Blatant discrimination:’ Christian B&B owner fined $80K for refusing gay ‘wedding’ co

I was trying to help you out. You so stuck on this "me against you" mentality that you can't see that, I guess.

Yes, you did. Post #179. It's what started off our whole discussion.

I can't believe you've apparently forgotten what you typed earlier on in this very thread. You can jump back through the thread and see it for yourself.

Hypothetical.

See, it's not so hard being agreeable.

A link was automatically sent to you when I quoted you on the thread. That's how this site works.




Dairyair... if you have a Tylenol, I could really use one right now.

 

5 Steps to Sodom:

1. Tolerance
2. Demand Acceptance
3. Celebration
4. Forced Participation
5. Punishment of everyone who disagrees

These 5 steps from;
[video=youtube;3uvWkgz1XQM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uvWkgz1XQM[/video]

 

They are unable to sign a civil document which is a requirement for marriage - as that is all marriage is - a contract.

Post your peer reviewed and scientifically accepted source that shows heterosexuality is a genetic condition and homosexuality is not and I will source my evidence.

The intention of laws can be argued and debated but the language of laws have meaning. If there would have been a CA defining marriage or limiting the parties I would agree, a new amendment would have been needed.
There wasn't - so there isn't.

 

if true, and with this site as well as the op, i do take it with a grain of salt, 80k is excessive.

that being said, i will say again, grow up to those who want to blantantly discriminate. those owners have a license to bake and sell, it is not a religious license, and there is no language in the license that would allow them to discriminate

 

It's so strange that the same people that believe homosexuality is a mental illness actually believe this video. It's amazing actually. I'm starting to think one of them fits the description though.

No wonder acceptance of LGBT people has changed so much once a light was cast on the issue - the opponent position is propagandized paranoid fear mongering insanity.

Keep up the good work!

 

Then I suggest not opening a business that serves the public. You have no way of knowing who had an abortion, had children out of wedlock, or commits adultery. I guess gay people are an easy target since you can tell. Anyway, no Christian is in a position to throw the first stone on this issue and should never enjoy legal protection for forcing their beliefs onto others.

 

Dodges noted as expected. Same circumstance but Muslim owner and Jewish family wanting to have a Hanukkah celebration. Would your position be the same? Or does you stated position fall apart under scrutiny?

 

By "forcing their beliefs onto others" you mean declining to bake them a cake. Quite the dramatic hyperbole.

 

Actually, they can discriminate against whoever they like for any reason in the world, EXCEPT for governments, favorite classifications of people

 

Actually that one succeeded every time. The only way the courts could get around it was to claim that this wasn't the states genuine reason. That states who claim that marriage is limited to men and women because only men and women procreate, are lying to hide their true motive, to "disparage and injure" homosexuals. Really is absurd. Would be like claiming that our laws that limit marriages to just one at a time, are really all just a nefarious plot to "disparage and injure" Mormons. Or that segregating bathrooms between men and women, is all just a nefarious plot to "disparage and injure" transgenders.

 

"Blatant discrimination"...you want to know what's blatant discrimination(!?) - the Bible and Islamic texts both saying to kill gays, and god/Moses/Jesus/Mohammad never having spoken out against that. THAT'S blatant discrimination. This shop keeper was just following god/Moses/Jesus/Mohammad's lead. And after all, those 4 are divine, better than we are (apparently), so of course he feels justified in following their lead.

 

another case of a Christian not following the law, if they want to discriminate, create a private club

the law gives them options, they just want to pretend to be open to the public when they are not - that is their problem

.

 

You mean like the barbaric god/Jesus/Allah punish innocent, moral, hard-working people who simply make the honest "mistake" of not being able to buck lottery-like odds and pick the one true real "god" out of the 5000 "gods" on offer? I think we can all agree that punishing people who simply disagree with you ("Jesus is lord", or "Allah is the one true god and Mohammad is his messenger") is barbaric and unfair and one of the greatest tragedies in human history.
Can we, Ivan?

 

We have separate age of consent laws forbidding this type of a relationship that already equally apply to all sexual preferences. There's always been a legal understanding that rights of children are administered within a separate framework from those of adults. If you think there's a issue of technicalities, I think a simple adjustment to the overall definition of marriage making it clear that the institution is only legal between consenting adults would easily fix the problem.

Since these age of consent laws already apply equally to all sexual preferences, there is nothing about age of consent laws that violate the 14th Amendment, so they don't need to be changed.

 

But their role model, the person driving their hatred of gays, JESUS, does distinguish, however, as he only defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Jesus is such a prick that in the last 2000 years of allegedly ("watching over us and answering (only) Christian's prayers") he's never even taken a few seconds out of his busy schedule of creating deadly acts of god (deadly tsunamis, deadly floods/earthquakes, etc.) to simply come down and tell us "look, the Bible got it wrong, I screwed up, I should have approved of gays, please forgive me."

Modern Secular Humanists are more forgiving than Jesus/Christians are, so we forgive Jesus - but hopefully he'll realize the error of his ways and do the right thing. But after 2000 years and counting it's unlikely that he's ethical/caring enough to ever do that. Jesus will likely always be a bigot. But forum members can move beyond Jesus' bigotry - I know they can do it.

 

again, no group was discriminated. A very specific event was denied. An event to celebrate the gay-sex lifestyle was to be held and these folks as Christians cannot participate in the celebration of gay-sex any more than they can participate in celebrating abortion or theft.

 

EXACTLY and congratulations

When a person walks in and says hello, I'd like a plain cake, you have no idea who or what they are

If they ask for a cake decorated to say

1: Congratulations on the abortion
or

2: Congratulations on your gay wedding

a Christian cannot make either of those but did you notice the part where a plain cake would be sold to the same exact people??????

You have pushed the false narrative of "born homosexual" despite ZERO medical proof. The leftist admin that we've had and politically driven SCOTUS has run with it. Well, the new justice and a Constitution loving POTUS will be sure that the Constitution is restored into the SCOTUS and the silliness of forcing people to serve a gay-lifestyle event will be history

 

Not a dodge, I honestly needed more info. And you must know it wasn't a dodge since you clarified. Anyway, if the only difference was the religion involved, my position would be exactly the same. If it was an atheist-owned business, my position would be exactly the same.

 

if they advertise as making wedding cakes, then they need to make them... regardless who is buying

 

lol sure you were. Look if you can't even be honest about what your argument is then why are you responding?

Then quote me. If you are going to make things up at least have the guts to quote me directly so I can prove you wrong once again.

If you can't produce the quote you have nothing to stand on. Your word means nothing without the facts to support you.

And how have you concluded I don't know what hypothetical means? This should be good.

If you missed the sarcasm in that response thats really sad.

 

You can't fall back on consent laws when you invalidated all laws against gay marriage with the exact same wording. Please be honest enough to admit that reality. Nothing in the text you used to justify gay marriage even mentions gay marriage only a person has the right. Guess what, all sexual preferences between humans no matter age or number are persons. As I said before, you lost this before you even started because you didn't actually read the justification used for gay marriage.

 

Yes, we can because the age of consent laws apply to all people of all sexual preferences. It is an equally applied limitation; therefore it doesn't violate the 14th.

Laws defining a marriage as being between a man and woman violated the 14th because they created a prohibition on marriage on one group of adults while allowing it for another. The age of consent laws are equally applied to all sexual preferences, so it's not a violation of the 14th.

It's not anyone's dishonesty that is the problem.

Haha... it almost sounds like you want to get rid of the age of consent laws. Nice try. They're staying; you can't have that.

 

It is already precedent and has been for years, decades. Age is a limit. No one is considered an adult, legally, until 18. And then there are still stipulations on that. IE drinking age, etc.
This is not a broad term. It's not me that doesn't get it, it seems to be you.
Equality is equality. There should be no stipulations because of sexual attraction. Unless it is to minors or without consent.
But adults and consent, where's the problem?

 

Is a heterosexual marriage the celebration of straight sex?
If a baker does not want to bake a cake worshiping Christ - they are compelled to by law.
If a business wants to ignore the blue laws of their state imposed by religious doctrine and remain open on Sunday they cannot - they are compelled to by law.
If a restaurant does not want to allow a party of people to have a religious meeting or celebrate a religious holiday they cannot - they are compelled to by law.

So, you will be forced to serve us, the same way we are forced to serve you - but unlike you we are not calling for your arrest, calling from your removal from military service or denying you the ability to see your partner dying in the hospital - we would never dissolve your relationships to simple sex acts and call you a pedophile in every rebuttal we have against your choice of religion - we will however, gladly close down you place of business and push to enact legislation on par with the protections you receive and then laugh at you when you cry that you are the true victims here.

You don't want equality - you want special treatment.

 

Care to post a few court cases where the reasoning of homosexuals cannot procreate so they cannot wed was accepted by the court? I wasn't aware that capability or intent to procreate had ever been a requirement of marriage. You cannot apply a new metric to one group while not doing it to another and then deem your view just - well you can but you will lose the case...