Democrat Party’s Brand Of Intolerance

[Flanders]

I posted numerous messages about involuntary servitude cases since Elane Photography first hit the news:


The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the owners of a photography studio who refused, because of their Christians beliefs, to serve a lesbian couple.




Judges order Christians to work for 'gays'
Court rules photographers must violate religious faith
Published: 08/22/2013 at 4:10 PM
BOB UNRUH

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/judges-order-christians-to-work-for-gays/


Jack Phillips won his case in the Supreme Court, but that is not the end of it:



https://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/06/wi/ap/04/4121c3_supreme-court-wedding-cake-case-83138-jack-phillips-in-10-2014-file-photo-640x566.jpg




Once the left embraced behavior and sexuality as a civil right, and did so with the full backing of our corrupt media, it was the beginning of the end for the most vital element of American life, that unwritten social compact that so beautifully nutshells the Constitution — the idea of “Live and Let Live.”

For 200-plus years, the idea of live and let live helped to make America the freest nation on earth. Laws were not required to enforce this concept, because we were all raised right – taught that I may not agree with what you do or say, but as long as it doesn’t interfere with my right to do and say, I’ll defend your rights.




Nolte: Colorado’s Religious Persecution of Masterpiece Cakeshop Continues
by John Nolte
20 Dec 2018

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/20/nolte-colorados-religious-persecution-of-masterpiece-cakeshop-continues/


NOTE: No plaintiff ‘s lawyer ever fought his client’s case on the grounds of involuntary servitude:


VIII Amendment




Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.




XIII Amendment




Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Involuntary servitude aside, it is “Live and Let Live” that caught my attention in John Nolte’s article. That is a topic that television’s media mouths dare not mention.

The conspicuous manner that every organized religion’s true believers have in common is that not a one of them ever practices “Do not bother me and I will not bother you.” Or to use the better-known phrase “Live and Let Live.” Their reason is obvious. Parasites cannot live on tax dollars and also practice live and let live.

I cannot count the number of Bible-thumpers that found my threads in 18 years. Live and let live is the only thing I ever wanted from Bible-thumpers, yet their talking points never included “let live.”

Hanging onto the Second Amendment is the best chance Americans have of holding tyranny at bay. When all of the legal and philosophical arguments have been made CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED UNREGISTERED GUNS is the muscle that enforces live and let live.

You might ask yourself why Americans are being asked to die fighting tyranny in foreign lands while marching quietly down the road to tyranny in their own country? If you are squeamish about the implications think of unregistered guns as a deterrent busybodies cannot accept.

There is a deeper question that should be asked: Why are Democrats doing it? The simple answer is because they cannot mind their own goddamned business. Eric Hoffer’s great observation applies to Socialists much more than it applies to the followers of Supreme Deity religions:


“To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance.”


Organized religions were never a threat to individual liberties in America. Before Socialists began their campaign to install their own religion as the state’s religion no one was forced to join a church, or support a religion not of their own choosing. Freedom of religion —— as it was practiced in America before Socialists infiltrated the highest levels of government —— basically said live and let live. Meddlers abhor the very concept of letting others live their lives as they see fit. Live and let live is their intolerance.

It is not only dirty little moralists exercising political power that is destroying America’s moral fiber. Preventative medicine is more about the healthcare industry’s morality than it is about health. A nation of pill freaks buying prescription drugs to prevent this or that is the highest morality of all. Diet and exercise gurus promising healthier lives are moralists contradicting the pill priesthood if you do not count vitamins as pills.

Preventative medicine is a pharmaceutical industry scam. Drug companies were not making enough money selling drugs to people who were actually sick; so they increased their sales a thousandfold with the preventative medicine con job. The whole thing is a perversion of an “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

It turns out that doctors are worse than drug companies. Doctors aligned themselves with dirty little moralists when they started telling EVERYONE not to smoke. Do not smoke soon became lose weight and exercise. That was not enough. Doctors in Florida told their patients to get rid of their guns.

Question: Doctors scream bloody murder when anybody interferes in the doctor-patient relationship; so
how come doctors do not mind the ACLU getting in-between doctor and patient?

Happily, doctors cannot hide the harm they are doing with their assault on the Second Amendment. So I fear this scenario:

A patient gets rid of his gun on his doctor’s orders. A murderer breaks into the patient’s home and kills the patient’s children because he could not defend himself. The patient sues the doctor. How would you vote if you were on the jury?

In the same vain, Americans must take a long, hard, look at tort reform before those bums in Washington include it in more “healthcare reform.” I do not have much use for lawyers, but lawyers, and they alone, are all that stands between the public and medical industry butchery protected by law.

In short: when I need moral guidance I will go see the Pope not a doctor.

There were propaganda moralists long before the others jumped on the morality bandwagon. Movies and TV shows have always been dirty little morality plays; the Twilight Zone was the worst of them but not by much.

It can be argued that live and let live is also dogma, except that those of us who believe it do not give a rat’s ass how others live, worship, or eat; so long as they leave us alone.

I still have not figured out how forcing others to pay for abortions equals live and let live.

[Truth Detector]

The Democratic Party of the Jackass is uninterested in Democracy. They have become intolerant, anti-Constitution Fascists. ;)

[Flanders]

The Democratic Party of the Jackass is uninterested in Democracy. They have become intolerant, anti-Constitution Fascists. ;)

To Truth Detector:


http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/audience-clapping-smiley-emoticon.gif

[Fentoine Lum]

My side's intolerance is less shitty than your side's intolerance so there!

[jimmymccready]

the far right is more intolerant than the left

Democrat Party’s Brand Of Intolerance

[Truth Detector]

My side's intolerance is less shitty than your side's intolerance so there!

I do wish you had a brain.

[Truth Detector]

the far right is more intolerant than the left

Democrat Party’s Brand Of Intolerance

https://media.giphy.com/media/hPPx8yk3Bmqys/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/l2SpKAR8xecpYIzWE/giphy.gif

[Adolf_Twitler]

https://pics.me.me/voting-republican-i-vote-republican-to-keep-foreigners-minorities-women-20780994.png

[Truth Detector]

accurate

You're never accurate; but you are a moron 100% of the time. ;)

[jimmymccready]

Trump's morons! :rofl2:

[Truth Detector]

Trump's morons! :roflol2:

:lolup:Special brand of moron. :laugh:

[domer76]

I posted numerous messages about involuntary servitude cases since Elane Photography first hit the news:


The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the owners of a photography studio who refused, because of their Christians beliefs, to serve a lesbian couple.




Judges order Christians to work for 'gays'
Court rules photographers must violate religious faith
Published: 08/22/2013 at 4:10 PM
BOB UNRUH

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/judges-order-christians-to-work-for-gays/


Jack Phillips won his case in the Supreme Court, but that is not the end of it:



https://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/06/wi/ap/04/4121c3_supreme-court-wedding-cake-case-83138-jack-phillips-in-10-2014-file-photo-640x566.jpg




Once the left embraced behavior and sexuality as a civil right, and did so with the full backing of our corrupt media, it was the beginning of the end for the most vital element of American life, that unwritten social compact that so beautifully nutshells the Constitution — the idea of “Live and Let Live.”

For 200-plus years, the idea of live and let live helped to make America the freest nation on earth. Laws were not required to enforce this concept, because we were all raised right – taught that I may not agree with what you do or say, but as long as it doesn’t interfere with my right to do and say, I’ll defend your rights.




Nolte: Colorado’s Religious Persecution of Masterpiece Cakeshop Continues
by John Nolte
20 Dec 2018

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/20/nolte-colorados-religious-persecution-of-masterpiece-cakeshop-continues/


NOTE: No plaintiff ‘s lawyer ever fought his client’s case on the grounds of involuntary servitude:


VIII Amendment




Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.




XIII Amendment




Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Involuntary servitude aside, it is “Live and Let Live” that caught my attention in John Nolte’s article. That is a topic that television’s media mouths dare not mention.

The conspicuous manner that every organized religion’s true believers have in common is that not a one of them ever practices “Do not bother me and I will not bother you.” Or to use the better-known phrase “Live and Let Live.” Their reason is obvious. Parasites cannot live on tax dollars and also practice live and let live.

I cannot count the number of Bible-thumpers that found my threads in 18 years. Live and let live is the only thing I ever wanted from Bible-thumpers, yet their talking points never included “let live.”

Hanging onto the Second Amendment is the best chance Americans have of holding tyranny at bay. When all of the legal and philosophical arguments have been made CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED UNREGISTERED GUNS is the muscle that enforces live and let live.

You might ask yourself why Americans are being asked to die fighting tyranny in foreign lands while marching quietly down the road to tyranny in their own country? If you are squeamish about the implications think of unregistered guns as a deterrent busybodies cannot accept.

There is a deeper question that should be asked: Why are Democrats doing it? The simple answer is because they cannot mind their own goddamned business. Eric Hoffer’s great observation applies to Socialists much more than it applies to the followers of Supreme Deity religions:


“To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance.”


Organized religions were never a threat to individual liberties in America. Before Socialists began their campaign to install their own religion as the state’s religion no one was forced to join a church, or support a religion not of their own choosing. Freedom of religion —— as it was practiced in America before Socialists infiltrated the highest levels of government —— basically said live and let live. Meddlers abhor the very concept of letting others live their lives as they see fit. Live and let live is their intolerance.

It is not only dirty little moralists exercising political power that is destroying America’s moral fiber. Preventative medicine is more about the healthcare industry’s morality than it is about health. A nation of pill freaks buying prescription drugs to prevent this or that is the highest morality of all. Diet and exercise gurus promising healthier lives are moralists contradicting the pill priesthood if you do not count vitamins as pills.

Preventative medicine is a pharmaceutical industry scam. Drug companies were not making enough money selling drugs to people who were actually sick; so they increased their sales a thousandfold with the preventative medicine con job. The whole thing is a perversion of an “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

It turns out that doctors are worse than drug companies. Doctors aligned themselves with dirty little moralists when they started telling EVERYONE not to smoke. Do not smoke soon became lose weight and exercise. That was not enough. Doctors in Florida told their patients to get rid of their guns.

Question: Doctors scream bloody murder when anybody interferes in the doctor-patient relationship; so
how come doctors do not mind the ACLU getting in-between doctor and patient?

Happily, doctors cannot hide the harm they are doing with their assault on the Second Amendment. So I fear this scenario:

A patient gets rid of his gun on his doctor’s orders. A murderer breaks into the patient’s home and kills the patient’s children because he could not defend himself. The patient sues the doctor. How would you vote if you were on the jury?

In the same vain, Americans must take a long, hard, look at tort reform before those bums in Washington include it in more “healthcare reform.” I do not have much use for lawyers, but lawyers, and they alone, are all that stands between the public and medical industry butchery protected by law.

In short: when I need moral guidance I will go see the Pope not a doctor.

There were propaganda moralists long before the others jumped on the morality bandwagon. Movies and TV shows have always been dirty little morality plays; the Twilight Zone was the worst of them but not by much.

It can be argued that live and let live is also dogma, except that those of us who believe it do not give a rat’s ass how others live, worship, or eat; so long as they leave us alone.

I still have not figured out how forcing others to pay for abortions equals live and let live.


Here's the way it works, bitch.

When you run a business in the secular world, you play by secular rules. There are laws regarding discrimination against certain groups. To review for idiots like you, they include:

Race
Gender
Age
National Origin
Disability
Creed
Religion

In most locations these days, sexual orientation is another. Comprende, dumbfuck?

As for the remainder of your rambling piece of bullshit -> :rofl2:

[domer76]

To Truth Detector:


http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/audience-clapping-smiley-emoticon.gif

TD wouldn't know the Constitution if it kicked him in the ass.

The massive ignorance of civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation by you RW fucktards is astounding.

[Flanders]

UPDATE



I posted numerous messages about involuntary servitude cases since Elane Photography first hit the news:

Democrats will never stop trying to legitimate involuntary servitude despite the VIII and XIII Amendments:


Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s contrary decision in a similar case, a unanimous Washington state Supreme Court on Thursday upheld its ruling that florist Barronelle Stutzman broke the state’s anti-discrimination law when she refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court sent back Stutzman’s case to the state after ruling Colorado showed religious animus to Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex couple.

In the Phillips case one year ago, the court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was hostile to Phillips’ faith “and failed to act neutrally toward his religion.”

However, in the Stutzman case, the court found that neither the Washington Supreme Court nor the Benton County Superior Court acted with religious animus toward Stutzman and her business, Arlene’s Flowers, the Washington Examiner reported.

The Washington Supreme Court said Thursday it’s confident that Stutzman’s case was resolved “with tolerance, and we therefore find no reason to change our original judgment.”




Attorneys for Stutzman, whose case began with a lawsuit against her in 2013, said they will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.



Court rules against florist who refused same-sex couple
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 06/06/2019 @ 7:46 pm


https://www.wnd.com/2019/06/court-rules-against-florist-who-refused-same-sex-couple/

[domer76]

UPDATE




Democrats will never stop trying to legitimate involuntary servitude despite the VIII and XIII Amendments:


Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s contrary decision in a similar case, a unanimous Washington state Supreme Court on Thursday upheld its ruling that florist Barronelle Stutzman broke the state’s anti-discrimination law when she refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court sent back Stutzman’s case to the state after ruling Colorado showed religious animus to Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex couple.

In the Phillips case one year ago, the court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was hostile to Phillips’ faith “and failed to act neutrally toward his religion.”

However, in the Stutzman case, the court found that neither the Washington Supreme Court nor the Benton County Superior Court acted with religious animus toward Stutzman and her business, Arlene’s Flowers, the Washington Examiner reported.

The Washington Supreme Court said Thursday it’s confident that Stutzman’s case was resolved “with tolerance, and we therefore find no reason to change our original judgment.”




Attorneys for Stutzman, whose case began with a lawsuit against her in 2013, said they will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.



Court rules against florist who refused same-sex couple
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 06/06/2019 @ 7:46 pm


https://www.wnd.com/2019/06/court-rules-against-florist-who-refused-same-sex-couple/

Do you know why there are civil rights laws against discrimination, stupid fuck?

[Flanders]

Do you know why there are civil rights laws against discrimination, stupid fuck?

To Domer76: Do you know why there are special privileges laws, asshole?


Incidentally, attaching every cause to a greater issue is hardly new. Attaching homosexuality to so-called abortion Rights is the same thing homosexuals did with the Civil Rights Movement —— homosexuals and black Americans require special privileges. Sad to say, the privileges both groups got under the banner of Civil Rights were taken away from everybody else. If you plan on replying be sure to include one Right EVERY AMERICAN gets. In short: It ain't a Right when somebody else pays for it.




PLEASE —— no moral horseshit to justify taken Rights away from everybody you disagree with.


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?109698-Back-Alleys-amp-Public-Toilets&p=2799279#post2799279

[StoneByStone]

I posted numerous messages about involuntary servitude cases since Elane Photography first hit the news:


The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the owners of a photography studio who refused, because of their Christians beliefs, to serve a lesbian couple.




Judges order Christians to work for 'gays'
Court rules photographers must violate religious faith
Published: 08/22/2013 at 4:10 PM
BOB UNRUH

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/judges-order-christians-to-work-for-gays/


Jack Phillips won his case in the Supreme Court, but that is not the end of it:



https://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/06/wi/ap/04/4121c3_supreme-court-wedding-cake-case-83138-jack-phillips-in-10-2014-file-photo-640x566.jpg




Once the left embraced behavior and sexuality as a civil right, and did so with the full backing of our corrupt media, it was the beginning of the end for the most vital element of American life, that unwritten social compact that so beautifully nutshells the Constitution — the idea of “Live and Let Live.”

For 200-plus years, the idea of live and let live helped to make America the freest nation on earth. Laws were not required to enforce this concept, because we were all raised right – taught that I may not agree with what you do or say, but as long as it doesn’t interfere with my right to do and say, I’ll defend your rights.




Nolte: Colorado’s Religious Persecution of Masterpiece Cakeshop Continues
by John Nolte
20 Dec 2018

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/20/nolte-colorados-religious-persecution-of-masterpiece-cakeshop-continues/


NOTE: No plaintiff ‘s lawyer ever fought his client’s case on the grounds of involuntary servitude:


VIII Amendment




Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.




XIII Amendment




Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Involuntary servitude aside, it is “Live and Let Live” that caught my attention in John Nolte’s article. That is a topic that television’s media mouths dare not mention.

The conspicuous manner that every organized religion’s true believers have in common is that not a one of them ever practices “Do not bother me and I will not bother you.” Or to use the better-known phrase “Live and Let Live.” Their reason is obvious. Parasites cannot live on tax dollars and also practice live and let live.

I cannot count the number of Bible-thumpers that found my threads in 18 years. Live and let live is the only thing I ever wanted from Bible-thumpers, yet their talking points never included “let live.”

Hanging onto the Second Amendment is the best chance Americans have of holding tyranny at bay. When all of the legal and philosophical arguments have been made CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED UNREGISTERED GUNS is the muscle that enforces live and let live.

You might ask yourself why Americans are being asked to die fighting tyranny in foreign lands while marching quietly down the road to tyranny in their own country? If you are squeamish about the implications think of unregistered guns as a deterrent busybodies cannot accept.

There is a deeper question that should be asked: Why are Democrats doing it? The simple answer is because they cannot mind their own goddamned business. Eric Hoffer’s great observation applies to Socialists much more than it applies to the followers of Supreme Deity religions:


“To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance.”


Organized religions were never a threat to individual liberties in America. Before Socialists began their campaign to install their own religion as the state’s religion no one was forced to join a church, or support a religion not of their own choosing. Freedom of religion —— as it was practiced in America before Socialists infiltrated the highest levels of government —— basically said live and let live. Meddlers abhor the very concept of letting others live their lives as they see fit. Live and let live is their intolerance.

It is not only dirty little moralists exercising political power that is destroying America’s moral fiber. Preventative medicine is more about the healthcare industry’s morality than it is about health. A nation of pill freaks buying prescription drugs to prevent this or that is the highest morality of all. Diet and exercise gurus promising healthier lives are moralists contradicting the pill priesthood if you do not count vitamins as pills.

Preventative medicine is a pharmaceutical industry scam. Drug companies were not making enough money selling drugs to people who were actually sick; so they increased their sales a thousandfold with the preventative medicine con job. The whole thing is a perversion of an “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

It turns out that doctors are worse than drug companies. Doctors aligned themselves with dirty little moralists when they started telling EVERYONE not to smoke. Do not smoke soon became lose weight and exercise. That was not enough. Doctors in Florida told their patients to get rid of their guns.

Question: Doctors scream bloody murder when anybody interferes in the doctor-patient relationship; so
how come doctors do not mind the ACLU getting in-between doctor and patient?

Happily, doctors cannot hide the harm they are doing with their assault on the Second Amendment. So I fear this scenario:

A patient gets rid of his gun on his doctor’s orders. A murderer breaks into the patient’s home and kills the patient’s children because he could not defend himself. The patient sues the doctor. How would you vote if you were on the jury?

In the same vain, Americans must take a long, hard, look at tort reform before those bums in Washington include it in more “healthcare reform.” I do not have much use for lawyers, but lawyers, and they alone, are all that stands between the public and medical industry butchery protected by law.

In short: when I need moral guidance I will go see the Pope not a doctor.

There were propaganda moralists long before the others jumped on the morality bandwagon. Movies and TV shows have always been dirty little morality plays; the Twilight Zone was the worst of them but not by much.

It can be argued that live and let live is also dogma, except that those of us who believe it do not give a rat’s ass how others live, worship, or eat; so long as they leave us alone.

I still have not figured out how forcing others to pay for abortions equals live and let live.


Just curious, would you be alright with a company refusing to do business with people for being a different race?

[Flanders]

Just curious, would you be alright with a company refusing to do business with people for being a different race?

To StoneByStone: NO if you are talking about institutions enforcing involuntary servitude policies.

An emphatic YES if you are talking individuals.

A word of advice. Spend more time on formulating clever questions.

[StoneByStone]

To StoneByStone: NO if you are talking about institutions enforcing involuntary servitude policies.

An emphatic YES if you are talking individuals.

A word of advice. Spend more time on formulating clever questions.


I'm not sure why you got triggered by that, it was a pretty fair question.

[Flanders]

I'm not sure why you got triggered by that, it was a pretty fair question.

To StoneByStone: I am not sure why you think my answer was unfair.

[StoneByStone]

To StoneByStone: I am not sure why you think my answer was unfair.

I don't. I was just surprised that my question triggered you.

[domer76]

To Domer76: Do you know why there are special privileges laws, asshole?


Incidentally, attaching every cause to a greater issue is hardly new. Attaching homosexuality to so-called abortion Rights is the same thing homosexuals did with the Civil Rights Movement —— homosexuals and black Americans require special privileges. Sad to say, the privileges both groups got under the banner of Civil Rights were taken away from everybody else. If you plan on replying be sure to include one Right EVERY AMERICAN gets. In short: It ain't a Right when somebody else pays for it.




PLEASE —— no moral horseshit to justify taken Rights away from everybody you disagree with.


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?109698-Back-Alleys-amp-Public-Toilets&p=2799279#post2799279

Wrong again, stupid fuck. Same asswipe mantra you shitstains use every time.

No “special rights”, you stupid fucking dumbfuck. Same rights.

Fool.

[Flanders]

I'm not sure why you got triggered by that, it was a pretty fair question.


I don't. I was just surprised that my question triggered you.

To StoneByStone: You lost me. If you thought your question triggered me, logically, you must have concluded my answer was unfair. If not, why bring it up at all?

[StoneByStone]

To StoneByStone: You lost me. If you thought your question triggered me, logically, you must have concluded my answer was unfair. If not, why bring it up at all?


Well the answer was fine. But then you said I should work harder at coming up with clever questions, which was kind of strange. :laugh:

[Flanders]

UPDATE



Aaron and Melissa Klein were fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday sidestepped another opportunity to determine if LGBTQ rights trump the Constitution’s protection of the exercise of religion.

Nevertheless, they ruled in favor of the owners of an Oregon bakery, Sweetcakes by Melissa, who declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. The ruling vacated a state court decision against Aaron and Melissa Klein, eliminating a $135,000 fine. And it directed state appellate judges to reconsider the case in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips.




Supremes make major ruling regarding Christian bakers
Posted By Bob Unruh On 06/17/2019 @ 1:42 pm

https://www.wnd.com/2019/06/supremes-make-major-ruling-regarding-christian-bakers/

[USFREEDOM911]

Just curious, would you be alright with a company refusing to do business with people for being a different race?

You asking the question is a fallacy; because homosexuals are not a race.

:facepalm:

[RB 60]

Wrong again, stupid fuck. Same asswipe mantra you shitstains use every time.

No “special rights”, you stupid fucking dumbfuck. Same rights.

Fool.

You're slipping, dickhead. Only 3 profane (I used "you stupid fucking dumbfuck" as 1) insults in 2 short sentences...

[StoneByStone]

You asking the question is a fallacy; because homosexuals are not a race.



I know they're not a race. I'm asking about race because I'm curious about consistency.
Do you think it's ok to deny service to someone based on race?

[Flanders]

Do you think it's ok to deny service to someone based on race?

To StoneByStone: Absolutely. Every self-employed individual has the Right to choose who they work for.

Even employees can quit if the boss orders them to perform involuntary servitude.



Just curious, would you be alright with a company refusing to do business with people for being a different race?


To StoneByStone: NO if you are talking about institutions enforcing involuntary servitude policies.

An emphatic YES if you are talking individuals.

[StoneByStone]

To StoneByStone: Absolutely. Every self-employed individual has the Right to choose who they work for.

Even employees can quit if the boss orders them to perform involuntary servitude.


Thank you for answering. I feel the same way.

[USFREEDOM911]

I know they're not a race. I'm asking about race because I'm curious about consistency.
Do you think it's ok to deny service to someone based on race?

Since it has nothing to do with race, then why are you bringing it up; except to try and make them equal, for some reason.

[StoneByStone]

Since it has nothing to do with race, then why are you bringing it up; except to try and make them equal, for some reason.

I want to see if you're consistent or a hypocrite.

[Adolf_Twitler]

My side's intolerance is less shitty than your side's intolerance so there!

lol!

Come on y'all! That was funny!

[USFREEDOM911]

I want to see if you're consistent or a hypocrite.

Untrue; because you're just trying to equate homosexuality and race.

[StoneByStone]

Untrue; because you're just trying to equate homosexuality and race.

Not at all.
You said that it should be legal to refuse to do business with someone for their sexuality. So I'm curious if you also think it should also be legal to refuse to do business with someone for their race.

[USFREEDOM911]

Not at all.
You said that it should be legal to refuse to do business with someone for their sexuality. So I'm curious if you also think it should also be legal to refuse to do business with someone for their race.

And you're still failing; because they are two separate issues, seeing as how a homosexual can be any race.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/09/5e/a4/095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif

[StoneByStone]

And you're still failing; because they are two separate issues, seeing as how a homosexual can be any race.



Yes, I know that. You already admitting you think discrimination based on sexuality should be legal. So I'm asking how you feel about other things, such as race. Should discrimination based on race be legal?

[USFREEDOM911]

Yes, I know that. You already admitting you think discrimination based on sexuality should be legal. So I'm asking how you feel about other things, such as race. Should discrimination based on race be legal?

I've never said discrimination based on sexuality should be legal, unless you want to actually provide that supposed post; because you're known for just making up shit and then promoting it as facts.

[Into the Night]

Here's the way it works, bitch.

When you run a business in the secular world, you play by secular rules. There are laws regarding discrimination against certain groups. To review for idiots like you, they include:

Race
Gender
Age
National Origin
Disability
Creed
Religion

In most locations these days, sexual orientation is another. Comprende, dumbfuck?

As for the remainder of your rambling piece of bullshit -> :rofl2:

So...running his business according to his religion is not allowed??? WTF??

[Into the Night]

Not at all.
You said that it should be legal to refuse to do business with someone for their sexuality. So I'm curious if you also think it should also be legal to refuse to do business with someone for their race.

Yes.

I have no problem, for instance, if a black restaurant owner refuses to serve me because I'm not black. It's his restaurant, he can run it the way he wants.

[Into the Night]

Do you know why there are civil rights laws against discrimination, stupid fuck?

Because of idiots like you.

[Into the Night]

And you're still failing; because they are two separate issues, seeing as how a homosexual can be any race.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/09/5e/a4/095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif

Quite right. Homosexuality is a choice of behavior. It is not a race.

[Flanders]

FAG UPDATE




Jack Phillips won his case in the Supreme Court, but that is not the end of it:




https://f4.bcbits.com/img/a3859327518_16.jpg
https://f4.bcbits.com/img/a3859327518_16.jpg


It is never over even though the fat lady is singing:


It’s now been eight years since liberal activists began their campaign to attempt to drive Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips out of business for the sin of refusing to decorate cakes with messages that conflicted with his religious values. Thus far, his antagonists have managed to tie him up in court endlessly, but after the Supreme Court sided with him it sounded as if the brouhaha might be over. No such luck, sadly. One of the usual suspects immediately tried to order a cake from Jack to celebrate his “transition” from male to female. Phillips declined and was promptly sued again. This week, a court in Colorado refused to throw the suit out and ruled that the plaintiff could move forward. (Washington Examiner)




The newest case against Jack Phillips, the infamous owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, cannot be dismissed, a Colorado district court decided Wednesday. Autumn Scardina, a transgender woman, filed a complaint against Phillips in 2017 with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, unsuccessfully. Scardina filed the suit after Phillips declined, due to his religious beliefs, to make a cake celebrating the transition Scardina made from male to female.




Scardina, an attorney, then filed a new lawsuit in state court that seeks monetary damages of more than $100,000 against Phillips. Although attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom had requested that the case be dismissed, the court has decided to let it continue.




The person attempting to drive Phillips from the market is one we’ve heard from before. Autumn Scardina is the same transgender lawyer who previously attempted to force Jack to create a case showing Satan smoking marijuana under an upside-down crucifix.


Phillips is once again being represented by Alliance Defending Freedom. They’re pointing out something that should have been obvious to everyone long before now. Scardina has no interest in purchasing a cake. There are any number of bakers who would jump at the opportunity to pick up some business. What Scardina is trying to do is bankrupt Phillips with nuisance lawsuits and drive him out of business.

Sadly, Phillips is hardly the only business owner to be targeted in this fashion and the tactics are almost always identical. The left identifies a perceived “enemy” of progressive values and tries to drive them out of business. And sometimes there isn’t even an aggrieved party to claim damages.

Here’s one great example I always come back to. Do you remember a small business in Indiana named Memories Pizzaria? It’s the joint that was nearly hounded out of existence after they refused to cater a wedding for a lesbian couple, or at least that’s the legend that you still hear on the left. But the minor detail you rarely hear people discussing is that there never was a lesbian couple. There never was a wedding reception. The entire scenario was fictional.

What really happened was that a local reporter was supposed to do a story on businesses that don’t participate in gay weddings. But after calling around to every caterer in the area, nobody refused. They all wanted the business. So the reporter started calling every place that serves food of any kind and asking if they would be willing to cater a gay wedding until they finally dialed up Memories and the phone was answered by the family’s grandmother who was opposed to gay marriage. (And honestly… who asks a pizza parlor to cater their wedding anyway?) But the shop was instantly “famous” and the mob came to try to shut them down.

That’s what’s happening with Jack Phillips now. And it’s a shame. This entire situation should have been resolved after the Supreme Court ruling, but some agitators will never be satisfied until Jack is driven out of business.




Cancel culture warriors still trying to cancel Masterpiece Cakeshop
Jazz Shaw
Posted at 7:01 pm on May 2, 2020

https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2020/05/02/cancel-culture-warriors-still-trying-cancel-masterpiece-cakeshop/

[StoneByStone]

Quite right. Homosexuality is a choice of behavior.

:tardthoughts:

[Flanders]

NEVER ENDING UPDATES



I posted numerous messages about involuntary servitude cases since Elane Photography first hit the news:


The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the owners of a photography studio who refused, because of their Christians beliefs, to serve a lesbian couple.




Judges order Christians to work for 'gays'
Court rules photographers must violate religious faith
Published: 08/22/2013 at 4:10 PM
BOB UNRUH

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/judges-order-christians-to-work-for-gays/


Jack Phillips won his case in the Supreme Court, but that is not the end of it:

I have been posting messages about involuntary servitude cases from the beginning.




NOTE: No plaintiff ‘s lawyer ever fought his client’s case on the grounds of involuntary servitude:


VIII Amendment




Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.






XIII Amendment




Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.




Every one of those case will drag on until planet Earth is a burned out cinder before Congress and/or an American court put an end to involuntary servitude:



The state of Colorado, which was determined by the Supreme Court to have exhibited "hostility" to Christianity in its prosecution of a baker who declined to create messages that violated his faith, now has put him on trial for the same charge.

The trial for Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop began Monday on the charge that he refused to bake a cake celebrating the anniversary of a man's "transition" to a woman, Courthouse News reported.

The Supreme Court ruled in a previous case in which the state prosecuted him for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. He has stated will bake cakes for anyone, but he won't create any message that violate his Christian beliefs.

The latest case was brought by a transgender lawyer, Autumn Scardina. The court has thrown out one of the counts in the case, an allegation of deceptive business practices, pointing out that none of the statements relied upon by the plaintiff was an advertisement.

Lawyer John McHugh argued Monday on behalf of Scardina before Denver County Judge Alan Jones that Scardina wanted a cake but was refused "based on her identity."

Scardina admitted she had "vented" against Phillips by writing him emails when his same-sex wedding cake case was going on.

Scardina called him a bigot and hypocrite, according to testimony.

Then Scardina claimed to have forgotten about being upset and wanted Phillips to make a "birthday" cake.

Courthouse News reported Phillips "refused to make a pink cake with blue frosting to celebrate the anniversary of Scardina’s transition, so she filed a new complaint through the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in 2018 claiming gender discrimination."

"Since this was not his first course with the commission, Phillips sued the state for harassment in federal court. In 2019, the state and Phillips reached a settlement and withdrew their complaints, leaving Scardina where she started with an empty plate. She sued the cakeshop directly in Denver state court in June 2019."

Phillips' lawyer, Sean Gates, said the objection was not to the cake or the customer but to the message.

"Jack Phillips’ cakes convey a message," he explained. “But Jack Phillips is a Christian and his religion affects what he can create. Jack Phillips will make cakes for all people, but he cannot make cakes for all messages."

Phillips has a policy of declining to make cakes with messages regarding Halloween, alcohol, racism and marijuana/

In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on favor of Phillips. It determined that the state of Colorado's Civil Rights Commission expressed unconstitutional "hostility" toward religion in response to Phillip's conscience-based defense for his actions.

James Dobson, the noted Christian psychologist, agreed with the Supreme Court that Colorado's Civil Rights Commission is biased and exhibits hostility to people of faith.

"We call upon the Colorado legislature to provide unbiased, fair, constitutional due process for all Coloradoans, including people of faith, and to prevent future hostility by this biased government agency," he said in August 2018.

It was Diann Rice, then a member of the state commission, who expressed hostility against Christian faith.

"I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust, whether it be – I mean, we – we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination," she said. "And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to – to use their religion to hurt others."

When Scardina filed the case in 2018, the late talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh commented.

"The latest lawsuit against Jack Phillips is – I'm not making this up, now. The latest lawsuit against Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, is filed by a guy who harassed the bakery for months, requesting things like a cake with a picture of Satan performing fellatio," he said. "The guy walks in, requested that Jack Phillips bake a cake with a picture of Satan performing fellatio. Of course, Jack Phillips said 'no.'

"This discrimination suit's utterly baseless," he said. "Any person with two functioning brain cells can see."







War on Christian baker now in NINTH year as state puts him on trial
By Bob Unruh
Published March 22, 2021 at 7:22pm

https://www.wnd.com/2021/03/religious-rights-fight-9th-year-now-state-puts-christian-baker-trial/

[jbander]

To Domer76: Do you know why there are special privileges laws, asshole?


Incidentally, attaching every cause to a greater issue is hardly new. Attaching homosexuality to so-called abortion Rights is the same thing homosexuals did with the Civil Rights Movement —— homosexuals and black Americans require special privileges. Sad to say, the privileges both groups got under the banner of Civil Rights were taken away from everybody else. If you plan on replying be sure to include one Right EVERY AMERICAN gets. In short: It ain't a Right when somebody else pays for it.




PLEASE —— no moral horseshit to justify taken Rights away from everybody you disagree with.


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?109698-Back-Alleys-amp-Public-Toilets&p=2799279#post2799279Nonsense. ME HATE DA WORLD NONSENSE!

[Flanders]

QUEER UPDATE




NOTE: No plaintiff ‘s lawyer ever fought his client’s case on the grounds of involuntary servitude:

I have a gut feeling that Supreme Court douche bags refuse the case because they are afraid to touch involuntary servitude. Note that two of Trump’s judges ran for the tall grass:


The court offered no explanation for the decision, as three judges, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said they would have heard the case.

But according to the Daily Mail, conservatives reacted negatively to Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett for "siding with liberals."




'Conservatives' on Supreme Court blasted for florist decision
By Bob Unruh
Published July 2, 2021 at 1:45pm

https://www.wnd.com/2021/07/conservatives-supreme-court-blasted-florist-decision/






If Trump does run in 2024 he better forget about conservative votes. He never did anything for conservatives in four years; so what the hell good is he when he sends more liberals to the High Court? God only knows how many liberals he sent to the lower courts.

[Flanders]

I posted numerous messages about involuntary servitude cases since Elane Photography first hit the news:

It is all over.

Chief Justice Roberts famously said:



“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”


NOTE: There is no such thing as a dedicated lawyer.

Apparently, the high court is populated with queer judges and ACLU lawyers:



The Washington state florist who declined to design a floral arrangement for a same-sex wedding because of her Christian beliefs says she could lose "everything" after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected her appeal of her punishment, ending an eight-year court battle.

In a podcast interview, Barronell Stutzman noted the organized activism that drove civil lawsuits against her by the Washington state attorney general and the ACLU.

Her ordeal began when the ACLU "got ahold" of the same-sex couple and "sued me personally and corporately," and state Attorney General Bob Ferguson did the same.


Christian florist after 8-year court battle: 'I could lose everything'




Supreme Court rejected her appeal of punishment for refusing to assist same-sex wedding
By Art Moore
Published July 8, 2021 at 7:41pm

https://www.wnd.com/2021/07/4929280/


QUESTION: Do you think ACLU lawyer Ruth Ginsburg (1933 - 2020) would have voted for Barronell Stutzman’s constitutional protections or for an unconstitutional marriage?



https://s31242.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg-gay-wedding-1536x987.jpg
https://s31242.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg-gay-wedding-1536x987.jpg




A gay couple who were married by Ruth Bader Ginsburg have praised the late Supreme Court justice as a “brilliant, inspirational” advocate for equality.




Patrick Kelleher
September 21, 2020

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/09/21/ruth-bader-ginsburg-gay-couple-wedding-officiant-supreme-court-dead-pancreatic-cancer/


Basically, destructive Supreme Court decisions make everything look like they vote for individual constitutional Rights. In fact, they always vote for the Rights of thousands of criminals, degenerates, and illegal aliens —— they never vote for the Rights of one American like Barronell Stutzman. If you want proof research the rulings corrupt lawyers on the Supreme Court ‘LEGISLATED’ in recent decades.

[NiftyNiblick]

For what reason would anybody empathize or sympathize with Christian homophobics?

Are we having a celebration of morally and socially deficient people?

[RB 60]

For what reason would anybody empathize or sympathize with Christian homophobics?

Are we having a celebration of morally and socially deficient people?



Yep. We sure are

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.kXgG2cCnwrinQSB1FDlVPwHaD4&pid=Api&P=0&w=304&h=160

They're your kind. Own it.

[danielpalos]

I posted numerous messages about involuntary servitude cases since Elane Photography first hit the news:


The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the owners of a photography studio who refused, because of their Christians beliefs, to serve a lesbian couple.




Judges order Christians to work for 'gays'
Court rules photographers must violate religious faith
Published: 08/22/2013 at 4:10 PM
BOB UNRUH

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/judges-order-christians-to-work-for-gays/


Jack Phillips won his case in the Supreme Court, but that is not the end of it:



https://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/06/wi/ap/04/4121c3_supreme-court-wedding-cake-case-83138-jack-phillips-in-10-2014-file-photo-640x566.jpg




Once the left embraced behavior and sexuality as a civil right, and did so with the full backing of our corrupt media, it was the beginning of the end for the most vital element of American life, that unwritten social compact that so beautifully nutshells the Constitution — the idea of “Live and Let Live.”

For 200-plus years, the idea of live and let live helped to make America the freest nation on earth. Laws were not required to enforce this concept, because we were all raised right – taught that I may not agree with what you do or say, but as long as it doesn’t interfere with my right to do and say, I’ll defend your rights.




Nolte: Colorado’s Religious Persecution of Masterpiece Cakeshop Continues
by John Nolte
20 Dec 2018

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/20/nolte-colorados-religious-persecution-of-masterpiece-cakeshop-continues/


NOTE: No plaintiff ‘s lawyer ever fought his client’s case on the grounds of involuntary servitude:


VIII Amendment




Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.




XIII Amendment




Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Involuntary servitude aside, it is “Live and Let Live” that caught my attention in John Nolte’s article. That is a topic that television’s media mouths dare not mention.

The conspicuous manner that every organized religion’s true believers have in common is that not a one of them ever practices “Do not bother me and I will not bother you.” Or to use the better-known phrase “Live and Let Live.” Their reason is obvious. Parasites cannot live on tax dollars and also practice live and let live.

I cannot count the number of Bible-thumpers that found my threads in 18 years. Live and let live is the only thing I ever wanted from Bible-thumpers, yet their talking points never included “let live.”

Hanging onto the Second Amendment is the best chance Americans have of holding tyranny at bay. When all of the legal and philosophical arguments have been made CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED UNREGISTERED GUNS is the muscle that enforces live and let live.

You might ask yourself why Americans are being asked to die fighting tyranny in foreign lands while marching quietly down the road to tyranny in their own country? If you are squeamish about the implications think of unregistered guns as a deterrent busybodies cannot accept.

There is a deeper question that should be asked: Why are Democrats doing it? The simple answer is because they cannot mind their own goddamned business. Eric Hoffer’s great observation applies to Socialists much more than it applies to the followers of Supreme Deity religions:


“To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance.”


Organized religions were never a threat to individual liberties in America. Before Socialists began their campaign to install their own religion as the state’s religion no one was forced to join a church, or support a religion not of their own choosing. Freedom of religion —— as it was practiced in America before Socialists infiltrated the highest levels of government —— basically said live and let live. Meddlers abhor the very concept of letting others live their lives as they see fit. Live and let live is their intolerance.

It is not only dirty little moralists exercising political power that is destroying America’s moral fiber. Preventative medicine is more about the healthcare industry’s morality than it is about health. A nation of pill freaks buying prescription drugs to prevent this or that is the highest morality of all. Diet and exercise gurus promising healthier lives are moralists contradicting the pill priesthood if you do not count vitamins as pills.

Preventative medicine is a pharmaceutical industry scam. Drug companies were not making enough money selling drugs to people who were actually sick; so they increased their sales a thousandfold with the preventative medicine con job. The whole thing is a perversion of an “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

It turns out that doctors are worse than drug companies. Doctors aligned themselves with dirty little moralists when they started telling EVERYONE not to smoke. Do not smoke soon became lose weight and exercise. That was not enough. Doctors in Florida told their patients to get rid of their guns.

Question: Doctors scream bloody murder when anybody interferes in the doctor-patient relationship; so
how come doctors do not mind the ACLU getting in-between doctor and patient?

Happily, doctors cannot hide the harm they are doing with their assault on the Second Amendment. So I fear this scenario:

A patient gets rid of his gun on his doctor’s orders. A murderer breaks into the patient’s home and kills the patient’s children because he could not defend himself. The patient sues the doctor. How would you vote if you were on the jury?

In the same vain, Americans must take a long, hard, look at tort reform before those bums in Washington include it in more “healthcare reform.” I do not have much use for lawyers, but lawyers, and they alone, are all that stands between the public and medical industry butchery protected by law.

In short: when I need moral guidance I will go see the Pope not a doctor.

There were propaganda moralists long before the others jumped on the morality bandwagon. Movies and TV shows have always been dirty little morality plays; the Twilight Zone was the worst of them but not by much.

It can be argued that live and let live is also dogma, except that those of us who believe it do not give a rat’s ass how others live, worship, or eat; so long as they leave us alone.

I still have not figured out how forcing others to pay for abortions equals live and let live.

That seller should be operating on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre if the seller alleges to feel that strongly regarding operating in our secular and temporal market based economy. The buyers were not doing any Thing illegal; thus, they also have First Amendment protection from the seller; who is not any form of Religious authority but only and merely part of the Laity and should be getting laid instead of practicing the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God) concerning that "which belongs to Caesar" and not God.

[Flanders]

The buyers were not doing any Thing illegal;

To danielpalos: Massachusetts played first and loose with Pope’s adage:




https://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-vice-is-a-monster-of-so-frightful-mien-as-to-be-hated-needs-but-to-be-seen-yet-seen-too-oft-alexander-pope-322203.jpg
https://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-vice-is-a-monster-of-so-frightful-mien-as-to-be-hated-needs-but-to-be-seen-yet-seen-too-oft-alexander-pope-322203.jpg


First we tolerate, then pity, then embrace, then legislate.


Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in the U.S. state of Massachusetts since May 17, 2004, as a result of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Constitution to allow only opposite-sex couples to marry. Massachusetts became the sixth jurisdiction in the world (after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec) to legalize same-sex marriage. It was the first U.S. state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts

In truth, same sex marriage is ‘legal’ because the U.S. Supreme court failed to defend individuals:


WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision Friday that recognizes same-sex marriage as legal and deems state-level bans on it unconstitutional.

The ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, backed by five on the nine-justice panel, is expected to pave the way for legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide at a time when an increasing number of countries such as those in Europe allow homosexual couples to marry legally.


https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/supreme-court-rules-same-sex-marriage


thus, they also have First Amendment protection from the seller; who is not any form of Religious authority but only and merely part of the Laity . . .

To danielpalos: According to you the First Amendment only protects filthy priests —— the very people who are trying to abolish individual Rights altogether.

Note that priests began doing their dirty business two hundred years ago:


In 1813 the Roman Catholic Church shot holes in the Constitution when priests were given the confessional-privilege. In plain English, priests got the opening they needed to legitimate coerced charity incrementally. (Doctors, lawyers, journalists, and psychiatrists followed priests with similar protections codified by politicians.)

Priests have been a pestilence infecting mankind from the day money was invented; so I would take the privilege away from priests first. If anyone is dumb enough to tell priests anything they do not deserve protection.


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?121915-The-Parasite-Class-Also-Celebrates-The-4th-Of-July

[danielpalos]

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.


Thomas Jefferson

[Concart]

Cry some more, loser.

[danielpalos]

To danielpalos: Massachusetts played first and loose with Pope’s adage:




https://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-vice-is-a-monster-of-so-frightful-mien-as-to-be-hated-needs-but-to-be-seen-yet-seen-too-oft-alexander-pope-322203.jpg
https://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-vice-is-a-monster-of-so-frightful-mien-as-to-be-hated-needs-but-to-be-seen-yet-seen-too-oft-alexander-pope-322203.jpg


First we tolerate, then pity, then embrace, then legislate.


Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in the U.S. state of Massachusetts since May 17, 2004, as a result of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Constitution to allow only opposite-sex couples to marry. Massachusetts became the sixth jurisdiction in the world (after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec) to legalize same-sex marriage. It was the first U.S. state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts

In truth, same sex marriage is ‘legal’ because the U.S. Supreme court failed to defend individuals:


WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision Friday that recognizes same-sex marriage as legal and deems state-level bans on it unconstitutional.

The ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, backed by five on the nine-justice panel, is expected to pave the way for legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide at a time when an increasing number of countries such as those in Europe allow homosexual couples to marry legally.


https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/supreme-court-rules-same-sex-marriage



To danielpalos: According to you the First Amendment only protects filthy priests —— the very people who are trying to abolish individual Rights altogether.

Note that priests began doing their dirty business two hundred years ago:


In 1813 the Roman Catholic Church shot holes in the Constitution when priests were given the confessional-privilege. In plain English, priests got the opening they needed to legitimate coerced charity incrementally. (Doctors, lawyers, journalists, and psychiatrists followed priests with similar protections codified by politicians.)

Priests have been a pestilence infecting mankind from the day money was invented; so I would take the privilege away from priests first. If anyone is dumb enough to tell priests anything they do not deserve protection.


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?121915-The-Parasite-Class-Also-Celebrates-The-4th-Of-July
Like I am really going to take any secular and temporal, laity Baker or laity Photographer seriously about their Religious morality.

[Flanders]

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson

To danielpalos: Odd that you quote T. J. who also said:


In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty. Thomas Jefferson

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. Thomas Jefferson --Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813


T. J. Also gave us the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State. From everything you and your kind say you want no separation at all.

It must be a bitch being squeezed between democracy and theocracy.


Like I am really going to take any secular and temporal, laity Baker or laity Photographer seriously about their Religious morality.

To danielpalos: Neither Jack Philips nor Barronell Stutzman tried to impose their morality on anyone. It is priests and freaks who insist on forcing their morality on everyone else.


Let me remind everyone that at one time or another priests in every major religion preached their brand of divine hatred disguised as love. ‘Hate a despised group in order to love everyone’ is the way it usually went. Torquemada and his fellows during the Spanish Inquisition is probably the best-known example. Race hatred is the only thing that has been added to the age-old formula.

Historically, sins became laws that prohibit. Over many centuries, thou-shall-not was codified; becoming the foundation for judicial systems. Thou-shall laws do not address crime and punishment, but they do require funding. Socialists/Communists could not rely upon laws that prohibit in order to advance Socialism so they devised thou-shall laws after they got the XVI Amendment to pay for all of it.

Unlike laws that punish real crimes, Socialism’s laws demand specific behavior from everyone.

NOTE: Necessity dictates exceptions; thou-shalt-not own a gun, and thou-shalt-not use rough interrogation methods on known-terrorists.


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?108208-Chocolate-Milk-Is-Not-A-Bigot&p=2758136#post2758136

See Eric Hoffer’s observation following my messages.

[danielpalos]

Buyers also have First Amendment protection in public accommodation not Only sellers. The buyers were not conspiring to do any Thing illegal. Morals are subjective and why we have a First Amendment.

[Flanders]

Buyers also have First Amendment protection in public accommodation not Only sellers.

To danielpalos: Every one of those unconstitutional ‘laws’ forces somebody else to do something. John Roberts declaring the ACA a tax gave the country this:



House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”




Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
October 21, 2009
By Matt COVER

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hoyer-says-constitution-s-general-welfare-clause-empowers-congress-order-americans-buy

Note the key word is FORCE.

[danielpalos]

In this case, if the sellers were not so immoral in their disingenuity, they would operate on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre-over-morals basis to prove their Religiosity instead of just being practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God) with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.