Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake

[Jedidiah]

...lust is a choice...

Right.

...Are you married?...

Sure I am.

...Was lust the only reason you got married?

Lust wasn't any reason I got married.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yes, i'm sure you do fixate on yours. However that has nothing to do with orientation

Your people have redefined your fixation on your sexual perversions as "orientation".

 

[genuineoriginal]

Lust, as an emotional response, is not something you can reasonably control or choose. So orientation is affected by deep seated causes.

Yes, "orientation" is a fixation on the lust.
Both the lust and the fixation can be reasonably controlled.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Acting on lust is a choice.

Exactly.

its just like choosing the color of your skin.

Uh, no it is not.

 

[Lighthouse]

If you want to do away with all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, then that's a completely different argument.

Why would I want to do away with civil rights?

go read up on it yourself, it's not that hard to find. jeez

In other words, you can't answer the question; because you don't know.

Christmas trees, wedding rings, tattoos and pant suits. again go read for yourself

Your so ignorant about the text of the Bible I don't know where to start. You don't even know to whom the law applied or why God commanded each thing.

you just made my point

denying that they are a minority is just dishonest

Minority has to do with race.

there are tens of thousands who say they have been abducted by aliens and given anal probes on their UFO's. So i guess alien abductions are a real thing.

Idiot.

takes one to know one

So you admit he was a fool?

as·sume verb
1.suppose to be the case, without proof.

Where is your proof?

This is what you are advocating however

No, it isn't.

 

[TracerBullet]

Har har. Very revealing.

What? You're not familiar with choosing ? Or are you so saturated in fatalism that you consider choice an illusion ?

 

[TracerBullet]

Right.
Sure I am.
Lust wasn't any reason I got married.

yet lust seems to be the only thing you believe gays are about. why is that?

 

[TracerBullet]

In other words, you can't answer the question; because you don't know.

There are literally thousands of written essays and books written by Christians detailing how God's word tells them that the white race is superior. Racists use biblical references form the curse of Ham to the Unequal yoke to justify their hate. If you are to stupid to go look up these things for yourself i will be happy to provide you with a reference list however if you are just lazy you are on your own.

Your so ignorant about the text of the Bible I don't know where to start. You don't even know to whom the law applied or why God commanded each thing.

:yawn:

Minority has to do with race.

Race can be part of being a minority but it isn't the only thing

Idiot.

Yes you are but i pray for you anyway.

but lets get back to my point that just because someone says a thing happened to them, like getting abducted by E.T., doesn't mean it actually happened

So you admit he was a fool?

you said that not me

Where is your proof?

you have access to the same research and studies and histories that I do. Again if you are saying you are to stupid to actually read up on it yourself then i would be glad to write up something for you but, again, if you are just being lazy...

No, it isn't.

ya, it is

 

[gcthomas]

Yes, "orientation" is a fixation on the lust.
Both the lust and the fixation can be reasonably controlled.

Without any evidence that I've ever seen that will support it, I will assume you just made that factoid up, relying more on hope than experience to produce a self serving claim devoid of reality.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why would I want to do away with civil rights?

You tell me. You're the one who said, "No class, or race, or any group of people should be protected more than any other. And no one should receive special protection just because of what they happen to be."

Do you agree with civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Without any evidence that I will ever accept

FTFY

 

[gcthomas]

FTFY

Still waiting for the quantitative theory. None is provided, and I can't find one on the Internet.

You can have a geocentric frame of reference with general relativity, but to have rejected it out of hand. Why would you do that? What do you have against the accepted theory that will give you what you want?

I'm listening...

 

[gcthomas]

Oops, cross posted and the store won't let me edit.

Never mind.

 

[Dialogos]

Nope, sorry that just doesn't hold any legal weight at all. The baker will bake a wedding cake for an opposite sex couple, but not for a same sex couple. The only difference between the two is their sexual orientation.

..And the nature of the event that their sexual orientation necessitates. The refusal of service has everything to do with the nature of the event. As I, and others, have said before, the baker has never refused to make a birthday cake for a homosexual.

To this you offer the following foolish argument:

Just because you don't discriminate against gays all the time, doesn't mean you never do.

Aren't they gay all the time?
Are you now going to now argue that some people are "part time" homophobes?
:rotfl:

Discrimination on the basis of "class" means that the refusal of service must be about the nature and characteristics of that persons class.

Meaning, that someone is discriminating on the basis of race when a cafe owner refuse to serve an Asian American a cup of coffee because that person is Asian. A person who refuses to make a wedding cake for an Buddhist wedding because they see Buddha as a false god and participating in the wedding ceremony of a false god violates their conscience is not discriminating on the basis of race, they are discriminating on the basis of their own religious beliefs. They really aren't discriminating against anyone, they are just practicing their own religion.

If the first amendment means anything, one should not be forced to choose between violating their faith or endure governmental penalty and that should extend to the right to abstain from participation in, or making preparations for, a religious ceremony that is at odds with ones one practice of religion.

Now we see a litany of appeals to authority or appeals to public opinion.

courts rejected that argument.

"In the court's view, saying you'll photograph gay people but not gay marriages would the same as a restaurant offering a full menu to male customers, refusing to serve entrees to women, and defending itself by saying women could order appetizers."

The court disagrees with me, that is obvious and if I were as weak minded as many I would stick my finger in the air, see which way the wind of public opinion was blowing and then simply get with the program.

But since I reserve the right to think for myself, I don't care.

The courts are disagreeing with you and agreeing with me.

Again, so what?

Nope....the courts are agreeing with me.

And everyone knows that court justices are infallible right?

:rotfl:

Everyone already realizes that the courts are agreeing with you.

Did you really think that your appealing to their authority means anything to those of us who like to think for ourselves?

Those of us who are capable of reasoning past the obvious realize that we think the courts are wrong, they are making unjust decisions that violate the First Amendment of the Constitution and those decisions trample the cause of freedom.

Justice Bosson was at least honest enough to admit that what is being demanded is the abridgment of the free exercise of religion.

The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.

In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship. (Judge Bosson's Opinion, Elane Photography case)​

The Christian photographers, bakers, and T-shirt makers of the world can believe whatever they want behind closed doors but the minute they step out in public they have to pay the price of citizenship?

What is that price, what compromise does the law demand they make?
The compromise of the free practice of their religion.

"All of which, I assume, is little comfort to the Huguenins, who now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives. Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views." (Bosson's Opinion)​

Even Just Bosson gets that the law is a violation of religious freedom, though he sees it as a necessary violation. He sees the religious freedom of the Huguenins as subordinate to the rights of gay couples to demand that they take pictures of their so called wedding.

And the same is being done to the baker. The religious rights of the baker are being subordinated to the "rights" of gay couples to demand to be celebrated.

By the same token, neither is baking a cake.

What kind of cake??? Are you really that slow?

A Birthday cake, an anniversary cake or a "wedding" cake? Baking a wedding cake is preparation for a religious ceremony.

So atheists can't have weddings?

They can have whatever they like and call it whatever they want but they should not have the right to demand my participation either in the ceremony or the preparation for the ceremony.

Their religious beliefs in the context of running a public business puts them squarely in violation of the law.

It puts them squarely in violation of an unjust law which is self contradictory as the law itself discriminates on the basis of religion in order to grant the right to demand that all celebrate one's sexual preference.

You didn't answer the question. Can gov't officials discriminate against anyone they want?

Are asking me if a gov't official has the right to refrain from participating in a religious or ideological ceremony with which they disagree?

Yes, they should have that right.

I'm pretty sure that's a common sentiment among all bigots.

And it finally emerges.

The real argument is an emotional one that leads to throwing out insults like calling someone a "bigot" rather than a rational argument that observes the language and intent of the constitution, I know that "bigot" is one of the favorites names liberals like to pin on people of faith.

We're pretty used to it and we don't care what you think as it is pretty clear that you don't think much anyway.

Seriously? You're that slow that you don't understand the difference between consenting adults and an adult and an underage minor?

So are you saying that some "sexual preferences" are wrong?
:think:

 

[Jose Fly]

..And the nature of the event that their sexual orientation necessitates. The refusal of service has everything to do with the nature of the event. As I, and others, have said before, the baker has never refused to make a birthday cake for a homosexual.

To this you offer the following foolish argument:

Aren't they gay all the time?
Are you now going to now argue that some people are "part time" homophobes?

You can keep making that argument, but as we've seen it's a failed legal argument. The only reason the baker will bake a wedding cake for couple A and not couple B is because of the sexual orientation of couple B.

Discrimination on the basis of "class" means that the refusal of service must be about the nature and characteristics of that persons class.

And these bakery cases are exactly that. The only reason he won't bake a cake for couple B is because of their sexual orientation. If they were of a different sexual orientation (heterosexual), he would bake the cake.

Meaning, that someone is discriminating on the basis of race when a cafe owner refuse to serve an Asian American a cup of coffee because that person is Asian. A person who refuses to make a wedding cake for an Buddhist wedding because they see Buddha as a false god and participating in the wedding ceremony of a false god violates their conscience is not discriminating on the basis of race, they are discriminating on the basis of their own religious beliefs. They really aren't discriminating against anyone, they are just practicing their own religion.

This is more like a baker saying "I'll bake a cake for blacks, but I won't bake a cake for a wedding between a black and white couple because I don't believe in mixing of the races".

If the first amendment means anything, one should not be forced to choose between violating their faith or endure governmental penalty and that should extend to the right to abstain from participation in, or making preparations for, a religious ceremony that is at odds with ones one practice of religion.

So again, you seem to believe the right to practice one's religion is absolute, no matter what laws are broken in the process.

Now we see a litany of appeals to authority or appeals to public opinion.

More commonly known as "facts".

The court disagrees with me, that is obvious and if I were as weak minded as many I would stick my finger in the air, see which way the wind of public opinion was blowing and then simply get with the program.

But since I reserve the right to think for myself, I don't care.

Oh, I know you don't care what the legal system and society has decided. That's why you keep making the same arguments even though they've repeatedly failed in the legal system.

Again, so what?

It means from a legal perspective, I'm right and you're wrong.

Everyone already realizes that the courts are agreeing with you.

Good.

Did you really think that your appealing to their authority means anything to those of us who like to think for ourselves?

Of course not. I am very familiar with the fundamentalist mindset.

Those of us who are capable of reasoning past the obvious realize that we think the courts are wrong, they are making unjust decisions that violate the First Amendment of the Constitution and those decisions trample the cause of freedom.

So what? Racists say the same things.

Justice Bosson was at least honest enough to admit that what is being demanded is the abridgment of the free exercise of religion.

Sure, just as anti-discrimination laws are an infringement of the free exercise rights of Christians who believe the Bible teaches separation of the races.

Just because you believe something, that doesn't give you an automatic free pass to do whatever you want, especially when your religious beliefs have a harmful effect on other citizens. Then society has to decide which is more important....your right to practice discrimination in the name of Christianity, or gays' rights to public services and accommodations.

The Christian photographers, bakers, and T-shirt makers of the world can believe whatever they want behind closed doors but the minute they step out in public they have to pay the price of citizenship?

No. It's only when they do things that infringe on other people's rights. It's the actions that count, not the beliefs.

Even Just Bosson gets that the law is a violation of religious freedom, though he sees it as a necessary violation. He sees the religious freedom of the Huguenins as subordinate to the rights of gay couples to demand that they take pictures of their so called wedding.

Exactly in the same way Christians who believe the Bible teaches separation of the races have their religious freedoms violated when they aren't permitted to discriminate on the basis of race.

What kind of cake??? Are you really that slow?

A Birthday cake, an anniversary cake or a "wedding" cake? Baking a wedding cake is preparation for a religious ceremony.

???????? Why do you think every wedding is a religious ceremony? Maybe you need to get out more.

They can have whatever they like and call it whatever they want but they should not have the right to demand my participation either in the ceremony or the preparation for the ceremony.

As bizarre as that is, it dodges the point. Weddings come in all types, including religious and non-religious. Therefore, a "wedding" is not always a religious event.

Are asking me if a gov't official has the right to refrain from participating in a religious or ideological ceremony with which they disagree?

Yes, they should have that right.

So let's say I work for the gov't and a Muslim comes to the door. Can I refuse to let him in because he's a Muslim?

And it finally emerges.

The real argument is an emotional one that leads to throwing out insults like calling someone a "bigot" rather than a rational argument that observes the language and intent of the constitution, I know that "bigot" is one of the favorites names liberals like to pin on people of faith.

If you're going to be bigoted towards gays, at least man up and admit it.

So are you saying that some "sexual preferences" are wrong?
:think:

Good grief man....if you need the difference between "two consenting adults" and "an adult and a non-consenting minor" explained to you, then I probably have really, really, really overestimated your capabilities.

 

[PureX]

How do you know a bakery is gay?

 

[TracerBullet]

And it finally emerges.

The real argument is an emotional one that leads to throwing out insults like calling someone a "bigot" rather than a rational argument that observes the language and intent of the constitution, I know that "bigot" is one of the favorites names liberals like to pin on people of faith.

You accuse others of abandoning logic and making a sad emotional appeal but you try to falsely equate gays to child abusers.

 

[resodko]

.... equate gays to child abusers.

they're both perverts


what more do you need? :idunno:

 

[TracerBullet]

they're both perverts


what more do you need? :idunno:

No, a pervert is someone who would try to equate the two

 

[Jedidiah]

What? You're not familiar with choosing ? Or are you so saturated in fatalism that you consider choice an illusion ?