Author Topic: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case  (Read 44261 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,397
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #750 on: January 06, 2018, 12:26:07 am »
@Smokin Joe

"Fascist" best describes them because that IS what they are even though they do their best to hide it by calling their political polar opposites "fascists". Since even THEY know that "Fascist" is a dirty word  and they are hiding from it,let's hang that sign around their necks.

ANYTIME you are in an argument with someone else and allow THEM to define the terms,you are going to lose the argument regardless of how right you may be.

We need to quit playing their game out of politeness. There is nothing the least bit polite about them. They are after world domination and a leftist police state.
Regardless of where their economic philosophy falls otherwise, they seek the imposition of the State to demand what they want.
Especially given the spoiled brat nature of the coming crop of snowflakes out there, it would be in the best interest of the human race to quit catering to the deviant whim (and calling it a "Right") of every person out there who wants yet another law or action with the force thereof. It is obvious such people are frauds, for they do not value Liberty with the exception of their 'freedom' to impose their personal will on others, whatever that may be.

Freedom is not freedom if it does not include the freedom to not do something as well as the freedom to do it.

How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #751 on: January 06, 2018, 12:28:31 am »
But that is without regard, as there is no basis with which to deny the baker his guaranteed first amendment enumerated rights to freedom of speech, association, and religion - all of which were grievously violated, and on his own property to boot.

This is tyranny, coercing behavior antithetical to the Constitution -  Force under the color of law. And it is utterly reprehensible.

Are we surprised when we have a majority in this country that see government as God, Arbiter of fairness, infallible in their court judgments and in whom all trust and empowerments made to impose punishment upon those your neighbors do not trust with liberty, property or wealth. The majority having been led to believe that the greatest evils are perpetrated by white-skinned Southern religious zealots who eschew evil sexual behavior that everyone else celebrates as a holy good?

Once the 'law' impedes and infringes upon the foundational moral and biblical construct of what was once the basis for law in this country - it no longer governs, but has disbarred itself any moral legitimacy any Christian has to obey or respect.  As Mayhew argued successfully, the Sovereign Law unkings itself by it's lawlessness and is of no more effect for an obedient servant of The Lord.   We are duty-bound to disobey such lawlessness as our Courts we are beholden are above those of men and any "law" that impels us to sin and surrender ourselves to serving is no law at all - only tyranny.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,291
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #752 on: January 06, 2018, 12:34:56 am »
Are we surprised when we have a majority in this country that see government as God, Arbiter of fairness, infallible in their court judgments and in whom all trust and empowerments made to impose punishment upon those your neighbors do not trust with liberty, property or wealth. The majority having been led to believe that the greatest evils are perpetrated by white-skinned Southern religious zealots who eschew evil sexual behavior that everyone else celebrates as a holy good?

Once the 'law' impedes and infringes upon the foundational moral and biblical construct of what was once the basis for law in this country - it no longer governs, but has disbarred itself any moral legitimacy any Christian has to obey or respect.  As Mayhew argued successfully, the Sovereign Law unkings itself by it's lawlessness and is of no more effect for an obedient servant of The Lord.   We are duty-bound to disobey such lawlessness as our Courts we are beholden are above those of men and any "law" that impels us to sin and surrender ourselves to serving is no law at all - only tyranny.

I'll bump the hell out of every single word of that!
 888high58888

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,928
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #753 on: January 06, 2018, 12:45:19 am »
In the context of the question as I posed it and of this case in general, the Muslim has a right to kill the Frenchman, because that is what his religious beliefs call for, and if a Christian baker gets to live by his beliefs, unobstructed by any laws other than the higher law of His God, then so does a Muslim.

In my question, if one is arguing that a Christian baker should be allowed to violate laws that stand against their religious beliefs, as it's been suggested here, then every other citizen has that same natural right, and the Muslim can kill the French cartoonist with impunity.

Our society is governed by secular laws, and that has been the case since the inception of the Republic, and as a Republic, the people of Oregon can make a law which disallows discrimination in goods and services based on sexual orientation, without any religious exceptions to the law. 

The bakers did not bake the cake, so their rights, as they see them, remained intact.

They violated the secular law, and a secular Court imposed a fine for their actions.

That's simply the way things work.
So Luis, if you owned a sign-making business and some Nazis came in and ordered you to make them signs with Nazi symbols on it, would you do it? Remember being a Nazi is perfectly legal.

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #754 on: January 06, 2018, 01:03:48 am »
When I say "reasonable", I actually mean "rational", I don't mean compromising.  In my opinion I was reasonable with @Oceander last night, in that IMO I was rational, but I damn sure didn't compromise with him; to his credit he's offered me an olive branch this evening which I've accepted, and I hope he and I will find some common ground somewhere, if not on this issue then on the next.

I do not have an issue with Oceander, except his position on this one issue.  I do not consider him 'unreasonable' as a person, save this issue we obviously have no common ground upon which to stand.  I admit to being a bit baffled, because where he and I agree is that no one can attempt to shame us into voting for someone we find reprehensible of character while constantly being cajoled and flicked with insults and ridicule because we refused to support someone we find unsupportable.  I do not know how that exact framework doesn't translate itself into agreement when attempting to shame, ridicule and threaten our livelihoods by insisting we serve a behavior we find even more reprehensible than that of a politician lofted up as a paragon of virtue.

Others like our resident Leftist, I have absolutely no common ground upon which to stand and as has been exchanged, consider one another an enemy of every single thing the other holds dear in life.

So be it.  I'm very happy to fight and get it over with.

But we can't fight the good fight and cut bullshit down to size by just yelling back and forth at each other. 

Yes we can.   I've done that for decades on various forums, including one I was a moderator of.  I'm not going to stop now.  I call things, ideas and positions what they are.  I don't play games with allowing the heretical and the hostile to frame the debate and argument in the manners that advantage their use of Alinsky- tactics to achieve the shaming into silence and thus the total occupation of the ideological battleground. 

We do actually have to listen and understand, and we have to distinguish when someone is explaining what they understand to be factual, from when they are advocating what they believe. 

No.  Wrong.   We have virtually lost the Republic by that very mode of thinking, granting legitimacy and space to those ideas hostile and antithetical to the very existence of liberty itself.  I do not care if they are True Believers in Democratic Marxism - I'm not granting the time to 'listen' to what they have to advocate - because that bullshit is already self-evident in the devolution of our culture and Republic into the Socialist Mobocracy we have become.

Someone needed to pop them in the face and tell them to back off and sit down a long ass time ago, BEFORE they ended up running the government, the courts and most of the cultural gates of mass media with impunity and abject contempt for anyone who does not embrace their 'remake' of society and government in their 'progressive' image.

People talk past each other because even this fundamental of reasoning seems to be overlooked.

You are welcome to keep talking Sam.  I am past the point of wasting time reasoning with the unreasonable. Like any bully, talking merely delays the pounding they intend to visit upon you anyway.  It's pointless and hands them legitimacy they do not deserve, because they are going to stab your ass in the back the moment they get the chance.

Light has no part with darkness, nor tyranny with liberty.

But we'll have to be reasonable ourselves in order to accomplish it.
Are you with me?

I'm past the point of extending olive branch petitions.  You are welcome to go full John Dickinson and draft as many recipes of amity as sates a zeal of non-confrontation you may have.  I think that course a failure as evidenced by the fact it does not a damn bit of good except empower and enable those whom are hell-bent on diminishing or eradicating liberty. 

I'm a bit more Patrick Henry at this stage of our cultural collapse and takeover by tyrants. I'm of no mind to play nice with such.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Online Wingnut

  • That is the problem with everything. They try and make it better without realizing the old is fine.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,277
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #755 on: January 06, 2018, 01:15:52 am »
Just an observation. 

This thread has 754 Replies.

3 People replied to promote homosexual agenda.

In a real world this thread should have died on the second page.


Jazzhead wins. 



I am just a Technicolor Dream Cat riding this kaleidoscope of life.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,397
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #756 on: January 06, 2018, 01:22:53 am »
Just an observation. 

This thread has 754 Replies.

3 People replied to promote homosexual agenda.

In a real world this thread should have died on the second page.


Jazzhead wins.
Well , what did he win?
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #757 on: January 06, 2018, 01:26:40 am »

No, your secular court DESTROYED the man. Even if I were to admit fault on the baker's part (which I most adamantly do not), the fine is well beyond any reason wrt the level of infraction. Light years beyond.

With this I agree.   The amount of the fine is unconscionable,  and the result is that, although the baker broke the law,  the tyranny inherent in the trier's discretion to award such a punitive sum because of, let's face it, a cultural difference of opinion, represents a true injustice. 
« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 01:29:56 am by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Online Wingnut

  • That is the problem with everything. They try and make it better without realizing the old is fine.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,277
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #758 on: January 06, 2018, 01:27:14 am »
Well , what did he win?

The "Why TBR keeps Him Around" Award.
I am just a Technicolor Dream Cat riding this kaleidoscope of life.

Offline edpc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #759 on: January 06, 2018, 01:32:22 am »
It's absolutely fascinating the level of hatred displayed on this thread.


Cake always brings out the worst in people.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,291
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #760 on: January 06, 2018, 01:37:57 am »
With this I agree.   The amount of the fine is unconscionable,  and the result is that, although the baker broke the law,  the tyranny inherent in the trier's discretion to award such a punitive sum because of, let's face it, a cultural difference of opinion, represents a true injustice.

In that much, we have agreement.
 :beer:

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #761 on: January 06, 2018, 01:38:11 am »
Just an observation. 

This thread has 754 Replies.

3 People replied to promote homosexual agenda.

In a real world this thread should have died on the second page.


Jazzhead wins.

Ignoring ideas antithetical to liberty and hostile to a Christian culture is precisely how less than 3% of the population can force the rest of the country to cater to deviant sexual behavior as a right that must be acknowledged and serviced to the detriment of one's own faith and beliefs or one cannot make a living.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #762 on: January 06, 2018, 01:40:47 am »
In that much, we have agreement.
 :beer:

Thanks for the :beer:,  roamer.   Right now I'm sipping Irish whiskey, glad to be in out of the cold. 
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #763 on: January 06, 2018, 01:47:15 am »
Ignoring ideas antithetical to liberty and hostile to a Christian culture is precisely how less than 3% of the population can force the rest of the country to cater to deviant sexual behavior as a right that must be acknowledged and serviced to the detriment of one's own faith and beliefs or one cannot make a living.

Christian (and American) culture is a couple devoted in mutuality and love for life (at least),  paying heed and respect to each other, and together being productive and peaceable members of the community. 

Just like my neighbors.   And doesn't it just make your blood boil that such good people might seek their rights and your respect?   
« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 01:49:21 am by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Online Wingnut

  • That is the problem with everything. They try and make it better without realizing the old is fine.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,277
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #764 on: January 06, 2018, 01:53:17 am »
Ignoring ideas antithetical to liberty and hostile to a Christian culture is precisely how less than 3% of the population can force the rest of the country to cater to deviant sexual behavior as a right that must be acknowledged and serviced to the detriment of one's own faith and beliefs or one cannot make a living.

Your fail is this is the internet. A place where less than 3% of the population can force the rest of the country to cater to deviant sexual behavior as a right.  People like Jazzhead lead the revolution.
I am just a Technicolor Dream Cat riding this kaleidoscope of life.

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #765 on: January 06, 2018, 01:58:40 am »
Just an observation. 

This thread has 754 Replies.

3 People replied to promote homosexual agenda.

In a real world this thread should have died on the second page.


Jazzhead wins.
How can he win anything when he already bowed out in thread #571.

Someone has been impersonating him.

Give the award to that person,  as he sounds as convincing impersonating Jazz as to fool us all.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #766 on: January 06, 2018, 02:05:15 am »
I am indeed in the middle of my workday.  But feel free to post all your questions in one spot if you like.

Thanks @Jazzhead .  These are my questions.  In fairness I acknowledge that you are completely entitled to ask me similar questions, but not as a substitute for answering these.  If you have answered these already then please accept my apologies for careless reading.

From my reply 707 :

Quote
Now you might notice I modified the post to which you just replied : Can an advertising agency owned by a homosexual, operating as a public accommodation, be compelled legally to prepare collateral material for a Southern Baptist church which prominently advocates against homosexual marriage?  The agency holds out its services to the general public as preparing custom marketing collateral.  The church decides it needs such collateral as part of its outreach.  Can the agency be compelled legally to prepare collateral which advocates values the agency finds repugnant?

From my reply 704, then when you did not respond to the distinction I cited, again from 707 :

Quote
The principled distinction has been delineated on this thread, more than once by me - building codes protect the public from physical harm.  No allegation of physical harm to the public has been made regarding the bakers' demurral to prepare custom wedding cakes supporting values they reject.

So you acknowledge that there is a principled distinction between building codes and custom wedding cakes, and that your contention in 701 is entirely false and without any logical merit?

From my reply 394, which quotes you :

Quote
Quote
No,  HS,  unlawful discrimination is actionable regardless of the number of persons affected (or the number of persons in the identity group to which they belong).   Religion does not provide an excuse for unlawful discrimination with respect to a business that serves the general public (a public accommodation).
 

Then what did you mean when you said in 332 : "But there are likely fewer Muslims in this country than homosexuals,  so I have less immediate concern over their religious extremism in the conduct of commerce. "

If it's not a question of numbers, why does religious extremism in commerce by one group, whom you believe to be outnumbered by homosexuals, concern you less than religious extremism in commerce by another group?

From my reply 374, again which quotes you.  You have already described a possible compromise within the law (the baker prepares the cake but provides the decoration supplies to the customer), but I'm not asking you to describe the law, I'm asking about the significance of your point that no discussion of specific customization occurred.  If you believe the baker could not have legally refused even after specific discussion, then of what significance is the observation that no specific discussion occurred?  :

Quote
Quote
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.   We'll never know, because service was denied before any discussion of customization or artistry could take place.   

I keep coming back to this because I think it's crucial to resolution of the case.  If the customer had asked for an offensive message to be placed on the cake,  I'm sure all would agree that it was within the baker's right to refuse.
 

Offensive to whom?  The entire concept of the ceremony was offensive to the baker, which is why the baker refused.  Who gets to decide what is offensive enough to enable the baker to refuse service?

The proposed cake was by definition custom because it had not yet been created but was to be discussed specifically, not as a standard item already in the baker's shop.  Anything already in the shop was not custom and was available for the homosexual couple to purchase; anything they needed to specify would by definition be custom, without regard for any specific message on the cake, whether or not such a message had been discussed.

Or is it your position that the baker could have legally refused once the customers had requested a specific message on the cake?


James 1:20

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #767 on: January 06, 2018, 02:05:52 am »
How can he win anything when he already bowed out in thread #571.

Someone has been impersonating him.

Give the award to that person,  as he sounds as convincing impersonating Jazz as to fool us all.

Sorry, ISAFFR.  I was going to bow out, and then the  thread underwent a spasm of activity overnight.   Figured what the hell. 
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #768 on: January 06, 2018, 02:12:04 am »
I'm a bit more Patrick Henry at this stage of our cultural collapse and takeover by tyrants. I'm of no mind to play nice with such.

Well @INVAR I do appreciate your clarity.
James 1:20

Online Wingnut

  • That is the problem with everything. They try and make it better without realizing the old is fine.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,277
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #769 on: January 06, 2018, 02:17:07 am »
Sorry, ISAFFR.  I was going to bow out, and then the  thread underwent a spasm of activity overnight.   Figured what the hell.

In other words you can't shut up.  You don't have the ability.
I am just a Technicolor Dream Cat riding this kaleidoscope of life.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #770 on: January 06, 2018, 02:19:06 am »
Sam,  I think the basic idea is to be true to the spirit of the law that proscribes discrimination with respect to a public accommodation.   Folks who go to a store that serves the general public from a menu of services have the right, so says the community (acting by means of its elected representatives) to not be refused service based merely on who they are.

The baker argues that he is an artist and his works involve creativity.  Fair enough.  But he hasn't objected to the artistry or customization or even the message to be placed on the cake,  he just won't create a custom cake for a gay wedding.  Period.

Sorry,  that's unlawful discrimination.   It's his choice, his liberty, to make his living selling wedding cakes from a bakery storefront subject to the rules he cannot abide.   As Luis points out,  it is his choice to risk the consequences.   Those consequences should not be punitive,  but rather proportionate and just.   



« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 02:20:29 am by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #771 on: January 06, 2018, 02:25:33 am »
In other words you can't shut up.  You don't have the ability.

No, just not the inclination.  I bowed out in order to facilitate the thread's demise, but it roared back to life without me, so I figured what the hell.

Lighten up and have fun posting, Ghostie.  I do. 
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #772 on: January 06, 2018, 04:36:37 am »
I'd guess not, otherwise they wouldn't have had the snot fined out of them....

So their religious liberty rights remained intact throughout the entire ordeal.

Insofar as the fine is concerned, it's a far easier penalty to pay for standing by your beliefs than getting eaten by a lion while people cheer the lion on.

Just saying...
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #773 on: January 06, 2018, 04:46:35 am »
So Luis, if you owned a sign-making business and some Nazis came in and ordered you to make them signs with Nazi symbols on it, would you do it? Remember being a Nazi is perfectly legal.

"Ordered me"?

No one orders me.

However, if they tried placing an order for those signs I'd have to make a decision.

If there's a law in the State prohibiting discrimination based on political beliefs, I can legally refuse to make the signs. If there IS a State law prohibiting me from denying goods or services based on the customer's political ideology, I can STILL refuse to make them, then prepare to face whatever possible consequences my actions may have.

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #774 on: January 06, 2018, 04:47:41 am »
Not possible.  The courts deciding on their own that discrimination extends to deviant sexual behaviors has delegitimized any moral authority 'the law' would have.  This isn't about tangible absolutes such as skin color or gender, deviancy has been defined down to incorporate sexual behavior as well as other choices related to perverted and abhorrent behavior.

It's intended consequences are to compel and force those who view deviant behavior as sinful to be forced to accommodate, serve, create, craft, acknowledge and celebrate said sinful behavior, or face punishment.  It is being used for that exact purpose in all these cases.

It is nothing less than the state being used to impose mandated labor to serve a deviant sexual religion. 

And that is exactly how the Mark of the Beast will work and operate.

Think and act as the Beast demands, or you cannot make a living, period.  Satan's wrath on the remnant of the people of God.

Of greater consequence is that those who do have that mark, will suffer the full weight of the Wrath of God without mercy (Rev. 14: 9-10).

I would suggest that you move to whatever the country is that you just described.

It's not this one.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx