On 7/17/2015 6:21 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?


I can easily imagine Jesus declining to
celebrate sin.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/17/2015 11:39 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

That's nice but would he refuse to bake cakes for them? Nothing I
read in the bible suggests Jesus would be the bigot that many
so-called "good Christians" are. Since you were too chicken to answer
the question it would appear you are one of them.


One of the five things that liberals never remember
is that promoting sin harms people. God and Jesus
and the Bible encourage people to stop sinning, and
to live the laws of God. It is not "bigot" to ask
people to live the commandments of God, and turn away
from sin, that you may have life everlasting in the
loving presence of God.

Actually, teaching people to turn from sin is one
of the most loving things you can do for them.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/18/2015 12:29 AM, Muggles wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:39:18 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

That's nice but would he refuse to bake cakes for
them?

Jesus was a carpenter, and his friends were fishermen. He wasn't a
baker. Women did that work in his time. He would have fed the people
fish and multiplied the food that people had so the multitudes could eat
while he preached to them to stop sinning , and to start loving one
another.

He would tell gays to stop sinning and follow him and his ways just like
he'd tell the prostitute and tax collector to do the same thing.

Nothing I read in the bible suggests Jesus would be
the bigot

Jesus called the religious people white washed seplucres full of dead
mens bones, and threw the money changers out of the temple because they
had turned the place into a den of thieves. You don't appear to know
anything about Jesus. He looked at people straight up and read their
mail to therm, pointed at their sin and called it evil, and then told
them to turn from their wicked ways and change their lives... You want
to a ask if Jesus would bake gays a cake? That's the most ignorant
question I've ever seen anyone ask..

that many so-called "good Christians" are. Since you
were too chicken to answer the question it would
appear you are one of them.

Chicken? I've learned that fools are wise in their own eyes... You
think you're question was intelligent, but it wasn't.


I tried to answer Ashton's questions, but I do
think you did a little better than I. Very well
done, my friend.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/18/2015 5:55 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"rbowman" wrote in message

That's been a puzzle to me for the last 50 years. Most have a single
issue that is their litmus test and the parties can exploit that. Of
course, once the politician is elected that single issue gets buried in
bidness as usual.

I also think it's why we've seen such an explosion of hot-button social
issues recently as politicians try to distract voters from the real business
of running the country.


One of the things liberals never remember:

In the constitutional Republic known as the
United States, government "should" not run
the country. We, the people make our own
decisions, and live our own lives. The job
of government is to secure the borders, and
a few other powers delegated to them by the
people.


--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 07/18/2015 06:56 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/17/2015 9:26 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/17/2015 5:21 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
The idiocy of your position is that a gay baker can discriminate against
Christians by refusing to bake a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
A pro abortion baker can refuse to bake a cake that says "Abortion is a sin".
But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?


Jesus would ask them to turn away from their sin, and follow him.


If they continued to sin, there is a very good
chance Jesus would decline to bake the cake.

According to the Latter-day prophets, homosexual
behavior is a very severe sin.



Homosexuals can't reproduce on their own so why does God keep creating them?

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 6:21:24 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 10:47:56 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:06:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:34:37 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

What BUSINESS reason would a business owner have for refusing service
to gays or blacks?

They shouldn't need to give you or anyone a reason. It's their
business. No more so than a gay baker should have to give a reason
for refusing to provide a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
Or a black baker refusing to provide an anniversary cake for the
local KKK.

See how well and easy that works? No gag orders, no heavy hand of
the law required.



If you can't come up with one then you are a bald
faced bigot racist if you think it would be alright to refuse service
to gays, blacks, etc.

Baloney. That does not compute. Believing someone else should
have the freedom and right to do what they want with their own
business does not mean that I or anyone here would agree with what
they are doing. If I saw a baker that had a sign saying "whites only",
I wouldn't go there. Neither would the vast majority of Americans,
You could expect protests, business disruptions, and a loss of most
of your business. If you still want to do it anyway, who cares.
See how simple that is? No judges issuing gag orders, no heavy handed
policing.


And if my religion prohibits me from paying taxes to the gvt I should
be exempt from taxes under your views on this. THAT is the idiocy
your position leads to.

There is no such religion. But there are religions that don't want
to have anything to do with gay weddings. And you misrepresent my
views. I would not limit the right to discriminate to only cases
where it involves religion. My position is very simple. If it's your
business you should have the right to choose who you want to do
business with for any reason. You libs believe that somehow this
will immediately lead to mass discrimination. That's because you
have a very jaundiced view of your fellow citizens and don't trust
them. In reality, you'd have some small number of businesses that
would discriminate and I say so what. Just go to the 99% of businesses
that don't, actually welcome your business, etc.

The idiocy of your position is that a gay baker can discriminate against
Christians by refusing to bake a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
A pro abortion baker can refuse to bake a cake that says "Abortion is a sin".
But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?

The bakery didn't refuse to bake cakes for gays. They served the
gay couple wanting the cake in the past. They refused to bake a
wedding cake for them. I don't pretend to know what Jesus would
or would not do. As I understand it, Jesus had high moral standards
and since according to the bible homosexuality is a sin, baking a
cake for a gay wedding sounds like something he might not want to
participate in. If someone came to Jesus and wanted to rent a
room so that they could commit adultery, what would Jesus do?

See, this is the problem with libs and all the lib
laws. You wind up having to resort to figuring out what is in
people's minds and what Jesus would do. If you leave people
free to do as they please in their own business, you don't have
that problem. Or, for the most part, any other real problems.
There were 1000 bakeries that would supply the cake.

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 11:39:30 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:26:36 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/17/2015 5:21 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 10:47:56 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:06:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:34:37 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

What BUSINESS reason would a business owner have for refusing service
to gays or blacks?

They shouldn't need to give you or anyone a reason. It's their
business. No more so than a gay baker should have to give a reason
for refusing to provide a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
Or a black baker refusing to provide an anniversary cake for the
local KKK.

See how well and easy that works? No gag orders, no heavy hand of
the law required.



If you can't come up with one then you are a bald
faced bigot racist if you think it would be alright to refuse service
to gays, blacks, etc.

Baloney. That does not compute. Believing someone else should
have the freedom and right to do what they want with their own
business does not mean that I or anyone here would agree with what
they are doing. If I saw a baker that had a sign saying "whites only",
I wouldn't go there. Neither would the vast majority of Americans,
You could expect protests, business disruptions, and a loss of most
of your business. If you still want to do it anyway, who cares.
See how simple that is? No judges issuing gag orders, no heavy handed
policing.


And if my religion prohibits me from paying taxes to the gvt I should
be exempt from taxes under your views on this. THAT is the idiocy
your position leads to.

There is no such religion. But there are religions that don't want
to have anything to do with gay weddings. And you misrepresent my
views. I would not limit the right to discriminate to only cases
where it involves religion. My position is very simple. If it's your
business you should have the right to choose who you want to do
business with for any reason. You libs believe that somehow this
will immediately lead to mass discrimination. That's because you
have a very jaundiced view of your fellow citizens and don't trust
them. In reality, you'd have some small number of businesses that
would discriminate and I say so what. Just go to the 99% of businesses
that don't, actually welcome your business, etc.

The idiocy of your position is that a gay baker can discriminate against
Christians by refusing to bake a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
A pro abortion baker can refuse to bake a cake that says "Abortion is a sin".
But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?


Jesus would ask them to turn away from their sin, and follow him.

That's nice but would he refuse to bake cakes for them? Nothing I
read in the bible suggests Jesus would be the bigot that many
so-called "good Christians" are. Since you were too chicken to answer
the question it would appear you are one of them.

Again, with "bigot", "bigot", "bigot". The bible says that
homosexuality is a *sin*. I don't see how following your religious
beliefs makes you a bigot. Of course there is no similar outrage,
no similar need to crush the muslim religion, from the libs, is there?
Are they bigots for throwing gays off a buildings, hanging them from
cranes? Are they bigots for enslaving women, denying women basic
rights? Stoning women to death for adultery? Funny, I never hear
you libs complain about any of that. But when one baker somewhere
won't bake a gay wedding cake, OMG, now we have something worth making
a huge deal over and using all the power of the govt to crush a "bigot".

"trader_4" wrote in message news:429dae22-

stuff snipped

Maybe you can explain how baking a cake for a gay client poisons their
religiosity anyway? Is it that feeble that a cake threatens it?

Are you and all the libs, all the gays so feeble that what one
baker in a country of 320 mil does, threatens all of you?

Nice dodge but it doesn't answer the question. I *am* quite concerned when
a baker breaks the law and then hides behind the robes of God to cloak his
bigotry. Want to open a public storefront? Then you've got to obey the
laws. They didn't and were defiant about it. Like that idiot cattle grazer
trying to go from deadbeat to Tea Party hero. No sale.

You might be interested to know what they just found out about another group
of god-botherers - the Hobby Lobbyists. Remember them? They were so
concerned with having anything to do with birth control that they duped the
SC into ruling in their favor because of their "deeply held" convictions as
a company (spit!). Now investigators have discovered that Hobby Lobby's
401K plan has investments in - you guessed it - the very companies that make
the birth control devices that horrify the Hobby Lobbyists so profoundly
that they needed a Supreme Court exemption from having anything to do with
birth control. Apparently funding the manufacture of birth control
technology doesn't bother their ultra-religious consciences.

It's hypocrisy, pure and simple, and it plays on the mistaken belief that
religion can trump the law. Maybe in Iran but not in America. The Hobby
Lobby ruling won't stay put long. It's based on the mistaken belief that
companies can hold religious feelings and now even the Supremes know they
got duped. When was the last time you saw a company praying? The Defense
of Marriage Act didn't last long, either. Good luck to the god-botherers on
getting a Constitutional amendment defining marriage. It will NEVER happen.

Here's the info a reporter dug up about our pious friends, the Hobby Lobby
folks:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...covered-to-be-
investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-reli
gious-
objection/

http://tinyurl.com/ly6nbty

The following is a summation of the companies manufacturing these products
that are held by the Hobby Lobby employee retirement plan, as set forth by
Ms. Redden's remarkable reporting:These companies include Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD,
and Actavis Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes
Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include
Pfizer Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce
abortions; Bayer Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and
Mirena; AstraZeneca AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that
manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used
in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to
induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also
invested in Aetna Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that
cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in
many of the health care policies they sell.

It's digusting to see the Supreme Court get a) so hosed by lying litigants
and so tangled up in deciding the unknowable (like how closely one's
religious beliefs are held). Apparently they were asleep in law school
because one of the first things you learn is that no one can testify
truthfully to the operation of another person's mind. There are companies
that screen such investments for companies and people that have REAL
closely-felt beliefs in not supporting certain industries and companies but
apparently HL didn't bother to look.

The irony is that the SCs loony-tune rulings have skewered both liberals and
conservatives and have left other issues "to be decided" by further
litigation (IOW, let the lower courts figure it out). Money = free speech.
Corporations have religious feelings. It's not a tax . . .

What's even funnier is that even though the courts are flooded with
litigation below the level of the SC, the Supremes have managed to trim
their case load substantially over the years. Shirkers.

The worst part of the modern SC is that they rely more and more on amicus
briefs for their basic facts. That's not even as credible as using
Wikipedia because each side presents only their version of the facts. More
than a few law journals and legal websites have noted this tendency and how
often the SC based its rulings on non-factual information contained in
amicus briefs.

Hell, Sotomayor admitted she couldn't tell the difference between 25' and
75' but was asked to decide a case about how far protestors had to keep away
from abortion clinics. That's just outrageous, at least to me. Recuse
yourself, dear, for being stupid. And yet short of impeachment, we're stuck
with her.

--
Bobby G.

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

"I want a cake just like that one for two weeks from today" and then
proceeds to tell the clerk/owner that they are gay and going to marry
their boyfriend you want the owner to be able to say "we don't sell to
gays, not even identical cakes like the one that just walked out the
door." That is what the law says a business can't do. They can't
discriminate because someone doesn't like gays, or blacks, or
Methodists.

That's what the official ruling reiterated in many places.

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsset...Cakes%20FO.pdf

Open up a public storefront and obey (or seek to change) the laws that come
with that decision. Want to be a bigot? Go private. All the bakers were
being forced to do was make a choice between obeying or disobeying the laws
of their state. Even when they were told it was illegal to discriminate,
they stood firm and continued to proclaim they would not serve gays. Were
the damage awards excessive? Perhaps, but it's what happens when litigants
show no remorse for breaking the law.

I'm betting the guy in Montana that caused the grazing fee furor a while
back is thinking about trying to work a religious exemption angle into his
numerous complaints with the Feds. After all, cows are sacred in India.
(-:

--
Bobby G.

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

Yeah, not being allowed to exercise your bigotry is really really
scary. God forbid you have to serve a black person.

Stick to the facts. The case was not about serving blacks.
It was a couple who owned a bakery refusing to be at a gay
wedding reception. They had served the gay customers in the
past, at their bakery location, with no objections.

Now you tell me which is worse. The couple excercising their
religious freedom by not providing, delivering the cake to
the wedding, or what the court did? The "court" in
addition to fining them $130K, applied a gag
order on the couple, telling them that they can't give TV
interviews, talk to the media and say things like "We believe
homosexuality is immoral. The gay couple can find plenty of
other bakers to provide their cake. Where do the bakers find
free speech. This is so horrific, but it is a good example of
where the lib concept of either you're politically correct,
regardless of your religious beliefs, or we will destroy you.

$130K fines and gag orders that are obiously a violation
of the first amendment for two bakers. The San Francisco
lib politicians are violating US immigration law, harboring
illegal felons, resulting in the death of that 32 year old
woman. What's the penalty for them? There is none. That
is the sad state of justice today.

You need to stick to the facts. This had nothing to do with them
refusing to go to their reception. It was pure bigotry based on
religion. They refused to sell a cake to a lesbian couple. Just as in
the south in the 50's businesses refused to do business with Blacks.
They violated the law. It's that simple.

http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet...lissa-damages/

The bakers posted personal information from the complaint on line, and
apparently disregarded court orders regarding discussing the case before it
was adjudicated.

The PDF at

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsset...Cakes%20FO.pdf

explains that what god-botherers and others are calling a gag order only
applies to the baker's "clear intent to discriminate in the future" - page
32 of 122 turgid pages. I find the argument that gag orders violate the 1st
amendment quite curious. If that were true, you'd think they would have
been struck down long ago.

https://www.rcfp.org/first-amendment...sues-gag-order

Courts have restrained trial participants from speaking with the press to
prevent prejudicing court proceedings. The U.S. Court of Appeals in New
Orleans (5th Cir.) affirmed a gag order prohibiting all trial participants
from giving any public comments to the media other than matters of public
record in a case involving the elected Louisiana Insurance Commissioner,
James Harvey Brown, and the former Governor of Louisiana, Edwin W. Edwards.
The court concluded "that the gag order is constitutionally permissible
because it is based on a reasonably found substantial likelihood that
comments from the lawyers and parties might well taint the jury pool . . .
is the least restrictive corrective measure available to ensure a fair
trial, and is sufficiently narrowly drawn."

The order in the Sweetcakes case was quite narrowly drawn, although if you
listen to some commentators they believe strongly otherwise. I am almost
certain they've never actually read the order or the voluminous case file.

--
Bobby G.

On 7/18/2015 10:45 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

"I want a cake just like that one for two weeks from today" and then
proceeds to tell the clerk/owner that they are gay and going to marry
their boyfriend you want the owner to be able to say "we don't sell to
gays, not even identical cakes like the one that just walked out the
door." That is what the law says a business can't do. They can't
discriminate because someone doesn't like gays, or blacks, or
Methodists.

That's what the official ruling reiterated in many places.

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsset...Cakes%20FO.pdf

Open up a public storefront and obey (or seek to change) the laws that come
with that decision. Want to be a bigot? Go private. All the bakers were
being forced to do was make a choice between obeying or disobeying the laws
of their state. Even when they were told it was illegal to discriminate,
they stood firm and continued to proclaim they would not serve gays. Were
the damage awards excessive? Perhaps, but it's what happens when litigants
show no remorse for breaking the law.

I'm betting the guy in Montana that caused the grazing fee furor a while
back is thinking about trying to work a religious exemption angle into his
numerous complaints with the Feds. After all, cows are sacred in India.
(-:


Gay bakers can refuse to make cakes that say things against their belief
system. Why are gays above the law?

--
Maggie

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:53:57 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Gay bakers can refuse to make cakes that say things against their belief
system. Why are gays above the law?

https://tinyurl.com/oxrq8yb

On 7/18/2015 12:43 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:53:57 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Gay bakers can refuse to make cakes that say things against their belief
system. Why are gays above the law?

https://tinyurl.com/oxrq8yb


LOL

--
Maggie

clipped

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?

The bakery didn't refuse to bake cakes for gays. They served the
gay couple wanting the cake in the past. They refused to bake a
wedding cake for them. I don't pretend to know what Jesus would
or would not do. As I understand it, Jesus had high moral standards
and since according to the bible homosexuality is a sin, baking a
cake for a gay wedding sounds like something he might not want to
participate in. If someone came to Jesus and wanted to rent a
room so that they could commit adultery, what would Jesus do?

See, this is the problem with libs and all the lib
laws. You wind up having to resort to figuring out what is in
people's minds and what Jesus would do. If you leave people
free to do as they please in their own business, you don't have
that problem. Or, for the most part, any other real problems.
There were 1000 bakeries that would supply the cake.


Jesus would have brought cupcakes and fed thousands ;o)

On 7/18/2015 6:56 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/17/2015 9:26 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/17/2015 5:21 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
The idiocy of your position is that a gay baker can discriminate
against
Christians by refusing to bake a cake that says "Homosexuality is a
sin".
A pro abortion baker can refuse to bake a cake that says "Abortion
is a sin".
But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?


Jesus would ask them to turn away from their sin, and follow him.


If they continued to sin, there is a very good
chance Jesus would decline to bake the cake.

He would turn the cake scenario into a parable. Either the people
asking for the cake would repent of their sins and follow him, or they'd
walk away with this gigantic question mark hovering over their heads
because they didn't understand his point.


According to the Latter-day prophets, homosexual
behavior is a very severe sin.


According to the Bible it's one of those big sins.

--
Maggie

On 7/18/2015 7:04 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/18/2015 12:29 AM, Muggles wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:39:18 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

That's nice but would he refuse to bake cakes for
them?

Jesus was a carpenter, and his friends were fishermen. He wasn't a
baker. Women did that work in his time. He would have fed the people
fish and multiplied the food that people had so the multitudes could eat
while he preached to them to stop sinning , and to start loving one
another.

He would tell gays to stop sinning and follow him and his ways just like
he'd tell the prostitute and tax collector to do the same thing.

Nothing I read in the bible suggests Jesus would be
the bigot

Jesus called the religious people white washed seplucres full of dead
mens bones, and threw the money changers out of the temple because they
had turned the place into a den of thieves. You don't appear to know
anything about Jesus. He looked at people straight up and read their
mail to therm, pointed at their sin and called it evil, and then told
them to turn from their wicked ways and change their lives... You want
to a ask if Jesus would bake gays a cake? That's the most ignorant
question I've ever seen anyone ask..

that many so-called "good Christians" are. Since you
were too chicken to answer the question it would
appear you are one of them.

Chicken? I've learned that fools are wise in their own eyes... You
think you're question was intelligent, but it wasn't.


I tried to answer Ashton's questions, but I do
think you did a little better than I. Very well
done, my friend.


Thanks

--
Maggie

On 7/18/2015 7:46 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 11:39:30 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:26:36 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/17/2015 5:21 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 10:47:56 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:06:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:34:37 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

What BUSINESS reason would a business owner have for refusing service
to gays or blacks?

They shouldn't need to give you or anyone a reason. It's their
business. No more so than a gay baker should have to give a reason
for refusing to provide a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
Or a black baker refusing to provide an anniversary cake for the
local KKK.

See how well and easy that works? No gag orders, no heavy hand of
the law required.



If you can't come up with one then you are a bald
faced bigot racist if you think it would be alright to refuse service
to gays, blacks, etc.

Baloney. That does not compute. Believing someone else should
have the freedom and right to do what they want with their own
business does not mean that I or anyone here would agree with what
they are doing. If I saw a baker that had a sign saying "whites only",
I wouldn't go there. Neither would the vast majority of Americans,
You could expect protests, business disruptions, and a loss of most
of your business. If you still want to do it anyway, who cares.
See how simple that is? No judges issuing gag orders, no heavy handed
policing.


And if my religion prohibits me from paying taxes to the gvt I should
be exempt from taxes under your views on this. THAT is the idiocy
your position leads to.

There is no such religion. But there are religions that don't want
to have anything to do with gay weddings. And you misrepresent my
views. I would not limit the right to discriminate to only cases
where it involves religion. My position is very simple. If it's your
business you should have the right to choose who you want to do
business with for any reason. You libs believe that somehow this
will immediately lead to mass discrimination. That's because you
have a very jaundiced view of your fellow citizens and don't trust
them. In reality, you'd have some small number of businesses that
would discriminate and I say so what. Just go to the 99% of businesses
that don't, actually welcome your business, etc.

The idiocy of your position is that a gay baker can discriminate against
Christians by refusing to bake a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
A pro abortion baker can refuse to bake a cake that says "Abortion is a sin".
But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?


Jesus would ask them to turn away from their sin, and follow him.

That's nice but would he refuse to bake cakes for them? Nothing I
read in the bible suggests Jesus would be the bigot that many
so-called "good Christians" are. Since you were too chicken to answer
the question it would appear you are one of them.

Again, with "bigot", "bigot", "bigot". The bible says that
homosexuality is a *sin*. I don't see how following your religious
beliefs makes you a bigot. Of course there is no similar outrage,
no similar need to crush the muslim religion, from the libs, is there?
Are they bigots for throwing gays off a buildings, hanging them from
cranes? Are they bigots for enslaving women, denying women basic
rights? Stoning women to death for adultery? Funny, I never hear
you libs complain about any of that. But when one baker somewhere
won't bake a gay wedding cake, OMG, now we have something worth making
a huge deal over and using all the power of the govt to crush a "bigot".


I think the word *bigot* has lost it's original meaning, and it's now
just a buzz word meaning "You don't agree with me so I'm labeling you a
bigot".

--
Maggie

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 07:56:11 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

According to the Latter-day prophets, homosexual
behavior is a very severe sin.

Hmm. Sin is categorized? Given levels of severity?

I figure sin is sin, regardless of the sin. None is more severe than
another.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 13:45:59 -0500, Muggles wrote:

According to the Latter-day prophets, homosexual
behavior is a very severe sin.


According to the Bible it's one of those big sins.

I don't think you mean one sin is a lesser sin than another, right?

On 7/18/2015 3:22 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 13:45:59 -0500, Muggles wrote:

According to the Latter-day prophets, homosexual
behavior is a very severe sin.


According to the Bible it's one of those big sins.

I don't think you mean one sin is a lesser sin than another, right?


Well, as far as I can tell there are sins that are worse than others if
you're basing that conclusion on what the Bible says.

If you ask anyone on the street, you get a different answer every time.

--
Maggie

On 7/18/2015 8:26 AM, Rascus Washington III wrote:
On 07/18/2015 06:56 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

According to the Latter-day prophets, homosexual
behavior is a very severe sin.

Homosexuals can't reproduce on their own so why does God keep creating
them?

Some things are not immediately revealed. But,
with prayer and listening and pondering, you
may get answer, some day.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/18/2015 4:19 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 07:56:11 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

According to the Latter-day prophets, homosexual
behavior is a very severe sin.

Hmm. Sin is categorized? Given levels of severity?

I figure sin is sin, regardless of the sin. None is more severe than
another.


Ah, so a man who steals a pencil from work is
just as guilty as a armed guy who shoots up
a military recruiting center?

Your prison must be full of petty crooks doing
double life?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 16:34:34 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/18/2015 4:19 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 07:56:11 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

According to the Latter-day prophets, homosexual
behavior is a very severe sin.

Hmm. Sin is categorized? Given levels of severity?

I figure sin is sin, regardless of the sin. None is more severe than
another.


Ah, so a man who steals a pencil from work is
just as guilty as a armed guy who shoots up
a military recruiting center?


What if a man sticks his penis in a vagina and falls asleep. Is it the
same as adultery? Taking a pen from work is called pilfering.

Your prison must be full of petty crooks doing
double life?

Define double life, please. After one life sentence, are they buried
standing up until the other life sentence is served and then buried
horizontal on Pecker Wood Hill? Finally laid to rest...

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 15:27:46 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/18/2015 3:22 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 13:45:59 -0500, Muggles wrote:

According to the Latter-day prophets, homosexual
behavior is a very severe sin.


According to the Bible it's one of those big sins.

I don't think you mean one sin is a lesser sin than another, right?


Well, as far as I can tell there are sins that are worse than others if
you're basing that conclusion on what the Bible says.

If you ask anyone on the street, you get a different answer every time.

Is that like Bill and Monica didn't commit a sin, because it was only
an oral agreement?

On 7/18/2015 4:17 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 15:27:46 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/18/2015 3:22 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 13:45:59 -0500, Muggles wrote:

According to the Latter-day prophets, homosexual
behavior is a very severe sin.


According to the Bible it's one of those big sins.

I don't think you mean one sin is a lesser sin than another, right?


Well, as far as I can tell there are sins that are worse than others if
you're basing that conclusion on what the Bible says.

If you ask anyone on the street, you get a different answer every time.

Is that like Bill and Monica didn't commit a sin, because it was only
an oral agreement?


lol Not sure who'd say that wasn't a sin.

--
Maggie

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:20:30 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:33:20 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:


You need to stick to the facts. This had nothing to do with them
refusing to go to their reception. It was pure bigotry based on
religion. They refused to sell a cake to a lesbian couple. Just as in
the south in the 50's businesses refused to do business with Blacks.
They violated the law. It's that simple.

http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet...lissa-damages/

From your own source, the judge said they refused to provide
"wedding cake services". Typically, wedding cake services include
delivering the cake, setting it up at the reception. I took it
to mean it was more than just picking up a cake, so you might be
right on that point. But to me it doesn't matter. And where is your
lib outrage at the illegal, unconstitutional gag order the court
put on the bakers?

He didn't put a 'gag order' on them. He did limit their ability to
tell lies.

The story gets so distorted in the right-wing press that it's hard to tell
what went on without referring to the official documents in the case. They
were barred from recommending to others that they, too, disobey the law.
They also were not "fined" - that $135,000 was what BOLI decided was the
value for the emotional harm done to the gay couple. The same is true about
the alleged "gag" order - which is actually an order to cease and desist
their discriminatory comments.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/i...discrimin.html

1. What's all this about a gag order?
In addition to awarding damages, the final order directs the Kleins to cease
and desist from discriminating in violation of Oregon law.

"The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron
and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing
or displaying, or causing to be published ... any communication to the
effect that any of the accommodations ... will be refused, withheld from or
denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account
of their sexual orientation," Avakian wrote.

It's common in civil rights cases to include such language directed at
business owners, said Charlie Burr, a spokesman for BOLI. "That's what this
order says."

The baker's attorney sees things differently, but note carefully what she
says about "cease and desist":

Anna Harmon, a lawyer for the Kleins, sharply disagreed.

" BOLI has issued a cease and desist order which is effectively a gag order
keeping the Kleins from talking with the media and expressing their personal
beliefs and opinions about this case," she said in an emailed statement to
reporters that was picked up by The Daily Signal and other conservative
publications.

"Effectively a gag order?" No, as she herself admits, it's a C&D order. And
some observers feel it's narrowly worded enough to pass Constitutional
muster. Others differ. The appellate process will determine whose view is
the correct one.

--
Bobby G.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:53:57 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/18/2015 10:45 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

"I want a cake just like that one for two weeks from today" and then
proceeds to tell the clerk/owner that they are gay and going to marry
their boyfriend you want the owner to be able to say "we don't sell to
gays, not even identical cakes like the one that just walked out the
door." That is what the law says a business can't do. They can't
discriminate because someone doesn't like gays, or blacks, or
Methodists.

That's what the official ruling reiterated in many places.

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsset...Cakes%20FO.pdf

Open up a public storefront and obey (or seek to change) the laws that come
with that decision. Want to be a bigot? Go private. All the bakers were
being forced to do was make a choice between obeying or disobeying the laws
of their state. Even when they were told it was illegal to discriminate,
they stood firm and continued to proclaim they would not serve gays. Were
the damage awards excessive? Perhaps, but it's what happens when litigants
show no remorse for breaking the law.

I'm betting the guy in Montana that caused the grazing fee furor a while
back is thinking about trying to work a religious exemption angle into his
numerous complaints with the Feds. After all, cows are sacred in India.
(-:


Gay bakers can refuse to make cakes that say things against their belief
system. Why are gays above the law?

Really? How about a link to where that has happened and the courts
ruled it was ok.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:45:07 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"trader_4" wrote in message news:429dae22-

stuff snipped

Maybe you can explain how baking a cake for a gay client poisons their
religiosity anyway? Is it that feeble that a cake threatens it?

Are you and all the libs, all the gays so feeble that what one
baker in a country of 320 mil does, threatens all of you?

Nice dodge but it doesn't answer the question. I *am* quite concerned when
a baker breaks the law and then hides behind the robes of God to cloak his
bigotry. Want to open a public storefront? Then you've got to obey the
laws. They didn't and were defiant about it. Like that idiot cattle grazer
trying to go from deadbeat to Tea Party hero. No sale.

You might be interested to know what they just found out about another group
of god-botherers - the Hobby Lobbyists. Remember them? They were so
concerned with having anything to do with birth control that they duped the
SC into ruling in their favor because of their "deeply held" convictions as
a company (spit!). Now investigators have discovered that Hobby Lobby's
401K plan has investments in - you guessed it - the very companies that make
the birth control devices that horrify the Hobby Lobbyists so profoundly
that they needed a Supreme Court exemption from having anything to do with
birth control. Apparently funding the manufacture of birth control
technology doesn't bother their ultra-religious consciences.

It's hypocrisy, pure and simple, and it plays on the mistaken belief that
religion can trump the law. Maybe in Iran but not in America. The Hobby
Lobby ruling won't stay put long. It's based on the mistaken belief that
companies can hold religious feelings and now even the Supremes know they
got duped. When was the last time you saw a company praying? The Defense
of Marriage Act didn't last long, either. Good luck to the god-botherers on
getting a Constitutional amendment defining marriage. It will NEVER happen.

Here's the info a reporter dug up about our pious friends, the Hobby Lobby
folks:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...covered-to-be-
investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-reli
gious-
objection/

http://tinyurl.com/ly6nbty

The following is a summation of the companies manufacturing these products
that are held by the Hobby Lobby employee retirement plan, as set forth by
Ms. Redden's remarkable reporting:These companies include Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD,
and Actavis Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes
Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include
Pfizer Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce
abortions; Bayer Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and
Mirena; AstraZeneca AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that
manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used
in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to
induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also
invested in Aetna Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that
cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in
many of the health care policies they sell.

It's digusting to see the Supreme Court get a) so hosed by lying litigants
and so tangled up in deciding the unknowable (like how closely one's
religious beliefs are held). Apparently they were asleep in law school
because one of the first things you learn is that no one can testify
truthfully to the operation of another person's mind. There are companies
that screen such investments for companies and people that have REAL
closely-felt beliefs in not supporting certain industries and companies but
apparently HL didn't bother to look.

The irony is that the SCs loony-tune rulings have skewered both liberals and
conservatives and have left other issues "to be decided" by further
litigation (IOW, let the lower courts figure it out). Money = free speech.
Corporations have religious feelings. It's not a tax . . .

What's even funnier is that even though the courts are flooded with
litigation below the level of the SC, the Supremes have managed to trim
their case load substantially over the years. Shirkers.

The worst part of the modern SC is that they rely more and more on amicus
briefs for their basic facts. That's not even as credible as using
Wikipedia because each side presents only their version of the facts. More
than a few law journals and legal websites have noted this tendency and how
often the SC based its rulings on non-factual information contained in
amicus briefs.

Hell, Sotomayor admitted she couldn't tell the difference between 25' and
75' but was asked to decide a case about how far protestors had to keep away
from abortion clinics. That's just outrageous, at least to me. Recuse
yourself, dear, for being stupid. And yet short of impeachment, we're stuck
with her.

I've had an ongoing discussion with a gentleman who is somewhat awed
by the Supreme court. I told him I thought they were basically clowns
and he started talking about how they were all SO learned in the law,
SO steeped in knowledge of historical precedent, So experienced, and
on and on So I asked him, if that's the case, how is it that we see
time after time these 5-4 split decisions? He can't seem to understand
the implications of 5-4 splits and how it indicates that all their
"knowledge, experience, historical perspective, blah blah blah"
doesn't mean squat when it comes to anything difficult - if it did
almost every SC decision would be nearly unanimous. They may wear
robes but there are no different than any other politician except they
only have to run for office once and only 100 people get to cast a
vote.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:29:37 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:39:18 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:
Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery,
would refuse to bake cakes for Gays simply
because they were gay?


Jesus would ask them to turn away from their sin,
and follow him.

That's nice but would he refuse to bake cakes for
them?

Jesus was a carpenter, and his friends were fishermen. He wasn't a
baker. Women did that work in his time. He would have fed the
people fish and multiplied the food that people had so the multitudes
could eat while he preached to them to stop sinning , and to start
loving one another.

He would tell gays to stop sinning and follow him and his ways just
like he'd tell the prostitute and tax collector to do the same thing.

Nothing I read in the bible suggests Jesus would be
the bigot

Jesus called the religious people white washed seplucres full of dead
mens bones, and threw the money changers out of the temple because
they had turned the place into a den of thieves. You don't appear to
know anything about Jesus. He looked at people straight up and read
their mail to therm, pointed at their sin and called it evil, and
then told them to turn from their wicked ways and change their
lives... You want to a ask if Jesus would bake gays a cake? That's
the most ignorant question I've ever seen anyone ask..

that many so-called "good Christians" are. Since you
were too chicken to answer the question it would
appear you are one of them.

Chicken? I've learned that fools are wise in their own eyes... You
think you're question was intelligent, but it wasn't.

Actually, the question is so SMART that you are afraid to answer it.
That's how Jesus rolled, we all know that. We all know that Jesus
would never act like those bigoted bakers. Sure, Jesus might tell the
gay person that he thought what they were doing was a sin but he
would never discriminate against them. If you don't understand that
then you don't understand Jesus.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 08:04:00 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/18/2015 12:29 AM, Muggles wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:39:18 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

That's nice but would he refuse to bake cakes for
them?

Jesus was a carpenter, and his friends were fishermen. He wasn't a
baker. Women did that work in his time. He would have fed the people
fish and multiplied the food that people had so the multitudes could eat
while he preached to them to stop sinning , and to start loving one
another.

He would tell gays to stop sinning and follow him and his ways just like
he'd tell the prostitute and tax collector to do the same thing.

Nothing I read in the bible suggests Jesus would be
the bigot

Jesus called the religious people white washed seplucres full of dead
mens bones, and threw the money changers out of the temple because they
had turned the place into a den of thieves. You don't appear to know
anything about Jesus. He looked at people straight up and read their
mail to therm, pointed at their sin and called it evil, and then told
them to turn from their wicked ways and change their lives... You want
to a ask if Jesus would bake gays a cake? That's the most ignorant
question I've ever seen anyone ask..

that many so-called "good Christians" are. Since you
were too chicken to answer the question it would
appear you are one of them.

Chicken? I've learned that fools are wise in their own eyes... You
think you're question was intelligent, but it wasn't.


I tried to answer Ashton's questions, but I do
think you did a little better than I. Very well
done, my friend.


Interesting that you folks think Jesus is a bigot.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 08:01:28 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/17/2015 11:39 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

That's nice but would he refuse to bake cakes for them? Nothing I
read in the bible suggests Jesus would be the bigot that many
so-called "good Christians" are. Since you were too chicken to answer
the question it would appear you are one of them.


One of the five things that liberals never remember
is that promoting sin harms people. God and Jesus
and the Bible encourage people to stop sinning, and
to live the laws of God. It is not "bigot" to ask
people to live the commandments of God, and turn away
from sin, that you may have life everlasting in the
loving presence of God.

Actually, teaching people to turn from sin is one
of the most loving things you can do for them.

Nice tangent but that isn't the issue. No one is saying Jesus can't
have an opinion regarding gays, that's not the question. The question
is Would Jesus refuse to bake a cake for a gay person? Come on,
you're an honest man, if Jesus ran a bakery and was selling cakes to
Christians and a gay man walked in do you really think Jesus would
tell the gay man "I won't sell you a cake, you're gay and I think
that's a sin." Have you read the bible? That's not how the Prince of
Peace does things. He loves all, including the sinners. He'd
probably give the gay man the cake for free! Do you claim to be a
Christian? Is your opinion of Jesus so low you think he'd
discriminate?

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 05:46:18 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 11:39:30 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:26:36 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/17/2015 5:21 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 10:47:56 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:06:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:34:37 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

What BUSINESS reason would a business owner have for refusing service
to gays or blacks?

They shouldn't need to give you or anyone a reason. It's their
business. No more so than a gay baker should have to give a reason
for refusing to provide a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
Or a black baker refusing to provide an anniversary cake for the
local KKK.

See how well and easy that works? No gag orders, no heavy hand of
the law required.



If you can't come up with one then you are a bald
faced bigot racist if you think it would be alright to refuse service
to gays, blacks, etc.

Baloney. That does not compute. Believing someone else should
have the freedom and right to do what they want with their own
business does not mean that I or anyone here would agree with what
they are doing. If I saw a baker that had a sign saying "whites only",
I wouldn't go there. Neither would the vast majority of Americans,
You could expect protests, business disruptions, and a loss of most
of your business. If you still want to do it anyway, who cares.
See how simple that is? No judges issuing gag orders, no heavy handed
policing.


And if my religion prohibits me from paying taxes to the gvt I should
be exempt from taxes under your views on this. THAT is the idiocy
your position leads to.

There is no such religion. But there are religions that don't want
to have anything to do with gay weddings. And you misrepresent my
views. I would not limit the right to discriminate to only cases
where it involves religion. My position is very simple. If it's your
business you should have the right to choose who you want to do
business with for any reason. You libs believe that somehow this
will immediately lead to mass discrimination. That's because you
have a very jaundiced view of your fellow citizens and don't trust
them. In reality, you'd have some small number of businesses that
would discriminate and I say so what. Just go to the 99% of businesses
that don't, actually welcome your business, etc.

The idiocy of your position is that a gay baker can discriminate against
Christians by refusing to bake a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
A pro abortion baker can refuse to bake a cake that says "Abortion is a sin".
But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?


Jesus would ask them to turn away from their sin, and follow him.

That's nice but would he refuse to bake cakes for them? Nothing I
read in the bible suggests Jesus would be the bigot that many
so-called "good Christians" are. Since you were too chicken to answer
the question it would appear you are one of them.

Again, with "bigot", "bigot", "bigot". The bible says that
homosexuality is a *sin*. I don't see how following your religious
beliefs makes you a bigot. Of course there is no similar outrage,
no similar need to crush the muslim religion, from the libs, is there?
Are they bigots for throwing gays off a buildings, hanging them from
cranes? Are they bigots for enslaving women, denying women basic
rights? Stoning women to death for adultery? Funny, I never hear
you libs complain about any of that. But when one baker somewhere
won't bake a gay wedding cake, OMG, now we have something worth making
a huge deal over and using all the power of the govt to crush a "bigot".

1) I'm not a liberal
2) Yes, the Muslims are bigots, their religion is not a religion of
peace. The Koran is a hate filled book.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 07:56:11 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/17/2015 9:26 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/17/2015 5:21 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
The idiocy of your position is that a gay baker can discriminate against
Christians by refusing to bake a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
A pro abortion baker can refuse to bake a cake that says "Abortion is a sin".
But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?


Jesus would ask them to turn away from their sin, and follow him.


If they continued to sin, there is a very good
chance Jesus would decline to bake the cake.

According to the Latter-day prophets, homosexual
behavior is a very severe sin.

You don't know Jesus.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 16:31:49 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/18/2015 8:26 AM, Rascus Washington III wrote:
On 07/18/2015 06:56 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

According to the Latter-day prophets, homosexual
behavior is a very severe sin.

Homosexuals can't reproduce on their own so why does God keep creating
them?

Some things are not immediately revealed. But,
with prayer and listening and pondering, you
may get answer, some day.

God keeps creating them because he loves them. He loves all his
children. Yet some on here are filled with hate.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 13:45:59 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/18/2015 6:56 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/17/2015 9:26 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/17/2015 5:21 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
The idiocy of your position is that a gay baker can discriminate
against
Christians by refusing to bake a cake that says "Homosexuality is a
sin".
A pro abortion baker can refuse to bake a cake that says "Abortion
is a sin".
But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?


Jesus would ask them to turn away from their sin, and follow him.


If they continued to sin, there is a very good
chance Jesus would decline to bake the cake.

He would turn the cake scenario into a parable. Either the people
asking for the cake would repent of their sins and follow him, or they'd
walk away with this gigantic question mark hovering over their heads
because they didn't understand his point.


According to the Latter-day prophets, homosexual
behavior is a very severe sin.


According to the Bible it's one of those big sins.

You don't know Jesus.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 07:57:04 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/17/2015 6:21 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?


I can easily imagine Jesus declining to
celebrate sin.

No one asked him to celebrate it. You are just creating a straw man.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 05:41:33 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 6:21:24 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 10:47:56 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:06:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:34:37 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

What BUSINESS reason would a business owner have for refusing service
to gays or blacks?

They shouldn't need to give you or anyone a reason. It's their
business. No more so than a gay baker should have to give a reason
for refusing to provide a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
Or a black baker refusing to provide an anniversary cake for the
local KKK.

See how well and easy that works? No gag orders, no heavy hand of
the law required.



If you can't come up with one then you are a bald
faced bigot racist if you think it would be alright to refuse service
to gays, blacks, etc.

Baloney. That does not compute. Believing someone else should
have the freedom and right to do what they want with their own
business does not mean that I or anyone here would agree with what
they are doing. If I saw a baker that had a sign saying "whites only",
I wouldn't go there. Neither would the vast majority of Americans,
You could expect protests, business disruptions, and a loss of most
of your business. If you still want to do it anyway, who cares.
See how simple that is? No judges issuing gag orders, no heavy handed
policing.


And if my religion prohibits me from paying taxes to the gvt I should
be exempt from taxes under your views on this. THAT is the idiocy
your position leads to.

There is no such religion. But there are religions that don't want
to have anything to do with gay weddings. And you misrepresent my
views. I would not limit the right to discriminate to only cases
where it involves religion. My position is very simple. If it's your
business you should have the right to choose who you want to do
business with for any reason. You libs believe that somehow this
will immediately lead to mass discrimination. That's because you
have a very jaundiced view of your fellow citizens and don't trust
them. In reality, you'd have some small number of businesses that
would discriminate and I say so what. Just go to the 99% of businesses
that don't, actually welcome your business, etc.

The idiocy of your position is that a gay baker can discriminate against
Christians by refusing to bake a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
A pro abortion baker can refuse to bake a cake that says "Abortion is a sin".
But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?

The bakery didn't refuse to bake cakes for gays. They served the
gay couple wanting the cake in the past. They refused to bake a
wedding cake for them. I don't pretend to know what Jesus would
or would not do. As I understand it, Jesus had high moral standards
and since according to the bible homosexuality is a sin, baking a
cake for a gay wedding sounds like something he might not want to
participate in. If someone came to Jesus and wanted to rent a
room so that they could commit adultery, what would Jesus do?

See, this is the problem with libs and all the lib
laws. You wind up having to resort to figuring out what is in
people's minds and what Jesus would do. If you leave people
free to do as they please in their own business, you don't have
that problem. Or, for the most part, any other real problems.
There were 1000 bakeries that would supply the cake.

Actually, you have it backwards, its you who is trying to figure out
what's in other peoples minds. You want to know "Is that guy gay cuz
if he is I won't do business with him." Whereas your so-called liberal
says "I don't care what's in his mind, whether he's gay, straight, or
trans. If he wants a cake I'm here to sell cakes."

You are a very confused person full of inner demons. You need to pray
to Jesus and ask him to come into your heart.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:28:48 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

clipped

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?

The bakery didn't refuse to bake cakes for gays. They served the
gay couple wanting the cake in the past. They refused to bake a
wedding cake for them. I don't pretend to know what Jesus would
or would not do. As I understand it, Jesus had high moral standards
and since according to the bible homosexuality is a sin, baking a
cake for a gay wedding sounds like something he might not want to
participate in. If someone came to Jesus and wanted to rent a
room so that they could commit adultery, what would Jesus do?

See, this is the problem with libs and all the lib
laws. You wind up having to resort to figuring out what is in
people's minds and what Jesus would do. If you leave people
free to do as they please in their own business, you don't have
that problem. Or, for the most part, any other real problems.
There were 1000 bakeries that would supply the cake.


Jesus would have brought cupcakes and fed thousands ;o)

Probably so. Although some there think he would have made sure none
of the cupcakes got into the hands of gay people. I think Jesus would
have wanted the cupcakes to go to everyone, gay, straight, Trans,
whatever. That's how Jesus was.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 20:47:35 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:
Sure, Jesus might tell the gay person that he thought
what they were doing was a sin

Might?

--
Maggie

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 20:54:07 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:
that's a sin." Have you read the bible? That's not
how the Prince of Peace does things. He loves all,
including the sinners. He'd

Who do you say Jesus is?

--
Maggie