Posted on 10/07/2014 3:37:48 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
Businesses need to be ahead of the curve and have products for gays. A cake baker needs one product for the homosexuals who want a cake. I would have a picture of it in my literature and it would be a white cake only with a Bible verse or Marriage= one man and one woman or something like that. T-shirts the same thing. One product only. Say, here it is, take it or leave it.
I'm not talking about financial support to pay his legal bills, mind you. I'm talking about helping to pay the cost of moving his business out of Lexington, Kentucky -- and out of Kentucky entirely, if necessary.
Well, they need to leave their nasty behavior at home too. Preferably in the closet.
This is awesome news. Looking forward to Muslim convenience store owners being forced to sell bacon.
After this latest decision by the Supreme Court (declining to take the case of states’ rights concerning homosexual marriage) it’s all down hill from here. Christians are the new official hated class in the U.S. Better prepare for some real and increasing persecution in the near future.
It is long past time to tell there gubmit organizations to shove it.
And say it with ...er...believability.
I leave it to the reader to define the many possible stages of believability.
Let them worry a bit when they sleep.
Its an unconstitutional decision.
It violates the free exercise clause of the first amendment.
As mentioned in related threads, Section 1 of 14A actually prohibits the states from making policies which unreasonably abridge the constitutional right of citizens, such rights expressly amended to the Constitution by the states, religious expression being one of those rights evidenced by the 1st Amendment.
And since the states have never ameneded the Constitution to expressly protect gay agenda issues, such as gay marriage, certain states are now violating 14A by wrongly using constitutionally unprotected gay rights to trump constitutionally protected rights.
Regarding the EPC, judges and gay activist are wrongly reading gay rights into that clause. The problem with doing so is that the Supreme Court has historically clarified that 14A added no new rights to the Constitution. It only protects rights expressly amended to the Constitution by the states.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
In fact, the above excerpt reasonably reflects John Bingham's official clarification of the scope of 14A, Bingham the main author of Section 1 of that amendment.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
Again, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay "rights," there are no enumerated rights for the courts to apply to the states via 14A. So the states are actually free to make policies which discriminate against gay agenda issues, such as gay "marriage," as long as such policies don't unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated protections.
The reason that activist judges have been getting away with wrongly amending gay rights to the Constitution from the bench is the following imo. Sadly, parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught about 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus the reason why the Founding States enumerated certain rights into the Constitution.
Sigh. That ought to be a law or something.
But I can hear the legal pettifogging now: "Well, the First Amendment says 'Congress', not anything about a Human Rights Commission, and this isn't a 'law', it's a ruling." Uh huh. And this isn't a guillotine, it's a device for cutting your hair.
Would be kind of fun to force the next gay pride parade to include a Christian float condemning gay marriage.
No, that will be different based on some half baked rationale. Also, the Human Rights Commission knows that the Muslims would come down and "plead" their case somewhat differently.
http://bit.ly/ZreAEv “Audacity Trailer and Update”
What is this Constitution you speak of? Why, we haven’t used that old document in, um, about six years now.
gays don’t have to leave their gayness at home. but the large majority of people who are christian, do?
christians are a far bigger majority. if anyone is, it’s gonna be perverts.
go back in the closest you fascist queerbag homos.
Executive Director Raymond Sexton should leave his religion at home.
The idea that unhealthy behaviors should receive preferential treatment smacks of pagan religion.
Thanks for the reminder. /sarc
Actually historically recorded breaches of the Constitution go back to the George Washington Administration imo.
Only if its a Kosher Ham!
Tell the Human Rights Commission to leave their Communism at home.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.