Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same sex wedding cake case.

Of course it is, to those like yourself who find the reality of marriage obnoxious.

Trust me, I do not underestimate your faith in the gullibility of the masses.

Sure, it'll be a thoughtcrime if you have your way. I get it. Too bad you don't get that you're not going to be insulated from the attendant consequences, any more than were the Bolsheviks whom Stalin eventually found expendable.

 

That is BS, I have quoted a medical source, your source is a B.S. source.
Stigma is a gay propaganda and forced gay education.
Government and media side with gays, government also prohibit consensual heterosexual intercourse between two adults, as a result many people are forced to accept pederasty as a normal lifestyle.

 

You quoted a study from 2014 and then further went on to say that same study is incorrect and your made up number is the valid one. I should invest in tinfoil stock as much as you are using.

 

The reality of marriage is that of a civil one.
I really don’t care what people like you think about gay rights, what matters is the legal treatment. You are free to hate everyone you so please.

 

It's clearly written in YOUR CITE!!!

 

LOL!!!

 

That is EXACTLY the argument Woolworth's lunch counter used in its discrimination against those of color who wanted lunch.

I think what you are missing here is that this issue has been rehashed throughout our history.

The difference here is that this baker wants to use his religious beliefs as an excuse to be exempt from civil rights legislation.


The importance of civil rights legislation has been shown to be massively important throughout our history as a nation.

Let's remember that public accommodations are how our system distributes goods and services. We don't have state stores for food, cakes, clothes, etc. When a minority gets cut off from access to public accommodations, they get cut off from the very fundamentals of how America works.

This baker is no more in the right than was Woolworth. And, this idea that religion is an exemption from civil rights law is both hugely disgusting and far reaching, as it would apply just as well to employment, housing, etc.

 

Twenty years ago the consensus was 1%. But yes, the propaganda and gay education turned many people to homosexuality.
Propaganda, especially if it supported by law enforcement and punish people for disagreement is very powerful

 

I really have nothing to add, you are stuck in propaganda and hate.

 

Get real, you care plenty; and you won't feel safe while one of us is alive.

And you are free to indulge in all the projectioneering your heart desires.

 

I feel plenty safe - nor do I care what some bigot whines about alone.
I live in a fairly low crime area and regularly exercise my right to bear arms.
There aren’t many of you left - and thankfully that number declines each and every year.

 

Please, were that the case you wouldn't be spending all this time trying to poke my eyes out.

Far be it from the y-man to deny that bigots like yourself bask in a sense of emotional satisfaction when you whine amongst your comrades.

 

Lol, ok grandpa. Take care

 

How does Obergefell violate it? I can certainly see how anti-discrimination laws violate it when they are used against businesses who don't want to provide services to certain people. However, if even the federal government violates it with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was obviously enacted with good intentions, but I just wonder if the government at the time acknowledged that it violated the 9th Amendment.

 

.

 

What did you mean by the above? How does what I cite NOT protect Christians?

 

Hmmm. Good point. Christians would be covered by the fact that it's a religion. It just isn't specific to Christians.

 

Sure, no question about that. And you're also correct that they don't face the kind of problems that minorities face, it just doesn't mean that they "don't enjoy quite as much protection." That would be in violation of the equal protection clause.

 

And do you acknowledge that some business owners might wish to discriminate based on the event that someone wants a service for or based on the organisation that is asking for a service?

 

As I told the other guy, the violation of freedom of conscience in Obergefell facilitates violation of the freedom to associate.

Obergefell opened the door to such violation WRT practitioners of "gay marriage".

 

I've answered yes to that question several times now. Why don't you just fire off your imagined gotcha and be done with it?

 

To confirm, you think that discrimination based on the event that someone wants a service for or based on the organisation that is asking for a service is ALSO discrimination on the basis of a person's characteristic?

 

What forces association?

Anything to support that outrageous assertion? Seriously, the ELDERLY "basically" have less than a high school diploma? Surely you can't be serious.

 

Sure, but didn't you include the 9A too?

Also, can you think of why this baker's legal team didn't use the freedom of association argument at the Supreme Court?

how can you say that?

 

Absolutely, but unfortunately, they DO have that that power.