really were. Gay pride is about coming out, expressing yourself, thumbing your noise at traditions that have destroyed million lives over the year.

The media concentrates on the most over the top behavior but what you don't see in the media are tens of thousands of people, gay and straight, adults, kids, and families taking a stance against discrimination and violence toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Many of these marchers have kids, brothers, and sisters, and friends that been victims violence, abuse, and discrimination. These people are marching to promote self-affirmation, dignity and equality, pride as opposed to shame.

How many homosexuals have died of AIDS? How many homosexuals have committed suicide? How many of those who committed suicide also had AIDS? Not all behavior patterns are dignified. And not all behaviors are equally productive. I'm sorry that some find that their only mode of expression is sexual in nature --- I find that rather limited.

Their only mode of expression is sexual. LBGTs are heavy into art, music, and drama and just as diverse in expressing themselves as heterosexuals.

The fact that sexual preference is what separates homosexuals from heterosexuals causes people to assume that sex is their only interest and activity and it dominates their lives. Studies have show that gays and lesbians are no more or less sexually active than heterosexuals. The fact is there are many homosexuals that are essential asexual with little or no interest in sexual activity. They just prefer those of their own sex.

Then they should embrace the similarities and reject that which is of no use or productive or at the very least not either flaunt it publicly nor demand everyone else to provide amenities in support of their sexual business (which is no one elses business so long as the LGBT community keep it among themselves).
I am well aware that actors & actresses, comedians, makeup artists, hair dressers, and artists are capable of living heterosexual lifestyles, as well as, one which is homosexual in nature (that is true in all professions)---- that's why it is considered a choice by many. No one needs to be homosexual in order to fulfill their destiny --- and they certainly will not have any children behaving as such. And I find nothing wrong with celibacy. It can be a gift from GOD or a very lonely road if one rejects GOD.

Actually many homosexuals like heterosexuals have a very low sex drive. In fact about 1% are asexual which raises an interesting question. Do Christians that consider homosexuality a sin, consider a gay couple who are asexual and thus do not perform any sex acts sinful?

 

[Pop23]

Gender is fixed. Yes, it is. Race is fixed. LGBT is a habitual lifestyle. Just one repugnant lifestyle of a zillion out there. According to the 14th Amendment, how is it that just one lifestyle may order Christians around to agree with it while others cannot? Please be specific. And remember that LGBT pride parades perform deviant sex acts with the anticipation that children will be watching. Just in case you're going to try to firm up an argument around "some lifestyles are just not (subjectively) acceptable for special privileges etc."

How utterly ridiculous. You seem to know so little about what you're saying, you can't even articulate what you meant by their lifestyle. Have you ever been to a gay rights parade? Do you know anything about LGBT people other than what you read on the net?

For years, people have express their dissatisfaction with the LGBT community’s propensity for over-the-top parades and flamboyant displays of pride. Admittedly, I too used to be uncomfortable with Pride parades, and even just Pride in general. My own impressions of these events came from stereotypical images shown throughout mainstream media; pictures of half-naked individuals and extravagant drag queens. I knew these parades scared certain people, even some of those trying to be more open-minded, so I thought, why alienate them further with displays of gayness?

I guess what I really never gave much thought to was most LGBT people have spent the majority of their lives hiding their true identities, ashamed and worried about what the public, the family, and friends might think if they knew who they really were. Gay pride is about coming out, expressing yourself, thumbing your noise at traditions that have destroyed million lives over the year.

The media concentrates on the most over the top behavior but what you don't see in the media are tens of thousands of people, gay and straight, adults, kids, and families taking a stance against discrimination and violence toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Many of these marchers have kids, brothers, and sisters, and friends that been victims violence, abuse, and discrimination. These people are marching to promote self-affirmation, dignity and equality, pride as opposed to shame.

How many homosexuals have died of AIDS? How many homosexuals have committed suicide? How many of those who committed suicide also had AIDS? Not all behavior patterns are dignified. And not all behaviors are equally productive. I'm sorry that some find that their only mode of expression is sexual in nature --- I find that rather limited.

Their only mode of expression is sexual. LBGTs are heavy into art, music, and drama and just as diverse in expressing themselves as heterosexuals.

The fact that sexual preference is what separates homosexuals from heterosexuals causes people to assume that sex is their only interest and activity and it dominates their lives. Studies have show that gays and lesbians are no more or less sexually active than heterosexuals. The fact is there are many homosexuals that are essential asexual with little or no interest in sexual activity. They just prefer those of their own sex.

Then they should embrace the similarities and reject that which is of no use or productive or at the very least not either flaunt it publicly nor demand everyone else to provide amenities in support of their sexual business (which is no one elses business so long as the LGBT community keep it among themselves).
I am well aware that actors & actresses, comedians, makeup artists, hair dressers, and artists are capable of living heterosexual lifestyles, as well as, one which is homosexual in nature (that is true in all professions)---- that's why it is considered a choice by many. No one needs to be homosexual in order to fulfill their destiny --- and they certainly will not have any children behaving as such. And I find nothing wrong with celibacy. It can be a gift from GOD or a very lonely road if one rejects GOD.

Actually many homosexuals like heterosexuals have a very low sex drive. In fact about 1% are asexual which raises an interesting question. Do Christians that consider homosexuality a sin, consider a gay couple who are asexual and thus do not perform any sex acts sinful?

I would think the answer would be yes.

If the couple “joins” to create a family unit. A man shall leave his..... and a woman shall leave her.......

There is an implied reasoning.

 

[Silhouette]

Flopper, you can play word salad & try to muddy what everybody knows is the issue. Or you can accept that the USSC just told the country that states can't side with one ideology/lifestyle over another.

As I said, the most important part of this decision is that the Court let everyone know they no longer consider LGBT innate. If the baker had turned away blacks because of how they were born, the decision would've been different.

Now the Court is left with the sticky problem of how to turn away other lifestyles equally as repugnant as LGBT ones (pride parades hoping kids are watching) without violating the 14th Amendment.

 

[Pop23]

Flopper, you can play word salad & try to muddy what everybody knows is the issue. Or you can accept that the USSC just told the country that states can't side with one ideology/lifestyle over another.

As I said, the most important part of this decision is that the Court let everyone know they no longer consider LGBT innate. If the baker had turned away blacks because of how they were born, the decision would've been different.

Now the Court is left with the sticky problem of how to turn away other lifestyles equally as repugnant as LGBT ones (pride parades hoping kids are watching) without violating the 14th Amendment.

It comes down to this as to what protected rights should be weighed as superior to others.

Some of these "classes can be verified" and others cannot.

By way of example:

A body is found in the woods, even so decomposed that it is simply a skeleton. What is it that can be known through forensic science about that person found dead:

1. The sex
2. The race
3. The ethnicity
4. Physical Disability

What can't be determined

1. Religion
2. Sexuality

Obviously, things that can be known, and can't be "fluid" should demand greater protection than those that cannot be.

I will go back to what I posted yesterday, about a Christian Cafe Owner who refused to serve product that contained Bacon to a Muslim that demanded it. We saw nobody make a statement that the Cafe Owner should be found liable for his action due to the PA Laws. In fact, there was complete silence. AS IT SHOULD BE.

 

[Silhouette]

Flopper, you can play word salad & try to muddy what everybody knows is the issue. Or you can accept that the USSC just told the country that states can't side with one ideology/lifestyle over another.

As I said, the most important part of this decision is that the Court let everyone know they no longer consider LGBT innate. If the baker had turned away blacks because of how they were born, the decision would've been different.

Now the Court is left with the sticky problem of how to turn away other lifestyles equally as repugnant as LGBT ones (pride parades hoping kids are watching) without violating the 14th Amendment.

It comes down to this as to what protected rights should be weighed as superior to others.

Some of these "classes can be verified" and others cannot.

By way of example:

A body is found in the woods, even so decomposed that it is simply a skeleton. What is it that can be known through forensic science about that person found dead:

1. The sex
2. The race
3. The ethnicity
4. Physical Disability

What can't be determined

1. Religion
2. Sexuality

Obviously, things that can be known, and can't be "fluid" should demand greater protection than those that cannot be.

I will go back to what I posted yesterday, about a Christian Cafe Owner who refused to serve product that contained Bacon to a Muslim that demanded it. We saw nobody make a statement that the Cafe Owner should be found liable for his action due to the PA Laws. In fact, there was complete silence. AS IT SHOULD BE.

You forgot one.

5. Whether or not the body tried to change its gender with amputation surgery. "T" of the shifting and fuzzy boundaries of "LGBT".

 

[Silhouette]

Obviously, things that can be known, and can't be "fluid" should demand greater protection than those that cannot be.

You admit/acknowledge too that if the couple was simple a hetero black couple or hetero mixed-race couple and the baker said "we don't bake wedding cakes where blacks are involved", this decision would've been very very different. Even the LGBT payroll bloggers won't touch that one because they know. They know the Court just made the distinction once and for all that LGBT is behavioral and not innate. That was a HUGE blow to them because they have been ramrodding all their judicial-legislation through so far by convincing the judges and Justices that LGBT is innate.

This is the false premise and why Obergefell is so fucked up and wrong. People of the 50 states cannot be forced to condone a repugnant lifestyle (while other equally-repugnant lifestyles arbitrarily have no privileges or protections from the majority). And this case was just the tip of that "oopsies" mistake being found unworkable. This time in a test against faith of a Christian. But more tests will come.

For instance I am basically a secular agnostic. But I have VERY strong convictions against a lifestyle that parades graphic acts of deviant sex in public "in pride" (defiance) where they welcome and hope children will be watching and even marching with them. My rights to refuse to condone, participate in or promote such a lifestyle will have to be protected too. You cannot be FORCED to play along with known child sex offenders. And yes, that's what anyone who supports such a parade or participates in such a parade, or brings their children (!) to such a parade to watch are: child sex offenders in the purest and truest legal sense of the definition.

Don't believe me? Go pull your pants down just outside a schoolyard at recess and have another guy mock butt-ram you in front of the kids and see how fast the cops are there to slap the cuffs on you. Do that in front of the same schoolkids on a field trip on the sidelines waving rainbow flags "supporting gay rights!" and not a thing will happen to you. Odd, don't you think? But for me I don't see the distinction. And those are MY deeply held convictions about protection of children. Try to take those from me by force and I'll see your ass in court.

Obergefell: "Oh what a tangled web they spun when with a false premise they had begun"...

 

[Pop23]

Flopper, you can play word salad & try to muddy what everybody knows is the issue. Or you can accept that the USSC just told the country that states can't side with one ideology/lifestyle over another.

As I said, the most important part of this decision is that the Court let everyone know they no longer consider LGBT innate. If the baker had turned away blacks because of how they were born, the decision would've been different.

Now the Court is left with the sticky problem of how to turn away other lifestyles equally as repugnant as LGBT ones (pride parades hoping kids are watching) without violating the 14th Amendment.

It comes down to this as to what protected rights should be weighed as superior to others.

Some of these "classes can be verified" and others cannot.

By way of example:

A body is found in the woods, even so decomposed that it is simply a skeleton. What is it that can be known through forensic science about that person found dead:

1. The sex
2. The race
3. The ethnicity
4. Physical Disability

What can't be determined

1. Religion
2. Sexuality

Obviously, things that can be known, and can't be "fluid" should demand greater protection than those that cannot be.

I will go back to what I posted yesterday, about a Christian Cafe Owner who refused to serve product that contained Bacon to a Muslim that demanded it. We saw nobody make a statement that the Cafe Owner should be found liable for his action due to the PA Laws. In fact, there was complete silence. AS IT SHOULD BE.

You forgot one.

5. Whether or not the body tried to change its gender with amputation surgery. "T" of the shifting and fuzzy boundaries of "LGBT".

That however would be shown under forensic examination so it would still be under "what can't be determined" as we both know, it remains fluid. The examiner could not determine, even if their was a change to the skeleton, if the individual accepted the change made. A PARADOX!

 

[Pop23]

Obviously, things that can be known, and can't be "fluid" should demand greater protection than those that cannot be.

You admit/acknowledge too that if the couple was simple a hetero black couple or hetero mixed-race couple and the baker said "we don't bake wedding cakes where blacks are involved", this decision would've been very very different. Even the LGBT payroll bloggers won't touch that one because they know. They know the Court just made the distinction once and for all that LGBT is behavioral and not innate. That was a HUGE blow to them because they have been ramrodding all their judicial-legislation through so far by convincing the judges and Justices that LGBT is innate.

This is the false premise and why Obergefell is so fucked up and wrong. People of the 50 states cannot be forced to condone a repugnant lifestyle (while other equally-repugnant lifestyles arbitrarily have no privileges or protections from the majority). And this case was just the tip of that "oopsies" mistake being found unworkable. This time in a test against faith of a Christian. But more tests will come.

For instance I am basically a secular agnostic. But I have VERY strong convictions against a lifestyle that parades graphic acts of deviant sex in public "in pride" (defiance) where they welcome and hope children will be watching and even marching with them. My rights to refuse to condone, participate in or promote such a lifestyle will have to be protected too. You cannot be FORCED to play along with known child sex offenders. And yes, that's what anyone who supports such a parade or participates in such a parade, or brings their children (!) to such a parade to watch are: child sex offenders in the purest and truest legal sense of the definition.

Don't believe me? Go pull your pants down just outside a schoolyard at recess and have another guy mock butt-ram you in front of the kids and see how fast the cops are there to slap the cuffs on you. Do that in front of the same schoolkids on a field trip on the sidelines waving rainbow flags "supporting gay rights!" and not a thing will happen to you. Odd, don't you think? But for me I don't see the distinction. And those are MY deeply held convictions about protection of children. Try to take those from me by force and I'll see your ass in court.

Obergefell: "Oh what a tangled web they spun when with a false premise they had begun"...

Excellent post

 

[Silhouette]

Excellent post

Thanks. Yours too.

So if you were a USSC Justice, what wording would you come up with in Opinion to promote just one repugnant lifestyle to "special protected status from the majority rule" over other equally repugnant lifestyles? I mean, you know, given LGBTQs etc. line up in universal support of gay "pride" (defiance) parades that do graphic deviant sex acts hoping children will be in attendance watching down public mainstreets across the US since the 1970s to present? What other lifestyles would be able to be turned away based on subjective "offensive" criteria by the USSC?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Left to their own devices for only a short while, the haters quickly reformed their tight circular pattern and resumed their characteristic frantic reciprocal gesticulation ritual, interspersed with mutual pets and slaps, each appearing to climax periodically in dribbles, fits, and spurts.. -- . = .. - ..

Curiously, and far less gross, only about a month prior,
Bishop Michael Curry Joins Christian March To White House To ‘Reclaim Jesus’

Curry, a Chicago native and the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, emphasized the importance of love in a time when he believes the integrity of the Christian faith is at stake.

“Love your neighbor,” Curry said during the service. “Love the neighbor you like and the neighbor you don’t like. Love the neighbor you agree with and the neighbor you don’t agree with. Love your Democrat neighbor, your Republican neighbor, your black neighbor, your white neighbor, your Anglo neighbor, your Latino neighbor and your LGBTQ neighbor. Love your neighbor! That’s why we’re here!”

 

[Pop23]

Left to their own devices for only a short while, the haters quickly reformed their tight circular pattern and resumed their characteristic frantic reciprocal gesticulation ritual, interspersed with mutual pets and slaps, each appearing to climax periodically in dribbles, fits, and spurts.. -- . = .. - ..

Curiously, and far less gross, only about a month prior,
Bishop Michael Curry Joins Christian March To White House To ‘Reclaim Jesus’

Curry, a Chicago native and the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, emphasized the importance of love in a time when he believes the integrity of the Christian faith is at stake.

“Love your neighbor,” Curry said during the service. “Love the neighbor you like and the neighbor you don’t like. Love the neighbor you agree with and the neighbor you don’t agree with. Love your Democrat neighbor, your Republican neighbor, your black neighbor, your white neighbor, your Anglo neighbor, your Latino neighbor and your LGBTQ neighbor. Love your neighbor! That’s why we’re here!”

Love thy neighbor? Interesting?

Like the post I made yesterday about a Christian Cafe Owner that showed love and compassion toward a Muslim customer in such a way he violated the PA Law?

It went like this:

A customer came into a Cafe almost daily and ordered a BLT without Bacon. After a while the Cafe Owner asked him why he ordered that way. The customer, confirming what the Owner suspected, said he was Muslim and it was a violation of his religion to eat Bacon. This went on for months until one day the Muslim customer came in and ordered a BLT with Bacon.

The Owner asked the customer if he really wanted Bacon, and the Customer confirmed that he did. The Cafe Owner asked him why? The Muslim answered that it was none of the Owners business and he demanded the Sandwich. The Owner Refused saying that it was his policy not to serve Bacon to people of the Muslim Faith. The Customer demanded again and stated " you make BLT's for other people but not me!

The Owner told the Customer that, to give him Bacon would not only Violate the Muslim faith, but that he would be participating in that violation, and he simply refused to knowingly do so.

Should the Cafe Owner be prosecuted under PA Law's that forbid discrimination based of Religion?

 

[Silhouette]

Left to their own devices for only a short while, the haters quickly reformed their tight circular pattern and resumed their characteristic frantic reciprocal gesticulation ritual, interspersed with mutual pets and slaps, each appearing to climax periodically in dribbles, fits, and spurts.

You see, right there, when your ilk filters EVERYTHING through sex acts, you wonder why people object to your lifestyles. Top that off with your ilk's unanimous support of "pride' parades of lewd sex acts where you hope children will be watching in attendance and marching with you, you folks wonder why people form tight circular patterns of resistance.

You can call resisting outward and manifest acts of graphic sex acts on parade in front of kids on purpose "hating". But sane people call it, well, sanity. Nobody can force anyone else to condone groups that promote in pride, graphic sex acts in public hoping kids will be watching. It's illegal to condone that just straight out of the books in all 50 states.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I will go back to what I posted yesterday, about a Christian Cafe Owner who refused to serve product that contained Bacon to a Muslim that demanded it. We saw nobody make a statement that the Cafe Owner should be found liable for his action due to the PA Laws. In fact, there was complete silence. AS IT SHOULD BE.

The Christian Cafe Owner who serves bacon as part of the normal goods and services offered and refuses based on his perception of religion of the customer would be in violation of the Public Accommodation laws.


.>>>>

 

[Pop23]

I will go back to what I posted yesterday, about a Christian Cafe Owner who refused to serve product that contained Bacon to a Muslim that demanded it. We saw nobody make a statement that the Cafe Owner should be found liable for his action due to the PA Laws. In fact, there was complete silence. AS IT SHOULD BE.

The Christian Cafe Owner who serves bacon as part of the normal goods and services offered and refuses based on his perception of religion of the customer would be in violation of the Public Accommodation laws.


.>>>>

His policy is not to serve any known Muslim Bacon.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why so hard for many purporting to be "Christian" here to understand? Shut you disgusting pie holes for once and listen to the good Bishop!

Love {...} your LGBTQ neighbor. Love your neighbor! That’s why we’re here!”