Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

California Judge Rules In Favor Of Christian

Recommended Posts

Maybe we're now beginning to see what Trump had initiated?

 

Quote

 

LGBT Alarm as President Trump Signs ‘Religious Liberty’ Executive Order

In a Thursday morning Rose Garden ceremony marking the National Day of Prayer, President Trump signed an executive order creating a new “faith initiative” that will be tasked with working on “religious liberty” issues across federal agencies.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lgbt-alarm-as-trump-signs-religious-liberty-exec-order

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Trump admin backs Colorado baker who refused to make cake for same-sex wedding

 

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the Supreme Court, the Justice Department urged the court to side with Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, who says making a cake for a same-sex couple violates his religious liberty.
 
"Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights," Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall wrote for the Justice Department.

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

1)  I was trained to swim in uniform by the U.S. Navy in the open ocean...how hard could it be to swim in a burqa at a public pool.

2)  No, they owe me the debt...but they are mere amateurs at it today.

3)  I am referring to the Charter's drafting process and passage in the early 80's....language to protect sexual orientation rights was stricken for political expediency, otherwise it wouldn't have passed.

1) I do enjoy visualizing this

2) AHA.  So you are the original, or OSJW

3) Interesting point.  It's not too different from the normal cycle of amendment/revision/interpretation though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like we all didn't know that this was where all that refusing to sell wedding cakes to gay people was heading.....:rolleyes:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/26/refusing-to-sell-homes-to-gay-people-is-okay-gop-congressman-says-realtors-disagree/?utm_term=.924655a7ad39


 

Quote

 

“Every homeowner should be able to make a decision not to sell their home to someone [if] they don’t agree with their lifestyle,” Rohrabacher said, according to Wayne Woodyard, a former president of the Orange County Association of Realtors.

“We’ve drawn a line on racism, but I don’t think we should extend that line,” Rohrabacher told the newspaper. “A homeowner should not be required to be in business with someone they think is doing something that is immoral.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Goddess said:

Like we all didn't know that this was where all that refusing to sell wedding cakes to gay people was heading.....:rolleyes:

And I feel that people who aren't part of my religion shouldn't be allowed to move into my neighbourhood because I feel that they are sinners.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next.

 

Quote

 

Supreme Court grants appeal of florist who refused to serve gay wedding

The florist's case will go back to the Washington state courts "for further consideration in light" of an earlier decision in favor of a Colorado baker.

 

 
 
 
They've erased the previous court ruling against her, too.  
 
How many past cases will be up for review?
Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another win!

 

 

Quote

 

Phoenix artists don't have to make LGBTQ wedding invitations, Arizona Supreme Court rules

 

The legal battle began in 2016 when Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studio, sued Phoenix — arguing that the ordinance violates their First Amendment and Arizona constitutional rights to free speech and religion.

 

Duka and Koski create invitations and other handmade artwork for weddings and events. The women — who hold the religious belief that marriage should only be between one man and one woman — do not want to design invitations or other custom artwork for LGBTQ couples because they believe it would be the equivalent of endorsing the marriage.

The women are represented by Scottsdale-based Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group challenging similar laws across the country. 

 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2019/09/16/arizona-supreme-court-rules-phoenix-lgbtq-wedding-invitation-case-brush-nib/2332776001/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, betsy said:

May a gay person through a cream pie in your face. This kind of crap does not belong in court or in a rational world. If someone is that upset about gay people they won't bake them a cake that is pathetic. To call it a win is sad. Being ignorant of others in the name of God is not a win its just ignorance couched as religious views. You really think Jesus would not feed you because you are gay?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rue said:

May a gay person through a cream pie in your face. This kind of crap does not belong in court or in a rational world. If someone is that upset about gay people they won't bake them a cake that is pathetic. To call it a win is sad. Being ignorant of others in the name of God is not a win its just ignorance couched as religious views. You really think Jesus would not feed you because you are gay?

I beg to differ.   May you step on a pile of dung! And.....may you put your dung-encrusted feet in your mouth! animated-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif

You don't step on my right to freedom of belief! 

I have the right to my religion! 

 

Lol.   Get a grip! You need a head-shake!  It's not like as if those gay were being castrated or sumthin'! giggle.gif      It's just a matter of having their freakin' invitations done!  Lol, and you're going postal over it?  small-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif

There is no harm done to LGBTQ - they can always go to someone to do their freakin' wedding invitation!

 

Quote

 

Duka and Koski create invitations and other handmade artwork for weddings and events. The women — who hold the religious belief that marriage should only be between one man and one woman — do not want to design invitations or other custom artwork for LGBTQ couples because they believe it would be the equivalent of endorsing the marriage.

Scruggs said the women happily would sell their premade invitations to a same-sex couple, or help a same-sex couple design a custom art piece for their home.

They just don't want to create materials that will be used in the celebration of a practice they don't condone.   

He equated his argument to a Muslim designer declining to make Easter decorations, but still serving Christian customers with other services. He said business owners can serve all members of the community without celebrating things they disagree with.

 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2019/09/16/arizona-supreme-court-rules-phoenix-lgbtq-wedding-invitation-case-brush-nib/2332776001/

 

Respect goes two-ways!

Why can't this gay couple respect that fact about their religion?

I'm tired of these parade of ENTRAPMENT being purposefully done to Christians!  Deliberately forcing Christians to go against their religion!

I'm glad and jubilant of that ruling! So,there!   Gimme the pie!  Make it a big pie!  crazy-tongue-hanging-out-smiley-emoticon

 

You don't force me to do what is offensive to my God!   This ruling means in the USA, Christians don't have to go through the wringer just so they can practice their belief.    It is a win in the name of my God! 

 

 

And you my dear,  show an ignorance of the Bible - therefore, you have nothing to base your ignorant opinion!  Here's one for you:

 

Exodus 23:2
 "You shall not follow the masses in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice;

 

  FYI, MY God doesn't bow to political correctness. He doesn't conform to the world, or to the modern times! Got that?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Rue said:

You really think Jesus would not feed you because you are gay?

No, you READ THE ARTICLE!    THINK! walking-and-thinking-smiley-emoticon.gif

Either you're responding without fully understanding what the argument is all about......or, you're simply trying to shove your pathetic ignorant views on me!

 

Did you read this part?

 

Quote

 

Scruggs said the women happily would sell their premade invitations to a same-sex couple, or help a same-sex couple design a custom art piece for their home.

They just don't want to create materials that will be used in the celebration of a practice they don't condone. 

 

  

 

You mentioned Jesus.  Of course Jesus will feed you no matter who, or what you are.  But you're totally missing the point.

 

Let me ask you.....

 

What do you think Jesus would've said if any of the 5 thousands complained about the bread and fish being given to all -

and if someone had the moronic audacity to demand Jesus makes him meatloaf instead?

 

What do you think Jesus will say, if Jesus was a baker or if He is in the shoes of those ladies being asked to make the wedding invitations for a gay marriage?  

Lol, not only would He decline out of principle - but He'll likely give them a sermon too!  Just like He admonished the adulterous woman whom He saved from stoning.  Along the line of........."GO and SIN NO MORE."

 

 

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Rue said:

 To call it a win is sad. Being ignorant of others in the name of God is not a win its just ignorance couched as religious views. You really think Jesus would not feed you because you are gay?

Jesus lived with sinners and converted people through love and forgiveness.  It was predicted that his message would be co-opted by powerful forces who would use it to sow hate, and that has happened of course.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think their argument is a little twisted, but it did work in getting the legal system to agree with them. I do support the principle that any business can pick and choose whomever they want to do business with, and need not substantiate their reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

I think their argument is a little twisted, but it did work in getting the legal system to agree with them. I do support the principle that any business can pick and choose whomever they want to do business with, and need not substantiate their reasons.

I'm conflicted.  I do think that people should be free to discriminate and be bigots in their personal lives, however there's no question that lunch counter, hotel and other discrimination in the deep south institutionalized a stratified society that was ended by LBJ's Civil Rights legislation.

In this case, I would say they should ban discrimination to be consistent.  But I am conflicted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe there should be levels of business licencing.  One can pay for a normal business licence from the local authority, for whatever price that is, and one's business is open to all.

Or one can pay extra for the "will not stray from supernatural silliness" licence, in which case one also has to place a visible copy of the licence on the door of the business to show that certain people should look elsewhere for their wedding cake, taxi rides, etc.

That being said, the WNSFSS Licence would be available to all, and businesses would be allowed to discriminate against religious people if they felt like it.  They just have to pay the extra and display the licence.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2018 at 2:49 AM, betsy said:

Who would've thought this would happen?  In California to boot!  Finally.......reason seems to be coming back.

 

This must be a precedent!

 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-stuff-of-tyranny-christian-baker-scores-major-victory

 

It is indeed tyranny!  To have let this go on, which saw some folks lose their business over frivolous lawsuits by senseless LGBT activists, is what's so disgusting about this!   How many cases involved premeditation and malice - to actually pick out known Christian entrepreneurs to bully?

Not only  does this kind of frivolity clutters the justice system....but it also disrupts businesses, and lives!  How many employees lose their jobs when a small business goes under because of this?  It has its own ripple effect!

 

There should be some penalties for LGBT activists who indulge in this kind of shenanigans.  If they lose the case, the plaintiff must shoulder all the expenses incurred by the defendant in defending himself - which include his legal expenses (and punitive damages)!

This went back and forth in the news before with a couple of gay men.

The line in the sand that's been clearly established, just like I said it would be, is that the courts don't want to enforce a positive injunction on a person to make them create something that's against their religious principles.

Negative injunctions are easy: "Stop doing whatever it is that you're doing because.....". 

Positive injunctions, in a limited fashion, are also easy: "You sell cakes to everyone else, these people are allowed to buy your cakes too."

A positive injunction, to the point where you're forcing someone to create something that's made-to-order, is a bridge too far: "You made a cake for Johnny with a football on it, now make a cake for Jack that shows Jesus/Momammed getting spit on." Judges are well aware of what would happen if they tried to force a person to do that. If someone doesn't want to make something that is against their beliefs/principles the courts in the US won't force them to do it. It's silly that it had to go so far in the courts to get it right, but common sense has prevailed.

The people who complain about this only see it from one angle: "I want something and I want to force this person to create it for me." They don't realize that a huge douchebag could come to their shop and force them to make a cake that says "Jezis hates fagits" [the guy can't spell] if the gay cake people got their way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, betsy said:

You mentioned Jesus.  Of course Jesus will feed you no matter who, or what you are.  But you're totally missing the point.

As for your apparent obliviousness to why it doesn't matter to Jesus all one can say is...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

This went back and forth in the news before with a couple of gay men.

The line in the sand that's been clearly established, just like I said it would be, is that the courts don't want to enforce a positive injunction on a person to make them create something that's against their religious principles.

Negative injunctions are easy: "Stop doing whatever it is that you're doing because.....". 

Positive injunctions, in a limited fashion, are also easy: "You sell cakes to everyone else, these people are allowed to buy your cakes too."

A positive injunction, to the point where you're forcing someone to create something that's made-to-order, is a bridge too far: "You made a cake for Johnny with a football on it, now make a cake for Jack that shows Jesus/Momammed getting spit on." Judges are well aware of what would happen if they tried to force a person to do that. If someone doesn't want to make something that is against their beliefs/principles the courts in the US won't force them to do it. It's silly that it had to go so far in the courts to get it right, but common sense has prevailed.

The people who complain about this only see it from one angle: "I want something and I want to force this person to create it for me." They don't realize that a huge douchebag could come to their shop and force them to make a cake that says "Jezis hates fagits" [the guy can't spell] if the gay cake people got their way.

 

 

Tis true that this shouldn't be an issue at all to sensible minds!  All the gay couple had to do was to decide whether they'd buy the ones that's offered to everyone, or take their business elsewhere.    It's as simple as that!

These kinds of whimsy charges should not even be entertained at all, or should be thrown out of courts at the get go!  I'd go far as to say, they're malicious! 

Businesses shouldn't have to go through this kind of aggravation and most importantly, unnecessary expense that may actually cause a a small business to fold up! 

I hope the gay couple were required to pay for the business' legal fees, to say the least!

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Jesus lived with sinners and converted people through love and forgiveness.  It was predicted that his message would be co-opted by powerful forces who would use it to sow hate, and that has happened of course.  

 

:rolleyes: 

There's the keyword.

I'm glad that at least, you know about forgiveness.   But do you know that there can't be forgiveness if one doesn't acknowledge his sins, and repent          for them? 

 

Forgiveness comes along with repentance, Michael.   Just so you know.

 

Love does not mean having to go along and condone anything sinful in the eyes of God.   Jesus had made that plainly clear with the adulteress:

 

 

John 8

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

 

 

Matthew 7

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven,

but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

 

 

Thus I said to Rue, had it been Jesus in the shoes of the business people, He would've done the same thing and decline to bake a cake or write their wedding invitation.....and most likely, He'd be giving them a sermon too!

 

This issue between them has nothing to do with hate (at least, not on the part of the Christians). It is about doctrine.

 

Let's not try to use it to sow some hate.......

 

.......................AGAINST CHRISTIANS WHO JUST WANT TO FOLLOW THEIR CONSCIENCE!

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, betsy said:

These kinds of whimsy charges should not even be entertained at all, or should be thrown out of courts at the get go!  I'd go far as to say, they're malicious! 

I never even thought about it before, but that's a really good point. If you had some friends that were opening up a competing store you could drag the established guys down and run their names through the mud with a lawsuit like this just to steal business from them. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2020 at 7:11 PM, WestCanMan said:

I never even thought about it before, but that's a really good point. If you had some friends that were opening up a competing store you could drag the established guys down and run their names through the mud with a lawsuit like this just to steal business from them. 

But then they can sue you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2018 at 4:03 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

What's next...forcing Christian doctors to perform abortions ?

No. Also while I must defer to the comments of Godess I do not think she is arguing that anyone be forced to do anything. If it cannot not come from kindness of the heart no law can force that kindness.  Which is kind of sad. I doubt that couple wanted to force any belief..I think they were just trying to defend their own....at one point the same reason was used not to serve blacks, Jews, etc., so that couple is just trying to be respectful for what the cost of freedom may entail and not feel their silence condones a behaviour they feel hurts others not just themselves.

Ironically the baker probably feels the same way.

Me personally I doubt Jesus would have had a problem baking the cake.

I substituted as a second baseman on a lesbian baseball team when they had no backup and was the only guy and it was great being a temporary lesbian. They are hilarious and treated me real nice.  They scratch their crotches just like us guys and gave me great advise on what not to do. All men should have lesbian friends. They know incredible stuff man.

Also  I think Jody Foster in her old age is hot.. I would buy her a beer and like to have a burping contest with her..she probably could win...

 

Edited by Rue
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2020 at 5:40 AM, WestCanMan said:

You can't sue a suitor for libel. 

Why not?

"Perhaps you were falsely accused of rape or some other sex crime which you didn't commit, and as a result you suffered loss of employment, loss of standing in your community, and other damages. Provided no charges are outstanding against you, you may be able to file a defamation of character lawsuit." 

https://www.nealdavislaw.com/criminal-defense-guides/false-allegations-legal-recourse.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Marocc said:

Why not?

"Perhaps you were falsely accused of rape or some other sex crime which you didn't commit, and as a result you suffered loss of employment, loss of standing in your community, and other damages. Provided no charges are outstanding against you, you may be able to file a defamation of character lawsuit." 

https://www.nealdavislaw.com/criminal-defense-guides/false-allegations-legal-recourse.html

If you can completely exonerate yourself you may have a shot, but there are certain types of allegations which can never be disproven. For example, like Dr Ford you can say that "he almost raped me in about 1987 or 1988, in one of the summer months, at someone's house party. I can't remember which ones. I have no witnesses and I never talked to any of my best friends about it, never talked to my parents and I never filed a police report." That vague of an accusation can never be disproven. Or you could say "Trump colluded with Russians." Unless he has a video of every second of his life he can never prove that he never said "Let's collude, baby!"

Slimesters like the Demonrats know exactly what they can get away with.

Saying "These guys told me that they wouldn't make my cake" is easy. Proving that you never ever said it is impossible. They could have audio and video in the store, you could say "I talked to him just as he was leaving his work. We discussed my cake. He said "I don't bake cakes with faggots on top of them." Done deal. That accusation can never be disproven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the greater issue is being lost on some here.

You cannot force anyone's mind to bend to your will, that is not a discrimination issue that is a personal sovereignty issue (is my mind mine?).

 

Or is it a lack of understanding these are cake artists, not simply bakers?

 

These cases are akin to asking a painter to paint you a forest landscape and boldly displayed in the foreground a laughing man lifting up a woman on the end of a spear, 

mouth agape in horror and pain with blood streaming down the spear amidst a forest floor strewn with more female bodies.

Who is ready to defend the forcing of a painter to do that?

But if that same misogynist wants to buy an already painted picture, no problem.

 

Quote

...for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. Thomas Jefferson

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...