Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


In some parts of the world people eat other people.
It's happening in Syria with the rebels.
I don't know if they've eaten kids. But certainly their enemies.

While I don't recommend it you are free to try.
Get back to me with your results.

reply to post by grey580

The capitalist model should be in play here.

I said, earlier in this thread that the free market could direct the course, that is if enough people think the guy's refusal is bad enough they can show their displeasure by shopping at other marts, and since other bakeries offer gay wedding cakes, that is the market offering alternatives. But Progressives love the Totalitarian model based on socialism/communism/fascism. Progressives get Uncle Sam involved to force the bakery to conform with possible jail time. And then they complain when the jails are full and call it Capitalism.

Also, Progressives are using Uncle Sam at the federal level to control education in order to indoctrinate not just American youth, but children all over the world. This monster has tentacles long enough to reach around the entire globe.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by hp1229

 

Originally posted by hp1229
Ofcourse they were experimenting with someone else's egg and not their own

Um, they're MALE. They don't have eggs. They "adopted".

I'm not going to argue with you about gay penguins. It's common knowledge.

They went out an grabbed someone else's egg and placed it in their nest. Did the two male penguins laid one? I dont think so. Its the scientists that 'adopted' for them And hatching is not same as human pregnancy

Will login tomorrow for more (if the thread is still alive).

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

In some parts of the world people eat other people.
It's happening in Syria with the rebels.
I don't know if they've eaten kids. But certainly their enemies.

While I don't recommend it you are free to try.
Get back to me with your results.

Yes, cannibalism does exist in some places. Does that make it good or ok? I asked if having other animals eat their young mean that we "SHOULD" do it. Should we? What is stopping us? Laws are stopping us. Laws and an inner sense of morality and decency. It is just that Progressives know they can use the long arm of the law to force their ideals. Would you support a law which legalized cannibalism here?

You might also be surprised at how many real fascists during WWII were gay(used in the terminology of political activism).

reply to post by hp1229


Are you saying that homosexuals are involved with those as well?
Where did that come from?

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by hp1229

 

Are you saying that homosexuals are involved with those as well?
Where did that come from?

No. They are not involved. It is a totally different subject IMO.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I like this law right here.

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."
-Jesus

If more people followed this we wouldn't be having this discussion.

How about frogs...they can become asexual and do not need a mate in some cases. This is not about animals though, it is about freedom. The freedom to be who you want.

Gay...or religious.

and to counter the beastiality statement, honestly, if we want to get real about it, I have been called a breeder by gays many times. Or had a lesbian act like a man and threaten me, get in my face, when her girlfriend talks to me at a public function, concert or bar.

So why is it everytime there is a conversation about gays they are portrayed as the poor innocents who are beat down and have no rights and just want to fit in?

We are all just grown children trying to find our place in the world.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I like this law right here.

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."
-Jesus

If more people followed this we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You can love someone in the Divine sense, as God loves all his children even the wayward ones.

Do you have children? Does loving them involve letting them steal cars and joyride for fun? Or does it mean that you will help them learn to do things civilly and morally?

While I would not impose on gay people's choices in bed, as that is between them and their god/or no god, but they have no right to deliberately influence and indoctrinate my children.(but they want to and this is why that Totalitarian woman came out and said that our children don't belong to their parents: meaning they belong to the State) I say this because the Common Core National Sexuality Education Standards force children to see all kinds of explicit pictures involving every kind of sexual behavior, and yes even bestiality as I hear it. And the books are geared to as low as age 7. This is forcing porn on our children and it is federal standard being hawked as a state level voluntary thing, which it is not.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

You can love someone in the Divine sense, as God loves all his children even the wayward ones.

Do you have children? Does loving them involve letting them steal cars and joyride for fun? Or does it mean that you will help them learn to do things civilly and morally?

Are saying that loving another person who is of the same sex and being there with them through thick and thin.
Is the same as committing criminal activity?

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

You can love someone in the Divine sense, as God loves all his children even the wayward ones.

Do you have children? Does loving them involve letting them steal cars and joyride for fun? Or does it mean that you will help them learn to do things civilly and morally?

Are saying that loving another person who is of the same sex and being there with them through thick and thin.
Is the same as committing criminal activity?

What you are trying to say, it seems that we must be a permissive society and everyone should just do what they want? Is that what you think Jesus meant when he said that? Progressives and seculars continually misrepresent the bible to skew it toward their belief system.
In the scene where an adulteress is being confronted with members of society, Jesus suggests that anyone who has not sinned can be the first one to throw a stone. Then when society did not throw the stones, he told her to "go and sin no more". Does that mean permissiveness to go and do what thou wilt or does that mean forgiveness of sins?
But while Progressives want a permissive society for the things they want ie pot legalization and such, they advocate a fascist reaction to certain things to force society to accept them.

Unnatural based on what though? based on who? science? religion? who did they learn it form? who taught them? who wrote the book on normality?

you are saying that the whole reason of existence is to reproduce and us Homosexuals are not 'Normal' because we can't,

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


You didn't answer my question.
Nice evasion.
So I'll take that as a yes.


However what I'm trying to say is.

Your rights begin where my rights end and vice a versa.

And that maybe, just maybe, it should be more important to be nice to others even if you don't agree with their choices in life. Especially if what they are doing isn't something illegal.

And also that because they do something that's not allowed in your religion. That doesn't give you the right to discriminate.

The analogy here is that you may be in the KKK and hate minorities that doesn't give you the right to discriminate against minorities. a la "we don't serve your kind here."

Saying that private business owners have the obligation to put their time and effort into serving anyone who may walk onto their property is like saying that anyone has the right to enter your home and demand that you serve them lunch.

If you don't like the way someone is running their business, then don't go there. Simple as that. Why do you care about their beliefs? For people who claim to be so against 'bigots', they sure hold their opinions in high value.

reply to post by grey580


Being nice doesn't necessarily mean being loving. Progressives are demanding everyone be nice to them no matter what wares they hawk. And yes we can do that, but what kind of society does that really create? I said that likely I would just bake the cake, but it doesn't mean I have to agree. What the Progressives are trying to do is say that to be tolerant it means that we must enforce things through government. In the meantime, they are using force through educational indoctrination, through the nationalization of the education sector. Do you mean to tell me that I must like everything Progressives do because they say so? That brings me to the liberal fascism point.

Do you know that your Führer is a vegetarian, and that he does not eat meat because of his general attitude toward life and his love for the world of animals? Do you know that your Führer is an exemplary friend of animals, and even as a chancellor, he is not separated from the animals he has kept for years?...The Führer is an ardent opponent of any torture of animals, in particular vivisection, and has declared to terminate those conditions...thus fulfilling his role as the savior of animals, from continuous and nameless torments and pain. ” Neugeist/Die Weisse Fahne (German magazine of the New Thought movement)[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

hmmm New Thought = Progressivism non? New thought or Thought Police? So he loved animals and thought not to torture them but he could put humans in incinerators....that is a Progressive as it gets, and today we see the same Thought Police enforcing this in Agenda 21.
Did not the Fuhrer also think that experimenting on humans in the name of medicine was ok?

Modern Progressives are suggesting that we cannot kill animals to eat, because it is cruel, but we can kill the unborn, especially those who have had needles stuck in their amniotic sac and used to show they have disabilities and therefor it is more compassionate to euthanized them before they are born, and yet we can kill plants to eat them but we should not cut them down to use for lumber and furniture, and we must not live out in the land, we must live in the cities so we don't upset the pristine nature world of animals and plants.
I guess Progressives have their own special brand of righteous indignation and standards on what they view as compassionate and "nice" or loving.

And also that because they do something that's not allowed in your religion. That doesn't give you the right to discriminate.

And who has the right to dictate sexual lifestyle and mores to my children? That's right it's the Totalitarians think they have every right.

reply to post by Charmed707

Originally posted by Charmed707
Saying that private business owners have the obligation to put their time and effort into serving anyone who may walk onto their property is like saying that anyone has the right to enter your home and demand that you serve them lunch.

A. Business owners don't have the obligation to serve anyone who comes in their shop. But if you have a business in Colorado, you cannot discriminate against the customers because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., or you could get sued. It's just the law.

B. A business isn't a private home and the laws that apply to a business don't apply to a private home. That's ridiculous.

If you don't like the way someone is running their business, then don't go there. Simple as that.

It's not as simple as that. It's discrimination and it's illegal. That's like saying, "If you don't like it that one restaurant refuses black people, go to another restaurant." Businesses have laws that they must abide by.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

You didn't answer my question.
Nice evasion.
So I'll take that as a yes.


However what I'm trying to say is.

Your rights begin where my rights end and vice a versa.

And that maybe, just maybe, it should be more important to be nice to others even if you don't agree with their choices in life. Especially if what they are doing isn't something illegal.

And also that because they do something that's not allowed in your religion. That doesn't give you the right to discriminate.

The analogy here is that you may be in the KKK and hate minorities that doesn't give you the right to discriminate against minorities. a la "we don't serve your kind here."

edit on 10-6-2013 by grey580 because: (no reason given)

Indeed, there should be no excuse for discrimination, nothing to hide behind, there should be no discrimination of any kind, on any side

reply to post by grey580

The analogy here is that you may be in the KKK and hate minorities that doesn't give you the right to discriminate against minorities.

What gives the right to minorities to dictate sexual mores and values to the majority? I do not care for the KKK if that is what you are referring to. But leave it to a Progressive to suggest that I must accept any and all sexual mores on the basis that KKK hates minorities. The problem here is that Progressives have not made any distinction between race and sexual mores. Of course they do this for a purpose and that is why they argue that there is no "choice" involved in homosexual mores. It is much easier to convince society of their value system that way.

you are still referring to us as a 'Sub-Human' group, maybe your religion teaches you that Homosexual activity is a sin, fine, your belief, but to suggest that 'Progressives' are making you accept us makes us seem less human

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by grey580

 

The analogy here is that you may be in the KKK and hate minorities that doesn't give you the right to discriminate against minorities.

What gives the right to minorities to dictate sexual mores and values to the majority? I do not care for the KKK if that is what you are referring to. But leave it to a Progressive to suggest that I must accept any and all sexual mores on the basis that KKK hates minorities. The problem here is that Progressives have not made any distinction between race and sexual mores. Of course they do this for a purpose and that is why they argue that there is no "choice" involved in homosexual mores. It is much easier to convince society of their value system that way.

Nothing gives the right to anyone to dictate things to any group.

The US is a nation that values the rights of the individual. Well...it is supposed to be. It is the key difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic.

What we have here is the majority dictating the mores to the minority. We call that "mob rule", and it is wholly anti-American. It is as unAmerican as you can get.

If we are to be wholly technical, forcing this business to sell the cake would be the American thing to do. A business should have no standing as a person, and without an incorporation it generally doesn't. This means that the business owner can choose to not do the job, but someone in the business must. The business has no right in this case, as the right to refuse service would be illegal under Colorado law. I would speculate that it will end up being part of the EEOC, which will mean that homosexuality will be a protected class, similar to disability and religion.

Which is the ultimate sweet irony: that being gay will recieve the same protection as being a devout Christian.

In any event, it is therefore the duty of law to protect the right of the individual in this case, which would be the gay couple attempting to purchase an item that would have been for sale to a couple who was not gay.

Regardless, you are using terms like "progressive" as if you know what it means. You obviously don't. Because the things you are decrying are anything but "progressive", and instead arise from our civil liberties. Secured by our founding fathers, who intended this fine nation to be that way.

LOL, "progressive". You political folks throw around your silly terms and act like you are saying something that hasn't been handed to you by some pundit (or worse, religious leader).