SUPREME COURT WON’T HEAR MISSISSIPPI LAW PROTECTING CHRISTIANS FROM LGBT BULLYING
Law prevents faith-based businesses from being forced to promote gay ideology
WASHINGTON (ChurchMilitant.com) - The highest court in the land is refusing to rule on a Mississippi law protecting Christian business owners from being forced to condone homosexuality.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal over a state law, House Bill 1523, which allows faith-based businesses to refuse to take part in gay weddings against their religious beliefs.
The law was first blocked by a Mississippi federal judge who ruled against it, claiming it "discriminates" against the LGBT community. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling in 2016 because the challengers were unable to show how they were actually hurt by the law.
"Two years ago Mississippi passed one of the strongest religious freedom laws in the country. I was pleased to read today that the United States Supreme Court refused to intervene, allowing our law to remain in full effect," said state House Judiciary B Chairman, Andy Gipson, R-Braxton in the The Clarion-Ledger on Monday. "Congratulations to Gov. Phil Bryant and his legal team."
The Missippi legislature approved the religious freedom law in 2015 following the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay "marriage" nationwide. Governor Phil Bryant signed the measure into law in 2016, but it did not take effect until October 10, after President Trump broadened exemptions to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that required employers to provide abortifacients and contraceptives in their health plans.
The law defends marriage between a man and a woman, sex within marriage, and the biological sexes of male and female. The law also protects businesses' religious liberty in cases involving gay marriages, including protecting county clerks from being forced to issue gay marriage licenses and faith-based adoption agences from being forced to adopt children out to gay couples.
Mississippians [should not] live in fear of losing their careers or their businesses simply for affirming marriage as a husband-wife union.Tweet
The Human Rights Campaign, a the world's largest LGBT activist group, refers to the law as the "most sweeping and devastating state law to be enacted against LGBTQ people in the country."
"We will keep fighting in Mississippi until we overturn this harmful law, and in any state where antigay legislators pass laws to roll back LGBT civil rights," commented Beth Littrell, a gay rights lawyer with Lambda Legal, an American civil rights organization.
Alliance Defending Freedom is supporting the law, according to Kevin Theriot, one of the group's lawyers, noting, "Good laws like Mississippi's protect freedom and harm no one."
Theriot remarked that the purpose of the law is "that Mississippians don't live in fear of losing their careers or their businesses simply for affirming marriage as a husband-wife union."
In June, the Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling on the constitutionality of a Christian baker's refusal to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, as doing so would go against his Christian beliefs.
Law prevents faith-based businesses from being forced to promote gay ideology
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/supreme-court-defends-mississippi-anti-lgbt-law
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
That's the reason, because nobody is actually being hurt by being refused a gay wedding cake, only their fragile little sensibilities,
And yet this law is exactly designed to protect the ''fragile little sensibilities" of phony christian bigots.
Apples and oranges, but I would expect no less.
You don't have an answer so you try to deflect.
How can making the gay cake be threatening to your religious views if there is no physical difference between the cakes? Why is it that baking a cake for an LGBT couple is threating to your religious beliefs but baking a cake for a Muslim or atheist couple doesn't also threaten your religious beliefs? Most LGBT couples in the US are Christian so how can serving another Christian be a threat to your religious beliefs?
Your lack of an answer proves that this entire claim of religious animus is just conservative bias against serving LGBT couples equally. Social conservatives couldn't prevent LGBT couples from marrying with DOMA laws so you want to have a temper tantrum to prevent you having to serve them in the same manner as other couples.
Well let's see here, if the cake has 2 men statues on top and says BRIAN AND SCOTT, or DAVE AND JOHN, or 2 woman statues on top and says LOIS AND LINDA or SUSAN AND DIANNE, it doesn't take a fucking astro physicist to figure that one out.
You don't put the names on top of a wedding cake in the 21st century. It isn't a birthday cake. Most couples do not use a traditional cake topper either.
Well let's see here, if the cake has 2 men statues on top and says BRIAN AND SCOTT, or DAVE AND JOHN, or 2 woman statues on top and says LOIS AND LINDA or SUSAN AND DIANNE, it doesn't take a fucking astro physicist to figure that one out.
That's odd.....it seems that no cake toppers or specific cake design had been discussed when the dumb bigot chose to deny service to the couple. So we're back to choosing between two identical cakes.......which one is gay and which one is straight?
Exceptions and conscience clauses were created when abortion was imposed on the states by the court and the same can be done now.
Where is the supposed conscience clause for Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey? What is the sunset date of these supposed clauses?
Well let's see here, if the cake has 2 men statues on top and says BRIAN AND SCOTT, or DAVE AND JOHN, or 2 woman statues on top and says LOIS AND LINDA or SUSAN AND DIANNE, it doesn't take a fucking astro physicist to figure that one out.
except the statues on top are not part of the cake - they are cake toppers and aren't exclusive to nor necessary to nor present on every cake, it doesn't take a "fucking astro physicist" to figure that one out. so what's the difference again between the cakes ? (notice i didn't say "cake toppers" or anything else ? religious keep whining about "gay wedding cakes" - no mention of cake toppers and not all wedding cakes have a cake topper)
LDS cult supported the exact same white supremacist views
Read The Book of Mormon and you will find that dark skin was a mark placed by God on those that were unclean and unfaithful to him, but then at one point those that were dark-skinned were actually MORE FAITHFUL than his chosen peoples before everyone became unfaithful except Moroni. And, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has allowed EVERY convert to hold the offices they are eligible for, particularly in recent years regardless of race. The doctrine of the church has always been at the behest of God's desires for us and the changes were made because God said to make those changes to the Prophet and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I suggest you stop putting your foot in your mouth while you are still behind.
No surprise that the Quorum of Twelve Apostles is still comprised of very white old men.
But I like how LDS Prophet Bring'em Young put it:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).
"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).
"In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 172).
.
I also like how LDS Apostle Delbert Stapley put it when he echoed the LDS opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
I am not against a Civil Rights Bill if it conforms to the views of the Prophet Joseph Smith according to the references above given. I fully agree the Negro is entitled to considerations, also stated above, but not full social benefits nor inter-marriage privileges with the Whites, nor should the Whites be forced to accept them into restricted White areas. In my judgment, the present proposed Bill of Rights is vicious legislation. There needs to be some modification. The position of the Church cannot change until the Lord changes it Himself. Certainly I am not for exploiting racial or religious prejudices, but it is the present play·up to the Negro voters which is unnecessarily creating problems that by a more firm, sensible approach can be avoided. There will be a few die-hard leaders, but then that has always been true with any debatable issue. Principle - religious or otherwise - cannot be abrogated for political expediency.
Now, don't think I am against the Negro people, because I have several in my employ. We must understand and recognize their status and then, accordingly, provide for them. I just don't think we can get around the Lord's position in relation to the Negro without punishment for our acts; going contrary to that which He has revealed. The Lord will not permit His purposes to be frustrated by man.
.
No surprise that the traditional LDS racism sounds a great deal like the traditional LDS homophobia......that these subhumans can have some civil rights but not the same rights as straight white folks, nor shall the twain intermingle.
affirming marriage as a husband-wife union.
In gay marriages, one is the husband and the other the wife of the union. So they are actually in a husband-wife union. Where is the problem, other than the personal bigotry of those who object?
In gay marriages, one is the husband and the other the wife of the union. So they are actually in a husband-wife union.
Ummm, sorry Raven but that is false.
Where is the problem, other than the personal bigotry of those who object?
Those who 'object' do so out of animus. The Mississippi law will be challenged in court. Oh and please y'all, don't try to pretend that the court has already ruled. They haven't. When someone with standing challenges the law, it's a whole new ball game.
Thank you for correcting me, Dulay. That had been my understanding, as many of the gay couples I have known seem to give that impression, when one refers to their partner as their Husband and the other calls them their wife. And when children are involved in the union, they call one parent Mother and the other Father. So I am only going by what my own observation has been over the years.
Sorry if I offended anyone.
Yes, and I loved that movie. Thanks for the reminder. I've loved everything Robin Williams has done in the entertainment world. He was indeed a unique person.
Emmm....the statement made was not about a union of man and woman, it was about a union of husband and wife. So your question of X or Y is not applicable to the statement and just some snark on your end to stir the pot.
I've known dozens of married/partnered gay or lesbian couples and only on male couple used those labels. Back in the day, it was more prevalent with men, now, it's rare. At least in my neck of the woods. Some men, in relationships with transgendered women, will use husband and wife. Though in the 10 years I lived in CA, I never head those labels used in a same sex relationship. Same goes for kids. It's usually a variation of Dad and Pops or Mom and Nanna.
What it comes down to is that nobody OWNS a term. Whatever you're comfortable with should be just fine.
Thanks for the clarification. I am not an active member of the community, my experience is from the couples I know where I live. I have also heard/read of Celebrity gay couples who have also used those terms in reference for each other. So, I guess it can be confusing for some.
Oh and please y'all, don't try to pretend that the court has already ruled. They haven't. When someone with standing challenges the law, it's a whole new ball game.
These peremptory challenges are always a bit dicey due to the issue of standing, but in this case I think the courts should have let the case proceed due to the rather blatant violation of the Establishment clause and of the Romer v Evans precedent. No state will be allowed to do what this law tries to do.
However I'm not surprised that the 5th Circuit COA dismissed the case given how many superstitious loons are on that panel - it was always very unlikely that they'd consider the merits of a facial challenge.
I have also heard/read of Celebrity gay couples who have also used those terms in reference for each other. So, I guess it can be confusing for some.
I suspect the only ones who do that are doing it as a joke or due to the stereotypical roles each spouse might have taken on. The small handful of gay couples I know all refer to a male spouse as husband and a female spouse as wife.
Which one has an X chromosome and which one has a Y chromosome?
It is hilarious and fun to when rightwingers display their total ignorance so boldly. Everyone has at least one X chromosome.
I know enough about biology to know women have one chromosome and men have another,
Well, you've only just learned that since your first comment on this subject indicated that only one gender had an X chromosome. And as far as whining goes, your sort takes the cake (heh) on this subject of pissing and moaning about your religious "right" to discriminate in the marketplace. Baking a fucking cake is not in any manner "participating" in the marriage. But this is where the real sanctimonious BS is so blatant: by your criterion, a "christian" baker is bound to find out to what purpose every cake is to be put since there could be any number of situations involving that cake that might "violate" that holy baker's religious beliefs. Christian bakers should require everyone wanting any product to fill out a questionnaire for what purpose that cake is being used and the sexual identity of the person or persons for whom the cake is meant to celebrate. IOW, your whole basis is a sham.
I know enough about biology to know women have one chromosome and men have another, something you obviously don't give a shit about as evidenced by your previous comment about one being a husband and one being a wife.
Women have 2Xs . Males have an X and a Y.
This is grade school knowledge and yet you don't know it.
I give a shit about you demanding I decorate you a cake denoting same sex marriage when I personally believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, not two men where one thinks he's a female or vice versa.
If you operate a bakery that serves the public you don't get to decide who you will and won't serve because of your conservative social or religious views. Those customers don't give a flip about your religious beliefs because they are irrelevant in a for-profit public business transaction. Most American LGBT are also Christian so how can serving them possibly be a threat to your religious views, unless serving hetero couples of a different sect is also a threat to your religious views? Why is it that these bakers can serve members of other religions without making the same religious bias claim? Any logical claim that you can make is long gone.
You obviously don't know the difference between sexual orientation(who you are attracted to) and gender identity(the innate male or femaleness of your sense of self). Gay males or lesbians know that they are males and lesbians know that they are female. They have a different sexual orienation than heterosexuals who are orientated to the opposite sex and as such are attracted to members of the same gender. Someone whose gender identity is different from their biological gender believes that they were born in the wrong body and changes their body to match their psychological gender identity. Transgendered people can be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.
I should be paid for the number of times I have had to teach basic human sexuality to conservatives.
Your own lack of knowledge has already been addressed. I suggest you stop trying to show how superior you are to everyone else while you might still have some level of credibility.
Your own lack of knowledge of the issue has already been addressed here by others, so I won't elaborate on that. As for sniveling and whining, you do enough of that for both of us, so no need for me to add to it. I suggest that you stop trying to prove your personal superiority to others here while you can still manage some level of credibility.
while you can still manage some level of credibility.
Skirting the CoC [ph]
Not my call to make. Everyone can make up their own mind.
Your personal attack against OSM has been reported.
if I had commented if your credibility was below sea level, while like Maybeline,being made up make up,
I wonder if I would have been on the level
I'm out B 4 I stick my other foot in my Large mouth
You will come visit me, won't you BF? It can get lonely in there. (smile)
So according to Merriam Webster, a WIFE is the FEMALE partner in a marriage and a HUSBAND is the MALE partner in a marriage.
You're not looking at the article used in both definitions. The dictionary says "a male partner..." and "a female partner". The dictionary does not use the. So, in a marriage with two women, both would be a female partner in that marriage, and therefore both would be wives.
Thank you very much. You are indeed a good Friend. I knew I could count on you. (smile)
In gay marriages, one is the husband and the other the wife of the union.
ROFL!
The law -- called the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Law"-- allows any person employed by the state government who has the authority to license marriages to seek recusal from licensing a same-sex marriage.
The law requires marriage clerks to "take all necessary steps to ensure that the authorization and licensing of any legally valid marriage is not impeded or delayed as a result of any recusal." and gay marriage is still legal in Mississippi and MUST be recognized and authorized. This law merely allows clerks to recuse themselves from issuing the license but they cannot delay its issuance in any way. The reason the court declined to hear it was they felt there weren't enough plaintifs showing actual harm yet because the State still must issue them a license.
So it's not really all that big a win for the bigots, and if and when more LGTBQ couples are inconvenienced and they can prove harm it will end up getting shredded by SCOTUS as they did with the prior laws that refused to issue licenses to gay couples.
The law does nothing to prevent gays from getting married or having their ceremony. It simply protects people whose religious beliefs are that that marriage and ceremony are morally wrong or a sin from having to personally take any part in it. Much the same as conscience clauses protect those opposed to abortion from having to have anything to do with one. The Mississippi law is win win. It allows gay marriages and weddings while protecting those who believe both to be an abomination before God.
The law does nothing to prevent gays from getting married or having their ceremony. It simply protects people whose religious beliefs are that that marriage and ceremony are morally wrong or a sin from having to personally take any part in it.
So why doesn't it do the same for the racist bible-babblers who oppose mixed-race marriage, or those who oppose inter-faith marriage, or those who oppose marriage by non-Christians? Sounds like the state just took sides in religious matters by endorsing and giving preference to just one set of nutty superstitions, thus blatantly violating the Establishment clause.
The law does nothing to prevent gays from getting married or having their ceremony.
Not that that won't be the next goal, right?
The law does nothing to prevent gays from getting married or having their ceremony.
You are wrong. It allows clerks to refuse to issue a state marriage license on the grounds of religious beliefs. You posted this nonsense and apparently didn't bother reading or understanding it before you did so. This law is unconstitutional on that basis alone. Feel free to ask Kim Davis about what a county clerk cannot do.
The law defends marriage between a man and a woman, sex within marriage, and the biological sexes of male and female. The law also protects businesses' religious liberty in cases involving gay marriages, including protecting county clerks from being forced to issue gay marriage licenses and faith-based adoption agences from being forced to adopt children out to gay couples.
Roy Moore tried to claim that the SCOTUS decision of Obergfell v. Hodges didn't apply in Alabama, and was removed from the bench for his religious idiocy.
In 2016, Moore ordered Alabama probate judges to continue enforcing the state's ban on same-sex marriage despite the Supreme Court's recent Obergfell v. Hodges decision. As a result, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary suspended Moore from his judgeship for the remainder of his term.
As we can see from the responses the headline to this article is spot on as the LGBQ community and their allies can’t wait to bully people whose religious beliefs are different than their own.
to bully people whose religious beliefs are different than their own.
I thought fake-victimhood like that was a cardinal sign of snowflakism.
As we can see from the responses the headline to this article is spot on as the LGBQ community and their allies can’t wait to bully people whose religious beliefs are different than their own.
So you also want to refuse to serve Jews, Muslims Atheists and pagans, even if they are heterosexual? Many LGBT couples are Christian so there is a religious conundrum that you must answer.
Unless they just want to rename the place THE BIGOT'S BAKERY.
This is a sword that can cut both ways
Most businesses have already seen what happens to a business that discriminates. The state has lost tourism dollars because of these discriminatory laws, but there are always some conservative politicians that support them as a way to pander to their religious right constituents.
Maybe the state will next try to repeal the Civil Rights act to defend the state from the Afro/mixed race Gestapo that corrupts white women. The arguments that they use now are the very same that were used 55 years ago.
s/.
How dare the courts limit the churches ability to be racist bigots based on their bronze aged myths!!! /sarc
The courts have a long and disgraceful history of doing just that in this country.
Actually in response to this law many ethical businesses in Mississippi have joined the "If you're buying, we're selling" campaign where they put a sticker in the window indicating that they don't discriminate against customers. By default that means the businesses without that sticker are bible-babbling bigots who deny service to the minority groups their cult teaches them to hate.
It's really pissed off hate groups like the FRC and AFA.......
Jesus would never have treated a gay person the way modern day Christians treat the LGBT community nor would he appreciate the religious right of today using his name to bash and degrade people in the LGBT community. If Jesus came back today, there are a LOT of, "Christians" that would be shown the down elevator, not the up. You want to preach the word of God? Fine, learn his teachings and stop with the hate. I swear, the Evangelical Christians are the nations largest hate group... absolutely sickening.
I swear, the Evangelical Christians are the nations largest hate group... absolutely sickening.
Plus they sure whine about it when they're called out for being bigots and haters.
They want the right to act hatefully with impunity and without consequences......and that's exactly what this Mississippi law is all about.
The Greenhouse on Porter sticks it to HB 1523 with 'Everyone Mississippi'
New business campaign to proclaim 'Everyone's welcome' in Mississippi
When Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant signed the Religious Accommodations Act into law, it created a quandary for many businesses. How do you market yourself as the Hospitality State when lawmakers are creating ways for businesses not to serve customers?
"Regardless of its intent, this legislation has created a level of controversy and public perception that affects the image of our state and the hospitality community," said Mike Cashion, the Executive Director of the MHRA. "And while we may not be able to manage the image and brand of the entire state, we can affect the image of our restaurants, hotels and other hospitality businesses."
.
More than a year ago, a similar campaign of inclusion started across the state. Blue stickers announcing, "We don't discriminate. If you're buying, we're selling." can still be seen on the doors of businesses across Mississippi.
The official launch date for the "EVERYONE'S WELCOME HERE" campaign is scheduled for late April
I think that's a continuation of the same campaign I mentioned up thread, so it's good to see that it's still active. The first version was started when the legislature passed the bill several years ago. Thanks for the link!
The part I like best is that it passively exposes the bigots who don't join the campaign.
"Two years ago Mississippi passed one of the strongest religious freedom laws in the country. I was pleased to read today that the United States Supreme Court refused to intervene, allowing our law to remain in full effect," said state House Judiciary B Chairman, Andy Gipson, R-Braxton in the The Clarion-Ledger on Monday. "Congratulations to Gov. Phil Bryant and his legal team."
Such an interesting title to this article. I wonder how many Christians have committed suicide because of LGBT bullying? Shouldn’t it really refer to Christians being annoyed by LGBTs?
I wonder how many Christians have committed suicide because of LGBT bullying?
Comment removed for TOS and CoC violations [ph]
Comment removed for TOS and CoC violations [ph]
Oh?
Sorry, I thought I had used those terms before and it had not been a problem.
let me try it in a more civil tone.
Christians are not prone to suicide due to bullying, unlike homosexuals, who have a very high rate of suicide, I believe it is due to homosexuals having a mental disorder.
better?
Comment removed for TOS and CoC violations [ph]
Let me see if I understand this... I can't call homosexuals names, because that is a TOS and COC violation, but liberals can call Republicans and Trump supporters every name under the sun, and that's ok?
hmm, how disappointing.
Let me see if I understand this... I can't call homosexuals names,
Why would you want to call homosexual names? That seems rather mean spirited. It also speaks volumes about you.
Christians are not prone to suicide due to bullying, unlike homosexuals, who have a very high rate of suicide,
Probably because of bullying from Christians, bigots, and homophobes.
I believe it is due to homosexuals having a mental disorder.
And you would be wrong about that!
Why would you want to call homosexual names? That seems rather mean spirited. It also speaks volumes about you.
I am a mean spirited person, I'll admit that, unlike the other 90% of people on this site who call Republicans all kinds of names, but won't admit they are wrong for it.
Probably because of bullying from Christians, bigots, and homophobes
No doubt, but that still does not address the issue that Christians are not likely to kill themselves from being bullied by homosexuals
And you would be wrong about that!
Prove me wrong.
I am a mean spirited person, I'll admit that
Skirting the CoC [ph]
Then why don’t you enlighten me, meanie?
I am a mean spirited person, I'll admit that,
That's not something to be proud of.
unlike the other 90% of people on this site who call Republicans all kinds of names, but won't admit they are wrong for it.
Take it up with them.
No doubt, but that still does not address the issue that Christians are not likely to kill themselves from being bullied by homosexuals
I didn't say they were. But then, Christian are probably not bullied to the extent like homosexuals are. Neither are homosexuals likely to bully Christians to such an extent.
Prove me wrong.
The APA does not consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder. Consider yourself proven wrong!
No doubt, but that still does not address the issue that Christians are not likely to kill themselves from being bullied by homosexuals
Perhaps it's because homosexuals DON'T bully Christians. In FACT, the VAST majority of homosexuals ARE Christians.
Prove me wrong.
That's not how any of this works. YOU made the assertion, it is your responsibility to support it.
That's not how any of this works. YOU made the assertion, it is your responsibility to support it.
Indeed. But in addition to the fact that he cannot support it with anything credible or valid, the APA also contradicts his opinion on the matter. Double whammy to his credibility.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders :
Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified,which included persistent and marked distress about one's sexual orientation (American Psychiatric Association, 1987)
Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.
Don't try and bullshit me, ok?
(1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.
Do you think that this describes all homosexuals? It’s pretty clear that it doesn’t. This describes a homosexual who wishes they weren’t, probably because they are surrounded by conservative douchebags who constantly deride homosexuals. Remind you of anyone?
This describes a homosexual who wishes they weren’t, probably because they are surrounded by conservative douchebags who constantly deride homosexuals. Remind you of anyone?
Hey, I didn't write the book.
Anyways, I have a gay cousin, he is a really nice guy, so no, I have no hate for homosexuals in general, just certain homosexuals.
For instance,
Remember when Ellen came out of the closet, everyone hated her because she was some sort of militant gay, but now everyone likes her again, she's still homosexual, but she is no longer "in your face" about it.
In FACT, the VAST majority of homosexuals ARE Christians.
Can't wait for your proof of that!
ROFL
But in all seriousness, there is a decent chance that you are correct, seeing how Christians outnumber homo's by about a million to one.. /shrug, I still want to see your proof, you made the claim, back it up, lol!
The point is that the majority of people in the USA identify as Christian, so by default, most gays will be Christians. That's just basic math.
Same goes for abortions and prison populations.
Don't try and bullshit me, ok?
So you're demanding that we do as you say, not as you do?
Seriously, it's 2018.
Remember when Ellen came out of the closet, everyone hated her because she was some sort of militant gay, but now everyone likes her again, she's still homosexual, but she is no longer "in your face" about it.
Everyone 'hated her'? Seriously, that's bullshit.
BTFW, you obviously don't watch her show. Ellen is still VERY 'in your face' about her sexual orientation.
BTW, glad to know you like Ellen too.
I'm still waiting for YOUR proof.
I forgot what it is you want me to prove, I've provided proof of everything so far.
So your position is that you're incapable of following the thread. Got ya.
And how many times have you flagged violations you have seen? Don't blame the Mods for not being able to be everywhere at once and read ever comment. If you don't flag the ones you see, then don't complain about what the Mods. That is what the Flag on the comments are for.
However, I guess it is more fun to trash the Mods than give them a heads up on such comments.
FUCK YOU ASSHOLE
wasn't that the Terminator, the former California Governor,
talking to the motel counter man, in response as to what smelled so putrid ?
That's what normal people would do.
Now you are saying that I am not normal? Who are you to judge whether or not I am? And before you go around throwing pointed stones at others to try to make them look inferior to you, you might think of the consequences of your own words.
R U A Newsvine Refugee by chance ?
Do U recall IGKNORANTZRULZ ?
Now you are saying that I am not normal?
LOL!
Ever the victim, eh Raven?
Ever the victim, eh Raven?
Don't put the monkey on my back. Those were your words, not mine. You own them, not me. So don't try to deflect from your own hateful words by trying to put the victim card on me.
And you are piously pointing the finger at me? Go tell it to those who don't know you.
Those were your words, not mine. You own them, not me. So don't try to deflect from your own hateful words by trying to put the victim card on me.
What words were my words? I understand that you Comment removed for CoC [ph], or something, but please, don't fucking lie to try and make a point against me Raven.
Yes. I vaguely remember a name like that. I left newsvine a few years before they closed. I was Cornhusker4Palin over there.
Comment removed for context [ph]
You know NOTHING about me. Your assumption that I am old, or something is a personal insult.
As for the words you called me a liar about, your own words,
9.1.2.2.… Old School Marine replied to Raven Wing @ 9.1.2.2.…
" That's what normal people would do."
Where is the lie you claim I made.
Not only did you infer that I am not normal, you also call me "old, or something", and you also called me a liar . All are against the CoC.
Your assumption that I am old, or something is a personal insult.
My assumption came from you old self, you have stated as much many times..
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph] Seeing how I've never said anything in this thread at all.
I could report you for a personal attack, I am not "one marine", or whatever.. But I won't report you, I will have pity on you.
My assumption came from you old self, you have stated as much many times..
Prove where I said that. I have never ever given my age on this or any other board on the Internet as it is no one's business.
Comments removed for context [ph]
Keep going, the violations are adding up. And as far as not reporting me.......PLEASE, do go for it, and we'll see which one of us gets written up first.
yea, i vaguely recall you as well
let the fun begin
again
Don't try and bullshit me, ok?
The only one with BS here is you, especially when you try to cite something from almost 40 years ago. Too funny! Go back another 5-10 years and I'll bet you can find a source that says homosexuality is a mental illness. Of course, such antiquated notions have long been abandoned and rejected. try to stay current.
I've provided proof of everything so far.
And your so-called "proof" has been shown to be total BS so far.
I am not "one marine", or whatever
No, you are not, and I do apologize for that mistake on my part. However, your subsequent comments to me are still CoC violations.
You can't call any religious group a derogatory name.
And no one call insult any other member. If you see it flag it.
Politics is in a class of their own. Any party, or politician can be called anything. It goes on here daily by both sides.
OSM...
You and I went over that and it was a CoC violation.
Let me see if I understand this... I can't call homosexuals names, because that is a TOS and COC violation, but liberals can call Republicans and Trump supporters every name under the sun, and that's ok?
No political group or party is protected from name calling unless it is directed to a specific member. And no you can't call homosexuals names.
You can't call any religious group a derogatory name.
Well then we will have to be more vigilant about flagging such comments as Bible Thumpers, Bigots, Homophobes, etc. directed at Christians.
I locked this seed when I watched a movie and went to bed afterward. When I did the whole seed was virtually nothing but vindictive and hate filled name calling directed at Christians and some of their beliefs, totally vindicating the seed title. Hopefully today won’t be a repeat.
Will you ever stop carping and whining about this fake persecution? Man-up for once, for Christ's sake.
It must be tough for Christian extremists to have everyone else point and laugh at their bigoted superstitions.
We need a law to protect these fragile and extra white snowflakes!
ego-dystonic homosexuality,
The diagnostic category of "ego-dystonic homosexuality" was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's DSM in 1987.
Since 1987 ( DSM III- Revised ) there have been several more revisions, the latest being 2013 version DSM-V (Five)
If you're going to pretend to be something, you should use the latest information, not a publication from 1980 or 1987.
When the WHO removed the diagnosis of homosexuality as a mental disorder in ICD-10, it included the diagnosis of ego-dystonic sexual orientation under "Psychological and behavioural disorders associated with sexual development and orientation". The WHO's ICD-10 diagnoses ego-dystonic sexual orientation thus:
The gender identity or sexual preference (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or prepubertal) is not in doubt, but the individual wishes it were different because of associated psychological and behavioural disorders, and may seek treatment in order to change it. (F66.1)
The WHO notes that for codes under F66: "Sexual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder."[1]
Patients are sometimes still diagnosed as having this problem.[7] This is often a result of unfavorable and intolerant attitudes of the society or a conflict between sexual urges and religious belief systems.[8]
Are you a big fan of the UN or WHO?
Stop deliberately taunting and trolling me and I won't need to respond to you. I am never a victim, merely standing up for my own rights not to be bullied by you or anyone else here on NT. This is not the other site you came from, there are rules here and if you don't want to abide by them, then I suggest you find a more suitable venue to attack others with your snark and personal insults. That does not fly here on NT.
Let me see if I understand this... I can't call homosexuals names, because that is a TOS and COC violation, but liberals can call Republicans and Trump supporters every name under the sun, and that's ok?
That is right. And you kind of gave me a giggle there from a moderators stand point. Republicans/Conservatives do as much insulting of Democrats/liberals.. what you can't do is do a direct insult of a member and call them a political name. But you can make sweeping generalizations about either. although I don't see how it fosters good dialog.
Carry on.
Republicans/Conservatives do as much insulting of Democrats/liberals.. what you can't do is do a direct insult of a member and call them a political name. But you can make sweeping generalizations about either.
Ok, I understand the direct insult of a member is no go. I understand that sweeping generalizations are ok, so what was wrong with the sweeping generalization of "homo's" or "faggots"? I understand it is very not nice to refer to them as such, but it is also not nice to refer to me, a Trump supporter, as a racist.. Yet that is allowed.
The article headline is spot on. The gay gestapo is in fact targeting Christian businesses in a deleberate effort to compel or coerce them into violating their deeply held religious beliefs in servitude to their fascistic demands.
The gay gestapo is in fact targeting Christian businesses in a deleberate effort to compel or coerce them into violating their deeply held religious beliefs in servitude to their fascistic demands.
Please post a link, from a reliable source, to support your statement.
Maybe they shouldn’t have gone into business then. What if a businessman claims that their deeply held religious beliefs prevents them from serving Asians?
prevents them from serving Asians?
sounds like
no happy endings
to me, but possibly many a melancollie moment, with possible infinite sadness to Das Boot!
Teavangelical taliban beliefs are equal to any other beliefs, or no beliefs, and all are subservient to the US Constitution.
I have relatives that are Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not celebrate Christmas, Halloween, Easter, Mothers day, New Years, Valentines Day or birthdays because of their pagan origins.
I can just imagine a JW bakery employee that would refuse to do almost every cake that came before them.
Ultimately, everything and everyone is subservient to God, above all else.
I can just imagine a JW bakery employee that would refuse to do almost every cake that came before them
they'd be rich for sure
Ultimately, everything and everyone is subservient to God, above all else.
Yes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster will one day impose his will upon mankind and prove he exists by covering everyone in his spicy marinara! Bow down to the true God of the universe, the FSM! May his noodley appendages embrace you!
Ultimately, everything and everyone is subservient to God, above all else.
God is subservient to me. Prove me wrong.
whatever we believe it will be settled for all at the 2nd coming.
Good one!
Let the pointless religious wailing begin after no teavangelical makes the cut.
What if a businessman claims that their deeply held religious beliefs prevents them from serving Asians?
That would be wrong based on the Asian having no say so on being an Asian, obviously.
whatever we believe it will be settled for all at the 2nd coming.
Over 2000 years later... Is he stuck in traffic in India or something?
The gay gestapo is in fact targeting Christian businesses in a deleberate effort to compel or coerce them into violating their deeply held religious beliefs in servitude to their fascistic demands.
If baking a cake or arranging flowers in exchange for a cost that you have determined is a violation of your beliefs then the problem is your religious beliefs and not serving a customer equally as required by federal law. Either stop whining and do the job like an adult or close the business and go to work for someone else who is more rational.
Ultimately, everything and everyone is subservient to God, above all else.
Shiva, Horus, Jupiter, and Thor told me that your god is a spineless psychopath.
That would be wrong based on the Asian having no say so on being an Asian, obviously.
Yet them having no say isn't why it's wrong AND ILLEGAL.
whatever we believe it will be settled for all at the 2nd coming.
Most women I know can do more than that. Are you saying that your imaginary friend is inferior to an ordinary woman?
yea, i was tempted on this one as well, but i chose to opt out
good luck, and you have my support on this
Ultimately, everything and everyone is subservient to God, above all else.
Oh, so god just wants us to be slaves then.
whatever we believe it will be settled for all at the 2nd coming.
And the 2nd coming nonsense is nothing but belief. But you are free to believe whatever you want.
You don’t get to decide what religious beliefs people get the free excercise there of to observe nor what career people engage in.
You don’t get to decide what religious beliefs people get the free excercise there of to observe nor what career people engage in.
The law decides and places limits on religious exercise.
The law decides and places limits on religious exercise.
To wit from the Piggie Park ruling:
The free exercise of one's beliefs, however, as distinguished from the absolute right to a belief , is subject to regulation when religious acts require accommodation to society. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 , 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944) (Mails to defraud); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 , 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878) (polygamy conviction); Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 , 64 S. Ct. 438, 88 L. Ed. 645 (1943) (minor in company of ward distributing religious literature in violation of statute).
Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishments upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.
.
All of which means that the bigoted bible-babblers are screwed. Their only recourse will be to run their "Bakery for Bigots" as a private members-only club like the whites-only country club Rush Limbaugh belongs to.
All of which means that the bigoted bible-babblers are screwed.
Indeed. But then, some theists tend to refer religious belief and exercise interchangeably.
Their only recourse will be to run their "Bakery for Bigots" as a private members-only club like the whites-only country club Rush Limbaugh belongs to.
If they had done that to begin with, then this entire issue might have been avoided.
I have no doubt that what these Christian extremists really want is to return to the Jim Crow era.
Neither do I. I'll take it a step further and say what they really want is a Christian theocracy and replace the Constitution with the bible.
None of them will live long enough to see that happen.
a gay couple SPECIFICALLY picks a bakery they know will refuse to bake hem a gay wedding cake instead of going where they know the bakery will bake the gay wedding cake, THAT is targeting, period, end of story. When Jack Phillips says sorry I cannot decorate a cake and instead of simply going to another bakery which will, they throw a fucking temper tantrum akin to a 3 year old, THAT is TARGETING.
so a same sex couple SPECIFICALLY picked a PUBLIC bakery and expected that PUBLIC bakery to serve the PUBLIC - so that is targeting ? when they were refused due to their sexual orientation - they decided not to tolerate discrimination (especially since that's against the law) and they brought up a lawsuit to punish the bakery for breaking the law - and you are against this and wish to play the victim ? supporting a bakery that is trying to legally discriminate (which is currently illegal, so they are criminal) is a good thing just because they happen to be religious ?
When Jack Phillips says sorry I cannot decorate a cake and instead of simply going to another bakery which will, they throw a fucking temper tantrum akin to a 3 year old, THAT is TARGETING.
Sounds more like it's merely expecting the state to enforce its law which explicitly prohibits that kind of irrational discrimination.
Or would you also expect black folks to "find another lunch counter" when they're illegally denied service? Perhaps your fragile ilk should stop whining about it when businesses are required to follow the law?
Which one has an X chromosome and which one has a Y chromosome?
What difference does it make? "Husband" and "wife" is merely a description. The legal term in a marriage is "spouse."
Nah, that would be liberals
Nice ad hom attack.
How in the fuck is refusing to bake a gay wedding cake a racist act
Because a specific group of people are being refused, which is discrimination and against the law. How do you not get that?
because nobody is actually being hurt by being refused a gay wedding cake, only their fragile little sensibilities,
How is a baker being hurt by baking a wedding cake, which is his job anyway? Or is his fragile religious sensibilities being hurt?
I say Russia has won when T-baggers decide that cake decorating is a straights-only sport.
By the way there's recent research which shows that FOX viewers are the # 1 consumers of fake news. Big surprise, eh? But it does explain a lot about our current government.
Putin has indeed scored a few points. Trump still standing. Ignorance is bliss and stupidity is holy. Sh**holes are legitimate speak and rendezvous with hot ex-porn stars are cleanly incinerated.
Well done Putin. Now just get into the vote counts a little better and the little puppy will be forever satiated.
I'm starting to suspect that all this fakery and lying about "christians" being persecuted by a minority is the way fascists in Germany laid the groundwork for justifying the elimination of various minorities that were a threat to German genetic superiority. This tack and the language used are open invitations to murder--on a small scale now but who knows where it goes from there.
Not that I would pretend expertise in the ways of Gayness, but I believe that it is a human condition not an ideology.
Did Jesus not tell us to love all others as we would ourselves? I really do not recall any exceptions, has there been an amendment to the bible regarding gays?
Law prevents faith-based businesses from being forced to promote gay ideology
sorry folks. you can not force someone to ignore their religion just because they engage in business.
In June, the Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling
in case you can not see which way the wind blows? that ruling will support religious freedom.
Cheers 
you can not force someone to ignore their religion just because they engage in business.
And someone cannot ignore or violate the law just because of their religion. Especially when they agree to abide by the law in the first place when obtaining a business license to serve the public.
in case you can not see which way the wind blows? that ruling will support religious freedom.
Considering how other courts have ruled so far, the wind direction may not be blowing in the direction you want.
And someone cannot ignore or violate the law just because of their religion.
religious exemptions to laws are nothing new.
Considering how other courts have ruled so far,
so far I am batting 1000 on supreme court case predictions for the last 10yrs running
my streak is not going to be broken by such an easy call.
you do not have to believe me today... the supreme court will explain it to ya in a few months.
Cheers
Considering how other courts have ruled so far
let me give you a hint.
- lower court ruled against baker / supreme court picked it up
- lower courts ruled against LGBT community / supreme court did not pick it up
are ya seeing a trend yet?
Tuesday's argument opened with a series of hypotheticals posed by the court's liberal justices. The questions were aimed at Phillips' claim that baking a cake for a same-sex wedding would unconstitutionally compel him to speak as an artist and cake creator on behalf of same-sex marriage, which he opposes.
When Michelangelo is not an artist, but a baker is
"At the wedding ceremony, the speech is of the people who are marrying, and perhaps the officiant," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. "But who else speaks?"
The artist speaks, replied Kristen Waggoner, representing the baker. "It's as much Mr. Phillips' speech as it would be the couple's."
"Who else then is an artist?" Justice Ginsburg asked. "The person who designs the wedding invitations, and the menus?"
"How about the jeweler, or the hairstylist, or the makeup artist?" Justice Elena Kagan questioned.
No, replied Waggoner, none of those are artists.
Why not? asked Kagan, noting that a makeup artist has the word "artist" in her name and may be using her creativity and artistry, too.
And what about an architectural design? asked Justice Samuel Alito. Waggoner answered that it would not be protected.
"So in other words, Mies or Michelangelo or someone is not protected when he creates the Laurentian steps, but this cake baker is protected when he creates the cake without any message on it for a wedding? Now that — that really does baffle me, I have to say," Justice Stephen Breyer said.
Jack Phillips' artistry is different, Waggoner insisted, contending at one point that a chef is not engaged in speech when she creates food for a wedding or a wedding anniversary but a baker is.
"We're asking these questions," Justice Breyer said, "because we want some kind of distinction that will not undermine every civil rights law." Those civil rights laws have long barred discrimination based on race, sex and religion.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco, making his first appearance on behalf of the Trump administration and supporting the baker, agreed that the court should not allow such exceptions when discrimination is based on race. But he urged the justices to allow some narrow cases of discrimination, such as in this case, when the discrimination is based on gender, or religion, or sexual orientation.
Supreme Court Seems Split In Case Of Baker Vs. Same-Sex Couple; Eyes Now On Kennedy
Religious exemptions are only allowed as long as they don't go against compelling government interests, and are subject to legislative revision. Allowing someone to use their religion as an excuse to ignore or violate the law in effect allows them to become a law unto themselves and effectively neutralizes the power or authority of the government. I'd say the lack of government authority, which could result if the ruling favored the baker, provides a compelling government interest. Another factor to consider is that this particular issue also involves public accommodation laws. A ruling in favor of the baker could potentially nullify state or federal public accommodation laws too, based on religious objections. The attorneys arguing against the baker could use those particular points to argue for a ruling against the baker.
On the flip side, the baker who owns and operates a business accommodating the public is bound to adhere to state/federal public accommodation laws, as he agrees to do when obtaining a business license. And the baker has already admitted to violating state law. However, the baker would have to prove that providing service to a homosexual customer would substantially burden his beliefs. Somehow, I don't see how baking a cake, something which he has done numerous times, would constitute an undue burden on his beliefs.
religious exemptions to laws are nothing new.
Actually it would be a very new thing since religious views have never been a valid excuse to violate a generally applicable law. As the court said in 1878 and Scalia reiterated in 1990:
"To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
.
What's even worse for the dumb bigots is that SCOTUS has already rejected such religious excuses in the specific context of public accommodations laws. See Newman v Piggie Park for details.
Moreover SCOTUS has always supported the right of the government to regulate religious conduct. But what it can't regulate is the right to hold religious beliefs no matter how vile they are......and as we see Jack Phillips has been free to go on TV and espouse his anti-LGBT views without any government interference.
1. lower court ruled against baker / supreme court picked it up
Actually the Bigoted Bakery case was bumped at least 14 times from conference to conference. It was only granted cert after Gorsuch joined the court but even those 4 votes for cert aren't an indication of how the court will vote. What's perhaps more relevant is that when Scalia was on the court they denied cert to Elane Photography which had a far more compelling argument (because wedding photographers do have to attend the wedding). That means there were at most 3 votes for cert when Scalia was on the court.
.
2. lower courts ruled against LGBT community / supreme court did not pick it up
I'm not sure what case you're referring to, but if it's the one in MS about HB1523 the appeals court dismissed the case due to lack of standing. That's explicitly not a ruling on the merits.
.
so far I am batting 1000 on supreme court case predictions for the last 10yrs running
LOL. You don't even seem to understand how our courts work, much less have any apparent understanding of the legal issues in these cases.
Today is National Religious Freedom Day! At least we have the Mississippi case to celebrate today.
This Mississippi law will be struck down as soon as there is someone with legal standing to appeal it, but as of yet, there is nobody in Mississippi dumb enough to deny service to LGBT people.
What religious freedom do you want that the Constitution's First Amendment doesn't give you? You have the right to believe in god/gods and worship as you see fit, so what more do you want?
Be very careful what you want because every other religion must also be able to enjoy the same religious rights, even when they disagree with you.
Who is online
97 visitors
“The Missippi legislature approved the religious freedom law in 2015 following the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay "marriage" nationwide. Governor Phil Bryant signed the measure into law in 2016, but it did not take effect until October 10, after President Trump broadened exemptions to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that required employers to provide abortifacients and contraceptives in their health plans.
The law defends marriage between a man and a woman, sex within marriage, and the biological sexes of male and female. The law also protects businesses' religious liberty in cases involving gay marriages, including protecting county clerks from being forced to issue gay marriage licenses and faith-based adoption agences from being forced to adopt children out to gay couples.
Mississippians [should not] live in fear of losing their careers or their businesses simply for affirming marriage as a husband-wife union.Tweet”
Ummmm.....why shouldn't bigots live in fear of losing their careers or their businesses?
Exactly. Racism and bigotry has never, EVER, had any positive influence on any society.
You are wrong. No business has been dumb enough to actually try to cite this law when they refuse equal service to LGBT customers, so there is nobody with legal standing to ask the SCOTUS to rule on its constitutionality.
How does a gay wedding cake physically differ from a wedding cake for a divorced Christian couple? If you put the cakes side by side how would you tell them apart?
LOL.....sounds like you don't understand the difference between a procedural dismissal due to lack of standing and a ruling based on the merits of a case. Since the law had never gone into effect the plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that they had been harmed. But that's not the case now that the law has gone into effect so you can expect this law to be struck down in a future case.
It also sounds like you've confused an actual case of unlawful discrimination in the 10th Circuit with a likely state violation of the Establishment clause in the 5th Circuit. Most likely it's because you don't actually know anything at all about any of these cases much less which states and federal districts they're in.
No gay will be harmed by their not being able to coerce a Christian with a certain viewpoint into doing something for them that ten other people with a different view or no view would willingly do for them.
Yeah, that's the exact same argument which was used by the racist morons in the Jim Crow states......."Go find another lunch counter to sit at. We don't serve your kind here." I fact your fellow Christian, Maurice Bessinger, made that very argument in the Newman v PIggie Park case when he refused to serve blacks in his whites-only restaurant. As a faithful Southern Baptist he was unable to abide by secular laws which required racial non-discrimination.
Too bad SCOTUS said his religious arguments and artistic expression arguments were "ludicrous", eh?
When you operate a for-profit business that serves the public your customers cannot be required to inquire about the owner's religious views before they are served. If your religious beleifs are harmed by serving others equally then you chose the wrong career.
God never told anyone to segregate themselves by race. He told us to love or neighbor as ourselves. He did tell people who are believers to live apart from the world. He did say that homosexuality and other sexual acts were an abomination to Him and destroy a couple of cities over those abominations. It’s time for the gay gestapo to remove their thuggish jackboots off the necks of people who disagree with them and drop the goon bullying of them.
Many people had these careers before the Supreme Court imposed gay marriages upon all the states. Exceptions and conscience clauses were created when abortion was imposed on the states by the court and the same can be done now.
That's odd.... ToS/ CoC violation [ph] was founded on the premise of white supremacy and racial segregation, and the LDS cult supported the exact same white supremacist views . That's why Maurice Bessinger was such a racist moron, because he was a traditional Southern Baptist.
But what's important here is that our secular courts really don't give a crap about your imaginary friend nor do they dig very far into your superstitions other than to discern whether your superstitions are sincere, ie whether you believe the bigoted views you espouse. Here's what the court said in the PIggie Park case:
.
Skirting the CoC [ph] If you want a further clue to how the court will rule in the case of the bigoted baker, see the Reynolds v US citation where SCOTUS denies the use of religion as an excuse to violate a law: "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
LOL. Maurice Bessinger had his whites-only BBQ long before Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So why didn't SCOTUS give him an exemption? Probably because that's not how our laws work - especially not our public accommodations laws.
.
To do that would undermine every public accommodations law in the country. As SCOTUS observed, "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
What conscience clause was created when Roe v. Wade was passed?
Did you want a conscience clause after business owners were forced to serve black people or interracial couples got the right to marry the person of their choice?
How does serving someone like you would want to be served a violation of your religious beliefs when you don't know their beliefs and they don't know yours? This law is just another attempt by conservatives to hide their discrimination behind their religious views, despite the fact that Jesus never taught his followers to discriminate.
Why don't these intolerant religious conservatives run away and form their own commune where they don't have to interact with anyone else? It could be called Ayn Rand's Trumpistan. There would be no no seperation of chuch and state to get in your way, black/interracial people, no gay people, no atheists, no Muslims, no liberals and most of all no people from shithole countries.
nobody is actually being hurt by being asked to perform their jobs and provide services from their public business (which they voluntarily opened and voluntarily agreed to abide by public non-discrimination laws) by making a "gay" wedding cake, only their fragile sensibilities.
I've asked them more than once that if you put two wedding cakes side by side how could a person look at them differentiate the heterosexual cake from the LGBT cake?
If a trans woman who had surgery married a hetero man wouldn't that be a heterosexual wedding?
Exactly how did same sex marriage affect anyone's career?
You don't seem to understand how the judicial process works, do you?
they seem to have this idea in their head of what a "gay wedding cake" looks like but can't provide any specifics that differentiate it from a "non gay wedding cake". Its rather amusing
good question
I've asked that question before too. What makes a "gay wedding cake" different from a heterosexual cake? Are different ingredients used? Maybe the "gay" cake looks more fabulous ?
They have no idea what the cake looks like or how they are different. This is just a way to hide their bigotry behind religion because of the 1st Amendment religious protections.
They also equate baking a cake to actually being in or part of the wedding. They don't even realizer that the cake is usually for the reception, which normally takes place after the wedding ceremony itself is complete.
And it's quite transparent too.
The cake topper is often sourced by the couple. It is not created by the baker.Many couples do not have the traditional cake topper on them.
It is not put on the cake until after it is assembled at the reception hall, so the baker won't get gay cooties from it. The baker doesn't go to the reception because either the family/friends pick up the cake or it is picked up by the caterer.
But it is ok for christian's sensibilities to be hurt by queer folk.
So where is your Biblical defense from refusing to serve others as yourself? The baker should be serving others as he would serve members of his church or as he would expect to be served in another business.
Will these bigots also refuse to serve Muslims, Jews, atheists and interracial couples because of their supposed religious persecution, or are they just offended by those silly queers because they have equal rights?
Gay people aren't asking for that baker's approvals. he isn't invited to the wedding and they aren't asking him to like them or change his religious beliefs because his religious beliefs are irrelevant to baking a cake.
He opened a bakery that serves the public and they are paying him to bake a damn cake that he sets the price for. These people need to learn to be an adult and do the job. Jesus wasn't a religious bigot.
That's a cake decoration, not the actual cake itself. Decorations are usually chosen by the customer. So again, what is the difference between a "gay" cake and a "straight" one?
I don't remember the 1st Amendment having protections so you could never be insulted or offended by the speech or actions of other people, especially in a public for-profit business that a person opened of their own volition and agreed to operate by all relevant local, state and federal laws.
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." -- Virginia state Judge Leon Bazile, 1965
No surprise that Judge Bazile was a Southern Baptist.
A couple, hetero or LGBT would ever have a problem if the baker said that we will bake the cake but you need to provide the cake topper if you wish to have one.
Kinky.
A gay cake has a top and a bottom...
I like the possibility of a carnivorous wedding cake that commits double homicide in a reception hall. I doubt that Steven King ever thought of that as the premise of a horror movie.
That might be better than