Mat Staver: Christians Can’t “Get a Fair Shake” In Front of an Openly Gay Judge

Staver, like other Christian bigots, can’t separate a gay person’s identity from what he does in the bedroom. He has no problem with straight judges ruling on gay marriage, but a gay judge deciding whether a Christian is violating the law by refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple? That’s blasphemy!

Dominionism in action.

Another poor poor persecuted 'christian'  

As opposed to those poor poor little gays who whine and snivel like 3 year olds because someone refuses to decorate a gay themed wedding cake?

No. 

As opposed to those poor poor little gays who whine and snivel like 3 year olds because someone refuses to decorate a gay themed wedding cake?  SO instead of simply sucking it up and going elsewhere they fucking act like entitlement little shitheads?

similar to those poor poor little religious people who "whine and snivel like 3 year olds" because someone (the PUBLIC) ordered a wedding cake from their PUBLIC business ? SO instead of simply "sucking it up" and doing their jobs, serving the PUBLIC as they voluntarily decided to do when they voluntarily opened their PUBLIC business, they "fucking act like entitlement little shitheads" ?

As opposed to those poor poor little gays who whine and snivel like 3 year olds because someone refuses to decorate a gay themed wedding cake?

Well seeing as though this is a fallacy of your own creation, just like the dingbat in this article's assertion.....it's a little moot point then!

That's the best you can come up with, to copy what I said instead of having the balls to admit the truth?

i absolutely admitted the truth - i'm not sure why you advocate for criminals instead of law-abiding citizens. By definition, since discrimination is illegal - the baker is a criminal and you are supporting him. why do you think public business owners shouldn't have to serve the public or abide by our secular laws if they claim to be religious ?

Go read the First Amendment since you obviously have never done so prior.

I've read the First Amendment - i also don't advocate giving religion superiority over our secular laws - do you ?

Poor little you, how sad.

yes, that's how i feel too - poor little you.. how sad for you to be "persecuted" ! 

to copy what I said instead of having the balls to admit the truth?

Dude! The truth is a business open to the public decided to discriminate against a gay couple by not providing services which is MAKING A CAKE FOR A LEGAL WEDDING, and because they were called on breaking the law decided to whine like 3 year olds instead of just following the law. As for admitting the truth it's funny how you like to change the facts of the case in order to fit your "truth"!

Yep, open to the public and whines if a gay person asks them to bake a cake so they break the law....

Poor wittle persecuted christian snowflake.

ummmmm, yeah I'd say that sums it up pretty nicely actually

I'm not surprised that you agree with your own fantasies. 

DUDE!!!  The truth is is that the gay couple could simply take their whiny sniveling crybaby asses to some other bakery, except it's not about the cake for them, it's about demanding others accept and support their homosexual lifestyle regardless of whether or not those persons do or do not believe in same sex marriage.

DUDE !! The truth is that the PUBLIC business owner could simply just have baked them a simple cake for their reception - letting the gay couple decorate it themselves, instead the PUBLIC business owner took his "whiny sniveling crybaby ass" to SCOTUS because its not about the cake for him, its about demanding others accept, support and be forced to abide by his religious lifestyle regardless of whether or not those persons do or do not believe in his chosen religion, he even wants his religion to be used as an excuse to break our country's secular laws and held higher than our country's secular laws.

THAT DUDE.....................is the truth of the matter.

Just like those darned Jews whining and complaining as the SS smashed down their doors.

DUDE!!!  The truth is is that the gay couple could simply take their whiny sniveling crybaby asses to some other bakery,

And the whiney sniveling bakery owner should have just followed the fucking law and baked the damned cake!

except it's not about the cake for them,

Yeah, it's not.....just like it wasn't about the cake for the baker either......unfortunately for his snowflake ass the law was on the couple's side NOT his!

it's about demanding others accept and support their homosexual lifestyle regardless of whether or not those persons do or do not believe in same sex marriage.

They didn't demand no such thing! What they demanded from him was to follow the freaking law and make the damn cake for their legal wedding just like he makes wedding cakes for people for their legal weddings!

THAT DUDE.....................is the truth of the matter

No, the truth is the only whiney sniveling crybaby is the one whimpering at the SCOTUS trying to find loopholes to legally discriminate despite every law in this land saying he cant! You have you forgetting that he is the going to court NOT them!

I'm not surprised you fancy truth as fantasy, most liberals do.

Really? Quick tell me who the law says is right and who is wrong in this scenario?

DUDE!!!  The truth is is that the gay couple could simply take their whiny sniveling crybaby asses to some other bakery

I know, right?    And I agree with you that blacks and other minorities should have done the same when they were refused service at a whites-only lunch counter.   Why couldn't those Negros simply drag their whiny sniveling crybaby asses to a lunch counter which served their kind?

Liberals have told us for decades that race/gender etc matter in how judges perform their duties (see:wise latina). 

Are you saying it doesn't?  

If he is a Liberal he is undoubtedly saying it doesn't matter if it is a judge he agrees with.

Liberals have told us for decades that race/gender etc matter in how judges perform their duties (see:wise latina).

Are you saying it doesn't?

The seed isn't about race or gender. 

"we typically see is someone’s identity, their being, completely wrapped up in their sexual practices"

So he's claiming that heterosexual judges can't be impartial either. So what's the difference if everyone is "completely wrapped up in their sexual practices"? I guess no matter what a judge can't be impartial then, right? /s

“Here’s the problem with it beyond the issue of the morality of this,” Staver said. “Beyond the issue of other consequences is the fact that what we typically see is someone’s identity, their being, completely wrapped up in their sexual practices, meaning that — do you think that if you had an Aaron and Melissa Klein or a Jack Phillips bakery or anything else like that where you have the LGBT clash with religious freedom or freedom of expression come before this judge, do you think this judge is going to be open and fair irrespective of what he does to rule based on the Constitution and the rule of law? I don’t think so.”

if you have an openly extremely religious judge - do you think that judge is going to be open and fair irrespective of what he does to rule on based on the Constitution and rule of law, especially on cases involving religious freedom or freedom of expression ? (if you answer "yes" - then why would this judge in the story be any different ? just because he is a homosexual ?)

… Staver asserted that McDonald, or any other gay judge for that matter, is likewise incapable of delivering objective rulings in cases involving LGBTQ rights or religious freedom.

i could assert the same with extremely religious judges, correct ?

“The question is: are you going to get a fair shake out of this individual who identifies as someone based upon his sexual practices, who is identified and identifies himself based upon certain behavior?” Staver said. “Are you gonna get a fair shake? I don’t think so. So that is a real problem in this nomination of this appointment of this individual.”

don't the religious identify themselves based upon certain behaviors ? 

if you have an openly extremely religious judge - do you think that judge is going to be open and fair irrespective of what he does to rule on based on the Constitution and rule of law, especially on cases involving religious freedom or freedom of expression ? (if you answer "yes" - then why would this judge in the story be any different ? just because he is a homosexual ?)

That's an easy question to answer since there is a documented case, Roy Moore. Moore's court filing in defense of his unconstitutional orders to Alabama officials make it quite clear that his religious animus guided his actions. 

don't the religious identify themselves based upon certain behaviors ?

Yes, they do tend to ignore the fact that religion is a chosen behavior too. 

A gay judge that cannot render a fair decision involving a straight Christian, but what if the Christian is gay? Would that be ok in the authors mind. 

This article and opinion has crossed the line on stupidity.

Was it not: All men are created in gods image (or something along those lines). Or did they rewrite that part?

Just pointing it out.

I have cleaned up all the off topic comments. Stay on topic and stop with the insults or leave the discussion. Only warning.

Thank you Perrie. 

Ditto

Perhaps the best way to clear up these......................dilemmas............is to force all bakeries..........all businesses......... to prominently display signage indicating the business is either a 'tolerant' or 'intolerant' entity.  Thusly, the prospective customers can make their own decision to purchase based on their own prejudices or lack of them.

Like painting a fucking cross on the front door of their businesses so normal Americans will know not to patronize it.

I did not say that.

But.........................well, there it is, there you have it.

snicker

geez...kind of reminds me of another time when religious people where forced to where a star.

geez...kind of reminds me of another time when religious people where forced to where a star.

were those religious people fighting to legally discriminate against fellow citizens, with their public business, as well ?

Yeah.  We saw some of them at Charlottesville in support of 'the president.'

they where fighting to stay alive.  is that the path people wish on Christians by marking them with a cross?  

You saw Jewish people wearing stars?

geez...kind of reminds me of another time when religious people where forced to where a star.

The Jews weren't singled out because of their religion, per say. They were singled out as a RACE that the Nazis viewed as inferior. 

they where fighting to stay alive.  is that the path people wish on Christians by marking them with a cross?

I don't see anyone advocating currently to kill religious people - do you ? i think you are indulging in a bit of hyperbole mixed with overreaction

please point out to me where this judge or anyone else is advocating currently to kill all religious people

I didn't know the Star of David represented a race. 

I didn't know the Star of David represented a race.

It wasn't the 'Star of David' and Jews weren't the only ones required to were the badges. If you actually have the intellectual curiosity to find out the facts, the concentration camp badge system is available online. 

Armband becomes mandatory for Jews in Poland..

holocaustonline

All Jews in Poland over the age of 10 had to wear a Star of David . Originally local decrees in the territory differed; some required Jews to wear a white armband with a blue Star of David displayed on it; in the Warthegau, a yellow badge in the shape of the Star was to be sewn onto the person’s left side and also on their back. The Star also included the word Jude – German for ‘Jew’ – in the middle

does that say mandatory for "race"?  Jewish people where marked, and some would like Christians to be marked also.

get a clue.

holocaustworldwar2fusaro.weebly

The basis for Nazi antisemitism—prejudice against or hatred of Jewish people—was the Nazis’ distorted worldview of human history as racial struggle. The Nazis falsely considered the Jews to be a race. They incorrectly believed Jews had a natural impulse, inherited through generations, to strive for world domination, and that this goal would not only prevent German dominance but would also enslave and destroy the German “race.”

ushmm 7

en.wikipedia

Jews were subjected to antisemitism based on Christian theology , which blamed them for killing Jesus. Even after the Reformation, Catholicism and Lutheranism continued to persecute Jews, accusing them of blood libels and subjecting them to pogroms and expulsions.[59][60] The second half of the 19th century saw the emergence in the German empire and Austria-Hungary of the völkisch movement, which was developed by such thinkers as Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Paul de Lagarde. The movement embraced a pseudo-scientific racism that viewed Jews as a race whose members were locked in mortal combat with the Aryan race for world domination.

Based solely on and supported by the Jewish religion....period. 

geez...kind of reminds me of another time when religious people where forced to where a star.

Ah.....so you want special rights not to be discriminated against for one's cult membership (which public accommodations laws protect), but you also want the special right to ignore public accommodations laws when they protect sexual orientation.

Sounds like you have a double standard.

Skirting the CoC [ph]

is that the path people wish on Christians by marking them with a cross?

I don't see any xtians being forced to display their crosses or their bigotry.  They seem to be quite happy with shoving both down our throats (as a well-used rightwing phrase goes). So, what's your gripe?

Ah.....so you want special rights not to be discriminated against for one's cult membership (which public accommodations laws protect), but you also want the special right to ignore public

please support where I said any of that.  your imagination is going wild.

Oh course.  I received an excellent education.  Films, photographs, testimonials and everything.

Christians: Hooray! We've been protected from business discrimination since the Civil Rights Act of 1964!

Gay Americans: Hey, can we get in on that?

Christians: YOU WANT SPECIAL RIGHTS!!!

When Indiana was debating the HORRID RFRA, the House Democrats proposed an amendment that required businesses to advertise who they will sell their services or not sell their services to. The House GOP about had a cow and they defeated the amendment overwhelmingly. They want to discriminate face to face and as privately as they can. They don't want to be open and transparent about their bigotry. 

Thumpers are too fucking stupid to realize that the sword they're swinging is double edged. I welcome the future opportunities to humiliate them in a public setting. That, they cannot handle.

How about we just wait and see how this judge will rule on certain issues before saying that he will or won't be fair in those decisions. 

What Mat Staver and his buddies in the Christian Taliban are really saying is that no member of a disfavored minority can fairly sit in judgement on civil rights issues, only a straight white male Christian supremacist can fairly judge such issues.    Likewise no straight judge can sit in judgement on marriage equality and no white judge can sit in judgement in cases involving black folks or white folks, because bias must be presumed.

Staver is of course 100% wrong and if he made that argument in court he'd be fined or worse.    If Staver needs help he can see how the 9th Circuit rejected identical arguments made by the dimwitted defendants in Prop h8:

After considering the Oppositions to the Motion and the governing law, as discussed below, the Court finds that neither recusal nor disqualification was required based on the asserted grounds. The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification under Section 455(b)(4). Further, under Section 455(a), it is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings. Accordingly, the Motion to Vacate Judgment on the sole ground of Judge Walker’s same-sex relationship is DENIED.

.

Of course being 100% wrong has never stopped Staver before (he also loses almost all of his cases).    In fact being wrong is essential to his grifting operation.

As opposed to those poor poor little gays who whine and snivel like 3 year olds because someone refuses to decorate a gay themed wedding cake? SO instead of simply sucking it up and going elsewhere they fucking act like entitlement little shitheads?

It seems to be Christians who are whining about something as mundane as baking a cake. Then they want to use their religion as an excuse to violate the law. It seems they're the ones with entitlement issues!

 The truth is is that the gay couple could simply take their whiny sniveling crybaby asses to some other bakery,

Why should they have to?

except it's not about the cake for them, it's about demanding others accept and support their homosexual lifestyle regardless of whether or not those persons do or do not believe in same sex marriage.

Specify precisely where the couple in question demanded such a thing from the baker! All they wanted was to order a cake. Or is pure conjecture, based on paranoia or a persecution complex, the best you can offer?

I'm not surprised you fancy truth as fantasy, most liberals do

Your obvious ad hom aside, I have yet to see you offer any "truth," or facts!

But delete direct replies showing liberal crybabies actually crying.

The only one acting like a crybaby here is you, especially with comments like this: "No Perrie, what you have done is proven once again you play favorites where your moderation is concerned by letting liberal haters post bullshit like this." Cry us a river!

This website has gone to shit just like Newsvine did because of the extremely biased moderation leaning way way left, hope you're proud of that fact!

No one is forcing you to come onto this site and comment or look at the articles. You're free to leave anytime. Don't let the cyber door hit you on the way out. It would certainly be better than your whining.

whom are you replying too?

Indirectly to OSM.

Maybe if bigoted Christian extremists like Mat Staver want to be treated fairly in court they should stop persecuting the disfavored minorities they hate?    Otherwise any fair judge will view their motives not just as suspect but as unconstitutional.