“It means there’s basically an ability to boycott gay marriages”, as if that’s a bad thing. Shouldn’t free people be able to boycott whatever they like, without government forcing them to buy something they don’t want, or do something they don’t want to do?
The great lie of our age is the King’s new clothes, the idea that homosexuality is normal, irreversible and must not only be accepted by the masses but approved of as well.
being gay is an abominable deviant lifestyle choice that flies in the face of Christian morals- it is NOT a genetic issue that can’t be helped- it is a choice- period! Others should not be forced to cater to it or accept it and celebrate it or help celebrate it, any more so than a satanist should not be able to demand a Christian bakery bake a cake with satanic elements listed on it- We have a religious right in this country to object to abhorrent lifestyle choices of groups of people who choose to live lives that are morally reprehensible and offensive. Should Christian bakeries be forced to bake cakes that celebrate the sick twisted world of pedophilia? Of course not! Of Bestiality? Nope! Necrophilia? Not a chance! To celebrate child sacrifices to Molech? No Way! ALL these are abhorrent lifestyle CHOICES- homosexuality is no different- it is a choice- and forcing someone against their religious beliefs to support it or create stuff to celebrate it, or ANY of the other numerous abhorrent lifestyles people CHOOSE to live- is not constitutional!
No Kennedy is worth anything.
Any cases with Muslim run Bakeries refusing to serve Gays on the Docket, or is this just the usual Christian persecution?
One of the targets of leftists is to destroy traditional marriage. One of the paths to that goal is to force everyone to accept other types of marriage. Their arguements are really just highly intellectual nonsense. Gods arguements for traditional marriage, and against sexual perversions, are easy for anyone to understand, and they never change.
And in the meantime anybody find out exactly whom Murdered Scalia ?
Bump
Yo cannot force artists to make creations they do not wznt to make.
Artists who take commissions only take the jobs they want to do. This cake guy is an artist.
Not everyone makes the kinds of cakes he does. Not anyone can just do what he does. They come to him because of his talent and expertise.
If this is true we can force asshole liberal artists to make art that we know they morally oppose and despise.
Or if they just say their rate is a million dollars to produce such art, then the cake guy can set the price for a homo cake at a million bucks.
Re: “the malleability of homosexual orientation”
There’s another good source on this issue.
About five years ago the CDC surveyed 100,000 gay men in America. At the time it was the largest scientific survey ever done on gay men.
From memory...
One third of the men who had sex with other men before age 25 never had sex again with any men after age 25.
bump for later reading
IMHO, the “who” they should be discussing is the government vs. the individual. The gov’t banning discrimination on its own behalf is one thing, the gov’t forcing individuals to do things they don’t want to is another.
All of these gaystapo legal actions against Christians are pure BS. As long as the kwheers have an alternative source for what they want made, they have no reason to complain.
It can be summed up in something very Christian (unlike some other religions that shall remain nameless), with the fact that Christians are taught to “hate the sin, but not the sinner”. Christians desire that a sinner quit sinning, and saying so, is not from a hatred of the sinner, but hatred of the sin. It is in that nuance that a Christian baker can provide services to a “gay” customer generally, but refuse to do a “same sex” wedding cake. The baker is not discriminating against the customer, but not supporting an act the customer wants the baker to help them celebrate.
Yes, it does open up other possibilities that others may find ought to be covered by such a nuance. The error of the court will be in believing that would be a “bad” thing, when really it would be a good thing.
Law or no law, discrimination is good. Discrimination is necessary for living. The anti discrimination lawsare in final effect, thought control .
The Government must not be allowed to control thought
OTOH,an ambulance service should not be allowed to refuse a pervert's request to be taken to a hospital.
The difference? One is an *essential* service and the others most assuredly are not.
The baker,florist or photographer hired by a pair of perverts should just make sure that the cake somehow falls to the ground,the flowers are all wilted or the photographs are all mis-framed,poorly lit and out of focus.Obviously the pervs will demand their money back which should be immediately granted without question.In addition,a humble apology (which the owner obviously wouldn't mean) should be issued.
Problem solved.
[Protecting such speech would be]...“an affront to the gay community,”
Sounds like a principle that belongs in a current production of Animal Farm rather than in any consideration of the nation's highest court.
Nope.
In a competitive market it would be contrary to consistently demonstrated human behavior, for the economic "void" not to be filled by other market players.
How would the supposed "cartel" be able to prohibit entry into the market, by others, seeing a money-making opportunity and therefore willing to bake the cake for gay weddings?
Or photograph the event? Or cater it?