Whatever ever happened to the little sign ‘We have a right to refuse service’?

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm missing the "anti-Christian" part. "Oh, boo-hoo, I can't impose my bronze age superstitions to other people."

Life is so unfair, they whine. Who the hell raised these brats? My mother would have spanked them, and their mothers.

why should anyone care about the whining of all these gay brats who think shacking up with a **** buddy is the equivalent of getting married and raising a family?

Because many of them are adults, unlike you, who want to get married, settle down, and raise families.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What is required by some here is a little bit of empathy. Plain and simple.

Yeah, like that'll happen...

Yeah, right, Mr. "quit your whining."

You're the king of empathy.

I have none for your kind, nor should I. The world would be better without you.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, like that'll happen...

Yeah, right, Mr. "quit your whining."

You're the king of empathy.

I have none for your kind, nor should I. The world would be better without you.

You have no empathy for all the hard working Americans who pay the taxes that support all the ticks on the ass of society that you empathize with.

 

[bripat9643]

Life is so unfair, they whine. Who the hell raised these brats? My mother would have spanked them, and their mothers.

why should anyone care about the whining of all these gay brats who think shacking up with a **** buddy is the equivalent of getting married and raising a family?

Because many of them are adults, unlike you, who want to get married, settle down, and raise families.

So they are adults. How does that fact convert their whining into something anyone should listen to?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Those who openly discriminate against others are the ones in need of practicing empathy....not receiving it.

Right Mac?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yeah, right, Mr. "quit your whining."

You're the king of empathy.

I have none for your kind, nor should I. The world would be better without you.

You have no empathy for all the hard working Americans who pay the taxes that support all the ticks on the ass of society that you empathize with.

I have lots of empathy for the hard workers who aren't useless asswipes like you. I worked today. I worked last Saturday. Two six-day weeks in a row. That happens when you own your own company. GFY little man.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

why should anyone care about the whining of all these gay brats who think shacking up with a **** buddy is the equivalent of getting married and raising a family?

Because many of them are adults, unlike you, who want to get married, settle down, and raise families.

So they are adults. How does that fact convert their whining into something anyone should listen to?

The one whining is you, over them have rights equal to yours, and mine.

 

[Silhouette]

The gay community and the liberals have lost their little Nazi minds. A privately owned business has the right to refuse to conduct business with anybody they want. Period. It's not even open for debate.

Further still, the 1st Amendment affords you the right to practice your religious belief. And the little liberal/gay Nazi community is working so hard to trample on that right as well.

All I can say is that I hope these companies deliver the most dreadful products and services when they are unconstitutionally forced to by the liberal Nazi's. If you're a bakery and you're forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I hope you put 70lbs of salt in the cake and make the frosting primarily out of vinegar so that they vomit when they eat it. Then maybe word will spread in their little gay circles that your bakery isn't any good and you can be left the hell alone to conduct your private business as you see fit.

*Note - desperate Nazi liberals will try to spin this as "homophobia" because they need to justify their anti-constitutional Nazi beliefs. However, it is not. I couldn't care less if someone is gay. What I do care about however is when they unconstitutionally force someone to do their bidding because they think being gay makes them special and entitled.

It's an agenda of reeducation

Dont forget gay Education Czar Kevin Jennings' fisting-lessons in public schools...

It's worse than that. It's an infringement upon a person's right of free speech. What gays are in essence doing is forcing individuals against their will to "speak out" in their actions [like baking a cake or photography] in support of so-called "gay marriage".

A good lawyer for the opposition might say that his client has a 1st amendment right to not be forced to "speak out" in support of something he knows and believes will condemn him to a pit of fire for eternity [Jude 1, New Testament of the Bible].

And as to all the other legal challenges, the courts are proceeding forward and drawing false conclusions [verdicts] from a very false premise: "gays as race". When in fact LGBT is an incomplete collection of deviant sexual behaviors. Read more on the legal implications of the difference here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A good lawyer for the opposition might say that his client has a 1st amendment right to not be forced to "speak out" in support of something he knows and believes will condemn him to a pit of fire for eternity [Jude 1, New Testament of the Bible].

Charging interest used to do that, I wouldn't go there. That argument is DOA because the list of sins we now ignore could fill a new Bible.

 

[candycorn]

sorry DUUUUUUUDe, its a business that serves the public ... it's not a private business ... if you serve the public then you have to accept all of the public not just the public you like... thats the law... where you get this idea thats its a private business is beyond me ... you have no Idea what you are saying or talking about when it come to doing business with the public

When it comes to services; I think the conservatives have a point; when it comes to goods, they have no point. What if every pharmacy decided they wouldn't sell heart medicine to blacks? This is what the hateful conservatives see as a "tough shit" proposition.

However, when you are talking about services such as photography for a wedding or a sitting or someone to do write resumes or what have you, unless you have a contract and THEN decide you don't want to work with blacks, you should have a right to simply refuse to do business in my view. I mean, I may want Taylor Swift to play at my graduation party. If I came up with her asking price, would she be bound to play? I hope not.

And an exceptional point on Taylor Swift. In JoeB's view, Taylor Swift has a "contract with the public" and thus should be forced to play at your graduation party.

Easy...

Fortunately in this country (thus far anyway), necessary professions have sought to remove the moronic political points idiots like you try to make. Lawyers widely recognize that every accused person has the right to a defense and Doctors almost universally recognize that all sick persons deserve their greatest efforts. Taylor Swift's contributions of a happy graduation would be great but entertainers have no such agency of elevated (i.e. liberal) thinking.

At the end of the day, services are treated differently than goods when this question is posed. I'm not sure legally such distinctions should or could be made.

 

[candycorn]

When it comes to services; I think the conservatives have a point; when it comes to goods, they have no point. What if every pharmacy decided they wouldn't sell heart medicine to blacks? This is what the hateful conservatives see as a "tough shit" proposition.

I've never seen one make that point. But a pharmacy is in the medical field and they do have to abide by licensing restrictions and guidelines. I'm sure race is covered since ethnicities are all considered human.

However, when you are talking about services such as photography for a wedding or a sitting or someone to do write resumes or what have you, unless you have a contract and THEN decide you don't want to work with blacks, you should have a right to simply refuse to do business in my view. I mean, I may want Taylor Swift to play at my graduation party. If I came up with her asking price, would she be bound to play? I hope not.

If she and you had an agreement her ass better be there.

Well, my point is that if she, or a butcher, a baker, or a candlestick maker had an "agreement" (i.e. contract), and when it comes time to deliver they object because I'm a Jew or a Homosexual or a Christian or bald or Hispanic or whatever, I have cause for damages.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's worse than that. It's an infringement upon a person's right of free speech. What gays are in essence doing is forcing individuals against their will to "speak out" in their actions [like baking a cake or photography] in support of so-called "gay marriage".

A good lawyer for the opposition might say that his client has a 1st amendment right to not be forced to "speak out" in support of something he knows and believes will condemn him to a pit of fire for eternity [Jude 1, New Testament of the Bible].

Good lawyers have already made that argument, the courts didn't buy it.

Elane Photography made this argument in the State Court and before the New Mexico Supreme Court - it was shot down. (Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock, Page 9).

Elane Photography then appealed that ruling to the United States Supreme Court. When a case is submitted to the Supreme Court, there is what is called the "Rule of Four". That means that all it takes for a case to be heard by the court is that 4 of the 9 justices have to approve it. That means at least one of the conservative wing of the court (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, or Thomas) voted "Not to Review" the case.

Another way to put it is that 6 of the 9 Justices voted to let the New Mexico Supreme Courts ruling stand.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Well, my point is that if she, or a butcher, a baker, or a candlestick maker had an "agreement" (i.e. contract), and when it comes time to deliver they object because I'm a Jew or a Homosexual or a Christian or bald or Hispanic or whatever, I have cause for damages.

I am unaware of a passage in the New Testament [the christian half of the Bible] that says it's a mortal sin to enable a jewish culture or a bald hispanic. However, Jude 1 clearly directs the faithful that if they enable a homosexual cultural takeover, they go to the pit of fire forever along with the rest of the inhabitants/enablers of that takeover.

The Bible singles out and specifies a most heinous punishment for those who enable homosexual cultural takeover. Paramount of any movement taking over a culture would be usurping the acme of any culture's mores....marriage.

In fact, in Jude 1, it says to the individual homosexual, extend compassion...making a difference in their life. But to enable a group of them trying to usurp a mainstream set of heterosexual values [again, acme of which is marriage], is the punishment of eternal damnation.

And that's just the religious side of the coin.

1st Amendment rights are also about the right to speak. Or, I argue, the right not to speak. When it comes to behaviors, of which LGBT is an incomplete set thereof, a person cannot be forced in word or deed to "speak out" in support of those behaviors against his or her will.

If the premise of LGBT is behaviors and not race, this changes everything from a legal standpoint. Behaviors outside federally-recognized religions do not have special protections or rights....nor can they be forced upon anyone to practice.. Seeing the LGBT movement as it properly is, a cult, puts this in as a legal horse of a very different color..

 

[candycorn]

Well, my point is that if she, or a butcher, a baker, or a candlestick maker had an "agreement" (i.e. contract), and when it comes time to deliver they object because I'm a Jew or a Homosexual or a Christian or bald or Hispanic or whatever, I have cause for damages.

I am unaware of a passage in the New Testament [the christian half of the Bible] that says it's a mortal sin to enable a jewish culture or a bald hispanic. However, Jude 1 clearly directs the faithful that if they enable a homosexual cultural takeover, they go to the pit of fire forever along with the rest of the inhabitants/enablers of that takeover.

The Bible singles out and specifies a most heinous punishment for those who enable homosexual cultural takeover. Paramount of any movement taking over a culture would be usurping the acme of any culture's mores....marriage.

In fact, in Jude 1, it says to the individual homosexual, extend compassion...making a difference in their life. But to enable a group of them trying to usurp a mainstream set of heterosexual values [again, acme of which is marriage], is the punishment of eternal damnation.

And that's just the religious side of the coin.

1st Amendment rights are also about the right to speak. Or, I argue, the right not to speak. When it comes to behaviors, of which LGBT is an incomplete set thereof, a person cannot be forced in word or deed to "speak out" in support of those behaviors against his or her will.

If the premise of LGBT is behaviors and not race, this changes everything from a legal standpoint. Behaviors outside federally-recognized religions do not have special protections or rights....nor can they be forced upon anyone to practice.. Seeing the LGBT movement as it properly is, a cult, puts this in as a legal horse of a very different color..

It changes nothing from a legal or moral standpoint.

You sign a deal to provide X at Y price, you honor the deal. As for the Bible, again, Christian indignation would be much more interesting to me if they actually embraced the entire novel and not just the parts that fit into Republican dogma in 2014.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX3gMDJCZ-4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX3gMDJCZ-4[/ame]​

Care to comment on some/any/all of that?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Amazing that you'd even need to say this.

But I'll guarantee you, it does not register with them.

.

I think the phrase that works here is "Check Your Privilege".

Just sayin'

Our government is pro-gay and anti-Christian, you're full of it

Ridiculous.

All governments are subject to the rule of law, as codified by the Constitution and its case law; where the notion that government is ‘anti-Christian’ is ignorant idiocy.

That the courts are invalidating laws designed solely to deny gay Americans there civil liberties in violation of the 14th Amendment is not to be ‘pro-gay,’ the courts are ensuring a consistent application of all laws and that they be available to all Americans, including gay Americans.

And that Christians, some motivated by ignorance and hate toward gay Americans, are failing to have measures hostile to gay Americans enacted does not mean government is ‘anti-Christian,’ it is instead government recognizing fundamental, accepted, and settled Constitutional case law that religious doctrine and dogma cannot not be used as ‘justification’ to deny citizens their civil liberties, nor to ‘excuse’ Christians from obeying the law.

 

[Silhouette]

It's worse than that. It's an infringement upon a person's right of free speech. What gays are in essence doing is forcing individuals against their will to "speak out" in their actions [like baking a cake or photography] in support of so-called "gay marriage".

A good lawyer for the opposition might say that his client has a 1st amendment right to not be forced to "speak out" in support of something he knows and believes will condemn him to a pit of fire for eternity [Jude 1, New Testament of the Bible].

Good lawyers have already made that argument, the courts didn't buy it.

Elane Photography made this argument in the State Court and before the New Mexico Supreme Court - it was shot down. (Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock, Page 9).

Elane Photography then appealed that ruling to the United States Supreme Court. When a case is submitted to the Supreme Court, there is what is called the "Rule of Four". That means that all it takes for a case to be heard by the court is that 4 of the 9 justices have to approve it. That means at least one of the conservative wing of the court (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, or Thomas) voted "Not to Review" the case.

Another way to put it is that 6 of the 9 Justices voted to let the New Mexico Supreme Courts ruling stand.



>>>>

Tell me then Worldwatcher, in those cases, were the sitting judges aware that LGBT are behaviors and not a race of people identifiable by genetic markers, or a country of origin, or a religion?

Because, you know, that makes all the difference in the world when talking about "gay rights"... and the US Constitution. I mean, imagine...setting a precedent where an incomplete set of deviant sexual behaviors that aren't even fixed [Anne Heche] as having intricate rights endemic to themselves [I guess you'd assess "themselves" on a daily basis because they change over from time to time]. Wonder what would become of the civil and penal codes at that point when the majority is no longer allowed to regulate behaviors?

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's worse than that. It's an infringement upon a person's right of free speech. What gays are in essence doing is forcing individuals against their will to "speak out" in their actions [like baking a cake or photography] in support of so-called "gay marriage".

A good lawyer for the opposition might say that his client has a 1st amendment right to not be forced to "speak out" in support of something he knows and believes will condemn him to a pit of fire for eternity [Jude 1, New Testament of the Bible].

Good lawyers have already made that argument, the courts didn't buy it.

Elane Photography made this argument in the State Court and before the New Mexico Supreme Court - it was shot down. (Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock, Page 9).

Elane Photography then appealed that ruling to the United States Supreme Court. When a case is submitted to the Supreme Court, there is what is called the "Rule of Four". That means that all it takes for a case to be heard by the court is that 4 of the 9 justices have to approve it. That means at least one of the conservative wing of the court (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, or Thomas) voted "Not to Review" the case.

Another way to put it is that 6 of the 9 Justices voted to let the New Mexico Supreme Courts ruling stand.



>>>>

Tell me then Worldwatcher, in those cases, were the sitting judges aware that LGBT are behaviors and not a race of people identifiable by genetic markers, or a country of origin, or a religion?

You really think you get to be a Justice on the United States Supreme Court and not know that sexual orientation isn't a race, that it's not a country of origin, and not a religion?

That sexual orientation is - well sexual orientation.

Because, you know, that makes all the difference in the world when talking about "gay rights"... and the US Constitution. I mean, imagine...setting a precedent where an incomplete set of deviant sexual behaviors that aren't even fixed [Anne Heche] as having intricate rights endemic to themselves...

Doesn't make any difference at all, you see, that's the thing. Whether "gays are a race" or "gays are behaviors" is totally irrelevant to the discussion from a legal framework.

New Mexico's, Oregon's, and Colorado's Public Accommodation laws also protect "marital status" as do other states, some states include verterans status - those are also behaviors.

The SCOTUS already ruled that government can't discriminate based on behavior in Lawrence v. Texas.

The SCOTUS already ruled that government can't target homosexuals for discrimination in Romer v. Evans.

Interracial Marriage is a behavior. Blacks could marry. Whites could marry. They were treated equally under that perspective. It was barring the behavior of blacks wanting to marry whites that was found unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia.​

You think you've had an epiphany with the "behavior" schtick, but not really - it's just repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.


If "behavior" didn't matter for equal treatment, under your premise, then the SCOTUS could not have found in favor of John Lawrence or Mildred & Richard Loving.



>>>>

 

[bripat9643]

Because many of them are adults, unlike you, who want to get married, settle down, and raise families.

So they are adults. How does that fact convert their whining into something anyone should listen to?

The one whining is you, over them have rights equal to yours, and mine.

Spare me. They've been whining for the last 20 years. And turds like you have been whining right along with them. Then when normal hard working people complain about their taxes, you tell them to shut up.

Go **** yourself, asshole.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's worse than that. It's an infringement upon a person's right of free speech. What gays are in essence doing is forcing individuals against their will to "speak out" in their actions [like baking a cake or photography] in support of so-called "gay marriage".

A good lawyer for the opposition might say that his client has a 1st amendment right to not be forced to "speak out" in support of something he knows and believes will condemn him to a pit of fire for eternity [Jude 1, New Testament of the Bible].

Good lawyers have already made that argument, the courts didn't buy it.

Elane Photography made this argument in the State Court and before the New Mexico Supreme Court - it was shot down. (Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock, Page 9).

Elane Photography then appealed that ruling to the United States Supreme Court. When a case is submitted to the Supreme Court, there is what is called the "Rule of Four". That means that all it takes for a case to be heard by the court is that 4 of the 9 justices have to approve it. That means at least one of the conservative wing of the court (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, or Thomas) voted "Not to Review" the case.

Another way to put it is that 6 of the 9 Justices voted to let the New Mexico Supreme Courts ruling stand.



>>>>

Tell me then Worldwatcher, in those cases, were the sitting judges aware that LGBT are behaviors and not a race of people identifiable by genetic markers, or a country of origin, or a religion?

Because, you know, that makes all the difference in the world when talking about "gay rights"... and the US Constitution. I mean, imagine...setting a precedent where an incomplete set of deviant sexual behaviors that aren't even fixed [Anne Heche] as having intricate rights endemic to themselves [I guess you'd assess "themselves" on a daily basis because they change over from time to time]. Wonder what would become of the civil and penal codes at that point when the majority is no longer allowed to regulate behaviors?

Yes.

The mistake you make is to perceive the issue in the context of ‘gay rights,’ when in fact there is no such thing, there are only civil rights all Americans are entitled to, including gay Americans.

 

[P@triot]

Your religion is not a special privilege that exempts you from obeying the law.

Like everything else in life, you have it completely backwards...

The law does not get to impede on my religion. You would know that if you ever actually read the U.S. Constitution.

Then I guess Sharia Law can be put in place where Muslims have the votes for it.

Absolutely...just as oppressive liberal law has been in place all across this country where liberals have had the votes for it (see gun bans in Washington D.C., Chicago, NY, etc., see Obamacare, etc.).

But keep something in mind - your Constitutional rights end where another persons rights begin (ie your religious belief to murder in the name of Satan does not exist because it impedes on the victims right to life).