Replies

I know exactly what you mean by the yes or no response when based on a biblical admonition to do harm to no one and to do all to the glory of God. I have no problem with that.

So far as the religious rights being stomped on, I think that’s taking place now. This baker — and I read it in one of the articles at the time — said that he WOULD sell them a cake, a cookie, etc....just not a “gay wedding cake”. Since he sold wedding cakes to others, the judge said, he has to sell to these 2 gay guys even though it violated his religious beliefs.

Now, what if he said that doing that cake was the government requiring him to participate in another person’s religious faith? That would, in fact, be true.

These guys probably looked through the yellow pages for a Bakery that had an Icthus fish, knowing that they'd refuse to do a gay wedding cake.

They most likely shopped around at other bakeries and if the baker said they'd do it, then they'd make up an excuse not to buy the cake there. They shopped around for a lawsuit until they hit the jackpot with this guy.

Ultimately the best defense on this case is to argue for artistic license. Although this ruling is an egregious violation of every conceivable first amendment liberty, in order to win, and to stick it in the eye of the Queer Community, he simply needs to argue that because these cakes require his individual creative talents as an artist, that the government cannot force him to exercise these talents in a way that violates his conscience.

It would be the same as requiring a Jew to sing at a Nazi wedding or a Muslim to sing at a Christian baptism. To force him to use his artistic talents to create a cake for a ceremony that violates his moral principles is the end of all Liberty and Queer people, who have a strong influence in artistic communities should be the first to recognize the ultimate threat to their own interests, however, they are blinded by their zeal for political power and their zeal to force all people to embrace their abominable sexual deviancy.

I am so disgusted with the Queer Agenda promoters that I refuse to call the the "g" word anymore. They are not gay. They are angry and filled with a demonic hatred of that which is Holy.

They are sinners who want the world to repent for suggesting that their sin is anything other than Holy. They are blasphemers of the worst kind.

Since he sold wedding cakes to others, the judge said, he has to sell to these 2 gay guys even though it violated his religious beliefs. Now, what if he said that doing that cake was the government requiring him to participate in another person’s religious faith? That would, in fact, be true.

That's where I think his defense team screwed up - they should have replied to the judge that he did NOT make wedding cakes to "others." He ONLY made wedding cakes for those who did not violate his religious beliefs. Because it's literally true. The judge my reply that he did not post that, but he might respond that he never needed to post it before, because the subject never came up. And it's new even for State laws - and so it's a fault of the State, in not providing guidelines concerning commercially required religious notifications.

And by the way, why don't any of these homosexuals try this on a MUSLIM bakery?