Cakegate to be decided by supremes

What of the argument that homosexuals and heterosexuals are (or were) treated identically in that both were allowed to marry, any consenting adult they wanted, so long as the spouse was of the opposite sex?

 

homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are not equal, so they cannot be treated identically, that is a spirit.

 

The opener of this can of worms was the Civil Rights Bill, as rewritten by President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

 

If you are a business owner, you have the right, as a business owner to accept and deny clientele on the basis of your personal predilections. Since when does government have the right to dictate to a private business owner, their policies? I know the automatic response revolves around anti-discrimination, but nonetheless, a private business owner has the right to accept and reject anyone these please. Public accommodation revolves around the public square, so to speak, such as a public pool, a public park, public roadways, etc. It does not apply to private enterprise because if it did, all of the gated communities in country would be disbanded and forced to open the communities to everyone and all.

 

If homosexuals really wanted equality, they would become heterosexual; homosexuals are not equal to heterosexual and vice versus.

 

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;....

 

The civil rights act doesn't even include gender or sex, let alone sexual orientation. It only prohibits discrimination on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin"

 

Ok, let me walk slowly . . . The Civil rights bill deals with what? Civil Rights, correct. Well, as with everything else, it can and has been used to gain civil rights for homosexuals, Jews and women on the basis that their civil rights have been violated. Therefore, the Civil Rights Act as rewritten by Lyndon Baines Johnson opened the door for the legal acceptance of homosexuality, protection of Jews and females. This is the reason why President Johnson re-wrote the bill championed by John Fitzgerald Kennedy. All of the secondary groups have benefited fro the Civil Rights Bill by and large, but only certain select Negroes have benefited from the same bill. Why is that? As a matter of fact, the original Civil Rights Act was written and passed in the year 18 and 66.

compare the Act of 1866 to the Act of 1964

Would you care to revise your statement about the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

 

Just to bring you up to speed, gay couples are marrying and having children.

 

You are wrong. It is illegal to deny services, housing, or employment because someone is a Christian. Gated communities are open to all who can afford to live there.

 

???? Nope, my statement was and still is accurate.

Not really following your reasoning above. You do realize that not all "civil rights" come from the Civil Rights act?

 

No it is not.

 

As far as I am concerned, a private company that sells non-life-and-death items/services (like this one) should be able to sell - OR NOT SELL - to anyone they want to for any reason they want to.
If people don't like it, don't shop there.

This whole thing is absolutely ridiculous, IMO.

A private company - that sell's non life saving goods/services - should be able to serve or not serve anyone they wish.

 

The complete text of what I posted. What are you, a government agent or something?

 

We know you have many choices on where to parade ignorance and we thank you for choosing this forum. Christians (As well as several other protected classes) enjoy legal protection from discrimination. Look it up!

 

So what does your post mean? Are you saying that because Christians enjoy protection of rights, that they should or must cater to people whom their ethos is in opposition of? If this is what you are saying via text, than you are not a person for and of freedom/ For shame, For shame.

 

Children aren't produced from homosexual relations. Responsibility for children of gay couples is brought about through adoption, invitro fertilization agreements or voluntarily assuming them. A man, married to a woman who gives birth is presumed by law to be the father and liable for providing and caring for the child. But Im sure, its only a matter of time before someone will argue that the paternity statutes limitations on the basis of sex, is all just a nefarious government plot to "disparage and injure" homosexuals and must be abolished. And a court willing to do so.

 

Gays in a huff over a denied wedding cake make a mockery out of the blacks in pre civil rights act days who couldn't find a restaurant or hotel that would serve them in some parts of the country.

 

Simple solution for not being able to eat at an eatery because you are Black is . . . do as one of my aunts did when she traveled with children, BRING YOUR OWN FOOD AND STOP ROADSIDE TO EAT. There is a simple solution to every problem, the problem is that modern-day American people think and behave like spoiled children so the automatic response is forcing your way(s) upon others which is an act of aggression/war.

 

Что-то вызывает паузу для некоторых и гнев у других, которые любят и поддерживают то, что происходит в это время, в этой стране.
Chto-to vyzyvayet pauzu dlya nekotorykh i gnev u drugikh, kotoryye lyubyat i podderzhivayut to, chto proiskhodit v eto vremya, v etoy strane.
Something to cause pause for some and anger in others who love and support what is taking place at this time, in this country.



Секретные общества JFK
Sekretnyye obshchestva JFK
JFK Secret Societies

 

My position is simple. To enjoy legal protection from discrimination based on beliefs while using it to deny it to others creates a "Preferred citizen" That is not justice. My sister in law is a veteran and is married to a female. For her to be less of a citizen than someone who believes in a religion is shameful and unAmerican. I believe in freedom, justice, and equality.

The only way I would be okay with a Christian pointing their righteous finger at another American saying "We don't serve your kind here!" is if we remove legal protection from having it done to them.

 

What you have mentioned when it comes to hypocrisy and denying protection for others, on the surface is legitimate, but couple with detail it makes no sense coming from my personal perspective. Are there Christians and others, who seek to deny others protections that they themselves enjoy, I am absolutely sure that there are Christians and others who match what you describe exactly. Now here are the details: when dealing with a private company, as I stated yesterday, they have the right to admit and deny whom they please. As for legal protections, that is supposed to be the responsibility of government, not people outside of government. For too long and in too many incidences where groups that supposedly represent people who have suffered from inordinate discrimination, have gone too far and ultimately do the same to others as they initially complained about. As has been said time and again, if you are conscious that your supposed lifestyle offends and violates the established sensibilities of a business owner, seek accommodation elsewhere, instead of forcing your preferred choice upon others who do not agree with your choice. I am absolutely positive that the same homosexual coupling was well aware of other business establishments that do not object to homosexuality. To me, they are attempting to make a political statement by choosing the bakery that they know is owned and operated by known Christians who take their religious beliefs serious. I oppose the political statement that they are making and the judge should have honored the business owner/operator’s religious convictions. This is a dangerous period that we are faced with in this country in particular and only fools seek to play around during this time period.

 

Government has something to do with it, in that it recognizes both opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages now. But I would agree that the sexuality of these couples is otherwise their own, private business. In other words, homosexuality is just as public/private as heterosexuality.

 

A private company may not deny goods, services, employment or housing based on religion, race, gender, etc. You can repeat your false claim as much as you want; it is still false.

My sister-in-lay is a veteran, owns a successful business, and is married to a female. She may not use her business to make a political statement against Christians by denying services/employment (Not that she would) To allow Christians more rights crosses a line with me.

An individual may refuse to allow black, gay, religious etc. people into their home, but the moment they put out the “For Rent” sign, individual rights no longer apply. Not they are acting as a business entity and must comply with the laws of the land.

In this case, the baker is the only one forcing his beliefs onto others.