Winning! Supreme Court Tosses Ruling Against Christian Bakers Who Refused Cake For Gay Couple

[Toronado3800]

Ah, there goes the big government lover dictating where ppl stick their sticks or how they use their holes.

Be careful or else history will look at you like how history looks at the Dredd Scott case supporters.

That is so backwards. This is about homofascists compelling the government to force people into where people stick their sticks and use their holes.
The hetero one is about procreation. Something homo relationships can’t do.

What are you doing? Telling me butt sex with cheerleaders is wrong because its not for procreation?

FWIW, my religion might just come by and determine masturbation or butt sex is a sin and is punishable so tread lightly.

I’m not telling you buttfucking is wrong. That’s for you and your asshole to decide.
I’m saying that the government forcing that to be everyone else’s business is wrong.

So we're agreeing. The government should not treat people differently if they like male or female cheerleader anuses. Anusi? Well, you get the point.

Right. They should not establish privilege based on anal sex. Just hetero sex.

There you go again trying to establish a religious caliphate.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I forgot nothing, I'm simply better educated on the subject than you are.

Are you familiar with the story at all? Lott welcomed two angels (strangers) into his home. The in-hospitable townspeople demanded Lott produce the strangers. The crowd allegedly wanted to rape the angels (who are like 9 foot begins of light so I'd have liked to see how that was supposed to be possible) but the "godly" Lott offered his virgin daughters to the angry crowd instead. Now rape, as you may or may not be aware, is not a sexual act. The men of the town were not gay with consenting same sex attractions, they were an angry mob bent on asserting power over the strangers..

Let's fast forward to Lott escaping into the mountains with only his daughters...who he FUCKED. Tell me how gays got the bad rap in that story?

Oh, and God decided to destroy S & G before the crowd wanted to rape the angels so it obviously wasn't destroyed because of the gays.

Right. Clearly the mob of sodomists who preferred to "know" the two men staying with Lott rather than his two young virgin daughters were not gay! Sure thing! Not gay at all! No gay tendencies exhibited there. Nope! And Harvey Milk and Liberace were raging hetero males.

"Not long afterward, "the LORD appeared" to Abraham in the form of "three men" come to visit and have a meal with him, and after two left to go to Sodom,". Men! Not nine foot tall beings of light. Men.


The Sodomites (don't forget where they got their name) demanded of Lott to "know" these angels but Lott said take my two daughters instead which did not please them.
The Sodomites, famous for their "sodomy" (but who you insist were not gay) said hell no, bring us those two cute guys in your house.

You claim the Sodomites were not gay but when offered two young virgin girls in place of the angels the crowd demanded the angels (who appeared as men to them). Not gay? Not a ******* chance!

You aren't a liar so much as a deluded fool.
And according to the bible, and not you and your b.s., it was Lott's daughters who got their father drunk so they could lay with him. Lot (biblical person) - Wikipedia.

There was no rape here, certainly not on Lott's part anyway. Better educated? Or just an incompetent liar? Your story is clearly an attempt to deny who the Sodomites were and what went on in Sodom. Unfortunately what went on in Sodom did not stay there.

I cannot believe you offer this all as a serious reinterpretation of the bible. It's ******* bunk!
Get lost.

 

[Seawytch]

I forgot nothing, I'm simply better educated on the subject than you are.

Are you familiar with the story at all? Lott welcomed two angels (strangers) into his home. The in-hospitable townspeople demanded Lott produce the strangers. The crowd allegedly wanted to rape the angels (who are like 9 foot begins of light so I'd have liked to see how that was supposed to be possible) but the "godly" Lott offered his virgin daughters to the angry crowd instead. Now rape, as you may or may not be aware, is not a sexual act. The men of the town were not gay with consenting same sex attractions, they were an angry mob bent on asserting power over the strangers..

Let's fast forward to Lott escaping into the mountains with only his daughters...who he FUCKED. Tell me how gays got the bad rap in that story?

Oh, and God decided to destroy S & G before the crowd wanted to rape the angels so it obviously wasn't destroyed because of the gays.

Right. Clearly the mob of sodomists who preferred to "know" the two men staying with Lott rather than his two young virgin daughters were not gay! Sure thing! Not gay at all! No gay tendencies exhibited there. Nope! And Harvey Milk and Liberace were raging hetero males.

"Not long afterward, "the LORD appeared" to Abraham in the form of "three men" come to visit and have a meal with him, and after two left to go to Sodom,". Men! Not nine foot tall beings of light. Men.


The Sodomites (don't forget where they got their name) demanded of Lott to "know" these angels but Lott said take my two daughters instead which did not please them.
The Sodomites, famous for their "sodomy" (but who you insist were not gay) said hell no, bring us those two cute guys in your house.

You claim the Sodomites were not gay but when offered two young virgin girls in place of the angels the crowd demanded the angels (who appeared as men to them). Not gay? Not a ******* chance!

You aren't a liar so much as a deluded fool.
And according to the bible, and not you and your b.s., it was Lott's daughters who got their father drunk so they could lay with him. Lot (biblical person) - Wikipedia.

There was no rape here, certainly not on Lott's part anyway. Better educated? Or just an incompetent liar? Your story is clearly an attempt to deny who the Sodomites were and what went on in Sodom. Unfortunately what went on in Sodom did not stay there.

I cannot believe you offer this all as a serious reinterpretation of the bible. It's ******* bunk!
Get lost.

You actually believe all the men of Sodom were gay and that’s why the city was destroyed? You’re not even applying logic let alone a reasonable person standard. And even if that were remotely possible, what about Gomorrah?

It’s all mute anyway. Anti gay bible verses don’t change the verses used by segregationists and slave owners to justify their bigotry. You just want one group of bigots to be able to hide behind the Bible while not letting another group of bigots do the same thing because you happen to agree with only one of the groups. You don’t get to have it both ways. Either get rid of all PA laws or leave the ones protecting gays the hell alone.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

That is so backwards. This is about homofascists compelling the government to force people into where people stick their sticks and use their holes.
The hetero one is about procreation. Something homo relationships can’t do.

What are you doing? Telling me butt sex with cheerleaders is wrong because its not for procreation?

FWIW, my religion might just come by and determine masturbation or butt sex is a sin and is punishable so tread lightly.

I’m not telling you buttfucking is wrong. That’s for you and your asshole to decide.
I’m saying that the government forcing that to be everyone else’s business is wrong.

So we're agreeing. The government should not treat people differently if they like male or female cheerleader anuses. Anusi? Well, you get the point.

Right. They should not establish privilege based on anal sex. Just hetero sex.

There you go again trying to establish a religious caliphate.

Not religious.
Nature.
Nature.
Procreation.
Babies.
Survival of the species.
Nature.
Nature.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You actually believe all the men of Sodom were gay and that’s why the city was destroyed? You’re not even applying logic let alone a reasonable person standard. And even if that were remotely possible, what about Gomorrah?

What about it? I don't believe every single person living in the Castro district of San Francisco is a flaming 'mo (though it wouldn't surprise me if they were).
And I'm not referring to the cocktail Moe Sizlak invented, either.

But the overall effect is that the district is as solidly queer as Sodom ever was. I also believe the story is apocryphal and is made to illustrate how the founders of Christianity and the bible felt revulsion and disgust for wanton gays.

And to be balanced, the bible looked down on heterosexual promiscuity and immoral behavior
also. To be sure, I don't think it's a matter of concern if every single man in Sodom rejected two young virgin girls in favor of Lott's hot house guests.
It's a biblical tale, not the O.J. Simpson investigation.

It’s all mute anyway. Anti gay bible verses don’t change the verses used by segregationists and slave owners to justify their bigotry. You just want one group of bigots to be able to hide behind the Bible while not letting another group of bigots do the same thing because you happen to agree with only one of the groups. You don’t get to have it both ways. Either get rid of all PA laws or leave the ones protecting gays the hell alone.

This isn't about me and I already stated long ago I would have given gays their cake because I don't care about their damned marriage.

But if someone has a profound problem with gay marriage due to religion their right to hold a belief you don't like should easily trump someone's ability to make someone a slave laborer compelled by an unjust law and their own bigotry.
That's a form of slavery, and they can get their precious cake a dozen other places, easily. Get real.

And once more someone against gay marriage is not "hiding" behind the bible. The bible explicitly disapproves of sodomy and sodomites which is something you can't say about racists who try and justify their hate through the bible also. The bible simply does not justify racism...period!

So grow up and stop your lies. You sicken me with your disingenuous nonsense because you've been informed and you choose to lie anyway.

 

[Toronado3800]

What are you doing? Telling me butt sex with cheerleaders is wrong because its not for procreation?

FWIW, my religion might just come by and determine masturbation or butt sex is a sin and is punishable so tread lightly.

I’m not telling you buttfucking is wrong. That’s for you and your asshole to decide.
I’m saying that the government forcing that to be everyone else’s business is wrong.

So we're agreeing. The government should not treat people differently if they like male or female cheerleader anuses. Anusi? Well, you get the point.

Right. They should not establish privilege based on anal sex. Just hetero sex.

There you go again trying to establish a religious caliphate.

Not religious.
Nature.
Nature.
Procreation.
Babies.
Survival of the species.
Nature.
Nature.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Ah, so you have moved to a dictatorship where the opposition can't vote.

Grasp any straw you can to impose your will and that of the government on what consenting adults do.

 

[Seawytch]

I forgot nothing, I'm simply better educated on the subject than you are.

Are you familiar with the story at all? Lott welcomed two angels (strangers) into his home. The in-hospitable townspeople demanded Lott produce the strangers. The crowd allegedly wanted to rape the angels (who are like 9 foot begins of light so I'd have liked to see how that was supposed to be possible) but the "godly" Lott offered his virgin daughters to the angry crowd instead. Now rape, as you may or may not be aware, is not a sexual act. The men of the town were not gay with consenting same sex attractions, they were an angry mob bent on asserting power over the strangers..

Let's fast forward to Lott escaping into the mountains with only his daughters...who he FUCKED. Tell me how gays got the bad rap in that story?

Oh, and God decided to destroy S & G before the crowd wanted to rape the angels so it obviously wasn't destroyed because of the gays.

Right. Clearly the mob of sodomists who preferred to "know" the two men staying with Lott rather than his two young virgin daughters were not gay! Sure thing! Not gay at all! No gay tendencies exhibited there. Nope! And Harvey Milk and Liberace were raging hetero males.

"Not long afterward, "the LORD appeared" to Abraham in the form of "three men" come to visit and have a meal with him, and after two left to go to Sodom,". Men! Not nine foot tall beings of light. Men.


The Sodomites (don't forget where they got their name) demanded of Lott to "know" these angels but Lott said take my two daughters instead which did not please them.
The Sodomites, famous for their "sodomy" (but who you insist were not gay) said hell no, bring us those two cute guys in your house.

You claim the Sodomites were not gay but when offered two young virgin girls in place of the angels the crowd demanded the angels (who appeared as men to them). Not gay? Not a ******* chance!

You aren't a liar so much as a deluded fool.
And according to the bible, and not you and your b.s., it was Lott's daughters who got their father drunk so they could lay with him. Lot (biblical person) - Wikipedia.

There was no rape here, certainly not on Lott's part anyway. Better educated? Or just an incompetent liar? Your story is clearly an attempt to deny who the Sodomites were and what went on in Sodom. Unfortunately what went on in Sodom did not stay there.

I cannot believe you offer this all as a serious reinterpretation of the bible. It's ******* bunk!
Get lost.

You actually believe all the men of Sodom were gay and that’s why the city was destroyed? You’re not even applying logic let alone a reasonable person standard. And even if that were remotely possible, what about Gomorrah?

It’s all mute anyway. Anti gay bible verses don’t change the verses used by segregationists and slave owners to justify their bigotry. You just want one group of bigots to be able to hide behind the Bible while not letting another group of bigots do the same thing because you happen to agree with only one of the groups. You don’t get to have it both ways. Either get rid of all PA laws or leave the ones protecting gays the hell alone.

Moot not mute. Stupid phone...

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Moot not mute. Stupid phone...

I didn't even notice. I know the point you were going for.

 

[bodecea]

Yeah, now Trump can stage an event to give the bigot the Medal of Freedom.

Good idea!! And NO, the Baker is not a 'bigot.'

So if a baker said to an interracial couple "I can't bake your cake because the bible says mixing races is a sin", he's not a bigot?

Where in the Bible does it say interracial marriage is a sin? Verse please

Where in the Bible? Good question....this Virginia judge had a "deeply felt belief" that it was God's plan:

On October 28, 1964, after waiting almost a year for a response to their motion, the ACLU attorneys brought a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This prompted the county court judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile (1890–1967), to issue a ruling on the long-pending motion to vacate. Echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, Bazile wrote:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.[24]

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia

I didn't ask that, shitferbrains

Judge Bazile's comment is AS MUCH IN THE BIBLE as that cake baking couple's "deeply felt religious belief" to not bake a wedding cake.

 

[bodecea]

And Paul was probably a closeted gay man.

LOL....we'll leave this as another failed argument, probably, since you can't even say for sure Paul was
gay and even if so, his sexuality does nothing to change biblical teachings on homosexuality.

And? Nothing you posted counters what the facts are...The bible has been used to justify slavery and segregation.

Not with any success or actual theological authority, it hasn't. Try and drive that thought through your very thick skull, if you can. You aren't citing facts. You are citing failed arguments that carry no weight.

A restaurant went to the Supreme Court saying his religion prevented him from serving blacks. Those were his "sincerely held religious beliefs". Why do your beliefs trump his?

And how did that work out for him?
Not well I'm guessing since racism has never been justified by the courts on religious grounds, or any other for
that matter.

My beliefs are not the issue here...it's the beliefs of the cake makers in Oregon and Colorado that were ruled upon by the US Supreme Court. I would probably grudgingly make the cake for the gays since I really don't care if they marry or not. But the fact is that labor cannot be compelled or forced by law if it violates someone's freedom of thought and religion. This is not Communist China, though you act like you wish it were.

Not with any success? Are you not from America? Very, very, VERY young? Just incredibly stupid?

How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

The Southern Argument for Slavery [ushistory.org]

They even had an entire pamphlet

And let's not forget that the entire Southern Baptist Church was created over the slavery question...they split from the Baptist Church because the original Baptist Church wasn't pro-slavery enough.

 

[bodecea]

The racists disagree. They are just as convinced of the bible verses supporting their beliefs as you are of yours. You seem to think your hate is more supported than theirs, but they don't.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. (Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)

Let the racist prove their case then. There is absolutely nothing in the bible that justifies the belief that God doesn't want the races to mix or intermingle. Nothing! They can cite nothing because there is nothing.

Billy Graham, a very well known and respected Christian, rejected the racism of Bob Jones. I will accept his authority when it comes to the bible and race. Wise the **** up!


Let the racists make better arguments if they want to be taken seriously. The "logic" here is dumbfoundingly stupid.

If God didn't want the races to intermingle he would not have created them to begin with through biology and evolution and he would have put up immense physical barriers keeping them separate or removed any desire to intermingle.
Clearly there are no biblical pronouncements on keeping people racially segregated. You lose.

Just like there is NOTHING in the bible against baking cakes for gay weddings. Thank you for arguing our point for us.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I’m not telling you buttfucking is wrong. That’s for you and your asshole to decide.
I’m saying that the government forcing that to be everyone else’s business is wrong.

So we're agreeing. The government should not treat people differently if they like male or female cheerleader anuses. Anusi? Well, you get the point.

Right. They should not establish privilege based on anal sex. Just hetero sex.

There you go again trying to establish a religious caliphate.

Not religious.
Nature.
Nature.
Procreation.
Babies.
Survival of the species.
Nature.
Nature.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Ah, so you have moved to a dictatorship where the opposition can't vote.

Grasp any straw you can to impose your will and that of the government on what consenting adults do.

You emphasize my point about democrats lacking reasoning ability.
I said nothing about dictating behavior.
I said nothing about opposition.
This is about granting privileges in the name of nature. You can still buttfuck or be buttfucked with/by any consenting adult.
Go get a non-democrat to draw you a picture of the logic.

 

[Seawytch]

You actually believe all the men of Sodom were gay and that’s why the city was destroyed? You’re not even applying logic let alone a reasonable person standard. And even if that were remotely possible, what about Gomorrah?

What about it? I don't believe every single person living in the Castro district of San Francisco is a flaming 'mo (though it wouldn't surprise me if they were).
And I'm not referring to the cocktail Moe Sizlak invented, either.

But the overall effect is that the district is as solidly queer as Sodom ever was. I also believe the story is apocryphal and is made to illustrate how the founders of Christianity and the bible felt revulsion and disgust for wanton gays.

You REALLY think that over 2,000 years ago, the city of Sodom, the whole city, was as gay as the Castro in the 21st century?!? Oh, please do keep trying to explain away the ridiculous story of God destroying two cities because one of the cities was entirely gay.

And to be balanced, the bible looked down on heterosexual promiscuity and immoral behavior
also. To be sure, I don't think it's a matter of concern if every single man in Sodom rejected two young virgin girls in favor of Lott's hot house guests.
It's a biblical tale, not the O.J. Simpson investigation.

No shit, Sherlock. It's a cautionary allegory against in-hospitality, but you want to use it for bigots to hide behind.

This isn't about me and I already stated long ago I would have given gays their cake because I don't care about their damned marriage.

But if someone has a profound problem with gay marriage due to religion their right to hold a belief you don't like should easily trump someone's ability to make someone a slave laborer compelled by an unjust law and their own bigotry.
That's a form of slavery, and they can get their precious cake a dozen other places, easily. Get real.

And once more someone against gay marriage is not "hiding" behind the bible. The bible explicitly disapproves of sodomy and sodomites which is something you can't say about racists who try and justify their hate through the bible also. The bible simply does not justify racism...period!

So grow up and stop your lies. You sicken me with your disingenuous nonsense because you've been informed and you choose to lie anyway.

Sorry, bub, but until these bigoted bakers start denying other "sinners", they're just bigots using Jesus.

 

[bodecea]

Not with any success? Are you not from America? Very, very, VERY young? Just incredibly stupid?

How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

The Southern Argument for Slavery [ushistory.org]

They even had an entire pamphlet

I'm trying not to be outright rude to you but your circular posts about how slave holders attempted to use the bible to justify slavery is so ******* idiotic and plainly fails to make it's point you are making it very difficult on me.

Your reasoning is absurd and just because someone claims something doesn't make it so. Hitler and his adherents had all sorts of arguments and reasons why Aryans were the master race. Somehow it wasn't true anyway.

You are only succeeding in proving how dense you are by this line of specious thought and non reasoning.

Three paragraphs, ^^^ and three ad hominems. Typical rhetoric of someone whose emotions get out of hand when someone offers an opinion which challenges him.

Don't use opinions...use facts

Like the FACT that there is as much in the bible about not baking cakes for gay weddings as there is supporting Southern slavery and against inter-racial marriage.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Judge Bazile's comment is AS MUCH IN THE BIBLE as that cake baking couple's "deeply felt religious belief" to not bake a wedding cake.

Go ahead and cite where the bible states racial groups were never intended to mingle. It makes me wonder why God created racial differences in the first place if Bazile's comment is even remotely true.

I already cited something that offered 35 different biblical verses in which the bible disdains homosexuality. You should look it up.

 

[bodecea]

I've been in lots of churches. I've never picked up a bible anywhere that was comprised only of the New Testament.
Your authoritative wisdom when it comes to Christian theology is ridiculous. Watching you explain how Christianity
works is like watching a retard trying to solve a Rubic's Cube.

And here we go again.....Something in the OT that CRCs don't like (eating shellfish)....we get "Oh, the OT doesn't apply anymore." Something in the OT that CRCs like....we get "the Bible is made up of both the OT and NT."

 

[bodecea]

Leviticus? That's old testament stuff and doesn't apply, remember?

Nope! What are you talking about? Doesn't "apply" how and to whom?

Doesn't apply to Christians. Christians, allegedly, follow the New Testament not Old Testament...which is where Leviticus resides.

Christians follow the Bible and understand it...you don't have the first clue

All of it? Including Leviticus?

 

[bodecea]

Leviticus? That's old testament stuff and doesn't apply, remember?

Nope! What are you talking about? Doesn't "apply" how and to whom?

Doesn't apply to Christians. Christians, allegedly, follow the New Testament not Old Testament...which is where Leviticus resides.

Christians follow the Bible and understand it...you don't have the first clue

Really? Stoned any adulterers lately?

Voted for them....maybe.

 

[Seawytch]

Judge Bazile's comment is AS MUCH IN THE BIBLE as that cake baking couple's "deeply felt religious belief" to not bake a wedding cake.

Go ahead and cite where the bible states racial groups were never intended to mingle. It makes me wonder why God created racial differences in the first place if Bazile's comment is even remotely true.

I already cited something that offered 35 different biblical verses in which the bible disdains homosexuality. You should look it up.

And I already gave you the verses the racists and segregationists use/used. That YOU don't support them does not change their belief in them and support of them.

 

[bodecea]

I wonder if a painting company would be required to paint a house with two men butt humping?

I wonder why it's always CRCs dwelling dwelling dwelling on anal sex....way more than any gay person.