SCOTUS rules in favor of bakery in gay wedding cake case

[rediceknight]

Justice 1
Sodomites 0

If you claim gay marriage will have zero impact on heterosexuals, then turn around and sue a Baker for his livelihood because he doesn't want to honor your sodomite union through HIS business..well..uh..

Seems a bit contradictory there.

 

[rediceknight]

In was raised in a conservative environment going to church every Sunday . I can’t imagine myself refusing to provide a simple service to a gay couple . It goes against my interpretation of being a good person , Christian whatever you want to call out . My view is the Bible teaches you what you are expected to do but not to judge others .

This is a step towards return to sanity. A win for the good guys and a loss for the hillary sjw blm lgbtq bernie socialist libtards.

I hope President Donald J. Trump replaces all the leftist justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, starting with the ancient Ginsburg, along with as many federal judges as possible, during the next almost six remaining years of his presidency.

maga not mafa

 

[NinjaKnight]

Justice 1
Sodomites 0

If you claim gay marriage will have zero impact on heterosexuals, then turn around and sue a Baker for his livelihood because he doesn't want to honor your sodomite union through HIS business..well..uh..

Seems a bit contradictory there.

Also another fun comparison between the Left and the Right's lowest common denominator. On the left you have chemmie or FC, both intelligent individuals but kind of assholes. On the right you have this absolute flaming dumpster fire of a human being that I quoted, with an IQ smaller than his shoe size. Says a lot about the whole Left vs Right debates as well.

 

[UCFKnightfan08]

Also another fun comparison between the Left and the Right's lowest common denominator. On the left you have chemmie or FC, both intelligent individuals but kind of assholes. On the right you have this absolute flaming dumpster fire of a human being that I quoted, with an IQ smaller than his shoe size. Says a lot about the whole Left vs Right debates as well.

I'm starting to think (ok, HOPE) that redice is actually a lefty troll trying to make conservatives look bad.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I'm starting to think (ok, HOPE) that redice is actually a lefty troll trying to make conservatives look bad.

First- ignore him.

Second- I clicked to read his posts and I’m pretty sure that is FC pathetically trolling under that name. Many of the sentence structures are the same and “redice” pretty much hypes the same idiocy that FC frequently brings up.

It’s clearly a troll screen name used by some pathetic left wing pissant on the board. The question is which one. My money is on FC

 

[NinjaKnight]

First- ignore him.

Second- I clicked to read his posts and I’m pretty sure that is FC pathetically trolling under that name. Many of the sentence structures are the same and “redice” pretty much hypes the same idiocy that FC frequently brings up.

It’s clearly a troll screen name used by some pathetic left wing pissant on the board. The question is which one. My money is on FC

Lmao they are nothing alike at all. Only an Infowars reading, conspiracy theory peddling moron like yourself would deny the fact that the right has it's share of utter idiots like redice

 

[rediceknight]

First- ignore him.

Euphemism is dead. Come out of the closet.

 

[rediceknight]

Lmao they are nothing alike at all. Only an Infowars reading, conspiracy theory peddling moron like yourself would deny the fact that the right has it's share of utter idiots like redice

coming from an sjw blm libtard who cultural appropriates thats funny

 

[chemmie]

First- ignore him.

Second- I clicked to read his posts

Thats not how it works, you feckless c*nt.

We all know you've been doing it for months with myself and Ninja, but now you admit to doing it with Pain too.

You really have no backbone. No wonder your father is ashamed of you.

 

[Crazyhole]

First- ignore him.

Second- I clicked to read his posts and I’m pretty sure that is FC pathetically trolling under that name. Many of the sentence structures are the same and “redice” pretty much hypes the same idiocy that FC frequently brings up.

It’s clearly a troll screen name used by some pathetic left wing pissant on the board. The question is which one. My money is on FC

I had never heard the term "redice" until FC referenced it a couple of times.

Agreed that this is a sock puppet and should get the IP ban hammer

 

[UCFWayne]

In was raised in a conservative environment going to church every Sunday . I can’t imagine myself refusing to provide a simple service to a gay couple . It goes against my interpretation of being a good person , Christian whatever you want to call out . My view is the Bible teaches you what you are expected to do but not to judge others .

the baker didnt refuse to services them. he refused a specific service. he doesnt believe in gay marriage, so he didnt want to make a wedding cake. he offered to make them a regular cake or cup cakes or cookies. they couldve decorated the cake themselves. there is a difference and the media doesnt seem interested in explaining it vs pushing a narrative.

its not a choice i agree with, but one i believe needs to be protected by the courts. much like how the kkk are terrible, but we must allow them to have their rallies.

 

[Crazyhole]

the baker didnt refuse to services them. he refused a specific service. he doesnt believe in gay marriage, so he didnt want to make a wedding cake. he offered to make them a regular cake or cup cakes or cookies. they couldve decorated the cake themselves. there is a difference and the media doesnt seem interested in explaining it vs pushing a narrative.

its not a choice i agree with, but one i believe needs to be protected by the courts. much like how the kkk are terrible, but we must allow them to have their rallies.

It seems pretty simple to me but it gets so convoluted by the left. The baker isnt a homophobe, period. He doesnt hate them. He just views marriage in the biblical sense where it is husband+wife+God= marriage. I have no problem with homosexuals or athiests but I wouldn't want to be a part of either marriage ceremony because i believe it is a sacrament that should be kept sacred.

I just dont understand why there can be no middle ground on this issue. If the government recognizes these marriages the same way they do traditional marriages, isnt that good enough? My faith isnt standing in the way of them getting what they want.

 

[Crazyhole]

I dont believe in infant baptism, so I wont be a part of that either. Does that make me a bigot as well? I wont stop someone from doing it but I just dont want to participate.

 

[bqknight]

It seems pretty simple to me but it gets so convoluted by the left. The baker isnt a homophobe, period. He doesnt hate them. He just views marriage in the biblical sense where it is husband+wife+God= marriage. I have no problem with homosexuals or athiests but I wouldn't want to be a part of either marriage ceremony because i believe it is a sacrament that should be kept sacred.

I just dont understand why there can be no middle ground on this issue. If the government recognizes these marriages the same way they do traditional marriages, isnt that good enough? My faith isnt standing in the way of them getting what they want.

It is good enough.

However - it's also okay for someone to call you homophobic. In all honestly, you have every right to not want to be part of a gay wedding. However - if you were my friend or family member, I would very likely look at you in a negative light.

The definition of homophobia is: dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

Whether you like it or not, you are being prejudice against gay people (for one reason or the other).

In summary - you have every right to not want to be part of a gay marriage. I don't think people should get as up in arms and militant about it. However - they have every right to also think of you differently, just as you're thinking of that gay persons marriage differently.

 

[Crazyhole]

It is good enough.

However - it's also okay for someone to call you homophobic. In all honestly, you have every right to not want to be part of a gay wedding. However - if you were my friend or family member, I would very likely look at you in a negative light.

The definition of homophobia is: dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

Whether you like it or not, you are being prejudice against gay people (for one reason or the other).

In summary - you have every right to not want to be part of a gay marriage. I don't think people should get as up in arms and militant about it. However - they have every right to also think of you differently, just as you're thinking of that gay persons marriage differently.

That isnt prejudice. I wouldn't be a part of a church service where a muslim or a satanist led the communion service. Is that prejudice or is that just recognizing the sacred aspect of communion and not wavering on it?

 

[bqknight]

That isnt prejudice. I wouldn't be a part of a church service where a muslim or a satanist led the communion service. Is that prejudice or is that just recognizing the sacred aspect of communion and not wavering on it?

Yes - by definition it is. The thing is, everyone is prejudice. I for sure am.

Like I said though, you have every right to feel that way. However - the person on the other end of things also has every right to feel the way they do. In theory, you are saying my marriage is inferior to yours. Are you not?

I don't like when people get SO up in arms about it and make a big deal (like suing). That's where I roll my eyes. If that person doesn't like you or disagrees with you, don't be involved with them. But don't be a dick about it. Let them live their life and you live yours.

 

[fabknight]

The definition of homophobia is: dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

Damn. The definition of phobia has changed a lot since I went to college and it makes no sense to me. That's got to be a fairly recent change in the definition to fit a social narrative. A phobia as I was taught was an irrational or intense fear.

 

[Crazyhole]

Yes - by definition it is. The thing is, everyone is prejudice. I for sure am.

Like I said though, you have every right to feel that way. However - the person on the other end of things also has every right to feel the way they do. In theory, you are saying my marriage is inferior to yours. Are you not?

I don't like when people get SO up in arms about it and make a big deal (like suing). That's where I roll my eyes. If that person doesn't like you or disagrees with you, don't be involved with them. But don't be a dick about it. Let them live their life and you live yours.

Inferior? No. Im saying that from a biblical sense it doesnt meet definition. From a societal and governmental spandpoint its equal to mine, but I dont really hold any value in those recognitions either. This is where the term civil union comes in. Homosexuals can and should be able to have a civil union that brings all rights and responsibilities given by the state equal to my own. I just don't consider it marriage because the term marriage includes a man, a woman, and God.

 

[bqknight]

Damn. The definition of phobia has changed a lot since I went to college and it makes no sense to me. That's got to be a fairly recent change in the definition to fit a social narrative. A phobia as I was taught was an irrational or intense fear.

The definition of phobia and definition of homophobia is different.

FWIW, I would't call Crazyhole homophobic personally.

Inferior? No. Im saying that from a biblical sense it doesnt meet definition. From a societal and governmental spandpoint its equal to mine, but I dont really hold any value in those recognitions either. This is where the term civil union comes in. Homosexuals can and should be able to have a civil union that brings all rights and responsibilities given by the state equal to my own. I just don't consider it marriage because the term marriage includes a man, a woman, and God.

I think my issue is you said you wouldn't take part in a gay marriage. My marriage wasn't religious - it was held at a hotel and the officiant wasn't a religious figure. You wouldn't attend?

 

[NinjaKnight]

It is good enough.

However - it's also okay for someone to call you homophobic. In all honestly, you have every right to not want to be part of a gay wedding. However - if you were my friend or family member, I would very likely look at you in a negative light.

The definition of homophobia is: dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

Whether you like it or not, you are being prejudice against gay people (for one reason or the other).

In summary - you have every right to not want to be part of a gay marriage. I don't think people should get as up in arms and militant about it. However - they have every right to also think of you differently, just as you're thinking of that gay persons marriage differently.

Yup, exactly what I said as well. These bakers have every right to deny them service, and we have every right to accurately describe them as the ignorant homophobes that they are, and hope they go bankrupt.

 

[UCFKnight85]

The definition of phobia and definition of homophobia is different.

FWIW, I would't call Crazyhole homophobic personally.



I think my issue is you said you wouldn't take part in a gay marriage. My marriage wasn't religious - it was held at a hotel and the officiant wasn't a religious figure. You wouldn't attend?

I've had relatives not attend family weddings (man/woman) that weren't done via Mass in a Catholic Church. They show up for the reception.

It's really not that uncommon.

 

[bqknight]

I've had relatives not attend family weddings (man/woman) that weren't done via Mass in a Catholic Church. They show up for the reception.

It's really not that uncommon.

...and I think that's incredibly douchey. If that was my family, they wouldn't be invited to the reception.

It's not about them on that day, it's about the people getting married and sharing their love. Put your own damn self aside for a second.

 

[UCFKnight85]

...and I think that's incredibly douchey. If that was my family, they wouldn't be invited to the reception.

It's not about them on that day, it's about the people getting married and sharing their love. Put your own damn self aside for a second.

Maybe. That's how you view it; I view it as someone respectfully communicating their attendance choice based upon a religious point of view and still showing up to celebrate as they're able. No offense but once again you don't even attempt to look at this via a prism outside your own world view.

I can think of far more douche bags that I've seen at weddings who offend me more than these relatives.

 

[fabknight]

The definition of phobia and definition of homophobia is different.

Not true. Phobia is the root and the prefix is the descriptor. Example:
claus·tro·pho·bi·a
ˌklôstrəˈfōbēə/
noun

1. extreme or irrational fear of confined places.

with clastro from Latin claustrum (“place shut in, bar, bolt, enclosure”).

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

In the current year, anything other than adamantly siding with the gays here is homophobia.

 

[bqknight]

Maybe. That's how you view it; I view it as someone respectfully communicating their attendance choice based upon a religious point of view and still showing up to celebrate as they're able. No offense but once again you don't even attempt to look at this via a prism outside your own world view.

I can think of far more douche bags that I've seen at weddings who offend me more than these relatives.

No offense but I don't agree with you. I view it very differently.

I am able to view things outside of my own prism and that's why I can put aside how I feel about something, even if I disagree with it. It's not about these people on that day, it's about the couple getting married. Even if you do not agree with their religion or their lifestyle, its not about you. It's about them.

I am there for them. Even if I do not fully agree with them.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Maybe. That's how you view it; I view it as someone respectfully communicating their attendance choice based upon a religious point of view and still showing up to celebrate as they're able. No offense but once again you don't even attempt to look at this via a prism outside your own world view.

I can think of far more douche bags that I've seen at weddings who offend me more than these relatives.

Yeah bq, why can't you be inclusive and understand the viewpoints of people who hate you so much they literally won't show up to your wedding.

 

[Crazyhole]

The definition of phobia and definition of homophobia is different.

FWIW, I would't call Crazyhole homophobic personally.
.



I think my issue is you said you wouldn't take part in a gay marriage. My marriage wasn't religious - it was held at a hotel and the officiant wasn't a religious figure. You wouldn't attend?

Thats a different story. If it doesnt pose as a religious ceremony which is predicated on a strict biblical definition then I dont think I'd have a problem attending, but then again I normally don't go to weddings anyway, just receptions.

To each his own. I just have a serious problem with this baker being called a bigot or a homophobe when that isnt the case. The militant faction of the LBGT community just pushes that narrative for political purposes.

 

[bqknight]

Thats a different story. If it doesnt pose as a religious ceremony which is predicated on a strict biblical definition then I dont think I'd have a problem attending, but then again I normally don't go to weddings anyway, just receptions.

To each his own. I just have a serious problem with this baker being called a bigot or a homophobe when that isnt the case. The militant faction of the LBGT community just pushes that narrative for political purposes.

I very much dislike the militant side of any belief, including the LGBT one.

 

[Crazyhole]

I very much dislike the militant side of any belief, including the LGBT one.

I view it as the same as the black panthers vs. MLK. One made things better, the other made things worse.

 

[UCFWayne]

In the current year, anything other than adamantly siding with the gays here is homophobia.

in the current year nuance doesnt exist anymore, you have to fall in line 100%

 

[NinjaKnight]

Thats a different story. If it doesnt pose as a religious ceremony which is predicated on a strict biblical definition then I dont think I'd have a problem attending, but then again I normally don't go to weddings anyway, just receptions.

To each his own. I just have a serious problem with this baker being called a bigot or a homophobe when that isnt the case. The militant faction of the LBGT community just pushes that narrative for political purposes.

Yeah dude, by definition the baker literally is a bigot. It's for religious reasons, so you give it a pass.

bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinion

 

[bqknight]

Also - people who only go to the wedding reception. Really?

Oh hey - I'll come to the party that you have to pay way too much for but screw the actual meaningful part? Blegh.

 

[sk8knight]

The definition of phobia and definition of homophobia is different.

FWIW, I would't call Crazyhole homophobic personally.

This is a cognitive disconnect that causes division. Homophobia historically was viewed as a true phobia; that is the irrational and unreasonable fear or hatred of gays. It rightfully has a very negative stigma and people behave different when categorized as such. Fair-minded people of any orientation don't want to be associated with homophobes and so it taints relationships.

The problem arises when the label starts being applied more liberally than the definition. The stigma doesn't change but now it is applied to less and less egregious behaviors and beliefs. Eventually that gets in the way of progress in 2 ways: (1) you can't compromise on things because people are reacting to the stigma rather than discussing ideas and (2) the word loses its meaning entirely when it really should still be able to describe the initial condition.

For example, gay marriage. There are all sorts of benefits to marriage, such as legal life decision status, that the states accord to marriage unions. These are a primary reason why gay marriage unions are a good thing. Conversely, many Christians believe that marriage is a God-provided sacrament to join specifically a man and a woman. Is there a compromise that involves the benefits of marriage to gay people but is sensitive to the long-standing Christian traditions thus removing the division? I'm sure there is but you sure as heck won't find it by stigmatizing even the most-understanding Christians as evil homophobes because they have legitimate sensitivities to what they view as their traditions. So you force one and you end up with division where both groups have angst towards the others that doesn't need to be there.

 

[btbones]

One of me best friends daughters is a lesbian and getting married in November . I absolutely will be there no matter religious views etc

 

[Crazyhole]

Yeah dude, by definition the baker literally is a bigot. It's for religious reasons, so you give it a pass.

bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinion

Tolerant? So the baker will NOT tolerate a gay wedding. He will do whatever it takes to keep that from happening. Thats what you are saying.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Tolerant? So the baker will NOT tolerate a gay wedding. He will do whatever it takes to keep that from happening. Thats what you are saying.

Not even close to correct.

 

[Crazyhole]

Not even close to correct.

Youre right. The baker must have been tolerant because he didn't do anything to keep the wedding from happening.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Youre right. The baker must have been tolerant because he didn't do anything to keep the wedding from happening.

Sorry man, you're on the wrong side on this one. I've said it a dozen times, the bakers have the right to refuse service, but I have the right to accurately call them the ignorant bigots that they factually 100% are.

 

[sk8knight]

Yeah dude, by definition the baker literally is a bigot. It's for religious reasons, so you give it a pass.

bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinion

Intolerance would've been hanging up or throwing them out the door for them being gay. That is not what happened here. Labeling him a bigot is overkill given the totality of his actions.