LGBTQ Mafia strikes again: Christian baker ordered to bake cakes for gays

[Savage805]

Cop refuses to work at gay pride parade in Utah

 

[Sapper740]

Cop refuses to work at gay pride parade in Utah

I just read that. If anyone requires "sensitivity" training it's the alphabet Nazis.

 

[robertc1024]

Cop refuses to work at gay pride parade in Utah

I think this one is light years different from the cake. If an officer is ordered to do something that they don't like/approve of, they can opt out? I don't think so.

 

[breakingcontact]

I wonder what would happen if a soldier refused to participate in the Color Guard ? Would he be forced to bake them a cake?

Participating IN the color guard violates "good order and discipline". After all that whole lifestyle is about being indulgent and doing whatever you like.

 

[Younggun]

Participating IN the color guard violates "good order and discipline". After all that American lifestyle is about being indulgent and doing whatever you like.

Fifty.

 

[breakingcontact]

Fifty.

Thats not what being in the military is about. You know that. You dont get to do your own thing.

 

[Younggun]

Thats not what being in the military is about. You know that. You dont get to do your own thing.

Point being, things you tend to commonly attribute to the gay community are pretty prevalent through out the country with straights.

How many guys do you hear brag about their conquests? How many women make the rounds? Indulgent lifestyles.....that's almost universal in this nation.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Didn't have time to read the article and was not directing the comment at whether or not the color guard should have been involved, or military members in general.

 

[breakingcontact]

Point being, things you tend to commonly attribute to the gay community are pretty prevalent through out the country with straights.

How many guys do you hear brag about their conquests? How many women make the rounds? Indulgent lifestyles.....that's almost universal in this nation.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Didn't have time to read the article and was not directing the comment at whether or not the color guard should have been involved, or military members in general.

Glad you mentioned this...ive been needing to reply to Jakashh's question from several daze ago. Its one in the same with this. Ill need to get on the computer tonight to do so.

Update: to Jakashh and YG.

The proper Christian view on homosexuality is, that it's a sin. Now to a lot of folks, especially guys (masculine guys in particular), it's some sort of weird super sin. That's not biblical.

So, how should a Christian view homosexuality? Like any other sin. Which is to say we are to encourage people to repent and sin no more.

Our common culture and government have slowly removed the stigma attached with sin and in many cases now celebrates it. This is just the latest one.

Imagine the baker refusing to bake a cake for someone who was openly cheating on his wife? Well years ago, that actually had a stigma attached to it as it is sinful and people would have been treated accordingly. This big push by the radicals is just the latest attempt to remove the stigma from sin, calling sin a "lifestyle" and celebrating it as good. We'll see what's next. I'm putting my money on polygamy.

So that's about all I have to say about that.

 

[Lunyfringe]

This just in- Masterpiece (Phillips) has won the case in the SCOTUS!

And of course, the media shows their bias by calling a 7-2 decision a "narrow" ruling.
CNBC and USAtoday both referred to it as narrow (but I won't link to such $#!^holes)

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/

I'm a bit surprised at the margin and that Breyer and Kagen voted to overturn, but this was the right decision- instead of the Colorado "Civil rights" Commission being bullied (or owned) by the gay mafia

 

[oldag]

This just in- Masterpiece (Phillips) has won the case in the SCOTUS!

And of course, the media shows their bias by calling a 7-2 decision a "narrow" ruling.
CNBC and USAtoday both referred to it as narrow (but I won't link to such $#!^holes)

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/

I'm a bit surprised at the margin and that Breyer and Kagen voted to overturn, but this was the right decision- instead of the Colorado "Civil rights" Commission being bullied (or owned) by the gay mafia

Was also a narrow ruling.

Still, nice to see.

 

[Lunyfringe]

Was also a narrow ruling.

Still, nice to see.

In as much as it applies only in certain situations, sure... but the media headlies (spelling intentional) were deliberately misleading.

• The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a narrow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

 

[diesel1959]

This just in- Masterpiece (Phillips) has won the case in the SCOTUS!

And of course, the media shows their bias by calling a 7-2 decision a "narrow" ruling.
CNBC and USAtoday both referred to it as narrow (but I won't link to such $#!^holes)

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/

I'm a bit surprised at the margin and that Breyer and Kagen voted to overturn, but this was the right decision- instead of the Colorado "Civil rights" Commission being bullied (or owned) by the gay mafia

It's not a narrow ruling because of the vote margin, it's a narrow ruling in the sense of its potential inapplicability to other cases in the future.

 

[diesel1959]

In as much as it applies only in certain situations, sure... but the media headlies (spelling intentional) were deliberately misleading.

I disagree. Narrow margin and narrow ruling are two completely different things. This case was not decided by a narrow margin; however, it's future value as precedent is affected by the narrow ruling.

 

[Lunyfringe]

You're missing my point- I understand what you're saying... but that's not how the unwashed masses will read those headlines. "narrow victory" is not the same as a "narrow ruling".

But whatever, you can't pee in my cheerios.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Got some problems here:

1) As I understand it. The ruling could not have been more narrow, the ruling ONLY applies to this, THIS case ONLY. So here is the problem. SCOTUS is supposed to rule upon CONSTITUTIONALITY, not on specific cases. The REAL question is does my religious views over ride personal preferences (I want you to bake a cake for me).

Well the Constitution is rather specific 1st Amend: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,..."

Freedom of religion and freedom of association, these are my GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. NO where in any documents that founding this country does it say or imply LGBTQ-etc has rights over my rights.

What SCOTUS should have done is rule to that Constitutionality yes or no! No more, no less, making a specific ruling to a singular case that has a Constitutional principle involved should be the domain of a lower court.

What they failed to do was rule upon the Bill of Rights vs LGBTQ -crap and they sold out the Constitution and the America people...

 

[diesel1959]

You're missing my point- I understand what you're saying... but that's not how the unwashed masses will read those headlines. "narrow victory" is not the same as a "narrow ruling".

But whatever, you can't pee in my cheerios.

Nope. Sorry, but you're just wrong on this. :meh:

Stories aren't written for the unwashed masses, they're written (or supposed to be) with the facts. The stories you cite were giving an actual legal result. Lawyers know exactly what it means and SCOTUS-watchers know exactly what it means.

 

[deemus]

The original ruling was un-American. Plain and simple.

The lower courts set it up for a SC ruling, and the SC agreed with me.

 

[Lunyfringe]

Nope. Sorry, but you're just wrong on this. :meh:

Stories aren't written for the unwashed masses, they're written (or supposed to be) with the facts. The stories you cite were giving an actual legal result. Lawyers know exactly what it means and SCOTUS-watchers know exactly what it means.

Stories written with the facts, I didn't know you were a comedian.

Lawyers know what it means, intelligent people know what it means, the trash that poses as journalists these days don't have the first f'ing clue.

 

[diesel1959]

Stories written with the facts, I didn't know you were a comedian.

Lawyers know what it means, intelligent people know what it means, the trash that poses as journalists these days don't have the first f'ing clue.

That's the way it's supposed to be [bolded material by me]. I didn't say it always is this way. I also realize that we like to slam the mainstream media (and they usually deserved to be slammed); however, in this instance, they got it right. Sorry. :cheers:

 

[TheMailMan]

Got some problems here:

1) As I understand it. The ruling could not have been more narrow, the ruling ONLY applies to this, THIS case ONLY. So here is the problem. SCOTUS is supposed to rule upon CONSTITUTIONALITY, not on specific cases. The REAL question is does my religious views over ride personal preferences (I want you to bake a cake for me).

Well the Constitution is rather specific 1st Amend: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,..."

Freedom of religion and freedom of association, these are my GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. NO where in any documents that founding this country does it say or imply LGBTQ-etc has rights over my rights.

What SCOTUS should have done is rule to that Constitutionality yes or no! No more, no less, making a specific ruling to a singular case that has a Constitutional principle involved should be the domain of a lower court.

What they failed to do was rule upon the Bill of Rights vs LGBTQ -crap and they sold out the Constitution and the America people...

If we ever meet in person I'm buying you a beer. You couldn't be more correct. This damn near amounts to the Supreme Court ruling on a traffic ticket.

I'm appalled at the state of the judiciary in this country today. The judge shopping being done to block actions of the President. How is it that some lowly Federal circuit court judge can block the President? The three branches are supposed to be equal but in truth the judiciary is the true power in the US today.

It's been particularly pronounced the past couple of years. I have no doubt that calls are made before motions are filed to make sure that the Progressive Left gets what they way.

The most egregious example is telling Trump he can't block the DREAM act, an act never passed by Congress, instead enacted by Executive Fiat.

The activist judges who are supposed to uphold the Constitution are actively working to destroy it. IMHO the time is coming where we're going to start thinning the lawyer herd. Think Heinlein's Revolt in 2100.